What I think the GP was getting and (and I agree with this) is that it is not uncommon for people to assert that their baseless opinion or feeling on is just as valid as a professional's fact- and reason- based conclusions.
No one would suggest that people should be stopped from questioning authority or science, but they should question it based on reason and fact, not opinion and feeling. More generally, it seems like the right to hold one's own opinion has mutated into the right to have other people respect and listen to one's own opinion.
Personally I think it might be good to start a general campaign of mockery towards the assertively ignorant. Like, whenever creationists argue that their ideas should be given equal time in the classroom, fart loudly. Repeat until they leave or come back with empirical evidence for their claims.
"Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don't stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the "divergence problem" if you need to. Don't cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading (comment ID #: 309-18)"
Whoever wrote that described truncating the graphic as 'misleading', not fradulent or sinister. The author also implicitly agreed with the premise of questioning the data, at least, by suggesting that the data in question be commented on for clarification.
The divergence problem itself is explained here - in short, tree-ring data used is used as a proxy for temperature but data for North America 'diverges' from other readings around the middle of the 20th century. And though I have no idea how reliable that blog is, it seems like it is the same issue referred to in this article in The Economist, where that (sober and well informed) newspaper states
Hence the eagerness with which bloggers fell on one of the stolen e-mails, sent in 1999 by Phil Jones, the CRU's director: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Trickery associated with Dr Mann was catnip to the sceptics. But Dr Jones has clarified that "The word trick was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward." The "hiding" concerned the decision to leave out a set of tree-ring-growth data that had stopped reflecting local temperature changes. That alteration in growth pattern is strange, and unexplained, but eliminating it is not sinister.
Nice try, but there's nothing in that that actually says he deleted files. He said '... I think I'll delete the file rather than send it to anyone'. Thinking he'll delete the file is a hell of a long way from deleting the file. Not to mention the fact that he was probably just being sarcastic. I mean, did you ever consider that scientists, too, use sarcasm - especially in mail they presume is private?
This article (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14960149) does a much better job of going over the specific allegations that have come up from the emails. It provides a reasonable explanation for each of the charges brought up by the GP, except for the one you failed at addressing. The article I referred to says:
"Perhaps the most damaging exchange follows a request made by Dave Holland, a British sceptic, to see CRU e-mails under Britain's Freedom of Information Act. (The CRU is publicly funded, and therefore subject to the act.) Caspar Amman, one of Dr Trenberth's colleagues at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research, wrote of the request: "Oh MAN! When will this crap ever end??" Then Dr Jones wrote to Dr Mann: "Mike, can you delete any e-mails you may have with Keith [Briffa] re AR4? Keith will do likewise.""AR4" refers to one of the IPCC's reports. Dr Mann says he never deleted any e-mails. Gavin Schmidt, a scientist at NASA and the keeper of realclimate.org, an anti-sceptic blog, wrote that that e-mail was very ill-advised. Dr Jones did not answer a request for comment."
I feel obliged to point out that one person obstructing a FOI request for emails is a very, very far cry from the allegation that the CRU withheld, tampered with or erased data.
If the _results_ from the lab in question match up with other independent results, what possible grounds to laymen have to presume the data was deliberately changed? Unless they assume that all independent labs falsified their data in concert, which would be a hell of a conspiracy.
What really bothers me about the complaints around the emails is that none of them (as I understand it) come close to proving that findings were deliberately falsified to point to one conclusion over another. All of the emails were either innocuous or, at worst, ambiguous.
And what have some skeptics done with ambiguous data? They have manipulated it to fit their pre-existing theories. Which is very close to the sort of bad behavior they are charging the lab with now.
Maybe Xeons are what end up being used on the UESG Marathon. I mean, half of the terminal messages on that ship are subject to the same bug. Just look at this typical example:
They can do some experiments, at least in the astrophysics branch of the science (I recall jetliners with atomic clocks being used to test time dilation). Not to mention some of the planetary exploration robots, or that recent bombardment of the moon (which let us detect water there).
But generally, you are right - most of astronomy is dedicated to observation. Astronomers basically work out theories based on empirical observation of natural phenomena, which is as strong a foundation as any other hard science. And while experimentation may be part of some definitions of science, that seems more like a problem with the definitions than with astronomy.
I have a flip phone that displays the time in large, bold numbers on the outside of the phone and even syncs time automatically. But I still use my wristwatch whenver I'm wearing it, because a) I don't have to fish it out of my pocket, b) it's always right there, unlike my phone which more often than not is out of arm's reach. Not to mention the fact that a watch battery lasts years, unlike the 1 week max the phone battery lasts.
More generally, I thought the lesson the original iPod taught us was that specialized devices tend to do a much better job than multi-function devices because they allow the UI and features to be specialized for a specific task. Phone cameras, clocks, and other doo-dads are great, but work best as stand-ins for the real thing. They are what you use when you don't have anything better at hand.
I usually arrive early (because of the unknowns - traffic, security, unknown unknowns) and end up waiting a while (baggage). I would (and do, at airports which already provide this (props to YHZ)) use wifi given the opportunity.
While I know that this sort of research is ultimately aimed at improving human life, for some reason I can't shake the image of a mad scientist making super-smart dogs, the experiment going awry, and an apocalyptic future of human-pitbull wars.
Learn your history - Firefox was supposed to be the lightweight alternative to the Mozilla Suite. Seamonkey is the continuation of the Mozilla Suite under a different name.
So, Firefox was the lightweight alternative to Seamonkey.
Except, Firefox started seriously competing with IE, started getting bloat, and for some time now has been a more heavyweight program than Seamonkey. All this despite the fact that Firefox only offers web browsing, while Seamonkey offers Web, News, Email, IRC, and HTML Editing.
A reason for this IMHO is that Seamonkey does not try to appeal to a general audience and thus has less pressure to add iffy features. That, and the lower popularity of Seamonkey probably means there are fewer developers trying to make their mark, which keeps things sane(r).
Seems to be the same. The new-tab button is still in its fixed position on the left-hand side.
The interface looks the same, except for a few differences - The classic theme button icons look more firefox-like and less netscape 3-like (bad thing, in my books). A theme can solve that. - There is now an rss icon w/ drop-down list on the right hand side of the address bar. So far its been unobtrusive. - The url-guessing algorithm has been changed; it's now supposed to guess based on URL and page title. Not sure how that will work out, though the algo used in v. 1.1 was imperfect IMHO. - There is no longer an option for a Bookmarks button in the Personal Toolbar. Huzzah, one less preference to fix on new installs! - Speaking of preferences, the Preferences window is more or less the same. The only difference I've found so far is that Themes are now set under the View menu
One thing worth noting is the History function - they now store number of visits, as well as a timestamp of the last visit, which means sorting history is way easier. The Download manager now has timestamps, too.
I've always thought defensive driving (the ability to anticipate potentially dangerous situations and react in such a way as to mitigate or eliminate the danger) was the hallmark of good driving. The ability to react to surprise is also a trait of good drivers, I grant, but, as they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
First off... 15 colonies? only 13 founded our country. what are the other two you are talking of?
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland? Neither were part of the 13 Colonies (obviously), but both were early British colonies. IIRC, there were attempts early in the Revolutionary War to agitate Nova Scotia (which then bordered with Maine) against the crown, but the mostly military and loyalist population of the colony shrugged them off.
After years of people confusing relatively simple computer concepts with unnecessary and imprecise analogies to "real-world" things, people are now confusing relatively simple space transport concepts with unnecessary and imprecise analogies to computers.
I was born in the early 80s, and some of these things hold true for me, which is somehow reassuring
They have never used a card catalog to find a book.
I find it hard to believe that there aren't still a lot of school libraries out there that still use card catalogues. But what do I know.
Margaret Thatcher has always been a former prime minister.
I think there's at least a 10-year delay between birth and awareness of international politics; the first UK PM I remember John Major
Salsa has always outsold ketchup.
I do remember the excitement we all felt when Salsa was officially the fastest-growing condiment in North America. Heady days, those.
Text has always been hyper.
This is interesting. Wiki tells me the first web pages went up in December 1990. Those early days of the web have really moved into the realm of history, albeit recent history.
Bungee jumping has always been socially acceptable.
I don't recall it ever being socially unaccebtable, though I do know it was considered - and is, if you ask me - a stupid thing to do, up there with jumping out of perfectly good airplanes.
They have never understood the meaning of R.S.V.P.
Since when is RSVP out of our lexicon? I never got that memo.
The European Union has always existed.
Well, the European Community has existed since the 50s; this one's more of a technicality.
McDonald's has always been serving Happy Meals in China.
And Tianammen Square happened before they were born! Yikes.
Christopher Columbus has always been getting a bad rap.
I imagine this has been true since the 60s, at least.
The nation's key economic indicator has always been the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
As opposed to what? The GNP?
Amateur radio operators have never needed to know Morse code.
And I bet there's someone on Slashdot who cares!:)
There have always been flat screen televisions.
I don't think there were any flat-screen TVs in 1991 - unless you count those flat-glass CRTs, which don't really count.
Britney Spears has always been heard on classic rock stations.
Hah! I doubt that happens very often.
Vice presidents of the United States have always had real power.
Quayle had power? Biden has power?
Migration of once independent media like radio, TV, videos and compact discs to the computer has never amazed them.
That only became blase in the late 90s, as far as I'm concerned
The non-partisan think-tank calculated the average local tax rate in New York State at 1.7 percent, and combined it with the 8.97 percent that high-bracket state taxpayers will shell out in 2011, when the health care plan is set to take effect. Tack on the 39.6 percent federal tax rate, 2.9 percent for Medicare and 5.4 percent for the health care "surtax," and the figure is 56.92 percent for the Empire State.
In New York City, the top tax rate is 3.65 percent, making the Big Apple's top combined rate even higher.
The $544 billion tax hike would violate one of President Obama's ironclad campaign promises: No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s.
Under the bill, three new tax brackets would be created for high earners, with a top rate of 45 percent for families making more than $1 million. That would be the highest income-tax rate since 1986, when the top rate was 50 percent.
So the figure is below 60%, an aggregate tax rate, and applies to people in NY state earning over 1 million.
It's _less_ (at the fed level at least) thank it was in 1986, in the midst of Reagan's reign. In fact, federally, it's an increase of _5%_ over today's tax rates.
It's particularly disturbing that people who my own security and well-being depends on--hotel and restaurant staff--are stupid enough to fall for these kinds of pranks.
Are you genuinely surprised that there are stupid people in the world? Or that stupid people would work menial jobs? If so, there's a word for people like you.
I rather think that stupid people, by definition, will always be with us. And I also believe that one part of being a good citizen is not taking undue advantage of other people's weakness. This kind of rule is helpful on the inevitable day that one meets someone smarter or stronger than oneself.
If pranknet causes these people to be more careful in the future (or to just gather a couple of Darwin awards), I'd feel safer.
If your feeling of security requires normal people losing what little trust in others they still have, or stupid people being tricked into killing themselves, then I hope to god you never feel safe.
Slashdot Mirror
What I think the GP was getting and (and I agree with this) is that it is not uncommon for people to assert that their baseless opinion or feeling on is just as valid as a professional's fact- and reason- based conclusions.
No one would suggest that people should be stopped from questioning authority or science, but they should question it based on reason and fact, not opinion and feeling. More generally, it seems like the right to hold one's own opinion has mutated into the right to have other people respect and listen to one's own opinion.
Personally I think it might be good to start a general campaign of mockery towards the assertively ignorant. Like, whenever creationists argue that their ideas should be given equal time in the classroom, fart loudly. Repeat until they leave or come back with empirical evidence for their claims.
The text you quote says
"Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don't stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the "divergence problem" if you need to. Don't cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading (comment ID #: 309-18)"
Whoever wrote that described truncating the graphic as 'misleading', not fradulent or sinister. The author also implicitly agreed with the premise of questioning the data, at least, by suggesting that the data in question be commented on for clarification.
The divergence problem itself is explained here - in short, tree-ring data used is used as a proxy for temperature but data for North America 'diverges' from other readings around the middle of the 20th century. And though I have no idea how reliable that blog is, it seems like it is the same issue referred to in this article in The Economist, where that (sober and well informed) newspaper states
Hence the eagerness with which bloggers fell on one of the stolen e-mails, sent in 1999 by Phil Jones, the CRU's director: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Trickery associated with Dr Mann was catnip to the sceptics. But Dr Jones has clarified that "The word trick was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward." The "hiding" concerned the decision to leave out a set of tree-ring-growth data that had stopped reflecting local temperature changes. That alteration in growth pattern is strange, and unexplained, but eliminating it is not sinister.
Got anything else?
I was trying to distinguish between email and scientific data; I consider withholding email less serious than withholding data.
Nice try, but there's nothing in that that actually says he deleted files. He said '... I think I'll delete the file rather than send it to anyone'. Thinking he'll delete the file is a hell of a long way from deleting the file. Not to mention the fact that he was probably just being sarcastic. I mean, did you ever consider that scientists, too, use sarcasm - especially in mail they presume is private?
This article (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14960149) does a much better job of going over the specific allegations that have come up from the emails. It provides a reasonable explanation for each of the charges brought up by the GP, except for the one you failed at addressing. The article I referred to says:
"Perhaps the most damaging exchange follows a request made by Dave Holland, a British sceptic, to see CRU e-mails under Britain's Freedom of Information Act. (The CRU is publicly funded, and therefore subject to the act.) Caspar Amman, one of Dr Trenberth's colleagues at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research, wrote of the request: "Oh MAN! When will this crap ever end??" Then Dr Jones wrote to Dr Mann: "Mike, can you delete any e-mails you may have with Keith [Briffa] re AR4? Keith will do likewise.""AR4" refers to one of the IPCC's reports. Dr Mann says he never deleted any e-mails. Gavin Schmidt, a scientist at NASA and the keeper of realclimate.org, an anti-sceptic blog, wrote that that e-mail was very ill-advised. Dr Jones did not answer a request for comment."
I feel obliged to point out that one person obstructing a FOI request for emails is a very, very far cry from the allegation that the CRU withheld, tampered with or erased data.
If the _results_ from the lab in question match up with other independent results, what possible grounds to laymen have to presume the data was deliberately changed? Unless they assume that all independent labs falsified their data in concert, which would be a hell of a conspiracy.
What really bothers me about the complaints around the emails is that none of them (as I understand it) come close to proving that findings were deliberately falsified to point to one conclusion over another. All of the emails were either innocuous or, at worst, ambiguous.
And what have some skeptics done with ambiguous data? They have manipulated it to fit their pre-existing theories. Which is very close to the sort of bad behavior they are charging the lab with now.
Maybe Xeons are what end up being used on the UESG Marathon. I mean, half of the terminal messages on that ship are subject to the same bug. Just look at this typical example:
http://marathon.bungie.org/story/nawmanhesclose.html#M3.13.1.1
They can do some experiments, at least in the astrophysics branch of the science (I recall jetliners with atomic clocks being used to test time dilation). Not to mention some of the planetary exploration robots, or that recent bombardment of the moon (which let us detect water there).
But generally, you are right - most of astronomy is dedicated to observation. Astronomers basically work out theories based on empirical observation of natural phenomena, which is as strong a foundation as any other hard science. And while experimentation may be part of some definitions of science, that seems more like a problem with the definitions than with astronomy.
I have a flip phone that displays the time in large, bold numbers on the outside of the phone and even syncs time automatically. But I still use my wristwatch whenver I'm wearing it, because a) I don't have to fish it out of my pocket, b) it's always right there, unlike my phone which more often than not is out of arm's reach. Not to mention the fact that a watch battery lasts years, unlike the 1 week max the phone battery lasts.
More generally, I thought the lesson the original iPod taught us was that specialized devices tend to do a much better job than multi-function devices because they allow the UI and features to be specialized for a specific task. Phone cameras, clocks, and other doo-dads are great, but work best as stand-ins for the real thing. They are what you use when you don't have anything better at hand.
I usually arrive early (because of the unknowns - traffic, security, unknown unknowns) and end up waiting a while (baggage). I would (and do, at airports which already provide this (props to YHZ)) use wifi given the opportunity.
While I know that this sort of research is ultimately aimed at improving human life, for some reason I can't shake the image of a mad scientist making super-smart dogs, the experiment going awry, and an apocalyptic future of human-pitbull wars.
Learn your history - Firefox was supposed to be the lightweight alternative to the Mozilla Suite. Seamonkey is the continuation of the Mozilla Suite under a different name.
So, Firefox was the lightweight alternative to Seamonkey.
Except, Firefox started seriously competing with IE, started getting bloat, and for some time now has been a more heavyweight program than Seamonkey. All this despite the fact that Firefox only offers web browsing, while Seamonkey offers Web, News, Email, IRC, and HTML Editing.
A reason for this IMHO is that Seamonkey does not try to appeal to a general audience and thus has less pressure to add iffy features. That, and the lower popularity of Seamonkey probably means there are fewer developers trying to make their mark, which keeps things sane(r).
Seems to be the same. The new-tab button is still in its fixed position on the left-hand side.
The interface looks the same, except for a few differences
- The classic theme button icons look more firefox-like and less netscape 3-like (bad thing, in my books). A theme can solve that.
- There is now an rss icon w/ drop-down list on the right hand side of the address bar. So far its been unobtrusive.
- The url-guessing algorithm has been changed; it's now supposed to guess based on URL and page title. Not sure how that will work out, though the algo used in v. 1.1 was imperfect IMHO.
- There is no longer an option for a Bookmarks button in the Personal Toolbar. Huzzah, one less preference to fix on new installs!
- Speaking of preferences, the Preferences window is more or less the same. The only difference I've found so far is that Themes are now set under the View menu
One thing worth noting is the History function - they now store number of visits, as well as a timestamp of the last visit, which means sorting history is way easier. The Download manager now has timestamps, too.
Overall, I'm happy
I've always thought defensive driving (the ability to anticipate potentially dangerous situations and react in such a way as to mitigate or eliminate the danger) was the hallmark of good driving. The ability to react to surprise is also a trait of good drivers, I grant, but, as they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
[pendant]
computer speed per see
rather,
computer speed per say
[/pendant]
First off... 15 colonies? only 13 founded our country. what are the other two you are talking of?
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland? Neither were part of the 13 Colonies (obviously), but both were early British colonies. IIRC, there were attempts early in the Revolutionary War to agitate Nova Scotia (which then bordered with Maine) against the crown, but the mostly military and loyalist population of the colony shrugged them off.
*clap clap*
I'm loath to do it, but could I suggest changing "And the frigid astronomers play" in the 3rd stanza to "Where the frigid astronomers play"?
Again, bravo
After years of people confusing relatively simple computer concepts with unnecessary and imprecise analogies to "real-world" things, people are now confusing relatively simple space transport concepts with unnecessary and imprecise analogies to computers.
Or even simpler: "PI is the circumference of a circle of diameter 1".
OK, so where do I find the circumference?
Pardon the pun, but this definition seems circular to me.
I find it hard to believe that there aren't still a lot of school libraries out there that still use card catalogues. But what do I know.
I think there's at least a 10-year delay between birth and awareness of international politics; the first UK PM I remember John Major
I do remember the excitement we all felt when Salsa was officially the fastest-growing condiment in North America. Heady days, those.
This is interesting. Wiki tells me the first web pages went up in December 1990. Those early days of the web have really moved into the realm of history, albeit recent history.
I don't recall it ever being socially unaccebtable, though I do know it was considered - and is, if you ask me - a stupid thing to do, up there with jumping out of perfectly good airplanes.
Since when is RSVP out of our lexicon? I never got that memo.
Well, the European Community has existed since the 50s; this one's more of a technicality.
And Tianammen Square happened before they were born! Yikes.
I imagine this has been true since the 60s, at least.
As opposed to what? The GNP?
And I bet there's someone on Slashdot who cares! :)
I don't think there were any flat-screen TVs in 1991 - unless you count those flat-glass CRTs, which don't really count.
Hah! I doubt that happens very often.
Quayle had power? Biden has power?
That only became blase in the late 90s, as far as I'm concerned
It isn't based on the cartoon, though there is a movie about that coming out. It's an original story - check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(2009_film) (James Cameron movie)
also see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Airbender (M. Night Shyamalan movie)
That's the one movie I'm really looking forward to.
James Cameron + Sigourney Weaver + Huge Budget = Hopes for a movie equal to Aliens.
Not in Canada
Netscape's interface was the best
Long live Seamonkey
The relevant portion of the article:
The non-partisan think-tank calculated the average local tax rate in New York State at 1.7 percent, and combined it with the 8.97 percent that high-bracket state taxpayers will shell out in 2011, when the health care plan is set to take effect. Tack on the 39.6 percent federal tax rate, 2.9 percent for Medicare and 5.4 percent for the health care "surtax," and the figure is 56.92 percent for the Empire State.
In New York City, the top tax rate is 3.65 percent, making the Big Apple's top combined rate even higher.
The $544 billion tax hike would violate one of President Obama's ironclad campaign promises: No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s.
Under the bill, three new tax brackets would be created for high earners, with a top rate of 45 percent for families making more than $1 million. That would be the highest income-tax rate since 1986, when the top rate was 50 percent.
So the figure is below 60%, an aggregate tax rate, and applies to people in NY state earning over 1 million.
It's _less_ (at the fed level at least) thank it was in 1986, in the midst of Reagan's reign. In fact, federally, it's an increase of _5%_ over today's tax rates.
How is this the end of the world again?
It's particularly disturbing that people who my own security and well-being depends on--hotel and restaurant staff--are stupid enough to fall for these kinds of pranks.
Are you genuinely surprised that there are stupid people in the world? Or that stupid people would work menial jobs? If so, there's a word for people like you.
I rather think that stupid people, by definition, will always be with us. And I also believe that one part of being a good citizen is not taking undue advantage of other people's weakness. This kind of rule is helpful on the inevitable day that one meets someone smarter or stronger than oneself.
If pranknet causes these people to be more careful in the future (or to just gather a couple of Darwin awards), I'd feel safer.
If your feeling of security requires normal people losing what little trust in others they still have, or stupid people being tricked into killing themselves, then I hope to god you never feel safe.