1087 posts • joined Monday 18th August 2008 17:08 GMT
> skelband, you totally missed the point of elephant's question.
Ah yes. It is, of course, magic as any fule no.
Re: Can anyone say "selection bias"?
>That doesn't reflect the methodology of the study at all.
It's actually closer than you think, quite possibly.
As I suggested above, expressing an opinion is quite possibly the same as reporting a win. The study deliberately does not include those that chose not to express an opinion, possibly because they thought that they couldn't express a reliable opinion on the matter. The fact that the vast majority of the studies didn't is actually quite telling in itself.
A better experiment would be to go back to the authors on all those 11k reports and ask them for their opinion in a non-biased way:
a) Do you think that the majority of the current change in climate over tha last <n> years is due to anthropogenic influences?
b) Do you think that the majority of the current change in climate over tha last <n> years is *not* due to anthropogenic influences?
c) Do you think that there is insufficient evidence to give a reliable opinion either way?
The results would still be conjecture on the part of the participants, but at least there would be less chance of selection bias.
Re: Lets get this straight
> Of papers that offered an opinion on the matter, 97% accepted anthropogenic global warming. Only 3% rejected it.
OK, out of that list, how many declined to express an opinion through lack of sufficient evidence?
> Consensus is a good predictor of a group of people agreeing on something. Any relation to truth and reality are entirely coincidental.
Exactly, which is why the scientific method was invented to protect us from this silliness.
It is the one thing that separates proper science from charletans.
Trouble is, a lot of us seem unfortunately quick to forget that.
> Even without realizing it people will lean towards the weight of expert opinion, or expect their advisors (eg doctor) to convey that weight of expert opinion to them.
1) Anyone with a scientific background would be horrified at the prospect that we just take someone's authoritive word for something unless what they assert is demonstrably provable by reproducible experimentation. We take it for granted that physicists are right because they can demonstrate their assertions with a high degree of confidence, backed by maths and experimental evidence. Climate "science" has nothing of those qualities and can only be loosely called science.
2) Climate science, like the historical "sciences", can only go so far in terms of what assertions they make. When a paleologist looks at dinosaur bones, they can make some posits about the creature that they suggest that it came from. They cannot prove what they say with any kind of certainty unless someone invents a time machine, and most people appreciate that situation. The problem is climate "science" is being portrayed as though there is a high degree of certainty about AGW when the reality is far from it. It is far more like the historical science than the traditional science in terms of how useful it is and about what it can realistically tell us.
Re: can demonstrate warming with thermometers
> can demonstrate warming with thermometers
Shame that we've been cooling despite the predictions.
Also, that the climate is changing is not at issue. The climate has been changing since the dawn of the earth.
Proving what proportion is influenced by us is harder to demonstrate, reproducibly.
The problem with studies like this is that they examine authority rather than facts.
The good thing is that they are sufficiently explicit about what it is they are trying to achieve.
The problem with anything to do with climate change is they they are inherently uncertain. There's nothing that you can replicate. You can't demonstrate the effect in any meaningful way. It's all statistics and pretty dodgy ones at that.
As any fule no, we must be having *some* affect on the climate (butterfly flaps its wings and someone dies on the other side of the world and all that), but how much? Hard to say really.
I wonder why they only showed a second or two of running.
Did it explode or something?
>which means they must hand over transaction information to the government and work to prevent money laundering.
Hah, good luck with that.
Re: Desktop 'dumped'?
> I have it in front of me right now. Yes, it is bothersome to have to press Windows+D or click on the desktop tile, but except for this and the missing start button it works exactly like before.
Erm, so what exactly is the point of it? Other than, of course, being "bothersome".
That's really a shocking indictment of something that is *supposed* to be an improvement that you would pay for.
Re: @ Eadon - MS in HEADLESS CHICKEN MODE
> .. but aren't you a bit overzealous there?
Eadon is probably guilty of unnecessary hyperbole, but you have to realise that the churn associated with Windows on the desktop is a long term affair.
Microsoft always have to keep an eye on the next 5-10 years for their continued success.
A lot of MS shops are still using Windows XP and they are only just thinking about moving to Windows 7.
The fact that there are some really credible alternatives now, that the cloud options are looking really inviting to some and that they seriously dropped the ball with Windows 8 is a pretty big fail for the next 5 year plan.
Even if Microsoft is "in the death throes" (which I seriously doubt), we wouldn't actually see the result for a number of years yet.
Re: What sort am I ?
> So essentially what you're saying is that you have a right to these items and therefore you'll obtain them by whatever means are available.
That's called the "market" and it is driven by "market forces". Trouble is, copyright is a direct contradiction to the way everything else that is bought and sold works. That's why it is having such a hard time at the moment.
> For one thing, it is more efficient. For another it has better security... security alone is a big deal for many corporate users.
Sounds like a Windows 7 Service Pack to me then.
Thing is though, even with the desktop back as it was *before*, what is the compelling reason for most people to move to Windows 8 rather than stick with Windows 7?
That big difference was Metro and most people don't seem to want it.
Re: Oh my...
> Why is it that Microsoft adds suck so much!?
I have to wonder if there are people out there that respond well to these adverts.
If I see them they just make me cringe, not because I generally don't use Microsoft products, but because the ads are so frinkin' awful.
Re: FUD train?
> If you regularly need to share documents with companies using MS Office, there is no real alternative, if you don't want to look unprofessional or make yourself a lot of extra work.
The vast majority of the time, you are sending them something to read and not edit.
In this case, something like an editable format is usually the wrong thing to send.
We have had PDF as an open presentation standard since about 1991. That is the proper format to be using.
Sending something to a customer assuming that they have some "specialised" software to read it is downright inconsiderate.
Re: Absolutley Clueless Mr Hawking, you should listen to Matt Bryant
> The UN promptly came to the same conclusion and decided to impose a solution based on existing areas with Jewish or Arab majorities.
So, you agree then that the current occupants were forced to accept imposed rule by a new Jewish state then.
> This not only means it WAS already Jewish land
What on earth do you mean by that? There happened to be some Jewish people living on it, it is "Jewish" land?
There are Jewish people living in Golders Green. Does that make it Jewish land FFS?
I could go on, but to be quite frank, I think it would be pointless.
I swear you're just making this shit up.
> Bam! Suck on that you ignorami
Fortunately Virgin's T&Cs do not constitute statute law, at least that's how it was the last time I looked.
You never know, though. Richard is pretty influential these days....
Re: Mr Hawking, you should listen to “Palestinian academics”
> .....how would you feel if your land was invaded, house bulldozed, and the invading force kept building settlements on your land?
Probably the same as those unlucky bastards that found themselves living in a new Jewish state just after the war.
Either move out or put the f*ck up with it I guess.
Re: skelband Mr Hawking, you should listen to “Palestinian academics”
> Actually the Israeli government is democratically elected so their view reflects the that of the majority of Israelis.
Whether that is true or not depends on whether there is a credible choice.
An awful lot of people in the UK would like a referendum on EU membership, but none of the main political parties have it in their manifesto, which is one of the reasons why UKIP have such a relatively strong following at the moment. So, unless you vote for UKIP (which many believe rightly or wrongly a one-issue party) then you effectively have no vote.
Just because you have a fascist government, doesn't mean all the people are actually fascists.
Re: Mr Hawking, you should listen to “Palestinian academics”
I think you'll find that you get little sympathy here for that kind of lunacy.
Quoting religious scripture is not evidence of anything. One religious whack job is as bad as any other.
So Muslims and Jews hate each other? Neither Mr Hawking nor many others on this side of the world really give a shit about your petty religious squabbles. They are beyond contempt.
What we do care about is normal decent human beings on both side of the border just trying to live their lives without getting blown up. That single point seems to get lost in the midst of all the rhetoric and silly religious bickering.
Do us all a favour and become atheists. The world would be a better, decent place because of it.
Re: Mr Hawking, you should listen to “Palestinian academics”
> • The Bible
> • The ten commandments
> • First true humanistic monotheism
I'm sorry, was this supposed to bolster your argument?
I think you also need to realise that there is a distinct difference between the Israeli people and the politics of their government. A clue: they are different.
You might equally say that Tor has a closer, more personal relationship with its customers.
Thats a lesson that all publishers should learn from.
Peer pressure is a good mechanism for getting people to pay for what they read.
That some of the larger publishers have a large disconnect between themselves and their readership is probably why DRM doesn't seem so morally bankrupt to them.
The Internet is making it possible for boutique publishers and authors themselves to sell more directly and more personally. In that environment, readers will feel more of an emotional connection to the people distributing to them.
I see that as a good thing.
The last publishers to make this move will be the large mega-corporations. But increasingly I think, they will find themselves becoming less and less relevant.
I think Richard Boyce above got it pretty much right.
You need a differential between the distances between the centre magnet and the ring magnets and the external magnet, but the internal magnet must be stronger.
The large magnet in the centre of the ring has a stronger overall field so it attracts more strongly further afield.
However, as the external magnet approaches, the inverse square law kicks in and the repulsion of the outer ring magnets increases more rapidly (they are closer) than the attraction of the inner until the attraction and repulsion balance out.
1) If you try to pull them apart, then the repulsion of the outer drops off faster than the attraction of the inner so the inner resists.
2) If you try to push them together, the outer repulsion increases more rapidly than the attraction of the inner, so the outer resists.
If you superimposed two field curves on the same graph, one stronger one and one less so, but displaced the stronger one horizontally, where they intersected would give the balance point.
Quite a cute little experiment, but I'm at a loss as to why the nice old guy can't figure it out.
Re: We don't *know*, but we are pretty sure it does
Good read - thanks.
> "What Google did was merely reflect the truth......" LOL! What Google did wasn't about "truth" or any other noble cause, it was about ensuring business in Arab countries.
And your evidence for this is what exactly?
Nobody is talking about noble causes.
It is the update of a database record to reflect what the International community says is the current situation.
Countries are political constructs formed by our illustrious leaders.
Your rather bizarre hyperbole regarding this issue does seem rather unreasonable.
Did a Palestinian rape your wife or something?
People can see the logic in the subscription model for online services. You are using a facility that costs money to maintain.
"Renting" software that runs entirely on your own PC is just an almighty con pure and simple and most people can see that.
Re: Fixed @ skelband
I'm still a bit confused: what are the "slags" being hunted for in this instance?
Re: Did he not .....
He probably just put it out to tender and went for the biggest number.
I think you overestimate the long term view of these people. :D
When it all goes to shit, it will be someone else's problem.
> BUT - cabbies don't appear to be obliged to accept the Hailo offered jobs so at feeding-frenzy times and places you could wait a while.
This would have to be an important distinction otherwise the objectors would have a valid point about customers trying to get a cab that are not registered with the service. In other words, if Uber and Hailo get really popular, then that would really be the end of ever hoping to hail a cab during peak times in the traditional way since these services essentially would keep the cabs perpetually busy.
What Google did was merely reflect the truth.
If the International community recognises the existence of the country, then it basically exists.
Recognising a fact is not "getting involved politically" with anything.
Re: They have a right to their opinion ...
> In this case, avoiding levels of tax, generally speaking seen as fair, during a time of austerity almost certainly harms your company's image and therefore harms the bottom line.
So far, the only people seem to be really getting heated about this are the politicians trying to scrape up more tax from said populous and the media feeding from that frenzy (and of course the Daily Fail readers that get heated at the drop of a hat on practically anything that is current).
Of course, in times of austerity, we should be spending less and saving more. I wonder what said customers of these firms would think if all their prices went up to cover the extra tax taken from them? For those unfortunate to be unemployed, I would think that they would be mightily annoyed.
We seem to have different views on what austerity actually means.
> Hunting for Slags...
OK, Google is not much help in this instance.
I *presume* you are not a puritanical gunman looking to rid the world of women of "low repute".
Could you give a clue to those of us that don't know what you're talking about?
Re: What if
> I really would not like to live in a society that never considered "what ifs". Fortunately (in most cases) our law makers do and keep us a little safer from those members of society who don't.
Thankfully, in the real world, we are charged with the real consequences of our actions, not what is possible or feasible.
Otherwise, you would be in jail almost immediately after emerging from the uterus based on what ifs.
The reaction to this incident is neither proportionate nor reasonable. There was no apparent intent to cause harm and there was no apparent actual harm. So the girl did something a little risky. She did do it outside and in a large open space. If she wanted to cause mischief then it would have been indoors and she would have taken steps to stay anonymous.
Re: What I'd Like.
Online votes? People expressing their "discomfort"? WTF?
What is wrong with these people? If anything like that happened round our area, I would be rounding up a good few hundred friends and storming the place to demand that this stupidity stop.
When did we get so timid?
There comes a point where it's not enough for people to tut and say how bad it's getting. This poor girl is being mercilessly hounded by people in power who should really know better. Her life is ruined.
It's a fscking disgrace.
Re: Bad ideas never die...
> Passports are for one purpose, and one purpose only (quite a reasonable one)
I would agree that that was the original purpose and of course only for the hoi polloi.
Unfortunately they are more frequently being used as a means of bashing you over the head by border security guards.
Practically the only good thing to come out of the EU is the removal of borders and restrictions of movement between countries. It wasn't *that* long ago when you literally could just travel from one country to another without the requirement for any ID whatsoever. Border inspection and the like are a relatively modern idea. We've just been softened up to the point that most people don't question it.
The main purpose of borders were mainly for the extortion of duty from traders and thus the main activity of border agents were the detection of contraband and smugglers.
That people are now considered a threat in their own right that need to be monitored is an attribute of our modern suspicious society.
Terrorists you say? Well most if not all of them are home-grown.
I'm looking forward, again, to something along the lines of "That's capitalism. We make as much money as possible and pay as little tax as possible. I'm not confused about this."
I don't get the conflation of tax and morality in this debate.
Paying tax (or not) is not a moral question. You pay because the government says you must or go to jail.
It's not even as though the government has a very good reputation for spending the money appropriately or efficiently.
There's a good reason why these companies try to divert their tax elsewhere and that's because our tax rates are so high. That's the real problem right there.
Re: Accounting for the specific impacts of climate change on women
>Is "transactional sex" the kind that you can roll back, undoing all the side-effects, if you later decide it wasn't a good idea?
Yeah, but you'd have to lock her up to ensure atomicity.
> effectuate the intercept.
Only in America would the English language receive so much torture.
Re: Dangerous thinking ..
> congress passed a law extending the jurisdiction of all Federal US laws to the whole planet.
The US congress can say what they fscking well like.
In practice, they have no means to implement those laws in foreign countries. They could take their ire out on companies that operate in the US, but they cannot compel a US company to make a foreign company break the laws of another country where they are operating.
Re: Internet connection required
> Give how many people are obsessed with online play you obviously realise that the majority of serious gamers would laugh at any system that was completely offline?
The issue is not either on or off. It is requiring online connection for games that are single player.
The way our PS3 is now is fine. If you want to play online, you can, but you don't need an internet connection to play an offline game.
Re: Plan 9 from Planet Obvious: XP -> Linux Mint + sandboxed XP VM
> Are you really, actually seriously telling people on an IT web site that moving between Windows XP and Linux is easier than moving between Windows XP and Windows 8?
Erm, well yes actually.
My Linux Mint machine running MATE looks and behaves a lot more like XP that the shite interface of Windows 8.
> slapped her round the face and said FUCK YOU.
Point taken, but there's a world of difference between putting your hand in your pocket and physically assaulting someone.
What is being referred to here is a cultural custom.
Slapping someone on the face is offensive in any culture.
> "We are promoting good, clean, Wi-Fi in local cafes and elsewhere to make sure that people have confidence in public Wi-Fi systems so that they are not going to see things they shouldn’t," Cameron told the paper.
Oi! Cameron: "Mind your own f*cking business."
Re: Microsoft Android claims ..
> But Microsoft's claims again a number of other entities regarding the same patents have.....
When was the court case? I must have missed that one.
While you're at it, perhaps you can list the patents that Microsoft are talking about.
That way can test the veracity of their claims.
Re: No, Mr. Schmidt.
> My issue is that you're trying to add in little nicities that you feel should be followed by Google, or any other capitalist entity, e.g. an expectation of contribution to society.
Indeed. You define capitalism, then add "Oh, and by the way, capitalists should be nice to society".
The first bit is fair enough, the last bit is just communistic fantasy.
In person-to-person transactions between people personally conducting business, it pays to be "nice". That's just good business.
Don't confuse that with our interactions with the government wrt tax. No-one has a moral obligation to be nice to a government concerning tax. What is the benefit to your customers and your business by doing so?
Don't you realise that the government will take every opportunity to shaft you if given half the chance?
Re: Crap argument
> So, take a German national buying software on his American employer's credit card over the internet from a vendor who is a corporation incorporated in Japan.
They key word here is "internet".
We will never really sort this out while governments tax geographically transactions which are not geographical in basis.
It works for the corner shop getting their stuff from the local cash'n'carry.
But as soon as you cross borders, it all gets really messy.
Re: It's not a tax ...
> Do you have any source for this flight of fancy, anything to show any of the above actually happened, outside of your imagination? Links to MPs discussing the problem of them not controlling handouts any more, that kind of thing?
To be honest, it's the first explanation that actually makes sense.
Re: The tax laws are open to all...
> The reason that Greece and Italy, and to a certain extent Cyprus are in the state that they are in is down to tax avoidance. No ifs, no buts,
It's actually a lot simpler than that. The government over stretched itself after joining the EU.
They way-over-committed themselves on public spending, and ended up in the shit.
If a startup company spends more money than it makes and goes to the wall, people say that the guy ran the company into the ground. If a country does it, they say that tax avoiders are evil.
- Analysis Who is the mystery sixth member of LulzSec?
- Analysis Hey, Teflon Ballmer. Look, isn't it time? You know, time to quit?
- Tablet? Laptop? HP does the splits with Tegra-based SlateBook x2
- NASA signs off on sampling mission to Earth-threatening asteroid
- Climate scientists agree: Humans cause global warming