|
I recently worked at a company with such a bad network that I couldn't download a Debian iso I needed without it breaking, so I used a torrent. And got in trouble. (In the end, I went with Fedora. I also installed Windows 10, but didn't connect it to the domain, and thus had no more issues downloading things.)
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Because there are perfectly legal, non-piracy uses that people use torrents for all the time?
Actually, yes, there are.
For example, MS's own SCCM uses something similar to distribute application installation content between workstations authorized to do so. It saved on bandwidth between sites and costs to setup distribution point servers. Send the package once to a workstation in a remote site and it can "torrent" the content to other workstations inside the same site, without a server around to do it. You can have all the workstations in a site sharing their application install content with each other, independent of any servers.
|
|
|
|
|
When you read academic papers, you aren't looking for treachery and deceit behind the stolid prose. Don't be so trusting: universities can be a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Here's help. "And, after all, what is a lie? 'Tis but the truth in masquerade."
|
|
|
|
|
The bigger problem is, IMO, not the outright lies to the public, but the lies the scientists tell themselves. Nowhere does this seem more rampant than in psychology studies (I've posted about this before) where a faulty study and faulty analysis becomes the foundation stone for years for additional studies and conclusions, all citing the earlier faulty studies, then each other, etc. Some of these papers are such a farce.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: more rampant than in psychology studies
Except so-called climate change (aka, global warming) studies.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
You are aware, of course, that each of the last 14 months has globally been the highest recorded for that month since we've been collecting data.
But of course, global warming isn't happening. I'm sure there's a convenient sandpit to bury your head in. Just be careful, it may be rather warm.
Hottest ever June marks 14th month of record-breaking temperatures | Environment | The Guardian[^]
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
So what? It was warmer that it is now for about 300 years around 1000 years ago. And 20,000 years ago it was way colder than now, in fact it was the end of an ice age.
Climate change may be happening, but the reality is we don't know the cause. And by evidence and historical data, it appears to many scientists to be a natural cycle. Other alarmist/scientists are just guessing out their hairy asses.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
modified 20-Jul-16 13:28pm.
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't really matter the cause, if we want to leave a world fit for our children, we may have to take steps to mediate it anyway. That certainly doesn't include continuing to burn fossil fuels, which have a well known influence on the climate.
Of course, you probably think that is a conspiracy from climate scientists, some of whom maybe earn $100K to enrich themselves, as opposed to the multi-billion fossil fuel industry who have no vested interests, and haven't been shown, time and again, to obfuscate evidence in their own interest.
But if it makes you feel better about your life style, keep your head in the sand. I just hope you can look your children in the eye when they live with the consequences.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: It doesn't really matter the cause
It does when fake science is used to put bs political policies in place.
Rob Grainger wrote: conspiracy from climate scientists
Conspiracy? Who said that? It's just basically self-serving fudging to satisfy who pays their salaries.
Rob Grainger wrote: fuel industry
Same thing. Scientists fudging things to fit the needs of who pays them.
Rob Grainger wrote: obfuscate evidence in their own interest
Done on both sides.
Rob Grainger wrote: life style
I drive a 100% electric vehicle. Thank you very much.
Rob Grainger wrote: keep your head in the sand
I like honesty and forthrightness and thinking for myself.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly the rabbit-hole I was expecting this discussion to fall into. 
I must be psychic.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Glad to have obliged.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely agree with you on that, and the replication study[^] does as well.
I actually regret posting that news item, as I realized it might be fodder for political discussion. Especially of a particular topic that is agreed on by scientists, but not by a large, vocal segment of the population. But, mistakes will be made (plus, it seemed a really, really slow news day).
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: agreed on by some scientists
FTFY.  Some of whom used to agree, but now do not.
And scientists also used to agree on many other things that later turned-out to be false. So, science-by-consensus is a bad way to do science.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
cigarettes company alway pay them to say sh*t
|
|
|
|
|
scientists always "find" what their paychecks tell them to.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
Consensus is the way much of science is done. For anything that cannot be directly measured/replicated, you need a theory that explains the phenomena. There can be multiple valid theory that apply to current data. These eventually converge as a consensus begins to view one theory as the best/most parsimonious. As more data comes in, this can change the consensus, but that doesn't completely invalidate the process.
Yes, phlogiston/Lamarckism/the Bohr model of the atom etc. aren't currently viewed as correct. However, based on the data available at the time, they seemed accurate.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Consensus is the way much of science is done
Yes, but it's a consensus of data and evidence, not opinion. Like you said:
Kent Sharkey wrote: based on the data available at the time, they seemed accurate
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
97% of climate change scientists is pretty freaking overwhelming.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: 97% of climate change scientists
If you read the research, it's not 97% of climate scientists, it's 97% of climate research papers. And the so-called study that determined that 97% figure used questionable methodologies. Many of the scientists whose papers were counted as being among the "97%" objected, yet their papers were not removed. Other much more rigorous studies have come up with much smaller figures than the one you quote.
And there is no such thing as a "climate change scientist" or even a "climate scientist".
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: Scientific opinion on climate change
Hmm, not scientific evidence or scientific evidence based conclusion. Hmmm
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
The tobacco lobby said similar things for years. Actual evidence in most science is rare. Science typically proceeds with a best theory that fits the evidence, that may be disproved when evidence is found that disagrees. Currently the best theory is that current client change is caused by human activity, hence consensus. You seem to have difficultly with the scientific method itself. Proofs generally only occur in mathematics, not science.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: Science typically proceeds with a best theory that fits the evidence
That is true in most cases. Sometimes it depends on who is presenting the theory. And it's also true that in any human endeavor where there are two or more people politics plays a role. And in this case there is a lot of outside (the scientific community) pressure to provide a theory that fits the environmental lobby cause.
Rob Grainger wrote: the best theory is that current client change is caused by human activity
It's not the best theory.
Rob Grainger wrote: You seem to have difficultly with the scientific method itself
Not at all. I have a problem with politically driven "science" that falsifies and fudges data, ignores contra evidence, and uses emotional argumentation.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: plus, it seemed a really, really slow news day
Well, locally this[^] happened a couple hours south of where I live, I've driven over that bridge many a time.
And tech like this[^] shouldn't be overlooked.
But then again, neither of those are directly related to programming. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I've been in academia for decades and have played all roles in the publishing process. There is more incompetence than malice.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
