Let It Snow..

This is the place where all heated debates shall reside. Non-tech topics allowed. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. "Enter at your own Risk".

Moderator: The Mod Squad

Postby Roach412 » Mon May 12, 2014 2:41 pm

bdub wrote:so go on with the status quo, then. nothing to worry about here. move along.

.....
you certainly would have gotten us to the moon.
future generations are @#$! with that thinking.


hey, let's spend billions of dollars trying to fix something we don't even understand. that doesn't sound like any failed government initiatives in the past or anything.
we can call it an economic stimulus when it fails to get any traction in fixing anything, yet creates hundreds of new government contracts for businesses and research that has no valid starting point, or forseeable end-game.
yet, we'll be able to claim anything we want as an output benefit since we have no idea what the true end-result SHOULD be. good stuff.

i would argue knowing the problem better would have gotten us to the moon sooner...or, we wouldn't have needed to go there at all in the first place. besides, it was just a huge(pun intented) government "mine's bigger than yours" contest. if that's the kind of approach you want to fixing things, then fine. but then you should pay for it yourself, along with any others that think throwing money at problems will fix them miraculously. i pay into that epic system of fail already, and i'm not happy about it. i can massively reduce my contribution to "greenhouse gases" on my own...but, will that fix anything? nobody knows. so that now becomes a waste of my time, and money then...so, why would i do it? why should a government do it and effectively subjegate its citizens to that same fate? that very close to being the current solution plan.

at least the moon project had a target. had a factual, measurable and definable goal. "fix the environment" is so patently blanketed it's nearing comical. we have what can only be considered invalid data being used for a starting point, so...we can now just pick a random end point and say that's our target...and when we miss it or even hit whatever pie-in-the-sky we come up with we'll have no idea why or what the actual benefit is (or if we really made a contribution or the unknown factors changed).

if you were to propose this type of approach to anything but a government (i.e. private business solutioning/business planning presentation) you would get laughed out of the meeting. come on. can we at least be realistic here? maybe i lack "vision" or "idealism"...but, from a scientific point of view, a lot of the data out there lacks this thing called "good science".

i realize i'm being excessively cynical. but, projects/efforts/and goals of such massive scale need to be analyzed extremely critically. the failure to do so would result in a classic "ready, fire, aim" situation. tons and tons of rework, and lost time/resources.
-Roach
Lian Li Lancool First Knight Series PC-K59W
Intel Core i7-960 Bloomfield 3.2GHz
EVGA X58 FTW3 132-GT-E768-TR
EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 FTW GAMING ACX 3.0
G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 12GB (3 x 4GB)
Crucial M4 128gb SATAIII SSD x2
Crucial M4 256gb SATAIII SSD
OCZ Saber 1000 960GB Enterprise SSD
Corsair Professional Series HX850 PSU
Dell UltraSharp U2713HM 27" w/drop ceiling mount
Logitech G930 7.1 Headset
DBPOWER RGB LED Keyboard
Logitech G402 Hyperion Fury
Roach412
Black Belt 2nd Degree
Black Belt 2nd Degree
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:33 pm
Location: Milwaukee - Wisconsin

Postby bdub » Tue May 13, 2014 6:59 am

Roach412 wrote:I would argue knowing the problem better would have gotten us to the moon sooner...


maybe if we had just understood the abacus better... we could have filled the missing links in it's potential, and ridden IT to the moon! but alas, we didn't have enough information about the hidden structures in the abacus' geometry to do that, and we never could model those structures because scientists ("experts", only 97%, which does not necessarily constitute any kind of consensus in anybody's book) are all trying to gain the kings riches through grants (therefor their science is not science, but pure conjecture)!

Crikey. can't put two and two together... or don't want to.

maybe god will save us all if we have faith!
my main rig...
asrock 970 extreme3
AMD athlonII X3 440
zalman cpns5x performa hs/fan
crucial ballistix 2x4gb sport ddr3-1333
powercolor ax7750 1GBK3-H vga
antec neo he 650r
Samsung 840 EVo SSD 120 GB
toshiba 2TB HDD 64M cache sata3
seagate 1TB HDD 64M cache sata3
hitachi 2TB HDD 64M cache sata3
lg wh14ns40 bd burner
optiarc ad-7240s sata dvdrw (nec chipset)
bdub
Black Belt 3rd Degree
Black Belt 3rd Degree
 
Posts: 3653
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 2:12 am
Location: Washington D.C.

Postby Karlsweldt » Tue May 13, 2014 7:34 am

There were many projects launched in the early 1940s.. for "the public good". Mainly intended to give people some work to do, some were huge construction or renewal projects.. some were just meaningless activities. But it was war time, and life was harsh.
Back then, government did have some purpose. But today, party differences make the term "Foggy Bottom" very realistic!
F@H.. to solve mankind's maladies.. in our lifetimes!
Karlsweldt
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 20663
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 11:57 am
Location: 07438

Postby Roach412 » Tue May 13, 2014 8:01 am

your retorts are really just strengthening my position.

and i'll respond, again, to your 97% number of "experts" agreeing on data which is flawed provides a completely useless concensus. please review the plethora of "expert" knowledge in science over the course of history and when they were 100% wrong. massive assumptions, and blind correlation causation relationships make studies, even very large ones, unreliable.
http://www.businessinsider.com/spurious ... gen-2014-5

when has humanity NOT tried to gain riches(or power, or prestige, or "mine's bigger than yours") through false science?

plus, it's a double-whammy in the expectation of government ramp-up in funding for research and development piggybacking on flawed prior research. when people claim, on bad science, to have perfected things like cures for AIDs or for cancer, or perpetual energy creation devices, or any other false scientific breakthroughs it causes a huge waste of resources (billions of dollars, tens of thousands of hours of research time) to disprove their waste-of-space science. that's just to DISprove it - while at the same time other research uses that exact invalid outcome to try and prove more theories.
flawed science + not-flawed science = flawed scientific outcomes.
not-flawed science + not-flawed science = useful scientific outcomes.

this is a number of years old, but actually was something worth remembering from when i first read it:
http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ ... ts-science

the next course of action should be understanding the actual, factual, provable, and irrefutable factors of our climate. until those factors are studied, reviewed, confirmed and re-confirmed there's less and less point of creating this "it's our fault" mentality that's being berated down upon people.

-Roach
Lian Li Lancool First Knight Series PC-K59W
Intel Core i7-960 Bloomfield 3.2GHz
EVGA X58 FTW3 132-GT-E768-TR
EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 FTW GAMING ACX 3.0
G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 12GB (3 x 4GB)
Crucial M4 128gb SATAIII SSD x2
Crucial M4 256gb SATAIII SSD
OCZ Saber 1000 960GB Enterprise SSD
Corsair Professional Series HX850 PSU
Dell UltraSharp U2713HM 27" w/drop ceiling mount
Logitech G930 7.1 Headset
DBPOWER RGB LED Keyboard
Logitech G402 Hyperion Fury
Roach412
Black Belt 2nd Degree
Black Belt 2nd Degree
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:33 pm
Location: Milwaukee - Wisconsin

Postby bdub » Tue May 13, 2014 10:11 am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z5

"Merely raising climate disruption in this context will cause many to bristle. Skeptics employ this issue as a prime example of motivated reasoning — politicians motivated by the prospect of confiscation, scientists motivated by securing acclaim and government contracts."

so typical of sheep, thirsty for the same pollution causing profits that their fathers had. (the skeptics, that is).

"But none of these objections relates to the scientific question: Is a 40 percent increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution driving disruptive warming? And further: Can this process be slowed, allowing societies and ecosystems more time to adapt?"

"But perhaps the most difficult question is this: How can you make serious political decisions based on scientific likelihoods when politics thrives on the feeding of ideological certainties?"

you can continue to tout your "missing pieces" theory all you want. and of course science has limits... but to brush off this consensus is dangerous to all the rest of us. maybe you've purposed yourself into a situation you will not feel the effects of accelerated change, in which case bravo to you... but I prefer to be in the know about what is happening and maybe I can't prevent it or slow it down, but at least I can be right with my mind about it.
my main rig...
asrock 970 extreme3
AMD athlonII X3 440
zalman cpns5x performa hs/fan
crucial ballistix 2x4gb sport ddr3-1333
powercolor ax7750 1GBK3-H vga
antec neo he 650r
Samsung 840 EVo SSD 120 GB
toshiba 2TB HDD 64M cache sata3
seagate 1TB HDD 64M cache sata3
hitachi 2TB HDD 64M cache sata3
lg wh14ns40 bd burner
optiarc ad-7240s sata dvdrw (nec chipset)
bdub
Black Belt 3rd Degree
Black Belt 3rd Degree
 
Posts: 3653
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 2:12 am
Location: Washington D.C.

Postby Roach412 » Tue May 13, 2014 11:44 am

this guy does a pretty good job of analyzing the report. he's much more succinct in his responses than i would be - however, in doing so sometimes comes across as less "agreeable" in creating a discussion than i would prefer...but, sometimes people don't want to discuss contradictions to their convictions.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/my- ... ssessment/

there's significant data/results that's been debunked previously and were just regurgitated in the report that it's stupid. simply, stupid.

the comments section in the above-linked page shows some interesting data sources as well for new data - i haven't had a chance to review them all yet. still slogging slowly through the entire report myself(when truly bored).

-Roach
Lian Li Lancool First Knight Series PC-K59W
Intel Core i7-960 Bloomfield 3.2GHz
EVGA X58 FTW3 132-GT-E768-TR
EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 FTW GAMING ACX 3.0
G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 12GB (3 x 4GB)
Crucial M4 128gb SATAIII SSD x2
Crucial M4 256gb SATAIII SSD
OCZ Saber 1000 960GB Enterprise SSD
Corsair Professional Series HX850 PSU
Dell UltraSharp U2713HM 27" w/drop ceiling mount
Logitech G930 7.1 Headset
DBPOWER RGB LED Keyboard
Logitech G402 Hyperion Fury
Roach412
Black Belt 2nd Degree
Black Belt 2nd Degree
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:33 pm
Location: Milwaukee - Wisconsin

Postby Roach412 » Tue May 13, 2014 1:25 pm

bdub wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-americans-aversion-to-science-carries-a-high-price/2014/05/12/7800318e-d9fe-11e3-bda1-9b46b2066796_story.html?hpid=z5


i can quote opinion pieces from WP too...(plus, i like this guys writing style) :D

Climate-change proponents have made their cause a matter of fealty and faith. For folks who pretend to be brave carriers of the scientific ethic, there’s more than a tinge of religion in their jeremiads. If you whore after other gods, the Bible tells us, “the Lord’s wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit” (Deuteronomy 11).

Sounds like California. Except that today there’s a new god, the Earth Mother. And a new set of sins — burning coal and driving a fully equipped F-150.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

-Roach
Lian Li Lancool First Knight Series PC-K59W
Intel Core i7-960 Bloomfield 3.2GHz
EVGA X58 FTW3 132-GT-E768-TR
EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 FTW GAMING ACX 3.0
G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 12GB (3 x 4GB)
Crucial M4 128gb SATAIII SSD x2
Crucial M4 256gb SATAIII SSD
OCZ Saber 1000 960GB Enterprise SSD
Corsair Professional Series HX850 PSU
Dell UltraSharp U2713HM 27" w/drop ceiling mount
Logitech G930 7.1 Headset
DBPOWER RGB LED Keyboard
Logitech G402 Hyperion Fury
Roach412
Black Belt 2nd Degree
Black Belt 2nd Degree
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:33 pm
Location: Milwaukee - Wisconsin

Postby bdub » Tue May 13, 2014 6:51 pm

well, that got to it. and yes, that should be a sin these days.
but there is no god.
my main rig...
asrock 970 extreme3
AMD athlonII X3 440
zalman cpns5x performa hs/fan
crucial ballistix 2x4gb sport ddr3-1333
powercolor ax7750 1GBK3-H vga
antec neo he 650r
Samsung 840 EVo SSD 120 GB
toshiba 2TB HDD 64M cache sata3
seagate 1TB HDD 64M cache sata3
hitachi 2TB HDD 64M cache sata3
lg wh14ns40 bd burner
optiarc ad-7240s sata dvdrw (nec chipset)
bdub
Black Belt 3rd Degree
Black Belt 3rd Degree
 
Posts: 3653
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 2:12 am
Location: Washington D.C.

Postby bdub » Fri May 30, 2014 8:37 am

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... -expertise

not meant to only show this one blurb from the article, but to emphasize it...

"If you get your information only from the journals, you can't tell whether a paper is being taken seriously by the scientific community or not," says Collins. "You cannot get a good picture of what is going on in science from the literature," he continues. And of course, biased and ideological Internet commentaries on that literature are more dangerous still.

That's why we can't listen to climate change skeptics or creationists. It's why vaccine deniers don't have a leg to stand on. And, in a somewhat older example, that's why what happened in South Africa, when president Thabo Mbeki rejected the scientific consensus on what causes HIV-AIDS and opted to base government policies on the views of a few scientific outliers, is so troubling.

To justify the decision not to distribute anti-retroviral AIDS drugs, says Collins, Mbeki "told his parliamentary colleagues to read the Internet, and they'd see that there was a controversy about the safety of anti-retroviral drugs. There was no controversy. There was a controversy on the Internet, but there was no controversy in mainstream science any longer. It had long, long, long passed its sell-by date." Interactional scientific expertise, says Collins, is what allows you to know that—and if you don't have it, you are really not in any position to call into question mainstream knowledge.

The same goes for Climategate. For instance, one of the most attacked emails was one that was simply misunderstood by its attackers. The email referred to "Mike's Nature trick...to hide the decline," and it was assumed on this basis that scientists were doing something underhanded to suppress the fact that temperatures were supposedly declining. But that's just incorrect, as you would have known if you were part of the community of scientists doing the research. The "decline" being referred to wasn't even about global temperatures at all, but rather, a decline in the growth of certain trees whose rings were being used to infer past temperatures.

"What the scientists meant by 'trick' was, 'a neat trick'—'Hey, that was a really good piece of science,'" explains Collins. "Whereas the public were interpreting it as something tricky, disreputable, and underhand. So you've got to know the context in order to interpret what the very words mean, and you can only know the context by once again, being part of the oral culture of science."
............................................................

I believe the climate-change skeptics are going to be met with the same end as the anti-vaxxers. as deluded nutballs who have no place to be talking part in the discussion.
my main rig...
asrock 970 extreme3
AMD athlonII X3 440
zalman cpns5x performa hs/fan
crucial ballistix 2x4gb sport ddr3-1333
powercolor ax7750 1GBK3-H vga
antec neo he 650r
Samsung 840 EVo SSD 120 GB
toshiba 2TB HDD 64M cache sata3
seagate 1TB HDD 64M cache sata3
hitachi 2TB HDD 64M cache sata3
lg wh14ns40 bd burner
optiarc ad-7240s sata dvdrw (nec chipset)
bdub
Black Belt 3rd Degree
Black Belt 3rd Degree
 
Posts: 3653
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 2:12 am
Location: Washington D.C.

Postby Roach412 » Mon Jun 02, 2014 10:41 am

bdub wrote:I believe the climate-change skeptics are going to be met with the same end as the anti-vaxxers. as deluded nutballs who have no place to be talking part in the discussion.


so, really what you're saying is skeptics should just be removed from all scientific discussions. good plan.

i'm skeptical because their data constantly changes, and new factors are continually found to include in their models, or find out that assumptions which have been used for decades are completely without merit(or were so overblown in their impact).

if being skeptical because the details of the "final product" is different ALL THE TIME, is wrong - then that's sad. really, really sad. :-|

you'd be skeptical of a mechanic that tells you you're failing your emmissions testing because of your timing belt one day, and then tells you the next day it's actually a knock sensor, and then on the third day says it was acutally because of a loose spark plug. don't you think skepticism would be obvious in that scenario? the end result of "there's a problem" exists, but cherrypicking causality is poor science - and happens to be a bad way to fix cars as well.

-Roach
Lian Li Lancool First Knight Series PC-K59W
Intel Core i7-960 Bloomfield 3.2GHz
EVGA X58 FTW3 132-GT-E768-TR
EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 FTW GAMING ACX 3.0
G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 12GB (3 x 4GB)
Crucial M4 128gb SATAIII SSD x2
Crucial M4 256gb SATAIII SSD
OCZ Saber 1000 960GB Enterprise SSD
Corsair Professional Series HX850 PSU
Dell UltraSharp U2713HM 27" w/drop ceiling mount
Logitech G930 7.1 Headset
DBPOWER RGB LED Keyboard
Logitech G402 Hyperion Fury
Roach412
Black Belt 2nd Degree
Black Belt 2nd Degree
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:33 pm
Location: Milwaukee - Wisconsin

PreviousNext

Return to The Hundred Year War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests