December 29, 2010
— Gabriel Malor This space is for comments on headlines and other stuff in the Top Headlines sidebar. It's also a place to suggest what you think are top headlines. A link to these comments is stickied at the top of the Top Headlines sidebar.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
02:51 AM
| Comments (47)
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Harold M. Reid at December 29, 2010 03:20 AM (oj52M)
Posted by: Pecos Bill at December 29, 2010 03:28 AM (j84s0)
No mincing words there. The Fox nubs were taken by surprise so they came back the next day and two different people on. A huge AGW liar and a weak defender.
Posted by: Vic at December 29, 2010 03:46 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Fritz at December 29, 2010 03:50 AM (GwPRU)
Posted by: Frank Vincent Zappa at December 29, 2010 04:02 AM (le5qc)
Posted by: Case at December 29, 2010 04:04 AM (0K+Kw)
Posted by: Any Professional Team at December 29, 2010 04:07 AM (kho+0)
I prefer that people call it what it is; criminal fraud. It has noting to do with science.
Posted by: Vic at December 29, 2010 04:09 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at December 29, 2010 04:10 AM (eOXTH)
Posted by: The Stupid Party at December 29, 2010 04:12 AM (Z4j3j)
I prefer that people call it what it is; criminal fraud. It has noting to do with science.
Posted by: Vic at December 29, 2010 08:09 AM (M9Ie6)
count++;
Posted by: CanaDave at December 29, 2010 04:15 AM (KNSxy)
Posted by: Pecos Bill at December 29, 2010 04:18 AM (j84s0)
Posted by: Case at December 29, 2010 04:20 AM (0K+Kw)
U.S. changes how it measures long-term unemployment
(BLS), beginning Saturday, will raise from two years to five years the upper limit on how long someone can be listed as having been jobless.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at December 29, 2010 04:26 AM (9hSKh)
From the article:
These numbers will start gaining widespread release the next time there is a Republican in the White House.
Okay, not really, but basically, yeah.
Posted by: The Mega Indepedent at December 29, 2010 04:50 AM (3NI30)
Posted by: maddogg at December 29, 2010 04:55 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: maddogg at December 29, 2010 08:55 AM (OlN4e)
Not only did they say it, but they are now saying that it WAS.
Posted by: Vic at December 29, 2010 05:00 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: maddogg at December 29, 2010 05:04 AM (OlN4e)
Three dozen of the University of California's highest-paid executives are threatening to sue unless UC agrees to spend tens of millions of dollars to dramatically increase retirement benefits for employees earning more than $245,000.
"We believe it is the University's legal, moral and ethical obligation" to increase the benefits, the executives wrote the Board of Regents in a Dec. 9 letter and position paper obtained by The Chronicle.
"Failure to do so will likely result in a costly and unsuccessful legal confrontation," they wrote, using capital letters to emphasize that they were writing "URGENTLY."
Read more of their insanity at: http://tinyurl.com/26axyryPosted by: Tami at December 29, 2010 05:06 AM (VuLos)
Even if, he's a murderer and torturer of the most faithful, the most helpless, and weakest among us.
Mutual Attraction of Scumbags
Posted by: franksalterego at December 29, 2010 05:23 AM (+6fgE)
Posted by: maddogg at December 29, 2010 09:04 AM (OlN4e)
You must be upset over Obamacare!
Posted by: Mayor Michael Blooming Idiot at December 29, 2010 05:29 AM (tJjm/)
Even if, he's a murderer and torturer of the most faithful, the most helpless, and weakest among us.
Well, everybody knows Mooselimbs hate dogs. Why should Comrade Zero be any different?
Posted by: maddogg at December 29, 2010 05:34 AM (OlN4e)
What a load of lying son of a bitch bullshit this is.
They have NO EVIDENCE of the sun coming out of it's torpor. None. Yet they count on the ignorance of the public.
Today, there is ONE SUN SPOT. One.
Posted by: maddogg at December 29, 2010 05:46 AM (OlN4e)
Tap, tap. (presses nose against mirrored glass) Is there anybody out there?
Posted by: maddogg at December 29, 2010 05:48 AM (OlN4e)
If anybody should be put out of their misery for non-performance.........
If you get my drift.
Posted by: franksalterego at December 29, 2010 05:48 AM (+6fgE)
Everyone is over at the CPAC thread arguing away.
Posted by: Vic at December 29, 2010 06:16 AM (M9Ie6)
Citing what it calls "an unprecedented rise" in long-term unemployment, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), beginning Saturday, will raise from two years to five years the upper limit on how long someone can be listed as having been jobless.
The move could help economists better measure the severity of the nation's prolonged economic downturn.
The change is a sign that bureau officials "are afraid that a cap of two years may be 'understating the true average duration' — but they won't know by how much until they raise the upper limit," says Linda Barrington, an economist who directs the Institute for Compensation Studies at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations.
It's unprecendented hope and change!!!
Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 29, 2010 06:19 AM (1Jaio)
The hypocrisy of Glenn Greenwald.
An interesting read about the manning chat logs.
http://tinyurl.com/2ekvdjk
Posted by: Cluebat from Exodar at December 29, 2010 06:21 AM (y67bA)
AWG is science, junk science. People need to call it that. Short, simple, to the point.
Posted by: Case at December 29, 2010 08:04 AM (0K+Kw)
From Richard Feynman's 1974 Cal Tech Commencement address on cargo cult science:
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson oil doesn't soak through food. Well, that's true. It's not dishonest; but the thing I'm talking about is not just a matter of not being dishonest, it's a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will-- including Wesson oil. So it's the implication which has been conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what we have to deal with.
We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.
Posted by: ya2daup at December 29, 2010 06:40 AM (0AClR)
AWG is science, junk science. People need to call it that. Short, simple, to the point.
Posted by: Case at December 29, 2010 08:04 AM (0K+Kw)
From Richard Feynman's 1974 Cal Tech Commencement address on cargo cult science:
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.
For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any." He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing--and if they don't want to support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision.
One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of results.
I say that's also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish it at all. That's not giving scientific advice.
Posted by: ya2daup at December 29, 2010 06:45 AM (0AClR)
10
AWG is science, junk science. People need to call it that. Short, simple, to the point.
Posted by: Case at December 29, 2010 08:04 AM (0K+Kw)
From Richard Feynman's 1974 Cal Tech Commencement address on cargo cult science:
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson oil doesn't soak through food. Well, that's true. It's not dishonest; but the thing I'm talking about is not just a matter of not being dishonest, it's a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will-- including Wesson oil. So it's the implication which has been conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what we have to deal with.
We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.
Posted by: ya2daup at December 29, 2010 06:49 AM (0AClR)
Posted by: ya2daup at December 29, 2010 06:52 AM (0AClR)
It's a mess. The GOP has to stop it, or we are doomed.
Posted by: PJ at December 29, 2010 07:08 AM (QdxaI)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 29, 2010 08:32 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: tmitsss at December 29, 2010 08:34 AM (V4Pya)
Posted by: cthulhu at December 29, 2010 09:04 AM (kaalw)
Posted by: Dave M at December 29, 2010 04:19 PM (IJvIt)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2239 seconds, 175 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: billygoat at December 29, 2010 03:09 AM (6DDE+)