The analogy is poor, since it's MIT & CERN's book, not his, and he's claiming not to be selling the "original" not just a copy off the shelf.

As the copyright holders on the code, MIT and CERN, might object to the "original" code being sold. Obvious license to sell a copy is granted as long as the copyright notice is included.

He better stop writing checks that he can't cash, due first to the limited amount of money in the world, and then to the more limited portion of it under his control. Hi I'm Emacs, I'm not going to write to the file you called me on, I'm going to replace it. What a garbage coder and a garbage human. "Hi, I'm RMS I want open hardware and think my code is the best possible so I'm going to release my software free with the provision that you have to release changes to get you to implicitly document (open) your hardware that you want to use my code with, but I'm totally going to pretend that I am about free software until people want to use it in a way that doesn't provide me value", "Most of the contributions to the Gnu project are because of it's use with Linux, but I'm going to insist you call it GNU/Linux so that I will maybe stay relevant, oh and that's a new freedom software should have, the freedom to have me rename your software whatever name my sick brain comes up with"

That's for servers. You don't want a fleet of cloud based workstations.

A spreadsheet? The system should be sufficiently self documenting that a large chunk of your team's time is not spent auditing for compliance with the spreadsheet.

There's not a single correct answer it depends on the group every time. That being said macOS is the best jack of all trades and so can be a very good choice for admin endpoints.

If Youtube prohibited from your own monetization of your videos, then it would be censorship. But that is not the case. This is something that most publishers have to deal with, and that is that they risk advertisers (or brokers for those advertisers) pulling ads. This is the publishing business.

If you want to cover things that Youtube's advertisers don't want to run ads on then instead you can run your business yourself and line-up advertisers for yourself.

Youtube isn't pulling your content or prohibiting you from you advertising in your content. They are just ensuring advertiser happiness which should protect monetization on other videos. They aren't even doing this on a channel basis, they are doing it video by video. People complaining about this don't get just how in the content creator's corner youtube is.

That is fundamentally not true. All of my grandparents died in the last 50 years, and none of them were alive 100 years ago. Whether or not, I can convince you that any of the rest of what you said wasn't logically valid, please, PLEASE, acknowledge that you got this one wrong.

To your larger point about implying that time scales of human lives are somehow significant and as such picking them is not arbitrary. What does the human life span have to do with it. According to wikipedia we know about 15 trees that are over 2000 years old (we don't know the ages of all the trees) And there are some whole forests that are same tree that we think are 10s of thousands of years old, and it take our intervention to extend a fruit fly life span up to 3 months. Why is our lifespan somehow special when studying the climate? Why are humans the organism with the magic life span?

As to your boiling water analogy, Imagine that you had a pot of boiling or near boiling water in that state for extremely long period of time (years) then something disturbed it and it's temperature dropped to 30 degrees, before starting to climb back up, and then we found it when it was back up to 40. We'd wonder why the water was so cool, even though it was on it's way back to normal. But if the whole change in temperature happened because an external factor came into play and then was removed, and you are only looking at the period where the temperature was back on the rise, and are looking for a why, you're not going to find it because it's not there. That goes to you "only happened in the last hundred or so years", comment as well. By only looking at the period over which something is happening you can't isolate any other unusual activity as the cause if you don't have the context required to rule out all the usual activity. This is why scientific experiments require repetition and controls. Since that's not available all possible context is required.

But again I'm not saying what time period is relevant. I'm trying to make the distinction that arbitrary timescale choices aren't valid for refuting the validity for choosing other arbitrary time slices.

Wait, is it your contention that the average surface temp of the earth over it's 4+ billion year history is less then it is today? Or simply that at that generally at this point in time we are headed back to that average surface temp, not away from it?

Arguing that a 5 year sample of data isn't valid because a 40 year sample of data paints a different story, without any other justification just isn't logically valid. That doesn't make the 5 year sample valid, it is just a comment not the logical validity of the argument. And since parent had smugly used the phrase "That's called cherry picking your data", in response to someone picking an arbitrary time scale that suited their agenda, I repeated it when they did the same thing.

As to your comment about the next paragraph, I think we all know that it was One part hand, waving, one part word salad, 100% bullshit.

You see what I did there? I pointed out that I repeat smugly delivered words when appropriate, and then I did the same back to you. I'm only mentioning it to make sure you got the point.

If you want to logically attack something you see as a false assumption, you must show that it leads to a contradiction. Pretty much any other strategy is not logically valid. With the best that you can do otherwise being to state a that while that may be true a contradictory assertion may also be true, thus putting the other side in the position where they have to logically refute your assertion or failing to do so concede that the matter is at least uncertain.

Since so many people seem concerned about my supposed bias, I'll go the other way now. What does one do when someone presents a point in a discussion that seems counter the point of the discussion. The most clearcut thing to do is prove it invalid. In this case you can't do that. So you can argue that the point is not directly relevant. Which in this case I think it would be since it's the effects of warming not the actual warming that people don't want to happen,and the effects seem to continue to accumulate. Or lastly you can acknowledge the point as valid but use it to construct a stronger point that works in your favor. If you just use a parallel argument then you haven't really done anything to counter the other party.

Wow!

First, I didn't comment on all people who call them selves experts, I specifically was commenting about the climate, which to fully understand requires knowledge of several different areas of physics, chemistry, and biology, and who knows what else, for which we're still figuring out new types of data to collect which needs to be done on a global scale and takes years for the amounts of data to be super useful and then years longer for hypothesis testing. It's a tough field and it's going to take a long time before we have any real experts. It's ok to need to learn. If you look at that whole paragraph, it's not talking about how far we've come it's talking about how far we have to go. We're not going to progress if we don't pay attention to the people who know the most.

Second, while you seem sure of them, you are gravely mistaken about my motives. I attack bad logic for being a tool of dumbed down religion. I don't care what religion that is, but it brings me extra joy to poke the bubbles of those that are smug in their faith.

An attack like that is clearly the work of a zealot. Yay! I'm almost looking forward to the response to this because of how funny it will be, but really I'm mostly dreading it, because of how the lack of logic and reason will make me cringe. But if you're looking for a fight you're barking up the wrong tree for so many reasons. It's a free country so respond all you like, but I won't again nor should my silence be considered the concession of any points you make, only a refusal to further engage. But you go ahead and be you, and good luck with that.

Here's what's fun about logic. I can assert something and you can disagree, but logically I am not wrong until you prove me wrong, until then either the assertion or it's logical negation may be true. I think you tried to disprove some of my assertions, but your attempts were not logically valid.

So I continue to stand by statements "We are too dumb to understand climate", and "Any one who calls themselves a climate expert is a huge liar, unless they put it in the context of being relative to the rest of mankind.", (yes, I did notice you taking it out of full context) "That lack of relativity has lead to arrogance and away from science.", and "skeptics and supporters are opposite sides of the same coin of wrong headedness.". But I'll address them to give them some more perspective to maybe help you see what I am talking about or give you some more meat to use to argue against.

Now let me address that last one first since that's the one you seemed to want to actually try to tear down the most. And in point went to talk about the differences between skeptics and climate scientists. And those differences are irrelevant. Because I was talking about skeptics and supporters. You'd hope that skeptics would be different then people that supporters are supporting because then why would they be on opposite sides. But In my experience "arguments" between supporters and skeptics become a back and forth of logically meaningless nonsense.

As to us being too dumb to understand climate. I don't mean that mankind is collectively too dumb to ever figure it out. I suspect that we can and hope that we will. But today we are standing on the backs of thousands of years of people who came before us, and we seemed to be gaining knowledge perhaps faster then ever and since the advent of the computer we've been tackling problems that were far beyond our capabilities before. But we've got good climate data for like 40 years, much less thorough (and more likely to be error prone) data for a few hundred before that, and then the data starts to get really iffy. And also to be clear when I talking about understanding I'm talking about absolute understanding. Things like gravity are hard and it was a long way from before galileo to F = G(m1)(m2)/r^2, but I wouldn't call that understanding gravity. We are learning about climate daily and I frequently hear about new factors that are being considered to improve models, which certainly implies that we didn't understand it yet, and if our models are still being improved at the 10s of years scale, it's hard to imagine that we are close to a final perfect model. And all of this holds for my comment about experts. Sir Issac Newton was the man, and so many people are standing on his shoulders (arguments about parallel discovery aside), but Physics undergraduates today probably have to know more about physics then he did and an undergraduate degree and an undergraduate degree is generally not considered an expert degree. So while he was pioneer, absolutely speaking he wasn't an expert. That's why I added that bit that you truncated off. Relatively to the totality of many subjects we have no experts today, relative the mankind's understanding of given topics there are often experts

And as for the comment about being lead to arrogance and away form science. Maybe it is just the particular manner of the climate scientists that I hear speak relative to that of the other scientists, but climate scientists seem to me to speak with far more certainty then their peers from other fields. Especially other new fields. And again relative to their peers they don't seem to talk much about the difficulties of their field. They are studying the one earth we have that so far has never completely repeated itself making it really hard to get good control data and experiment and all that other stuff that becomes. I've heard scientists working in green land when talking about the sites and the dangers of working on the ice talk about how incredibly dynamic it is and how what's on the bottom one day might be on the top the next, and then go on to explain that ice cores work because of the predictability of the ordering of the layering. with out rectifying the two statements. And that contradiction was independently keyed upon and commented upon by multiple logically minded people I know unconnected to each other. That sort of thing looks a lot like a dogmatic blind spot. And as I continued, I don't think that our system of academia is particularly suited to that sort of field, and I think that it harms the quality of the product and we could probably be learning more faster. But logically that is the most subjective of the sentences and it really depends on what exact definition of science is used.

Not that the source of the warming was a point I was even trying to discuss, but as to the need to provide a need to explain the warming, no explanation is needed. Until you can explain the 4+ billion year history of the earth's climate, you can't say what would be happening with or without that CO2. That's part of the whole thing I was saying about context. But again, I am saying this not to present any ideas about climate change but as part of a discussion about logic.

And not that this is the point, but if I have to spruce up my counter correlation to make it more believable, then here's me spitballing. Large scale solar installations tend to be installed where there is very little cloud coverage, which largely means deserts. (here's where it becomes more back of the napkin) deserts tend to be pretty bright from space, so they are likely pretty reflective and are places where solar energy gets directed back into space. Solar installations are less reflective then the deserts they go on top of and as such increase the globe's absorption of solar radiation, and since most of that energy ands up as surface level waste heat contributes to global warming. For wind the best I can say is that it seems plausible that unharnessed wind energy doesn't heat the earth much as the waste heat from that portion of it that is collected for our use. There you go a plausible mechanism for my correlations since you seemed to get hung up on that. That wasn't the point though.

The point wasn't about warming. The point was that you tried to counter my argument about logical validity of arguments about arbitrary time slices, by giving merit to one arbitrary time slice because it contains a correlation that plausibly could be causal, and that is not a valid counter because you actually need the time slice to be much bigger then the one with the correlation to have the context to even understand if it could be causal. And now the point is that you weren't responding to my point and your attempts at counter points aren't even logically valid.

So what if global warming has or hasn't stopped in the last five years. Is that what you really care about? Or do you care about other changes that have resulted from the changes up until now that have continued to accumulate. I think that for most people it's the accumulating changes that matter to them, not that it's happening because it is getting warmer. Because even if it really is done getting warmer, the damage isn't done, and it's really that damage that I think that most people want to stop or mitigate. It's important not to lose site of why it matters.

What did I make up? That if you zoom out far enough the climate is cooler now then the average. Nope I'm pretty sure that's agreed upon by most. The implicit fact that that makes the prior argument invalid? Nope that's just logic. (It should be noted the an argument being logically invalid does not negate or affirm it's conclusion). That we are naive when it comes to climate science? Again, this one I'm pretty sure of, I've heard many climate experts say that mankind is the species that has impacted the environment the most, but I'm pretty sure that that distinction goes to the species of bacteria that evolved into chloroplasts.

You seem to have refuted my point about how well we understand the environment, with a couple of examples of similarly complicated systems that we are making great strides with. First of all there is the logical fallacy that progress in some complex systems implies progress in others. That's just not a sound way to refute the point. I'm considered an expert in somethings but that doesn't mean I'm an expert in everything. Then there are the examples of complex things that we have "mastered". Let's start at the Human body. Drug companies, who tend to hire some of the people that know the most about the human body end up with a lot of failed attempts at new drugs. Some of the time it happens because of unintended consequences, but a lot of the time it's because a correlation that was thought to be causal turned out not to be. ( Here's a wired article about the phenomena http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/12/ff_causation/all/1 ). The other is space. Sure we have some successes but we also have a number of failures. In late 2011 we were looking at abandoning the ISS because of a string of Souyez rocket malfunctions. Also of the 3 mars missions launched during the 2011 launch window, only 1 (that's 33%) reached mars, so while Curiosity is cool, it's the exception not the rule. So to say that we've mastered either field is also not logically valid. Of course in both of those fields we can perform somewhat rigorous experiments so our progress is also faster.

That's not to say that there is necessarily anything wrong with naive science. Our understanding of gravity is still undergoing refinement, but it's force has been part of our engineering for quite some time. But having a naivety of gravity employed in a lot of the engineering hasn't been a downfall. I would say that the goal should be to know when you are doing naive science and respond accordingly perhaps by leaving terms in generic equations abstract, so that they are more readily adjusted if need be or can have more complex expressions plugged in as appropriate (for example gravitational attraction to the earth).

But on the whole your comment as an attempt to refute mine was trash. You start off with an attack, which is not a logically valid method of refutation, and justify the attack with a logically invalid argument that was based on logically invalid arguments. Then you go on talking about climate experts (which I denied the current existence of and you failed to validly refute), which you then use to declare your attempt to refute my comment successful, which does not logically make it so.

My comments were about logical validity, the absolute level of our understanding of the climate, and how the nature of our academic system interacts with fields like the climate that are very hard to study. I'm happy to go off on tangents relative to discussing those topics, but if what you're really trying to do is show me to the curb because you think I'm denying climate change, then you can rest assured that that is not my goal at all.

But if you only look at the period with sizable human CO2 emissions then you lose the context within to gauge them as an independent variable. If you don't have context then you could conclude that the correlation between the rise in use of solar and wind power and the rise in average surface temp implied that solar and wind power caused global warming.

My point was more that the specific zoom out argument wasn't a logically valid foil to the very localized analysis because essentially the same method could be used to invalidate it. Just like how I used a parallel correlation to demonstrate why your attempt to refute my point of logic by appealing to a specific correlation wasn't logically valid. Pointing out that an argument is not logically valid does not invalidate the conclusion only the method of arriving at it.

The larger point being that in a field of study like climate that is highly complex and where we can only observe and not experiment, we shouldn't be propping up or tearing down our previous conclusions with logically invalid arguments. Our conclusions to date should be freely and often subject to re-evaluation and refinement, and that seemingly good conclusions should not kill parallel lines of investigation and further that new work should be done as neutrally as possible from previous work so that good analysis can be kept and applied to refined and altered versions of previous conclusions.

But if you zoom that graph way out you'll see that we're cooling. It's called cherry picking your data. Looking at the data in 5-year increments tells a different story then looking at it in 50 year increments tells a different story then looking at it in 500 year increments, tells a different story then looking at it in 5000 year increments and on and on and on.

We are too dumb to understand climate. Any one who calls themselves a climate expert is a huge liar, unless they put it in the context of being relative to the rest of mankind. That lack of relativity has lead to arrogance and away from science. We've seen that the climate scientists are afraid of being wrong. This is an area where our system of academia is a weakness not a strength. People are too invested in not being wrong and finding new truths. In the climate sciences it should be about being wrong and being able to better understand that. Bad predictions should be more celebrated then correct ones, because it's easier to learn from something that went wrong.

skeptics and supporters are opposite sides of the same coin of wrong headedness. There is learning to be done, and a future that is uncertain. Those are things we should be concentrating on.