Comment Re:Great (Score 1) 312
The U.S. Constitution says no such thing.
Correct. I misspoke about the Constitution's exact definition. Nevertheless, I stand by my point that treason clause in the constitution does not apply during peacetime.
The U.S. Constitution says no such thing.
Correct. I misspoke about the Constitution's exact definition. Nevertheless, I stand by my point that treason clause in the constitution does not apply during peacetime.
If you're studying geology, which is all facts, as soon as you get out of school you forget it all, but philosophy you remember just enough to screw you up for the rest of your life.
-- Steve Martin
You're right. Treason is constitutionally punishable by death, after all. We could avoid that problem rather easily.
Whatever you want to call what he did, you can't call it treason.
Treason is defined clearly in the US constitution as aiding or giving comfort to an enemy at a time of war declared by Congress. The last time Congress delcared war was in 1942.
No, the ultraviolet catastrophe is a completely different phenomenon. It refers to the failure of classical (i.e., pre-quantum) theory to explain black-body radiation.
BTW, black body != black hole.
Reducing the power of government gives the people who bribe less power, and you know it.
The people who bribe don't just do it to co-opt the power of government. They also do it to direct the power of government away from them. In effect, they're "buying" power from the government. Reducing the power of government justs lets the bribers get what they want for free.
I'm not saying that bribing should be Business as Usual. Rather, I think circletimessquare is right: the solution is to enact tough laws against corruption (i.e., bribery.)
The majority of creationists *are* Christian, but are *not* Catholic.
Actual tree-ring samples, and not just photographs?
Fixing an omission. Hit enter too soon.
In my opinion, to conduct proper science on climatological measurements, the raw measurements should be available to all, to let everyone apply any "adjustments" and "corrections" they believe are necessary - and justified - taking them into account. Then each can properly check the works of their predecessors, and reach their own conclusions, without incorporating unknown distortions from previous work.
Well, how "raw" do you want that data to be? Individual bits of the satellite telemetry? Scribbled notes in a scientist's lab-book? Actual tree-ring samples, and not just?
Most "raw" data is unintelligble to anyone but the experimenters, until it is processed into a form suitable for sharing with others. Instrument calibrations, systematic effects, elimination of confounding factors, etc... all of these need to be performed by the scientists who are closest to the data and the instruments that provided it.
Like it or not, the data needs to be curated in some way, before it can be consumed meaningfully by the larger community.
If the maintainers of the archive believe adjustments are needed to deal with some measurement pathology, they are welcome to also release an open correction dataset or tool in parallel.
Many scientists do, if it makes sense in context. See above.
With the low price and high speed of modern digital storage and processing devices, data set size and complexity is no excuse for withholding the raw data.
The size and complexity of some raw datasets can in fact make it unfeasible to provide in a meaningful way. Again, see above.
Your fabricated quotations are nothing but straw-men.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Wow, look at you. Trying to be rational,
Trying and succeeding, I think.
You must be new here.
A comparison of our UIDs shows that you're the newbie.
Other than name calling what else you fascist liberals can do?
By definition, there is no such thing as a facist liberal. Or a facist communist. Or a facist conservative.
Facists align themselves away from all three of those ideologies.
The Open Group claims the copyright on the POSIX specifications. If APIs can be copyrighted and this copyright includes all implementations, then it would be problematic for all open source *NIX systems.
Only if The Open Group were acquired by a company with malevolent intentions. A company such as, oh say, Oracle.
Of course, they might decide to provide a license that's valid for everyone except Oracle (though writing such a license in a way that's GPL compatible would be very hard, so glibc might be in trouble).
How is glibc in trouble? Oracle doesn't have the copyright for it.
Sometimes, a failure actually is a breakthrough.
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
-- Derek Bok, Harvard University
Somebody modded me down. Seriously? I'm just providing facts.
If all else fails, lower your standards.
