PHP is cheating! However, you may like this.

Actually, the Currency datatype provides a fixed decimal. It was removed in VB.NET for no clear reason, but provided a 64-bit value with a constant 4 base 10 digits in the fraction.

And I believe the official abbreviation is "PL/I". :)

Oh, what's that? You responded with an ad hominem attack and argument by authority instead of addressing the argument? This from somebody who references a site by a professional cartoonist and "web programmer"?

You haven't addressed why Mann's plot was being shown when Jones was talking about what he did with his plot. It doesn't take a climate scientist to figure it out. Maybe if you got off your ass and did some research outside of "Skeptical Science" you could understand the subterfuge employed by "Skeptical Science".

I don't arbitrarily chop off data that doesn't "fit" my hockey stick and then claim the last 1,000 years doesn't match my hockey stick high, either. I also don't splice in real temps to three separate proxy graphs, giving the illusion of certainty when there is none. And there are professional scientists who have come out against this bullshit, though anybody with a basic science education can see the inherent problem.

Of course, if you're so entrenched in your position, you won't see it because you won't even look or think critically.

You mean you read some blurbs on "Skeptical Science" or from Mann or Jones giving press interviews. How about instead you cite the science that says it is ok to chop off data without a valid explanation for what is causing the "divergence problem".

Funny, I just told you what was wrong with it (Jones' graph in particular is what we're talking about, in case you still haven't figured that out), and even told you a report admonished Jones for his graph, but this is what you come back with?

No further comments on deleting email regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report? Do you admit that was a very wrong thing to do, both ethically and legally?

No further comments about showing your data and work, friend or "enemy"? Do you agree that's what a good scientist should do?

No citation about "incomplete work"? Do you admit you have none? Do you acknowledge what Jones said, "The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years."?

Do you acknowledge that this is a farce: "the committee accepted that Jones had released all the data that he could"? Do you acknowledge one report directly contradicts this statement?

Do you acknowledge that Phil Jones isn't the "scapegoat" you made him out to be, and that his own actions put him in the spotlight?

Do you acknowledge your original statement, "What they found were scientists venting with each other about people like you who misrepresent anything that was said for political gain." is completely inadequate, and completely glosses over serious ethical lapses?

I think that's sort of the appeal of combining COBOL and Java in one server product. Now, PHBs can use Java for record-oriented applications and COBOL for everything else. Prior to that, they'd have to pick one or the other.

How does COBOL stack up against classic VB for record handling? Or older BASICs for that matter? The BASIC family is generally held to be pretty good in that department.

Maybe you look stupid for wearing a watch. Or maybe it's just personal taste and isn't worth the insults?

Oh, how I wish it were.

Can you believe these animals survived? Who knows what they'll try next, maybe a dog or chimp! One day, humans might even be able to go into space!

...and so the contest to find the worst combination of server software technologies begins. I'm stuck somewhere between unmaintained metamorphic perl and a ghetto re-implementation of Excel Services.

Biology is more of a day job. Computer history is one of my hobbies. That being said, though, biology does involve a lot of Java and XML.

Well now it'll live another one! Like the sporocarp of a fungus growing on a bag of rotting garbage.

Truly, there can be no greater evil than COBOL and enterprise Java in the same bucket, united by an unholy sludge of XML.

The Linux _kernel_ was new. The Linux _operating system_ was primarily GNU tool based, using precisely that GPL licensing model that has been so effective in fostering open development. And even the GNU toolchains were not entirely from scratch: key tools like gcc and glibc were written with new code, but clearly written to emulate the behavior of the existing tools from BSD UNIX.

It's always seemed unfortunate to me that the core toolchains, such as C compilers and critical system tools like "make" and "cp" have different behavior in the different UNIX and Linux environments. It makes cross-platform suppoprt much more awkward. It's also helped pay my salary as my colleagues and I resolve such diffeences, but there are more interesting tasks we'd prefer to spend our time on in almost every project.

The main reason that Linux is considered "UNIX-like" isn't the software history. It's that getting certified as "UNIX" is expensive, and the stndards can be quite difficult to follow after a dozen years of free software and open source evolution. The standards are described at "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification".

No, that's a definition of some kind of democracy. What the Libertarian Party wants is listed right in the title of it's homepage: "Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government".

You can't seriously argue that when you can't even legally smoke pot Libertarians have what they are "really" asking for.

For a single video or altogether? I'm looking at the user page of one right now that has ~150 million views total, across all videos. That's not Nintendo only, but it shows "Let's Play" videos can generate a lot of views.

It did, much to my disappointment. All mentions of other methods of teaching are those that have been imported. There was something about Prince Charles visiting in 1988, but it was only for the sake of analogy, and the British schooling system is rather lackluster. In fact the vignette seemed rather pointlessly antagonistic, but perhaps there was context somewhere between what the chapter itself described and the events of April 19, 1775 that I missed.

I've looked at the context before, and while not nearly as bad as the reinterpreted "oh my God global warming is a hoax", what was done was rotten science, and the deeper I dug the more rot I saw.

It was more than that. Real temps were also spliced in to three separate proxy graphs. What's really amusing about the "Skeptical Science" article is this little bit:

"There is nothing secret about "Mike's trick". Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled. Claiming this is some sort of secret "trick" or confusing it with "hide the decline" displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead."

Yes, Mann's plot, which they then so "helpfully" show, is clearly labeled. However, that's not the plot Jones created when he applied the "trick", and it is not clearly labeled, and the instrumental record has been spliced in. Why the subterfuge in "Skeptical Science"?

"Skeptical Science" is about legit as "Ministry of Truth", as the site is anything but skeptical and goes out of its way to put the most positive spin on AGW climate science. This makes for some interesting reading: http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

There was never a definitive reason given for this "divergence problem", so by chopping out data that doesn't match recent warming but leaving it in for earlier reconstructions, you are cherry-picking and applying confirmation bias, and its the kind of thing that will lead to graphs that show recent warming as being unprecedented for the last 1000 years.

I'm sorry, but how does this answer the question about an explicit request to delete email regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report? Oh, it doesn't, you're just parroting the usual lame excuses without even thinking about it.

You're talking about work paid for with public money, done for a process that is supposed to guide world leaders, and you think it's ok to delete the email because you are being "harassed" by skeptics that want transparency? If this came out from a corporate exec or despised politician, would you be here making these lame excuses?

Instead of making flimsy analogies, let's talk about reality. If I'm a scientist and unwilling to defend my work publicly and transparently, then I'm a bad scientist. You don't divide science between friends and enemies. Release the data, show your work, and defend it (and even more importantly, admit mistakes!).

I've never seen the claim of "incomplete" work. Do you have a citation?

"Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it !"

His documented history speaks for itself. He just happened to be the worst offender at mixing politics with science, though hardly the only one.

Phil Jones was actually admonished in one report regarding the WMO "hide the decline" graph (passing it off as a labeling/description issue), and also admonished for not releasing data, but yes, it was generally whitewashed. I'll believe what I can independently verify for myself over whitewash committee reports.