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".
It seems you've stumbled upon something that shouldn't been allowed . . . yet no one in the field has a problem with that. Now what is your background again? Oh, you're not a climate scientists but somehow you know more than any of them.
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".
So you would leave data that you KNOW isn't accurate in your results? What kind of scientist are you?
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.
The reason has been explained if you cared to look.
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".
The data has been released. Please find something wrong with it. You can't can you?
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.
I do. All of you pulling out your smartphone to check the time look pretty stupid.
Maybe you look stupid for wearing a watch. Or maybe it's just personal taste and isn't worth the insults?
It's lived a vibrant, fruitful life.
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".
What both groups are really asking for is a self governing society, what they fail to see is that we already have one.
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.
There were a few LPers with 1.5 million ~ views.
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.
Anybody who looked seriously at content of the emails saw the conversations were taken out of context.
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.
Basically, tree-ring data was removed because it showed a decline. [skepticalscience.com]
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
Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.
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.
Freedom of information act does mean that anyone and everyone can harass you because you are a climate scientist.
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?
If your colleague at work wants to see your work, you'd likely show it to him. If he is your enemy at work, would you let them?
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!).
Especially if they are asking for your incomplete work so that they can show your boss how incompetent you are.
I've never seen the claim of "incomplete" work. Do you have a citation?
the committee accepted that Jones had released all the data that he could
"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 !"
Or that he was a scapegoat?
His documented history speaks for itself. He just happened to be the worst offender at mixing politics with science, though hardly the only one.
Eight separate panels across two continents didn't find anything. You call it whitewash or maybe there was nothing to find.
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.