News that makes us laugh, cry, or both

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:07 pm

Subject change:

http://albotas.com/2009/11/this-is-what ... th-beards/

Data Vampire · Post by **Data Vampire** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:26 pm

$300M 'bribe" to break health care filibuster

Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into UEA global warming data 'manipulation'

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:53 pm

And Big Lip Leiberman will refuse anything with the public option.

They really don't care about health in the health care debate....

Go to jail for having a bad waitress

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:08 am

Large groups often have to pay mandatory add-ons in restaurants. Always read the fine print. You could be arrested for failing to pay for water glasses or the tax, too. You can't say 'I didn't like the pie I ate!' and march out.

-Crissa

PS: Lord Lawson is a climate change denial kook. Why is this news?

Data Vampire · Post by **Data Vampire** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:14 am

Crissa wrote:PS: Lord Lawson is a climate change denial kook. Why is this news?

The quotes that where found.

"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:19 am

Do you know what that quote means? The context it was originally in? Anything about it?

-Crissa

Last week Lord Lawson told The Daily Telegraph that he planned to establish a think tank to challenge the consensus that drastic action is needed to combat global warming.

Data Vampire · Post by **Data Vampire** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:32 am

Oh, Please! You better off with this article linked in the first and the following quote.

“Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all this material is genuine.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:14 am

Well, I was just going to translate from scientist to you vis-a-vis the 'trick' which means 'mathematical method for revealing data'.

Basically, it means that due to forest declines post 1960, that the data in a chart has to switch from using one source to another - in this case tree-rings to observed "real" data. Prior to 1960, tree-rings are more widely known as source for data and always coincided with observed or "real" data. Post 1960, many forest declines were not well understood and the tree-ring data became erratic.

-Crissa

Heath Robinson · Post by **Heath Robinson** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:50 am

The earlier argument based off some fragment of a conversation taken utterly out of context is bullshit. It has been rebuked already.

It's not even the fact that Scientists speak a different language. You can see the word "trick" being used on public TV (at least over here in England) when celebrity chefs say things like "the trick is to..." It's dishonest and hypocritical to say that the use of the word "trick" in context of a scientist means conspiracy whilst in the context of a chef it means "neat little way to do things".

Edit: removed remarks based off misunderstanding. Presenting a quote from the university about the validity of the "random sample" of stolen emails immediately after you quote the emal fragment that denialist kooks use to prop up their argument tends to lead to mistakes.

Data Vampire · Post by **Data Vampire** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:54 am

I didn't take the word "trick" to mean something nefarious. Rather saying "hide the decline" is a really dumb thing to say. Especially if you mean adjusting for biased data.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:01 am

Yeah, because people think their private, informal conversations will come back to haunt them. It's not like the emails were supposed to be recorded.

-Crissa

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:46 pm

Belgians use man in vegetative state as a human Ouija Board.

Friendly reminder: make yourself a living will.

-Username17

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:57 pm

Republicans believe more strongly that climate change is a myth.

Apparently they believe that it wasn't colder two hundred years ago, when asked directly.

-Crissa

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:08 am

Most of them are old enough to be able to remember.

ZING!

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:32 am

So you're suggesting they're senile, too?

-Crissa

Data Vampire · Post by **Data Vampire** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:03 am

New York's The Court of Appeals allows eminent domain do be used on behalf of private developer.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:09 am

The Army Corps of Engineers is liable for damages caused by Katrina

Gelare · Post by **Gelare** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:09 am

Data Vampire wrote:New York's The Court of Appeals allows eminent domain do be used on behalf of private developer.

Ugh. Eminent domain. Sorry guys, I know you thought you owned this property; it's an easy mistake to make, seeing as all those deeds and legal documents you have all say that you own the land, and you paid for it in entirety and no longer have so much as a mortgage outstanding on that property. But as it turns out, we're the government, so what say we give you this middle finger and you fuck right off while we corrupt government officials give your land to the people who bribed us, 'k? kthxbi.

Sincerely yours (except we're actually theirs),

(Signature here)

Your [local/state/federal] government.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:14 am

Eminent Domain has been used before to confiscate for private development, that's hardly new.

Gelare · Post by **Gelare** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:34 am

Yeah, I know. It's been around for decades. It is, however, still depressing.

The Lunatic Fringe · Post by **The Lunatic Fringe** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:23 am

There is nothing wrong with society taking your stuff if the rest of us feel that you aren't making proper (or any) use of it. The "sacred right to property" is a myth, and leaving houses empty when there are homeless people around in the hopes of sleeping in a giant pile of drugs, cash , and naked women later on is bad for everyone*.

On the other hand, the US government at most levels does not actually answer to society, but rather to a much smaller group of moneyed interests, and thus I am against the use of ED in this case. That, however, is a problem with the structure of our government (and thus our laws) rather than the concept of imminent domain.

*because having empty residences around actually causes negative effects (beyond the fact that they are not being used to potential), and the possible profits are a gamble that only pay of to a small number of people if at all.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:05 am

I'm with Narcissus here. If you're leaving a property actually fallow in the middle of a city, it is the government's responsibility to take it themselves or force you to sell it to someone who will develop it. Empty buildings cost everyone money by pushing stuff farther apart, and also act as a haven for crime. Furthermore, railroads and highways are necessary for out society to function, and need to go in pretty straight lines. So if the path of transit is going through your house, you have to give up your house. Beyond that even, we need to fly airplanes and beam radio waves right through your property no matter where it is, meaning that whole spectra and sections of everyone's properties are routinely nationalized for the greater good.

You don't have any magical rights to property. The government protects your ownership of property because society works better that way. If the scales tip and it is no longer in society's interest for an individual to own something, not only should the government stop protecting that property, but they should go so far as to actively confiscate it.

What I don't support is government bureaucrats deciding that society's interest is supposedly best served by a private entity grabbing up property that is already in perfectly functional use and then giving a section of their profits back to the bureaucrats as bribes. However, I don't support that because it's corruption, not because the actual act of abrogating private property is inherently wrong. Heck, I'm even OK with taking peoples' homes away in order to give them to railroad companies - even though I'd rather that the government built the railroads themselves so that we didn't end up with the current Southern Pacific real estate bullshit. The problem I have is literally just with the blatant corruption.

Still, I'm surprised that people taking a vegetative human and then typing out messages "on their behalf" to credulous media elicited so little comment.

-Username17

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:50 am

FrankTrollman wrote:
Still, I'm surprised that people taking a vegetative human and then typing out messages "on their behalf" to credulous media elicited so little comment.

-Username17

The guy who's been diagnosed as vegetative/comatose for 23 years?

Yeah, that's...pretty freaky. So freaky I'm way out of my depth in venturing any sort of comment as to what's going on there.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:28 am

Maxus wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:
Still, I'm surprised that people taking a vegetative human and then typing out messages "on their behalf" to credulous media elicited so little comment.

-Username17
The guy who's been diagnosed as vegetative/comatose for 23 years?

Yeah, that's...pretty freaky. So freaky I'm way out of my depth in venturing any sort of comment as to what's going on there.

Facilitated Communication is a sham that was created in 1977 in Australia. The idea is that you have a flat touch screen (or just a board with a bunch of letters) and you have a person who can't or won't communicate sitting next to the board. And you have a "facilitator" hold their hand and "interpret" where their hand wants to go and "guide" it to touch the letters in sequence to spell out words and sentences.

But here's the thing: if you blindfold the victim or move the board or both, you get the same level of communication. And if you blindfold the "facilitator" you get gobbledegook. In short: it's been exhaustively proven that the messages are being generated by the "facilitator" not the victim. So these guys in Belgium have trotted out a known fraud to have a confirmed charlatan type out messages on behalf of a man who has been dead for 26 years.

His family went through a horrible trauma, and it took them 23 years to find someone who would tell them their boy was still alive, and now they've found one. They are so happy. It's exactly the kind of miracle they paid to be told had occurred.

-Username17

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:43 am

FrankTrollman wrote:Still, I'm surprised that people taking a vegetative human and then typing out messages "on their behalf" to credulous media elicited so little comment.

I read as far as the socialised medicine section then got sidetracked being pissed at Fox's insistence that not everyone deserves healthcare. Back to the video.

No, his story isn't uplifting, at all. So fail at three seconds. Then we're expected to believe a guy whos been immobile for 23 years has enough motor control to do that so quickly. Somebody sell me a bridge.