io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 6:05 PM
Tue Dec 15
26 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/07/09
"See you later alligator."
"In a while crocodile."
12/07/09
12/07/09
In fact, I'm not sure of where it comes from in classic Universal Century (UC). In UC Lunar Titanium is renamed to Gundarium alloy after being used to armor the Gundam.
ok. enough Gundam babbling from me.
12/07/09
Thanks io9, for making me fail this semester!!! XD
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
When taking a test, or writing an essay, or even verbally answering something, I would recall various pages in the text, and remember where on the page I had seen it, I.e: pg. 53, 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence. (Even where I had read the passage originally [library, bedroom, etc.]) After that, I could remember the necessary information (or quote) almost verbatim.
12/07/09
sometimes it's called Cathedral Memory...because everyone knew all the different places in a church (nave, apse, altar etc) they could place items to remember is specifics spots...then just walk through their Cathedral to remember things...
12/07/09
12/07/09
12/07/09
I do somewhat of the same thing when I'm memorizing lines (especially from Shakespeare--I mean, I swear Old Bill sometimes didn't write English...) Anyway, I visualize where the line is on the page and it jogs my memory. I also learn the last line of two of someone else's speech that leads into mine. I'm finding that now I don't need to know that I know the line--the line is there, even if I can't remember it until I need it. Mostly I use something that's close to hypnosis--progressive relaxation then repeat the line in my head. just before I go to sleep.
BTW, the guy who's credited with the "memory palace" where objects are associated with furniture, etc. was Simonides of Ceo, back in 500BC.
12/07/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
I will refrain from commenting on those who did their damnedest to ban stem cell research.
12/02/09
12/03/09
This joke was written in 1999
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
I am kind of surprised Dryel isn't bigger, though -- being able to dry clean your clothes at home is much less expense and hassle than taking them out.
12/02/09
Elitist much? Man. You guys are embarrassing yourselves. And your readers. Let it go. You were wrong. It's ok. You'll find a new cause that makes mankind the most evil force on the planet. Just not global warming. You'll find something to hate, don't worry.
When Jon Stewart gets involved, you know you're in trouble:
[www.youtube.com]
12/02/09
Oh, wait, are we supposed to skip that part of the video or what?
12/02/09
Why would you skip that part of the video? The point was that if Jon Stewart is reporting on it a couple weeks after the story broke, then it is filtering it's way into the "main stream", and once that happens, it's in trouble. Maybe you thought I was making a different point. I guess from your perspective I could ask, "so what you only watched the end of the video? Are we supposed to skip the whole first portion?"
Hell the guy that is the main prof. at that university "stepped aside" to allow an "independent review". Whole thing is crumbling.
Jon Stewart not wanting to completely alienate the non-scientific AGW people has no bearing on that.
12/02/09
I am a scientist AND and engineer.
Kindly shut the fuck up.
12/02/09
..and a total dumbass. This is the web. For all I know you're a prison inmate. Make a point or STFU.
12/02/09
Question: if the independent review of CRU's data/methods/whatever shows that they didn't cook their books (or whatever it is you are accusing them of doing), will that change your opinion on anything relating to climate science?
Full disclosure: if the independent review shows they did cook their books... then I'll say their data sucks and be more skeptical about data modeling in general. Then it's you folks' work to discredit the next two places:
• The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Asheville, NC, USA.
• The Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), part of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) in New York.
12/03/09
12/03/09
"I am a scientist AND and engineer.
Kindly shut the fuck up "
If so, you should well know that science isn't based upon "I know what I'm doing, believe my words by faith.". Tour comment is about the most anti-scientific thing you could have said.
-Kle.
12/03/09
12/03/09
The conspiracy theorists would be ecstatic: "See! They faked it all! This proves it, you all doubted me, but who's the dumb one now!"
Meanwhile, any rational observer without a preconceived bias would think, "Okay, someone MAY have done some unethical and/or shoddy science, but we don't even know if that invalidates their point. Even if it does, it would make those individuals guilty of a serious scientific fraud, but how does that erase all the other evidence that we went to the moon? And wouldn't it require a vast and unusually tight-lipped conspiracy to completely fabricate something on that scale? These new letters don't make that noticeably more likely."
The only differences here are that 1) the evidence in this case is all tables of numbers and squiggly lines on graphs and statistical tests, which is harder for non-scientists/statisticians to appreciate the strength of, and 2) that unlike the Moon Landing Conspiracy theory, the Climate Change Conspiracy theory has enormous political and economic interests invested in selling it to the lay public as credible.
I hadn't realized that this whole thing had reached Moon Landing proportions until recently, but at this point it's not worth engaging actual conspiracy theorists directly... they don't have questions about science, they have absolute faith in the truth of their theories, and you can't argue with that.
12/03/09
Now you get my "context".
12/03/09
LOL! Al Gore cancels Copenhagen appearance:
[wattsupwiththat.com]
12/03/09
At the same time, "Nice Try?" I'm being completely serious, whenever someone says "Elite" these days they're either using it to describe a species of alien or as a wholly contemptible attribute, in my experience.
12/03/09
As far as "wholly contemptible attribute", that's pretty on the money. "Context" is the buzz word the AGW people are using to try to make it sound like the lies and deceit in the emails weren't really lies and deceit when you look at it under the appropriate "context", which I'm sure, they are going to try to articulate some day.
In the mean time, Al Gore canceled his Copenhagen event. GW is over as an issue.
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/04/09
Because conspiracy theorists don't subscribe to a scientific worldview.
Scientists really ought to.
-Kle.
12/04/09
An aside (not necessarily @cylon_conspiracy):
I had a roommate in college who was a biology major... who was also a creationist. She honestly believed that the Earth was ~6,000 years old, and that dinosaurs were faked by scientists (kinda like global warming). I asked her, shockingly when I found out, how she could believe that.
Her answer was that there was one bug, a stink beetle I believe, that she was convinced couldn't come from evolution. Therefore all the other mountains of evidence were a lie, and she clinged to this one book by one biologists somewhere (who mentioned the beetle in question) as proof.
That kind of how I see climate change deniers. There are mountains of evidence, yet they cling to the very small, fringe sector as their proof. It's frustrating, and I don't get it, but I imagine it's somewhat similar to what people had to go through when evolution was the big science "conspiracy."
12/04/09
It may sound difficult to accept, but unless you're fluent in scientific reasoning and mathematics, you will never understand what a scientist or an engineer is telling you.
12/04/09
BTW "denier" is a term that traditionally applies to the holocaust. Be wary of cheapening it.
You guys are going to have to find another insult... holocaust denier, creationist...time for some new material. None of it is actually true, so it doesn't hurt as much as you'd like.
Rex Murphy on Climategate:
[www.youtube.com]
12/05/09
You don't get that you're being made fun of? For the exact reaction you are having right now? Seriously?
Well, thanks for the laugh. Especially about claiming "denier" is a term exclusively reserved for the Holocaust. I almost coughed a jalapeno popper out my nose.
Tell you what, I'll continue this conversation with you, if you can honestly answer 2 questions:
1) What is the ring data they are talking about?
2) What is the real data that was added?
Two very, very simple questions. Let's go from there. If you can answer them, then I will have an honest debate with you about this.
12/06/09
"It may sound difficult to accept, but unless you're fluent in scientific reasoning and mathematics, you will never understand what a scientist or an engineer is telling you."
Right.
So, stop screaming at the person who doesn't understand your language. It demeans you. It especially demeans you (and undermines your position) when you argue in a manner anathema to your purported philosophy.
-Kle.
12/06/09
I am railing against uninformed extremists who think that they are the authority in science. That is why I mentioned language.
Language such as "The trick to calculating the forces on an undefined beam is to set one support of the beam to a rolling point and the other to a fixed point, and then traverse through each support until all unknown forces have been calculated"
If I try to say that to someone who doesn't know what Im talking about, how will they even understand those emails that they're reading?
In fact, didn't you notice how out of hundreds of emails, only a handful are being touted as vindication for the conspiracy theorists?
If you are indeed a believer in skepticism, doesn't this evidence point to a systematic failure in determining the importance of these emails?
12/07/09
Look, maybe I can make you understand, but I'm beginning to think that you're just too rigid to grasp anything that isn't immediately obvious to you. Here goes again, though.
I'm not arguing about the famous ACC e-mails.
I'm saying that what you are doing here is the equivalent of going down to the bus station and screaming at crazy homeless people. Not much point to that, really, and it makes you look crazy, too.
-Kle.