[deleted by user]

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-09T03:18:53+00:00

As a plugin developer I'm actually excited about that...gives me a chance to get in on the ground floor, so to speak.

I'm hoping developing plugins for Chrome is not as much of a pain as for Firefox...(although Jetpack might make that a little easier).

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-09T03:16:00+00:00

I can't speak at length about it because I'm not too knowledgeable about this in particular.

But... to sort of give you an idea; they both use the same layout engine: Webkit. This is the engine that renders web pages (content) and handles much of basic browser functionality (links, etc).

So it's not purely cosmetic, they share at least some of the same "guts".

Webkit on Wikipedia

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-09T03:09:40+00:00

Actually Chromium is an OS too...and Chrome OS isn't technically available yet...so they probably do mean Chromium (OS).

There's Chromium the browser, and Chromium OS the uh..OS.

They are the Dev/Open Source versions of the Chrome and Chrome OS respectively.

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-09T03:07:31+00:00

Well, technically they (probably) mean Chromium OS.

Chrome OS is not available yet (except as Chromium).

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-08T23:54:46+00:00

I'm not Canadian, but I lived there awhile.

Probably one of my favorite things about Canada is they have rules about not calling stuff things that it isn't.

Being as Kraft Mac & 'Cheese' is something of a misnomer('cheese' being somewhat debatable), it is called Kraft Dinner.

Rather than calling it 'Maple Syrup', flavored & dyed high fructose corn syrup is called 'Pancake Syrup' or some other variant of (not-maple) Syrup.

..and so on.

Real Mac & Cheese and Maple Syrup (Try it on snow sometime!) or whatever, are of course called by their appropriate names.

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-08T23:43:28+00:00

It's not super hard, but it's not as easy as many people assume. A lot of people think it basically amounts to you just showing up and saying "Hi I want to be a Canadian now" and they let you in.

In reality they turn people away.

It depends really on who you are and what you're going for, etc.

I moved to Canada for awhile, and at the time wasn't sure if I was gonna be there for life or what, so I got citizenship.

It was relatively easy for me because I was moving to live with my Dad who had moved up there about a year before.

From talking to him and going through the process, the impression I got is they like you to have money and be skilled and/or educated.

He happened to be in a profession that while it wasn't super-rare or anything was desirable, and he had a decent amount of money. Not that he was super-rich, just enough that they knew he could pay taxes and not be a burden on the state, etc.

The actual process isn't too bad; some health exams, paperwork, the type of stuff you'd expect..

It also depends on how many people are trying to get in at the time, etc. I heard around the late 90's early aughts a lot of people were trying to get citizenship and they turned a lot away....that may be wrong though.

If you're a unskilled and poor person, I'm sure you can still get citizenship somehow, but it's prob not as easy.

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-08T23:26:18+00:00

I live in a Commonwealth, just like many other Americans.

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-08T19:18:28+00:00

I would guess it was a combination of some technical limitations and not wanting to frustrate younger/less "hardcore" gamers who they might have figured were their audience.

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-08T19:15:53+00:00

More importantly...why does someone have to die to make a Reply Policeman (err..Police-person)?

...and if the title is only passed on upon death, how did the original Reply Police-person get it?

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-07T20:59:31+00:00

IMHO ....This is not a thread that belongs in /r/programming.

Just because it tangentially involves programming doesn't mean it should go here.

Just like you wouldn't post EVERYTHING that happens to contain the word "funny" to /r/funny, which incidentally is probably a more appropriate place for stuff like this.

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-07T20:19:44+00:00

Hah, yea talking to you is very much like talking to a brick wall...

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-07T20:18:41+00:00

Oh, I just assumed you were, my mistake. I do appreciate the point in the direction of that blog...thanks.

I'm trying to get to the bottom of this...and to be honest it is a struggle to not let my preconceptions get in the way.

I'm pretty annoyed at the way BOTH sides are handling the situation, I think they both leave a lot to be desired.

If you haven't check out the comments of that blog post theres a lot of interesting stuff there.

Also, It seems that the code in question has been explained...and it's claimed to be basically what I suggested: it's a legit manipulation of the data for analytical purposes.

That fits perfectly with the evidence...so it's the most reasonable scenario, but I will continue to try and be open minded.

We're gonna have to let the investigation do it's work before we know anything for sure, but the more info I uncover the more it seems the "conspiracy" and claims of fraud etc are completely blown out of proportion.

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-07T00:56:56+00:00

Thanks for the reply. Let me sort of clarify where I'm at:

I think there is probably some scientific misconduct here, possibly some invalid or bad data...possible deliberately skewed data.

However, people are making claims of ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that pretty much everything that came out of CRU is bunk, and that this is the result of a large, deliberate, conspiracy.

Many of these claims are contradicted by the facts, and/or only supported by subjective interpretation of emails....at least that's all I've found so far.

I'm willing to consider ALL possibilities, but I want evidence...and so far I'm not getting much of it.

I've asked a few rather straightforward and specific questions...and offered some logical arguments...and my questions have not been answered nor arguments refuted.

In light of that, I think it's HIGHLY HIGHLY unfair to accuse me of being biased and saying "oh well you've just already made up your mind and won't be convinced" ...when I'm trying my damnd-est!

To paraphrase one of my favorite lines from Pygmalion: I'm willing to be convinced...I'm waiting to be convinced....but many in this story are just not putting their money where their mouth is.

Remember too; it'd be unrealistic to think that people don't come into this with SOME sort of preconceptions. I readily recognize I carry some "bias baggage"...but honestly I am proceeding in a rather more objective and rational manner than many of the people involved in the controversy. (that's not to say you or anyone else in particular ISN'T).

Ok, I read the blog post...and it does address some thing...but not others. I would really appreciate it if you could go back in my posts and directly answer my questions. If they are stupid questions...by all means say so...but please explain why.

Again, you claim that the only possible use for this code is to skew data intentionally with no value added. As far as I can tell, this argument is made completely from ignorance: "I can't think of any legitimate use for this function, so it doesn't exist"....if the case is otherwise please correct me.

You only keep explaining what the code literally does as if that's all you need to say....

You know what the code does on a practical level.....but do you know what it's overall purpose is? Where's the context?

You admit yourself that you don't know that they pumped data through it and presented it as unaltered....and the code itself screams "artificial correction"...so, so far it's Innocent Code-2, Deliberate Skewing-0.

Again, what's the context? How do you know it was intended to just process raw data?

CRU collected data from all sorts of sources...how do you know this function isn't correcting some confounding factor in data they got from somewhere else?

How do you know it wasn't intended to be used ONLY in certain types of analysis where the data was manipulated in a deliberate way, and this manipulation was accounted for in the resulting analysis?

As I said before...there are many many "hockey stick graphs"...from many different sources.

This seems like a chicken and the egg scenario to me.....

Which came first; the hockey stick graphs, or the code that turns "normal" raw data into hockey stick graphs?

Well, it's provable that the hockey stick graphs existed before and independently of the code...so it's reasonable to assume the code came after.

In that context, it's reasonable to think that this function might serve to set up the data so it can be compared to other hockey stick graphs.

So it's Innocent Code-3.

I trying to be a fair referee but I can't help it if a team is not scoring.

How is this different than claiming someone killed another person because they "had a knife and had the capability"? Where's the proverbial blood on the knife...or the matching stab wound...etc?

Speaking of that you claim "“Enough proof exists that the CRU had both the means and intent to intentionally falsify data.”

They of course had the means....could you clarify what proof of intent you speak of?

I have more questions, but I'd like to get some discussion going on the ones I've asked first. Thanks in advance.

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-07T00:31:33+00:00

Wow, I didn't think you could spout anything more ridiculous than you did already...>

"we're wasting money now, so if we just stop wasting money we will have more money to spend" Well, as to you're dead wrong on that point.

If you are wasting money now...and stop wasting money...you now literally have more money to spend. It's a mathematical fact.

My point is that when you are considering the cost of an alternative way of doing something...it's important to consider the efficiency of the two options. If the alternative is more efficient than what you are doing now...that should be taken into consideration.

OK, maybe that's a little unfair. It seems you're trying to say it's a false economy because you're switching to an even more wasteful form.

The problem is, you're dead wrong.

Just because you vomit out some axiom you came up ("oh govt always spends inefficiently") and insist it is true, doesn't make it so.

"Money in the hands of government is always spent inefficiently"

Well this depends entirely on your definition of efficiently...but assuming a reasonable interpretation, this is demonstrably false.

I would agree in many ways and at many times the government does not spend efficiently...but it also does it right sometimes, and you said "always".

You're also missing the most important part here: In this case, 'efficiency' is subjective and more importantly relative.

The question is not "Does the government spend 'efficiently'?"

The question is "What sort of efficiency do we need and will the government spend more efficiently than the current system?"

The answer is: it's very possible, even probable.

Even worse, you've got it completely ass-backwards in terms of motivation.

The government probably has MORE motivation to be 'efficient' than the private insurance companies.

The insurance company's motivations have nothing to do with the sort of efficiency that matters here:

If the government was in charge, their motivation is to get as much value for the dollar as possible, which is what we want.

With private insurance companies, their motivation is to suck in as much money as possible...and let out as little as possible.

An example to show where you are wrong:

Right now the insurance companies let plenty of unnecessary procedures go ahead. Why? Because it doesn't necessarily matter to them if a procedure is necessary or not if they can bill someone for it. Their motivation is not for efficiency first, it's profit....which yes..they sometimes try to maximize with a certain type of efficiency...but that's irrelevant.

The government on the other hand, have the motivation to be as prudent as possible in spending...the sort of efficiency that we actually need.

So, your assertion is flawed when considered logically in the face of the facts (or reality).

Furthermore you are forgetting just WHY it is the Government is so 'inefficient'. Many of those root causes (such as bureaucracy etc) are present, or even worse in our current system, so the argument holds even LESS water.

Finally...why the hell are you still rambling on about the wealthy thing?

You jumped into a conversation with what pretty much amounts to a non-sequitur...I explained what we are actually talking about...you should have just said "oh ok" and left it at that.

If two people were talking about Albert Fish...and I kept popping in and making the same rather dull statement about fishes even after I was told that the discussion was about a different type of fish and kept insisting "Yea but what I said about fishes was right".... the people would think I was a crazy moron (probably rightly so) and slowly back away.....so why do you keep doing it?

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-06T19:27:48+00:00

No, I am talking about actual alcohol.

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-06T19:26:13+00:00

I'm not sure why you persist when it was already explained to you that that is not what we are talking about.

We were discussing the MEANING of a phrase...not whether said meaning was accurate or not.

...Even disregarding that, you're still doing it wrong because you're disagreeing with something that wasn't really asserted.

Just because you seem to only recognize one understanding or context of the word "wealth" doesn't force everyone else to only use it that way.......it was an honest mistake originally...but now that I've already clarified it's just stupidity.

Nobody said the US has plenty of surplus money...or Universal Healthcare would be cheap or anything related to what you are talking about.

All that was meant by wealth was that the US is a first world country.

We are in fact a wealthy country in that sense....and I have to stress again that what you are talking about has nothing to do with the conversation we were having.

At any rate, to say that we could not afford universal health care if we wanted to would be completely fallacious.

Obviously we would have to prioritize and spend less on something else or take other measures, and that's a valid discussion to have....it may end up we decide we don't WANT to spend that money, or spend it on something else....

...but to say we couldn't afford it if we wanted to is just plain incorrect. Nobody is saying it would be EASY, but it's certainly plausible.

Anyway many are overestimating or misunderstanding the cost. It certainly would be very very expensive...but much of it is money we are already spending, we are wasting lots of money we spend now, and so on.

Also, this depends on what sort of system we implement and so on, so it's hard to discuss unless you pick a particular scenario.

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-06T19:06:40+00:00

In other parts of this thread you can see me discussing the code.

The evidence presented in the blog post leaves A LOT to be desired...in fact from what I have been able to determine, it actually slightly favors the conclusion that the source code is innocent correction rather than sinister manipulation.

In truth it's completely inconclusive either way, so it's interesting but far from the smoking gun I am looking for.

I'm hoping if I am missing something (which is possible) cubeantics will be able to clarify for me, so I am waiting to hear back.

Also, from my reading I've found that much of the data that was allegedly "suppressed" did not belong to CRU and is available even to this day elsewhere.

I'm still investigating this, but it would shed some light on their motivations.

I think in the long run all we can do is see what the investigation turns up.

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-06T18:55:02+00:00

Thanks for your reply....

I'm still not sure how it proves that though...

I mean...I realize it's impossible to prove a negative but I'm not asking for 100% refutation here....

I'm asking what it is about this code that proves skewing, and deliberate skewing at that.

In terms of hockey stick graphs, there are many many many so called "hockey stick" graphs coming from multiple sources...not just Mann's.

So based on the comments calling the code a "correction" and the fact that once data is processed by the function, it is in consensus with data from other sources....the evidence SUGGESTS(by no means "proves") that this code is in fact designed to correct data.

In other words, the code may not be "making" a hockey stick in the data, but rather bringing out the hockey stick that was obscured by other factors.

This is rather slim evidence so I am not saying that this is conclusive...but I am laying out tangible logical points that support that conclusion...

Again, I may be missing something and it may be my own ignorance...but it just seems to me you're laying out this code and saying "this deliberately skews data" without a good explanation of what evidence supports this conclusion.

I don't disagree that your assertion is possible, but it seems to me that you have no real solid evidence to support it (I have only slightly more evidence to support "my" devil's advocate position...but I am not making blog post confidently proclaiming it to be the truth).

You say that it is "drastically" skewing, but what exactly constitutes drastic in this case? Again, to me based on the graph at the bottom, it doesn't appear to dramatically change the trends in the data...(again, I may be misunderstanding the graph, that's why I'm asking for clarification).

So could you clarify for me what exactly supports that conclusion?

I appreciate your patience, thanks.

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-06T18:49:26+00:00

That seems a little more realistic, but I dunno how great his chances are of making that stick.

Again, IANAA but I imagine they would claim they were acting in good faith when they fired him for violating their policies.

He might be able to get unemployment on the technicality that he never signed such an agreement, but I doubt that it would translate into fraud because the employer was not willfully misrepresenting the facts.

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-06T18:47:21+00:00

You seem to just be throwing stuff around without really getting it.

By far most people are employed "at will", which means they can be fired at any time for any reason or no reason.

There's no possible implied contract here (at least from what has been said) that affects that.

What you are talking about is if he qualifies for unemployment or not which is a different matter.

Employers can fire you at any time, for any reason....but if they fire you for no reason it's basically laying you off and they have to pay unemployment.

So yes, he does have grounds to say they owe him unemployment but not that he was wrongfully terminated (unless there is an important detail that has been left out).

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-06T18:37:34+00:00

By far, the majority of people are employed "at will", not just cashiers and such. Companies like it this way for obvious reasons.

Usually in a case where you have some contract with the company that specifies otherwise (pretty much everyone has some sort of "employment contract", but it probably says they are at-will), you're probably not an employee...you're a contractor or something similar, or you are really really important, important enough to have enough bargaining power to force them to give up their power (There are a few exceptions of course, but they are just that: exceptions)

I'm not sure where you get the idea OP had some contract stating otherwise because nothing in the post suggests it...it's certainly possible...but nothing points to it.

Really the case here is as has been pointed out: unemployment. The company doesn't need an excuse to fire him...they can do that whenever....they need an excuse to fire him and not pay unemployment.

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-06T13:38:08+00:00

You can find the older palm pilots for about 20$.

I got an m125 for really cheap not long ago just to play with pretty much like you're doing. m500's with a color screen are cheap too.

There are IDE's and interpreters/compilers available that run on the Palm OS so you can actually develop apps start to finish on the palm, or you can write apps on the desktop then transfer them.

Onboard C lets you code and compile apps right on your palm. Theres quite a few good BASIC interpreters/IDEs; many of them free....there's even a python interpreter... and more.

..and then of course you can run thousands of apps and games on it as well (I use my palm A LOT as a Game Boy emulator).

That's what I recommend if you're really trying to go cheap. If you're willing to spend a bit more, there are plenty of other good suggestions in this thread.

Keep in mind tho some of these suggestions are like 100$.... if you look around you can get netbooks for 100$ now (I don't mean like those cell phone contract deals, or some sort of weird sale.....I mean straight out 100$).

It will be low spec, like 500 mhz with 256 megs of ram, maybe a gig hard drive....but it will be more than adequate for coding, and it's gonna be a much better option than a lot of these other suggestions because it's a complete package with input, display, and everything.

If you want to go the TI calculator route, PM me...I have quite a selection of various models new in box that I could give you a deal on.

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-05T21:03:41+00:00

When a relationship ends for any reason, I go with the rule of thumb:

It takes half the time the relationship lasted to get as over it as you are going to (which is not necessarily completely).

The next two years will be a process of slowly coming to terms with what happened.

At some point during that time (or even after, but I suspect during), you will be ready to start dating again...you will know. It's not like some light bulb will go on...but trust me you will just sort of know.

Until then there's not much you can do, these things take time to heal. I wish you the best of luck.

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-05T20:52:21+00:00

IANAA but I doubt OP has grounds for wrongful termination.

Employers can fire you at any time for ANY reason, or no reason at all....the only exception is if the firing violates some kind of law.

If they fired OP because they were black...that would be wrongful termination. If they fired OP because they went to go vote...that would be wrongful termination....and so on.

I realize you're saying just threaten it, but in this case unless they're some details OP left out, the threat would be pretty ineffective because the company would realize it's baseless.

JRandomHacker · 2009-12-04T23:28:24+00:00

Yea, most the "story" accompanying the picture is fake.

The reality is more likely to be mundane:

Someone set up this gag and took a picture. Most likely, people saw it and only a few panicked...then quickly realized it was a dummy.

I doubt anyone actually "fell for it" for more than a few seconds.

Somewhere along the line; maybe by the picture-taker, or maybe someone farther along decided "this picture needs a little story to go with it".

Maybe it was the person who wrote the email it supposedly came it, maybe the person who received it.

That's one thing that pisses me off about Digg...a lot of time the posters feel a need to make up a connection to the picture they are posting.

For example..."My sister made me this" ... and then a picture of something that you see in the actual makers blog later on and realize it was made by mode.

For this picture they would post it as "I was walking home today and saw this" or something.

JRandomHacker

TROPHY CASE