we are there

On 3/31/2014 8:25 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 14:38:44 +1100, James
wrote:

On 31/03/14 13:39, John B. wrote:


Right Frank, just as the data proving global warming was out there and
"most scientific minds would say the data are incontrovertible",
right? But unfortunately for your thesis, they now sing a different
song.

Really? What song are they now singing about global temperature change?
Is it going down?

I really don't follow it much but I did come across an article saying
the 500 scientist refute the data that the thesis was based on.

If you google on "global warming data refuted" you'll get some 1.3
million hits, for what ever that is worth :-)


What can you not "google on" and get 1.3 million hits?

Google "Scientists confirm global warming data"

I get

About 15,000,000 results (0.38 seconds)

On 3/31/2014 8:33 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 20:55:14 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Sunday, March 30, 2014 8:50:14 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/30/2014 6:52 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 00:11:18 -0700 (PDT), Dan O wrote:

They're cut from the same cloth - vehemently insisting and apparently
*believing* that their reality is... um, the real one, and that the
others is utter hogwash.

Well, it is a human failing, I suppose. The temptation to believe that
what ever it is that YOU believes is the truth. Look at the things
that people will say to get elected to office.... well perhaps they
don't really believe everything but they will likely fight to prove
they do.... "if it just gets me elected".


Motivation does, indeed, have a strong influence on perceptions of
reality.

It's funny / sad to see people _so sure_ that their reality is, in
fact, real.

Much deleted

The problem, as I see it, is that some, even after their perceptions
are demonstrated false continue to insist that they were correct...
sometimes skewing the equation a bit in an attempt to vindicate
themselves.


Sometime they continue to insist that they are right because they
actually believe it in spite of the data or evidence that proves them
wrong. We call these people zealots.

My experience was that some domestic quarrels tend to be that way.
After you prove, without doubt, that you didn't stop to see Mary Jane,
but were delayed by a flat tire, "and here's the bill to prove it",
that you are still a SOB.


Which illustrates how difficult some things are to prove "without
doubt." Especially to someone who is already convinced.

Sometimes Usenet arguments seem to be the same :-)

On Sunday, March 30, 2014 8:37:00 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
snip

You think that people did not gather and analyze data on whether or not

Vitamin C worked?



We know that vaccinations do

prevent sickness because we tried it and it worked.



You think that people did not gather and analyze data on whether or not

vaccinations worked? And on the incidence of negative side effects from

vaccinations?



Consider one modern vaccination regime - say, the one for pertussis.

How do you suppose they decided it was a good idea, if not by use of

data from a tested population?



Sheesh.

I don't think you're going to get much argument against gravity or the rotation of the earth, but when it comes to personal riding practices, you're going to get disagreement. Riding by the rules is important in most urban settings, but in many parts of Oregon (for example), you could do drunken wheelies while shooting street signs and no one would care, unless you hit a cow. Dan commutes from a very rural area into a relatively dense urban area, and I strongly suspect that he reserves his drunken wheelies for the former and not the latter, particularly since his employer frowns on drunk employees.

Riding a bike is not a hard science. It is not testing vaccines or calculating load limits. It is subject to certain rules (as we've discussed many times), but many of those rules are not based on physical truths. They're based on legislative choices, which can change. You break the rule, you get a ticket -- nothing collapses or explodes. Nobody dies.

In fact, if I rode according to Oregon law in some other states, I would get a ticket (passing on the right is legal in Oregon). If I rode according to Idaho law in Oregon, I would get a ticket (rolling stops). The list goes on. OTOH, if I decided to ride in the middle of the road against traffic, I'd probably get killed, so I avoid doing that -- not because it is against the law, but because it is suicidal.

But, if I were in the middle of Prairie City on a Sunday morning, I could do drunken wheelies the wrong way down Main Street, and no one would care. http://tinyurl.com/k9wnp69 (wheel right up to the ATM). In fact, if I did it on a horse, I would probably get elected mayor.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 3/31/2014 10:27 AM, jbeattie wrote:
snip


I don't think you're going to get much argument against gravity or the rotation of the earth, but when it comes to personal riding practices, you're going to get disagreement. Riding by the rules is important in most urban settings, but in many parts of Oregon (for example), you could do drunken wheelies while shooting street signs and no one would care, unless you hit a cow. Dan commutes from a very rural area into a relatively dense urban area, and I strongly suspect that he reserves his drunken wheelies for the former and not the latter, particularly since his employer frowns on drunk employees.

Riding a bike is not a hard science. It is not testing vaccines or calculating load limits. It is subject to certain rules (as we've discussed many times), but many of those rules are not based on physical truths. They're based on legislative choices, which can change. You break the rule, you get a ticket -- nothing collapses or explodes. Nobody dies.

In fact, if I rode according to Oregon law in some other states, I would get a ticket (passing on the right is legal in Oregon). If I rode according to Idaho law in Oregon, I would get a ticket (rolling stops). The list goes on. OTOH, if I decided to ride in the middle of the road against traffic, I'd probably get killed, so I avoid doing that -- not because it is against the law, but because it is suicidal.

But, if I were in the middle of Prairie City on a Sunday morning, I could do drunken wheelies the wrong way down Main Street, and no one would care. http://tinyurl.com/k9wnp69 (wheel right up to the ATM). In fact, if I did it on a horse, I would probably get elected mayor.

That's a lot of it. In Québec the highway code now prohibits riding
double. We've been stopped and warned in some places so we ride single.
We ride a lot outside of these towns, especially toward Ontario and
through a lot of farmlands. There is very little traffic and we ride
double. It's not legal but there is really no one to care about it.

I guess if some farmer trailing his horses on his tractor got upset
because we spooked one of them, he'd think we were reckless scofflaws
just like Dan. Probably go right to the internet and start posting all
sorts of nasty accusations. Of course we generally fall back to single
when we pass these guys. Horse **** is pretty slippery.

jbeattie writes:

But, if I were in the middle of Prairie City on a Sunday morning, I
could do drunken wheelies the wrong way down Main Street, and no one
would care. http://tinyurl.com/k9wnp69 (wheel right up to the ATM). In
fact, if I did it on a horse, I would probably get elected mayor.

On my ride Saturday I passed a gentleman leading two mules pulling
a wooden wagon going against traffic on highway 67. If he wasn't
drunk he probably should have been.

--
Joe Riel

On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 17:54:52 +0700, John B. wrote:

snip

What never ceases to amaze me is how little so many "experts" know
about DNS, when it has so much to do with things working (or not) -
not just on the internet anymore, either.

Not to argue, but how can you understand the Internet is you don't
know what a DNS is? Gee, it's only been in use for 30 years, or so :-)


Right, it's quite fundamental, and the "experts" I'm talking about
certainly have at least a passing knowledge of the Domain Name System;
but they either don't really understand the significance of even subtle
or insidious DNS problems, or seem to forget and assume the problem is
connectivity.

Well, I suppose that if the DNS breaks down it is sort of a connectivity
problem :-)

DNS is a bit of a weak point. The government round here uses it to
redirect you to their web site telling you that you have tried to access
a banned site like youtube or something. Logging, of course, your ip
address, browser details, operating system etc in the process.

This is an interesting read.

http://compsec101.antibozo.net/paper...ec/dnssec.html
--
davethedave

On 3/31/2014 8:21 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 23:37:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/30/2014 10:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 11:50:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


There are many practical situations where criteria are just as real, but
not settled by single instance tests. For those, truth is often
determined by data and statistics.

This is how we know that mega-doses of vitamin C do not, in fact, cure
cancer. This is how we know that typical vaccinations do far more good
than harm.

No Frank, you are playing with words. We know that Vit C does not cure
cancer because we tried it and it failed.

You think that people did not gather and analyze data on whether or not
Vitamin C worked?

We know that vaccinations do
prevent sickness because we tried it and it worked.

You think that people did not gather and analyze data on whether or not
vaccinations worked? And on the incidence of negative side effects from
vaccinations?

As I said, you play with words.

I'm using words to express ideas. It's the best way I know, at least in
this medium. Some might prefer using interpretive dance, but that's not
one of my skills.

But speaking of "playing with words": My explanation of current
scientific practice is still below, and still not addressed by you. I
talked about modern vaccination, and using disciplined data collection
and analysis to determine its benefits and detriments. Your rebuttal -
regarding smallpox in 1718 - has little to do with modern practice.
Epidemiology was far different in 1718; they didn't even have most of
our modern mathematical tools. Hell, Gauss wasn't even born yet, IIRC.

You've also not addressed your reason for believing the Calvin & Hobbes
theory of bridge capacity calculations.

Again, I've left those "words" below, in case you want to address the
ideas they represent.

To tie this back to Dan and his riding style: We've got some pretty
good data on the causes of car-bike crashes. Dan's no-rules riding
style figures into crash data pretty clearly. So I don't think it's a
good idea to defend wrong-way riding, riding at night without lights,
riding drunk, or "ride-outs" into traffic from sidewalks, driveways,
etc. - all tactics he's bragged about.

- Frank Krygowski



"Vaccination" apparently was first used in either China or India
possibly as long ago as 1,000 BC and we cannot locate any data or
studies performed at that time. In England it began after a woman,
Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, observed smallpox inoculation during her
stay in the Ottoman Empire, writing detailed accounts of the practice
in her letters, and enthusiastically promoted the procedure in England
upon her return in 1718, again no evidence of surveys or data
collection.

So, for Smallpox, we find no evidence of surveys, data collection or
analysis.

For a great many other activities I find no evidence of surveys, data
collection or analysis. I have mentioned the development of the
English of armies largely made up of common people armed with bows and
arrows which so resound trounced the French armies largely made up of
the traditional "gentry and their servants".

Continuing in the same vein I find no evidence that Napoleon conducted
any surveys, nor collected data in coming to the conclusion that
massed artillery was a useful adjunct to the battlefield, nor that the
massed advance of as many as 15,000 men in one formation (at Waterloo
one attack was made by 14,000 men, in one formation) would be so
successful.

So Frank, you can be as cutting and sarcastic as you wish but your
assertion that surveys, collection of data and analysis is critical is
either a smoke screen or evidence of your inability to grasp reality.


Consider one modern vaccination regime - say, the one for pertussis.
How do you suppose they decided it was a good idea, if not by use of
data from a tested population?

Sheesh.

And we know
exactly the same way that we discovered how strong to make my bridge.
We tried it. If it worked we accepted it and if it failed we forgot
it.

I recall a Calvin & Hobbes cartoon, where Calvin asked his dad how they
determined the load limit for a bridge. His dad said "They build the
bridge, then drive heavier and heavier trucks across it. When the
bridge falls in, they weigh the truck and rebuild the bridge."

I didn't realize anyone took that cartoon seriously!

In fact, nearly all of mankind's knowledge was gained by trial and
error, generally painfully.

When mankind first determined whether a particular berry was safe to
eat, they probably did not use data analyzed by statistical means.

We've come a long way. At least, some of us.



--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/31/2014 10:27 AM, jbeattie wrote:

I don't think you're going to get much argument against gravity or the rotation of the earth,
but when it comes to personal riding practices, you're going to get
disagreement.

Oh, certainly! I recall when I was part of a volunteer team doing some
bike safety education at a local school. One parent came up to one of
the volunteers afterward with her kid in hand, and yelled that we were
crazy to tell her kid not to ride facing traffic, and that she would
_never_ allow him to ride on the right side of the road.

Riding by the rules is important in most urban settings, but in
many parts of Oregon
(for example), you could do drunken wheelies while shooting street signs
and no one would care,
unless you hit a cow. Dan commutes from a very rural area into a
relatively dense urban area,
and I strongly suspect that he reserves his drunken wheelies for the
former and not the latter,
particularly since his employer frowns on drunk employees.

First, I agree with your basic premise, that there are times and places
where you can safely ignore laws.

Unfortunately, Dan has bragged about doing drunken wheelies in his town
returning from the grocery. He's also bragged about antics like
catching air riding from a sidewalk into an intersection, startling a
woman sitting in a car, who in his view had no right to be offended. My
impression is that he's not restricting his craziness to isolated areas.
And I've certainly seen similar behavior firsthand, on busy city streets.

Riding a bike is not a hard science. It is not testing vaccines or calculating
load limits. It is subject to certain rules (as we've discussed many
times), but
many of those rules are not based on physical truths. They're based on
legislative
choices, which can change. You break the rule, you get a ticket --
nothing collapses
or explodes. Nobody dies.

In fact, if I rode according to Oregon law in some other states, I would get a ticket
(passing on the right is legal in Oregon). If I rode according to Idaho
law in Oregon,
I would get a ticket (rolling stops). The list goes on.

Again, I agree. And if you took part in serious discussions among
vehicular cyclists, you'd see that there is certainly no belief that the
laws are always correct. This is the main reasons that many cycling
advocates work to have better laws passed. (Coincidentally, I'm in the
middle of such a project regarding local laws.) But see below.

OTOH, if I decided to ride
in the middle of the road against traffic, I'd probably get killed, so I
avoid doing
that -- not because it is against the law, but because it is suicidal.

Bingo. Yet we do get people arguing in favor of behaviors that most of
us would recognize as near-suicidal. (Once their luck runs out and that
behavior progress from "near-suicidal" to actually suicidal, they'll
probably stop their arguments.)

Overall, I don't think much of the idea that everyone's opinion is
equally valid regarding best (or even acceptable) riding techniques.
There really are very smart people who have devoted huge amounts of
personal and professional time to analyzing these issues.

As in many fields, there are points of disagreement, and one can often
identify biases. But I've not seen much evidence that any cyclist's gut
feeling can trump years of analysis by a dedicated group of
collaborating scientists and engineers.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/30/2014 10:38 PM, James wrote:
On 31/03/14 13:39, John B. wrote:


Right Frank, just as the data proving global warming was
out there and
"most scientific minds would say the data are
incontrovertible",
right? But unfortunately for your thesis, they now sing a
different
song.

Really? What song are they now singing about global
temperature change? Is it going down?


It's complex:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...ng-on-mars.htm

Simple answers may not account for all the data.


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

When Frank gives me crap about being "unwilling to learn", because

Well, it is a human failing, I suppose. The temptation to believe that
what ever it is that YOU believes is the truth. Look at the things

The red zone is for emergency vehicles only. There is no stopping in the white zone.

Don't tell -me- which zone is for loading and which is for stopping.