Back around '95 I was working as an electronics technician for an outfit called Securitec down in Scottsdale. They made digital and analog alarm systems based on their own original designs. They would abrade the labels off the TTL chips before they'd ship the units just to make a slightly harder to copy.
One day we received several units in a box to repair. At first I thought they were older versions that I hadn't seen before. They were identical visually but they were made from seriously crappy materials. El-cheapo uncoated circuit boards and paper thin keypad membranes that had all torn. They had the company name on them but the chips hadn't been abraded and the soldering and component placement looked like a ten year old had built them.
Turns out it was some outfit in Israel (!?) that was selling the knock offs, which due to the company name being on them, would be shipped back to us for repairs when they failed. It was a very small company and the owner couldn't even think about the cost of suing in a foreign country. The damage to the company reputation was already done with the inferior hardware, all the owner could do is ship them back brand new replacements for the knock offs.
The thing is, that's capitalism. The teapublibertarians say they want markets with absolutely no government interference, well, that's what zero regulation begets, a frantic race to the least common denominator. The sleaziest and most underhanded people/companies win.
There's a difference between competition and parasitism. The problem is that competition is in the middle of a spectrum, not one end. If you go too far one way you have cheap ripoffs actually destroying the value of the original product and brand. If you go to far the other way you end up with the ridiculous situation we have in the USA where IP law has become a highly effective tool for suppressing both legitimate competition and parasites.
Can't lean against either wall, gotta balance somewhere in the middle.
Unless of course we adopt the Soviet method: "You, you, you and you, go to the factory in Siberia and produce 3,409 pens for our 2014 quota. That will be a glorious year for writing the praises of Putin, and for drawing moustaches on photos of that guy with the funny spot on his head"
Nope, it's rarely the odometer that's wrong. Speedometers are usually off especially on motorcycles, but the odometers are just about spot on (unless tire sizes or wheel sizes are changed). People bitch if the odometers are off because it affects warranty coverage and resale value, but my Honda CRV is the only vehicle I've ever seen with a pretty accurate speedo.
One source of error is in the math/probability/accuracy. Draw a 30' radius circle (approximate GPS accuracy) around the middle of each turn in a switchback or 90 degree corner. How much of that circle falls outside of the path traveled and how much falls inside? That corresponds to the probability that any GPS error will add rather than subtract from the actual distance traveled. Sharp switchbacks result in an 80-90% chance that it's going to record a longer distance traveled.
Likewise the GPS doesn't account for elevation changes. Obviously if you ride a mile up or down a steep grade, the distance between the GPS position at the beginning and end is not going to equal the actual distance traveled since the vehicle traveled at an angle.
I've done short (38 mile) and long (5,000+ mile) rides and the error is consistent and predictable. The straighter the road the smaller the error.
A GPS isn't accurate enough by itself to be trusted for important distance measurements. It's more noticeable/obvious/critical to off-road motorcycle riders with small gas tanks, limited amount of reserve fuel and the potential for being stranded in the middle of nowhere if distance measurements aren't reasonably accurate.
Anyone who has used GPS to track distance and compared it to an accurate odometer knows it does not keep accurate track of miles traveled. The errors can be significant if there are lots of changes of direction in the road. For example riding my motorcycle on Forest Service roads with lots of switchbacks and tight curves in the mountains the miles traveled can be significantly different than odometer (roughly 2 to 3 miles in a 60 mile ride. A potential for 3% to 5% error seems a bit loose to be billing people on, particularly if the company finds out that specific routes always tend to appear longer.
Still, government should only be allowed to specify the required accuracy of the measurement, not the technology used to measure. That's the problem with the scumbags writing the laws, they aren't trying to regulate what should be, they're trying to dictate what must be.
The arguments about trains/airplanes/trucks don't hold water IMO. Short distance on zig-zag routes in cities don't compare to the 100 to 3,000 mile relatively straight-line trips typically made by trains, planes and over-the-road trucks.
I see thousands of guidelines written for all sorts of user interfaces and recommended practices for use of all sorts of devices. I don't see too many lawsuits brought. Doesn't look endemic to me.
As I stated in my other response, I have more faith in designers and creative people than you do. I think it's a false dichotomy to state "the UI either has to be like it is or else it will be stupid". There are other possible outcomes.
You accuse them of faking data yet you don't cite any specifics. Cite something specific.
Why would you specifically claim that a specific source have manufactured data and then cite data from an anonymous source?
As it happens, I have a small bit of experience in UI design and a tiny bit of creativity in my head, so I can think of at least a couple of ways of reducing things. The most obvious one is to translate the visual image that people can't simply look at and know when an update is coming, into a time until next update. If they've programmed a route, instead of constantly updating the map display the time until the next waypoint/turn/guidance will be given. People can look at a display once and can roughly estimate one minute or 4 minutes or whatever it is, and they won't waste their time continually looking down to see if they are approaching a turn.
May or may not work but at least I don't immediately take the defeatist "Oh, gee, they've told us not to supply more information than needed, I guess we better give up and make a really stupid UI". Here in the US we've had that throw-the-hands-in-the-air attitude from the American automobile, steel and energy industry for as long as I've been alive and it has always turned out to be wrong.
Maybe rather than detracting from their credibility they add to it by giving UI designers more credit for creativity than you do.
Why don't tachometers and speedometers display in 1/100ths of an RPM/mile/kilometer? Because it's too much information and it isn't useful. Why should a GPS show 1/100th of a mile position updates? It's too much information and it isn't useful.
...but I always thought the word "Guidelines" (as used in the title of the document) meant "here are some things to consider in these situations".
That gets followed by tirade upon tirade of doubtlessly bad drivers railing against being controlled and being forced to confront the existence of well established safety issues.
People, they're guidelines, not laws. They've presented the information that they have in a manner they hope will help people make decisions. Maybe they went into too much detail, maybe they didn't clearly identify what was well established science and what is logical inference. That's no excuse for your hypersensitivity about your bad driving habits to suddenly explode on the interwebs.
It's a fact that information overload from instruments causes distraction that leads to mistakes and accidents. It's something that affects airline and fighter pilots so if you're claiming that your "skillz" are superior to theirs, well, please excuse me while I snort some of my oatmeal out the left nostril.
They're guidelines. They're meant to apply to the average person/average driver. It wasn't tailored for technologically astute and better-than-average education types that read TechDirt, though I wonder how good that education was when people go off on a tirade on such a small matter.
At least stop crying about how some recommendations are going to render GPS "useless". There are technological solutions, like, oh, say allowing people to customize the display and have "inner city", "highway" and "walking" display modes or something insanely outrageous like that. Then people who want to follow the guidelines and reduce risk can do so without upsetting all of the thousands of "aces" driving their cars who demand to be free to drive in any manner they want regardless of the potential costs to others who are forced to share the highways with them.
I use a GPS, both in car and on my motorcycle, and I use the dynamic display on it. I have the common sense to not try and read it when I'm riding 100+mph down a gravel road (which happens far more often than I would like my insurance agent to know) but my knowledge and self control does not somehow magically change the fact that it's better and safer to minimize the distractions for drivers and riders.
I guess I have more confidence in my riding and driving skills than the complainers as I don't feel threatened in the least by evidence or logical inference. I simply take it into consideration and use it to make informed decisions.
Yeah, only $7,000 and then the cheap bastards will whine about the $1,500/yr support subscription, the $2,000 for major version upgrades every 18 months and the $49/month access fee to be able to see their own data, the requirement for extra-cost mobile connections if they want to use the device while on vacation, and the $13.98/minute charge if they use the device more than the maximum allowed 26.38 minutes per day, and the excess data charges if they use it to convey more than 63 words per day.
I can't believe people just don't appreciate what the litigious amoral corporations do for them. Those people get *everything* that the corporations feel like offering to them at a price that's only 8 or 10 times what it would be if they didn't hold a government enforced monopoly *and* the users get to view a really spiffy logo and some heart rending photographs accompanied by paragraphs of sentimental prose on the company website!
BRB. I think I've just poked a hole in my cheek, I better go check because if I throw up in my mouth again it might leak...
Appare ntly Heartland folks have equal levels of competence and ethics.
I'll leave us to PT to tell us whether that's a libelous statement or not :)
(every time I see a post from PT I think of the Robin Williams/Shelley Duvall movie "Popeye" where Mr. Oyl is always muttering "You owe me an apology". It's very similar, except of course the fact that "Popeye" was a comedy)
Your "theory" seems to have a few flaws that make it a complete non-starter.
a) A scientific theory is backed by evidence. Random conjecture with no evidence to support it is not scientific.
b) I've never actually attended a college but even I know that basic logic says that you cannot prove a negative, thus your demand for proof of a negative is about as unscientific as it's possible to get.
c) Calling it science when you casting doubt on it and then calling it pseudo-science in the very same post is... uh... rather obvious.
d) No, science cannot "prove just about anything you want". Science cannot prove *anything* at all. All science can tell us is what is the most likely explanation of the natural world.
e) Do you fly on airplanes, drive a car, use a microwave oven, radio or TV? Do you allow your body to be subjected to X-rays, CAT scans, MRIs? To steal a line from Dawkins, if you do then you're a complete hypocrite. Those are all based on scientific theories and all of them were designed based on models. Models of turbulence, models of atomic structure, models of electromagnetic fields, they work. So do climate models. If you trust the models and the scientific process to get it right when your ass is suspended 30,000 feet above the ground then you're a complete hypocrite if you don't trust the scientific process to get it right on the ground.
Don't trust the scientists, trust the scientific process. It works, we have hundreds of years worth of absolute proof that it works. The models of gravity worked well enough to get us to the moon and back, the models of climate are reasonably accurate and they are rapidly improving in quality.
The science is always going to be closer to the truth than any other source, especially when compared to random blather from sensationalist media websites and uneducated, self-promoting book authors who know as much about science as I know about knitting.
Opposition to evolution and embrace of "intelligent design"
Spencer has been an active in advocating Intelligent Design over evolution, and argued in 2005 that its teaching should be mandatory in schools. Working with the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, Spencer has been part of an effort to advocate environmental policy that is based on a "Biblical view" rather than science. As a defender of "Intelligent Design" creationism, Spencer has asserted that the scientific theory of evolution is really just a kind of religion.
View: creation has a better scientific basis
In the book The Evolution Crisis Spencer is quoted as saying:
"I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world..." 
Spencer's arguments in The Great Global Warming Blunder were critiqued extensively in a three-part series by Utah geochemist Barry Bickmore,,.
"In the book, Spencer says:
I find it difficult to believe that I am the first researcher to figure out what I describe in this book. Either I am smarter than the rest of the world’s climate scientists–which seems unlikely–or there are other scientists who also have evidence that global warming could be mostly natural, but have been hiding it. That is a serious charge, I know, but it is a conclusion that is difficult for me to avoid. (p. xxvii)
"But as Arthur Smith pointed out, after addressing the problems with Spencer's model, "... The first thing a true scientist should think of in a situation like this doesn't seem to have even occurred to Spencer. "What if I'm wrong?"
July 2011 Spencer & Braswell paper in Remote Sensing (not a climate journal)
In July 2011 a paper coauthored by Spencer was published in Remote Sensing, "[which is] a fine [peer-reviewed] journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science". AP science writer Seth Borenstein reported,
"[Spencer's] research looked at cause and effect of clouds and warming. Contrary to the analysis of a majority of studies, his found that for the past decade, variations in clouds seemed more a cause of warming than an effect. More than anything, he said, his study found that mainstream research and models don't match the 10 years of data he examined. Spencer's study concludes the question of clouds' role in heating "remains an unsolved problem."
By Heartland, Fox: paper demolishes climate consensus
The paper was interpreted by Fox News and the Heartland Institute as casting doubt on climate predictions.,.
By climate scientists - fatally flawed study
"Errors identified by climate scientists "...range from the trivial (using the wrong units for the radiative flux anomaly), to the serious (treating clouds as the cause of climate change, rather than resulting from day-to-day weather; comparing a 10 year observational period with a 100 year model period and not allowing for the spread in model outputs)."
"Within three days of the publication of Spencer & Braswell 2011, two climate scientists (Kevin Trenberth & John Fasullo) repeated the analysis and showed that the IPCC models are in agreement with the observations, thus refuting Spencer & Braswell’s claims. An independent analysis by Andrew Dessler also confirms the Trenberth & Fasullo result."
Pattern of publication&publicity matches previous such attempts
Michael Ashley noted that this paper was following the same trajectory as previous papers touted as demolishing global warming, that haven't stood up over time:
1. The article is published in a non-mainstream journal, following inadequate peer-review.
2. Press releases from the authors exaggerate/distort the contents of the article to inflate its significance and increase the attention given to it.
3. News of the article spreads like wild-fire around the blogosphere.
4. Some media outlets take the press release and exaggerate it further still, so that the information that finally reaches the public has almost no relation to the original article.
5. Within days, experts in the field show that the original article is fatally flawed; but by now the damage is done.
6. For years into the future, the article is quoted by deniers of human-induced climate change as evidence that the science is uncertain.
Wik ipedia is at least as trustworthy at the National Enquirer quality pubs you cite, so I'll take the lazy way out. Wiki seems to say you're a very poor liar when it comes to MBH99:
"Others later found the issues raised by McIntyre and McKitrick were minor and did not affect the main conclusions of MBH. Technical issues were discussed in RealClimate on 18 February in a blog entry by Gavin Schmidt and Caspar Amman, and in a BBC News interview Schmidt said that by using a different convention but not altering subsequent steps in the analysis accordingly, McIntyre and McKitrick had removed significant data which would have given the same result as the MBH papers"
That analysis has been upheld since BTW. Consult google for another installment in "The Saga of Fail: Anti-science Held To Normal Standards Of Evidence"
Follow the wiki page to the National Research Council Report: "The report agreed that there were statistical shortcomings in the MBH analysis, but concluded that they were small in effect."
So, no faking, just some minor deficiencies that didn't affect the conclusions. No surprise there, the anti-science crowd loves to lie and distort - except when Spencer or Soon or one of the other idiots publishes a complete train wreck of a paper (what is Soon's score now? I count 4 people resigning in the wake of just one of his papers being published)
Let's try the next one. Oops, looks like the lie is even more lame on this one. No data was faked or inappropriately modified. You obviously can't even read the abstract of the O'Donnell paper even though it's available for free online:
"...Though the general reconstruction concept has merit, it is susceptible to spurious results for both temperature trends and patterns. The deficiencies include the following: (i) improper calibration of satellite data; (ii) improper determination of spatial structure during infilling; and (iii) suboptimal determination of regularization parameters, particularly with respect to satellite principal component retention. This study proposes two methods to resolve these issues."
"Antarctic Peninsula warming is well documented, but the magnitude and extent of recent temperature changes across West Antarctica are under review. Steig et al. (2009) estimated that most of West Antarctica warmed over the last 50 years at a rate of > 0.1° C per decade, with greatest warming in winter and spring, and that the average temperature for the continent increased since 1957. O’Donnell et al. (2011) question some aspects of those results, suggesting that average increases for the continent, East Antarctica, and West Antarctica were half or less than those found in the earlier study, though still significant. O’Donnell et al. (2011) did find that West Antarctica warmed from the Peninsula to Marie Byrd Land."
So you're a liar when you claim data was faked. Let's see how you fare on the WMO report. Doh! Looks like you're caught in another lie! 3 for 3, not bad for an amateur!
You cite a lot of e-mail correspondence, but you seem to be missing any cites of the EIGHT investigations that found _no_ problems with any of the science produced.
Basically your e-mail quotes have nothing whatsoever to do with science and simply amount to a lot of whining about someone being mean to idiots who annoy them repeatedly.
From the wiki page:
"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations."
(No hard feelings troll, but I've got bigger fish to fry at the moment - see ya!)
I like how you wave your magic wand and claim "all have been rebutted". I think you've truncated your search a little early there. You also failed to mention the magnitude (pun intended) of the blunders found. I would too if I were citing it. You also very carefully avoid mentioning anything about changes to the results after the errors were corrected. Wise choice.
Still, the fact that you're citing it is very amusing. Why? You got so wound up in trying to defend your handlers that you recited a long list "science" papers and, in your own words "reputable scientific journals" that have published Singer and all the usual idiots. You even point out that the IPCC has acknowledged some of their papers.
That clearly puts the lie to your claim that the reputable scientific journals are conspiring to prevent publishing papers with contrarian views in it.
Thanks much, I couldn't have pulled that one off without you.
The only way I could put a finer point on it would be to ask something innocuous like "Name a specific paper that you feel was unfairly rejected by reputable scientific journals." Your non-response to a simple request like that would speak another volume.
Your claim was obviously false at the outset. It would require a worldwide conspiracy to arbitrarily prevent a specific viewpoint from being published somewhere. Global conspiracy theories are generally considered less than scientific.
I don't have to smear the idiots, anyone can google the names you've mentioned and see their idiocy in living color. In fact you've provided them with the all the info needed so they can, if they're interested in reading about pathological freaks like Singer and the Heartland gang.
You cite the initial publications of those papers, the google results tell folks the rest of the story. (**spoiler alert** - Siggy comes off looking dumb, dishonest, disingenuous and downright dimwitted)
You a funny guy, calling a whack job like Spencer a scientist. That is like calling my cat a brain surgeon. Spencer (and McKitrick) signed the Cornwall Alliance statement. They both believe that all of quantum theory and all of relativity is completely wrong and that the earth is actually only 6,000 years old. They also believe that their gods simply won't let anything bad happen no matter how badly we pollute the atmosphere:
We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory...
WHAT WE DENY
We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry
Anyone ever tell you that you work for a bunch of serious losers.
Heartland execs and Singer (and Infoe) all belong in the Hague on trial for crimes against humanity.
p.s. If people can make up their own minds (as you assert in your closing sentence) then why would they need a shill like you jumping into every discussion even tangentially related to climate change with all your lies about data being faked/hidden and dissenting "scientists" being suppressed?
Would you care for some syrup with all that waffling?
"3. I believe "AGW" and it's "implications" to be unsettled science that is grossly exaggerated."
*YOU* define what "gross exaggeration" of science is, since you made the claim you must know what the criteria is. Then tell me what evidence you personally would need to see to convince you that it's not "grossly exaggerated".
You're the one making the claims, you provide the specific parameters. If I define a framework then after I box you in you'll simply claim that I rigged the definition and "tricked you".
The longer you draw out the thread with waffling and equivocation the less credibility you'll have (and shills don't have much credibility to spare as I'm sure you know)
I already know how the thread will end (a bit boring really) I'm just making sure people see for themselves how baseless/flimsy/unsupported/irrational claims of fraud and exaggerations in the science are.
If I told people that you wouldn't be able to answer a simple question about your own personal opinion they'd have good reason to doubt me. However, if I demonstrate it using actual members of the anti-science crowd, well, they tend to consider their own eyes a pretty reliable source.
So you don't consider a fluff piece from none other than Infoe - which BTW is not a "government document", it's an opinion piece compiled by Marc Morono (sp intentional)
You have a great sense of humour, I'll give you that. Calling a neocon propaganda rag like the Weekly Standard a "reputable publication" is like calling Mad Magazine a scientific journal. Sure it's funny, but a reputable source of science or fact? That's a good one.
"The CRU emails show scientists,
- Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
- Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”;"
My words: You cannot name even ONE paper that uses inappropriately conditioned data. You cannot cite a paper that was withdrawn, retracted, or corrected as a result of anything in the CRU e-mails. You cannot cite even one specific instance of a journal rejecting science based on its conclusions.
In short, you're spreading rumours, gossip and lies, all unsubstantiated crap.
If there was any specific case, the sensationalist media would be all over it and the scientists associated with it would be infamous. Which, BTW, is why you won't ever cite a specific paper or journal because a) it will immediately be checked out by reputable journalists and scientists and b) because you'll get your ass sued off for making specific claims of fraud without any evidence to back it up.
If a paper published in a decent journal is shown to have used deliberately manipulated data (and *especially* if it was done due to information revealed in the CRU e-mails) it *will* be retracted or withdrawn, if not by the author(s) then by the editors of the journal.
Even your "obstructing the data" claim is just plain old gossip. I mean, you can name the data set, what was in it and where it came from, right? I can. They told idiot boy to go get his own license for that data because the license they had didn't allow them to redistribute the data. So it wasn't even possible for CRU to prevent anyone from accessing the data since it was provided by a Russian outfit and available to anyone who wanted to pay the license fee.
Speaking of that "obstructed" data, what has the anti-science movement done with the data since then? Did they show that something was faked? If that data is still worth crying over all these years later then it must have been very critical information right? So why have the anti-science types done nothing with it?
That's a rhetorical question. They won't ever do anything with it because if they did it would just be a repeat of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature results. They'll simply confirm the science and then sit around looking stupid for whining about it and denying it for so long.
I think what you mean to say is that I refuse to be side tracked and that I'm too knowledgeable on the fraud that is Fred Singer and the whole anti-science movement that Heartland helps to sponsor.
Definition of straw man, from the first google hit: A sham argument set up to be defeated.
Your words: "The Heartland Institute does not try to "disprove that smoking causes any harm"".
No one claimed that Heartland tries to disprove anything. You set up that straw man. Everyone knows that Heartland doesn't try to prove or disprove anything, all they do is pay people to introduce doubt into any/every discussion of science that might impact the profit margins of the corporations they represent.
"The Heartland Institute does not "deny climate change""
Again, a convenient straw many to viciously attack and knock down, and one that like your first claim relies entirely on the specific wording. Of course Heartland doesn't deny climate change. They simply pay people to deny climate change for them.
Again, you attempt to side step my question by injecting an appeal to authority. I did not ask if S (for Spineless) Fred Singer published any crap papers recently. I asked you why Singer does not write letters to scientific journals with specific challenges or objections to the papers being published.
He claims the science is wrong or faked yet he makes no attempts to correct any of it.
Oh, and by the way, next time you list Spineless Fred Singer's papers, you might want to try only listing the ones he published in reputable, peer reviewed scientific journals.
From that small list you might want to remove cites of papers that contained glaring errors that were pointed out during review.
And of those you might want to exclude any published in Energy and Environment because publishing something in a journal that actually published Miskolczi *and* has an editor who admitted she publishes crap science because she wants to "keep the controversy alive" is just too easy to shoot down.
Oh yeah, and you might want to exclude any statements made by Spineless Fred that were proven to be completely manufactured (e.g. his 2005 debacle where he made very specific and completely false claims that the vast majority of glaciers were growing worldwide)
Come to think of it, you might want to also leave out any papers where he has admitted to hoodwinking people into including their name on papers he was the sole author of (does the name Revelle ring a bell? I thought so)
It just occurred to me, you might want to leave out that pesky little paper with Freddie's name on it - you know the one, International Journal of Climatology, 2007, Douglass et al. You wouldn't want to cite a paper containing such a fundamentally flawed/misapplied analysis, would you?
Come to think of it, you probably want to just not cite any of Spineless Fred's publications because to be honest, he does seem to suffer from a great deal of suck. He always seems to be doing it wrong and then stupidly publishes a paper to advertise the idiotic things that he does.
When you try an appeal to authority with me, you're going to end up with a big snoot full of fail every single time. You cite Soon, I'll cite his idiotic "confusion" over shellfish. Cite Spencer and I'll cite his extremist religious views and his signing of the Cornwall Alliance manifesto. Cite Cristy or Braswell and I'll cite the resignation of Wolfgang Wagner over the egregious errors in their Remote Sensing paper.
I know the anti-science playbook and the players. By heart. You might want to try a different diversionary tactic.