Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As Hats says, if you had to fully define every scientific term you used in a paper such that a non-expert in your field could understand it you would quite often run out of room before you actually got to explaining your results.

Papers and articles are written with a specific audience in mind, are worded for that audience and assume a minimum level of knowledge of the subject being discussed.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Papers and articles are written with a specific audience in mind, are worded for that audience and assume a minimum level of knowledge of the subject being discussed.

To expand on this, there are academics like Stephen Hawking, and J.R. McNeill who have endeavored to explain their fields to the layman.

History has actually had a lot of trouble in this regard. Most popular historians are quite bad at actual historical work (and that's when they aren't being liars, plagiarist, or blatant panderers to some political dogma). John Julius Norwich is probably the best we have for explaining academic history to non-historians, an amazing feat for someone never formally trained in the field, but he's getting pretty old. Kind of amazing he's still publishing (most recent book in 2015). McNeill has twice tried to explain for example Environmental History to the non-historian (The Human Web: A Bird’s-eye View of World History co-written with his father, and Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental History of the 20th-Century World), and I don't think either of his books were actually very good at explaining the field. I'm an actual historian, and I think they did a pretty bad job explaining the field to me XD

You know with this new FBI dump about Bill's Pardon I'm starting to think of that line from Alan Rickman in Die Hard

Hans Gruber: You asked for miracles, I give you... the FBI.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
You know with this new FBI dump about Bill's Pardon I'm starting to think of that line from Alan Rickman in Die Hard

Hans Gruber: You asked for miracles, I give you... the FBI.

Pshaw... FBI is leaking like a sieve now.

o.O

While Bill's pardon of Rich has been denounced as disgraceful... Presidents have near absolute power to pardon anyone for any reason.

Meanwhile.
http://www.wave3.com/story/33592564/black-church-in-greenville-burned-and-spray-painted-vote-trump

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Meanwhile.
http://www.wave3.com/story/33592564/black-church-in-greenville-burned-and-spray-painted-vote-trump

Yeah, things are getting bad. Here in D/FW, a Trump/Pence sign was rigged with razor blades. Some poor volunteer got sliced up when they moved the sign because the sign was blocking the voting location signage.
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/11/01/a-political-stunt-in-plano-draws-blood/

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Politicians are going to do what they've always done... they'll pick sides and "pander" for those people to get their votes.

If one politcal party picks the side supported by science, and the other party picks the side in direct contradiction with the science, it should be pretty fething obvious one of those parties is functioning well and the other is not.

Missing my point.

All I'm saying politicians will pander to whomever will vote for them. That's all...

FWIW, there are plenty of Climatologist/STEM professionals who are dubious to the Climate Alarmist's positions.

No, that's a fail. Among climate scientists the debate is limited entirely to the extent of the issue, and how immediate the concern should be.

The opinions of other STEM professionals is utterly irrelevant. Getting a degree in chemical engineering gives you exactly zero insight in to climate modelling. How fething bonkers would it be to have a presentation on blackholes, with a bunch of astrophysicists telling us about the accepted physics, and then have a climate scientist talk about how he thinks all the astrophysicists are wrong. This is exactly what happens when climate deniers invite random engineers and physicists to opine on climate modelling.

And you totally missed "Climatologist" I wrote there...

There are plenty of debate/dispute within the this field.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Just like "the science is settle" BS that's used to shut down dissent?

It doesn't shut down dissent. It doesn't stop people making their claims about climate science. It merely puts those claims in context, establishes that the person making them is either grossly ignorant on the state of modern climate science, or lying.

The 97% figure from that Cook study is 100% pure, unadulterated BS. I'm specifically talking about that study, only that and the attempts by folks to keep propagandizing it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
The 97% consensus is totally hogwash.

That's an old, long disproven lie. Please fething stop returning to sources that keep lying to you.

Anyhow, there's been a lot of studies in to the conclusions of climate scientists.

Okay... do me a favor, provide me links with those studies so that I can look at how those surveys are conducted.

That Cook study was a fething disgrace, but based on that image above, I'm willing to read into the nuts & bolts of that surveys and reassess my opinions.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
While I"m a bit surprised that Trump has "some" momentum right now...

He still need to win two of PA/MI/WI/CO and hold onto NC/FL/AZ/IA.

I don't see it working for Trump.

It's unclear if it's momentum caused by anything, such as Comey's announcement, or if it was just a natural swing back to Trump after his disasters with the recording of him bragging about molesting women and his woeful debate performances. The swing back to Trump began before the Comey announcement, after all.

I think it is likely just a continuation of the pendulum we've seen polls throughout this campaign. Candidates are even, Clinton slowly builds a strong lead, then polls naturally move back until polls are almost even, then Clinton pulls out again. The question is whether this current momentum will get another point or two by election day, in which case Trump will be pretty close in enough enough states, or if this mini-swing stalls out, in which case Trump is little chance unless the polls are miles wrong.

It's more likely that the GOP voters are coming "back home".

Still no where near enough for him to defeat Clinton.

The question will be, what's the over/under of Clinton getting 300 EV?

I'm taking the over for Clinton.

 sebster wrote:

Willfully misinformed voters is nowhere near as catchy, but it's a much more accurate, because these people play an active role in learning their nonsense, they choose to believe things that are obviously ridiculous, because it makes them feel better.

This is the very definition of Whembly's character on this forum, isn't this?

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
While I"m a bit surprised that Trump has "some" momentum right now...

He still need to win two of PA/MI/WI/CO and hold onto NC/FL/AZ/IA.

I don't see it working for Trump.

It's unclear if it's momentum caused by anything, such as Comey's announcement, or if it was just a natural swing back to Trump after his disasters with the recording of him bragging about molesting women and his woeful debate performances. The swing back to Trump began before the Comey announcement, after all.

I think it is likely just a continuation of the pendulum we've seen polls throughout this campaign. Candidates are even, Clinton slowly builds a strong lead, then polls naturally move back until polls are almost even, then Clinton pulls out again. The question is whether this current momentum will get another point or two by election day, in which case Trump will be pretty close in enough enough states, or if this mini-swing stalls out, in which case Trump is little chance unless the polls are miles wrong.

Well, there is no fun in a one-sided election. You need to put some show, after all. I'm not really surprised by this "sudden" change of heart in the polls.

The medias are playing a terrible part in this election. And it's quite clear the Republican are using them as their core strategy. After all, that's where Trump shine the most.

All this noise on Clinton's mails is just here to keep people from thinking about Trump's real character, acts and "campaign plans". So that they can be convinced "she's equally bad", as usual.

 Sarouan wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Willfully misinformed voters is nowhere near as catchy, but it's a much more accurate, because these people play an active role in learning their nonsense, they choose to believe things that are obviously ridiculous, because it makes them feel better.

This is the very definition of Whembly's character on this forum, isn't this?

You do know that I'm here... right?

Or, do you have me on ignore?

 sebster wrote:


Is there a way to say 'wilfully misinformed' more succinctly?

Obtuse voters?

 whembly wrote:

And you totally missed "Climatologist" I wrote there...

There are plenty of debate/dispute within the this field.

Waiter? You didn't add any sauce to that, would you mind...?

Still super-excited for November 9th. Work atmosphere gets tangibly chilly every time a political ad comes on over Pandora.

 whembly wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Willfully misinformed voters is nowhere near as catchy, but it's a much more accurate, because these people play an active role in learning their nonsense, they choose to believe things that are obviously ridiculous, because it makes them feel better.

This is the very definition of Whembly's character on this forum, isn't this?

You do know that I'm here... right?

Or, do you have me on ignore?

As Dakka's loudest and most enthusiastic right-wing cheerleader, you're going to take a few cheap shots from the other side's true believers.

I enjoy your frequent postings in here. They are the closest thing I have to a lucid understanding of what life is like viewed through a conservative lens.

 Spinner wrote:

 whembly wrote:

And you totally missed "Climatologist" I wrote there...

There are plenty of debate/dispute within the this field.

Waiter? You didn't add any sauce to that, would you mind...?

Still super-excited for November 9th. Work atmosphere gets tangibly chilly every time a political ad comes on over Pandora.

Here's my bet.

Clinton wins just north of 300 EV (Currently at 246 EV at RCP with 110 tossups).

-My dream scenario is that Clinton narrowly wins the electoral votes (so she can't claim a mandate) and GOP retains control of the House/Senate.
-My Political Junkie's dream, is that neither candidates get to 270 EV... but, that's a pipe dream if ever.
-If Trump wins? Man... someone better summon up Cthulhu...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Willfully misinformed voters is nowhere near as catchy, but it's a much more accurate, because these people play an active role in learning their nonsense, they choose to believe things that are obviously ridiculous, because it makes them feel better.

This is the very definition of Whembly's character on this forum, isn't this?

You do know that I'm here... right?

Or, do you have me on ignore?

As Dakka's loudest and most enthusiastic right-wing cheerleader, you're going to take a few cheap shots from the other side's true believers.

Cheap shot's fine.

Let's all acknowledge that to certain degree, we're all hacks because we all believe we're right.

I enjoy your frequent postings in here. They are the closest thing I have to a lucid understanding of what life is like viewed through a conservative lens.

Thanks man!

My liver dispute the lucid thing tho. (although, lately I've been good at Not Dakking While Drunk, but no promises next Tuesday!)

 whembly wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 whembly wrote:

And you totally missed "Climatologist" I wrote there...

There are plenty of debate/dispute within the this field.

Waiter? You didn't add any sauce to that, would you mind...?

Right. No citation, just laughter. That's about what I figured

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, I'm not really interested in specific issues, I am interested in the fact that such issues exist and why have they become so polticised?

Let's drop climate change and look at voter ID. The facts surely are not in any dispute.

Why then is it that Republicans favour voter ID when it involves another layer of bureaucracy, costs more money, and isn't needed?

Because it is offered as The Solution to an ill defined 'voter fraud' problem. One side seems to use Voter Fraud in the legal sense (must have fraudulently voted) the other side includes a much more encompassing definition for which IDs are not the full solution set.


For example, IDs would not have stopped the activity that prompted a recent police raid on a Delaware County political field office: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20161101_State_raids_Delco_offices__seeking_evidence_of_voter_registration_fraud.html

Yet the Rs look at stories like that and 'know voter fraud (though that does not meet the actual definition of voter fraud) is occurring.

The R's are the reason for stories like that. They raided those offices because they were getting minorities to register to vote. Like the R's admitted to, voter ID laws are meant to suppress the vote.

They raided the office to look for evidence, in other words, they have no evidence, there was no reason to suspect any wrongdoings. It's the same as them pulling raiding your house to see if you're up to no good.

No, to conduct a raid they need a warrant. A judge will not sign off on a warrant to raid my house let alone election offices without probable cause. Unless you are insinuating the judges in Philly are Republican hacks who will not follow the law. I suspect you would have a hard time proving that.

 CptJake wrote:
No, to conduct a raid they need a warrant. A judge will not sign off on a warrant to raid my house let alone election offices without probable cause. Unless you are insinuating the judges in Philly are Republican hacks who will not follow the law. I suspect you would have a hard time proving that.

Well apart from the fact judges are only humans and there's republican and democrat judges so getting warrant IS going to be easier from die hard republican judge than die hard democrat...With what reasons they make the call whether to give permission? By getting all the info needed _themselves_ or relying on information given to them to case? In which case alter that information, alter the result.

There been any actual wrong doings found on those raids? Funny if they keep going coming up as empty except helping republicans...Awfully convenient coincidence.

 CptJake wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, I'm not really interested in specific issues, I am interested in the fact that such issues exist and why have they become so polticised?

Let's drop climate change and look at voter ID. The facts surely are not in any dispute.

Why then is it that Republicans favour voter ID when it involves another layer of bureaucracy, costs more money, and isn't needed?

Because it is offered as The Solution to an ill defined 'voter fraud' problem. One side seems to use Voter Fraud in the legal sense (must have fraudulently voted) the other side includes a much more encompassing definition for which IDs are not the full solution set.


For example, IDs would not have stopped the activity that prompted a recent police raid on a Delaware County political field office: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20161101_State_raids_Delco_offices__seeking_evidence_of_voter_registration_fraud.html

Yet the Rs look at stories like that and 'know voter fraud (though that does not meet the actual definition of voter fraud) is occurring.

The R's are the reason for stories like that. They raided those offices because they were getting minorities to register to vote. Like the R's admitted to, voter ID laws are meant to suppress the vote.

They raided the office to look for evidence, in other words, they have no evidence, there was no reason to suspect any wrongdoings. It's the same as them pulling raiding your house to see if you're up to no good.

No, to conduct a raid they need a warrant. A judge will not sign off on a warrant to raid my house let alone election offices without probable cause. Unless you are insinuating the judges in Philly are Republican hacks who will not follow the law. I suspect you would have a hard time proving that.

there's been quite a few of them lately, look at all the judges who don't follow the law when it came to marriage equality. It's not outside the realm of reason that the judges in philly are hacks who issued fishing licenses, errr I mean warrants with no evidence provided of any wrong doing. the R's stopped the organization from registering any more voters 2 weeks before the deadline, that is a real crime and a insult to our democracy.

Well.... I just dropped my ballot in a box outside, so this election is now out of my hands.


I wish I were able to write on the ballot itself because there were a number of things being voted on that were worded in the most crafty legal jargon available (in my eyes). Seriously, the voters' pamphlet, as well as various partisan and non-partisan "help" websites weren't any help in figuring out what some of our initiatives were actually about.

 Spinner wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 whembly wrote:

And you totally missed "Climatologist" I wrote there...

There are plenty of debate/dispute within the this field.

Waiter? You didn't add any sauce to that, would you mind...?

Right. No citation, just laughter. That's about what I figured

Oh?

PM sent.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Well.... I just dropped my ballot in a box outside, so this election is now out of my hands.


I wish I were able to write on the ballot itself because there were a number of things being voted on that were worded in the most crafty legal jargon available (in my eyes). Seriously, the voters' pamphlet, as well as various partisan and non-partisan "help" websites weren't any help in figuring out what some of our initiatives were actually about.

Clarity is the enemy of binary thinking.

According to Twitter the KKK have just officially endorsed Donald Trump.

Okay... I've refrained from discussing anything wikileak... because I believe that organization has a more nefarious agenda than altruistic.

However, this is big:

DoJ Assistant Attorney Peter Kadzik outed as a mole for Hillary Clinton campaign https://t.co/MNHzJ310Nl pic.twitter.com/uTQF6baWBC

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 2, 2016

If you don't know, this is what corruption looks like.

They hadn't already?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
They hadn't already?

I thought they did awhile ago as well...

But, hey... at least the Trump campaign denounces them:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-donald-trump-denounces-support-from-kkk-1478057956-htmlstory.html

That's gotta be a record quick response from them.

Has anyone seen Michael Moorer's short film Trumpland? I watched it on YouTube last night, and it seems like it could definitely be construed as a Pro-Trump movie? WTF is happening?

 whembly wrote:
Okay... I've refrained from discussing anything wikileak... because I believe that organization has a more nefarious agenda than altruistic.

However, this is big:

DoJ Assistant Attorney Peter Kadzik outed as a mole for Hillary Clinton campaign https://t.co/MNHzJ310Nl pic.twitter.com/uTQF6baWBC

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 2, 2016

If you don't know, this is what corruption looks like.

Care to explain what is so damning about this?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Okay... I've refrained from discussing anything wikileak... because I believe that organization has a more nefarious agenda than altruistic.

However, this is big:

DoJ Assistant Attorney Peter Kadzik outed as a mole for Hillary Clinton campaign https://t.co/MNHzJ310Nl pic.twitter.com/uTQF6baWBC

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 2, 2016

If you don't know, this is what corruption looks like.

Care to explain what is so damning about this?

A) It's his private gmail account, not his official DOJ account.

B) Kadzik has a real close relationship to Podesta (CLinton campaign manager)

C) The FBI release yesterday, Kadzik was Marc Rich's attorney that Bill Clinton pardoned

D) A+B+C = really favorable convienent relationship.

Therefore, a guy heading an investigation where his chummy friends are at the center of this investigation doesn't lead any credence to the idea of an "unbiased impartial" investigation.

I still don't get it. He told them about a hearing. In a building that has 24/7 TV coverage. How is that damning?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I still don't get it. He told them about a hearing. In a building that has 24/7 TV coverage. How is that damning?

By itself, it isn't. That's the real problem here, too many dots not being connected to support the picture right-wing media is trying to show. That's the problem with most scandals involving the Clintons or people in their political machine, lots of circumstantial things but no smoking gun. In fact, the Monica Lewinski scandal is the only one I can think of that actually had a smoking gun (the blue dress).

Say what you want about the Clinton but they're smart enough not to leave a paper trail and tell-all books are usually little more than gossip or hearsay. Then there's Hillary's bouts of amnesia during depositions. Her oft repeated "I don't remember" line was the subject of parody back in the day when Bill was President and she had another bout of amnesia just recently when talking to the FBI about her emails. I don't know why she's allowed to get away with that when other people being deposed can't - even Bill got fined for perjury.

 Breotan wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I still don't get it. He told them about a hearing. In a building that has 24/7 TV coverage. How is that damning?

By itself, it isn't. That's the real problem here, too many dots not being connected to support the picture right-wing media is trying to show. That's the problem with most scandals involving the Clintons or people in their political machine, lots of circumstantial things but no smoking gun. In fact, the Monica Lewinski scandal is the only one I can think of that actually had a smoking gun (the blue dress).

Say what you want about the Clinton but they're smart enough not to leave a paper trail and tell-all books are usually little more than gossip or hearsay. Then there's Hillary's bouts of amnesia during depositions. Her oft repeated "I don't remember" line was the subject of parody back in the day when Bill was President and she had another bout of amnesia just recently when talking to the FBI about her emails. I don't know why she's allowed to get away with that when other people being deposed can't - even Bill got fined for perjury.

No... The point is this: Given Kadzik's closeness to Hillary’s campaign chairman, he really should not be involved in the ongoing investigation and thus recuse himself.