Starship Asterisk*

Here's an excellent summary piece about the "climategate" emails, on the site of one of my favourite rabble rousers, George Monbiot. There are lots of links to background information and debate.

"FoI" in the article is short for Freedom of Information.

Rob

TL;DR

Can we have one-liner summary beforehand? Is it funny?

I guess I could say that the article compares the world view and communication styles of three groups: scientists, journalists, and professional deniers. And no, it's not funny.

Rob

I will probably read this, but for now I cannot be bothered XD. It bored me after one sentence.

I read the top part before the email communications started. I thought it was interesting. There's not much anyone can do about an issue that's become so entangled in emotions. It's strange how even very intelligent people do themselves an injustice by letting their feelings get in the way.

And regarding the TL;DR & "it bored me" ... exactly. That's why the only articles in wide circulation involve overblown "scandals" and sensational headlines.

I must be missing some new trend. Could someone translate TL;DR and XD for me, please?

Rob

urban dictionary, help! help!

geckzilla wrote:And regarding the TL;DR & "it bored me" ... exactly. That's why the only articles in wide circulation involve overblown "scandals" and sensational headlines.

I just see a I-want-to-seem-all-so-deep-and-intelligent people inability to reach wide audience. Please refer to video in Hallelujah OP to see how it needs to be done.

So, TL;DR, yet you've come to a conclusion about it? GG, mak.

Thanks for the translation makc.

Making complex points and rebuttals about a complex subject takes time and space. It can't be done in a short note. So saying TL;DR is like saying "I can't be bothered to think about this." That's not the sort of admission I'd want to make in public. If you don't want to read it, just don't. No need to say anything at all.

Rob

geckzilla wrote:So, TL;DR, yet you've come to a conclusion about it?

Yes, is there a problem? When you go to buy new purse or dress, do you have to stare at it for 30 minutes to know if it managed to catch your eye or not? It takes split of a second doesnt it.

rstevenson wrote: If you don't want to read it, just don't. No need to say anything at all.

Disagree, those people need to get a message that it's not a way to write stuff, if they want to reach wide audience. If I write it here, there is a slim chance they will find out about my opinion. If a 1000 people do that, there;s even more chance.

On a relevant note, here is book review by typical representative of wide audience, and IMHO this is easily the best book review ever.

Rob

makc wrote:On a relevant note, here is book review by typical representative of wide audience, and IMHO this is easily the best book review ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tragical_History_of_Doctor_Faustus wrote:
<<"No Elizabethan play outside the Shakespeare canon has raised more controversy than Doctor Faustus. There is no agreement concerning the nature of the text and the date of composition... and the centrality of the Faust legend in the history of the Western world precludes any definitive agreement on the interpretation of the play..." In Histriomastix, his 1632 polemic against the drama, William Prynne records the tale that actual devils once appeared on the stage during a performance of Faustus, "to the great amazement of both the actors and spectators". Some people were allegedly driven mad, "distracted with that fearful sight". John Aubrey recorded that Edward Alleyn, lead actor of The Admiral's Men, devoted his later years to charitable endeavors, like the founding of Dulwich College, in direct response to this incident.>>

yes Neufer, because going to theater was the only way people could entertain themselves back then when this crap (oh, sorry, genuine gem of world literature) was written. these days, both technology and freedom of artistic expression went far beyond those pityful limits, but some hardcore elitists still insist theaters are at the top of art. pathetic. Personally, I would watch Kung Fu Panda (again) any day over any 10 live plays you 'd name.

New York abstains. Courteously.

makc wrote:Personally, I would watch Kung Fu Panda (again) any day over any 10 live plays you 'd name.

It is said that the Dragon Warrior can go for months without eating, surviving on the dew of a single ginko leaf and the energy of the universe.

makc wrote:On a relevant note, here is book review by typical representative of wide audience, and IMHO this is easily the best book review ever.

That's so sad. If this kid ever comes around for a job, I might let him dig a trench. Nothing more than that. He exemplifies what I see too much of these days: a sort of pride in ignorance. He is so lazy that he won't even try to understand a piece of literary history that his modern culture rests on.

Chris Peterson wrote:That's so sad. If this kid ever comes around for a job, I might let him dig a trench. Nothing more than that. He exemplifies what I see too much of these days: a sort of pride in ignorance. He is so lazy that he won't even try to understand a piece of literary history that his modern culture rests on.

Are you talking about Ujak118 or Makc?

neufer wrote:Are you talking about Ujak118 or Makc?

Specifically, Ujak118. But if Makc is genuinely impressed by that loser... well.

I would hope that posting that YouTube was to make the point that people make up their minds pretty quickly about some things. I couldn't watch it for more than 10 or 15 seconds; the image is horribly out of focus and there is an awful and annoying buzz in the sound. All that before the person in the video even opens his mouth! What little I heard him say only reinforced the urge to click "stop." So I did. IOW, TL;DW.

a sort of pride in ignorance

vs belief that having some bit of knowledge makes you higher being.

If this kid ever comes around for a job, I might let him dig a trench.

I consider myself a good programmer, and I never read or watched that faustus thing. I might consider doing that, though, as apparently it can make me God of programming.

makc wrote:I consider myself a good programmer, and I never read or watched that faustus thing. I might consider doing that, though, as apparently it can make me God of programming.

I'm a good programmer, too. But that's never stopped me from wanting to be good at other things, or just to know lots of other things.

Have you read much Shakespeare? The style of Dr Faustus is similar. There's a trick to reading literature written in a different style than we're accustomed to: persevere. It often seems difficult or boring at first; you need to read a few pages before the style starts becoming comfortable. Then you can concentrate on the story itself, like with a modern book. I read Faustus when I was around 20 (and skimmed it again yesterday, off of Project Gutenberg). It's really good- you should give it a try.

There was a discussion a few days ago about what constitutes a well rounded education. That's a complicated question with a range of answers, but one thing I know: the guy who made that inane video "book report" has a bad education. I know that because he doesn't have the key quality provided by a well rounded education: a curiosity and interest in learning. He could be the best programmer in the world, and if I had a programming job open I'd look elsewhere. Not only would a lesser programmer with a broader education be more interesting to be around, but in the long run I think he'd do a better job. The limitations of one-trick-ponies and idiots savant generally show up pretty quickly.

I find this discussion to be very interesting. It's become almost a meta discussion about the subject of the article to which I posted a link -- the difficulty of communicating.

And I want to sincerely thank makc for giving me examples of the yawning communication gap between those who are educated (formally or otherwise) and those who are not (whatever the reason). I've often been puzzled about the lack of engagement, of connection, of communication between these segments of society. This is an ongoing problem for a democratic society, a problem becoming more acute all the time because of the ease with which the poorly educated can display their ignorance and gather a crowd electronically. At least in the past, when access to forms of publication was bottle-necked through an editorial process, the poorly informed could not get published. Now anyone with a computer can blare to the world their lack of knowledge and understanding.

A way must be found to educate those not interested in being educated, to engage the indifferent, to spread the messages of science and education faster than the messages of ignorance and fear. The Dark Ages didn't go away willingly; they were pushed away by science and education. And they are waiting, drooling and gibbering in the darkness, for an opportunity to return.

Rob

When I joined NOAA in 1972 my office was almost entirely made up of American born scientists.

When I left NOAA in 2007 my office was almost entirely made up of foreign born scientists (mostly from China, India & Russia).

The U.S. has been the leader in science for most of the last century only by
being the country with the most opportunities for making a living in science.
It has certainly never been the country most enamored with science.

The U.S. is a religious country that denounces Darwin.

The U.S. is a media fan country enthralled with sports heroes & TV/movies stars.

Studious students in any field are considered to be nerds and geeks vying to be the teacher's pet.

rstevenson wrote:A way must be found to educate those not interested in being educated, to engage the indifferent, to spread the messages of science and education faster than the messages of ignorance and fear.

Oh great, I was under impression you don't think that reaching wide audience is all that important.