[fifeboy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Xort Xort:

Simple question, do you think the space program was a waste? If yes, well at least you stuck to your guns and are consistent. If no, then why all the hate for practical?

Why do you have the impression that I hate 'practical' research? Have you not read what I write? I have a hate for governments de-funding fundamental research and then destroying historical data because of their political ideology. To save $400k per year, data that can't be replaced!

If it weren't for Stephen Hawkings' fundamental research on black holes, the touch screen on your smartphone wouldn't work.

Xort Xort:

All of which totally ignores that governments are not the only bodies that fund research. Practical or so called basic.

Of which I have not said anything about. Companies are free to do as they like. Some, like GE, IBM and 3M do some incredible research. But none of it is for the public, it's all for the bottom line.

I really would like to hand out rep pts for this but the system says no, so all you get is a thank you!

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It's pretty hard to follow what argument you are making in such a statement.

You added the word immediate. You changed the nature of the argument from what was actually said into a mock up of the argument that you can attack.

$1:

And the difference between ordering the Minister responsible to reduce funding in particular areas and actually holding a match to the books is . . . what exactly?

One would destroy the data, the other would close redundant facilities.

When the LGR was ended that data was ordered destroyed. The government could have defunded it, and that data would have a high chance of still being around.

The fact is the government did not order any of the data destroyed and their is no proof other than heresy that anything has been lost.

$1:

If there were any records of this, we certainly would never get confirmation through an access to information request, now would we? Another thing this 'open' government is good for.

If you want to suggest criminal intent to violate the law you will need to build a lot better argument than that.

$1:

Hutchings said he doesn't know how well the department's plan is going to work.

Yeah, because he doesn't work there, and he's not part of the team that's closing the facilities down. He's just a guy that can make statements with lots of conditions on them.

$1:

"We're dealing right now with a department that has lost people, resources, money. It's shutting down facilities. One wonders where they are going to find the resources to digitize this extraordinary amount of material," said Hutchings.

Yes one wonders. Note what he said, they have 'lost people' I assume she means fired or laid off rather than a missing person, undefined 'resources' and money. He carefully doesn't say that it's causing a problem, he's just laying out the statement in a way that will lead people to think that.

It's weasel words and dishonesty.

If you directly questioned him about it, I bet my last dollar she would say something like "I never said that." Which would be true.

$1:

Several Environment Canada libraries in the East — including the ones in Quebec City and Sackville, N.B., have also been shuttered, others have been downsized, and some cases valuable materials has been tossed, scientists say.

Again, pay attention to the words; 'Scientists say'. Not a statement of fact, just something people say. Also even if they were correct, and valuable material has been tossed it in no way means it wasn't duplicate, already digital, or within the realm of data that should have been kept. Just that it's valuable. Any paper is valuable to someone that needs to wipe their ass and doesn't have any TP.

$1:

Claims by DFO that “all material has been scanned and made available online is simply untrue,” said Hubbard. She said she has been having trouble locating historic reports about East Coast marine science that were on the selves of DFO libraries that closed.

Having trouble finding it? Well did she find it or not? I had trouble finding my keys, implies that I did find it.

If it was missing the sentence would have been 'could not find historical reports'.

So yeah the system might have some user issue, or she doesn't know how to do searches online, and is more comfortable looking up books physically.

Or I will admit maybe those records were lost. Although that seems unlikely. She could make a good case and we know the CBC would be all over it if she could prove the documents were missing, rather than troublesome to find.

$1:

“DFO is dumping documents, including grey literature that exists in limited quantities, just at a point when fisheries biologists around the world have been turning to historical studies, data, and graphical information to reconstruct the effects of fishing and fisheries policies, and to document environmental change,” said Hubbard.

Is she stupid? The point was to toss out the physical copies, and close the buildings down. Clearly dumping the documents was part of the plan.

$1:

Insiders at Environment Canada say a lot of material was discarded as a result of the closures of the regional libraries and renovation and downsizing at the department’s reference library in Gatineau, Que. They said the loss includes dozens of boxes full of historical environmental reports and studies from around the world that had been translated for use by Canadians.

Note that no one said the documents were not copied first? Or that the data was lost, only that the physical copies were thrown out?

$1:

Ad hominem.

No it's not, I'm not saying you are wrong because of your personal character.

I'm saying you are wrong because your facts are in conflict with an official government source, and that I'm noting it's a pattern of behavior on your part.

$1:

You have to ask yourself; is this a government that has been open and honest about it's inner working and can I trust what they tell me?

When was the last time you felt the DFO lied to you?

$1:

Experience tells me 'no'.

And my experience with you tells me you're anti government bias dominates your thinking, leads you to incorrect conclusions and to ignore or dismiss facts.

$1:

I never read just one source on any subject, I don't respond to logical fallacies other than to point them out, and I don't respond to every point. Sometimes they just aren't going to contribute to the discussion.

So you are going to ignore and not respond when I pointed out your mistake?

$1:

When all the sources say the same thing, that's pretty much a slam dunk to me.

But only when you ignore the best source, the people doing the job of closing down the facilities.

$1:

And the author of the study is exactly who I said it was. You are confusing the Article about the study with the study itself. Again, something that doesn't add to the discussion. I also gave a second CBC article, also about the same study by the "French National Trade Union of Scientific Researchers".

You said the author was the FNTUS, that was incorrect.

Xort Xort:

So something written on the big blow is critical of a conservative government. One fair enough, nothing like some bias to spice up the debate.
Who was the author? An environmentalist with an axe to grind against humanity.
Why am I not surprised?

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Because you didn't read the article, instead using your own biases to make up the content of the article based on the headline? When you make things up yourself, I doubt you could be surprised at the outcome. The author was the "French National Trade Union of Scientific Researchers" like the article says. Did you read the first paragraph?

The author of the study wasn't who I was talking about. I was talking about the Huffington Post, and the author of the HP article. That's clear to everyone.

You then come in and claim I didn't read the first paragraph.

You were wrong, again. And now your trying to dance away like your didn't just step on your dick, while shoving your foot down your throat.

$1:

So, when data that has been collected for 100 years disappears, how do you do a statistical analysis for future predictions based on what you don't know?

You could break it into eras that line up with critical developments, that you might have data for. You could reference studies or report that used the data, and build backwards.

Check other outside sources that many have retained the data, or have complementary data.

I will admit my skills are not in the recreation of data. However I'd like you to admit that we don't have any good evidence that anything has been lost. What we have are people making deniable statements. "They have lost a lot of people and money, makes you wonder if they are going to get all the data."

$1:

Non-government research is usually not available to the public, and most of the time it's never 'pure' research because the monetary benefits are never predictable.

Don't schools conduct pure research and monetize when things become viable?

Anyway, having the government work on practical research which will become public seems like a good idea.

$1:

You are describing the difference between 'Politics' and 'Partisan Politics'. Have Scientists been acting in a Partisan manner in the past? No.

I don't agree.

$1:

So why the need to muzzle how they communicate scientific findings at symposiums with other Scientists - a method of sharing and reviewing knowledge that Science has been doing since the Renaissance?

Because they are conducting partisan politics now? Because it's not their job to share information in that way? Because their boss told them so? Because it's not being used to share and review knowledge but to attack governments?
Pick any, pick all, pick none. Bottom line, it's part of the job.

$1:

Again, standard fare for civil servants. First rule; you don't talk to the press, unless it's your job to talk to the press. And again, has this been a problem for federal scientists in the past? No?

Yes?

$1:

So why cut their funding?

Because we aren't raising taxes to pay for it. Cuts were made across the board. This is the reality of responsible government.

$1:

Why deprive everyone of the research they do and have done?

Is research being kept private? Wasn't the point that scientists couldn't use their free expression?
That's what the report said.
Have you moved the goal posts? Or rather switched them? Or are you saying that symposiums are how research is reported and if they can't share without oversight it's keeping the research?

$1:

Again, when has this been a problem in the past?

All the time, has it been a problem with those employees? I'm not a civil service historian so I don't know. But sometimes changes are made across the board. It seems that the government is moving forward with a single voice of the government policy.

$1:

Scientists had the job of doing research, and it was also their job to share this publicly funded research with the public that paid for it. Because the Government didn't like the message the research gave is no reason to shoot the messenger.

Which is why the government is setting the course for more practical science.

$1:

Damage done: Only the future knows.

Could be zero. Could be all. You just can't tell when you make such an open ended statement can you?

$1:

No, it's only part of the Constitution. Total falsehood there.

What are you talking about?
Some scientists, sometimes lie to people to further their political goals. They sometimes use research to back up their words. I'm not going to accept anyone's word on their own say so. More so for a group that I know includes a few people that see they have a moral obligation to distort or lie. Now I did say some, and I mean it, not all and not all the time. But some.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Why do you have the impression that I hate 'practical' research?

Your words now and in the past? You seem upset that the focus is shifting.
[quote[ Have you not read what I write? I have a hate for governments de-funding fundamental research[/quote] We don't have unlimited amounts of money. Switching to focus on one more than the other would follow a change in funding.

$1:

and then destroying historical data because of their political ideology. To save $400k per year, data that can't be replaced!

No evidence anything has been lost or will be lost, or that it's because of ideology, or that it can't be replaced.

$1:

If it weren't for Stephen Hawkings' fundamental research on black holes, the touch screen on your smartphone wouldn't work.

I guess the universe really is pear shaped because I don't have a smartphone.

I'll bite however, what is the connection between the research done by Hawking and Penrose on black holes and the 9 or so different touchscreen technologies?

~

What this whole thing reminds me of is the closing of the coast guard stations. You would think that half the population of BC would have died in False Creek by now given the hysteria of the people against it.

I think I'm seeing the same thing here.

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

tl;dr, don't have all day.

Xort Xort:

$1:

Ad hominem.

No it's not, I'm not saying you are wrong because of your personal character.

I'm saying you are wrong because your facts are in conflict with an official government source, and that I'm noting it's a pattern of behavior on your part.

Which is the definition of Ad Hominem! Attacking a persons character in order to make your argument seem logical!

Xort Xort:

$1:

You have to ask yourself; is this a government that has been open and honest about it's inner working and can I trust what they tell me?

When was the last time you felt the DFO lied to you?

$1:

Experience tells me 'no'.

And my experience with you tells me you're anti government bias dominates your thinking, leads you to incorrect conclusions and to ignore or dismiss facts.

The government lies! This government and every other one has been caught red handed lying going back to MacDonald!

And yet, I work in Government? That must either demonstrate my complete lack of paying attention, or my belief that not everyone in the civil service is bad. And again, ad hominem!

Xort Xort:

$1:

I never read just one source on any subject, I don't respond to logical fallacies other than to point them out, and I don't respond to every point. Sometimes they just aren't going to contribute to the discussion.

So you are going to ignore and not respond when I pointed out your mistake?

$1:

When all the sources say the same thing, that's pretty much a slam dunk to me.

But only when you ignore the best source, the people doing the job of closing down the facilities.

$1:

And the author of the study is exactly who I said it was. You are confusing the Article about the study with the study itself. Again, something that doesn't add to the discussion. I also gave a second CBC article, also about the same study by the "French National Trade Union of Scientific Researchers".

You said the author was the FNTUS, that was incorrect.

I said:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The author was the "French National Trade Union of Scientific Researchers" like the article says. Did you read the first paragraph?

Which is indeed a link in the first paragraph of the article. The article references a study.

Xort Xort:

So something written on the big blow is critical of a conservative government. One fair enough, nothing like some bias to spice up the debate.
Who was the author? An environmentalist with an axe to grind against humanity.
Why am I not surprised?

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Because you didn't read the article, instead using your own biases to make up the content of the article based on the headline? When you make things up yourself, I doubt you could be surprised at the outcome. The author was the "French National Trade Union of Scientific Researchers" like the article says. Did you read the first paragraph?

The author of the study wasn't who I was talking about. I was talking about the Huffington Post, and the author of the HP article. That's clear to everyone.

You then come in and claim I didn't read the first paragraph.

You were wrong, again. And now your trying to dance away like your didn't just step on your dick, while shoving your foot down your throat.

And I was talking about the study. Now stop stepping on my dick and get your foot out of your mouth.

Xort Xort:

$1:

So, when data that has been collected for 100 years disappears, how do you do a statistical analysis for future predictions based on what you don't know?

You could break it into eras that line up with critical developments, that you might have data for. You could reference studies or report that used the data, and build backwards.

Check other outside sources that many have retained the data, or have complementary data.

I will admit my skills are not in the recreation of data. However I'd like you to admit that we don't have any good evidence that anything has been lost. What we have are people making deniable statements. "They have lost a lot of people and money, makes you wonder if they are going to get all the data."

Well, it's good you admit that you don't know much about statistics, because what you suggest is nearly impossible. Lost data can be approximated, but it's rarely accurate enough to be useful.

Recall the Arctic Climate that where ground temperature was approximated from Satellite measurements because the difference is known and there aren't that many ground stations in the Arctic? Same idea. We can't know river levels on the Red River in the 1800's without actual data, and approximating data from other studies will only give incorrect results. We need accurate data if we are going to develop flood strategies for Manitoba, inaccurate data won't do.

This is the problem we will face in the future.

Xort Xort:

$1:

Non-government research is usually not available to the public, and most of the time it's never 'pure' research because the monetary benefits are never predictable.

Don't schools conduct pure research and monetize when things become viable?

Anyway, having the government work on practical research which will become public seems like a good idea.

It's a great idea. But more and more companies donate research funds to Universities, because Governments cut back. So research becomes private, not public.

Xort Xort:

$1:

You are describing the difference between 'Politics' and 'Partisan Politics'. Have Scientists been acting in a Partisan manner in the past? No.

I don't agree.

Your agreement isn't needed. Those are the definitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisan_%28political%29

Unless you have some links showing scientists who release studies that somehow support a political party?

Xort Xort:

$1:

So why the need to muzzle how they communicate scientific findings at symposiums with other Scientists - a method of sharing and reviewing knowledge that Science has been doing since the Renaissance?

Because they are conducting partisan politics now? Because it's not their job to share information in that way? Because their boss told them so? Because it's not being used to share and review knowledge but to attack governments?
Pick any, pick all, pick none. Bottom line, it's part of the job.

It has always been the way science is shared. Papers, lectures, symposiums. And it's never about the politics, it's about the data. Data is politically agnostic.

The Article The Article:

"The findings should be very concerning to the public," he said, adding a full 50 per cent of scientists said they were aware of cases of political interference in the communication of scientific research.

Xort Xort:

$1:

Again, standard fare for civil servants. First rule; you don't talk to the press, unless it's your job to talk to the press. And again, has this been a problem for federal scientists in the past? No?

Yes?

$1:

So why cut their funding?

Because we aren't raising taxes to pay for it. Cuts were made across the board. This is the reality of responsible government.

Ah yes, I recall all those articles where Scientists directly challenge politicians on facts. Oh . . .wait. . . .

And yet, there are surpluses! We waste money in one place, only to cut it in another. Very responsible!

Xort Xort:

$1:

Why deprive everyone of the research they do and have done?

Is research being kept private? Wasn't the point that scientists couldn't use their free expression?
That's what the report said.
Have you moved the goal posts? Or rather switched them? Or are you saying that symposiums are how research is reported and if they can't share without oversight it's keeping the research?

Scientists are not free to attend conferences and discuss their research, without going to many levels of bureaucracy to have the information approved! this is 100% because of the Harper Government.

Xort Xort:

$1:

Again, when has this been a problem in the past?

All the time, has it been a problem with those employees? I'm not a civil service historian so I don't know. But sometimes changes are made across the board. It seems that the government is moving forward with a single voice of the government policy.

A single partisan voice. And research that doesn't comply with Dogma is unfunded and never released to the people who paid for it.

Xort Xort:

$1:

Scientists had the job of doing research, and it was also their job to share this publicly funded research with the public that paid for it. Because the Government didn't like the message the research gave is no reason to shoot the messenger.

Which is why the government is setting the course for more practical science.

And a collision course for disaster, because pure research is the way we survive.

Xort Xort:

$1:

Damage done: Only the future knows.

Could be zero. Could be all. You just can't tell when you make such an open ended statement can you?

$1:

No, it's only part of the Constitution. Total falsehood there.

What are you talking about?
Some scientists, sometimes lie to people to further their political goals. They sometimes use research to back up their words. I'm not going to accept anyone's word on their own say so. More so for a group that I know includes a few people that see they have a moral obligation to distort or lie. Now I did say some, and I mean it, not all and not all the time. But some.

Again, do you have any evidence that government scientists ever lying to further political goals? What possible political goals could a scientist have for delivering a lecture on the 'Rock Snot' we see in rivers recently?

Xort Xort:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Why do you have the impression that I hate 'practical' research?

Your words now and in the past? You seem upset that the focus is shifting.

No, I'm just concerned you are once again trying to make your argument look like it has substance by instead distracting the attention toward me.

Xort Xort:

$1:

Have you not read what I write? I have a hate for governments de-funding fundamental research

We don't have unlimited amounts of money. Switching to focus on one more than the other would follow a change in funding.

And why should my tax dollars pay for some new gadget for some company to make money off?

Xort Xort:

$1:

and then destroying historical data because of their political ideology. To save $400k per year, data that can't be replaced!

No evidence anything has been lost or will be lost, or that it's because of ideology, or that it can't be replaced.

Data can't be replaced once it's lost. And even though you try to deflect the testimony of scientists who witnessed the loss of data, it still happened.

Xort Xort:

$1:

If it weren't for Stephen Hawkings' fundamental research on black holes, the touch screen on your smartphone wouldn't work.

I guess the universe really is pear shaped because I don't have a smartphone.

I'll bite however, what is the connection between the research done by Hawking and Penrose on black holes and the 9 or so different touchscreen technologies?

Most touch screen technologies, like the capacitive type, take no credit from Hawking. But his work that matter that deforms in a gravitational field will also change it's electrical conductivity in a particular way is directly related to his theory of black holes, and is implemented on the newest more accurate generation of touch screens.

Since Dr. Hawking is incapable of data gathering, I'm guessing his research isn't "practical".

Xort Xort:

What this whole thing reminds me of is the closing of the coast guard stations. You would think that half the population of BC would have died in False Creek by now given the hysteria of the people against it.

I think I'm seeing the same thing here.

I see no similarity.

[Zipperfish]

Xort Xort:

Again, pay attention to the words; 'Scientists say'. Not a statement of fact, just something people say. Also even if they were correct, and valuable material has been tossed it in no way means it wasn't duplicate, already digital, or within the realm of data that should have been kept. Just that it's valuable. Any paper is valuable to someone that needs to wipe their ass and doesn't have any TP.

It may be a statement of fact. You don't know. Not everything people say is necessarily false, as your logic here implies.

$1:

Or I will admit maybe those records were lost. Although that seems unlikely. She could make a good case and we know the CBC would be all over it if she could prove the documents were missing, rather than troublesome to find.

The CBC is all over, along with a host of other media outlets. They've been on about it for years. Try to keep up.

$1:

No it's not, I'm not saying you are wrong because of your personal character.

That's ad hominem. By definition. Sheesh.

$1:

I'm saying you are wrong because your facts are in conflict with an official government source, and that I'm noting it's a pattern of behavior on your part.

His facts are not in conflict wiht official government sources. Nowhere in those sources does it say that data are not being destroyed.

$1:

When was the last time you felt the DFO lied to you?

You shouold read about the collpase of the Newfoundland cod fishery some time.

$1:

In 1989 the DFO advised that the total allowable catch (TAC) of codfish should be 125,000 tons. The Canadian Minister of Fisheries thought this figure was too low and arbitrarily increased it to 235,00 tons.

$1:

Some scientists, sometimes lie to people to further their political goals. They sometimes use research to back up their words. I'm not going to accept anyone's word on their own say so. More so for a group that I know includes a few people that see they have a moral obligation to distort or lie. Now I did say some, and I mean it, not all and not all the time. But some.

Wjhy wouldn't the same be true of politicians?

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Xort Xort:

tl;dr, don't have all day.

Ah that mature standard, nice to see you have raised the bar to a new personal high.

$1:

Which is the definition of Ad Hominem! Attacking a persons character in order to make your argument seem logical!

No, Ad Hominem would be to say that "Because DrCaleb sexually abuses dogs, his statement on the color of the sky is wrong."

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

Your ignorance is stunning.

$1:

The government lies! This government and every other one has been caught red handed lying going back to MacDonald!

So you claim that it's logically sound to ignore everything the government says if you don't like it because you think they lie.

$1:

And yet, I work in Government? That must either demonstrate my complete lack of paying attention, or my belief that not everyone in the civil service is bad. And again, ad hominem!

Again, you don't know what ad hominem means.

Another possible reason you work for the government might be that you too are a liar and find no objection working for lairs.

Or most likely you don't care enough to quit and want to get paid to do a job you like.

$1:

And I was talking about the study. Now stop stepping on my dick and get your foot out of your mouth.

You replied directly to me. It's clear I wasn't talking about the study, but the article on the HP.

Why can't you admit you made a mistake when it's clear you were wrong?

$1:

Well, it's good you admit that you don't know much about statistics,

I did not say that. I said my skills were not in the recreation of data. Don't make false statements on my behalf.

$1:

because what you suggest is nearly impossible. Lost data can be approximated, but it's rarely accurate enough to be useful.

So this data has never been used ever before and then included in the work that used it?

$1:

We need accurate data if we are going to develop flood strategies for Manitoba, inaccurate data won't do.

So you are saying that because we have no data from the 1800s it's not possible to make a flood strategy today.

Bullshit.

$1:

It's a great idea. But more and more companies donate research funds to Universities, because Governments cut back. So research becomes private, not public.

Schools have their own rules for what is or isn't public, are you implying that the donation source will change those rules? If so isn't that just a company hiring a school to do research for them?

$1:

Unless you have some links showing scientists who release studies that somehow support a political party?

Do you mean a study released to help a political party, or that a study released just happened to help a political party?

Because I'm sure we can find both in the totality of scientific history.

$1:

It has always been the way science is shared. Papers, lectures, symposiums. And it's never about the politics, it's about the data. Data is politically agnostic.

Data is, but people working the data are not. Select an outcome you want, weight the data so it gives you the output desired and then become famous. Hockey sticks and all.

$1:

Ah yes, I recall all those articles where Scientists directly challenge politicians on facts. Oh . . .wait. . . .
And yet, there are surpluses! We waste money in one place, only to cut it in another. Very responsible!

So because we can not be perfect everywhere all the time, who cares?

$1:

Scientists are not free to attend conferences and discuss their research, without going to many levels of bureaucracy to have the information approved! this is 100% because of the Harper Government.

It's not their research, it's the government's research. They are employees and are subject to rules on what they can and can not do with the government's IP.

Deal with it.

$1:

And a collision course for disaster, because pure research is the way we survive.

A bit alarmist, and I think logically inconsistent with reality. Within any reasonable time frame (lets say a million years) I don't think we are at risk in terms of survival with our current knowledge set to work with. And I'm certain that within the next 50 years our survival is not at risk from something that would require a new revelation about the physical nature of the universe that only Canadian Government Scientists could find.

$1:

Again, do you have any evidence that government scientists ever lying to further political goals? What possible political goals could a scientist have for delivering a lecture on the 'Rock Snot' we see in rivers recently?

Likely nothing, but the policy can only be fairly applied to everyone.

If you said, I must present some reason, how about CO2 driven climate change? Something about the growth or health of the rock stuff and how it's all the fault of CO2 from the oil sands?

I could accept that, likely isn't the reason but it sounds possible.

To which you should say, 'Well if that was the case then it's the job of the government to report that.' Leading to my reply about how the government must balance a wide range of issues and so on, back and forth until one of us doesn't reply anymore.

$1:

And why should my tax dollars pay for some new gadget for some company to make money off?

Because we collect taxes from the company, it's employees and that gadget if it sells well it is helping our standard of living, and overall happiness.

If you told me I could have a functional LFTR ready for mass production tomorrow, BUT I'd have to let a private company make a profit from it after I (collective 'I' here) paid for the R&D of it. I'd be falling over myself to give my portion of the R&D cost over.

As much as I like Crown Corporations, or State Capitalism, I'm willing to accept private industry over nothing at all.

$1:

Data can't be replaced once it's lost. And even though you try to deflect the testimony of scientists who witnessed the loss of data, it still happened.

Don't twist the words here. She didn't see data being lost, she saw physical copies being thrown out, which as I said is in line with the idea of closing the facilities. Also she said she has trouble finding the data she wanted. Which screams that she did find it and it was saved otherwise she would have said she couldn't find it or that it was lost.

The fact that this stuff hadn't already been transferred to a digital computer stored information is worrying. What were they doing all these years? Not even making the argument for cost savings, just as ease and speed of access issue this should have all been online years ago.

While we are at it, the libraries should have seen the potential cost savings and started this on their own years ago. That is if they cared about doing their jobs, well rather than just holding onto the jobs in the library collecting pensionable time and money.

$1:

Most touch screen technologies, like the capacitive type, take no credit from Hawking. But his work that matter that deforms in a gravitational field will also change it's electrical conductivity in a particular way is directly related to his theory of black holes, and is implemented on the newest more accurate generation of touch screens.

So did his work on gravity lead to an innovation in our understanding of electrical conductivity that made the new screens possible? Do you have a link to a report on this?

$1:

Since Dr. Hawking is incapable of data gathering, I'm guessing his research isn't "practical".

I never liked that classification of the types of science, but I'm using it for the ease of communication. To answer your question, it's not 'practical'.

$1:

I see no similarity.

Why am I not surprised?

~

Also as a side note, I notice you tend to throw in double spaces after a period. You are aware that's not correct? We are not using a typewriter with monospaced type anymore. All major style guides state single spaces.

Get with the times grandpa.

[Xort]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

It may be a statement of fact. You don't know. Not everything people say is necessarily false, as your logic here implies.

Correct, they could have been throwing out material that should have been digital.

Side note; I don't like saying digital as written words and numbers are already digital.

Anyway, the stuff tossed could have been important and not backed up. However the statements made strongly imply that they don't know.

If someone was to say the data on the 1974 water levels of X river system was thrown out, that would be something. But that's nothing at all like what is being said.

$1:

The CBC is all over, along with a host of other media outlets. They've been on about it for years. Try to keep up.

But they are not saying data has been lost for sure. What they are saying is that cool books and physical items are being thrown out. That's more or less an emotional argument, and even a basic understanding of the project or how you close a facility would include the part where you must toss out stuff.

$1:

That's ad hominem. By definition. Sheesh.

No it's not. Please learn what that phrase means because it doesn't mean what you think it does.

$1:

His facts are not in conflict wiht official government sources. Nowhere in those sources does it say that data are not being destroyed.

Yes it does right on the web page. All the data is being backed up and transferred to an online electronic format.

$1:

You shouold read about the collpase of the Newfoundland cod fishery some time.

$1:

In 1989 the DFO advised that the total allowable catch (TAC) of codfish should be 125,000 tons. The Canadian Minister of Fisheries thought this figure was too low and arbitrarily increased it to 235,00 tons.

Did they lie about the amount to be fished? For example, say they only let 125,000 but actually let 235,000?

That would be a lie. Saying I think this number is low, and should be higher isn't a lie. It could be wrong, not based on facts, but no a lie.

$1:

Wjhy wouldn't the same be true of politicians?

I'm sure it is. But the amount of checking done on a government to find their lies is much higher than many scientists face.

If data has been lost, why hasn't someone said this data here was thrown away? Would that be a slam dunk in terms of proof?

I think no one is saying that because they know if they did all the government would need to do is produce the information and that would discredit all future claims of lost data. Which is why we are getting emotional arguments, and weasel words that are meant to make people believe one thing while not outright saying it.

This is media manipulation 101. Hell it's grade school manipulation if you use the US common core.

Also same thing about the spaces. Notice how the forum formats out your double spaces, but they show up in the editing window? Might be a hint you're doing it wrong.

[DrCaleb]

I can always count on you to result to the insults Xort! Have a nice day.

[Zipperfish]

Xort Xort:

But they are not saying data has been lost for sure. What they are saying is that cool books and physical items are being thrown out. That's more or less an emotional argument, and even a basic understanding of the project or how you close a facility would include the part where you must toss out stuff.

A simple google search will indicate that there have been several media reports of he government destroying government records, not just "cool books."

$1:

Yes it does right on the web page. All the data is being backed up and transferred to an online electronic format.

It says it has removed all records the "do not support the department's mandate." What has happened is that, under this government, the departmental mandate has shrunken considerably, resulting in large holdings of records deemed to be no longer relevant. A lot of this is unique scientitific information.

$1:

I'm sure it is. But the amount of checking done on a government to find their lies is much higher than many scientists face.

Sceintists lie more than politicians? That's anew one. If youa re going to assert a howler like that, you might want to support it with some evidence.

$1:

If data has been lost, why hasn't someone said this data here was thrown away? Would that be a slam dunk in terms of proof?

http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/12/23/Canadian-Science-Libraries/

$1:

"The Department has claimed that all useful information from the closed libraries is available in digital form. This is simply not true. Much of the material is lost forever," reports one DFO scientist who requested not to be named.

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I can always count on you to result to the insults Xort! Have a nice day.

I can always count on you to run when your errors are pointed out.
Also good time to run, your BS is stinking the thread up.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

A simple google search will indicate that there have been several media reports of he government destroying government records, not just "cool books."

What part of they are getting rid of all the physical copies in those locations is so hard to understand?

Yes they are throwing our reports, documents, official records everything. Because they either have copies in other locations or have already transferred the material into a electronic format.

$1:

It says it has removed all records the "do not support the department's mandate." What has happened is that, under this government, the departmental mandate has shrunken considerably, resulting in large holdings of records deemed to be no longer relevant. A lot of this is unique scientitific information.

You have no idea what it is or isn't, or if it is even of value. Again more leading statements.

$1:

Sceintists lie more than politicians? That's anew one. If youa re going to assert a howler like that, you might want to support it with some evidence.

I didn't say that. I said that politicians and government have more people checking for their lies. How did you get that from what I said.

"I'm sure it is. But the amount of checking done on a government to find their lies is much higher than many scientists face."

Explain how you got scientists lie more than politicians from that statement.

$1:

"The Department has claimed that all useful information from the closed libraries is available in digital form. This is simply not true. Much of the material is lost forever," reports one DFO scientist who requested not to be named.

If that was true, why not give an example? I think what we have are a bunch of butt hurt civil servants that just had their funding cut so they are lashing out at the government that made the cuts.
Also did you check up on the author of your link?

[Zipperfish]

Xort Xort:

AWhat part of they are getting rid of all the physical copies in those locations is so hard to understand?

Yes they are throwing our reports, documents, official records everything. Because they either have copies in other locations or have already transferred the material into a electronic format.

If you read the quote that you posted from the DFO site carefully:

$1:

Q10: Has DFO removed items from its collection?
The Department has removed duplicates from its collections, and content not required to support the department’s mandate. It is important to note that the Department has not withdrawn materials of value that support its mandate that have not yet been digitized. DFO continues to digitize its own publications and the resulting items in digitized form are preserved, catalogued in WAVES and made available via Internet.

It is not digitzing reports that do not support its mandate. This actually adds up to a sizeable chunk, since, under the Harper government, the mandate of many of the science departmetns has shrunk considerably. For instance, DFO used to work closely with the provinces and territories on many issues. Under their more focussed mandate, most of that work was eliminated, so grey literature related to that work--and there was a lot of it--has ben tossed.

$1:

You have no idea what it is or isn't, or if it is even of value. Again more leading statements.

I don't understand your response here.

$1:

If that was true, why not give an example? I think what we have are a bunch of butt hurt civil servants that just had their funding cut so they are lashing out at the government that made the cuts.
Also did you check up on the author of your link?

That is speculation on your part. Again, you don't offer any support for your conjecture. You asked for a link and I provided it. There are plenty of others out there. But what would be the point of me providing them?--you've already reached your conclusion.

it's my conclusion that those scinetists are indeed butt hurt or funding cuts. And they are alos butt hurt and the destruction of a wealth of scientific data unavailable elsewhere.

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I can always count on you to result to the insults Xort! Have a nice day.

I can always count on you to run when your errors are pointed out.
Also good time to run, your BS is stinking the thread up.

HA! I actually lol'd at that.

I'm here to debate. To learn and perhaps even to teach. That's why I took all those courses on philosophy and formal logic in University.

You are here to contradict. You don't even put forward an opinion to defend, you just contradict until you can't think of a reasonably logical contradiction then you resort to calling people names instead. Why should I waste my time and effort on trying to convince the likes of you of anything? You can't even understand the simple definition of a logical fallacy that Aristotle defined 2300 years ago! Double spaces after periods? Really? That's the best you can do? My 12 year old nephew does better in debating with me.

It's inevitable that you'll just make up some misinterpretation of my posts, as you already have here, and then lie about my responses in 6 months. I'd rather read some web comics than waste my time trying to expand wither my mind by reading your drivel, or trying to convince you of just how wrong you are. I eventually get tired of trying to find words short enough that still convey my meaning. So, I'll just not bother.

Have a nice day!

[Gunnair]

fifeboy fifeboy:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Xort Xort:

Simple question, do you think the space program was a waste? If yes, well at least you stuck to your guns and are consistent. If no, then why all the hate for practical?

Why do you have the impression that I hate 'practical' research? Have you not read what I write? I have a hate for governments de-funding fundamental research and then destroying historical data because of their political ideology. To save $400k per year, data that can't be replaced!

If it weren't for Stephen Hawkings' fundamental research on black holes, the touch screen on your smartphone wouldn't work.

Xort Xort:

All of which totally ignores that governments are not the only bodies that fund research. Practical or so called basic.

Of which I have not said anything about. Companies are free to do as they like. Some, like GE, IBM and 3M do some incredible research. But none of it is for the public, it's all for the bottom line.

I really would like to hand out rep pts for this but the system says no, so all you get is a thank you!

Covered.

[Gunnair]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I can always count on you to result to the insults Xort! Have a nice day.

He has a temper. He stomped his foot and now there's a pout in the offing.