OT: Electronic vs. Traditional Information Sources

[Cursitor Doom]

Sadly this will go completely over the heads of some of the posters
here, but for the benefit of the others, here is the danger when you
give up your possession of the physical hard copy of your reference
books and defer to the convenience of online sources:

"After failing to purchase rights to the text of the Encyclopćdia
Britannica and World Book Encyclopedia for its Encarta digital
encyclopedia, Microsoft reluctantly used (under license) the text of
Funk & Wagnalls encyclopedia for the first editions of its
encyclopedia. This licensed text was gradually replaced over the
following years with content Microsoft created itself."


I'd have liked to have stuck an "LOL!" after that last sentence, but
it's way too serious a matter to joke about.
Here's the full context below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funk_%26_Wagnalls

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 08/02/20 15:37, Cursitor Doom wrote:

Sadly this will go completely over the heads of some of the posters
here, but for the benefit of the others, here is the danger when you
give up your possession of the physical hard copy of your reference
books and defer to the convenience of online sources:

"After failing to purchase rights to the text of the EncyclopĂŚdia
Britannica and World Book Encyclopedia for its Encarta digital
encyclopedia, Microsoft reluctantly used (under license) the text of
Funk & Wagnalls encyclopedia for the first editions of its
encyclopedia. This licensed text was gradually replaced over the
following years with content Microsoft created itself."

Why could that not happen with successive editions
of a paper book?

It would be possible, although arguably heroic, to
have paper copies of successive editions, and manually
compare entries.

Or are you failing to make a different point?

I'd have liked to have stuck an "LOL!" after that last sentence, but
it's way too serious a matter to joke about.
Here's the full context below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funk_%26_Wagnalls

I like hardcopy for many purposes, and would hate to
see it disappear.

It will always have value to historians, since, for
example, historians of Trump's past know how difficult
it is to foretell the past.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 2:37:49 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

Sadly this will go completely over the heads of some of the posters
here, but for the benefit of the others, here is the danger when you
give up your possession of the physical hard copy of your reference
books and defer to the convenience of online sources:

"After failing to purchase rights to the text of the EncyclopĂŚdia
Britannica and World Book Encyclopedia for its Encarta digital
encyclopedia, Microsoft reluctantly used (under license) the text of
Funk & Wagnalls encyclopedia for the first editions of its
encyclopedia. This licensed text was gradually replaced over the
following years with content Microsoft created itself."


I'd have liked to have stuck an "LOL!" after that last sentence, but
it's way too serious a matter to joke about.
Here's the full context below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funk_%26_Wagnalls

Cursitor Doom claims that because the Keeling curve is available on on-line

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png

the university collecting the data can change it any time they like.

Of course there are loads of books about climate change, and pretty much every one of them has printed copy of the Keeling curve as it was when they were published. George Monbiot's "Heat" published in 2006 isn't one of them. but it does put the 2006 CO2 level at 380 ppm, as does the on-line curve.

This rather restricts the opportunities to play with the data on a day to day basis.

I've described Cursitoer Doom as a gullible twit from time to time, but here he is just being a fatuous twit.

--
Bil Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 7:37:49 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:

...the danger when you
give up your possession of the physical hard copy of your reference
books and defer to the convenience of online sources:

...Microsoft reluctantly used (under license) the text of
Funk & Wagnalls encyclopedia for the first editions of its
encyclopedia. This licensed text was gradually replaced over the
following years with content Microsoft created itself."

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 7:37:49 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:

...here is the danger when you
give up your possession of the physical hard copy of your reference
books and defer to the convenience of online sources:

...Microsoft reluctantly used (under license) the text of
Funk & Wagnalls encyclopedia for the first editions of its
encyclopedia. This licensed text was gradually replaced over the
following years with content Microsoft created itself."

That's just a matter of the CURATOR of the information, whether it is
Britannica, or Funk & Wagnalls, or Microsoft. The case in science,
is that the SOURCE is intended to be published and available in a variety of archives,
so that scholarly perusal of the sources is possible.

Other than looking up the signature authors, one cannot get
such information from a Britannica article, and cannot revise
misinformation, appending a clear reference to the source. The
revision is (like the source) peer-reviewed, and you can FIND the
reviews and revisions by a citations index. Ignoring revisions
means ignoring corrections and comments by the experts who
use the 'peer-reviewed literature'.

Cursitor Doom apparently is the only judge who finds the 'no change'
carbon dioxide model to be credible, and he's outside the peer-review
model entirely when he does so. That's not good science practice.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 3:40:16 PM UTC+11, whit3rd wrote:

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 7:37:49 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:

...here is the danger when you
give up your possession of the physical hard copy of your reference
books and defer to the convenience of online sources:

...Microsoft reluctantly used (under license) the text of
Funk & Wagnalls encyclopedia for the first editions of its
encyclopedia. This licensed text was gradually replaced over the
following years with content Microsoft created itself."

That's just a matter of the CURATOR of the information, whether it is
Britannica, or Funk & Wagnalls, or Microsoft. The case in science,
is that the SOURCE is intended to be published and available in a variety of archives,
so that scholarly perusal of the sources is possible.

Other than looking up the signature authors, one cannot get
such information from a Britannica article, and cannot revise
misinformation, appending a clear reference to the source. The
revision is (like the source) peer-reviewed, and you can FIND the
reviews and revisions by a citations index. Ignoring revisions
means ignoring corrections and comments by the experts who
use the 'peer-reviewed literature'.

Cursitor Doom apparently is the only judge who finds the 'no change'
carbon dioxide model to be credible, and he's outside the peer-review
model entirely when he does so. That's not good science practice.

He's not the only judge who purports to find it credible.

There are branches of the climate change denial propaganda machine who make this sort of claim. They probably don't actually find it credible, but they do find that can sell it to particularly gullible twits, of whom Cursitor Doom is a prize example.

The aim is to sow enough fear, uncertainty and doubt to put off the day when you won't be able to make pots of money by digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel, and so far it has worked.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[mpm]

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 10:37:49 AM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:

Sadly this will go completely over the heads of some of the posters
here, but for the benefit of the others, here is the danger when you
give up your possession of the physical hard copy of your reference
books and defer to the convenience of online sources:

I've gone full-circle.

Nowadays, I find myself downloading the PDF for some new chip or app-note.
Then, I have it professionally printed and spiral bound at TheBookPatch.com

It's just easier for me to have the paper.
I can make notes in the margins, etc...

Yes, I know you can annotate PDF's -- and I do that too on some stuff.
But for maybe 10% of new, complicated (to me) circuits - that I have to get right the first time -- I'll often opt for a printed copy of the datasheet.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 20:40:12 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

Cursitor Doom apparently is the only judge who finds the 'no change'
carbon dioxide model to be credible, and he's outside the peer-review
model entirely when he does so. That's not good science practice.

As has been already established here, you're a damn fool. This matter
is not confined merely to science, but to the sum total of human
knowledge. Imagine some future dystopia where the
neo-Liberal-Globalists are no longer calling all the shots. Your
Farenheit 451 attitude to printed sources means future generations
have only online sources to consult when researching matters such as
history for example. That would be God's gift to a willing army of
Revisionists. I wonder how your pal, Bill Sloman, would feel if
someone like David Irving was in charge of peer-reviewing submissions
for a subject such as the Holocaust? Our children would be learning a
very different narrative indeed, and those who forget the lessons of
history are doomed to repeat them.

 

On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 20:40:12 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 7:37:49 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:

...here is the danger when you
give up your possession of the physical hard copy of your reference
books and defer to the convenience of online sources:

...Microsoft reluctantly used (under license) the text of
Funk & Wagnalls encyclopedia for the first editions of its
encyclopedia. This licensed text was gradually replaced over the
following years with content Microsoft created itself."

That's just a matter of the CURATOR of the information, whether it is
Britannica, or Funk & Wagnalls, or Microsoft. The case in science,
is that the SOURCE is intended to be published and available in a variety of archives,
so that scholarly perusal of the sources is possible.

Other than looking up the signature authors, one cannot get
such information from a Britannica article, and cannot revise
misinformation, appending a clear reference to the source. The
revision is (like the source) peer-reviewed, and you can FIND the
reviews and revisions by a citations index. Ignoring revisions
means ignoring corrections and comments by the experts who
use the 'peer-reviewed literature'.

Cursitor Doom apparently is the only judge who finds the 'no change'
carbon dioxide model to be credible, and he's outside the peer-review
model entirely when he does so. That's not good science practice.

You are aping the tedious Sloman third-person droning-insult
peer-review climate-nonsense thing. I hope you're being ironic.

But you forgot to mis-apply "it's" .




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 5:28:19 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 20:40:12 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 7:37:49 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:

...here is the danger when you
give up your possession of the physical hard copy of your reference
books and defer to the convenience of online sources:

...Microsoft reluctantly used (under license) the text of
Funk & Wagnalls encyclopedia for the first editions of its
encyclopedia. This licensed text was gradually replaced over the
following years with content Microsoft created itself."

That's just a matter of the CURATOR of the information, whether it is
Britannica, or Funk & Wagnalls, or Microsoft. The case in science, is that the SOURCE is intended to be published and available in a variety of archives,so that scholarly perusal of the sources is possible.

Other than looking up the signature authors, one cannot get
such information from a Britannica article, and cannot revise
misinformation, appending a clear reference to the source. The
revision is (like the source) peer-reviewed, and you can FIND the
reviews and revisions by a citations index. Ignoring revisions
means ignoring corrections and comments by the experts who
use the 'peer-reviewed literature'.

Cursitor Doom apparently is the only judge who finds the 'no change'
carbon dioxide model to be credible, and he's outside the peer-review
model entirely when he does so. That's not good science practice.

You are aping the tedious Sloman third-person droning-insult
peer-review climate-nonsense thing. I hope you're being ironic.

But you forgot to mis-apply "it's" .

John Larkin doesn't read anything that doesn't flatter him. Climate change denial literature regularly praises it readers for being acute enough not to fall for the inconvenient view of reality laid out by the peer-reviewed literature, and John Larkin doesn't realise that he is being lead up the garden path.

He doesn't know enough about science to realise how peer-review works, which doesn't help.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 4:55:09 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 20:40:12 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

Cursitor Doom apparently is the only judge who finds the 'no change'
carbon dioxide model to be credible, and he's outside the peer-review
model entirely when he does so. That's not good science practice.

As has been already established here, you're a damn fool.

Only to Cursitor Doom's satisfaction.

More rational observers award Cursitor Doom the honour of being our resident damned fool - though John Larkin is almost as gullible.

Whit3rd is in fact a pretty reliable voice of reason, which doesn't endear him to Cursitor Doom.

This matter is not confined merely to science, but to the sum total of human
knowledge. Imagine some future dystopia where the neo-Liberal-Globalists are no longer calling all the shots.

As if they are now. This is one more Cursitor Doom's fatuous delusions - one more demented conspiracy theory.

Your Farenheit 451 attitude to printed sources means future generations
have only online sources to consult when researching matters such as
history for example.

Nobody here has recommended burning books. The internet means that you can get at published material much faster than you can at a library, but I don't post links until I've looked at the content and am fairly sure that it ties up with what I know from other sources.

And I post direct links to websites, rather than hiding the provenance by going through some anonymous web-site, as Cursitor Doom does.

That would be God's gift to a willing army of
Revisionists. I wonder how your pal, Bill Sloman, would feel if
someone like David Irving was in charge of peer-reviewing submissions
for a subject such as the Holocaust?

That kind of thing does happen. Climategate incidentally documented what happens when one bunch of peer reviewers found out that a paper that they'd all rejected had been published despite their rejection advice. The upshot was the editorial board of the journal in question resigned en masse, and the publisher realised that he really had to fire offending editor.

https://www.amazon.com.au/Climate-Files-battle-global-warming-ebook/dp/B009R3SZBC/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=Fred+Pearce&qid=1581292516&s=books&sr=1-5

Fred Pearce didn't really understand why the crew at East Anglia got as cross as they did - he's not a scientist and doesn't have the protective attitude to the peer-reviewed literature - but he did document what they did

> Our children would be learning a very different narrative indeed, and those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

Cursitor Doom has learned quite the wrong lessons from those aspects of history that he has bothered to look at, and is horrible example of what happens when you only read stuff that agrees with your preconceptions.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 12:49:44 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 10:28:10 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

You are aping the tedious Sloman third-person droning-insult
peer-review climate-nonsense thing. I hope you're being ironic.

I did notice that myself. I suspect Sloman is using a couple of his
cronies on this group as sock puppets to pass on his infantile
scribblings in order to overcome the barrier that I have him in my
killfile.

Cursitor Doom flatters himself. I couldn't care less whether he reads my comments. He's even less likely learn anything from them than John Larkin.

What he fails to understand is that reasonable people share a common stock of generally agreed information, and use essentially the same reasoning processes to decide that he's a half-witted troll.

That's the peer-review process, that he knows even less about than John Larkin.

I'm sure that neither of them have been tapped to review an article offered to a peer-review journal. Phil Hobbs probably gets more invitation to do this than he'd have the time to honour. I happen to have once suggested George Herrold as a potential referee, and I'd be surprised if Win Hill hadn't been invited to do it pretty regularly. There are others who have almost certainly done quite a bit.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:55:09 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 20:40:12 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

Cursitor Doom apparently is the only judge who finds the 'no change'
carbon dioxide model to be credible, and he's outside the peer-review
model entirely when he does so. That's not good science practice.

As has been already established here, you're a damn fool. This matter
is not confined merely to science, but to the sum total of human
knowledge. Imagine some future dystopia...

Oh, there's plenty of past knowledge available, if one knows where and how to
look for it. You call up the example 'some future dystopia' from imagination,
as Plato told us to expect from sophists.

Alas, if you READ Plato's works on sophistry, and Aristotle's comments, you'd know
that is an intellectual garbage pit. Wash yourself off and try again.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 10:28:10 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

You are aping the tedious Sloman third-person droning-insult
peer-review climate-nonsense thing. I hope you're being ironic.

I did notice that myself. I suspect Sloman is using a couple of his
cronies on this group as sock puppets to pass on his infantile
scribblings in order to overcome the barrier that I have him in my
killfile.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 10/02/20 01:49, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 10:28:10 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

You are aping the tedious Sloman third-person droning-insult
peer-review climate-nonsense thing. I hope you're being ironic.


I did notice that myself. I suspect Sloman is using a couple of his
cronies on this group as sock puppets to pass on his infantile
scribblings in order to overcome the barrier that I have him in my
killfile.

Don't be a twat.

Put them in your (rose tinted) killfile!

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 18:10:08 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

Alas, if you READ Plato's works on sophistry, and Aristotle's comments, you'd know
that is an intellectual garbage pit. Wash yourself off and try again.

Jim Thompson was dead right about you.

<*PLONK*>

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 10/02/20 15:42, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 18:10:08 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

Alas, if you READ Plato's works on sophistry, and Aristotle's comments, you'd know
that is an intellectual garbage pit. Wash yourself off and try again.

Jim Thompson was dead right about you.

*PLONK*

Excellent. Soon he'll just be talking to himself

 

Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in
news:beu24fth5bvh5084me6r2f1bpohkdcb562@4ax.com:

On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 18:10:08 -0800 (PST), whit3rd
whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

Alas, if you READ Plato's works on sophistry, and Aristotle's
comments, you'd know that is an intellectual garbage pit. Wash
yourself off and try again.

Jim Thompson was dead right about you.

*PLONK*

Crybaby fucktards like you think JT was funny to when the stupid
fuck made his 'jokes'. He was not. At best, he was two decades
behind the times. He may have known electronics but was too much of
an asshole to be very helpful here.

'intellectual garbage pit'??? You are mumbling... again. And a
fucking plonktard. I do not need to filter you to ignore you.
Plonktards are pussies to reality.