Explore Posterous
Search posterous
Search all posts and users. Type a name, type a favorite song title, whatever! See what comes up.
More posterous blogs
Here are posterous posts filed under hack...
Google Japan Blog: 思いどおりの日本語入力 - Google 日本語入力
この投稿へのリンク
good days bad days: Google 日本語入力 がリリースされました
Macで親指シフト入力を実現するTESLAとの組み合わせでも、いまのところ問題はでていません。 先日「かわせみ」を買ったばかりなのですが、しばらくの間Google 日本語入力を試してみようと思います。 Google Japan Blog: 思いどおりの日本語入力 - Google ... Posted by kazuNT 時刻 11:15 午前 Google 日本語入力のIMEソフトウェアを発表 : ohsuda.com
Google から Windows と Mac に対応した日本語入力ソフトウェア（IME）が、本日発表されました。... Posted by 時刻 11:04 午前 トブ iPhone: 『Google 日本語入力 beta』Mac版、Windows版を同時リリース
12/3、Googleが『Google 日本語入力』をリリースしました。それもWindows版とMac版を同時リリース。これは驚きました。 ・Google Japan Blog: 思いどおりの日本語入力 - Google 日本語入力 上記記事よると、Google日本語入力の特徴は凄く魅力的です。 ... Posted by トブ 時刻 10:51 午前 Googleから無料の日本語FEP「Google日本語入力」がリリースされたので ...
Googleがやってくれました。 Windows標準のMS-IMEはぶっちゃけ頭が悪すぎてつかいものにならず、高いお金を出してATOKを使い続けてきたユーザーに朗報です。 なんと、Googleから無料の日本語FEP（今はFEPって表現しないのかな？）である「Google日本語 ... Posted by R2 時刻 10:49 午前 Google Japan、日本語入力変換ソフト「Google日本語入力 ベータ」を ...
Google Japan、日本語入力変換ソフト「Google日本語入力 ベータ」を発表. ATOKを入れてない僕がインストールしてみたが、変換効率が２倍になった。今度はFEP業界をつぶしにかかるか。おもろい。 From Google Japan via @seki ... Posted by tomstyle 時刻 10:45 午前 Googleが日本語入力ソフトウェアをリリース！ : Gizmodo Japan ...
Googleが日本語入力ソフトウェアをリリース！ : ガジェット情報満載ブログ. Posted by ポッドキャスト配信者のメールアドレス(オプション) (ポッドキャスト配信者名(オプション)) 時刻 10:44 午前 MacBook Pro（Snow Leopard）にGoogle 日本語入力 (ベータ) を ...
MacBook Proでの日本語入力、ATOK 2003 for Macを使い続けていました。実は、Snow Leopardはサポートされてないんですよね。 いまさら「ことえり」はつらいし、ちょうど「かわせみ」が話題になってたので、使ってみたけど、ちょっと合わなかった。 ... Posted by 時刻 10:39 午前
ちょっと使ってみます。
Ubuntu
It's second period. The IT department is apparently not allowed to give out guest or substitute teacher accounts. So I got access to the computer and internet via Steve's Ubuntu Live CD. We met on the edge of the school campus not far behind a police car's flashing lights. (Someone was speeding through a work zone: ouch.) The sky is gray and the grass is powdered with fresh snow. Amongst flashing lights and light precipitation, I slid the compact disc in my winter coat. I'm now able to circumvent the schools draconian user security. :)
Also, using https breaks the filters gmail block.
Moloch’s Children: Do Climate Skeptics and Climate Change Activists Need to Agree? | Casaubon’s Book
The children of Moloch consist of the great mass of Americans and other rich world denizens whose central ideology is technological progress and consumption – Moloch is their god, the overarching center of their world is the urge for more and more comfort, more and more possessions, more and more wealth, more and more technology in complete disregard of the fact that these things are not possible. I realize that most of the people I am describing would fervently deny that this is true of them – but they would mostly be wrong. At the center of their value system is something empty and deeply wrong, and that emptiness stretches out and empties their world. They do not know what is missing from their lives, so they seek out more to fill the empty space.
The Children of Moloch cross political, religious, cultural and ethnic lines. That is, there are plenty of climate skeptics who believe that the climate probably isn’t changing and even if it is, we can just fix it with more free enterprise. But there are equally many people in the same camp who believe that yes, climate change is a big problem, and someone really should do something about it, but not me, and nothing that impacts my mutual fund statement. It is possible to be a devout Christian and still hold prosperity, comfort and your game cube at the center of your world in practice, while going to Church on Sundays. It is possible to be a radical leftist athiest and still hold those same values at the center of your world. Every shade of middle ground runs through the center. Moloch knows no political bounds.
The truth is that if you could meaningfully divide the world up into climate skeptics and climate believers and use that information politically, then we’d already be acting on climate change. The fact is that you can’t – the vast majority of people who believe we should do something about climate change believe that we shouldn’t do anything very difficult, expensive or inconvenient – pretty much what the skeptics believe. They are different in that if it doesn’t cost them anything substantive, they’d be happy if the problem went away.
via sharonastyk.com
Here's Sharon Astyk's response to the CRU email hack debate... Except it isn't really. She triumphantly refuses to get bogged down in the hysterical climate change debate and instead chooses to write a much more thought-provoking and eloquent post about why people believe what they believe, and why anyone - whether climate change sceptic or true believer - can have values of consumption and progress at their core.
Responses to the Climate Change Email Hacks
As probably everyone knows, last week hundreds of emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were released online by hackers. This act has generated incredible amounts of verbiage in the blogosphere and mainstream media, with climate change deniers seizing this opportunity to denounce the whole enterprise as some sort of labyrinthine global conspiracy.
I'm not going to add to this debate here, but given the subject of this blog and the fact that I obviously am concerned about anthropogenic global warming it seemed right for me to at least acknowledge the controversy and post a list of the best responses to the CRU hacks. In summary, I think it is very damaging for some of the scientists involved and a bad PR exercise on behalf of the UEA. But I do not think it comes close to discrediting climate science as a whole, and there's certainly no vast conspiracy at work here.
The Island of Doubt: The hacked climate science scandal that wasn't
What's interesting is how rapidly the climate denial blogosphere has latched onto this as proof that the entire climatology community are in on a scheme to defraud the world. And why whoever the hackers are would think that this material was actually all that interesting in the first place. The hacking of the data is a worthwhile story, insofar as IT security goes, but the content is just plain banal. All we learn is that scientists are humans after all.
Truthout.org: Purloined Emails Don't Change the Facts
Stop hyperventilating, all you climate change deniers. The purloined e-mail correspondence published by skeptics last week -- portraying some leading climate researchers as petty, vindictive and tremendously eager to make their data fit accepted theories -- does not prove that global warming is a fraud. If I'm wrong, somebody ought to tell the polar ice caps that they're free to stop melting.
Boing Boing: More insight on those leaked climate change emails
This would-be scandal ought to be a learning opportunity--a chance for scientists to educate the public on the evidence for climate change. And while there is plenty of that going on, there's also a lot of people making arguments like, "we shouldn't even be talking about the content of the emails because they are stolen property." Well, you're right, they are stolen property and, technically, should be left private. But you know what? Skeptics of climate change are using these emails, no matter what you think. If experts and researchers refuse to address them, it's just going to mean that the only narrative the public hears is the one that thinks the emails are proof of conspiracy. Not helpful.
The reference to “hide the decline” is referring to work that I am not directly associated with, but instead work by Keith Briffa and colleagues. The “decline” refers to a well-known decline in the response of only a certain type of tree-ring data (high-latitude tree-ring density measurements collected by Briffa and colleagues) to temperatures after about 1960. In their original article in Nature in 1998, Briffa and colleagues are very clear that the post-1960 data in their tree-ring dataset should not be used in reconstructing temperatures due to a problem known as the “divergence problem” where their tree-ring data decline in their response to warming temperatures after about 1960. “Hide” was therefore a poor word choice, since the existence of this decline, and the reason not to use the post 1960 data because of it, was not only known, but was indeed the point emphasized in the original Briffa et al Nature article.
This Climate Progress article contains a number of point-by-point rebuttals or responses to all of the segments of the CRU emails that climate change sceptics have been quoting to imply that climate science is fraudulent.
Wunderground: The manufactured doubt industry and the hacked email controversy
Even if every bit of mud slung at these scientists were true, the body of scientific work supporting the theory of human-caused climate change--which spans hundreds of thousands of scientific papers written by tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of different scientific disciplines--is too vast to be budged by the flaws in the works of the three or four scientists being subject to the fiercest attacks.
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
This RealClimate.org thread and its follow-up really do the best job of discrediting the discrediters, digging deeply into the science behind the soundbites in the emails.
The Energy Collective: Do Leaked Emails Undermine the Scientific Consensus?
The basic issue here that many of those responding from the climate change community seem unable or unwilling to grasp is that their real problem is not how particular individuals or groups might exploit this information, but how the information itself could undermine the faith of the public in the integrity of climate science. I use the word faith deliberately, because for most of us it boils down to that. The number of people actually equipped to read the scientific papers in question and ascertain whether the manipulation of charts and data implicated in some of the leaked emails is serious or not is vanishingly small, compared to the much larger number of us who must simply take it on faith that the scientists studying the climate and reporting on alarming changes in it are behaving in a fair, transparent, and unself-interested way, to the greatest extent humanly possible. It would be hard for most of us to read the emails in question objectively and not have that faith shaken, at least a bit.
Grist: Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists' emails hacked at CRU
The legitimate climate scientists over at RealClimate have an indepth response to the allegations being made against the CRU folks, some of whom are RealClimate contributors. While conceding that “hide” was a poor choice of words, they translate the science slang at work here: “Scientists often use the term ‘trick’ to refer to ‘a good way to deal with a problem,’ rather than something that is ‘secret.”
“It sounds incriminating,” Michael Mann told Andrew Revkin of The New York Times about his email exchange with Phil Jones. “But when you look at what you’re talking about, there’s nothing there.”
Washington Post: Science historian reacts to hacked climate emails
[Spencer Weart:] I don't expect this to have much impact on public perceptions of climate and climate scientists. Opinions have become so fixed that it would take serious evidence to shift a significant number of people. Since the late 1980s, just about every year and sometimes almost every month, a group of people (mostly the same ones) have exclaimed, "Now in these latest (whatever) we finally have proof that there is no need to worry about climate change!" There is a segment of the public that has believed every new claim. The rest will continue to doubt such claims in the absence of truly solid proof.
Skeptical Science: What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
What do the suggestive "tricks" and "hiding the decline" mean? Is this evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? "Mike's Nature trick" refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.
The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.
George Monbiot: Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away
It is true that much of what has been revealed could be explained as the usual cut and thrust of the peer review process, exacerbated by the extraordinary pressure the scientists were facing from a denial industry determined to crush them. One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief. Jones knew that any incorrect papers by sceptical scientists would be picked up and amplified by climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry, who often – as I documented in my book Heat – use all sorts of dirty tricks to advance their cause. Even so, his message looks awful. It gives the impression of confirming a potent meme circulated by those who campaign against taking action on climate change: that the IPCC process is biased. However good the detailed explanations may be, most people aren't going to follow or understand them. Jones's statement, on the other hand, is stark and easy to grasp
Climate Change Denial: Swiftboating the climate scientists
The denial industry (and hordes of climate nerds) has trawled through these e-mails and found sentences which, when removed from context, support their storyline that climate science is being deliberately distorted and exaggerated for a mixed bag of self interested and politicized ends.
Phew. That's a pretty long list!
How about a couple of more light-hearted responses to end?
George Monbiot: The Knights Carbonic
But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed.
Carbon Fixated: Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Renaissance science
When you read some of these letters, you realise just why Newton and his collaborators might have preferred to keep them confidential. This scandal could well be the biggest in Renaissance science. These alleged letters – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists behind really hard math lessons – suggest: Conspiracy, collusion in covering up the truth, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
Hackhadopi - La solution pour contourner la loi Hadopi - Compatible Windows et Mac
via hackhadopi.fr
real climate on the climate email hack
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
via realclimate.org
This strikes me as exactly right.
If the skeptics are correct and climate change is one giant hoax, it would be a hoax of insanely monumental proportions perpetrated by the majority of the world's governments, thousands of scientists, hundreds of universities and NGOs and all of the people employed by them.
This type of conspiracy is really the stuff of tinfoil hats, yet much of the mainstream media treats it with an air of legitimacy.
And you thought turning Laurier into Spock was an awesome money hack
via boingboing.net
I also like making happy queen/sad queen with the $20 bill. But that's nowhere near as cool as these hats.
