catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile


with 44 comments

hopefully the server will be reasonably stable now. its not perfect but any changes from now on will hopefully occur for short durations outside of peak times.

Written by Admin

November 22, 2006 at 4:00 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

44 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Great effort c8to, I’m sure it’ll all be to the good!


    November 22, 2006 at 4:09 pm

  2. the temporary glitches i don’t mind – its when they ‘eat’ my long comments on the efficient markets hypothesis that i get upset and take the lords name in vain 😦

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 22, 2006 at 6:02 pm

  3. Yair, getting eaten is not good. I’ve started composing long posts in a text-editing tool (Word does funny shit when you copy & paste) so I don’t lose stuff forever.


    November 22, 2006 at 6:20 pm

  4. your comments aren’t eaten…theyre probably just out of order because of the time difference between the server in the us and the server here…


    November 22, 2006 at 6:21 pm

  5. i think there was a surry hills brownout or something…

    definitely cant catch a break…

    if it doesn’t get really reliable in the next little while i’ll move it to some god server in the US…


    November 22, 2006 at 6:21 pm

  6. It’s sql that’s playing up getting my posts in the ‘recent comments’ column.

    We are not having great luck just now, although it should get better over time.


    November 22, 2006 at 6:26 pm

  7. grrrrr!


    November 22, 2006 at 7:07 pm

  8. well my broadband is stuffed. I had to dial in to see what was going on. so it’s definitely a surry hills brownout

    Jason Soon

    November 22, 2006 at 7:15 pm

  9. fuck…why when i move the server to historically reasonable surry hills does everything go to shit…

    we need UPS and redundant links…guess you get what you pay for…


    November 22, 2006 at 7:19 pm

  10. weird weather, c8to. the climate went from steaming hot to cold all of a sudden. there were flashes of thunder and then power surges. It’s all because of this human-induced climate change which you keep denying exists 🙂

    Jason Soon

    November 22, 2006 at 7:22 pm

  11. Jase:
    Don’t make humor out of a serious thing. This last Catallaxy splutter was obviously caused by AGW, as I am sure Bird would verify.


    November 22, 2006 at 7:25 pm

  12. Its communists.

    Fatty-Lambert telegraphed it by way of leftist-projection when he accused me of buggering the computers and threatened me with seven years in jail.

    Its communists and just when we were beginning to make some traction, to get the supports cemented and bolted in place for an enlightenment-springboard.

    Its communists and they’ll stop at nothing and now all is lost.


    November 22, 2006 at 7:33 pm

  13. yay! my broadband works again. things must be going back to normal

    Jason Soon

    November 22, 2006 at 7:45 pm

  14. The terms power surges and lefties are incompatible but brownouts are getting close to the mark


    November 22, 2006 at 7:46 pm

  15. nope its el nino standard weather cycle…this is a return to the sydney of 7-10 years ago…

    hot, wet and stormy…

    and relative calm in the northern hemisphere…as my category 3 hurricane bet has paid off…

    i think sydney will have a long hot indian summer this year…late january and february…


    November 22, 2006 at 7:50 pm

  16. I’ll resend the sql thingy I get when I comment on my own posts, but I think Jason’s already sent it. BTW need your input on blogmeet venues here.


    November 22, 2006 at 7:51 pm

  17. Bird, can’t you read? It’s two years for unautharized access to a computer system, not seven years.

    Why don’t you move to Cuba if you like communism that much?


    November 22, 2006 at 8:30 pm

  18. Tim you just accessed my server unauthorised…i never invited you to post here and hence are guilty of the same crime…


    November 22, 2006 at 8:32 pm

  19. Don’t be silly c8to. You have open comments here so you’ve invited everyone to comment. Iblocked Bird from posting at my blog and he then pretended to be somebody else so he could post his droppings.


    November 22, 2006 at 8:56 pm

  20. Right but I telegraphed it was me around the place.

    Its not like I tried to leave you in suspense here.

    I mean its not as if you figured it was me on account of your astuteness.

    Now answer that question I asked you ya big girls blowse.

    “Bird, can’t you read? It’s two years for unautharized access to a computer system, not seven years.”

    Blow it out your ass holocaust-denier.

    We don’t go in for your commie threats where I come from.

    Now answer the question dopey.

    So that every one will see how fraudulent is the science you’ve hitched your wagon to.


    November 22, 2006 at 9:12 pm

  21. Did Bird actually go to the trouble of getting on another computer to post comments or is it simply that computer scientist Lambert doesn’t know how to block an IP address when even a technological incompetent like me knows how to ?

    Because if it is the latter then arguably Lambert did not take reasonable steps to enforce his ban.

    Jason Soon

    November 22, 2006 at 9:15 pm

  22. Graeme
    Your writing style is rather distinctive. You don’t need more than 15 IQ points to work out if a piece of prose is written by you.

    Jason Soon

    November 22, 2006 at 9:18 pm

  23. Never left my computer.

    Just changed my name to get round Tims eternal block on me,

    And whenever I changed it again it contained a hint that it was the same fellow.

    Plus I linked the blog to my blog and telegraphed at two different places what I was doing.

    Because one time I think I upset Nick… which is OK but you don’t want people worrying needlessly when they are not quit sure who it is.


    November 22, 2006 at 9:20 pm

  24. As I’ve tried to explain to Tim on another thread, this will not fly. The legislation does not apply, and even if it did, no state authority will prosecute it. And there hasn’t been a private prosecution in a Australia for a very long time.


    November 22, 2006 at 9:21 pm

  25. I don’t want to imply by the above that I’m the least bit worried about Fatty-Lamberts ludicrous threats.

    What I’m saying here is that he wasn’t left worrying who it was or anything.

    And I’ve got to invade these propaganda-sites that are motivated by the wish to do harm to the human race.

    You know to let people know that the alarmists aren’t the monolithic voice of science they pretend to be.

    You know people all over the place link realclimate and Deltoid in total naive belief that these guys are the experts who should be trusted on this stuff.


    November 22, 2006 at 9:23 pm

  26. no we don’t have open comments…but my comment was a total joke about which i knew you would bite…

    whoa man does the left ever need to lighten up…where have all the hippies gone?


    November 22, 2006 at 9:24 pm

  27. so technically all lambert did was ban the moniker GMB…so bird did nothing wrong…


    November 22, 2006 at 9:24 pm

  28. What’s a private prosecution, SL? Is that like a citizen bringing to court criminal charges against another person?


    November 22, 2006 at 9:25 pm

  29. I think if Bird’s IP address got banned and Bird went to the trouble of getting onto another computer on an internet cafe just to leave comments on Tim’s blog Tim might have an a priori case of Internet stalking.

    But this is small potatoes. And as I said, you’d need to have less than a brain stem to be fooled by GMB’s ‘disguises’.

    Jason Soon

    November 22, 2006 at 9:27 pm

  30. Yes our bird of prey does leave a big ‘paw” print


    November 22, 2006 at 9:29 pm

  31. The only argument that SL offered was “trust me I’m a lawyer”, which I did not find very persuasive.

    c8to: “the left’? Are you referring to Bird? The man is a commie.


    November 22, 2006 at 10:44 pm

  32. Yes, JC, a very good guess. Since Tim is loud about his own scientific expertise but seems unwilling to accept that of non-scientists, I’ll deal with his two issues seriatim:

    1. Private Prosecutions

    Two hundred or so years ago, private prosecutions for small beans offences were relatively common.

    In time, the import of the criminal law – that we all have an interest in its enforcement – meant that crime became the province of the state. The ‘Crown’, therefore, is meant to stand not for the monarch, but for all of us as citizens, and for our collective interests in the preservation of law and order. There have been a few attempts to bring private criminal prosecutions in Australia in the last fifty years. To my knowledge, none have been successful.

    2. Statutory interpretation

    The word ‘unauthorized’ in the relevant legislation is linked to various words indicating secure computer systems where financial loss (ie damage) is possible – credit card systems, financial facilities, databases and so on.

    A well known principle of statutory interpretation (it also has a Latin tag, which I will not repeat at risk of being labelled a pedant) is that the particular characteristics of a given set of words in legislation define any more general words (or ‘etc’) that follow the specific words.

    The example usually given to young lawyers is legislation defining and distinguishing domestic and wild animals. If the statute reads ‘horses, donkeys, sheep or any other animal’ or ‘etc’, then the ‘any other animal’ or ‘etc’ must have the same characteristics as horses, sheep and so on – it must be domesticated.

    Drafters of common law statutes have developed this system so that categories do not have to be exhaustively defined. It is meant to prevent statutes from being even longer than they already are.

    The legislation does not apply to Tim’s situation here. 1. He is not at risk of any damage. 2. A blog does not share the required characteristics as set out in the legislation. In fact, the lack of damage would even make this difficult to agitate civilly. Although trespass is a per se tort – one does not need to prove damage – this particularly libertarian notion of property rights (and that is what it is – go read Steve Edwards) has not yet been recognised at common law. In order to trespass on your blog, Mr Bird would need to hack it in some way. And I’m sure you know more about what constitutes hacking than I do.

    There, Tim, you have now been saved the cost of going to a local solicitor, who would have given you identical advice and proceeded to charge you for it.


    November 22, 2006 at 11:02 pm

  33. fatty-Lambert
    I haven’t seen my cozzie bro for a while but last time I saw him I’m sure he could’ve been twice your weight (and I seen some pics of you fattie – lay off the wine why don’tcha?)

    so don’t be making no empty threats, fatty-lambert, coz the fatty-bird can squash ya.

    Kiwi Bird II

    November 22, 2006 at 11:05 pm

  34. Lambert isn’t serious…surely.


    November 23, 2006 at 12:12 am

  35. Holy crap, CL.

    Maybe you should point Mr Blair in the direction of this thread, and the earlier one where Bird and Lambert were having a set-to.


    November 23, 2006 at 12:29 am

  36. This is the relevant thread.


    November 23, 2006 at 12:36 am

  37. c8to.

    You’ve got an imbedded link in the socialists getting skeptical thread.

    It keeps pushing me over to that Sydney Morning Herald link.

    And I cannot get there to address Lamberts post.

    Which is just bizzare and proof that he didn’t have any real evidence.

    Because if he did he would have come forward with it.

    Instead of merely noting that CO2 has risen since the sixties.


    November 23, 2006 at 7:50 pm

  38. SL,
    Would the situation be different if GMB was told never to return, rather than simply having his chosen moniker(s) disabled?
    Morally, under such a circumstance i would expect someone not to return, but I am not sure of the legal position.

    Andrew Reynolds

    November 23, 2006 at 8:13 pm

  39. is the server the reason why this blog is out of service all the time?

    It is sooo frustrating

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 23, 2006 at 8:26 pm

  40. There may be the possibility of civil action, but for a civil action to fly, Tim would need to prove damage.

    Now trespass – (arguably) posting as a sock puppet on someone’s blog when they’ve banned you – is actionable per se. This means there is no requirement to prove damage. However, the courts until now have not taken a property view of blogs or online networks generally unless there has been a security compromise (‘a hack’) in order to access them.

    It tends to be a libertarian position to argue that one’s blog is one’s property in the same way that, say, one’s house or car is.

    If the law does ever change, sock-puppeting on someone’s blog may one day be viewed as ‘trespass to goods’.


    November 23, 2006 at 8:54 pm

  41. C8to. That thread is still screwing me up. Its got an imbedded link that keeps flipping me off.


    I’m having to comment on it here.

    No Humphreys. You have not found any evidence or reasons or anything in that science-talk of yours.


    1. You assumed that all forcing is the same. Thats a bad assumption. The any-old-Watt-will do assumption.

    2. You took this LAMBDA business for granted. But you didn’t find out how it is they calculated it.

    Did they calculate it on the basis of past evidence of CO2 increasing? No they based it on the sun decreasing.

    Its not applicable. Furthermore the word “forcing” is highly misleading except where the sun is concerned.

    The sun could be said to be forcing things. But the other factors are INSULATION… Or perhaps you might say “Implied Equilibrium”

    So no.

    No ‘reasons’ to believe here. No evidence at all.

    You have to see the entire process. And its at the ridiculous leap where this alleged Lambda is concerned…… that you can derive it from a drop in the suns radiation….. and then apply it to an increase in CO2 WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TO SAY YOU CAN…. that means the calculations themselves cannot be said to be evidence.


    November 23, 2006 at 9:11 pm

  42. Lamberts only throwing this tantrum as a diversion to run away from explaining a question I asked.

    If he answered the question it would immediately have brought his whole alarmist agenda into disrepute.


    November 23, 2006 at 9:16 pm

  43. Hey Cato.

    Are you able to confirm that that thread has not been tampered with?

    I mean it was YOU that accidently imbedded the link right?

    Humphreys can you confirm that you’ve seen my post which explains that your evidence doesn’t hold up?

    The idea that it doesn’t matter in the least where the alleged extra watts come from?

    Or whether or not you can even find evidence for the calculation of the extra watts due to CO2 and so forth.

    You see at no point do they have actual evidence.

    Humphreys you’ve got to find out how they calculated the alleged extra Watts in the first place.

    That was the question I asked Lambert. And he wouldn’t answer it. Since it would have amounted to a confession of sorts.


    November 23, 2006 at 9:24 pm

  44. Graeme
    why are you the only one who has these problems? Boris is posting on that thread ok. are you sure commies haven’t been tampering with your computer, mate?

    tell me where it;s diverting you to and I’ll try and fix it.

    Jason Soon

    November 23, 2006 at 9:38 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: