<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for SoftestPawn's Weblog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://softestpawn.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>Oh no, not another blog!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:46:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Barriers to Open Research by softestpawn</title>
		<link>http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/barriers-to-open-research/#comment-141</link>
		<dc:creator>softestpawn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:46:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/?p=658#comment-141</guid>
		<description>I have to keep it in a box with all these spiders.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to keep it in a box with all these spiders.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Barriers to Open Research by timheyes</title>
		<link>http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/barriers-to-open-research/#comment-140</link>
		<dc:creator>timheyes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:35:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/?p=658#comment-140</guid>
		<description>how the hell do you keep your sanity arguing with the badscience lot?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>how the hell do you keep your sanity arguing with the badscience lot?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Barriers to Open Research by Stewart Boughtflower</title>
		<link>http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/barriers-to-open-research/#comment-138</link>
		<dc:creator>Stewart Boughtflower</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:42:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/?p=658#comment-138</guid>
		<description>&quot;another problem with publishing more than you have to: the more you publish, and the more publically, the wider the potential audience of less expert people who will want to poke at your data and ask about it.&quot;

If you cannot explain it in a manner that I can understand, then the implication is that whatever it is that you think is important is actually worthless.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;another problem with publishing more than you have to: the more you publish, and the more publically, the wider the potential audience of less expert people who will want to poke at your data and ask about it.&#8221;</p>
<p>If you cannot explain it in a manner that I can understand, then the implication is that whatever it is that you think is important is actually worthless.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Equality Mistrust by Arne Klaus</title>
		<link>http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/the-equality-mistrust/#comment-131</link>
		<dc:creator>Arne Klaus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:19:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/?p=486#comment-131</guid>
		<description>Knee-jerk reaction, indeed.

Inequality, as it is most commonly understood, refers to dough, wads of $, cash - not intelligence or potential, but definitely opportunities presented or denied because one can afford education or decent health-care. 

The &quot;upper crust&quot; frequently cite in-bred superiority as moral justification to pontificate and rule by the grace of God, but people can be filthy rich and stinking stupid at the same time. I reserve a generous portion of disrespect for &quot;poor&quot; folks born with the family silver up their asses.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Knee-jerk reaction, indeed.</p>
<p>Inequality, as it is most commonly understood, refers to dough, wads of $, cash &#8211; not intelligence or potential, but definitely opportunities presented or denied because one can afford education or decent health-care. </p>
<p>The &#8220;upper crust&#8221; frequently cite in-bred superiority as moral justification to pontificate and rule by the grace of God, but people can be filthy rich and stinking stupid at the same time. I reserve a generous portion of disrespect for &#8220;poor&#8221; folks born with the family silver up their asses.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Cherry Slopes: Picking trends in temperature records by Arkadiusz Semczyszak</title>
		<link>http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/cherry-slopes-picking-trends-in-temperature-records/#comment-130</link>
		<dc:creator>Arkadiusz Semczyszak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:06:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/?p=319#comment-130</guid>
		<description>Trends - any length of time for counting the trend, should have a scientific basis - it’s fact. Application of the IPCC trends - as shown in the figure here (Figure IPCC from 2007) - 100, 50, 25 years has no scientific justification. 150 years has a weak justification - the beginning of industrialization, but it distorts reality (GHG anthropogenic really count, after only since circa 30 years).
Why not 25; 50; 100; 150 years? 
This ignores the major climate cycles such as AMO, CTH. 150 years is circa 2.5 AMO cycle, 100 - 1.5 cycle. How can we, in fact, combine &quot;means&quot; cycles of the &quot;ends&quot;, as does the IPCC? For 100 years - 1900-2000, (the graph of the IPCC) to give it even 0.03 degree C overstated trend (per decade) ...
Let us therefore start AMO + PDO - for 120 (1880 - 2000) and 60 years (1940 - 2000) trends (never 100 or 50)it’s all right, and then let us be known as &quot;chaotic variation&quot; - the other circulation of minor, volcanic aerosols - forcing them ... 
And all the skeptics are not thrown into one bag - like the Open Mind. 
Because it&#039;s disgusting ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Trends &#8211; any length of time for counting the trend, should have a scientific basis &#8211; it’s fact. Application of the IPCC trends &#8211; as shown in the figure here (Figure IPCC from 2007) &#8211; 100, 50, 25 years has no scientific justification. 150 years has a weak justification &#8211; the beginning of industrialization, but it distorts reality (GHG anthropogenic really count, after only since circa 30 years).<br />
Why not 25; 50; 100; 150 years?<br />
This ignores the major climate cycles such as AMO, CTH. 150 years is circa 2.5 AMO cycle, 100 &#8211; 1.5 cycle. How can we, in fact, combine &#8220;means&#8221; cycles of the &#8220;ends&#8221;, as does the IPCC? For 100 years &#8211; 1900-2000, (the graph of the IPCC) to give it even 0.03 degree C overstated trend (per decade) &#8230;<br />
Let us therefore start AMO + PDO &#8211; for 120 (1880 &#8211; 2000) and 60 years (1940 &#8211; 2000) trends (never 100 or 50)it’s all right, and then let us be known as &#8220;chaotic variation&#8221; &#8211; the other circulation of minor, volcanic aerosols &#8211; forcing them &#8230;<br />
And all the skeptics are not thrown into one bag &#8211; like the Open Mind.<br />
Because it&#8217;s disgusting &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on STAB Stops by softestpawn</title>
		<link>http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/stab-stops/#comment-127</link>
		<dc:creator>softestpawn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:47:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/?p=613#comment-127</guid>
		<description>I may have jumped the gun a bit; the TA may not have been performing well enough to be worth it (though I don&#039;t know how that was evaluated - it&#039;s not enough to just say that only some tip up to ops). And there might be a large scale general reorg going on, based on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6819344.ece&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Operation Entirety&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I may have jumped the gun a bit; the TA may not have been performing well enough to be worth it (though I don&#8217;t know how that was evaluated &#8211; it&#8217;s not enough to just say that only some tip up to ops). And there might be a large scale general reorg going on, based on <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6819344.ece" rel="nofollow">Operation Entirety</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on STAB Stops by Stewart Boughtflower</title>
		<link>http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/stab-stops/#comment-126</link>
		<dc:creator>Stewart Boughtflower</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:15:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/?p=613#comment-126</guid>
		<description>The difficulty of rebuilding those core skills, attitude and capacity from six months of inactivity pale in to (not quite) insignifigance in the face of the very real idea that;

Some people in the TA do it for &#039;the buzz&#039; or &#039;the craic&#039;.  If the TA just sort of stops for six months then they will go elsewhere for their fix.  Football team loyalty is arguably similar to unit loyalty.  There is a lot of football in the UK, operating on a lot of levels.  

Alternatively some in the TA have become used to the renumeration and will just either work longer hours at their regular jobs or take another &#039;second career&#039;.

Those who are motivated by public service might become retained firemen, special constables, St John&#039;s Ambulance volunteers/NHS ambulance service community first responders.  

Unless the TA is actually there, people will walk and those that do are much less likely to return when the MoD opens for business again in six months time.  Keeping TACs open for social occasions during the period won&#039;t cut the mustard either.

There are NRPS who look after a lot of the big/heavy kit.  These people will still have to be employed, along with PSIs, LECs and so on who run the TA when the TA themselves are not there.  All of those costs will still have to be covered; So it&#039;s not like the entirity of TAVR expenditure will actually be turned off for six months - only the bit that directly supports Operations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The difficulty of rebuilding those core skills, attitude and capacity from six months of inactivity pale in to (not quite) insignifigance in the face of the very real idea that;</p>
<p>Some people in the TA do it for &#8216;the buzz&#8217; or &#8216;the craic&#8217;.  If the TA just sort of stops for six months then they will go elsewhere for their fix.  Football team loyalty is arguably similar to unit loyalty.  There is a lot of football in the UK, operating on a lot of levels.  </p>
<p>Alternatively some in the TA have become used to the renumeration and will just either work longer hours at their regular jobs or take another &#8217;second career&#8217;.</p>
<p>Those who are motivated by public service might become retained firemen, special constables, St John&#8217;s Ambulance volunteers/NHS ambulance service community first responders.  </p>
<p>Unless the TA is actually there, people will walk and those that do are much less likely to return when the MoD opens for business again in six months time.  Keeping TACs open for social occasions during the period won&#8217;t cut the mustard either.</p>
<p>There are NRPS who look after a lot of the big/heavy kit.  These people will still have to be employed, along with PSIs, LECs and so on who run the TA when the TA themselves are not there.  All of those costs will still have to be covered; So it&#8217;s not like the entirity of TAVR expenditure will actually be turned off for six months &#8211; only the bit that directly supports Operations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Fool on 4 by Stewart Boughtflower</title>
		<link>http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/fool-on-4/#comment-123</link>
		<dc:creator>Stewart Boughtflower</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:55:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/?p=586#comment-123</guid>
		<description>Given the particular naunces of the situation, I think you&#039;re right on the money here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Given the particular naunces of the situation, I think you&#8217;re right on the money here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on When there is no evidence by softestpawn</title>
		<link>http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/noevidence/#comment-121</link>
		<dc:creator>softestpawn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:39:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/?p=458#comment-121</guid>
		<description>And he would have deserved it</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And he would have deserved it</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on When there is no evidence by Stewart Boughtflower</title>
		<link>http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/noevidence/#comment-120</link>
		<dc:creator>Stewart Boughtflower</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:17:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/?p=458#comment-120</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d have punched the mathematician.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d have punched the mathematician.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
