Slashdot Mirror

There are indeed several indications that the sea level has been more than a foot higher in recent history:

If the port was bustling 2000 years ago it is reasonable to suppose that tidal access was less
limited then than it is today-or was at least as good. Consequently the evidence suggests that
in 350BC there was probably a little more water than exists today in order for it to be a
worthwhile place to ship cargo from, and therefore current ocean volume (glacier melt and
thermal expansion) is less now than then, to take into account the known land changes.

“The North Sea had a nasty little jump between 350 and 550AD, flooding the coasts of
northern Europe with an extra 2 feet of water and sending its inhabitants — folk known
as Angles and Saxons — fleeing (although “conquering” might be the better word) into
ill-prepared Roman territories.

The results
indicate that during the Byzantine period, sea level at Caesarea was higher by about 30
cm than today. The Late Moslem and Crusader data shows greater fluctuations but the
data sets are also much smaller than for the earlier periods.”

Wave-cut notches along the seaward shoreline confirm a site-specific
rheological model for the northern the Red Sea that indicates a sea-level highstand (~1
m above present MHW) during or immediately prior to occupation. ... etc.

Quotes from here - click for citations.

http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/document.pdf

Hmmm... Sauce for the goose or, home address and phone number of Journal-News publisher

Anyone know where to find CynDee Royle, Editor of the Journal-News?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.. heh.

Hmmm... Sauce for the goose or, home address and phone number of Journal-News publisher

Anyone know where to find CynDee Royle, Editor of the Journal-News?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.. heh.

Colemak ends up sometimes better, sometimes worse than Dvorak on a 60-40 ratio for Colemak.
Here's a link for you.

But really, there's Workman, based on Colemak to be even more typing friendly. Scroll down to the book listings (starting with Don Quixote) for the various stats on what it would have taken to write each book.

If you want to dispute it, make sure to include links.

Honestly, the same goes for the GNOME project. Just have a read here. This situation is possibly even worse for FLOSS in the long run than the FSF's conservativeness.

FLOSS development is supposed to be about choice, I find it very unsettling that various entities try to take that choice away. "If you're not a GNOME project you don't matter, in fact we'll actively try to make your life harder." is basically what they say.

The same can be said about the entire systemd debacle, is it an improvement over what we have now? Maybe so, but that is irrelevant to this discussion, but the way they are trying to force it on everyone whether you need it or not, whether you want it or not is sickening and unworthy of a FLOSS project.

Personally I'll take the FSF's slowass development, seemingly archaic policies and Stallman's insistence on correcting every use of "Linux" to "GNU/Linux" over the current trend emanating from the likes of the GNOME project.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the warming has stalled about 15 years ago while CO2 levels in the atmosphere keep rising, every year the chances that this could be a statistical fluctuations in a long term trend diminishes, all you have to do is look at IPCC AR5 draft figure 1-4 to see how badly the models have failed to predict reality; as Richard Feyman said "When you've got morons talking about something they don't understand, you get something hilarious"

FTFY. Anyway this explains it.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the warming has stalled about 15 years ago while CO2 levels in the atmosphere keep rising, every year the chances that this could be a statistical fluctuations in a long term trend diminishes, all you have to do is look at IPCC AR5 draft figure 1-4 to see how badly the models have failed to predict reality; as Richard Feyman said "When you've got morons talking about something they don't understand, you get something hilarious"

FTFY. Anyway this explains it.

... you would have to arrest everyone that cleans anything.

Whew. I'm safe.

Not so fast AC, you poop don't you? That's blackpowder in the makin' son! You're goin' to jail.

Seriously, WTF. He was drawing "weapons" in his notebook.
Was he plotting out detailed plans for causing mass destruction? No?

Maybe he drew a detailed blueprint for an atomic bomb? Or maybe just an IDE? No?
TFA doesn't say. Another article quotes his mom saying that he drew a glove shooting fire. A glove... shooting magical fire... WTF?
Ok maybe it was this one. Maybe he was planning to build his own? That would have been aweso... err I mean criminal!

But wait, since the staff called the police then there must be some threat that he poses, right? Let's search his house just to be safe. Oh look! We found scary-looking exposed electronic parts!
Oh, and some "chemicals" that could be mixed together to make an explosive!
Let's throw the book at him! Great job here, boys. Let's grab a round and celebrate.

Seriously, WTF. He was drawing "weapons" in his notebook.
Was he plotting out detailed plans for causing mass destruction? No?

Maybe he drew a detailed blueprint for an atomic bomb? Or maybe just an IDE? No?
TFA doesn't say. Another article quotes his mom saying that he drew a glove shooting fire. A glove... shooting magical fire... WTF?
Ok maybe it was this one. Maybe he was planning to build his own? That would have been aweso... err I mean criminal!

But wait, since the staff called the police then there must be some threat that he poses, right? Let's search his house just to be safe. Oh look! We found scary-looking exposed electronic parts!
Oh, and some "chemicals" that could be mixed together to make an explosive!
Let's throw the book at him! Great job here, boys. Let's grab a round and celebrate.

Just like the point of jumping was to do scissors kicks to the neck. Cause that's just awesome.

That triggered the following image in my head, which I subsequently found on Google.
Kinda like rule 43, but with Norris instead.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the warming has stalled about 15 years ago while CO2 levels in the atmosphere keep rising, every year the chances that this could be a statistical fluctuations in a long term trend diminishes, all you have to do is look at IPCC AR5 draft figure 1-4 to see how badly the models have failed to predict reality; as Richard Feyman said "When actual observations over a period of time contradict predictions based on a given theory, that theory is wrong!"

Leaked figure from IPCC AR5 report shows just how far off even updated IPCC model predictions are:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc_ar5_draft_fig1-4_with.png
note that the grey bands are nothing more than an attempt at IPCC arse covering in light of failed predictions, the temps are consistently riding the low side and even outside of the coloured prediction bands, and most importantly the temperature trend is much much lower than predicted.

The IPCC's models are massively over estimating the impact of increased CO2 - unsurprising when they assume large positive water vapour feedback that don't appear to operate as they assume in practice, and temperature suppressing aerosol impacts that appear to have been overestimated too. They also don't have the capacity to model other dominating effects (like PDO and AMO oceanic cycles, solar variations etc), and have shown no ability to model or explain historical variation covering a 3 C band during the current interglacial - including eras like the Medieval, Roman and Minoan warm period and the little ice age.

An honest question: how many years of no temperature rise would it take for the catastrophic CAGW thesis to be rejected? We've had about 15 years of near stasis, and recent results show that the heat isn't 'hiding' in the ocean - it simply doesn't exist, though CO2 continues to rise. So just how many more years are needed for the IPCC to let go of the millenialist thermageddon fantasy and bring the temperature rise predictions back to a more realistic level (seems likely to be about 1-2C rise for a CO2 doubling).

Place more importance on model output than empirical evidence at your peril...

I present to you the temp anomaly from the recently leaked IPCC AR5 draft.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc_ar5_draft_fig1-4_with.png

please excuse the url source, it is where I happened to find the figure.

That would be the same 2012 that continues the trend in the IPCC AR5 report, which shows temperatures lower than predicted by any of the models. That ought to make people happy,, don't you think?

That would the the same 2012 with a drought that joins many others from the past 80 years. Guess what, droughts happen periodically, and this one was very much a local phenomenon within central North America.

We just survived the end of the Mayan calendar cycle. Whew. Quick, let's panic about something else!

Top left corner to switch between applications.

UNIX: Focus follows mouse, no autoraise, since forever.
Win9x: Powertools/Powertoys
WinXP: TweakUI
Win7: A couple of registry hacks
Win8: What's this "move to a corner and perform a second mouse operation to switch between applications" of which you speak?

Hell, actually, thinking about it; the ultimate solution is to ship my mother in law over to China. Have my wife call her for a 'quick chat' (This will ensure the line is pretty much open non-stop with perfectly generated random speech) then pass my data over the line using real-time Steganography with ZRTP

http://www.japantoday.com/category/entertainment/view/freakonomics-documentary-looks-at-sumo-match-fixing-scandal
http://blackotaku.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/the-japanese-allow-criminals-to-get-away-with-murder/

If something, buy investigating will cause national shame, it will not be investigated. The converse is said to be true also, bring up something you are not suppose to and you trouble may find you.

I don't want the government to tell me what I can and can't do, but it should at least make sure I am able to get the correct information to make that choice. I've met people who still think that smoking doesn't cause cancer, and I agree that they should be allowed to smoke because at this point in time they have enough information to make their own decisions. Companies are allowed to use advertising to distort the truth which makes it difficult to make your own decisions. The tobacco companies were allowed to advertise that cigarettes were not harmful: http://devilintheflesh.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/36-chesterfield-cigarettes-are-good-for-you-ad1.jpg The media used be so corrupt that it would have been cheap to place an article on the health benefits of cigarettes in a popular newspaper. Without access to good information, does the "personal responsibility" approach expect every citizen to conduct their own 50 year study before they start smoking?

Public urination considered sex offense in Georgia, not enforced by police

And don't get me started about 18 year olds having sex with their 17 year old boyfriends/girlfriends and then being charged. Or a 15 year old boy being charged for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend.

If my teenage son did it with a 20 something or older, I'd first ask if he used a rubber and then I'd say, "Son, you did good! Are you in love with her?"

The last question is just in case his heart is about to be broken and I'll be there to work it through with him if he so desires.

As far as you folks with teenage daughters and expect them to be chaste, well, Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - *snort* - ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Your "little girl" is probably sticking her tits in some boys face and driving the poor kid nuts! *been there*.

A lot of kids got killed.

Tragic, it is. Abso-fucking-lutely tragic. Kids dying and not knowing what is happening, or why, all those young lives snuffed by an insane loser for no good reason.

A lot of grown-ups got killed.

That sucks too.

And now we have more suckage on the way... you see, for the next year, the news will be filled with tear-jerker stories about kids getting killed, which will appeal to this person looking for a drama fix.

The drama fix will be accompanied with a lot of anti-depressants and whiny heroin fag music, to be followed with "If you don't cry as loudly as I do, you are a terrible person".

Kill me, please.

I think it is rather Blinn's Law at work. The reason why consoles have aimed at 30fps, is because average TVs did and still mostly do not go much higher. What good does it do more frames if your TV displays them at 24fps. Then you just cram more stuff into the frame. For the PC they "aim" at 60fps, but there it is more along the lines of "throw more hardware at it".

http://bluntobject.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/violencegraph1.jpg

anyone got a continuation of this famous graph?

While it can be used to override operators, generally the intent is to create new operators. In either case the operators can be lexically scoped to contain then to their intended use scope.

The semantic-preservation philosphy is alive and well in Perl6.

While it can be used to override operators, generally the intent is to create new operators. In either case the operators can be lexically scoped to contain then to their intended use scope.

The semantic-preservation philosphy is alive and well in Perl6.

Languages which are simple to learn (c++, for example)

WHAT?

Ahem. "Languages which are simple to learn (c++, for example)".

Perl has lots more reserved words than c++.
        (Examples: "say", "not", "and", "open")

Perl has lots more operators than c++
        (Example: "//" is an operator in perl. So is "<=>", "+/*", "..", and "eq").
        (See if you can understand the flip flop operator on first reading.)

Perl has several contexts, and the meaning of an operator or function is context dependent.
        (Example contexts: "scalar", "list", "null", "string")
        (Example differences: Saying "$i = sort @array" has a completely different meaning from "@i = sort @array")

Perl distinguishes a variable from its value.
        (Example: $i = 12; followed by $i = "twelve". The same variable, points to one of two values in memory. C++ binds the variable to the memory location, perl does not. Programmers have trouble wrapping their mind around this.)

Perl references are not pointers (but have some similarities). C++ programmers have a hard time with this also.

Perl has all the overloading and class syntax found in c++.

Perl doesn't have a precompiler.

You do not have the right to incite imminent violence or breach of the peace. Chaplinsky also says you can't do that through direct personal insults.

That's why I think it should apply to Fred and his clan. That's exactly what they are doing. Watch this video. That looks like inciting a breach of the peace to me.

And we all know that's their intent. They are mostly lawyers. The scam is they rile people up enough to where they react, then they sue them. That is how they maintain their funding. The plan IS to incite a breach of the peace, which is not protected.

To me, this is a no-brainer for a Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire type ruling. The story of the Chaplinsky ruling in the wiki article isn't as extreme as what the Phelps clan does. It boggles me that this ruling somehow doesn't apply to them.

This is similar to an idea I cover in a blog post about future cities and how those cities may be connected.
https://gautiertalksideas.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/economic-revitalization-of-an-advanced-civilization

Yeah it's not an inline picture, but does this count?
http://cassandraparkin.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/quizzical-cat.jpg

Premeditated?: The words "Sandy Hook" show up on a map of Gotham City in the latest Batman movie. The actor Gary Oldman even sets his fingers right on the words "Sandy Hook", 1:58 into the movie at the scene where Oldman says "Get a GPS on it, so we can start to figure out how to bring it down."
The Dark Knight city map
Reportedly "Sandy Hook" has not been featured in Gotham City map where previously it was called "Tricorner" or "South Hinkley".
Verify yourself if you have a copy of The Dark Knight.
http://deusnexus.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/sandy-hook-aurora-referenced-in-batman/

With their apps and cloud space and Ajax.

Back when I was young, we called them applications, servers, and well, soap.

See also

So you agree that someone (like yourself) who, rather than saying “I don’t really know the effect that adding CO2 will have, other than a general rise in temperature” says: “the rise in temperature will be neglible” needs to have some actual science to back up those predictions.

You're misstating my assertion. I'm saying that *nobody* really knows the effect of adding CO2 into the atmosphere, beyond a non-zero increase in temperature. That includes you :)

Data on the terrain and the accelerator are readily available. On average, my car is going to accelerate despite periods of deceleration.

Ah, the car analogy :) Pray tell, what data do you have on the "terrain" of cloud cover and albedo in the pre-industrial age? You're asserting knowledge where you have none :)

So you agree that climate models can be falsified?

Moving the pea under the thimble again? Say you have two dozen climate models, all with the same central conceit - human CO2 emissions overwhelm natural climate variation. Do all two dozen have to miss predictions by say, 5%, in order for the central conceit to be falsified? Just one of them? Just the model mean?

Show me the *one* model that you believe represents your central conceit, which if in error regarding any predictions, will falsify your central conceit - none of this "bet on every space on the craps table" nonsense.

Certainly: "natural climate change has continued even through the birth of humanity and the industrial age"

And exactly where in that statement you're quoting from me do I talk about CO2 doubling and its effect on global average temperature?

Which is, of course, in direct contradiction to your earlier admission that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

What? CO2 can be a greenhouse gas, and not drive global average temperature changes. In fact, the ice core record shows quite nicely that CO2 changes *after* temperature.

Heck H2O is a greenhouse gas - are you going to assert that humidity drives global average temperature?

You yourself predicted climate change on the basis of Tyndalls work.

Cite or it didn't happen. Make sure the cite *matches* your assertion :)

As per my earlier explanation (which you simply denied), the ice core records show us that the climate has sensitivity to CO2 levels

No it doesn't, it shows that CO2 levels have a sensitivity to climate. Causes happen *before* effects.

Arrheniuses model doesn’t work over those timeframes because the primary driver for climate now (and during his time) is the doubling of concentrations of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere

Ah, so you inoculate yourself from critique due to the historical record by making the magical claim that a hundred thousand years ago, CO2 didn't drive climate, but today it does. Nice unicorn thinking there :)

Then you’ll have no problem citing instances where this has happened.

Hansen's adjustments to the temp record? Sure - http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/smoking-gun-that-giss-temperatures-are-garbage/

So you are now saying that you don’t know the causes of climate change? Why would I look to you for an explanation given that there are a large group of people who do know and can justify that claim with actual science?

I'm saying that any person, or any large group of people, who claim that they know all the causes of climate change, and assert they can justi

You can Google "alternatives to Matlab" and find a nice write-up about several open source alternatives ...Octave gets very good reports. Or you can get the Student version of Matlab for a hundred bucks if you want the whole thing. Amazingly good. http://amca01.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/the-best-matlab-alternative/

Thanks. Of course, there is always the fallback excuse that unless I read it in Arabic then I'll never understand it properly (yeah, right!).

There are excellent interpretations (humerous and very irreverent, u might get a great deal of amusement as well as insight) from an ex-Muslim at:
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/archive/
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/chapter4part3/
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/wives-part-1/
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/wives-part-2/
Pax.

Thanks. Of course, there is always the fallback excuse that unless I read it in Arabic then I'll never understand it properly (yeah, right!).

There are excellent interpretations (humerous and very irreverent, u might get a great deal of amusement as well as insight) from an ex-Muslim at:
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/archive/
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/chapter4part3/
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/wives-part-1/
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/wives-part-2/
Pax.

Thanks. Of course, there is always the fallback excuse that unless I read it in Arabic then I'll never understand it properly (yeah, right!).

There are excellent interpretations (humerous and very irreverent, u might get a great deal of amusement as well as insight) from an ex-Muslim at:
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/archive/
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/chapter4part3/
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/wives-part-1/
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/wives-part-2/
Pax.

Thanks. Of course, there is always the fallback excuse that unless I read it in Arabic then I'll never understand it properly (yeah, right!).

There are excellent interpretations (humerous and very irreverent, u might get a great deal of amusement as well as insight) from an ex-Muslim at:
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/archive/
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/chapter4part3/
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/wives-part-1/
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/wives-part-2/
Pax.

Here's the actual blog instead of some stupid Register article: http://focusritedevelopmentteam.wordpress.com/

Of course, the Communists old *said* they were atheists. In every other way they acted like a religion - coopting many of the same mechanisms. However, let us ignore that and follow your argument. Yes the Stalinists were bad atheists, but look around at the World today, there are plenty of good atheists that stand for reason and tolerance. All religions [apart from Jainism, but that's more of a philosophy] on the other hand are fundamentally violent (which is why their fundamentalists are violent). Those who are devout are 'good' at their religion but 'bad' as human beings. For example, bin Laden and team was going back to the violent fundamentals of Islam; David Koresh chose the crazed fundamentals of Christianity.

Now you can argue (as the evil Salafis do) that the problem is that a pure religion has not been implemented, and if it was then it would all be OMG ponies and rainbows and unicorns and stuff. The problem is that a pure religion (at least the Abrahamic ones) contain so many contradictions that by making peace you both follow and oppose the religion. Same for many of the doctrines.

Don't believe me? well take a look at the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (and Qur'an, and Torah). http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
It shows *in the own words of those books* how parts of them contradict other parts. Not just one or two errors of scribes, but hundreds and hundreds of them. These books are the works of men - originally they were intended to help us, but now they are being used to control us. We have much better morals, and science, and historical knowledge, and health practices, and gender relations, and political systems, and international systems and philosophies than our first attempts at these things as laid out in these books. All the atheists are saying is, "Look these books are written by men who are woefully ignorant by modern standards; we are much smarter now, let us be evidence based for how the universe is and how we conduct ourselves and manage relationships".

Still don't believe me? Here's a pretty graph from Richard Dawkin's own site showing the inconsistencies in the Bible.
http://www.project-reason.org/gallery3/image/105/ Again, it is not just a few bugs in the document - the whole thing is fundamentally inconsistent. Once you see such a graph you have to willfully abandon your reason if you want to believe the utterly inconsistent, mindless, and lets face it, evil (incest anyone? genocide anyone) crap in the Bible or it's poor pilagerism, the Qur'an.

The Qur'an fails such an analysis even worse: the Qur'an is often Mo' PBUH making up rules so he could shag women. You see Allah did seem to intervene a lot when he wanted to get married or Aisha busted him shagging one of his other wives out of turn. Note: Aisha was 9 when Mohammed took her virginity - and whatever Mo did is what all Muslims aspire to do - and you think the atheists have it wrong?.
Citation required - well here you go (a humerous slant written by an ex-Muslim)
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/archive/ Analysis of the Qur'an (by an ex-Muslim)
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/wives-part-1/ "Swimmin’ in Women: Mohammed’s wives and concubines. (Part I)"
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/wives-part-2/ "Swimmin’ in Women: Mohammed’s wives and concubines. (Part II)"
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/chapter4part3/ "The Women (girls, girls, girls)"

You still think the atheists are the bad/immoral guys?

Of course, the Communists old *said* they were atheists. In every other way they acted like a religion - coopting many of the same mechanisms. However, let us ignore that and follow your argument. Yes the Stalinists were bad atheists, but look around at the World today, there are plenty of good atheists that stand for reason and tolerance. All religions [apart from Jainism, but that's more of a philosophy] on the other hand are fundamentally violent (which is why their fundamentalists are violent). Those who are devout are 'good' at their religion but 'bad' as human beings. For example, bin Laden and team was going back to the violent fundamentals of Islam; David Koresh chose the crazed fundamentals of Christianity.

Now you can argue (as the evil Salafis do) that the problem is that a pure religion has not been implemented, and if it was then it would all be OMG ponies and rainbows and unicorns and stuff. The problem is that a pure religion (at least the Abrahamic ones) contain so many contradictions that by making peace you both follow and oppose the religion. Same for many of the doctrines.

Don't believe me? well take a look at the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (and Qur'an, and Torah). http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
It shows *in the own words of those books* how parts of them contradict other parts. Not just one or two errors of scribes, but hundreds and hundreds of them. These books are the works of men - originally they were intended to help us, but now they are being used to control us. We have much better morals, and science, and historical knowledge, and health practices, and gender relations, and political systems, and international systems and philosophies than our first attempts at these things as laid out in these books. All the atheists are saying is, "Look these books are written by men who are woefully ignorant by modern standards; we are much smarter now, let us be evidence based for how the universe is and how we conduct ourselves and manage relationships".

Still don't believe me? Here's a pretty graph from Richard Dawkin's own site showing the inconsistencies in the Bible.
http://www.project-reason.org/gallery3/image/105/ Again, it is not just a few bugs in the document - the whole thing is fundamentally inconsistent. Once you see such a graph you have to willfully abandon your reason if you want to believe the utterly inconsistent, mindless, and lets face it, evil (incest anyone? genocide anyone) crap in the Bible or it's poor pilagerism, the Qur'an.

The Qur'an fails such an analysis even worse: the Qur'an is often Mo' PBUH making up rules so he could shag women. You see Allah did seem to intervene a lot when he wanted to get married or Aisha busted him shagging one of his other wives out of turn. Note: Aisha was 9 when Mohammed took her virginity - and whatever Mo did is what all Muslims aspire to do - and you think the atheists have it wrong?.
Citation required - well here you go (a humerous slant written by an ex-Muslim)
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/archive/ Analysis of the Qur'an (by an ex-Muslim)
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/wives-part-1/ "Swimmin’ in Women: Mohammed’s wives and concubines. (Part I)"
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/wives-part-2/ "Swimmin’ in Women: Mohammed’s wives and concubines. (Part II)"
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/chapter4part3/ "The Women (girls, girls, girls)"

You still think the atheists are the bad/immoral guys?

Of course, the Communists old *said* they were atheists. In every other way they acted like a religion - coopting many of the same mechanisms. However, let us ignore that and follow your argument. Yes the Stalinists were bad atheists, but look around at the World today, there are plenty of good atheists that stand for reason and tolerance. All religions [apart from Jainism, but that's more of a philosophy] on the other hand are fundamentally violent (which is why their fundamentalists are violent). Those who are devout are 'good' at their religion but 'bad' as human beings. For example, bin Laden and team was going back to the violent fundamentals of Islam; David Koresh chose the crazed fundamentals of Christianity.

Now you can argue (as the evil Salafis do) that the problem is that a pure religion has not been implemented, and if it was then it would all be OMG ponies and rainbows and unicorns and stuff. The problem is that a pure religion (at least the Abrahamic ones) contain so many contradictions that by making peace you both follow and oppose the religion. Same for many of the doctrines.

Don't believe me? well take a look at the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (and Qur'an, and Torah). http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
It shows *in the own words of those books* how parts of them contradict other parts. Not just one or two errors of scribes, but hundreds and hundreds of them. These books are the works of men - originally they were intended to help us, but now they are being used to control us. We have much better morals, and science, and historical knowledge, and health practices, and gender relations, and political systems, and international systems and philosophies than our first attempts at these things as laid out in these books. All the atheists are saying is, "Look these books are written by men who are woefully ignorant by modern standards; we are much smarter now, let us be evidence based for how the universe is and how we conduct ourselves and manage relationships".

Still don't believe me? Here's a pretty graph from Richard Dawkin's own site showing the inconsistencies in the Bible.
http://www.project-reason.org/gallery3/image/105/ Again, it is not just a few bugs in the document - the whole thing is fundamentally inconsistent. Once you see such a graph you have to willfully abandon your reason if you want to believe the utterly inconsistent, mindless, and lets face it, evil (incest anyone? genocide anyone) crap in the Bible or it's poor pilagerism, the Qur'an.

The Qur'an fails such an analysis even worse: the Qur'an is often Mo' PBUH making up rules so he could shag women. You see Allah did seem to intervene a lot when he wanted to get married or Aisha busted him shagging one of his other wives out of turn. Note: Aisha was 9 when Mohammed took her virginity - and whatever Mo did is what all Muslims aspire to do - and you think the atheists have it wrong?.
Citation required - well here you go (a humerous slant written by an ex-Muslim)
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/archive/ Analysis of the Qur'an (by an ex-Muslim)
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/wives-part-1/ "Swimmin’ in Women: Mohammed’s wives and concubines. (Part I)"
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/wives-part-2/ "Swimmin’ in Women: Mohammed’s wives and concubines. (Part II)"
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/chapter4part3/ "The Women (girls, girls, girls)"

You still think the atheists are the bad/immoral guys?

Of course, the Communists old *said* they were atheists. In every other way they acted like a religion - coopting many of the same mechanisms. However, let us ignore that and follow your argument. Yes the Stalinists were bad atheists, but look around at the World today, there are plenty of good atheists that stand for reason and tolerance. All religions [apart from Jainism, but that's more of a philosophy] on the other hand are fundamentally violent (which is why their fundamentalists are violent). Those who are devout are 'good' at their religion but 'bad' as human beings. For example, bin Laden and team was going back to the violent fundamentals of Islam; David Koresh chose the crazed fundamentals of Christianity.

Now you can argue (as the evil Salafis do) that the problem is that a pure religion has not been implemented, and if it was then it would all be OMG ponies and rainbows and unicorns and stuff. The problem is that a pure religion (at least the Abrahamic ones) contain so many contradictions that by making peace you both follow and oppose the religion. Same for many of the doctrines.

Don't believe me? well take a look at the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (and Qur'an, and Torah). http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
It shows *in the own words of those books* how parts of them contradict other parts. Not just one or two errors of scribes, but hundreds and hundreds of them. These books are the works of men - originally they were intended to help us, but now they are being used to control us. We have much better morals, and science, and historical knowledge, and health practices, and gender relations, and political systems, and international systems and philosophies than our first attempts at these things as laid out in these books. All the atheists are saying is, "Look these books are written by men who are woefully ignorant by modern standards; we are much smarter now, let us be evidence based for how the universe is and how we conduct ourselves and manage relationships".

Still don't believe me? Here's a pretty graph from Richard Dawkin's own site showing the inconsistencies in the Bible.
http://www.project-reason.org/gallery3/image/105/ Again, it is not just a few bugs in the document - the whole thing is fundamentally inconsistent. Once you see such a graph you have to willfully abandon your reason if you want to believe the utterly inconsistent, mindless, and lets face it, evil (incest anyone? genocide anyone) crap in the Bible or it's poor pilagerism, the Qur'an.

The Qur'an fails such an analysis even worse: the Qur'an is often Mo' PBUH making up rules so he could shag women. You see Allah did seem to intervene a lot when he wanted to get married or Aisha busted him shagging one of his other wives out of turn. Note: Aisha was 9 when Mohammed took her virginity - and whatever Mo did is what all Muslims aspire to do - and you think the atheists have it wrong?.
Citation required - well here you go (a humerous slant written by an ex-Muslim)
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/archive/ Analysis of the Qur'an (by an ex-Muslim)
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/wives-part-1/ "Swimmin’ in Women: Mohammed’s wives and concubines. (Part I)"
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/wives-part-2/ "Swimmin’ in Women: Mohammed’s wives and concubines. (Part II)"
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/chapter4part3/ "The Women (girls, girls, girls)"

You still think the atheists are the bad/immoral guys?

Luckily this is on the decline, though since 2000 it's bubbled up a bit. Still, going from 1 in 100 (!!!!!!!!!) to 1-2 in 10,000 is pretty decent.

Agreed. The spurious adjustments making past years colder and recent years warmer, all in the name of preserving the "omg, it was a record hot year" trope is embarrassing.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/nasa-rewriting-us-history/

Why not go directly to the source? The Met Office issued a press release in response to the Daily Mail story by David Rose that basically says he's full of it.

Back in the 90s, a company called Northgate Computer Systems,

You're looking for a CVT Avant Prime or Avant Stellaris. CVT bought out Northgate and continued to sell the keyboards but appear to have stopped selling them as of last year (yes, 2011.) Your best bet today is Bob Tibbets or Matt Morse, who have kept the Northgate flame alive. (A recent review.) Tibbets and Morse maintain a small stock of keyboards for sale.

See? Your answer is exactly what a lot of people reply on Android forums. I assure you, it's a problem, it's not just me. It does connect fine to some networks, but all devices except my Nexus 7 connect fine to my network.

Top 5 links for "obtaining IP address android" on Google:
I currently have 2 devices (my Nexus 7 and SGS2) N7 has JB running and SGS2 recently upgraded to ICS. BOTH have the same stupid obtaining IP address problem.

This is a common problem in android.

There are some problems highlighted in android os, but android WiFi obtaining IP address problem is consider as one of the major problem in android operating system.

The issue that I was facing was a Wifi issue: a bug that renders the phone incapable of connecting to a specific wireless network!

system/etc/dhcpcd/dhcpcd-run-hooks needs to have permissions fixed to "execute" by "user" "group" and "others" by using your favorite file explorer
this will fix your "obtaining ip address loop" without having to ever use static ip address
or at least it did mine.

When people have a genuine problem, and Google doesn't provide support but users do, interspersed with "it's your router, stupid", it just irks me. The hardware is fine, the software is mostly fine, but things like that don't contribute to a good overall user experience. :(

And how exactly do you press the "Windows Key" on a tablet? Or Alt+F4?
I haven't seen an actual Tablet version yet, so maybe the on screen keyboard has it?

On a tablet, obviously, you'd probably use the touch UI - i.e. swipe in charm bar from the right, tap Settings, then Shut down.

But, yes, you can actually use keyboard shortcuts from the onscreen keyboard. The problem is that the regular one doesn't have all the keys you need for this - you get Ctrl, so you can do Ctrl+C/X/V from it, for example, or Ctrl + arrows, but there's no Win key. However, in Settings, you can enable an alternate keyboard layout that emulates an almost-full-size keyboard - it looks like this. And there, all key combinations work exactly the same as on the physical keyboard - so you can Alt+Tab, Ctrl+Esc, Alt+F4 etc. The only thing it won't let you do is Ctrl+Alt+Del.

Find is still Win+F, though it has a Metro UI now.

Hehe -- and if all else fails, your wife might get these mistress pictures sent to her :)

It's Europe - she doesn't care: Mitterand Funeral

I guess it depends on many factors. Finnish retirement funds owned many hundreds of millions of shares of Nokia. In the last five years the value of that many shares has dropped by about 3.4 billion dollars. Many Finns also invested in the company, a point of national pride. The value of Nokia has fallen by about $100B in the last five years. There are only about 5 million people in Finland.