Slashdot Mirror

Not far off from "Charge!", one of the activites in Nintendo's Wii Play. Ride the bulls and plow into defenseless scarecrows.

Woosh? https://youtu.be/9IKVj4l5GU4?t...

Circular logic? I say a thing hasn't happened because demand used to be less than supply... demand increased radically... supply did not increase...

And to this you tell me there is a law that says by law that the demand must be controlled so that it is within the bounds of supply.

To this I respond well that clearly couldn't have been enforced because the demand exceeded the supply.

To this you respond circular logic.

This is false.

The basis of my argument is that the supply was X and the demand was Y... and over time the demand went to 2*X and the supply remained at Y.

Thus my argument is not circular.

To the contrary, your argument is circular. Mine is based on the reality of what actually happened.

I don't doubt that there is a law that says they were barred from doing what they did.

I merely point out that it was not enforced because the demand remained unchecked as evidenced by its relationship to supply.

So no... you can take you presumption of questioning my logic and jam it up your ass sideways. My argument was logically bullet proof.
https://youtu.be/8WZ0XSf23rs?t...

As to my solution and your rebuttal... it should be taken as granted that if I say a law should be in force that its enforcement is implied. Therefore citing non-enforced laws as a rebuttal is not valid.

As to my fevered imagination, you took my comment out of context because I defined my argument. You're another of those sad people on the internet that like to pull conclusions out of context and then question them ignoring that they were supported by previous material.

*yawn* Where do you muppets come from? Who peed in your genepool? Just astounding.

They're not rock stars until they've trashed hotel rooms and died tragically (usually choking on vomit).

Here are some examples of rock stars:

Johnny Thunders:
https://youtu.be/bBV-FYy8lww

Jimi:
https://youtu.be/xAWtuxhdUDE

And the template for them all:
https://youtu.be/xGH91AN7Vms?t...

Maybe "rock star" is not something to strive for.

They're not rock stars until they've trashed hotel rooms and died tragically (usually choking on vomit).

Here are some examples of rock stars:

Johnny Thunders:
https://youtu.be/bBV-FYy8lww

Jimi:
https://youtu.be/xAWtuxhdUDE

And the template for them all:
https://youtu.be/xGH91AN7Vms?t...

Maybe "rock star" is not something to strive for.

They're not rock stars until they've trashed hotel rooms and died tragically (usually choking on vomit).

Here are some examples of rock stars:

Johnny Thunders:
https://youtu.be/bBV-FYy8lww

Jimi:
https://youtu.be/xAWtuxhdUDE

And the template for them all:
https://youtu.be/xGH91AN7Vms?t...

Maybe "rock star" is not something to strive for.

1. do not conflate "nice sports car" with "fucking anything with four wheels and some kind of motor".

When I say that there are resource limitations that mean we cannot... CANNOT build 5 billion sports cars. I am not saying "any kind of conveyance what so ever".

I'm not quibbling over the point with you. The issue is that because of infrastructure, labor, and resource limitations there are finite limits to how much of any thing that can be produced at any given time. If you wanted 5 billion sports cars in 1 year's time... we could not produce them no matter how much money you threw at it. And if you tried... the global economy would eat itself... and not only would we not have those cars but people would be starving to death.

2. As to status symbols and class... it really is irrelevant to my point which is that X cannot be produced in Y quantity.

3. As to your citation of hobby jet engines to presume to contradict my obvious point... this is the point in the discussion where I spit in your face. *Spit* Are you serious?

When I referred to jet engines I was obviously referring to something capable of moving an actual airplane... not a fucking model or something but one that real people... not zoolander people (from the Derek Zoolander School for Kids that can't read good)... they're the size of ants!
https://youtu.be/NQ-8IuUkJJc?t...

Point is... you're being a jackass for presuming to call that a contradiction. And even if that were acceptable and it isn't... you're still not building 5 billion of the fucking things.

4. As to externalities (The catch all term for stuff that can't be quantified and is arbitrarily made up on the spot to support a position), I'm not excluding them at all. I'm just not letting you arbitrarily decide what is and is not relevant. You don't have that right. The market decides what it considers something costs and you can't contradict it with your opinions. If you want to insert something that has to be added to the cost calculations... and please make it somewhat relevant to bandwidth in Cuba... then let us hear what needs to be considered. I'd really like to know. If you cite CO2... I will nail gun your cat to your garage door. Cite something else please. The CO2 thing has grown tedious.

5. As to democracies of dollars not being like normal democracies... that's probably why I used a different term.

You think?

6. Ah... here we are. This is why you're making these little petty snipes. You're upset that I pissed on Marx's grave. Tough.

As to your dreams of the revolution etc... you people never learn. Do you ever get tired of being wrong? What have you clowns accurately predicted with your world view? If the communists have such a perfect vision of the future then why do they keep getting raped by reality?

As to some non-democrat groups doing things that will lead to the end of all things good... including puppies and sunshine... Sure.

Tell me, how is Detroit doing? That was your great experiment, shithead. You killed it. Which is generally what people like you do to everything you touch. Show me your great success. I'd love to see it. Something you didn't accomplish without parasiting off the bad evil people you hate so much... but which you cannot live without. Your entire ideology is like the entitled unemployed hipster child that constantly whines to his father about how his father doesn't understand or is evil or something. While of course never failing to eat at his father's table.

Go live in the wilderness and build your own society from scratch. I won't trouble you there. But that's the last I want to hear from your rot.

7. As to people having nothing to look forward to but flipping burgers... no you don't even have that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

As to the people... you're threatening me with violence. :-)

I literally get hard thinking of you tryin

I don't think they are lies, rather typical over-the-top rhetoric that you frequently see in British politics. Check out this movie for an example. Note how many people are laughing, and how much fun everyone seems to be having.

Compare that to CSPAN. We really got ripped off in our congressional system, at least as far as entertainment value goes.

I have a divers watch with a traditional analog display and two small digital readouts for other information like current depth, water temp and other dive related info. I actually do dive with it but mostly I use it as a regular watch. From a diver's perspective, watches like this have been largely replaced by dive computers. Lots of people get watches like this purely for the fashion and I do get a compliment on it once in awhile.

Though it's pretty durable, I do have to be careful with it in some ways. Battery replacement is expensive because it has to be pressure tested to 200 meters, and only a few places are able to do it for this particular watch. The watch was gone for two weeks the last time I had the the battery replaced. For that reason I don't often wear it while swimming because I swim a lot and it will automatically go into dive mode. It's not like the battery drain in that mode is THAT bad but not wearing while swimming probably gives me another 6 months of battery life. Wish I would have spent the extra money for an Eco-drive. But the battery/capacitor eventually goes on those too.

For me an Apple Watch would cost about the same and provide a lot more functionality. It does have a fairly basic water resistance rating, but according to this test: https://youtu.be/kJFci42OO7c It actually survives the pressure of being submerged at substantial depths pretty well. Lots of people have figured this out and there's even been a swim app designed for it.

My point is that they're not as fragile as you make them out to be and people tend to take care of their "nice" watches anyway. An Apple Watch may not provide any feature you'd be interested in but that doesn't mean they don't have genuine value for other people.

At first I was skeptical that a smart watch would have any impact on the market for Swiss watches but looking at what Fossil sells, I can kind of see it. They have lots of extra dials and gizmos on them. It's not just a classic high end watch that tells time.

... Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media. He ALSO was recently found to have been using the name of Lubos Motl in some private blog posts, later published publicly. And that's definitely not okay. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-29]

... Cook also made injudicious comments in a private forum which later became public, using the name of Lubos Motl. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-06]

Is Jane/Lonny Eachus coyly referring to comments made in a private forum which later became public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in and released those comments after publicly considering blackmail? Now that Jane/Lonny knows about this crime, can he agree that it's "definitely not okay" to accuse someone of "identity theft" because of private comments made in a mock debate which are only public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in?

John Cook (stupid debunked "97% climate consensus" paper), caught impersonating others. Supposedly for "science". wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes... And it's NOT a small thing. He was making false statements in the name of a Harvard physics professor. You're gone now, John. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-24]

During The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33, watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and making false statements in the name of Michele Bachmann. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus also going to regurgitate blackmail threats against HBO? Is HBO "gone now"?

(And, seriously... "stupid debunked"? No, Lonny. Just... no. Calm down.)

Hey John Cook @skepticscience Did you steal Lubos Motl's identity?goo.gl/uQNCgN @clim8resistance @lumidek
Because John Cook has committed identity theft, won various grants and prizes, and his wrongdoing has been revealed, I demand all the funds – like his share of those $240,000 in 2011 – to be sent back where they belong, namely to my account. ;-) It's just some $240,000 and you will increase your chance that you won't spend the rest of your life in prison, despite your being a fraudster, and a very incompetent one. [Steve Milloy, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-27]

Good grief. Lonny, you're regurgitating shameless threats of blackmail and libelous accusations of "identity theft" based on illegally obtained private correspondence! Can't you see that overwhelming irony?

Lonny, suppose you hold a mock debate in your private home. However, a script kiddie finds an unlocked door and lets himself into your private home, recording everything you say. Against your wishes, that script kiddie then releases your private mock debate on the internet. Hordes of gullible people then accuse you of identity theft, not realizing that you were just holding a private mock debate and that all these baseless and libelous accusations are ironically based on illegally obtained private correspondence.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous? (Let me guess: this analogy is totally different from Jane/Lonny's regurgitated accusations b

... Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media. He ALSO was recently found to have been using the name of Lubos Motl in some private blog posts, later published publicly. And that's definitely not okay. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-29]

... Cook also made injudicious comments in a private forum which later became public, using the name of Lubos Motl. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-06]

Is Jane/Lonny Eachus coyly referring to comments made in a private forum which later became public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in and released those comments after publicly considering blackmail? Now that Jane/Lonny knows about this crime, can he agree that it's "definitely not okay" to accuse someone of "identity theft" because of private comments made in a mock debate which are only public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in?

John Cook (stupid debunked "97% climate consensus" paper), caught impersonating others. Supposedly for "science". wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes... And it's NOT a small thing. He was making false statements in the name of a Harvard physics professor. You're gone now, John. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-24]

During The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33, watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and making false statements in the name of Michele Bachmann. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus also going to regurgitate blackmail threats against HBO? Is HBO "gone now"?

(And, seriously... "stupid debunked"? No, Lonny. Just... no. Calm down.)

Hey John Cook @skepticscience Did you steal Lubos Motl's identity?goo.gl/uQNCgN @clim8resistance @lumidek
Because John Cook has committed identity theft, won various grants and prizes, and his wrongdoing has been revealed, I demand all the funds – like his share of those $240,000 in 2011 – to be sent back where they belong, namely to my account. ;-) It's just some $240,000 and you will increase your chance that you won't spend the rest of your life in prison, despite your being a fraudster, and a very incompetent one. [Steve Milloy, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-27]

Good grief. Lonny, you're regurgitating shameless threats of blackmail and libelous accusations of "identity theft" based on illegally obtained private correspondence! Can't you see that overwhelming irony?

Lonny, suppose you hold a mock debate in your private home. However, a script kiddie finds an unlocked door and lets himself into your private home, recording everything you say. Against your wishes, that script kiddie then releases your private mock debate on the internet. Hordes of gullible people then accuse you of identity theft, not realizing that you were just holding a private mock debate and that all these baseless and libelous accusations are ironically based on illegally obtained private correspondence.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous? (Let me guess: this analogy is totally different from Jane/Lonny's regurgitated accusations b

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

Commenting on your delusion to someone else I respect... which is not you... is not a sign of anger, little one.

Your attempt to claim it is especially in that context where it is especially absurd merely underscores my point about your actual motivations.

I pegged you perfectly from the start. You're entirely transparent to me. I've dealt with enough trolls to know you better than you know yourself.

https://youtu.be/z2mXrndt1ZI?t...

You are pathetic. ;)

If she seriously still hasn't handed over the original drive then I want her sent off to the Prisoner's island.

Give her a number and "be seeing you."
https://youtu.be/tra3Zi5ZWa0?t...

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

https://youtu.be/IkfBflLg8gY?t...

https://youtu.be/QQE9ozut57Q

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

Sounds like the 'g-tards' wish they had style and were partying in the early 90's, so now their stoopid AI is melting their brains with trippy research drugs that are just do do in their deep mind garbage dump business - beaten by a black swan ! and they never saw it coming
XYZ

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

Google just pointed to Patrick Jean's film "Pixels" and they are both up on Youtube and Vimeo where it is currently listed as a "Staff Pick". I intend to blow-up my social-media and refer to Sandler/Happy Madison as cyberbullying Patrick Jean through their bulldog proxy Entura International and Columbia Pictures. These Holliwierd type are extremely narcissistic, and Sandler is real quick to play up Family Values in his films, hitting him up as a cyber-bully will hurt his ego.

... Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media. He ALSO was recently found to have been using the name of Lubos Motl in some private blog posts, later published publicly. And that's definitely not okay. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-29]

... Cook also made injudicious comments in a private forum which later became public, using the name of Lubos Motl. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-06]

Is Jane/Lonny Eachus coyly referring to comments made in a private forum which later became public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in and released those comments after publicly considering blackmail? Now that Jane/Lonny knows about this crime, can he agree that it's "definitely not okay" to accuse someone of "identity theft" because of private comments made in a mock debate which are only public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in?

John Cook (stupid debunked "97% climate consensus" paper), caught impersonating others. Supposedly for "science". wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes... And it's NOT a small thing. He was making false statements in the name of a Harvard physics professor. You're gone now, John. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-24]

Watch The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33 to watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and makes false statements in the name of Michele Bachmann. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus also going to regurgitate blackmail threats against HBO? Is HBO "gone now"?

(And, seriously... "stupid debunked"? No, Lonny. Just... no. Calm down.)

Hey John Cook @skepticscience Did you steal Lubos Motl's identity?goo.gl/uQNCgN @clim8resistance @lumidek
Because John Cook has committed identity theft, won various grants and prizes, and his wrongdoing has been revealed, I demand all the funds – like his share of those $240,000 in 2011 – to be sent back where they belong, namely to my account. ;-) It's just some $240,000 and you will increase your chance that you won't spend the rest of your life in prison, despite your being a fraudster, and a very incompetent one. [Steve Milloy, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-27]

Good grief. Lonny, you're regurgitating shameless threats of blackmail and libelous accusations of "identity theft" based on illegally obtained private correspondence! Can't you see that overwhelming irony?

Lonny, suppose you hold a mock debate in your private home. However, a script kiddie finds an unlocked door and lets himself into your private home, recording everything you say. Against your wishes, that script kiddie then releases your private mock debate on the internet. Hordes of gullible people then accuse you of identity theft, not realizing that you were just holding a private mock debate and that all these baseless and libelous accusations are ironically based on illegally obtained private correspondence.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous? (Let me guess: this analogy is totally different from Jane/Lonny's regurgitated accusations b

Dont' even need to do that now... manufacturers are making almost unbreakable props as seen in Youtube video. Good luck shooting down a drone if you can't break the propellers!

https://youtu.be/u3qy4Zv4snI?t=1m1s "Never trust a man with a pig farm..."

... as a practice exercise for optimization.

Mike Acton gave an excellent talk Code Clinic 2015: How to Write Code the Compiler Can Actually Optimize where he picked an integer sequence to optimize the run-time to calculate the sequence. Techniques include: memoization, and common sub-term recognition. For 20 values pre-optimization time was: 31 seconds, post-optimization time was: 0.01 seconds.

* https://youtu.be/GPpD4BBtA1Y?t...

Original GDC Talk

* http://gdcvault.com/play/10218...

that's because you didn't log in. ;)

I'm not going to go to the trouble of making a case that will take some effort to dig up links if I'm just dealing with another troll/sockpuppet that will say "tee hee, I wasted a lot of your time proving a point I knew you'd win... tee hee hee hee"

So no. You can log in or...
https://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y?t...

you know... making accounts that just show how colossally butt hurt you are about me... isn't really hurting me.

You're also showing anyone that cares to watch that I'm quite justified in my approach to ACs. This sockpuppet account you've made is completely pathetic. I mean... look at you. You think you're trolling me... but YOU are clearly the one that is upset. Not me. You're just throwing a giant temper tantrum. :-D

Anywho... I thought this was an appropriate link. It generally addresses my approach to ACs at this point:
https://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y?t...

The moon isn't even real. According to this researcher, it's just a hologram.

https://youtu.be/_3axPn65MGM

For my part, I simply choose to not install Java in the first place, it's an infection vector that I don't need.

Ain't nobody got time for that!

... your species interacts by peeing on stuff? What are you... dog people?

My species doesn't do that. For one thing our sense of smell isn't as acute as yours. We don't get that doubtless complex social signals that your kind gets from peeing on stuff.

For us, it just smells bad... and dirty.

A human being says "hey I don't like sitting in people's dried pee"... and a dog person from outer space says "peeing on stuff and smelling it is a time honored and culturally significant portion of my culture."

https://youtu.be/IkfBflLg8gY?t...

So you admit to being a troll? Okay. I'm right again.

https://youtu.be/pjTfqOrVJRI?t...

https://youtu.be/dhRUe-gz690?t...

You're got no legs to stand on... say what you like... I'm coconut clapping on to less fucking retarded discussions.

Don't like the taste of your own medicine? But its so thick and salty! You're the one that started claiming to have knowledge of the Japanese culture. Never mind that you had no knowledge of this specific topic.

As to your comical rebuttal that it isn't the japanese government that wants them gone but the locals... you have clearly not read a fucking thing I've said.

I said the dispute is between the locals and the japanese government. The locals want the japanese government to pay them MORE money for the US bases. The LOCALS want more money from the japanese... that is the dispute. The japanese government pays the island rent for the US bases. The locals want the rent payments increased or they want some of the land returned so they can build mini malls on it or golf courses or whatever.

That's all this is... Everything else is bullshit to put leverage on the japanese to pay up. The japanese are not paying up because its fucking extortion. So the island makes trouble. Beyond that, the islanders and the japanese government don't get along for a lot of reasons. For one thing, the island doesn't consider themselves japanese in the first place. They were a separate kingdom or something and want a separate government. So your knowledge of japanese culture is frankly f'ing pointless. The entire situation is something you don't even begin to understand.

Inform yourself, worm. :D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I know this because i know something about this incident.

You know nothing. Absolutely fucking... nothing. You thought the Okinawans were bog standard Japanese. I suspect you picked up some japanese by watching anime or something... and from that you presume to be an expert on all things even vaguely related to japan.

Allow me to respond with the appropriate anime response:
https://youtu.be/_TxnL5VYgoY?t...

Feel shame or admit to being less than scum. :-D

WW3 is coming. You think large scale war will never happen again? https://youtu.be/tvObuhT7Kpw?t...

The only questions to be answered are when, with whom, and who survives.

Login and we'll talk about it.

So let's remove deterrents to war, because war is inevitable. Is that your argument? Hold on while I nominate you for the next Nobel Peace Prize.

... its been common knowledge from the start and has been reaffirmed repeatedly... here is Obama doing it again:
http://www.rt.com/usa/obama-sh...

but it goes back to reagan... just doing some basic google searches gets me this:
http://www.thereaganvision.org...

Do I need better links than that... fine... its a waste of time but whatever:
https://www.larouchepub.com/ot...

That is Bill Clinton saying he would also share missile defense tech with Russia... LIKE REAGAN.

But lets see if I can find a better link.
http://www.washingtonexaminer....

That cites that the Russians even opposed a shared missile shield.

I mean... do I really need to go on? I'm sure I do... I'm sure you just couldn't accept anything short of the giant 18 inch dildo right up your ass... Sigh... why is it so annoying to find these links. Its a fucking well known fact but all I can get are sideways references to it. God damn it.

http://www.heritage.org/resear...

Another link referencing the same thing.

Every US president since Reagan has supported the idea of sharing the tech with Russia. Every single fucking one.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Comme...

That's Henry fucking Kissinger saying the idea is a good one.

I think I've got enough there that you can see the US has had this position from the very beginning and has not wavered from it since. The Russians basically are addicted to scaring people. They don't feel right with the world unless they make people afraid which is part of why the US and Russia don't get along. We're never going to be afraid of those idiots.

There are big cultural differences between the US and the Russians. They think hissing at us like a fucking snake is going to get them respect at the table. That is the LAST thing we'll ever respect. Hissing at us gets this response:
https://youtu.be/SoswyNaAIUA?t...

The Russians just don't get it. You don't get the US's respect by acting like a punk.

As to you never hearing this before... it has been in the policy from the beginning and repeated by every president in this context from the start. So your failure to hear it is on YOU. Feel shame.

WW3 is coming. You think large scale war will never happen again?
https://youtu.be/tvObuhT7Kpw?t...

The only questions to be answered are when, with whom, and who survives.

Login and we'll talk about it.

Login and we'll talk about it... and I don't expect them to live if this is how they conduct themselves...
https://youtu.be/DoQwKe0lggw?t...

The vast majority of places we are... we are there with the consent of those governments.

If this is legitimately Russia's desire, it is similar for their request that we help Russia re-enslave eastern europe. That's Russia's big complaint. "hey hey America... those are MY slaves... don't go giving them weapons or the ability to defend themselves."

To which we have generally told Russia to go fuck itself with a rake.

And here is something the Russians can start looking forward to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Eastern Europe is getting stronger. Russia is getting weaker. We are giving them access to our tech... our markets... our burning fire.

The tank there uses BAE's thermal stealth system:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

If you look at the design you can see its a night fighter. That isn't how the Russians fight. But it is how the US fights and it is how the Polish are learning to fight.

We are not afraid of the Russians. They think hissing at us like a snake makes us respect them. They couldn't be more wrong.

We respond more like this to "hissing":
https://youtu.be/SoswyNaAIUA?t...

Our eyes shine and glitter red when you threaten us. Don't.

Really your argument just highlights the foolishness of this Russian venture to build a rail line to the US. We don't want it. We want Russia poor, isolated, and backward until they break. And THEN... we'll try again. We'll offer them a hand of friendship to see if this time they're prepared to not be morons.

They should have named it "Code Sweat" and used this music as the theme song:

https://youtu.be/CJ0p7k-KzWM

"I wake up...in a Code Sweat. Hah!"

Maceo, blow your horn.

STV produces a more representative government, if you group regions together so that votes are for a number of MPs rather than just one.

https://youtu.be/l8XOZJkozfI

Looks pretty fun to me!

https://youtu.be/e90x4R88Ag0?t...

And in case you still weren't sure what to do with a button labeled "Start", the first time you booted into Win95, an arrow would slide along the taskbar from the right to the left with some text telling you to click the button.

If anybody wants to spend 45 minutes reviewing the data on whether the FDA's current regulatory regime helps or hinders, this talk is quite good.

Oh man, I've been waiting for someone to figure out how to do this. Feels like the last critical piece of VR... "reality capture".

Imagine... - Experiencing a live feed of a skydiver/basejumper/surfer/other extreme sport, where you can look around naturally in 3D - A probe in space or on another planet - An immersive control system for robots - On and on. You can now tap into and share someone else's experience viscerally, either realtime or recorded.

This is basically Strange Days.

I'm less than impressed by 360 videos so far. I'll admit that I have seen only 2: bjork's stonemilker music video and Aram Pan's North Korea YPT tour video.

The North Korea video I appreciate more, because you can look all around a location that most people will never visit. However, with both videos, I feel like I am playing "where's Waldo" with the content. Having 360 degree videos is fine, but I feel like a "director's mode" on/off toggle seems to be needed for people who don't want to feel like they are missing something interesting. I don't have time to explore every last location in a video game, and similarly I don't have time to rewatch 360 degree videos just to check every angle for easter eggs.

https://youtu.be/p47eWpzzGtY?t...

.

Will the computer be behind the plate so a PO'd manager can run out and kick dirt on it? Fans love to see conflict, it's part of the game.

https://youtu.be/PAHBZImmXsI ... there may be a lot of folk out there who think they can code after having had such a late start in life, but practical experience among the best of universities have found that the tide of talent showing up at their doorsteps has been pretty deeply out, due to lack of having the right opportunities at the right time.

Here is why to be careful around quickly spinning objects when putting one on your space station.