Yes, many times I've been tempted to buy a WD external drive for the convenience, only to find that inside it's a "green". Kudos for the low power and all that, but they're also relatively slow and relatively less reliable.
For net storage and backup I use RE and when I expand I will probably go with RE again. I like it, SMART says it's fine, its fast, and I have reason to believe it won't conk out on me after a month.
"Then they'll send you to a collections agent and have that appear on your credit report."
They'd better not. Unauthorized charges to cards are pretty damned illegal. In fact, I think that amount would qualify as felony fraud. Grand Larceny. (Hell, it should anyway. Sounds like larceny to me.)
"Have to agree. We used to love SeaGate and despise WD - but now you can get 5 TB WD drives on NewEgg for a couple hundred bucks."
Here's the thing, though: as they say, they buy "the cheapest" they can. WD has very clearly defined categories of drives, and they don't even try to claim that "the cheapest" are by any means either the most performant or the most reliable. If you want those, you have to get the yellow (enterprise) or black drives.
Of course, other manufacturers might have categories too, but Seagate doesn't really... it just has regular and "enterprise".
So it's not surprising that the cheapest WD drives have the rates they do... because they're the least reliable drives they try to make.
While a "carbon footprint" may be a legitimate term, the reason that the way the term is commonly used is a problem is that it implies that carbon, per se, is a significant contributor to AGW. However, there is little if any evidence that is so.
If carbon dioxide is a culprit, then target carbon dioxide, not carbon. Funny, but I don't hear people talking about "oxygen footprint", even though oxygen, in some concentrations, can be poisonous. Yet it's a component of CO2 also.
"It's called "trolling," and you are neither original nor particularly skilled in its execution."
Nonsense. You're the one who is trolling. I stated exactly what I meant, and meant exactly what I said: "carbon" is not a pollutant under normal circumstances. If you want to define CO2 as a pollutant, that's your business, but that's not a "carbon footprint", it's a "CO2 footprint".
Use accurate terms! Stop calling things what they're not.
In THAT sense, you're the one who is trolling. You have made a practice of distorting my own arguments so that you can argue against them on your own terms. That's dishonest.
And if you don't think I know exactly who you are, you are mistaken.
"I love that "carbon footprint" goes in double-quotes, like it's some kind of imaginary concept. "
It's not an imaginary concept... it's just a silly concept. There is a very good possibility that I understand it better than you do.
First, even if you swallowed ALL the AGW BS, it's not "carbon" that is the culprit but specifically CO2. So "carbon footprint" is a fundamentally silly and inaccurate term to use. Under most circumstances, carbon is simply not a pollutant.
So get off your high horse. If you want to be respected yourself, start using accurate terms.
"If you had read that guys model, you had realized: there is no model."
I did read, and yes there is. He does not postulate a cause for the warming, but he does indeed have a predictive model. How well it predicts in the future remains to be seen.
"Regarding prediction: as far as I can tell current models predict the actual situation very well. If you can do better join the scientists and show them."
Really? That's interesting. Every successive IPCC report has decreased its projections of warming. When hundreds of AGW models were compared last year, the MEAN difference between their projections of warming and actual warming has been over 100%. (I don't want to bother to go find my reference right now. I have work to do. But I might post it later today.)
Now, I have been accused of "ignoring" the error bars in those statistics, but I have not ignored them at all. The fact is that the error bars are huge, allowing for damn near any possible result... which makes the projections nearly meaningless. When your error bars are large enough, you can take just about anything and say "See! It was predicted!"
By just about anybody's standard of measure, 100% average error is very high indeed. Saying "it's within the margins of error" simply means your error bars are so broad that any "projection" has very little meaning. In most areas of science, that much breadth in your error margins would be called very weak science at best.
"Unfortunately what you link is not a model, but 4 diagrams and a bit of text."
A model is a model is a model. It can be based on supercomputer number crunching, or based on the dessication rate of Play-Doh.
In science, the value of a theory is its predictive ability. I don't give a damn if somebody's model is based on which way the dog was facing when it was peeing... the theory that predicts better is the better theory. That's the way science works. Anything else is noise.
The fact is that the vast majority of CO2-based climate models have been downright terrible at predicting anything so far. I'm not saying this guy's model is any better, but it appears to be no worse.
"Probably a lot less than that of all the climate change "sceptics" combined, so if you were going to propose getting rid of them for ecological reasons, I do have a counter-proposal..."
It's actually possible that if you added the serious skeptics together, they would not have as much "carbon footprint" as Al Gore, with his mansion and plane trips and limos.
"How has their cost increased exactly? Unless they mean they are now oversubscribing the infrastructure they have by a lot and its getting to a point where they get forced to upgrade"
Higher cost or not, their price is WAY too high! Hell, we already know internet in the U.S. costs too much, but I get unlimited internet (no capacity limit) of 20MBps for $70. In practice, I do think there is a cap of 250GB per month, at which point they will probably ask you to use less bandwidth.
$300 for 100GB is just plain outrageous. I'd tell them to piss off and get satellite, if that was the only other option.
"Then there's a long way to go. Petrol in Europe is still 6 times more expensive. No, really. 6 times."
That would make petrol about $18 per gallon, or 3.5 Euro / liter, or 2.9 GBP / liter. But prices I see today online (commercial sources, average prices as of today) don't look like that at all:
London: 1.29 GBP which makes your price about 2.25 times actual price.
Madrid 1.43 Euro, or 0.4 times your claimed price.
Paris 1.64 Euro (0.47 x your price)
Berlin 1.61 Euro (0.46 x your price)
Oslo 1.61 Krone (0.47 x your price)
Stockholm 14.56 Krona (0.5 x your price)
Moscow 30.65 Ruble (0.19 x your price)
Etc., etc. Simply taking an average of these cities would not be meaningful, but it gives us a general idea: the actual cost of gasoline in Europe is somewhere around 3 (or a bit less) times what gasoline costs in the U.S.
"That said, there's a simple reason why people are driving less: cost. Fuel is more expensive but more importantly the insurance is crazy for those under 25."
This is what I was going to say. I would be willing to bet that "online alternatives" aside, many teens are driving less simply because jobs have been harder to find, and gasoline has been so expensive.
" What happens if you ask the questions in a manner where the answers are recorded as answered, and "cancel" saves the test?"
The problem is that such tests are almost never done, because unless the experimenter has pretty clearly written signed waivers ahead of time, "testing" in this manner is considered unethical.
Yep. Sure enough. The more I have looked into this, the more appalling I have found it to be.
It appears to me that there are not just multiple but MANY instances of my comments taken out of context, with your own disparaging comments associated to quotes in your blog or links to my comments elsewhere. Multiple instances of aspersions cast and other personal remarks that I will say -- politely for now -- are likely to be shown to be incorrect and are pretty certainly inappropriate. Other instances of claims and other statements about me that are easily proven false.
From here it looks like you've really put your foot in it. In fact, it looks like you've been "digging" your own holes, continually and diligently... and neatly documenting them for everyone to see, even... for quite a long time. I am almost -- but not quite -- sorry I missed seeing all this earlier.
From what I read this evening, it also appears that other people have called you out for doing similar things to them.
It is very likely that this is going to get pretty interesting.
... And I just ALSO found out that you have made a practice of quoting me -- sometimes out of context -- on your website, THEN posting your own replies to my comments THERE (or at least making counter-arguments to my comments), without my knowledge. Apparently (at the moment I see no other reason) in order to "have the last word" without having to deal with any actual response from me. I consider that behavior to be reprehensible. This follows the other pattern of "late" replies that I do not see in my Slashdot timeline... more evidence of an emotional "need" to have the last word without the inconvenience of allowing someone to actually reply.
I am not a regular reader of your website and I have no wish to be. In fact, you do not have my permission to use my words there. If there was any permission given before, explicit or implicit, consider it retracted.
Regardless of whether you feel it to be so, in my opinion moving my words somewhere else, then arguing with them there, is unethical. I have no desire to participate in "discussions" on your website, nor do I give my permission for my words to be reproduced there. I come here to Slashdot mainly for entertainment, and I have no desire to be a whipping-post on your personal blog.
I ALSO just found out (because, unlike what looks from here to be some kind of unhealthy obsession about me on your part, I have had little to no interest in YOU...) that you have written extensively about me -- or things you seem to think are about me -- to other people, without my knowledge and outside of any exchange that actually involved me at all.
Because what has been increasingly appearing to me to be weird, obsessive behavior on your part has finally started to really strike me as abnormal, obsessive, and "creepy", I started reading some of your comments that were either replies that were too late in my timeline for me to have normally seen them, or were to other people altogether.
Some of them, at first glance, appear to me to have crossed well beyond reasonable, civil, public discourse. I can see after only a brief look that in fact you have made quite a number of false public statements about me personally.
You have been treading a very fine line, and I see now that your behavior may in fact have been crossing it for some time. We shall see. I am going to get opinions from people who know a bit more about this kind of thing than I.
What I have learned today has been appalling. I must say that I expected far more professional behavior from someone who claims to be be a scientist. But then, I've told you that before.
Well, that's a good point. When I last upgraded my OS, certain applications insisted that I have a JRE that is a version or two behind the one that was bundled with OS X. Maybe it was planned obsolescence on their part, but if so, it backfired: I'll be damned if I'm going to go out and buy new copies just because I upgraded my OS. I'll find something else.
Exactly what who's been saying all along? Aside from all your short term "cooling/recovery" trends, you've smeared paleoclimate studies while making these uncited claims about the paleoclimate:
I think your idea of "smear" is a little bit out of whack. Let me summarize the comments I made that you call "smears" in those three links above:
"I don't think those other forcings are affecting this data as much as you would have us believe."
"No, by 'bias' I mean that since the people behind this site (seriously, have you done ANY homework on this?) are some of the very people who were being criticized by Wegman, then they can hardly be called objective on the matter! That seems like a pretty good description of 'bias' to me."
(From 2012): "Critics please take note: the ONLY references Wikipedia lists for saying that the MWP was not warmer than today are papers by -- who else? -- Jones, Mann, Bradley, and Hughes, of course.
Wow, imagine that. And all of them relying on... guess what? The very same questionable data set. So they can't be called 'independent' verifications of one another."
You call these "smears". Pardon the sarcasm, but you deserve it: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
A "smear" is a personal attack. The first two of those comments were personal opinions, and the third was a verifiable statement of fact. (At the time... I don't know what it Wikipedia says about it today, and I don't care, because I wrote it then.)
THEN... hahaha... you bring up things I stated over 6 years ago (!!!) which have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, and try to use them against me personally! And YOU are trying to say that I am "smearing" people? Get a clue, man. Every time you do this, you just make yourself look more like an ass.
So you demostrated that one thing I said repeatedly was wrong. Wow! I am impressed! (Not.)
You have demonstrated yet again that you have been obsessively following and recording my comments for close to 7 years!!!
Now, that may not seem strange to YOU, but I assure you, it seems very strange, and obsessive, and creepy to everybody else I have shown this stuff to.
(1) The comment about probably weak ENSO was from a professional meteorologist who I did not cite for reasons I gave earlier.
(2) That may not stand up to your standards of scientific evidence, but this is Slashdot, not a science journal. I am not attempting to have a formal scientific debate. If I were, I would state things differently. And your attempt to hold me to those standards, on Slashdot, are completely ridiculous.
When I am trying to make a rigorous argument, I generally make that very clear. But I repeat: this is Slashdot, and I am not bound by those standards here. Your oft-repeated attempts to show how I'm "not being scientific" (to your arbitrary standards) are inappropriate. Not to mention the unethical methods you employ.
"Here we go again. Jane's comments on sea level [dumbscientist.com], UAH [dumbscientist.com] and surface [dumbscientist.com] temperatures [dumbscientist.com] follow a pattern. First, Jane plucks a short term trend from the noise and waves it around. Scientists then point out that Jane's trend is so short that it just represents weather noise, not climate signal. Jane then insists that waving around short term trends isn't meant to imply anything about the long term trend. Rinse, repeat."
And I have to ask again: What is the basis of your personal vendetta against me?
I made a comment. While I didn't offer a citation (because it implies location information, which I don't do here). I did admit that it could be wrong, but I did have reason for making it. Further, I was referring to very recent developments. (As the so-called "polar vortex" has invaded middle and eastern America, the West coast has been seeing unusually warm weather.) Whether this is caused by the "vortex" itself or the start of a mile El-Nino event is currently unclear. Yet again, you are moving the goalposts, referring to past months while I'm talking about last week.
Your response: "Look! She's being wishy-washy again!"
Get off your holier-than-thou high horse, and leave me alone. It is very clear by now that you have some kind of ulterior motive for your incessant badgering. In fact, I suspect you yet again of playing Anonymous Coward Sock-Puppet in order to bait me, as I have documented quite a bit of very strong evidence you have done in the past.
As I told you before: I believe in giving people plenty of rope. But I won't pretend your behavior is pleasant to deal with. Go try to smear someone else.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, many times I've been tempted to buy a WD external drive for the convenience, only to find that inside it's a "green". Kudos for the low power and all that, but they're also relatively slow and relatively less reliable.
For net storage and backup I use RE and when I expand I will probably go with RE again. I like it, SMART says it's fine, its fast, and I have reason to believe it won't conk out on me after a month.
"Then they'll send you to a collections agent and have that appear on your credit report."
They'd better not. Unauthorized charges to cards are pretty damned illegal. In fact, I think that amount would qualify as felony fraud. Grand Larceny. (Hell, it should anyway. Sounds like larceny to me.)
"Have to agree. We used to love SeaGate and despise WD - but now you can get 5 TB WD drives on NewEgg for a couple hundred bucks."
Here's the thing, though: as they say, they buy "the cheapest" they can. WD has very clearly defined categories of drives, and they don't even try to claim that "the cheapest" are by any means either the most performant or the most reliable. If you want those, you have to get the yellow (enterprise) or black drives.
Of course, other manufacturers might have categories too, but Seagate doesn't really... it just has regular and "enterprise".
So it's not surprising that the cheapest WD drives have the rates they do... because they're the least reliable drives they try to make.
AND... I will add:
While a "carbon footprint" may be a legitimate term, the reason that the way the term is commonly used is a problem is that it implies that carbon, per se, is a significant contributor to AGW. However, there is little if any evidence that is so.
If carbon dioxide is a culprit, then target carbon dioxide, not carbon. Funny, but I don't hear people talking about "oxygen footprint", even though oxygen, in some concentrations, can be poisonous. Yet it's a component of CO2 also.
"It's called "trolling," and you are neither original nor particularly skilled in its execution."
Nonsense. You're the one who is trolling. I stated exactly what I meant, and meant exactly what I said: "carbon" is not a pollutant under normal circumstances. If you want to define CO2 as a pollutant, that's your business, but that's not a "carbon footprint", it's a "CO2 footprint".
Use accurate terms! Stop calling things what they're not.
In THAT sense, you're the one who is trolling. You have made a practice of distorting my own arguments so that you can argue against them on your own terms. That's dishonest.
And if you don't think I know exactly who you are, you are mistaken.
http://www.candywarehouse.com/...
http://kotaku.com/candy-box-th...
http://www.igt.com/us-en/games...
http://www.geocaching.com/geoc...
I am sure there are more. Probably many more.
The point is that if I could find them in under 5 minutes, so could Candy Crush or the trademark office.
Invalid on its face.
"Nope. Copyright infringement is a federal offence and a felony."
I strongly suggest you go look it the fuck up before spouting off about it, because you are wrong.
Copyright infringement for personal use is not only not a felony, it isn't even a crime!
What is a crime (and indeed, a felony) is piracy, which is a 150-year-old legal term that refers to copyright infringment for profit.
Simple copying, or downloading, for personal use are not crimes. At all. Much less felonies.
"I love that "carbon footprint" goes in double-quotes, like it's some kind of imaginary concept. "
It's not an imaginary concept... it's just a silly concept. There is a very good possibility that I understand it better than you do.
First, even if you swallowed ALL the AGW BS, it's not "carbon" that is the culprit but specifically CO2. So "carbon footprint" is a fundamentally silly and inaccurate term to use. Under most circumstances, carbon is simply not a pollutant.
So get off your high horse. If you want to be respected yourself, start using accurate terms.
"If you can do better join the scientists and show them."
I don't have to "do better" to know weak science when I see it.
"If you had read that guys model, you had realized: there is no model."
I did read, and yes there is. He does not postulate a cause for the warming, but he does indeed have a predictive model. How well it predicts in the future remains to be seen.
"Regarding prediction: as far as I can tell current models predict the actual situation very well. If you can do better join the scientists and show them."
Really? That's interesting. Every successive IPCC report has decreased its projections of warming. When hundreds of AGW models were compared last year, the MEAN difference between their projections of warming and actual warming has been over 100%. (I don't want to bother to go find my reference right now. I have work to do. But I might post it later today.)
Now, I have been accused of "ignoring" the error bars in those statistics, but I have not ignored them at all. The fact is that the error bars are huge, allowing for damn near any possible result... which makes the projections nearly meaningless. When your error bars are large enough, you can take just about anything and say "See! It was predicted!"
By just about anybody's standard of measure, 100% average error is very high indeed. Saying "it's within the margins of error" simply means your error bars are so broad that any "projection" has very little meaning. In most areas of science, that much breadth in your error margins would be called very weak science at best.
"Unfortunately what you link is not a model, but 4 diagrams and a bit of text."
A model is a model is a model. It can be based on supercomputer number crunching, or based on the dessication rate of Play-Doh.
In science, the value of a theory is its predictive ability. I don't give a damn if somebody's model is based on which way the dog was facing when it was peeing... the theory that predicts better is the better theory. That's the way science works. Anything else is noise.
The fact is that the vast majority of CO2-based climate models have been downright terrible at predicting anything so far. I'm not saying this guy's model is any better, but it appears to be no worse.
"Probably a lot less than that of all the climate change "sceptics" combined, so if you were going to propose getting rid of them for ecological reasons, I do have a counter-proposal..."
It's actually possible that if you added the serious skeptics together, they would not have as much "carbon footprint" as Al Gore, with his mansion and plane trips and limos.
"How has their cost increased exactly? Unless they mean they are now oversubscribing the infrastructure they have by a lot and its getting to a point where they get forced to upgrade"
Higher cost or not, their price is WAY too high! Hell, we already know internet in the U.S. costs too much, but I get unlimited internet (no capacity limit) of 20MBps for $70. In practice, I do think there is a cap of 250GB per month, at which point they will probably ask you to use less bandwidth.
$300 for 100GB is just plain outrageous. I'd tell them to piss off and get satellite, if that was the only other option.
"Then there's a long way to go. Petrol in Europe is still 6 times more expensive. No, really. 6 times."
That would make petrol about $18 per gallon, or 3.5 Euro / liter, or 2.9 GBP / liter. But prices I see today online (commercial sources, average prices as of today) don't look like that at all:
London: 1.29 GBP which makes your price about 2.25 times actual price.
Madrid 1.43 Euro, or 0.4 times your claimed price.
Paris 1.64 Euro (0.47 x your price)
Berlin 1.61 Euro (0.46 x your price)
Oslo 1.61 Krone (0.47 x your price)
Stockholm 14.56 Krona (0.5 x your price)
Moscow 30.65 Ruble (0.19 x your price)
Etc., etc. Simply taking an average of these cities would not be meaningful, but it gives us a general idea: the actual cost of gasoline in Europe is somewhere around 3 (or a bit less) times what gasoline costs in the U.S.
"That said, there's a simple reason why people are driving less: cost. Fuel is more expensive but more importantly the insurance is crazy for those under 25."
This is what I was going to say. I would be willing to bet that "online alternatives" aside, many teens are driving less simply because jobs have been harder to find, and gasoline has been so expensive.
" What happens if you ask the questions in a manner where the answers are recorded as answered, and "cancel" saves the test?"
The problem is that such tests are almost never done, because unless the experimenter has pretty clearly written signed waivers ahead of time, "testing" in this manner is considered unethical.
Yep. Sure enough. The more I have looked into this, the more appalling I have found it to be.
It appears to me that there are not just multiple but MANY instances of my comments taken out of context, with your own disparaging comments associated to quotes in your blog or links to my comments elsewhere. Multiple instances of aspersions cast and other personal remarks that I will say -- politely for now -- are likely to be shown to be incorrect and are pretty certainly inappropriate. Other instances of claims and other statements about me that are easily proven false.
From here it looks like you've really put your foot in it. In fact, it looks like you've been "digging" your own holes, continually and diligently... and neatly documenting them for everyone to see, even... for quite a long time. I am almost -- but not quite -- sorry I missed seeing all this earlier.
From what I read this evening, it also appears that other people have called you out for doing similar things to them.
It is very likely that this is going to get pretty interesting.
... And I just ALSO found out that you have made a practice of quoting me -- sometimes out of context -- on your website, THEN posting your own replies to my comments THERE (or at least making counter-arguments to my comments), without my knowledge. Apparently (at the moment I see no other reason) in order to "have the last word" without having to deal with any actual response from me. I consider that behavior to be reprehensible. This follows the other pattern of "late" replies that I do not see in my Slashdot timeline... more evidence of an emotional "need" to have the last word without the inconvenience of allowing someone to actually reply.
I am not a regular reader of your website and I have no wish to be. In fact, you do not have my permission to use my words there. If there was any permission given before, explicit or implicit, consider it retracted.
Regardless of whether you feel it to be so, in my opinion moving my words somewhere else, then arguing with them there, is unethical. I have no desire to participate in "discussions" on your website, nor do I give my permission for my words to be reproduced there. I come here to Slashdot mainly for entertainment, and I have no desire to be a whipping-post on your personal blog.
I ALSO just found out (because, unlike what looks from here to be some kind of unhealthy obsession about me on your part, I have had little to no interest in YOU...) that you have written extensively about me -- or things you seem to think are about me -- to other people, without my knowledge and outside of any exchange that actually involved me at all.
Because what has been increasingly appearing to me to be weird, obsessive behavior on your part has finally started to really strike me as abnormal, obsessive, and "creepy", I started reading some of your comments that were either replies that were too late in my timeline for me to have normally seen them, or were to other people altogether.
Some of them, at first glance, appear to me to have crossed well beyond reasonable, civil, public discourse. I can see after only a brief look that in fact you have made quite a number of false public statements about me personally.
You have been treading a very fine line, and I see now that your behavior may in fact have been crossing it for some time. We shall see. I am going to get opinions from people who know a bit more about this kind of thing than I.
What I have learned today has been appalling. I must say that I expected far more professional behavior from someone who claims to be be a scientist. But then, I've told you that before.
Well, that's a good point. When I last upgraded my OS, certain applications insisted that I have a JRE that is a version or two behind the one that was bundled with OS X. Maybe it was planned obsolescence on their part, but if so, it backfired: I'll be damned if I'm going to go out and buy new copies just because I upgraded my OS. I'll find something else.
Exactly what who's been saying all along? Aside from all your short term "cooling/recovery" trends, you've smeared paleoclimate studies while making these uncited claims about the paleoclimate:
I think your idea of "smear" is a little bit out of whack. Let me summarize the comments I made that you call "smears" in those three links above:
"I don't think those other forcings are affecting this data as much as you would have us believe."
"No, by 'bias' I mean that since the people behind this site (seriously, have you done ANY homework on this?) are some of the very people who were being criticized by Wegman, then they can hardly be called objective on the matter! That seems like a pretty good description of 'bias' to me."
(From 2012): "Critics please take note: the ONLY references Wikipedia lists for saying that the MWP was not warmer than today are papers by -- who else? -- Jones, Mann, Bradley, and Hughes, of course.
Wow, imagine that. And all of them relying on... guess what? The very same questionable data set. So they can't be called 'independent' verifications of one another."
You call these "smears". Pardon the sarcasm, but you deserve it: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
A "smear" is a personal attack. The first two of those comments were personal opinions, and the third was a verifiable statement of fact. (At the time... I don't know what it Wikipedia says about it today, and I don't care, because I wrote it then.)
THEN... hahaha... you bring up things I stated over 6 years ago (!!!) which have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, and try to use them against me personally! And YOU are trying to say that I am "smearing" people? Get a clue, man. Every time you do this, you just make yourself look more like an ass.
So you demostrated that one thing I said repeatedly was wrong. Wow! I am impressed! (Not.)
You have demonstrated yet again that you have been obsessively following and recording my comments for close to 7 years!!!
Now, that may not seem strange to YOU, but I assure you, it seems very strange, and obsessive, and creepy to everybody else I have shown this stuff to.
More rope. Have fun with it.
I will add:
(1) The comment about probably weak ENSO was from a professional meteorologist who I did not cite for reasons I gave earlier.
(2) That may not stand up to your standards of scientific evidence, but this is Slashdot, not a science journal. I am not attempting to have a formal scientific debate. If I were, I would state things differently. And your attempt to hold me to those standards, on Slashdot, are completely ridiculous.
When I am trying to make a rigorous argument, I generally make that very clear. But I repeat: this is Slashdot, and I am not bound by those standards here. Your oft-repeated attempts to show how I'm "not being scientific" (to your arbitrary standards) are inappropriate. Not to mention the unethical methods you employ.
Well, that's certainly true. But keep in mind that at least Java uses a common run-time, which most people already have.
s/mile/mild
"Here we go again. Jane's comments on sea level [dumbscientist.com], UAH [dumbscientist.com] and surface [dumbscientist.com] temperatures [dumbscientist.com] follow a pattern. First, Jane plucks a short term trend from the noise and waves it around. Scientists then point out that Jane's trend is so short that it just represents weather noise, not climate signal. Jane then insists that waving around short term trends isn't meant to imply anything about the long term trend. Rinse, repeat."
And I have to ask again: What is the basis of your personal vendetta against me?
I made a comment. While I didn't offer a citation (because it implies location information, which I don't do here). I did admit that it could be wrong, but I did have reason for making it. Further, I was referring to very recent developments. (As the so-called "polar vortex" has invaded middle and eastern America, the West coast has been seeing unusually warm weather.) Whether this is caused by the "vortex" itself or the start of a mile El-Nino event is currently unclear. Yet again, you are moving the goalposts, referring to past months while I'm talking about last week.
Your response: "Look! She's being wishy-washy again!"
Get off your holier-than-thou high horse, and leave me alone. It is very clear by now that you have some kind of ulterior motive for your incessant badgering. In fact, I suspect you yet again of playing Anonymous Coward Sock-Puppet in order to bait me, as I have documented quite a bit of very strong evidence you have done in the past.
As I told you before: I believe in giving people plenty of rope. But I won't pretend your behavior is pleasant to deal with. Go try to smear someone else.