Well, we also want the f-word banned. And the c-word, the b-word, several s-words, and for some reason a z-word (but only if you pronounce that as zed-word).
No, you are wrong. Or at least incomplete. No matter which way it goes, always try to use the same method with multiple numbers in one sentence. Certainly use the same method with numbers that are 'lumped together' such as "four out of ten". Either use all digits, or all words. The common exception to that rule is for sentences with monetary amounts or precise measurements, such as, "There were three people willing to pay $15,790 to have dinner with their favorite celebrity."
Chicago? Come on now. That thing will get car-jacked in 10 minutes. They'll find the frame up on blocks with the tires, battery pack, and electronics all gone.
Back in the 1970's Stephen King wrote some novels under the pseudonym Richard Bachman. It worked for a while, but people were able to figure out that Bachman wrote in the same style as the famous Stephen King. Eventually the secret broke.
I wonder if those novels written under the pseudonym would make a good test of the system. Run them through the process, give the results to newer readers of King's known works, and see if they notice the similarities others did in the past.
And do you have any more fascinating-yet-pointless semantic arguments to make? Personally, I define "clearing the neighborhood" as "putting painted tarps over the homeless people"
and then say you aren't putting emotion into an argument?
No one ever cherry picked 1998. The comments I have always seen use 1997 as the start of the pause, with the El Nino year of 1998 the anomaly that it was.
Ha ha ha ha! Oh lord, tell me another one. 1998 was used all the time until enough people understood that it was an exceptionally warm year and that anyone using it as the start for trend was obvious lying. So instead, the fraudsters of the denial clique moved to using 1997 which was also unusually warm because the El Nino actually peaks in 1997.
So are you saying that the claim by the AC about people cherry picking 1998 today is false because no one cherry picks 1998 anymore?
Again, I always saw people start at 1997. Maybe I missed ones on sites you posted one. If so, I stand corrected. People who were quickly shown to be obviously lying said "1998!!!!!!", and everyone else with a valid argument used 1997.
Such as this graph I just pulled from some random site.
Ha. You just happened to pull a graph from a random site, and it just happens to be a guest blogger for What's Up with That? Maybe not so random after all?
I googled for "temperature graph 1997", clicked the link for images, and it was the first graph on the results page. It had the range I was looking for, and a couple notes on it, so I used it. Whatever conspiracy theory you want to make of that is fine by me.
Also that graph is hilarious. There's no global warming because April 2013 is no warming than June 1997. What's next will you declare that because January 2016 is colder than August 1997 that global warming doesn't exist?
I am not the one that made the graph.I agree it is a stupid comparison, but you will have to ask the site why they chose to use temps from different months for that point. I used the graph because it started in 1997, not in 1998 as the AC claimed was the cherry picked starting point for all anti-agw arguments.
You don't even mention that the graph does show a warming trend. Why ignore that nugget? You must have some diabolical reason for ignoring it.
No one ever said we are not warming because "1998!!!!!!!".
On the contrary, it was literally the most popular argument against global warming for years. In recent years it's fallen to 9th most popular argument according to Skeptical Science, because so many people can instantly recognize the argument as bullshit, but that's still pretty far from "nobody".
The article on that site is 8 years old. Notice the first comment at the bottom is from 2007. So, eight years ago one person was shown to use 1998 as the starting point.
Except, wait a second. The claim being disputed is specifically warming for the years 1998 to 2005. It seems there was some significance for those dates. Since 1998 was a strong El Nino year, I wonder if 2005 was another. Looking around the net, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., it seems almost every year from 2002 to 2010 was either going into or coming out of El Nino conditions. Let's look further.
Here's a link, http://www.nasa.gov/vision/ear..., that says those two years were tied for the warmest up until then. So, hey, a valid reason to compare temperate in 2005 with 1998. The conclusions of the comparison may be wrong, or the refutations of those conclusions may be faulty. But it turns out it isn't really a case of "1998!!!!!!!!!" after all.
No one ever cherry picked 1998. The comments I have always seen use 1997 as the start of the pause, with the El Nino year of 1998 the anomaly that it was. Such as this graph I just pulled from some random site. https://bobtisdale.files.wordp...
No one ever said we are not warming because "1998!!!!!!!".
Wow, way to get your panties in a bunch. You have way to much emotion invested in this topic.
But on point, if you look at the graphic supplied in the article, it is clear that this "new" planet has done no such thing. There are several objects shown that are in its orbit, and we have no idea of the number besides those.
So, for this to be on the list for possible planets, it seems to fall short of this one phrase you are having fits of rage over.
I wasn't commenting on the Lagrange Point objects. My point was simply that "clearing the neighborhood" does not mean being the "dominant object in that orbit". They are two entirely separate things, even if they are intrinsically tied together in a solar system. But one does not mean the other, one is not the defining characteristic of the other.
I didn't know that MAC was an acronym. I've worked on their computers several times and have never bother to ask what it stands for. Their website ins't much help ether. https://www.maccosmetics.com/
No, he's right. I saw it on an episode of Star Trek the Nerd Generation. Our hero Wesley saved the universe again. Now we just have to build the same quark accelerator weapons array so we can attach the haptic matrix! It's our only shot at defeating it.
Some twit marked this 'redundant'? He must have simply seen the word "magnetar" and thought you were repeating the article. Never even heard of the puppeteers, I bet.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, you're stealing my thunder.
Also, you're currently limited to non-ASCII characters that have HTML names; if you need something like 💩 (Unicode pile of poo),
I stepped in enough piles of dogshit when I was a kid, I don't need to see representations of shit in the text of comments on Slashdot.
Well, we also want the f-word banned. And the c-word, the b-word, several s-words, and for some reason a z-word (but only if you pronounce that as zed-word).
Sounds like the other 495 are the groundskeepers, librarians, technicians, and support staff, not administrative staff.
Who says I'm a gun owner?
The driver is the computer controlling the robotaxi. The time to charge is not infinitely small even for our CPU overlords.
Wow! You are dense.
No, you are wrong. Or at least incomplete. No matter which way it goes, always try to use the same method with multiple numbers in one sentence. Certainly use the same method with numbers that are 'lumped together' such as "four out of ten". Either use all digits, or all words. The common exception to that rule is for sentences with monetary amounts or precise measurements, such as, "There were three people willing to pay $15,790 to have dinner with their favorite celebrity."
Also, double tap.
And cardio.
And never trust deserted bathrooms.
It takes all of 3 minutes for the driver to put gas in the tank between runs. Not nearly that with electric cars.
Chicago? Come on now. That thing will get car-jacked in 10 minutes. They'll find the frame up on blocks with the tires, battery pack, and electronics all gone.
Back in the 1970's Stephen King wrote some novels under the pseudonym Richard Bachman. It worked for a while, but people were able to figure out that Bachman wrote in the same style as the famous Stephen King. Eventually the secret broke.
I wonder if those novels written under the pseudonym would make a good test of the system. Run them through the process, give the results to newer readers of King's known works, and see if they notice the similarities others did in the past.
You type this:
And do you have any more fascinating-yet-pointless semantic arguments to make? Personally, I define "clearing the neighborhood" as "putting painted tarps over the homeless people"
and then say you aren't putting emotion into an argument?
No one ever cherry picked 1998. The comments I have always seen use 1997 as the start of the pause, with the El Nino year of 1998 the anomaly that it was.
Ha ha ha ha! Oh lord, tell me another one. 1998 was used all the time until enough people understood that it was an exceptionally warm year and that anyone using it as the start for trend was obvious lying. So instead, the fraudsters of the denial clique moved to using 1997 which was also unusually warm because the El Nino actually peaks in 1997.
So are you saying that the claim by the AC about people cherry picking 1998 today is false because no one cherry picks 1998 anymore?
Again, I always saw people start at 1997. Maybe I missed ones on sites you posted one. If so, I stand corrected. People who were quickly shown to be obviously lying said "1998!!!!!!", and everyone else with a valid argument used 1997.
Such as this graph I just pulled from some random site.
Ha. You just happened to pull a graph from a random site, and it just happens to be a guest blogger for What's Up with That? Maybe not so random after all?
I googled for "temperature graph 1997", clicked the link for images, and it was the first graph on the results page. It had the range I was looking for, and a couple notes on it, so I used it. Whatever conspiracy theory you want to make of that is fine by me.
Also that graph is hilarious. There's no global warming because April 2013 is no warming than June 1997. What's next will you declare that because January 2016 is colder than August 1997 that global warming doesn't exist?
I am not the one that made the graph.I agree it is a stupid comparison, but you will have to ask the site why they chose to use temps from different months for that point. I used the graph because it started in 1997, not in 1998 as the AC claimed was the cherry picked starting point for all anti-agw arguments.
You don't even mention that the graph does show a warming trend. Why ignore that nugget? You must have some diabolical reason for ignoring it.
No one ever said we are not warming because "1998!!!!!!!".
On the contrary, it was literally the most popular argument against global warming for years. In recent years it's fallen to 9th most popular argument according to Skeptical Science, because so many people can instantly recognize the argument as bullshit, but that's still pretty far from "nobody".
The article on that site is 8 years old. Notice the first comment at the bottom is from 2007. So, eight years ago one person was shown to use 1998 as the starting point.
Except, wait a second. The claim being disputed is specifically warming for the years 1998 to 2005. It seems there was some significance for those dates. Since 1998 was a strong El Nino year, I wonder if 2005 was another. Looking around the net, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., it seems almost every year from 2002 to 2010 was either going into or coming out of El Nino conditions. Let's look further.
Here's a link, http://www.nasa.gov/vision/ear..., that says those two years were tied for the warmest up until then. So, hey, a valid reason to compare temperate in 2005 with 1998. The conclusions of the comparison may be wrong, or the refutations of those conclusions may be faulty. But it turns out it isn't really a case of "1998!!!!!!!!!" after all.
No one ever cherry picked 1998. The comments I have always seen use 1997 as the start of the pause, with the El Nino year of 1998 the anomaly that it was.
Such as this graph I just pulled from some random site.
https://bobtisdale.files.wordp...
No one ever said we are not warming because "1998!!!!!!!".
But they seemed so sure of it.
I even got chewed out in that last posting because someone had a hardon about the new defining characteristics of planets.
Oh, look!
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
You may have gotten your panties in a bunch over nothing after all.
Wow, way to get your panties in a bunch. You have way to much emotion invested in this topic.
But on point, if you look at the graphic supplied in the article, it is clear that this "new" planet has done no such thing. There are several objects shown that are in its orbit, and we have no idea of the number besides those.
So, for this to be on the list for possible planets, it seems to fall short of this one phrase you are having fits of rage over.
I wasn't commenting on the Lagrange Point objects. My point was simply that "clearing the neighborhood" does not mean being the "dominant object in that orbit". They are two entirely separate things, even if they are intrinsically tied together in a solar system. But one does not mean the other, one is not the defining characteristic of the other.
You wouldn't say that if you cared about the children!!
'Clearing the neighborhood' means that it is the gravitationally dominant object in that orbit.
Since when is that an accurate parsing of the phrase?
I didn't know that MAC was an acronym. I've worked on their computers several times and have never bother to ask what it stands for. Their website ins't much help ether. https://www.maccosmetics.com/
Sorry to hear that. I don't care if I agree with your comments or not, you have the right to state your opinion.
No, he's right. I saw it on an episode of Star Trek the Nerd Generation. Our hero Wesley saved the universe again. Now we just have to build the same quark accelerator weapons array so we can attach the haptic matrix! It's our only shot at defeating it.
Some twit marked this 'redundant'? He must have simply seen the word "magnetar" and thought you were repeating the article. Never even heard of the puppeteers, I bet.
Damn illiterate kids nowadays.