It's not that the increased surface temperatures directly melt the ice, it's that they lead to increased storm activity, which causes more of the ice to drift out into warmer regions. Unfortunately I'm not seeing an actual paper to go with this, it looks like NASA put together a press release or something.
It's close enough, considering that he was speaking hypothetically, and you knew it. Run along now.
The point you're contending does not appear in the actual post. What was said was:
1. localized growth of ice does not rule out the possibility of overall warming. 2. having ice in increasingly warm water is devastating from the perspective of the ice, which has a tendency to melt.
There's no way that I'm going to give you a citation for ice melting.
Both the Catholic and Protestant church teach that hell is eternal. The Bible paints hell as a place of complete darkness, where parasites devour flesh, everlasting punishment, where the fire is unquenchable and where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.
That's just the New Testament.
Maybe you could argue that some of those are just poetic license, but asserting that hell is merely "the place where God isn't" really paints the wrong picture. I'm not accusing you of doing this, by the way. You just point out that many people believe this watered-down version of hell, and you are right. But the Bible very clearly says that hell = eternal torture. And it says it over and over again.
Different books of the Bible conflict on issues ranging from how creation happened to the amount of time Jesus spent on the cross. But the descriptions of hell are very consistent. FWIW the absurdity trading a mere 80 years of screwing around with eternal (eternal! NEVER-ending!) torture is one of the many things that eventually forced me to sit down and evaluate how much of my Christian upbringing I actually believed.
Where do you put the front door when you're building a lake of fire?
The Bible does not say you can leave hell. Instead it contains descriptions like "eternal" and "for ever", in both sets of scripture. It's sort of funny that you go so far as to call someone a false Christian "judge not..." while outright ignoring one of the few things that the Bible's really consistent about.
If your linking of self-reference and consciousness wasn't inspired by Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid , then I'd advise you to read that book as soon as possible, as that's pretty much its main thesis.
Sort of sounds like Plato's forms. Ideas and pure concepts are the most real things, physical instances are just crude copies.
Funnily enough, Plato's evidence for the forms is very similar to Anselm's attempt to prove God's existence. Perhaps because Anselm's version of God (at least for the purposes of his argument) basically resembled the mother of all Forms.
I doubt Plato considered the forms to be his friends though, being a grown man and all.
Global temperatures have dropped in the last decade
A guy named Bob Carter claimed that "warming stopped" in 1998 or something. I believe he was basing that on University of Alabama in Huntsville's analysis of troposphere data, which was later shown to contain a mathematical error. This was acknowledged, see here: http://www.uah.edu/news/newsread.php?newsID=60
Anyway, the NCDC and GISS data (to name a few) show clear warming trends during the last decade. Basically the surface data always has but at one point some people thought that the troposphere data didn't match. That has since been resolved, but it doesn't stop people from repeating this malarkey.
I misread you and thought you were blaming pop culture (arts & entertainment really) for the evils of society. I'm just not for censorship in any way.
I agree, a lot of it is cultural. When I was in Germany I was told that although the drinking age is lower than in the US, they have less DUIs because it is more of a social stigma there. I don't know if that's actually true but it seemed like the legal consequences were harsher as well.
It's an odd situation. I suppose in a perfect world we wouldn't consider something as destructive as alcohol to be cool. On the other hand, people drink precisely because the world isn't perfect.
I do a lot of design work, and nobody I have met cares if you call it a font or a typeface. Then again, I did not go to school for it. Maybe my teachers would have.
I'm curious as to your rationale for calling Comic Sans "well-designed". Certain letters, like the lowercase m, look like absolute garbage to me. Plus the whole thing is stuck somewhere between a kid's handwriting and a comic book letterer's. It looks drunk.
If I was actually designing a children's book or shirt or whatever, I'd do the lettering by hand. That's supposed to be the look anyway, using type to pretend it is just lazy. Anybody can drop text onto something, real designers have a lot more skills than just being able to fire up Adobe.
But what if there's too much text to do it by hand? I don't know but large blocks of text is when you *definitely* should not be using Comic Sans.
I'm excited to hear it, I think the big comic around these parts is Ctrl+Alt+Del or something. There are plenty of great strips and arcs going back years. A few of my favorites off the top of my head.
You're supposed to install other fonts on Windows, that's totally cheating. Of course they're going to look bad, the rendering is "optimized" for Arial and Courier New.
Bingo. It's not worth it for people to go back and forth on this.
I don't think I've ever come across an experienced user who uses both Mac and Windows on a regular basis who prefers the ClearType font rendering.
Nor have I. I actually like having ClearType off on Windows, it's just what I'm used to, I like the sharpness. But if I had to choose between the two methods, it's Mac hands down. I got used to different rendering in a matter of hours and wouldn't go back. Trying to stick with the pixel grid so closely creates lots of kerning and thickness issues. I can read long passages of text much more easily on my Mac.
Well, that's one man's opinion. Then again, there's a lot of history and consensus to oppose it. I think you meant "purposeless" rather than "arbitrary" (elements of style are arbitrary by their nature), but separating dashes from hyphens is not purposeless. Specifically, the purpose of having a different mark is telling the reader, "this is a hyphen" or "this is a dash". They are used differently so there's no reason they should look the same.
Ideally. Obviously the modern keyboard layout encourages bad style. I tend to remember to use my em dashes but get lazy on the en dash.
From Wikipedia:
The non-San Francisco part of the world The post-MS-DOS era
I had to remove the dashes because they won't show up on Slashdot. The above would be ambiguous if you didn't know what San Francisco or MS-DOS were. You'd have a hard time parsing the adjectives. Were the dashes there, you'd at least know for sure how they functioned in the phrase. And for this reason, even in cases where you know anyway, maintaining the proper usage increases readability.
I'd imagine they could tell a difference (depending on how much text was there), but it'd be the sort of thing that they couldn't put their finger on. Especially since the kerning will be different.
But if they can tell you whether or not something is Helvetica or Neue Helvetica...run as fast and far as you can.
I think Futura is a lot more readable than comic sans, and it uses the simplified letterforms taught to children. Unfortunately it doesn't come with Windows.
Maybe Comic Sans is Microsoft's Futura clone, like with Arial and Helvetica?
I think you'll find that most fonts only seem redundant until you start doing typgraphical or design work, at which point you learn to appreciate the differences between them. For instance, Verdana has a huge x-height and is very wide, so for any particular point size it's about the "largest" font you can get. Trebuchet is a bit more stylish and has some interesting forms (the lowercase "g" for instance) whereas I'd say Verdana is all about utility.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081006180815.htm
It's not that the increased surface temperatures directly melt the ice, it's that they lead to increased storm activity, which causes more of the ice to drift out into warmer regions. Unfortunately I'm not seeing an actual paper to go with this, it looks like NASA put together a press release or something.
It's close enough, considering that he was speaking hypothetically, and you knew it. Run along now.
It's incredibly likely that you're actually reading comments made by different people, with differing opinions.
The point you're contending does not appear in the actual post. What was said was:
1. localized growth of ice does not rule out the possibility of overall warming.
2. having ice in increasingly warm water is devastating from the perspective of the ice, which has a tendency to melt.
There's no way that I'm going to give you a citation for ice melting.
There were some rumors going around, turns out they were greatly exaggerated.
Both the Catholic and Protestant church teach that hell is eternal. The Bible paints hell as a place of complete darkness, where parasites devour flesh, everlasting punishment, where the fire is unquenchable and where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.
That's just the New Testament.
Maybe you could argue that some of those are just poetic license, but asserting that hell is merely "the place where God isn't" really paints the wrong picture. I'm not accusing you of doing this, by the way. You just point out that many people believe this watered-down version of hell, and you are right. But the Bible very clearly says that hell = eternal torture. And it says it over and over again.
Different books of the Bible conflict on issues ranging from how creation happened to the amount of time Jesus spent on the cross. But the descriptions of hell are very consistent. FWIW the absurdity trading a mere 80 years of screwing around with eternal (eternal! NEVER-ending!) torture is one of the many things that eventually forced me to sit down and evaluate how much of my Christian upbringing I actually believed.
Where do you put the front door when you're building a lake of fire?
The Bible does not say you can leave hell. Instead it contains descriptions like "eternal" and "for ever", in both sets of scripture. It's sort of funny that you go so far as to call someone a false Christian "judge not..." while outright ignoring one of the few things that the Bible's really consistent about.
If your linking of self-reference and consciousness wasn't inspired by Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid , then I'd advise you to read that book as soon as possible, as that's pretty much its main thesis.
Sort of sounds like Plato's forms. Ideas and pure concepts are the most real things, physical instances are just crude copies.
Funnily enough, Plato's evidence for the forms is very similar to Anselm's attempt to prove God's existence. Perhaps because Anselm's version of God (at least for the purposes of his argument) basically resembled the mother of all Forms.
I doubt Plato considered the forms to be his friends though, being a grown man and all.
That's a nice soul! Be a shame if somethin' were to, you know, happen to it.
usefuless of the scientific method is really called into question
That's insane.
References for the difference between weather and climate:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weather
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/climate
Global temperatures have dropped in the last decade
A guy named Bob Carter claimed that "warming stopped" in 1998 or something. I believe he was basing that on University of Alabama in Huntsville's analysis of troposphere data, which was later shown to contain a mathematical error. This was acknowledged, see here:
http://www.uah.edu/news/newsread.php?newsID=60
Anyway, the NCDC and GISS data (to name a few) show clear warming trends during the last decade. Basically the surface data always has but at one point some people thought that the troposphere data didn't match. That has since been resolved, but it doesn't stop people from repeating this malarkey.
I misread you and thought you were blaming pop culture (arts & entertainment really) for the evils of society. I'm just not for censorship in any way.
I agree, a lot of it is cultural. When I was in Germany I was told that although the drinking age is lower than in the US, they have less DUIs because it is more of a social stigma there. I don't know if that's actually true but it seemed like the legal consequences were harsher as well.
It's an odd situation. I suppose in a perfect world we wouldn't consider something as destructive as alcohol to be cool. On the other hand, people drink precisely because the world isn't perfect.
I do a lot of design work, and nobody I have met cares if you call it a font or a typeface. Then again, I did not go to school for it. Maybe my teachers would have.
I'm curious as to your rationale for calling Comic Sans "well-designed". Certain letters, like the lowercase m, look like absolute garbage to me. Plus the whole thing is stuck somewhere between a kid's handwriting and a comic book letterer's. It looks drunk.
If I was actually designing a children's book or shirt or whatever, I'd do the lettering by hand. That's supposed to be the look anyway, using type to pretend it is just lazy. Anybody can drop text onto something, real designers have a lot more skills than just being able to fire up Adobe.
But what if there's too much text to do it by hand? I don't know but large blocks of text is when you *definitely* should not be using Comic Sans.
I'm excited to hear it, I think the big comic around these parts is Ctrl+Alt+Del or something. There are plenty of great strips and arcs going back years. A few of my favorites off the top of my head.
http://achewood.com/index.php?date=09232002
http://achewood.com/index.php?date=07132006
http://achewood.com/index.php?date=04162007
Don't forget to check the alt text.
New pet peeve: "anti-intellectualism"
You're supposed to install other fonts on Windows, that's totally cheating. Of course they're going to look bad, the rendering is "optimized" for Arial and Courier New.
And people prefer what they are used to.
Bingo. It's not worth it for people to go back and forth on this.
I don't think I've ever come across an experienced user who uses both Mac and Windows on a regular basis who prefers the ClearType font rendering.
Nor have I. I actually like having ClearType off on Windows, it's just what I'm used to, I like the sharpness. But if I had to choose between the two methods, it's Mac hands down. I got used to different rendering in a matter of hours and wouldn't go back. Trying to stick with the pixel grid so closely creates lots of kerning and thickness issues. I can read long passages of text much more easily on my Mac.
easier way of obtaining more fonts via the Internet, and including them in the documents distributed
I use the JPG method :)
Well, that's one man's opinion. Then again, there's a lot of history and consensus to oppose it. I think you meant "purposeless" rather than "arbitrary" (elements of style are arbitrary by their nature), but separating dashes from hyphens is not purposeless. Specifically, the purpose of having a different mark is telling the reader, "this is a hyphen" or "this is a dash". They are used differently so there's no reason they should look the same.
Ideally. Obviously the modern keyboard layout encourages bad style. I tend to remember to use my em dashes but get lazy on the en dash.
From Wikipedia:
The non-San Francisco part of the world
The post-MS-DOS era
I had to remove the dashes because they won't show up on Slashdot. The above would be ambiguous if you didn't know what San Francisco or MS-DOS were. You'd have a hard time parsing the adjectives. Were the dashes there, you'd at least know for sure how they functioned in the phrase. And for this reason, even in cases where you know anyway, maintaining the proper usage increases readability.
Chalkboard's designer had the sense to keep the verticals straight. It makes a world of difference.
I'd imagine they could tell a difference (depending on how much text was there), but it'd be the sort of thing that they couldn't put their finger on. Especially since the kerning will be different.
But if they can tell you whether or not something is Helvetica or Neue Helvetica...run as fast and far as you can.
It's not the same, it's been set differently.
Technically an O goes below the baseline too. :D
I think Futura is a lot more readable than comic sans, and it uses the simplified letterforms taught to children. Unfortunately it doesn't come with Windows.
Maybe Comic Sans is Microsoft's Futura clone, like with Arial and Helvetica?
I think you'll find that most fonts only seem redundant until you start doing typgraphical or design work, at which point you learn to appreciate the differences between them. For instance, Verdana has a huge x-height and is very wide, so for any particular point size it's about the "largest" font you can get. Trebuchet is a bit more stylish and has some interesting forms (the lowercase "g" for instance) whereas I'd say Verdana is all about utility.