To be fair, "making it impossible to predict weather patterns on the East Coast", to me at least, made it sound like GOES-14 was not nearly as ready to take over for GOES-13 as you are saying it is.
The explosion happened outside, before school started...
And? You don't think that having a real, functional chemistry class during school hours would help students during non-school hours? Tell me, do you apply this same "logic" to drivers ed, sex ed, and just about every other class?
Anyhow, Nintendo managed- by disregarding the issue and not changing it- to get people to forget how laughable a name "Wii" was, and still is when you think about it.
Except Xbox One isn't laughable, it's just (possibly) confusing. Perhaps a better example is nVidia and their transition from 6X00, 7X00, 8X00, down to 2X0, 3X0, 4X0, etc.
It rather does matter where that data came from. As given that the figures and calculation originally come from the paper itself, it cannot be so that they ignored it, nor that they didn't include it in calculations.
My point was that regardless of which link I saw those numbers from, they were true. But in retrospect, had I gotten them from the source instead of the The Guardian link, I suppose it could have been presented in such a way as to make clear why they only used 4000-plus papers when arriving at that 97%. So you are right, it does matter which link I saw the data on.
And apparently you did so without even looking at the paper you criticise.
While technically correct, that line overlooks the fact that I did check out the The Guardian links. Which I thought it was clear that I did check out at least one of TFS links, but I apologize if I had not made that clear. At any rate, I certainly wasn't basing this on things coming out of my ass. Likewise, someone with an anti-AGW agenda to push would also not be basing such a claim on things coming out of their ass. They have the The Guardian article to point to, which I at least did not see them include an explanation as to why only 4,000 of the 12,000 total papers were used to arrive at 97%.
That's why I was condescending. Because what you wrote deserved it.
Does The Guardian have a similar reputation to Fox News? If so, I was unaware, but instead of being condescending, perhaps it would be more beneficial to point out that a particular news source is not very reliable. If not, then perhaps your beef should be with The Guardian, not the person who based their information on a The Guardian article.
Of course, if you thought that I was trying to push an anti-AGW agenda, then I suppose I don't blame you for being condescending towards me. But it wasn't clear to me that that was the reason, nor is it clear now if it was. Regardless, the only thing a condescending attitude is going to do is drive someone on the fence to instantly oppose you.
Because when you went to the paper, you instantly found table 3 with columns for both "all papers" and "that expressed a position". That's where you got your 2/3rds from. You can't say they ignored it when you got the figure from the published paper.
I am beginning to suspect that you are not taking me seriously, that you believe me to be pushing an anti-AGW agenda. Or if I'm being really cynical, that you are trying to push an anti-AGW agenda by claiming a pro-AGW position, but then being really condescending to others about it.
The survey considered the work of some 29,000 scientists published in 11,994 academic papers. Of the 4,000-plus papers that took a position on the causes of climate change only 0.7% or 83 of those thousands of academic articles, disputed the scientific consensus that climate change is the result of human activity, with the view of the remaining 2.2% unclear.
Not that which link I got it from really changes anything. Please note that I am not saying they did not look at 2/3 of the papers, only that they ignored 2/3 when calculating a 97% consensus. Or if you don't like "ignored", perhaps "did not include in the calculations" would work better for you.
Please note also that I am not automatically jumping to the conclusion that there is a sinister reason for not including them in the calculations. There is probably a really good reason. I am simply saying that unless/until that reason is brought up, some people will consider that 97% to have been deceitfully arrived at.
"If we look at the results, out of over 4,000 papers, 97% take the position that climate change is man-made."
"But what about these nearly 8,000 other papers?"
"97%!"
"But why..."
"97%!!!"
No it wasn't. There was no element of that in what he said.
Maybe it wasn't actually his intent, but it's how I interpreted it.
They are not comparable with a count of the number of people who arbitrarily believe in something.
This isn't about comparing counts, this is about ignoring counts, about (possible) cherry-picking of results. In the priest example, you are ignoring everyone who has no opinion on the existence of (a) God. Don't you think that including those numbers might change things?
Likewise, TFA mentions that 11,994 papers were included in the survey, but that they arrived at the 97% value by looking at just the 4000-plus papers that took a position on the cause of climate change. Or put another way, they ignored nearly 2/3 of all the papers when calculating that 97%. Why? I don't know. All I'm saying is that it needs addressing, otherwise people will cling to that as proof that scientists are hiding something.
TFA doesn't say "97% of scientists believe in AGW". It's 97% of scientific papers. i.e. 97% of the ways of examining the question scientifically resulted in a conclusion that AGW is real.
Actually, it said 97% of the papers that took a position on the cause agreed that humans are the main contributing factor, which I believe is what GPLHost-Thomas was addressing. Limiting yourself to just those papers that have taken a position on the cause of global warming can be seen as like limiting yourself to just people who have taken a position on the existence of (a) God.
Maybe there's a valid reason for it, making the two not like each other at all. But it should be addressed, otherwise people will cling to that, saying "See? See? What about all those papers that did not take a stance??? These hippies are clearly hiding something!"
Maybe, maybe not. I know when I first saw 35.760 and 22.220, I saw the decimal, but the trailing zero made me think that, for some reason, they were using European notation. It wasn't until I got to the part about the previous record being set by the Apollo 17 astronauts that I realized tens of thousands of kilometers/miles was probably the incorrect way of reading it.
I'm sure these companies already factored this in to the decisions they made, but it isn't just about the cost of going to trial for this one thing vs settling out of court for this one thing. You also have to factor in how many fewer patent trolls may try to entice you to settle out of court if you demonstrate that you will call their bluff and take them to court (or how many more patent trolls may come knocking when they see what easy pickings you are).
Always possible. I had to remove some scareware from my brother's PC the other day, and its description in Windows task manager, IIRC, was something like "Apple Right Click".
Because the mechanics of cooling something in space are not the same as cooling them on earth.
On earth, in your typical home AC unit, the freon or whatever runs in a sealed, continuous loop, with one end of the loop being where heat is absorbed, and the other end being where the heat is expelled. This works because at that other end, a fan is blowing air across the radiator, ensuring a fresh supply of cool air to absorb the heat from the AC unit.
But in space, there is no air. So instead, as I understand it, they just dump the hot liquid out into space.
It's almost like you think corporations (that have interest in declaring the item "abandoned") will do a diligent search. Google "search similar images" function will be helpful if the searcher is trying to find the owner.
The way I read the post, it sounded more like ericloewe was suggesting that that would be a method the owner might use to prove in a court of law that due diligence was not performed.
So the question now is, what will xbox live cost those that buy the $500 version? If it is the same $40-$60 that it costs today, then for those who buy the $300 version, will their xbox live cost drop after 2 years? If so, then for anyone who was planning on getting xbox live anyway, it'd make sense to go with the $300 version, assuming everything else about the versions is equal.
Now I'm curious. Is there any way to predict how bad it could have been if everyone treated SARS with the same level of caution they treat the "normal" strains?
Are you sure you have the right amendment? The 10th states that powers not granted to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or the people. And according to the Commerce Clause, the federal government is the one with the power to regulate commerce among the states. Now granted, the Commerce Clause has been abused to hell and back. But if I, a Marylander, purchase something via the internet or a mail-order catalog from a company in California, how does that not legitimately fall under the Commerce Clause?
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't read even TFS, I see.
To be fair, "making it impossible to predict weather patterns on the East Coast", to me at least, made it sound like GOES-14 was not nearly as ready to take over for GOES-13 as you are saying it is.
The explosion happened outside, before school started...
And? You don't think that having a real, functional chemistry class during school hours would help students during non-school hours? Tell me, do you apply this same "logic" to drivers ed, sex ed, and just about every other class?
That won't work.
I think there may be a few Nigerian Princes who would say otherwise. Even with a photo, I'm sure there would be a couple suckers.
Anyhow, Nintendo managed- by disregarding the issue and not changing it- to get people to forget how laughable a name "Wii" was, and still is when you think about it.
Except Xbox One isn't laughable, it's just (possibly) confusing. Perhaps a better example is nVidia and their transition from 6X00, 7X00, 8X00, down to 2X0, 3X0, 4X0, etc.
It rather does matter where that data came from. As given that the figures and calculation originally come from the paper itself, it cannot be so that they ignored it, nor that they didn't include it in calculations.
My point was that regardless of which link I saw those numbers from, they were true. But in retrospect, had I gotten them from the source instead of the The Guardian link, I suppose it could have been presented in such a way as to make clear why they only used 4000-plus papers when arriving at that 97%. So you are right, it does matter which link I saw the data on.
And apparently you did so without even looking at the paper you criticise.
While technically correct, that line overlooks the fact that I did check out the The Guardian links. Which I thought it was clear that I did check out at least one of TFS links, but I apologize if I had not made that clear. At any rate, I certainly wasn't basing this on things coming out of my ass. Likewise, someone with an anti-AGW agenda to push would also not be basing such a claim on things coming out of their ass. They have the The Guardian article to point to, which I at least did not see them include an explanation as to why only 4,000 of the 12,000 total papers were used to arrive at 97%.
That's why I was condescending. Because what you wrote deserved it.
Does The Guardian have a similar reputation to Fox News? If so, I was unaware, but instead of being condescending, perhaps it would be more beneficial to point out that a particular news source is not very reliable. If not, then perhaps your beef should be with The Guardian, not the person who based their information on a The Guardian article.
Of course, if you thought that I was trying to push an anti-AGW agenda, then I suppose I don't blame you for being condescending towards me. But it wasn't clear to me that that was the reason, nor is it clear now if it was. Regardless, the only thing a condescending attitude is going to do is drive someone on the fence to instantly oppose you.
Because when you went to the paper, you instantly found table 3 with columns for both "all papers" and "that expressed a position". That's where you got your 2/3rds from. You can't say they ignored it when you got the figure from the published paper.
I am beginning to suspect that you are not taking me seriously, that you believe me to be pushing an anti-AGW agenda. Or if I'm being really cynical, that you are trying to push an anti-AGW agenda by claiming a pro-AGW position, but then being really condescending to others about it.
At any rate, I actually got it from a paragraph from this particular TFS link.
The survey considered the work of some 29,000 scientists published in 11,994 academic papers. Of the 4,000-plus papers that took a position on the causes of climate change only 0.7% or 83 of those thousands of academic articles, disputed the scientific consensus that climate change is the result of human activity, with the view of the remaining 2.2% unclear.
Not that which link I got it from really changes anything. Please note that I am not saying they did not look at 2/3 of the papers, only that they ignored 2/3 when calculating a 97% consensus. Or if you don't like "ignored", perhaps "did not include in the calculations" would work better for you.
Please note also that I am not automatically jumping to the conclusion that there is a sinister reason for not including them in the calculations. There is probably a really good reason. I am simply saying that unless/until that reason is brought up, some people will consider that 97% to have been deceitfully arrived at.
"If we look at the results, out of over 4,000 papers, 97% take the position that climate change is man-made."
"But what about these nearly 8,000 other papers?"
"97%!"
"But why..."
"97%!!!"
No it wasn't. There was no element of that in what he said.
Maybe it wasn't actually his intent, but it's how I interpreted it.
They are not comparable with a count of the number of people who arbitrarily believe in something.
This isn't about comparing counts, this is about ignoring counts, about (possible) cherry-picking of results. In the priest example, you are ignoring everyone who has no opinion on the existence of (a) God. Don't you think that including those numbers might change things?
Likewise, TFA mentions that 11,994 papers were included in the survey, but that they arrived at the 97% value by looking at just the 4000-plus papers that took a position on the cause of climate change. Or put another way, they ignored nearly 2/3 of all the papers when calculating that 97%. Why? I don't know. All I'm saying is that it needs addressing, otherwise people will cling to that as proof that scientists are hiding something.
TFA doesn't say "97% of scientists believe in AGW". It's 97% of scientific papers. i.e. 97% of the ways of examining the question scientifically resulted in a conclusion that AGW is real.
Actually, it said 97% of the papers that took a position on the cause agreed that humans are the main contributing factor, which I believe is what GPLHost-Thomas was addressing. Limiting yourself to just those papers that have taken a position on the cause of global warming can be seen as like limiting yourself to just people who have taken a position on the existence of (a) God.
Maybe there's a valid reason for it, making the two not like each other at all. But it should be addressed, otherwise people will cling to that, saying "See? See? What about all those papers that did not take a stance??? These hippies are clearly hiding something!"
Maybe, maybe not. I know when I first saw 35.760 and 22.220, I saw the decimal, but the trailing zero made me think that, for some reason, they were using European notation. It wasn't until I got to the part about the previous record being set by the Apollo 17 astronauts that I realized tens of thousands of kilometers/miles was probably the incorrect way of reading it.
I'm sure these companies already factored this in to the decisions they made, but it isn't just about the cost of going to trial for this one thing vs settling out of court for this one thing. You also have to factor in how many fewer patent trolls may try to entice you to settle out of court if you demonstrate that you will call their bluff and take them to court (or how many more patent trolls may come knocking when they see what easy pickings you are).
Always possible. I had to remove some scareware from my brother's PC the other day, and its description in Windows task manager, IIRC, was something like "Apple Right Click".
Ahh, gotcha. Thanks for explaining what you meant.
I'm not sure what you mean. Could you please explain?
Oh, and Rarity is best pony.
Actually, Fluttershy is.
Um, that is, if that's alright...
And for the record, less than 20% of bronies self-identify as furries, the vast majority are heterosexual
Not sure if it was your intent, but also for the record, one can be a furry and also be heterosexual.
Because the mechanics of cooling something in space are not the same as cooling them on earth.
On earth, in your typical home AC unit, the freon or whatever runs in a sealed, continuous loop, with one end of the loop being where heat is absorbed, and the other end being where the heat is expelled. This works because at that other end, a fan is blowing air across the radiator, ensuring a fresh supply of cool air to absorb the heat from the AC unit.
But in space, there is no air. So instead, as I understand it, they just dump the hot liquid out into space.
It's almost like you think corporations (that have interest in declaring the item "abandoned") will do a diligent search. Google "search similar images" function will be helpful if the searcher is trying to find the owner.
The way I read the post, it sounded more like ericloewe was suggesting that that would be a method the owner might use to prove in a court of law that due diligence was not performed.
Oddly enough, this actually feels on-topic for once.
Because Chii has as much authority to name a planet as this "Uwing" company does.
So the question now is, what will xbox live cost those that buy the $500 version? If it is the same $40-$60 that it costs today, then for those who buy the $300 version, will their xbox live cost drop after 2 years? If so, then for anyone who was planning on getting xbox live anyway, it'd make sense to go with the $300 version, assuming everything else about the versions is equal.
$500 + ($40 * 2) = $580
$300 + ($10 * 24) = $540
Washington DC has a majority African-American population.
And?
Calling them monkeys is racist.
Except no one was calling them monkeys. We were all calling the politicians monkeys, regardless of the politician's skin color.
So I repeat my question. Since when has "politician" been a race?
Since when has "politician" been a race?
So we'll have come full circle then. Although some people (myself included) would say that felines never ceased being our overlords.
Now I'm curious. Is there any way to predict how bad it could have been if everyone treated SARS with the same level of caution they treat the "normal" strains?
*looks at user name*
Not sure if serious...
Are you sure you have the right amendment? The 10th states that powers not granted to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or the people. And according to the Commerce Clause, the federal government is the one with the power to regulate commerce among the states. Now granted, the Commerce Clause has been abused to hell and back. But if I, a Marylander, purchase something via the internet or a mail-order catalog from a company in California, how does that not legitimately fall under the Commerce Clause?