Unless those photos were photoshopped by a retarded 4-year-old with limited eyesight on one eye - I don't see how can those be regarded as anything but pathetic.
Well, it IS rather obvious for most of us that Canada is just pretending to be a separate country from the rest of the British Empire just to keep the pea soup eaters from revolting. Ridiculous I know, but stranger and more pointless things have been done by British monarchs before. Like that time they decided to just give up on the entire lower part of the North America - over a couple of cups of tea.
And despite that old saying that the Sun never sets on the British Empire, that does not make it a continent. A time zone maybe, but not a continent.
The one from Trinidad & Tobago, duh. Gi is from China, Kwame is from Burkina Faso, Linka is from Czech Republic and Wheeler is from USA.
But, adding Paul from UK and Ritchie from Canada is a bit Anglo-centric and ridiculous. Those are not even two different countries, let alone continents.
The data as presented indicates a recent warming trend, but does not say anything about whether this is man-made or not
That is because the report focuses ONLY on the evidence of existence of the global warming AND SPECIFICALLY does not deal with the cause: From TFA: The new report, the 20th in a series, focuses only on global warming and does not specify a cause.
0.5deg rise in 50 years is extremely small in the scheme of things
Sure! Tell it to people losing their livelihood in floods, farmers losing entire crops or to ANYONE without an air-conditioned home this summer. More from TFA: "But," it adds, "the temperature increase of about one degree Fahrenheit experienced during the past 50 years has already altered the planet. Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are becoming more common and more intense." And let us not even start with half of Asia being fed from those glaciers (which power their major rivers).
TFA links to two DIFFERENT articles talking about two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things. FFS the title of the yahoo article they linked to is "America's Most Popular Car Colors".
And the study uses its own data. Which points out quite clearly that: A) Silver/gray cars are more popular and B) More black cars were stolen DESPITE there being more silver/gray cars.
Also, color bars showing the percentage of cars stolen - those are not percentages of THE SUM OF ALL CARS STOLEN. If they were, when you add them all up you would get 100. And there are 10 colors there - ALL OF THEM with percentages above 10%. It is right there in the title of the graph - "Theft risk by colour (%), cars up to three years old, 2004-2008, the Netherlands". The graph show the odds that the particular car would be stolen, based on its color. NOT its availability (i.e. number of cars sold).
So, when the chances are for black cars to be stolen at "about 26%" - that just means one in four of ALL BLACK CARS sold was stolen. It does NOT mean that 26% of ALL STOLEN CARS were black - despite "about 26%" of all SOLD CARS being black.
It is a subset of a subset of the set. NOT two subsets of the same set magically connected together, or "not so magically adjusted to match". Nor is the total number of cars of each color relevant - which can be seen by looking at blue, gray and red cars. Blue and gray cars both have 1 in 5 chances to get stolen - despite there being 3 times more of the gray cars out there. And reds are being stolen less than any of the "other" colors, despite there being at least twice as many red cars than there is of any particular "other" color. Again, it is the theft risk by color, not theft risk by quantity.
"1 in 4" cars remains "1 in 4" regardless if we are talking about 4 or 4000 cars.
You don't go around driving in a stolen car if your plan was to sell it. You move it to the predetermined chop-shop or dealer taking the shortest path with as few of police patrols or cameras as possible.
Stealing it "for a job" is something completely different. There, the criminal wants an older, common and inconspicuous model - i.e. an invisible car.
But if you want to sell it - you want to steal a new, popular luxury car. And again... color is the indicator of the car's popularity (hence, the resale price) - criminals already plan not to be seen by the police for those 20 minutes or so they spend with the car.
You might think that this strategy will only work ~50% of the time, but since I'm posting this on/. you should be able to figure out why I beat the odds.
At least not anymore. Maybe in the olden days. Your slashdot ID on the other hand...
When you combine those two, there is quite a chance that most of the females you meet lack the necessary depth to take your pink pencil. And by that I don't mean anything... you know... sexual - I'm just saying that they are mostly two-dimensional.
Well, according to one source 26% of the cars in Europe are black. Now the original article says that about 26% of the cars stolen in the Netherlands are black (see Figure 2).
Bravo, Mr. Obvious!
So, Netherlands is actually the whole of Europe and ALL cars there (Europe, Netherlands, England, Prussia - same thing) are stolen? Or is it just all the black cars?
Is it only resale value that drives the preference of thieves for cars in common exterior colours or does the probability of apprehension also play a role? The recent history of car theft gives us some idea. Red is obviously a bright colour that attracts attention - including that of the police. Red is also a colour that has fallen out of fashion since the turn of the century (Figure 1). In the beginning of the 1990s around 25% of all new cars were red, now the number is close to 5%. The decline of red doesn't only go for the Netherlands, but is a worldwide trend according data from DuPont. If thieves are primarily interested in resale value and do not care much about being spotted in a bright coloured car, then we should see higher rates of theft for red cars in the 1990s. That is exactly what we find. Figure 3 shows that, just with the colour silver/grey, the popularity of red in new car sales is tightly linked with the prevalence of red among stolen cars. This suggests that car thieves do not seem to be particularly worried about being picked out from traffic by police.
Differences in theft rates between cars in common and uncommon colour suggest that resale value is on the mind of car thieves. We find evidence that it is indeed the resale value rather than the fear of getting caught that is driving this difference. If the aversion to driving a car in an offbeat colour is not too high - or if someone actually enjoys it - then buying deterrence through an uncommon car colour may be at least as good a deal as buying deterrence through an expensive car security device.
Making The Internets "forgettable" is just putting a band-aid on torn limb. Not to mention a flawed idea that sounds like something only a historical revisionist would come up with.
If anything there needs to be MORE transparency on EVERYONE'S actions. Particularly on actions of people in power and "deciders". In time, such a practice might teach us to stop judging people only by their past mistakes and/or current status. You know, not just ask "for that among you who is without sin to first cast the stone", but to give everyone a stone AND a bulls-eye on their forehead. And then remind them of that other verse that goes "Don't judge, lest you be judged. And then I'll crack your fucking skull cause I too have a stone motherfucker. Amen.".
Naturally, there are those people who can't be reasoned with - but it's not like anything short of an actual stoning will work on them anyway. Only, if you were to dig around in their closets you will surely find similar or worse skeletons. And tossing hypocritical stones is just an exercise in pointlessness and waste of time and energy.
Parent obviously referred to "anglo-centric" regarding authors CULTURAL heritage - not genetic. You know... English speaking western civilization in general instead of author's parents' religious preferences.
Implying that parent poster is somehow wrong because the author of TFA is Jewish is kinda... you know... racist. Makes it sound as if Jews can't be a part of any civilization or culture but their own.
While the rest of the audience enjoys their dumb comedy, you're shouting "Stop laughing! Can't you all see the plot is nonsensical?!". There is a problem, but it isn't with the rest of the audience.
What you are describing sounds a lot like that "Think different" stuff, yet you say it as if it's a bad thing.
Since when did nonconformity become a positive thing only if it's used to sell Apple products?
The first camp in Germany, Dachau was opened in March 1933,[5] The press statement given at the opening stated:
"On Wednesday the first concentration camp is to be opened in Dachau with an accommodation for 5000 persons. 'All Communists and--where necessary--Reichsbanner and Social Democratic functionaries who endanger state security are to be concentrated here, as in the long run it is not possible to keep individual functionaries in the state prisons without overburdening these prisons, and on the other hand these people cannot be released because attempts have shown that they persist in their efforts to agitate and organise as soon as they are released.'[5]
But yeah, sure... Nazis were cooperating with Communists AND putting them into concentration camps at the same time. Shit.. those must have been some awkward meetings.
And each time it was amended to be more up to date. Until it goes obsolete again.
Oh and... Since you believe that every US president back to 1800s was a traitor and all - does that mean that Sarah Palin is more qualified (in your book) than ALL THOSE PRESIDENTS? Based on the fact that she is NOT the president, so she had no chance to break 9th and 10th amendment? Somehow, I really don't think that NOT BEING PRESIDENT makes her instantly qualified FOR ANYTHING.
Also... I've seen public toilet janitors more intellectually qualified than her. And let's not even start about their mental qualifications compared to her.
As well as Germans, Nazis, Russians and Communists.
All four of those are VERY different things and no two of them are synonymous to each other.
Or maybe I am wrong. Maybe in your universe Fascist is synonymous with Italian and American is synonymous with racist cowboys?
Also, as someone has pointed out below - Nazis and Fascists were ALWAYS actively against Communists. Regardless of the Hitler-Stalin pact - which was a ruse for both sides, only it was German dictator who decided to break it first.
"BP's Huston Crisis Room turns out to be partially imaginary!"
Which raises the question, "Just how much of their work to fix the spill also exists only in the form of pixels?". Also, it is very much implied that they are pathological lairs a cheaters whose every statement might be a lie.
Note the "all caps speak" as well as generous use of bold all caps and exclamation marks. Sadly, sometimes you must use such a crude language and sacrifice lower caps in order to explain something to someone on the other side of the intellectual barrier. Simplifications and over-explanations such as "it is colder on the mountain the higher up you go" are also crucial when trying to translate something to Moron. You see... Morons don't have the mental capacity to understand such concept when they are bound to single word. So you must cast you net very wide and stretch the concept such as "Mount Everest==cold" over many words. And you can't just "think in Moron" as that would get you nowhere, and would kind of defeat the purpose of your argument.
Also, note the difference from the tone of my second post in this particular thread which was written in Idiot. Very similar BUT with Idiot you MUST think in that particular language. Otherwise it all just gets lost in translation.
That means the ice DOES naturally melt at certain times of the year, so the time of year that the new photo was taken IS relevant, and conspicuously absent from the article.
Indeed, it IS relevant. Particularly since Mallory's Reconnaissance Expedition was there from July to September 1921, the part of the year we here on the Northern half of the planet Earth like to refer to as "summer" - which is characteristically related to longer and hotter days. While on the other hand David Breashears took those shots in April of 2010. Part of the year known as "spring", characteristically related to still relatively lower temperatures (compared to that "summer" thing) and high chances of rainfall. Which translates into snowfall high up in the mountains, naturally.
Oh and, glaciers don't disappear over the summer. We are talking permanent ice caps here consisting of HUGE chunks of ice in a very cold environment. The fact that they are powering all those rivers mentioned in TFA should be telling you something.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless those photos were photoshopped by a retarded 4-year-old with limited eyesight on one eye - I don't see how can those be regarded as anything but pathetic.
This is one case where it is definitely a good idea to take the blue pill!
I don't see how will taking Viagra do any good here.
Can't see how this will be of ANY use in court.
I mean, you could prove that almost anyone is Jack the fucking Ripper.
And anyone with History Channel is probably Hitler Himself by now.
Well, it IS rather obvious for most of us that Canada is just pretending to be a separate country from the rest of the British Empire just to keep the pea soup eaters from revolting.
Ridiculous I know, but stranger and more pointless things have been done by British monarchs before.
Like that time they decided to just give up on the entire lower part of the North America - over a couple of cups of tea.
And despite that old saying that the Sun never sets on the British Empire, that does not make it a continent.
A time zone maybe, but not a continent.
The one from Trinidad & Tobago, duh.
Gi is from China, Kwame is from Burkina Faso, Linka is from Czech Republic and Wheeler is from USA.
But, adding Paul from UK and Ritchie from Canada is a bit Anglo-centric and ridiculous.
Those are not even two different countries, let alone continents.
The data as presented indicates a recent warming trend, but does not say anything about whether this is man-made or not
That is because the report focuses ONLY on the evidence of existence of the global warming AND SPECIFICALLY does not deal with the cause:
From TFA: The new report, the 20th in a series, focuses only on global warming and does not specify a cause.
0.5deg rise in 50 years is extremely small in the scheme of things
Sure! Tell it to people losing their livelihood in floods, farmers losing entire crops or to ANYONE without an air-conditioned home this summer.
More from TFA: "But," it adds, "the temperature increase of about one degree Fahrenheit experienced during the past 50 years has already altered the planet.
Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are becoming more common and more intense."
And let us not even start with half of Asia being fed from those glaciers (which power their major rivers).
"Tonight we dine in HEAVEN!!!" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
TFA links to two DIFFERENT articles talking about two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things.
FFS the title of the yahoo article they linked to is "America's Most Popular Car Colors".
And the study uses its own data.
Which points out quite clearly that: A) Silver/gray cars are more popular and B) More black cars were stolen DESPITE there being more silver/gray cars.
Also, color bars showing the percentage of cars stolen - those are not percentages of THE SUM OF ALL CARS STOLEN.
If they were, when you add them all up you would get 100. And there are 10 colors there - ALL OF THEM with percentages above 10%.
It is right there in the title of the graph - "Theft risk by colour (%), cars up to three years old, 2004-2008, the Netherlands".
The graph show the odds that the particular car would be stolen, based on its color. NOT its availability (i.e. number of cars sold).
So, when the chances are for black cars to be stolen at "about 26%" - that just means one in four of ALL BLACK CARS sold was stolen.
It does NOT mean that 26% of ALL STOLEN CARS were black - despite "about 26%" of all SOLD CARS being black.
It is a subset of a subset of the set.
NOT two subsets of the same set magically connected together, or "not so magically adjusted to match".
Nor is the total number of cars of each color relevant - which can be seen by looking at blue, gray and red cars.
Blue and gray cars both have 1 in 5 chances to get stolen - despite there being 3 times more of the gray cars out there.
And reds are being stolen less than any of the "other" colors, despite there being at least twice as many red cars than there is of any particular "other" color.
Again, it is the theft risk by color, not theft risk by quantity.
"1 in 4" cars remains "1 in 4" regardless if we are talking about 4 or 4000 cars.
You don't go around driving in a stolen car if your plan was to sell it.
You move it to the predetermined chop-shop or dealer taking the shortest path with as few of police patrols or cameras as possible.
Stealing it "for a job" is something completely different.
There, the criminal wants an older, common and inconspicuous model - i.e. an invisible car.
But if you want to sell it - you want to steal a new, popular luxury car.
And again... color is the indicator of the car's popularity (hence, the resale price) - criminals already plan not to be seen by the police for those 20 minutes or so they spend with the car.
You might think that this strategy will only work ~50% of the time, but since I'm posting this on /. you should be able to figure out why I beat the odds.
At least not anymore. Maybe in the olden days. Your slashdot ID on the other hand...
When you combine those two, there is quite a chance that most of the females you meet lack the necessary depth to take your pink pencil.
And by that I don't mean anything... you know... sexual - I'm just saying that they are mostly two-dimensional.
Well, according to one source 26% of the cars in Europe are black. Now the original article says that about 26% of the cars stolen in the Netherlands are black (see Figure 2).
Bravo, Mr. Obvious!
So, Netherlands is actually the whole of Europe and ALL cars there (Europe, Netherlands, England, Prussia - same thing) are stolen?
Or is it just all the black cars?
Is that what you are trying to say?
From TFA:
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/5262
It's resale value, not the fear of getting caught
Is it only resale value that drives the preference of thieves for cars in common exterior colours or does the probability of apprehension also play a role?
The recent history of car theft gives us some idea. Red is obviously a bright colour that attracts attention - including that of the police.
Red is also a colour that has fallen out of fashion since the turn of the century (Figure 1).
In the beginning of the 1990s around 25% of all new cars were red, now the number is close to 5%.
The decline of red doesn't only go for the Netherlands, but is a worldwide trend according data from DuPont.
If thieves are primarily interested in resale value and do not care much about being spotted in a bright coloured car, then we should see higher rates of theft for red cars in the 1990s.
That is exactly what we find. Figure 3 shows that, just with the colour silver/grey, the popularity of red in new car sales is tightly linked with the prevalence of red among stolen cars.
This suggests that car thieves do not seem to be particularly worried about being picked out from traffic by police.
Figure 3. Popularity of colour in new car sales vs. theft risk by colour, the Netherlands
http://www.voxeu.org/sites/default/files/image/Vollaardfig3.png
Source: CBS/RDW
Conclusion
Differences in theft rates between cars in common and uncommon colour suggest that resale value is on the mind of car thieves.
We find evidence that it is indeed the resale value rather than the fear of getting caught that is driving this difference.
If the aversion to driving a car in an offbeat colour is not too high - or if someone actually enjoys it - then buying deterrence through an uncommon car colour may be at least as good a deal as buying deterrence through an expensive car security device.
...this ground-breaking invention. Granted, it is from Nepal, and not India, but it is close enough.
Making The Internets "forgettable" is just putting a band-aid on torn limb.
Not to mention a flawed idea that sounds like something only a historical revisionist would come up with.
If anything there needs to be MORE transparency on EVERYONE'S actions. Particularly on actions of people in power and "deciders".
In time, such a practice might teach us to stop judging people only by their past mistakes and/or current status.
You know, not just ask "for that among you who is without sin to first cast the stone", but to give everyone a stone AND a bulls-eye on their forehead.
And then remind them of that other verse that goes "Don't judge, lest you be judged. And then I'll crack your fucking skull cause I too have a stone motherfucker. Amen.".
Naturally, there are those people who can't be reasoned with - but it's not like anything short of an actual stoning will work on them anyway.
Only, if you were to dig around in their closets you will surely find similar or worse skeletons.
And tossing hypocritical stones is just an exercise in pointlessness and waste of time and energy.
Or was that hypothetical stones?
Parent obviously referred to "anglo-centric" regarding authors CULTURAL heritage - not genetic.
You know... English speaking western civilization in general instead of author's parents' religious preferences.
Implying that parent poster is somehow wrong because the author of TFA is Jewish is kinda... you know... racist.
Makes it sound as if Jews can't be a part of any civilization or culture but their own.
Ignorant people fearing what they don't understand?
I'm stunned. Stunned, I say.
perhaps even the people who are serious protesters will realize how crazy out their they are.
http://idle.slashdot.org/story/10/07/14/1235220/Given-Truth-the-Misinformed-Believe-Lies-More
That's two "glorious" Apple campaigns down the drain.
What's next?
iPads not being magical?
iPods not making you dance in a 3-color world?
Mac is actually a PC?
Is everything Steve ever told us actually a lie?
While the rest of the audience enjoys their dumb comedy, you're shouting "Stop laughing! Can't you all see the plot is nonsensical?!". There is a problem, but it isn't with the rest of the audience.
What you are describing sounds a lot like that "Think different" stuff, yet you say it as if it's a bad thing.
Since when did nonconformity become a positive thing only if it's used to sell Apple products?
His mother was killed by Tusken raiders.
For fuck's sake, they used Communists as an excuse to form the Axis.
Oh, and this little anecdotal piece of history should give you a clue just HOW Nazis treated Communists.
And if you are particularly dense about believing in YOUR lies instead of proven truth...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps#Camps_before_the_war
The first camp in Germany, Dachau was opened in March 1933,[5] The press statement given at the opening stated:
"On Wednesday the first concentration camp is to be opened in Dachau with an accommodation for 5000 persons.
'All Communists and--where necessary--Reichsbanner and Social Democratic functionaries who endanger state security are to be concentrated here, as in the long run it is not possible to keep individual functionaries in the state prisons without overburdening these prisons, and on the other hand these people cannot be released because attempts have shown that they persist in their efforts to agitate and organise as soon as they are released.'[5]
But yeah, sure...
Nazis were cooperating with Communists AND putting them into concentration camps at the same time.
Shit.. those must have been some awkward meetings.
Why, US Constitution alone was officially declared obsolete by Congress 17 times so far.
And each time it was amended to be more up to date.
Until it goes obsolete again.
Oh and...
Since you believe that every US president back to 1800s was a traitor and all - does that mean that Sarah Palin is more qualified (in your book) than ALL THOSE PRESIDENTS?
Based on the fact that she is NOT the president, so she had no chance to break 9th and 10th amendment?
Somehow, I really don't think that NOT BEING PRESIDENT makes her instantly qualified FOR ANYTHING.
Also... I've seen public toilet janitors more intellectually qualified than her.
And let's not even start about their mental qualifications compared to her.
As well as Germans, Nazis, Russians and Communists.
All four of those are VERY different things and no two of them are synonymous to each other.
Or maybe I am wrong.
Maybe in your universe Fascist is synonymous with Italian and American is synonymous with racist cowboys?
Also, as someone has pointed out below - Nazis and Fascists were ALWAYS actively against Communists.
Regardless of the Hitler-Stalin pact - which was a ruse for both sides, only it was German dictator who decided to break it first.
"BP's Huston Crisis Room turns out to be partially imaginary!"
Which raises the question, "Just how much of their work to fix the spill also exists only in the form of pixels?".
Also, it is very much implied that they are pathological lairs a cheaters whose every statement might be a lie.
So all that "whole truth and nothing but the truth" (once it comes to it) should be taken with a particularly large grain of salt in this case.
Note the "all caps speak" as well as generous use of bold all caps and exclamation marks.
Sadly, sometimes you must use such a crude language and sacrifice lower caps in order to explain something to someone on the other side of the intellectual barrier.
Simplifications and over-explanations such as "it is colder on the mountain the higher up you go" are also crucial when trying to translate something to Moron.
You see... Morons don't have the mental capacity to understand such concept when they are bound to single word.
So you must cast you net very wide and stretch the concept such as "Mount Everest==cold" over many words.
And you can't just "think in Moron" as that would get you nowhere, and would kind of defeat the purpose of your argument.
Also, note the difference from the tone of my second post in this particular thread which was written in Idiot.
Very similar BUT with Idiot you MUST think in that particular language.
Otherwise it all just gets lost in translation.
That means the ice DOES naturally melt at certain times of the year, so the time of year that the new photo was taken IS relevant, and conspicuously absent from the article.
Indeed, it IS relevant.
Particularly since Mallory's Reconnaissance Expedition was there from July to September 1921, the part of the year we here on the Northern half of the planet Earth like to refer to as "summer" - which is characteristically related to longer and hotter days.
While on the other hand David Breashears took those shots in April of 2010.
Part of the year known as "spring", characteristically related to still relatively lower temperatures (compared to that "summer" thing) and high chances of rainfall. Which translates into snowfall high up in the mountains, naturally.
Oh and, glaciers don't disappear over the summer.
We are talking permanent ice caps here consisting of HUGE chunks of ice in a very cold environment.
The fact that they are powering all those rivers mentioned in TFA should be telling you something.