- we're at 17 years, and we're not seeing the human caused signal.
Then why did you say: "don't be surprised when we reach that timeline"? I'm glad you've realised how stupid that was for you to say. However the new version is no better because the last 17 years is indeed an upward trend in temperature.
I guess the first sentence of the press release you link is too difficult to follow...
"In order to separate human-caused global warming from the "noise" of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists."
No, that's really straight forward. What have you misunderstood about it?
I'd argue that the people who are doing the punching are no less pretentious *or* self-righteous.... like they have made it their own self-appointed duty to, under threat of physical violence, try to make other people see the world as they do, and have a similar set of priorities and values.
No, they are just pissed off by someone thrusting a camera in their face, or not paying attention to the person they are conversing with when they should be.
This is different from people killing in the name of religion how, exactly?
In every way possible. You are beginning to sound hysterical.
And what kind of world is it that you live in that this sort of thing is actually amusing?
This one. For example, Buzz Aldrin punching this jackass is quite funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Some people just deserve a punch.
He is talking about it as an idea around which people build philisophical systems which they use to guide their lives.
It doesn't happen. For sure there are some philosophers who don't happen to have a belief in any gods just as there are others that do. And they all come up with philosophical systems That's their job. But that doesn't mean they are based around atheism.
In other words, there are athiests who behave like religionists.
I've been an atheist for more than 30 years, and I've never seen one, either in real life, nor in the media. So unless you have a particular example, I suggest you are mistaken.
Hey, we all had stupid fashions when we were young. In my day it was New Romantics. Now that was far more pretentious and silly that the current youngsters can manage.:-)
You didn't RTFA. It's not a law, it's a labour agreement with unions. Unions that represent 1 million members in France, but this agreement only covers 250,000 of them in specific kinds of jobs that are already covered by mandatory rest periods.
It does say it's a "legally binding" agreement. But that doesn't make it a law. It just makes it a contract.
So no, it wouldn't make it illegal. And indeed it only covers those that need rest periods, such as drivers.
Having pointed out the incorrectness of your post. I'll say that my point is not bound by what the French do anyway. I'm talking about what is civilised. What is not exploitation. Which is not necessarily the same as the law in any particular country.
The group found that wind turbines placed on Earth's surface could extract kinetic energy at a rate of at least 400 terawatts, while high-altitude wind power could extract more than 1800 terawatts. Current total global power demand is about 18 terawatts.
You claimed 10% of the USA requirement would disrupt the jet stream. This is theoretical stuff looking at something that would create 100 times more than the current global power requirement.
If you like them, then you are either in a small minority, or a very quiet group. Virtually every right winger that expresses a preference want's rid of wind turbines.
As to price, you're spoiled by cheap fossil fuel. But the days of that are numbered, not only because of it's greenhouse gas problem, but because it's finite.
Wind is a genuinely free resource. Fossil fuels were a temporarily cheap resource that's getting more and more expensive as the easy stuff disappears.
Nobody has proclaimed any such right. Just two things: that people will suffer violence for wearing Google Glass. And that many of us will be amused when that happens.
Pretentious, self-righteous pricks getting punched is just one of those funny things to see.
You're clearly pretending to remember things you weren't around for, or having false memories. There was no such anti-yuppy sentiment regarding PCs. Plenty of other hate for yuppies, but not PC related. It didn't happen.
I am old enough to remember the same sorts of arguments against PCs. They were toys for the elite yuppies, and would never be useful for the poorer people.
I'm old enough to remember that isn't true. Nobody argued against h PC. AT first very few people even knew what they were. When I got my first computer I told my boss, and he just didn't understand how a person could own their own computer.
Then gradually affordable home computers came along, and parents bought them for their kids.
Then in time people got PCs on their desks at work, and eventually decided it'd be good to have one at home.
Mobile phones, sure THEY went through the ridiculed "yuppie" stage. But not PCs.
8 out of 10? How did you come to that conclusion? It's possible that there are that many accounts in existence. The vast majority being dormant. After all, Google thrusts one upon you for using previously independence services such as YouTube. And of course they are useful as throwaway accounts for signing up to things without getting spam.
But 8 out of 10 actually email addresses in use? No chance. Take a look at any email lists you have access to, or any well CCed emails. A tiny fraction of real in-use email addresses are gmail.
They don't seem to have any problem finding customers at that price.
Of course they do. That's why the marketing scam of only going on sale for one day, rather than on proper release like any normal product. They know if they release glass for real, it'll be as dead as Microsoft Kin.
No, many other companies don't do this. Only Google. And your example being another Google product only confirms this.
Other companies have real beta periods for products. Where they give the product without charge to a number of people to use so the bugs can be ironed out before a release a few months later.
But using the word "beta" to get out of responsibility for all problems in a publicly released product for years on end, or to mask the lack of demand for a product, Those are quintessentially Google tricks.
The technology is there. It's just the market that isn't. If there was any worthwhile demand for this product, Google wouldn't have to do marketing stunts like one day sales.
Huh? This is just an example of a branch of price comparison app. At worst it will save the user money by guiding him to the best deals. At best, if enough people use them, it will drive prices down. Both these outcomes are good and useful things.
There are plenty of crap app categories. This isn't one of them.
The TL;DR version is that Google still isn't very good. It favours heavily SEOed results over quality results. There is no substitute for curation or polling by trusted people.
Slashdot Mirror
Spraying hairspray at the camera would blur it. And have the fringe benefit of being very painful for the glasshole wearer's eyes.
But then again I prefer the complete blackout possible with car spray paint.
"Your baby can read" appears to be something that didn't work, and the creators quickly went out of business. That would be worth mocking.
And yes, that was regional, I never saw the product, not the mocking. Whereas PCs were sold round the world, right from the early days.
Completely different from the PC.
But then Google needs to have a selection of apps that are tolerable enough that you'll use the apps despite the Google ads.
If only it was only the ads. It's the collection and sale of every detail of your mobile life that is intolerable.
- we're at 17 years, and we're not seeing the human caused signal.
Then why did you say: "don't be surprised when we reach that timeline"? I'm glad you've realised how stupid that was for you to say. However the new version is no better because the last 17 years is indeed an upward trend in temperature.
I guess the first sentence of the press release you link is too difficult to follow...
"In order to separate human-caused global warming from the "noise" of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists."
No, that's really straight forward. What have you misunderstood about it?
I'd argue that the people who are doing the punching are no less pretentious *or* self-righteous.... like they have made it their own self-appointed duty to, under threat of physical violence, try to make other people see the world as they do, and have a similar set of priorities and values.
No, they are just pissed off by someone thrusting a camera in their face, or not paying attention to the person they are conversing with when they should be.
This is different from people killing in the name of religion how, exactly?
In every way possible. You are beginning to sound hysterical.
And what kind of world is it that you live in that this sort of thing is actually amusing?
This one. For example, Buzz Aldrin punching this jackass is quite funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Some people just deserve a punch.
He is talking about it as an idea around which people build philisophical systems which they use to guide their lives.
It doesn't happen. For sure there are some philosophers who don't happen to have a belief in any gods just as there are others that do. And they all come up with philosophical systems That's their job. But that doesn't mean they are based around atheism.
In other words, there are athiests who behave like religionists.
I've been an atheist for more than 30 years, and I've never seen one, either in real life, nor in the media. So unless you have a particular example, I suggest you are mistaken.
Hey, we all had stupid fashions when we were young. In my day it was New Romantics. Now that was far more pretentious and silly that the current youngsters can manage. :-)
You didn't RTFA. It's not a law, it's a labour agreement with unions. Unions that represent 1 million members in France, but this agreement only covers 250,000 of them in specific kinds of jobs that are already covered by mandatory rest periods.
It does say it's a "legally binding" agreement. But that doesn't make it a law. It just makes it a contract.
So no, it wouldn't make it illegal. And indeed it only covers those that need rest periods, such as drivers.
Having pointed out the incorrectness of your post. I'll say that my point is not bound by what the French do anyway. I'm talking about what is civilised. What is not exploitation. Which is not necessarily the same as the law in any particular country.
Thanks for the sci-fi link. But...
The group found that wind turbines placed on Earth's surface could extract kinetic energy at a rate of at least 400 terawatts, while high-altitude wind power could extract more than 1800 terawatts. Current total global power demand is about 18 terawatts.
You claimed 10% of the USA requirement would disrupt the jet stream. This is theoretical stuff looking at something that would create 100 times more than the current global power requirement.
Case closed.
If you like them, then you are either in a small minority, or a very quiet group. Virtually every right winger that expresses a preference want's rid of wind turbines.
As to price, you're spoiled by cheap fossil fuel. But the days of that are numbered, not only because of it's greenhouse gas problem, but because it's finite.
Wind is a genuinely free resource. Fossil fuels were a temporarily cheap resource that's getting more and more expensive as the easy stuff disappears.
And I think your prediction will be wrong.
BTW "the Hipsters (TM) even wear them with empty frames"???
Is that really true? Sounds like some media nonsense story to me, rather than some real trend. Those of us who wear glasses would really rather not.
Nobody has proclaimed any such right. Just two things: that people will suffer violence for wearing Google Glass. And that many of us will be amused when that happens.
Pretentious, self-righteous pricks getting punched is just one of those funny things to see.
You're clearly pretending to remember things you weren't around for, or having false memories. There was no such anti-yuppy sentiment regarding PCs. Plenty of other hate for yuppies, but not PC related. It didn't happen.
I am old enough to remember the same sorts of arguments against PCs. They were toys for the elite yuppies, and would never be useful for the poorer people.
I'm old enough to remember that isn't true. Nobody argued against h PC. AT first very few people even knew what they were. When I got my first computer I told my boss, and he just didn't understand how a person could own their own computer.
Then gradually affordable home computers came along, and parents bought them for their kids.
Then in time people got PCs on their desks at work, and eventually decided it'd be good to have one at home.
Mobile phones, sure THEY went through the ridiculed "yuppie" stage. But not PCs.
8 out of 10? How did you come to that conclusion? It's possible that there are that many accounts in existence. The vast majority being dormant. After all, Google thrusts one upon you for using previously independence services such as YouTube. And of course they are useful as throwaway accounts for signing up to things without getting spam.
But 8 out of 10 actually email addresses in use? No chance. Take a look at any email lists you have access to, or any well CCed emails. A tiny fraction of real in-use email addresses are gmail.
They don't seem to have any problem finding customers at that price.
Of course they do. That's why the marketing scam of only going on sale for one day, rather than on proper release like any normal product. They know if they release glass for real, it'll be as dead as Microsoft Kin.
No, many other companies don't do this. Only Google. And your example being another Google product only confirms this.
Other companies have real beta periods for products. Where they give the product without charge to a number of people to use so the bugs can be ironed out before a release a few months later.
But using the word "beta" to get out of responsibility for all problems in a publicly released product for years on end, or to mask the lack of demand for a product, Those are quintessentially Google tricks.
The technology is there. It's just the market that isn't. If there was any worthwhile demand for this product, Google wouldn't have to do marketing stunts like one day sales.
Apple do nothing of the sort. It's Samsung that falsified their sales figures.
http://bgr.com/2014/04/11/2014...
What's with scientists being in quote marks? You really are anti science aren't you. Anti anything that's inconvenient to your political agenda.
Google don't care whether their results are the best for consumers. Their customers are advertisers.
Huh? This is just an example of a branch of price comparison app. At worst it will save the user money by guiding him to the best deals. At best, if enough people use them, it will drive prices down. Both these outcomes are good and useful things.
There are plenty of crap app categories. This isn't one of them.
The TL;DR version is that Google still isn't very good. It favours heavily SEOed results over quality results. There is no substitute for curation or polling by trusted people.
Oh yes, you're the idiot who never learned anything he wasn't taught at school.
You're complaining about 500 years when your preferred period is whatever starts with 1998. Currently 15 years.
Go fuck yourself, moron.