An artist might do a work of art that could be classified as playing a musical piece very slowly. But (s)he wouldn't do it because they are copying the idea of another contemporary art idea, nor would they ask if it was art before making it. And it would be good or bad on it's own merits, not because it shares some obvious physical attribute of another artwork.
If you watch the whole thing up to now as an animation, then go back and review the frame with dialog, it's very clear this is going somewhere. http://xkcd.aubronwood.com/
So you believe proper English speakers should speak in cockney slang? I don't care what the common, profane speech might dictate; I only care what is correct.
It's not slang, it's standard English. And the name of the language is a clue as to who gets to say what's what.
You can do whatever you like with the American fork of the language though. Feel free. So long as you don't claim it's genuine English.
Apparently aside for not being able to quote properly you have absolutely no understanding of logical fallacies, or logic at all, my friend. Nothing in our discussions amounts to a Strawman's fallacy
I was being polite. I could have just pointed out you are a liar. Prefer that? Didn't think so.
If ever you want to discuss honestly, without saying I said things that I did not, then that's OK. But otherwise, there's no point in me engaging with someone who just lies.
Fantastic. They say a picture paints a thousand words. This animated GIF is all that needs to be said on this topic. I may just cut'n'paste it in future to save time.
THats partly because of idiots who last year said "See? Global warming" when we had abnormally warm weather.
There are idiots that say that. And there are idiots that look at a cold year and say "See there's no such thing as Global Warming". Idiots say stupid things. News at 11.
Climate scientists on the other hand have consistently said it's only once you get to periods exceeding 30 years that weather variability gives way to climate.
No... but a 17-year failure to warm probably does.
Only if you don't realise that climate is weather averaged over a long tome period, and 17 years isn't long enough. Scientists typically use 30 years as the minimum for climate. Always have. And that's pointed out in the very first paragraph of the article you link to.
Heck, it'd be premature to start making judgements about the probability of throwing a six with a dice after only 17 throws.
That was exactly what you claimed, but lets play your game and say you didn't.
Which is it? Because if it's this: "That was exactly what you claimed", then I say: link please?
If on the other hand it's this: "but lets play your game and say you didn't." Then I accept that you now have looked back and have discovered I didn't say what you claimed I had.
So you admit that lax gun control does not increase the number of gun related crimes.
And there you go again, in the very next sentence creating another straw man. When are you going to realise that it's pointless trying to argue with what you hoped people had said. You have to argue with what they actually say.
With your current approach, you'll find you can't argue your way out of a paper bag.
Your link to The Australian confirms that at least 30 years data is required to judge climate trends. This is what every person who is informed about climate has been saying all along.
"Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW) advocates repeatedly and consistently stated that a trend of 10 years or more proved their point.
I don't know who AGW 'advocates" are. The only people I've seen advocating it are a few unthinking right wingers from cold climates.
That aside, what you say is simply the opposite of the truth. It's deniers that have always tried to cherry pick short time intervals, and climate scientists who have shown the long term trends, and tried to educate people that climate is weather averaged over a large geographical area and a long time. Typically 30 years plus.
"Can someone offer a short and simple explanation for why abnormally cold weather doesn't mean "global warming is a myth"?"
No.
Then you probably shouldn't be entering into the discussion at all as you don't know the basics. Global warming refers to climate. "Abnormally cold weather" is weather. They are completely different things.
Weather happens at a particular place at a particular time. Climate is an average of weather over a large geographical area over a long period of time. Typically 30 years.
The two are as different as instantaneous speed of a car, and the average speed of a car over it's entire lifetime.
Now what's this about a more recent ban? The big gun control legislation was 1997. The 2006 legislation was just a bit of tidying up and closing loopholes. And 2012 was a temporary lifting of certain restrictions to enable the shooting events at the Olympics.
So, we're agreed that crime has fallen to a lower level than it was at the time of the banning of most firearms.
The only thing that's left is it not matching your expectation (or requirement) that if it didn't rise every year before the ban, and fall every year after the ban, thus showing a peak at the year of the ban. Then the ban was ineffective. I suggest the problem is your expectation, not the effectiveness of the law.
You're making no allowance for the fact that a law needs policing. That after a ban it takes time for the police to get the guns off the streets. 6 years to turn things around is not bad.
Even if you can't bring yourself to accept that the UK gun ban worked. I would hope you'll stop trying to use the UK as an example that gun control doesn't work.
Note, there's a similar problem with the NRA distorting Australian gun stats. So be wary of repeating that too.
I said congress was "policies for sale" not Obama. Congress did everything it could to block and or water down Obama care because of all the cash from health care lobbyists.
I've made no assumptions about your opinion of Obamacare. I chose it as an example of decent policy that's for the benefit of the people, not lobbyists.
Excuse me? Who's cherry picking? Cherry picking means choosing amongst the figures to find something that suits you. What you are doing. I gave totals. No cherry picking.
Interesting that you are capable of looking at the figures close enough to find the totals include air guns, which are also controlled. But you see can't see, or admit that you were wrong in saying that gun crimes haven't dropped to roughly 1990 levels.
I haven't see such intellectual dishonesty as yours in quite some time. Though when I did, it was someone of the same politics as you denying global warming. It may even have been you that time, I can't remember.
Let's recap. You said: "after the recent gun ban (or confiscation, or however you want to put it), gun crime went UP, not down. And has stayed up"
In response I said: "That's not true. The facts are that handguns were banned in the UK in 1997 BECAUSE gun crime was rising. With a particular school massacre being the catalyst. Gun crime continued to rise for 6 years till 2003. Since then it's been falling, and is below the 1997 rate. In fact it's the lowest now since 1990."
The documentation I've supplied show what you said to be wrong, and what I said to be entirely correct. Including the fact that I pointed out gun crime continued to rise for 6 years after the ban, but then fell to it's lowest for the last 23 years.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have to ask... the answer is no.
An artist might do a work of art that could be classified as playing a musical piece very slowly. But (s)he wouldn't do it because they are copying the idea of another contemporary art idea, nor would they ask if it was art before making it. And it would be good or bad on it's own merits, not because it shares some obvious physical attribute of another artwork.
It's not MORE impressive than Fantasia. They're both innovative animations in their own way. They're both impressive.
Their world does not work like our world.
In what way? I don't see anything that's non-terrestrial about it. Apart from them being stick-people and it being 2D.
No, I don't believe that's it.
If you watch the whole thing up to now as an animation, then go back and review the frame with dialog, it's very clear this is going somewhere.
http://xkcd.aubronwood.com/
I think it's fantastic.
So you believe proper English speakers should speak in cockney slang? I don't care what the common, profane speech might dictate; I only care what is correct.
It's not slang, it's standard English. And the name of the language is a clue as to who gets to say what's what.
You can do whatever you like with the American fork of the language though. Feel free. So long as you don't claim it's genuine English.
Apparently aside for not being able to quote properly you have absolutely no understanding of logical fallacies, or logic at all, my friend. Nothing in our discussions amounts to a Strawman's fallacy
I was being polite. I could have just pointed out you are a liar. Prefer that? Didn't think so.
If ever you want to discuss honestly, without saying I said things that I did not, then that's OK. But otherwise, there's no point in me engaging with someone who just lies.
The future is now.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif
Fantastic. They say a picture paints a thousand words. This animated GIF is all that needs to be said on this topic. I may just cut'n'paste it in future to save time.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif
This isn't a discussion, it's contradiction.
Are you really trying to argue against scientific data with third hand anecdotes?
30 years is so small a period of time, that pissing up wind would be a better indicator of when it was going to rain next.
A 30 year average gets you a reasonable measure of climate. Climate TRENDS are of course measured over much longer.
THats partly because of idiots who last year said "See? Global warming" when we had abnormally warm weather.
There are idiots that say that. And there are idiots that look at a cold year and say "See there's no such thing as Global Warming". Idiots say stupid things. News at 11.
Climate scientists on the other hand have consistently said it's only once you get to periods exceeding 30 years that weather variability gives way to climate.
No... but a 17-year failure to warm probably does.
Only if you don't realise that climate is weather averaged over a long tome period, and 17 years isn't long enough. Scientists typically use 30 years as the minimum for climate. Always have. And that's pointed out in the very first paragraph of the article you link to.
Heck, it'd be premature to start making judgements about the probability of throwing a six with a dice after only 17 throws.
Linux 2013 = Windows 2007.
But seriously guys, you're in for a great time. It's one of the all time great games, with the most fantastically entertaining end sequences.
That was exactly what you claimed, but lets play your game and say you didn't.
Which is it? Because if it's this: "That was exactly what you claimed", then I say: link please?
If on the other hand it's this: "but lets play your game and say you didn't." Then I accept that you now have looked back and have discovered I didn't say what you claimed I had.
So you admit that lax gun control does not increase the number of gun related crimes.
And there you go again, in the very next sentence creating another straw man. When are you going to realise that it's pointless trying to argue with what you hoped people had said. You have to argue with what they actually say.
With your current approach, you'll find you can't argue your way out of a paper bag.
Your link to The Australian confirms that at least 30 years data is required to judge climate trends. This is what every person who is informed about climate has been saying all along.
"Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW) advocates repeatedly and consistently stated that a trend of 10 years or more proved their point.
I don't know who AGW 'advocates" are. The only people I've seen advocating it are a few unthinking right wingers from cold climates.
That aside, what you say is simply the opposite of the truth. It's deniers that have always tried to cherry pick short time intervals, and climate scientists who have shown the long term trends, and tried to educate people that climate is weather averaged over a large geographical area and a long time. Typically 30 years plus.
"Can someone offer a short and simple explanation for why abnormally cold weather doesn't mean "global warming is a myth"?"
No.
Then you probably shouldn't be entering into the discussion at all as you don't know the basics. Global warming refers to climate. "Abnormally cold weather" is weather. They are completely different things.
Weather happens at a particular place at a particular time. Climate is an average of weather over a large geographical area over a long period of time. Typically 30 years.
The two are as different as instantaneous speed of a car, and the average speed of a car over it's entire lifetime.
Thank you. That wasn't so difficult was it.
Now what's this about a more recent ban? The big gun control legislation was 1997. The 2006 legislation was just a bit of tidying up and closing loopholes. And 2012 was a temporary lifting of certain restrictions to enable the shooting events at the Olympics.
So, we're agreed that crime has fallen to a lower level than it was at the time of the banning of most firearms.
The only thing that's left is it not matching your expectation (or requirement) that if it didn't rise every year before the ban, and fall every year after the ban, thus showing a peak at the year of the ban. Then the ban was ineffective. I suggest the problem is your expectation, not the effectiveness of the law.
You're making no allowance for the fact that a law needs policing. That after a ban it takes time for the police to get the guns off the streets. 6 years to turn things around is not bad.
Even if you can't bring yourself to accept that the UK gun ban worked. I would hope you'll stop trying to use the UK as an example that gun control doesn't work.
Note, there's a similar problem with the NRA distorting Australian gun stats. So be wary of repeating that too.
It isn't me who's looking bad here.
We all know it's very much you who's looking bad. You know it yourself.
You say that UK has less gun related crimes per capita than US because guns cannot be bought there legally.
No, that's what you claim I said. But it's not what I said. That's why it's a straw man.
The topic, raised by YOU, was black market guns, not gun crime.
Maybe you don't remember what you said from one post to the next.
I said congress was "policies for sale" not Obama. Congress did everything it could to block and or water down Obama care because of all the cash from health care lobbyists.
I've made no assumptions about your opinion of Obamacare. I chose it as an example of decent policy that's for the benefit of the people, not lobbyists.
Haha. Way to cherry-pick your figures.
Excuse me? Who's cherry picking? Cherry picking means choosing amongst the figures to find something that suits you. What you are doing. I gave totals. No cherry picking.
Interesting that you are capable of looking at the figures close enough to find the totals include air guns, which are also controlled. But you see can't see, or admit that you were wrong in saying that gun crimes haven't dropped to roughly 1990 levels.
I haven't see such intellectual dishonesty as yours in quite some time. Though when I did, it was someone of the same politics as you denying global warming. It may even have been you that time, I can't remember.
Let's recap. You said:
"after the recent gun ban (or confiscation, or however you want to put it), gun crime went UP, not down. And has stayed up"
In response I said:
"That's not true. The facts are that handguns were banned in the UK in 1997 BECAUSE gun crime was rising. With a particular school massacre being the catalyst. Gun crime continued to rise for 6 years till 2003. Since then it's been falling, and is below the 1997 rate. In fact it's the lowest now since 1990."
The documentation I've supplied show what you said to be wrong, and what I said to be entirely correct. Including the fact that I pointed out gun crime continued to rise for 6 years after the ban, but then fell to it's lowest for the last 23 years.
gun crime in america is at around a 20 year low
Measured by who? I heard the NRA had successfully lobbied to stop the government researching this data.
Which is a strawman. My post was actually illustrating the wrongness of your comment:
"If it was not people would buy them in the black market, as happens in other countries where guns cannot be easily purchased legally."
And nothing about Norway helps your case. You tried to change the subject, so I did too.