He said "One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years"
Right, so you admit you're full of shit. We have the additions to your made oup quote of: a) "One study". b) "estimates" rather than "will be". c) "during summer" rather than at all. c) 22 years rather than 20. d) and now, given the exact quote we have a starting date. 2007. Which means you;re 15 years too early to say it's not going to happen.
You can see him claim 5-7 years here (from 2009):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI
That video shows Al Gore being as conscientious as ever, quoting the science as best he can in a way understandable to the layman. Again: a) Quoting a study. b) In summer. c) 75% change.
Again you are full of shit, claiming things that are not true because you grossly misstate them.
This is why you're an idiot and not a skeptic. Real skeptics argue with facts. They don't try to deceive. You could learn a lot from Al Gore, not just about AGW, but about integrity.
What's news then, is that Amazon can't deploy a simple perl script to fix common typography errors such as these.
There's no such thing. Every character has it's place, and a non intelligent script is most certainly going to get some wrong. It's going to replace some perfectly placed characters with some incorrect ones. And an author with a 100% correct book would be justifiably angry if Amazon changed it.
No script can replace a human editor. Not yet anyway.
Yes. They mean the same damned thing, and don't give me any crap about one looking a little longer than the other. A hyphen is a dash is a minus sign is any mid-height horizontal line.
It's not a matter of pissing anyone off. You're just wrong. The fact that you don't care that you're wrong is neither here nor there.
What would you label Al Gore "the polar caps will be gone in twenty years!!!"
One of the things that makes you an idiot, not a sceptic is the belief you can just invent a quote based on something you half remember from a denier site.
Another thing that makes you an idiot is the complete lack of knowledge that the north polar ice cap is indeed shrinking every year.
A third thing that makes you an idiot is believing that the truth or falseness of AGW depends in any way on what Al Gore says, even if you hadn't invented the quote.
That's meaningless. The vast majority of what's different between iOS and OSX is the UI, and the OSX UI wouldn't be appropriate in any way for a phone.
Of the other differences in the frameworks/libraries, iOS is the more modern version.
Re:Why not ask the authors of the GPL Ver.2?
on
The GPLv2 Goes To Court
·
· Score: 3, Informative
If there's fine print, then there's no need for the opinion of the creators. Indeed there's no need for their opinion either way, because if it's not in the license already, in written words, no one is subject to it.
Comedy always dates. Morecambe and Wise was hilarious in it's heyday in the 1970s, and well deserved a majority of the population watching the Christmas specials. But anyone watching now would be mildly amused at best. This isn't because 1970s audiences were wrong, or were just enjoying a few highlights. It was virtually all very funny. It's just that comedy dates.
Same goes for The Young ones. Same for League of Gentlemen and Little Britain, which have already dated. Same goes for Red Dwarf and The Office.
I'm sure the same is true of Monty Python and Spike Milligan, though as I was a kid when they were first broadcast I can't speak from authority there.
At one time, the jokes in Shakespeare would have been genuinely funny.
Bans on smoking in public places and workplaces typically extend to TV studios.
They don't in England. So long as you can justify it dramatically, and there is no reasonable replacement there is an exception for theatrical film and TV smoking indoors.
So a brief shot at a distance you could reasonably be required to use an ecig as a replacement. But a longer close up shot may require the generation of ash, and the diminishing length of a real cigarette.
In Scotland however, there is no such exception.
(This is AFAIK, based on the rules in the year after the smoking ban came in. It's possible that it's changed, but I doubt it.)
Obviously the rational algorithm is to convert to binary then do the math, then convert back. That's what we do with decimal, and it's not hard.
If you wanted to make it a bit harder you'd note that Roman numerals are basically base 10, with multiple characters per decimal place. So you'd do the equivalent of BCD arithmetic.
I suppose the interesting one is if you insist that the algorithm do the math with each character it encounters, as it encounters it, then forgets the character.
A Rolex doesn't cost 3 orders of magnitude more than a Chinese knockoff because it delivers 3 orders of magniute as much "quality";
I didn't say price was proportional to quality. I said that a brand (logo) can only demand a significantly higher price if the have a reputation for quality. And Rolex is absolutely an example of that.
What you can't do is design a nice logo, then expect to be able to change a significantly higher price than your competitors. It doesn't work.
tl;dr: people will buy expensive shit for reasons that have nothing to do with quality.
You are forgetting the "reputation" part. That's where you're going wrong.
Changing "free" to "get" is removing information from the consumer. "Get" applies to apps that aren't free, too.
No it doesn't. Non-free apps have the price on the button. Free with in-app says "Get", with the words "In app purchases" below the button. Free with no in-app purchases just say "Get".
This is simply changing the word "free" to "get". No information is lost whatsoever.
Free should mean you don't have to pay to get the app. It should have nothing to do with optional purchases you make after you get the app.
That's the voice of a lack of experience. The choice to change free to get is one made FROM experience. Both "Free" and "Get" are correct. But "Free" annoys people when it's really just a switch and bait. "Get" is less annoying.
Yes, it is. The current plans place a lot of emphasis on upgrading trunk roads managed by the Highways Agency to dual carriageway and grade separated junctions. If you're interested, there's a list of these projects on the Highways Agency web site.
There are hundreds of thousands of junctions in the UK. 10s of projects does not make any significant difference.
It's really the main trunk roads that we need to consider if we're comparing the efficiency of road transport with the rail network and potential high speed rail infrastructure.
I figured that's what you were doing. Yet local roads are significant. Few journeys start and end by a motorway or dual-carriageway. And people experience most of their hours sitting in congested traffic whilst commuting, most of which is on local roads.
We see this every time a motorway is congested, when the most efficient way to use the space is to have the traffic slowing down and moving uniformly, but there is always Lane Changing Guy who has to jump around cutting everyone up so he can get there five seconds sooner.
And what of the M4 bus lane scheme, where it was deemed that using fewer lanes for cars actually speeded up the cars journeys? Having a short 3 lane motorway section between a two lane motorway section and one end and and a major off-ramp at the other was inefficient, and slowed traffic. - The bus lane effectively just became a way of using the tarmac that had been set aside for car efficiency sake.
Jeremy Clarkson does one of his ill-educated rants on Top Gear, and the politicians become fearful of white-van man, and overturn the traffic experts scheme. Resulting in worse traffic congestion for all.
yet the reality at least here in the UK is that many of the major road-building projects in recent years have been carried out precisely to simplify junctions or eliminate the need for some of them altogether
The ONLY way they can be avoided altogether is with flyovers/unders. And other than motorways, they are as rare as hens teeth. A miniscule fraction of a percent of junctions. And that's not changing.
Widening motorways doesn't create junctions, but it does pour ever more traffic onto the existing roundabouts that most motorway sliproads feed onto. With ever lengthening queues to get on and get off the motorways as a result.
You talk of projects to simplify junctions. And that's true. But equally more and more junctions with traffic lights or roundabouts are created. Every time theres a new housing estate, business park or supermarket built for starters. Plus wider busier roads mean more pelican crossings are created.
It is self-evident that if you build enough road then there will be enough space for a finite population of drivers and vehicles.
Common sense is commonly wrong. There is no finite population. The number of cars increases every year.
Nor is there an eventual limitation of the population figure, as the population rises every year too.
And you are thinking about it in the wrong way completely when you talk of "road space". The only thing space gives predictably you is car parks. The road system is a mostly 2D network. And as such it's limited by it's nodes. The bottlenecks are the junctions.
I said why you can't, and you've done nothing to address those reasons why not. You just have an empty and unjustified belief that you can. A belief contradicted not only by logic, but by history.
Slashdot Mirror
Could be back just in time for Xmas!
As I'm dyslexic, if that's all you found, then I'm doing well. I didn't said I was an editor.
He said "One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years"
Right, so you admit you're full of shit. We have the additions to your made oup quote of:
a) "One study".
b) "estimates" rather than "will be".
c) "during summer" rather than at all.
c) 22 years rather than 20.
d) and now, given the exact quote we have a starting date. 2007. Which means you;re 15 years too early to say it's not going to happen.
You can see him claim 5-7 years here (from 2009) :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI
That video shows Al Gore being as conscientious as ever, quoting the science as best he can in a way understandable to the layman.
Again:
a) Quoting a study.
b) In summer.
c) 75% change.
Again you are full of shit, claiming things that are not true because you grossly misstate them.
This is why you're an idiot and not a skeptic. Real skeptics argue with facts. They don't try to deceive. You could learn a lot from Al Gore, not just about AGW, but about integrity.
What's news then, is that Amazon can't deploy a simple perl script to fix common typography errors such as these.
There's no such thing. Every character has it's place, and a non intelligent script is most certainly going to get some wrong. It's going to replace some perfectly placed characters with some incorrect ones. And an author with a 100% correct book would be justifiably angry if Amazon changed it.
No script can replace a human editor. Not yet anyway.
Gonna piss off the typography police here, but...
Yes. They mean the same damned thing, and don't give me any crap about one looking a little longer than the other. A hyphen is a dash is a minus sign is any mid-height horizontal line.
It's not a matter of pissing anyone off. You're just wrong. The fact that you don't care that you're wrong is neither here nor there.
What would you label Al Gore "the polar caps will be gone in twenty years!!!"
One of the things that makes you an idiot, not a sceptic is the belief you can just invent a quote based on something you half remember from a denier site.
Another thing that makes you an idiot is the complete lack of knowledge that the north polar ice cap is indeed shrinking every year.
A third thing that makes you an idiot is believing that the truth or falseness of AGW depends in any way on what Al Gore says, even if you hadn't invented the quote.
You're exactly the kind of idiot that doesn't deserve the title skeptic.
Ah right, yes that makes sense now.
That's meaningless. The vast majority of what's different between iOS and OSX is the UI, and the OSX UI wouldn't be appropriate in any way for a phone.
Of the other differences in the frameworks/libraries, iOS is the more modern version.
If there's fine print, then there's no need for the opinion of the creators. Indeed there's no need for their opinion either way, because if it's not in the license already, in written words, no one is subject to it.
Comedy always dates. Morecambe and Wise was hilarious in it's heyday in the 1970s, and well deserved a majority of the population watching the Christmas specials. But anyone watching now would be mildly amused at best. This isn't because 1970s audiences were wrong, or were just enjoying a few highlights. It was virtually all very funny. It's just that comedy dates.
Same goes for The Young ones. Same for League of Gentlemen and Little Britain, which have already dated. Same goes for Red Dwarf and The Office.
I'm sure the same is true of Monty Python and Spike Milligan, though as I was a kid when they were first broadcast I can't speak from authority there.
At one time, the jokes in Shakespeare would have been genuinely funny.
If they can have several successful theme parks based on Lego, I see no reason why they can't for BBC TV shows.
So long as it's more theme park than museum, it'll work.
Bans on smoking in public places and workplaces typically extend to TV studios.
They don't in England. So long as you can justify it dramatically, and there is no reasonable replacement there is an exception for theatrical film and TV smoking indoors.
So a brief shot at a distance you could reasonably be required to use an ecig as a replacement. But a longer close up shot may require the generation of ash, and the diminishing length of a real cigarette.
In Scotland however, there is no such exception.
(This is AFAIK, based on the rules in the year after the smoking ban came in. It's possible that it's changed, but I doubt it.)
Then you need a better monitor. The difference to the detail is very significant.
Obviously the rational algorithm is to convert to binary then do the math, then convert back. That's what we do with decimal, and it's not hard.
If you wanted to make it a bit harder you'd note that Roman numerals are basically base 10, with multiple characters per decimal place. So you'd do the equivalent of BCD arithmetic.
I suppose the interesting one is if you insist that the algorithm do the math with each character it encounters, as it encounters it, then forgets the character.
A Rolex doesn't cost 3 orders of magnitude more than a Chinese knockoff because it delivers 3 orders of magniute as much "quality";
I didn't say price was proportional to quality. I said that a brand (logo) can only demand a significantly higher price if the have a reputation for quality. And Rolex is absolutely an example of that.
What you can't do is design a nice logo, then expect to be able to change a significantly higher price than your competitors. It doesn't work.
tl;dr: people will buy expensive shit for reasons that have nothing to do with quality.
You are forgetting the "reputation" part. That's where you're going wrong.
Changing "free" to "get" is removing information from the consumer. "Get" applies to apps that aren't free, too.
No it doesn't. Non-free apps have the price on the button. Free with in-app says "Get", with the words "In app purchases" below the button. Free with no in-app purchases just say "Get".
This is simply changing the word "free" to "get". No information is lost whatsoever.
Free should mean you don't have to pay to get the app. It should have nothing to do with optional purchases you make after you get the app.
That's the voice of a lack of experience. The choice to change free to get is one made FROM experience. Both "Free" and "Get" are correct. But "Free" annoys people when it's really just a switch and bait. "Get" is less annoying.
Robot vacs don't have overheads like insurance, tax and parking fees.
Bet you don't own an iOS device anyway. In which case your opinion is irrelevant.
Because an app that doesn't offer in-app purchases now, might do so next month.
Because it was even rarer for a developer to make any money.
Yes, it is. The current plans place a lot of emphasis on upgrading trunk roads managed by the Highways Agency to dual carriageway and grade separated junctions. If you're interested, there's a list of these projects on the Highways Agency web site.
There are hundreds of thousands of junctions in the UK. 10s of projects does not make any significant difference.
It's really the main trunk roads that we need to consider if we're comparing the efficiency of road transport with the rail network and potential high speed rail infrastructure.
I figured that's what you were doing. Yet local roads are significant. Few journeys start and end by a motorway or dual-carriageway. And people experience most of their hours sitting in congested traffic whilst commuting, most of which is on local roads.
We see this every time a motorway is congested, when the most efficient way to use the space is to have the traffic slowing down and moving uniformly, but there is always Lane Changing Guy who has to jump around cutting everyone up so he can get there five seconds sooner.
And what of the M4 bus lane scheme, where it was deemed that using fewer lanes for cars actually speeded up the cars journeys? Having a short 3 lane motorway section between a two lane motorway section and one end and and a major off-ramp at the other was inefficient, and slowed traffic. - The bus lane effectively just became a way of using the tarmac that had been set aside for car efficiency sake.
Jeremy Clarkson does one of his ill-educated rants on Top Gear, and the politicians become fearful of white-van man, and overturn the traffic experts scheme. Resulting in worse traffic congestion for all.
yet the reality at least here in the UK is that many of the major road-building projects in recent years have been carried out precisely to simplify junctions or eliminate the need for some of them altogether
The ONLY way they can be avoided altogether is with flyovers/unders. And other than motorways, they are as rare as hens teeth. A miniscule fraction of a percent of junctions. And that's not changing.
Widening motorways doesn't create junctions, but it does pour ever more traffic onto the existing roundabouts that most motorway sliproads feed onto. With ever lengthening queues to get on and get off the motorways as a result.
You talk of projects to simplify junctions. And that's true. But equally more and more junctions with traffic lights or roundabouts are created. Every time theres a new housing estate, business park or supermarket built for starters. Plus wider busier roads mean more pelican crossings are created.
It is self-evident that if you build enough road then there will be enough space for a finite population of drivers and vehicles.
Common sense is commonly wrong. There is no finite population. The number of cars increases every year.
http://racfoundation.wordpress...
Nor is there an eventual limitation of the population figure, as the population rises every year too.
And you are thinking about it in the wrong way completely when you talk of "road space". The only thing space gives predictably you is car parks. The road system is a mostly 2D network. And as such it's limited by it's nodes. The bottlenecks are the junctions.
I'm not the victim. But you are one of the abusers.
Of course it can.
I said why you can't, and you've done nothing to address those reasons why not. You just have an empty and unjustified belief that you can. A belief contradicted not only by logic, but by history.