You appear to be pushing a strawman that the media reports that falsely predicted cooling were only published in 1974 and 1975.
Did it ever occur to you that articles in these years were highlighted merely because they were published in the middle of the 1970s? Nowhere does the article (or the study that it was based on) limit the incorrect media reports to those two years. Instead, those merely represent examples, not the entirety of the media reports.
You are wrong and grasping at straws to try to distract from your own failings. Let me suggest that you follow the first rule of holes.
In my amateur opinion, I don't think that what Google did was legal.
Google Fiber, however, didn't treat her account that way. Instead, it spread the $300 out over one year, officially recognizing a dozen monthly payments of $25, plus taxes and fees.
And when the sales tax rate rose to 8.475 percent from 8.35 percent, Tane's account was hit for extra taxes.
So I understand the Google was accruing the revenue over the period, but that should only affect P/L calculations, not sales tax. IMHO, Google should have applied the sales tax to the full $300 up front.
1975? You meant the year that there were 7 studies predicting warming and zero predicting cooling. Or perhaps 1974 (3 warming, 1 cooling).
If you look at the cumulative lines, you can see that there is no time that the cumulative number of studies predicting warming is anything other than significantly larger than the cumulative number of studies predicting cooling.
I fail to see the point you are trying to make, unless it is to highlight your own stupidity.
First it was Global Cooling until that fell flat on it's face.
What fell flat on its face is your knowledge of history. In fact, scientists did not predict cooling: that was only the media.
However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.
Let me suggest that you crawl back under your bridge.
I guess to you it's just an "inconvenient truth" how long it's been since we've even had any serious hurticanes hit the US.
I think that the prediction is actually for fewer storms, but greater magnitude..... C. Model simulations of greenhouse warming influence on Atlantic hurricanes.... Our regional model projects that Atlantic hurricane and tropical storms are substantially reduced in number, for the average 21st century climate change projected by current models, but have higher rainfall rates, particularly near the storm center."
I guess you will also have an explanation for the fact that there is less ice in the Arctic?
I don't recall when this happened, but my (small) company was looking at buying another machine to run simulations.
One manager wanted to buy Sun, but I was sceptical.
We benchmarked the Sun machines against an x86 (PIII, I think) and the x86 was twice as fast (for half the cost). Note that we were running a single-threaded closed source application (ModelSim, I think).
Price/performance wise the x86 machine was 4 times better than Sun. We could not refactor and the difference was so compelling that we never bought another Sun machine.
Only by changing the definition of "deport" so sycophants...
You are the sycophant. Obama did not change the definition of "deport". He did make a change to the process which resulted in more people being deported rather than just returned. This change is something that Trump supporters should actually support.
But the key metric is the number of illegal immigrants in the USA, and this has been declining for quite a while now. At the end of Obama's term, there were slightly fewer illegal immigrants in the USA than at the beginning.
The biggest mistake was Linux. When Red Hat launched no one took it seriously. Red Hat legitimised Linux in the eyes of industry.
I disagree. The root problem was that single-thread performance of Sparc lagged Intel x86 around the time the PIII came out. Linux made adoption of x86 possible for many applications, but few of them would have moved to x86 without the big performance and cost benefits of adopting it.
Sun tried to compensate with more cores, but that only made Sparc more expensive and many applications were not written to take advantage of multi-core hardware.
It is quite a different picture with industrial which
Because Industrial users require a different kind of electricity that can't be used by consumers? LOL.
Peak loads are during the day. The fact that some industrial users require electricity 24/7 doesn't change that.
Even in the UK, which is further north than anywhere in the USA except Alaska, peak loads are during the day. That's why the utilities sell electricity cheaply at night.
While the use of now is technically correct, it is misleading.
The phrasing implies that the costs have only recently become sunk(as a result of the decision to abandon the plant), whereas they have been sunk for a long time.
Walking around a field is a right. Walking through one is not.
But it isn't an offence either.
Even in England, individual trespass isn't illegal. In Scotland, what he did was explicitly legal.
All that can happen is that the owner could sue him for damage to the crops.
These cops were little better than the one who arrested that nurse the other day in Utah. The reason they withdrew the caution was that they knew that they had no leg to stand on.
Slashdot Mirror
You appear to be pushing a strawman that the media reports that falsely predicted cooling were only published in 1974 and 1975.
Did it ever occur to you that articles in these years were highlighted merely because they were published in the middle of the 1970s? Nowhere does the article (or the study that it was based on) limit the incorrect media reports to those two years. Instead, those merely represent examples, not the entirety of the media reports.
You are wrong and grasping at straws to try to distract from your own failings. Let me suggest that you follow the first rule of holes.
In my amateur opinion, I don't think that what Google did was legal.
So I understand the Google was accruing the revenue over the period, but that should only affect P/L calculations, not sales tax. IMHO, Google should have applied the sales tax to the full $300 up front.
1975? You meant the year that there were 7 studies predicting warming and zero predicting cooling. Or perhaps 1974 (3 warming, 1 cooling).
If you look at the cumulative lines, you can see that there is no time that the cumulative number of studies predicting warming is anything other than significantly larger than the cumulative number of studies predicting cooling.
I fail to see the point you are trying to make, unless it is to highlight your own stupidity.
Whether it is desert or not isn't really relevant to the issue of all-time record high temperatures.
There are none so dumb as the wilfully ignorant:
An epic heat wave that swept through the Bay Area on Friday smashed records -- including the all-time recorded high in San Francisco -- and promises more of the same on Saturday, with places like Livermore and Concord perhaps seeing the mercury rise even higher.
See that: "all-time recorded high in San Francisco"
So, no. Not the desert.
So you consider being called a Breitbart reader an insult? You said it, not me.
No, you were not. You read Breitbart, which clearly indicates your PoV.
Normal is the second most powerful storm on record? You have a strange notion of normal.
What fell flat on its face is your knowledge of history. In fact, scientists did not predict cooling: that was only the media.
Let me suggest that you crawl back under your bridge.
I think that the prediction is actually for fewer storms, but greater magnitude..... ....
C. Model simulations of greenhouse warming influence on Atlantic hurricanes
Our regional model projects that Atlantic hurricane and tropical storms are substantially reduced in number, for the average 21st century climate change projected by current models, but have higher rainfall rates, particularly near the storm center."
I guess you will also have an explanation for the fact that there is less ice in the Arctic?
Summary: climate change denier detected.
Two storms of unusual magnitude, exceptional temperatures in parts of CA, but hey, climate change is worldwide con, right?
No, you should stop reading Breitbart news. You are wrong.
Try this article from Snopes.
Any change in definition happened under Bush, not Obama.
More explanation here. Unless you would like to claim that Obama was president in 1996?
I don't recall when this happened, but my (small) company was looking at buying another machine to run simulations.
One manager wanted to buy Sun, but I was sceptical.
We benchmarked the Sun machines against an x86 (PIII, I think) and the x86 was twice as fast (for half the cost). Note that we were running a single-threaded closed source application (ModelSim, I think).
Price/performance wise the x86 machine was 4 times better than Sun. We could not refactor and the difference was so compelling that we never bought another Sun machine.
Please explain how a policy which has failed in the middle east would work in a much larger continent.
You are the sycophant. Obama did not change the definition of "deport". He did make a change to the process which resulted in more people being deported rather than just returned. This change is something that Trump supporters should actually support.
But the key metric is the number of illegal immigrants in the USA, and this has been declining for quite a while now. At the end of Obama's term, there were slightly fewer illegal immigrants in the USA than at the beginning.
I disagree. The root problem was that single-thread performance of Sparc lagged Intel x86 around the time the PIII came out. Linux made adoption of x86 possible for many applications, but few of them would have moved to x86 without the big performance and cost benefits of adopting it.
Sun tried to compensate with more cores, but that only made Sparc more expensive and many applications were not written to take advantage of multi-core hardware.
So you are saying that the VirtualBox team are the equivalent of Milton Waddams?
Just hope that Oracle doesn't bring in "the Bobs".
You are so naive.
Because Industrial users require a different kind of electricity that can't be used by consumers? LOL.
Peak loads are during the day. The fact that some industrial users require electricity 24/7 doesn't change that.
Even in the UK, which is further north than anywhere in the USA except Alaska, peak loads are during the day. That's why the utilities sell electricity cheaply at night.
Yeah, it's not like the peak demand is close the same time that solar panels produce peak output. Oh, wait, it is.
Most of the USA experiences peak demand mid-afternoon, when A/C units are cranking away.
While the use of now is technically correct, it is misleading.
The phrasing implies that the costs have only recently become sunk(as a result of the decision to abandon the plant), whereas they have been sunk for a long time.
But it isn't an offence either.
Even in England, individual trespass isn't illegal. In Scotland, what he did was explicitly legal.
All that can happen is that the owner could sue him for damage to the crops.
These cops were little better than the one who arrested that nurse the other day in Utah. The reason they withdrew the caution was that they knew that they had no leg to stand on.
Your cliff note leaves out one important fact. The accident* involved a police car.
* [Hot Fuzz]:
00:39:04 - What happened, Danny? - Traffic collision.
00:39:07 Hey, why can't we say "accident" again?
00:39:09 Because "accident" implies there's nobody to blame.
I didn't say that they could have been the juice version of Keurig, just that they thought they could be.
I imagine that they thought they could be the juice version of Keurig.