He removes no such thing. He's in no position to confer or remove legitimacy of ISIS in the Muslim world. Not when Islamic leaders and clergy are supporting ISIS and openly mocking him. The only reason those states are beginning to address ISIS is that ISIS is a beast out of control in their back yard.
Your bigotry is showing and it's not even warranted as this won't 'disappear' Creationist websites at all. But you display exactly the reason this is a bad idea. Fortunately, I don't think they'll be able to determine the thin line between printed fact and fiction.
Since you decided to be a stickler with the definition:
First, bacteria not being the cause of ulcers wasn't indisputable, it *was* disputed, as you pointed out. It's just that the consensus was that bacteria weren't the cause. The consensus changed, not the fact that bacteria caused the ulcers.
By the way, Webster's for indisputable: "impossible to question or doubt : not disputable".
Yes, the photo was washed out and so looked different than the physical dress. Agreed.
Gold, however, is a color. Just like seafoam green contains blue, so does gold - at least, once you introduce lighting changes. That's how you shade a color, add or subtract amounts of each color (gold is FFD700, defined by HTML standards). It's just one of those many thousands of colors that aren't anywhere near primary or secondary. Brick red, tangerine and slate blue are all like that yet are still considered colors.
This folks, leads to complete ownership by the state. You and everything you MAY do belongs to anyone but you and you must slog on until every erg is squeezed from you. I reject this concept.
True. To bifurcate: IF your devs listen to the manager. I've watched dev members sit around investing inordinate amounts of time on the more trivial parts of projects because they found them personally fascinating. Watched those same types provide sky high estimates specifically to have fuck off time.
We've all been there too.
It's only one sided in any given situation but overall, I'd have to say I've seen more screw off software people than managers.
No, this is a full sized maze that you walk through and have no idea how deep and complex it is.
I did estimates my entire career and I believe only once did I walk into such a situation. My response was, of course, "Don't know. Not enough information."
In all other instances, the client provided much more than just the doorway to the maze, so making estimates backed up with rationale wasn't all that difficult. Also, during the initial discussions, I made sure to inform them what kind of information I needed to *make* said estimates. Don't ever recall being called unreasonable.
Before you hold up the IPCC as any kind of standard you might want to do a search on "IPCC discredited reports". In the results you will find references to authors who not only disagreed with the reports but quit over it. You'll also find references to IPCC positions being purchased. Also references to some of those "sources".
Apparently you don't understand two things. One: the *bulk* of scientists are religious. Two: the *bulk* of religious people support scientific inquiry.
I find myself correcting atheists as many times as I do religious people. Neither side is bereft of people spouting inane generalizations.
And if they don't list someone... there wasn't any support from said someone. Right. Scientists are just as prone to foibles, including hucksterism, as anyone. To believe otherwise is naive at best.
Well, yes, hence the current suspicions of any large scale reworkings of society. They've pretty much every one fallen on their faces. Perhaps he should have said "You *shouldn't*...".
The point that this thread descended from was that the regs weren't going to affect current stoves. What you're arguing now is that it's the manufacturer's fault (and a foreign one at that) for not supplying parts to address the affect on current stoves. This illustrates exactly what people mean by regulatory end runs.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. You do understand that a letter writing campaign was what saved ST, right?
Emphasis mine. I don't think you understand the meaning of fiction.
Ah yes, the "I made more money so I have more class" theory.
He removes no such thing. He's in no position to confer or remove legitimacy of ISIS in the Muslim world. Not when Islamic leaders and clergy are supporting ISIS and openly mocking him. The only reason those states are beginning to address ISIS is that ISIS is a beast out of control in their back yard.
All of which will still outrank CNN. :)
Your bigotry is showing and it's not even warranted as this won't 'disappear' Creationist websites at all. But you display exactly the reason this is a bad idea. Fortunately, I don't think they'll be able to determine the thin line between printed fact and fiction.
Since you decided to be a stickler with the definition:
First, bacteria not being the cause of ulcers wasn't indisputable, it *was* disputed, as you pointed out. It's just that the consensus was that bacteria weren't the cause. The consensus changed, not the fact that bacteria caused the ulcers.
By the way, Webster's for indisputable: "impossible to question or doubt : not disputable".
Lemme get this straight... You base your philosophy on rhetoric written for an dystopian shoot-em-up bang, bang movie by an agenda driven writer?
I have my suspicions about your statement. Where did that 3B figure come from? Link please.
You overestimate the effect of tundra.
Yes, the photo was washed out and so looked different than the physical dress. Agreed.
Gold, however, is a color. Just like seafoam green contains blue, so does gold - at least, once you introduce lighting changes. That's how you shade a color, add or subtract amounts of each color (gold is FFD700, defined by HTML standards). It's just one of those many thousands of colors that aren't anywhere near primary or secondary. Brick red, tangerine and slate blue are all like that yet are still considered colors.
Otherwise known as watching them, your pedantry notwithstanding.
This folks, leads to complete ownership by the state. You and everything you MAY do belongs to anyone but you and you must slog on until every erg is squeezed from you. I reject this concept.
People who quote old sayings as if they justify their own beliefs are using childish thinking.
True. To bifurcate: IF your devs listen to the manager. I've watched dev members sit around investing inordinate amounts of time on the more trivial parts of projects because they found them personally fascinating. Watched those same types provide sky high estimates specifically to have fuck off time.
We've all been there too.
It's only one sided in any given situation but overall, I'd have to say I've seen more screw off software people than managers.
I did estimates my entire career and I believe only once did I walk into such a situation. My response was, of course, "Don't know. Not enough information."
In all other instances, the client provided much more than just the doorway to the maze, so making estimates backed up with rationale wasn't all that difficult. Also, during the initial discussions, I made sure to inform them what kind of information I needed to *make* said estimates. Don't ever recall being called unreasonable.
Before you hold up the IPCC as any kind of standard you might want to do a search on "IPCC discredited reports". In the results you will find references to authors who not only disagreed with the reports but quit over it. You'll also find references to IPCC positions being purchased. Also references to some of those "sources".
Apparently you don't understand two things. One: the *bulk* of scientists are religious. Two: the *bulk* of religious people support scientific inquiry.
I find myself correcting atheists as many times as I do religious people. Neither side is bereft of people spouting inane generalizations.
Mann, meet hockey-stick graph, meet "fudge factor", meet media response to the exposure of same.
Do you have any problem with investigating *all* scientists working on climate, or only on one side of the issue?
Here ya go Sparky. Here for a summary article.
Happy?
And if they don't list someone... there wasn't any support from said someone. Right. Scientists are just as prone to foibles, including hucksterism, as anyone. To believe otherwise is naive at best.
Any kind of cite at all? I remember the first attempts at fund tarnishing coming from the AGW crowd.
Well, yes, hence the current suspicions of any large scale reworkings of society. They've pretty much every one fallen on their faces. Perhaps he should have said "You *shouldn't*...".
The point that this thread descended from was that the regs weren't going to affect current stoves. What you're arguing now is that it's the manufacturer's fault (and a foreign one at that) for not supplying parts to address the affect on current stoves. This illustrates exactly what people mean by regulatory end runs.