huge disparity between scientific belief on the cause of this warming trend and you can understand why it's not taken as seriously as it should.
Yes, there's huge disparity. I'd be very happy to be wrong, and for global warming not to be an issue, and not to be human caused. But what if the people who say it shouldn't be taken seriously are wrong? Then we are really in the shit.
You might as well say "There is a lot of disagreement about whether this gun is loaded, so I can point it at my head and pull the trigger."
The final word, from TFA: "Once you gone through the list of this buying guide, make sure you do general research by reading individual reviews and evaluations before making the final choice."
And so the point of actually reading this guide was... ?
This means that we have (about) 2.5 hectares of land area each. That's a space 250m x 100m, per person.
We need to live on this area, grow our food, grow our fuels (when fossil fuels run out, or when we realise we've got to stopp using them), which will be needed in reasonable quantities to get people into space. We'd probably also like a bit of rainforest left, and some of that is going to be desert and arctic, and pretty useless.
I don't see what resources you could possibly bring back from space that could solve this problem. But I'd be interested to see what you thought they could be.
Errmmm... you're wrong, because it's not a zero sum game. (You're wrong in other ways too...)
If it's a zero sum game, why do we have a lot less poverty than we used to? A few hundred years ago, most people were very poor. A few people were rich. The middle class didn't exist.
It's not a zero sum game, because creating goods creates wealth.
JM
I read this one in the guardian a few years ago, I've also heard it more recently, about mathematicians and physicists.
Anyway...
A group of 4 MS programmers and a group of 4 Apple programmers are going on a train to an expo. The MS programmers buy a ticket each, and then watch the Apple programmers proceed to buy one ticket between them.
The MS programmers are intrigued and when they get on the train, they watch the Apple programmers to see what they do when the guard comes to check the tickets. It turns out that, before the guard comes, they all cram into the toilet. The guard knocks on the door, and asks for the ticket. The guard takes it from under the door, and slides it back.
The MS programmers are all impressed, so on the way back, they buy only one ticket. Only to watch the Apple folks get on the train without buying a ticket at all.
When they get on the train, the MS people cram into the toilet, as they saw the Apple folks on the earlier journey. The Apple programmers then knock on the door, and say "Ticket please". The MS programmers slide the ticket under the door, as they saw the Apple programmers do earlier.
"Thank you", they say. "You steal our methods, but you don't understand them."
There's a paper called Myths of murder and multiple regression which pretty much puts paid (IMHO) to the crime rate/abortion rate link (which I used to believe in).
I use Google Scholar and Web of Science on a pretty regular basis - I'm not familiar with Scopus, so I can't comment on that. TFA doesn't mention Pubmed either, which is free.
It seems to me TFA has have missed the point of Google Scholar. Web of science does abstract, keyword and title searches. And it's very good at them. Google Scholar does full text searches. If I want to know if there has been a study on the effects of ibuprofen on slugs (or whatever), I go to WoS. However, sometimes you want something in the details, which isn't mentioned in the abstract or title. I sometimes want papers that have used a particular statistical technique - I'm not (very) interested in the substantive content, I just want a nice example. WoS - no use at all. Google Scholar - excellent.
When you get your results, WOS gives you the abstract. Google Scholar points you to the full text source - often you have to pay for it, but you have it there.
I've sent 2172 emails this year. I searched for the string "bomb" and found one email. Someone had sent me an email, to which I had replied, which said "sorry to bombard you with emails".
Looks like I'm gonna have to try a lot harder.
Depends on what you mean by "like us". Do you mean with two legs, and information encoded in DNA, or do you mean water-based (not liquid methane) and using carbon based organic molecules (not silicon).
Given our sample size of 1 way that life works, I'm always surprised that when people search for life in other places, they expect it to be like us, and they seem to say that it can't be any other way.
My online bank doesn't ask for a password, it asks for the "2nd, 1st and 5th letter of your password". a keylogger is going to have trouble with that one.
I've always assumed the bizarre, illogical use of var, varp / stdev, stdevp, is not about whether you *want* the population estimate, it's whether you've *got* the population.
However, I rather like this, because there are lots of reasons to not use Excel for statistics, but this is a really easy one to show.
There's a list of tips and warnings for statistics in Excel here: http://www.rdg.ac.uk/ssc/publications/guides/topxf s.html
Re:I searched for keywords britney spears and ...
on
Inspecting MSN Search
·
· Score: 1
Isn't this just a bit of cheap advertising (on the advert free BBC) for Ontrack? Slow news day? Get a data recovery expert to write some "wacky" things that people have done with their hard disks. Make sure to get the name of the company in their, so a google search gives the website.
Jouralist gets job done, can go home quickly, Ontrack get free ad,/. gets story. Everyone's a winner.
A weed is a plant that doesnt grow native in a particular area.
Who, if you don't mind my asking, modded that insightful? You can use words to mean whatever you want, but no one else is going to understand you. Using non-native to mean weed, means that pretty much everything we eat is a weed (all the cereals were from the middle East, except maize, potatoes from S America, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
You might as well say "There is a lot of disagreement about whether this gun is loaded, so I can point it at my head and pull the trigger."
And so the point of actually reading this guide was ... ?
Total land area of eart is about 150,000,000 http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/DanielChen.sht ml sq km, which is 15,000,000,000 hectares.
This means that we have (about) 2.5 hectares of land area each. That's a space 250m x 100m, per person.
We need to live on this area, grow our food, grow our fuels (when fossil fuels run out, or when we realise we've got to stopp using them), which will be needed in reasonable quantities to get people into space. We'd probably also like a bit of rainforest left, and some of that is going to be desert and arctic, and pretty useless. I don't see what resources you could possibly bring back from space that could solve this problem. But I'd be interested to see what you thought they could be.
Errmmm... you're wrong, because it's not a zero sum game. (You're wrong in other ways too ...)
If it's a zero sum game, why do we have a lot less poverty than we used to? A few hundred years ago, most people were very poor. A few people were rich. The middle class didn't exist.
It's not a zero sum game, because creating goods creates wealth.
JM
Anyway
A group of 4 MS programmers and a group of 4 Apple programmers are going on a train to an expo. The MS programmers buy a ticket each, and then watch the Apple programmers proceed to buy one ticket between them.
The MS programmers are intrigued and when they get on the train, they watch the Apple programmers to see what they do when the guard comes to check the tickets. It turns out that, before the guard comes, they all cram into the toilet. The guard knocks on the door, and asks for the ticket. The guard takes it from under the door, and slides it back.
The MS programmers are all impressed, so on the way back, they buy only one ticket. Only to watch the Apple folks get on the train without buying a ticket at all.
When they get on the train, the MS people cram into the toilet, as they saw the Apple folks on the earlier journey. The Apple programmers then knock on the door, and say "Ticket please". The MS programmers slide the ticket under the door, as they saw the Apple programmers do earlier.
"Thank you", they say. "You steal our methods, but you don't understand them."
There's a paper called Myths of murder and multiple regression which pretty much puts paid (IMHO) to the crime rate/abortion rate link (which I used to believe in).
It seems to me TFA has have missed the point of Google Scholar. Web of science does abstract, keyword and title searches. And it's very good at them. Google Scholar does full text searches. If I want to know if there has been a study on the effects of ibuprofen on slugs (or whatever), I go to WoS. However, sometimes you want something in the details, which isn't mentioned in the abstract or title. I sometimes want papers that have used a particular statistical technique - I'm not (very) interested in the substantive content, I just want a nice example. WoS - no use at all. Google Scholar - excellent.
When you get your results, WOS gives you the abstract. Google Scholar points you to the full text source - often you have to pay for it, but you have it there.
People who get obsessive about systematically reviewing the literature and making sure that they have accessed everything on the subject are never going to use Google Scholar. People who want to know more about a subject are better off with Google Scholar.
On citation searches, WoS wins hands down (IMHO).
I've sent 2172 emails this year. I searched for the string "bomb" and found one email. Someone had sent me an email, to which I had replied, which said "sorry to bombard you with emails". Looks like I'm gonna have to try a lot harder.
Depends on what you mean by "like us". Do you mean with two legs, and information encoded in DNA, or do you mean water-based (not liquid methane) and using carbon based organic molecules (not silicon).
Given our sample size of 1 way that life works, I'm always surprised that when people search for life in other places, they expect it to be like us, and they seem to say that it can't be any other way.
"even though mesothelioma typically strikes only 1 to 2 people per million, Egilman said" That makes 250-500, in the USA.
My online bank doesn't ask for a password, it asks for the "2nd, 1st and 5th letter of your password". a keylogger is going to have trouble with that one.
Definitely 23300
80% correct
Between you and me 34
Between you and I 9
Also 80% correct.
Anybody able to find better evidence of the slashdot crowd's grammatical ineptitude?
I've always assumed the bizarre, illogical use of var, varp / stdev, stdevp, is not about whether you *want* the population estimate, it's whether you've *got* the population. However, I rather like this, because there are lots of reasons to not use Excel for statistics, but this is a really easy one to show. There's a list of tips and warnings for statistics in Excel here: http://www.rdg.ac.uk/ssc/publications/guides/topxf s.html
Would that be 127.0.0.1 ?
By Acronym do you mean initialisation?
I dropped an external drive, and it malfunctioned.
Jouralist gets job done, can go home quickly, Ontrack get free ad, /. gets story. Everyone's a winner.
Wouldn't be the first time: http://news.google.com/news?q=ontrack