I never said that I did. I may well do, but it's really quite beside the point, as what the exact nature of any consensus is was never part of any comment I made.
As I originally stated, you claimed that someone else's opinion was wrong. Yet the opinion was never expressed by someone else, only imagined by you. This is the very definition of a straw man argument.
I've quoted one thing in this thread, and it was your words. I'm not sure what drugs you're on that are causing you to imagine something else that I quoted, but at least you're loyal to your delusion.
You really like constructing those straw men, don't you? Nothing I've written here could lead to this conclusion. So not only do you not have any way of knowing whether or not I think there is a consensus, you don't have any information as to what I think that consensus might be. And yet, your're 100% positive that I must be wrong about it.
Since you're so knowledgable about information you don't have access to, can you tell me if the tie I'm going to wear next Tuesday goes with the shirt I was planning to wear it with?
Interesting. Nobody here claimed that was the consensus. I've never heard anyone anywhere claim that was the consensus. I wonder why you would choose to pick a fight with a straw man?
Your information is incorrect. There was a small section of coastal California that had a Mediterranean climate long before Europeans showed up. This area was expanded into desert regions by importing water from other areas.
Your final sentence seems to imply some kind of link between desert and warming, but I'm not sure what link you think there is. There are deserts in the world which are frozen all or most of the year.
Grass is green, sky is blue, water is wet. More at 11.
Now that I think about it, none of those are true in the literal sense.
That sentence is only true if words literally don't ever mean anything. Which may be literally true, but is useless. I'm going to go on pretending that they do.
I used to tell this to my boss all the time when we had to make changes to all 500 PC's on the domain, and walking from PC to PC to do it manually was still standard practice. If I screw up with a script, at least they'll all have the same mistake, instead of 500 different mistakes.
Your explanation makes less sense to me than the question.
Heterosexual male here. I prefer stories where the femaile characters are strong and independent. I dislike stories (and real life) that makes assumptions about peoples capabilities which are based on stereotypes.
Just maybe, this is a result of changing cultural norms rather than catering to a female audience. Don't be fooled by how loud the knuckle dragging frat boy voice is on Slashdot.
A lot of other religions have the same rules as the ten commandments, only given different names and worded differently. How do you know the laws in the US aren't based on one of those instead?
(Hint: the First Amendment specifically says none of the above.)
Why is your rice cooker the only one on the planet that takes longer to cook rice than the standard method? Most are the same or slightly faster, and unlike the stovetop, impossible to set the heat too high or too low, so the end result is generally more consistent.
Rice cookers are also brilliant at making slow cooked oatmeal (rolled or steel cut), which is the only kind worth eating.
I don't think your reasoning is very sound. Isn't it possible to be a great scientist, judge, journalist, or lawyer, and also be a bad person? Or, more specific to this argument, isn't it possible for a trait which makes you a great scientist to also make you a bad person? More importantly, is it possible to lack that trait, or to be a good person, and still be a great scientist, judge, journalist, or lawyer?
I believe the answer to each of these questions is yes.
Um, that's not even accurate. Our medical care is second to none in quality and capability.
By what measure? We probably rank first in cost per patient and expensive testing machines per patient. But I don't know of any measure of outcomes where the US ranks first (for most procedures, not even in the top 10-20).
Perhaps a lawyer needs to boldly go and inform this court that they now need to waste taxpayer money translating the sci-fi bullshit presented as a legal argument. You know, for the rest of the planet that doesn't know what a Tribble is.
To an average English speaker who has never heard of Star Trek, the text quoted is far more understandable than the average legal document. Who should pay for the usually required translation from legalese?
When greater than 95% of experts agree, trying to turn it into a liberal/conservative position is spin.
That said, defining the problem should not dictate the solution, any more than disagreeing with a proposed solution should be just cause for denying the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said that I did. I may well do, but it's really quite beside the point, as what the exact nature of any consensus is was never part of any comment I made.
As I originally stated, you claimed that someone else's opinion was wrong. Yet the opinion was never expressed by someone else, only imagined by you. This is the very definition of a straw man argument.
I've quoted one thing in this thread, and it was your words. I'm not sure what drugs you're on that are causing you to imagine something else that I quoted, but at least you're loyal to your delusion.
That much is obvious.
you think there is a consensus
You really like constructing those straw men, don't you? Nothing I've written here could lead to this conclusion. So not only do you not have any way of knowing whether or not I think there is a consensus, you don't have any information as to what I think that consensus might be. And yet, your're 100% positive that I must be wrong about it.
Since you're so knowledgable about information you don't have access to, can you tell me if the tie I'm going to wear next Tuesday goes with the shirt I was planning to wear it with?
Anyone who argues against things that people didn't say is wasting their own time. You are one of those people.
(Reread my post. Show where I state that there is any consensus, on any topic, of any magnitude.)
Interesting. Nobody here claimed that was the consensus. I've never heard anyone anywhere claim that was the consensus. I wonder why you would choose to pick a fight with a straw man?
Um, no.
For the period 1999-2003, the average # of US deaths due to heat was 688 per year, which is not at all similar to 1100 per week.
Once again, posting false information on Slashdot proves to be no impediment to being modded +5 informative.
I can't tell how many dickheads there are today. Can you google it for me?
Your information is incorrect. There was a small section of coastal California that had a Mediterranean climate long before Europeans showed up. This area was expanded into desert regions by importing water from other areas.
Your final sentence seems to imply some kind of link between desert and warming, but I'm not sure what link you think there is. There are deserts in the world which are frozen all or most of the year.
Grass is green, sky is blue, water is wet. More at 11.
Now that I think about it, none of those are true in the literal sense.
That sentence is only true if words literally don't ever mean anything. Which may be literally true, but is useless. I'm going to go on pretending that they do.
I can't believe nobody has posted the most obvious solution yet. Upgrade to IPv6.
I used to tell this to my boss all the time when we had to make changes to all 500 PC's on the domain, and walking from PC to PC to do it manually was still standard practice. If I screw up with a script, at least they'll all have the same mistake, instead of 500 different mistakes.
That sounds like a lack of a code of ethics to me.
Replace each and with a period to make smaller sentences. Maybe not simpler to do, but easier to read.
Your explanation makes less sense to me than the question.
Heterosexual male here. I prefer stories where the femaile characters are strong and independent. I dislike stories (and real life) that makes assumptions about peoples capabilities which are based on stereotypes.
Just maybe, this is a result of changing cultural norms rather than catering to a female audience. Don't be fooled by how loud the knuckle dragging frat boy voice is on Slashdot.
That Indiana's recent Religious Freedom Restoration Act was effectively the same as the one Clinton signed into law in the 90s amid no controversy?
I'd heard of Fox News peddling this lie also. There are significant differences, and those differences actually matter.
A lot of other religions have the same rules as the ten commandments, only given different names and worded differently. How do you know the laws in the US aren't based on one of those instead?
(Hint: the First Amendment specifically says none of the above.)
From what I remember, Ronald Reagan wasn't.
Why is your rice cooker the only one on the planet that takes longer to cook rice than the standard method? Most are the same or slightly faster, and unlike the stovetop, impossible to set the heat too high or too low, so the end result is generally more consistent.
Rice cookers are also brilliant at making slow cooked oatmeal (rolled or steel cut), which is the only kind worth eating.
Because the ballot only has a choice between psycopath A and psycopath B.
Occassionally, an option for a third candidate with a different DSMIV diagnosis appears also.
I can improve the truth of your statements by redacting some of the excess verbiage:
Polygraphs are only used by government agencies. There aren't any substantial uses for these. Just adding inefficiency to the process.
I don't think your reasoning is very sound. Isn't it possible to be a great scientist, judge, journalist, or lawyer, and also be a bad person? Or, more specific to this argument, isn't it possible for a trait which makes you a great scientist to also make you a bad person? More importantly, is it possible to lack that trait, or to be a good person, and still be a great scientist, judge, journalist, or lawyer?
I believe the answer to each of these questions is yes.
Um, that's not even accurate. Our medical care is second to none in quality and capability.
By what measure? We probably rank first in cost per patient and expensive testing machines per patient. But I don't know of any measure of outcomes where the US ranks first (for most procedures, not even in the top 10-20).
Perhaps a lawyer needs to boldly go and inform this court that they now need to waste taxpayer money translating the sci-fi bullshit presented as a legal argument. You know, for the rest of the planet that doesn't know what a Tribble is.
To an average English speaker who has never heard of Star Trek, the text quoted is far more understandable than the average legal document. Who should pay for the usually required translation from legalese?
When greater than 95% of experts agree, trying to turn it into a liberal/conservative position is spin.
That said, defining the problem should not dictate the solution, any more than disagreeing with a proposed solution should be just cause for denying the problem.
Though really, I don't think I need another water type against the Elite Four.