OK. Tell you what. Since one year "proves" that GCC is not happening, the next record high will prove that GCC is happening. Which should be in about 5-6 years or so. Deal? What - this is not how it works? Oh really.... Next time, don't use selective data points to support your theory.
Nasa is calling your statistic irrelevant. Not to mention that 1934 was warmer than 2001 by about 0.1 degrees celsius. I'd give it about 5-7 years before that record is broken - which should be right about the time we hit another sunspot maximum.
And isn't President Bush the only leader of an industrialized nation which actually cut carbon dioxide emissions, Kyoto or not?
Not even close. No one was planning on reducing CO2 emissions any time soon. Everyone was just trying to curb the growth. I don't have the sources right now, but if memory serves me correctly, only a few small countries have managed to curb their growth in accordance with the Kyoto target (think netherlands). The US has actually increased CO2 production.
Speak for your druid self. My paladin required 3 buttons in healbot mode, about 4-5 in tank mode, and dps mode wasn't much better. It's one of the reasons I quit.
I've played about 3 classes to any sort of depth, and they all used 3-4 buttons 80% of the time. The warlock was the most complex, as it needed about 30 buttons for the other 20%. But most of my time was spent hitting the same button sequence.
Sometimes, it's not the metal, but where the metal came from.
How about some steel from one of the Apollo capsules? Some moon rock in it? All horribly expensive, not to mention somewhat hard to get. As an easier alternative: get a damascus steel one. The patterning is fascinating, and can be made by any competent blacksmith.
Finally someone who gets it. This selection wasn't targeted at democrats. It was targeted at three types of conservative audiences: - NRA/small government/ethics-focused conservatives - conservatives who think he's too old and stodgy - conservatives who think he's gotten too establishment.
All three are fairly significant constituencies, and all three needed some reassurances from McCain that he was their guy. They were unlikely to vote for Obama, but this selection pretty much locked them up. Obama is going to have one hell of a hill to climb to argue that he's going to have a better gun policy , a better military policy or a better ethics policy than McCain. These are big issues for conservatives.
And yes, lots and lots of democratic voters and pundits are underestimating this ticket.
They are obligated to maintain the service for however long the contract says they need to maintain service. If they ask nicely, I might be willing to help them. But they have absolutely no right to just break any contract because they screwed up.
There's a question of what the contract says exactly, but that's what courts are for. I hope that someone with deep pockets gets this going as a class action lawsuit, and sues Telus into bankruptcy.
Newsflash: corporations can't just do whatever the hell they want.
If it did, international flights wouldn't be possible because it would melt the engines.
The fact that you don't understand that there are different grades of steel and metal for different purposes means that you cannot contribute in a meaningful fashion to the scientific discussion.
The problem is that you really don't know what you're talking about, and assume no one else does. That's why people deride the notion of a conspiracy and cover-up. It's not that they implicitly trust the government, it's that the government arguments actually hold water, while the conspiracy theorists can't put together two coherent sentences on the subject.
Quick - go look to see where any current assertion exists that claims the plane hitting the towers caused the collapse. There's none.
You're kidding, right?
Look, I can't help you if you insist on comparing apples to oranges. None of the fires you mentioned involved a couple of thousand gallons of jet fuel, a 767-sized airplane, buildings several 100 feet tall and a steel exoskeleton. You can't call on experience to predict what will happen it such a situation, because this situation never occurred.
You're willfully ignoring any evidence or knowledge that contradicts your pre-conceived notion of a conspiracy. I - and no one else either - can help you with that.
The problem with this is that this bit of wisdom does not come from god. It comes from people claiming that it comes from god. Why does this matter? Because what man declared to come from god, man can declare to come from the devil.
Ultimately, everything comes from Man- whether that man or woman declares to be a vessel or megaphone for a higher being is irrelevant, as there is no direct conduit.
Quick - look up the size of a B-29 bomber, its fuel load and engines, then compare those to a Boeing 767. Now remember that the B-29 was running close to empty, while the 767 had a full fuel load.
Huh. Never thought of that. I posted already, so I can't mod it up. And if someone is versed in Islamic thought, please post... I'd love to hear how that would go. I suspect there'd be a slight rewrite about what is meant as opposed to what is, and people won't have to pray every 18 minutes on a carefully calibrated carousel. I'd still love to see attempts to implement this though.:)
I was right with you... until you pulled out concentration camps and 9-11 conspiracies. The bad part about Bush isn't the potential for concentration camps, it's how much he can screw things up WITHOUT slipping into movie-style dictatorship. Nazi Germany wasn't like Castle Wolfenstein (not even Return To), and Bush's USofA isn't like Deus Ex. That's the trouble, and what makes it so hard to get a proper assessment.
Yup. Now combine this with the fact that if Iraq had actually had nuclear-tipped ICMBs, the USA would not have attacked it, and you have a) a very powerful incentive for Iran to have nuclear missiles for self-preservation b) less of a self-preservation instinct than other nuclear nations that came before c) a lot of powerful Iranians who are very pissed at certain segments of the world population
All of this means that there isn't shit anyone can do to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons (short of turning it into a giant glass parking lot), and that Iran will be far more dangerous than Iraq ever was. Thanks, Bush and Co. There are so many things wrong with invading Iraq that that decision alone - regardless of how well anything else turns out - will cement Bush's place in history as worst president ever.
Abstinence is the only proven method of not contracting STDs. The only way.
And avoiding contact with all people is the only way of avoiding being killed by someone. Fact. Doesn't mean it isn't completely stupid and illusory. Sorta like communism. Right?
Assuming a specificity of 95%, the probability of one false positive in 4 sets of 2 samples is exactly 1% (minus some rounding). If we assume a specificity of 99%, that probability becomes 0.04%. The quality of the lab and Landis' physiological make-up were not part of the discussion in the paper. Those points were extensively discussed during the hearings, and were all dismissed - especially Landis' claim that he's special.
You always have a sample A and sample B. The two samples are collected at the same time. You cannot test positive without sample A AND sample B showing a positive response. If there are 8 samples, it simply means that there are 4 pairs of samples. The athlete cannot test positive without both samples in a pair coming back positive. All 4 A samples could come back positive, but if no B sample comes back positive, the athlete is determined to be clean.
Incorrect assessment. It doesn't matter whether any 2 of 8 samples shows a positive result. It matters whether two specific samples show positive results, and it doesn't matter a lick whether any of the other 6 samples show positive results.
Probability is hard. Even harder is to properly understand how to apply it.
As for what the specifity is - good question, and I don't know. It'd be important information.... though I suspect 95% and above is a fairly good assumption.
Didn't see Berry's article. Thanks for pointing that out, as it was indeed very informative. It's rare to find people point out the difference between sensitivity and specificity.
That said, my understanding is that all of his process points were addressed during the investigation, and his issues with sample size are incorrect. The specificity of two samples is not 95% - it's not a single measurement for each pair of samples, it is two completely separate measurements. As a result, the likelihood of a false positive for both samples in a pair is 0.25% (0.05^2).
The point that Barry missed is that a single positive result is unremarkable. Two positive results from two samples collected at the same time is very remarkable. It seems that his statistical approach was solid, but he missed a lot of the science behind the issues.
Slashdot Mirror
OK. Tell you what. Since one year "proves" that GCC is not happening, the next record high will prove that GCC is happening. Which should be in about 5-6 years or so. Deal? What - this is not how it works? Oh really.... Next time, don't use selective data points to support your theory.
Nasa is calling your statistic irrelevant. Not to mention that 1934 was warmer than 2001 by about 0.1 degrees celsius. I'd give it about 5-7 years before that record is broken - which should be right about the time we hit another sunspot maximum.
Not even close. No one was planning on reducing CO2 emissions any time soon. Everyone was just trying to curb the growth. I don't have the sources right now, but if memory serves me correctly, only a few small countries have managed to curb their growth in accordance with the Kyoto target (think netherlands). The US has actually increased CO2 production.
Speak for your druid self. My paladin required 3 buttons in healbot mode, about 4-5 in tank mode, and dps mode wasn't much better. It's one of the reasons I quit.
I've played about 3 classes to any sort of depth, and they all used 3-4 buttons 80% of the time. The warlock was the most complex, as it needed about 30 buttons for the other 20%. But most of my time was spent hitting the same button sequence.
Sometimes, it's not the metal, but where the metal came from.
How about some steel from one of the Apollo capsules? Some moon rock in it? All horribly expensive, not to mention somewhat hard to get. As an easier alternative: get a damascus steel one. The patterning is fascinating, and can be made by any competent blacksmith.
Finally someone who gets it. This selection wasn't targeted at democrats. It was targeted at three types of conservative audiences:
- NRA/small government/ethics-focused conservatives
- conservatives who think he's too old and stodgy
- conservatives who think he's gotten too establishment.
All three are fairly significant constituencies, and all three needed some reassurances from McCain that he was their guy. They were unlikely to vote for Obama, but this selection pretty much locked them up. Obama is going to have one hell of a hill to climb to argue that he's going to have a better gun policy , a better military policy or a better ethics policy than McCain. These are big issues for conservatives.
And yes, lots and lots of democratic voters and pundits are underestimating this ticket.
They are obligated to maintain the service for however long the contract says they need to maintain service. If they ask nicely, I might be willing to help them. But they have absolutely no right to just break any contract because they screwed up.
There's a question of what the contract says exactly, but that's what courts are for. I hope that someone with deep pockets gets this going as a class action lawsuit, and sues Telus into bankruptcy.
Newsflash: corporations can't just do whatever the hell they want.
The fact that you don't understand that there are different grades of steel and metal for different purposes means that you cannot contribute in a meaningful fashion to the scientific discussion.
The problem is that you really don't know what you're talking about, and assume no one else does. That's why people deride the notion of a conspiracy and cover-up. It's not that they implicitly trust the government, it's that the government arguments actually hold water, while the conspiracy theorists can't put together two coherent sentences on the subject.
You're kidding, right?
Look, I can't help you if you insist on comparing apples to oranges. None of the fires you mentioned involved a couple of thousand gallons of jet fuel, a 767-sized airplane, buildings several 100 feet tall and a steel exoskeleton. You can't call on experience to predict what will happen it such a situation, because this situation never occurred.
You're willfully ignoring any evidence or knowledge that contradicts your pre-conceived notion of a conspiracy. I - and no one else either - can help you with that.
The problem with this is that this bit of wisdom does not come from god. It comes from people claiming that it comes from god. Why does this matter? Because what man declared to come from god, man can declare to come from the devil.
Ultimately, everything comes from Man- whether that man or woman declares to be a vessel or megaphone for a higher being is irrelevant, as there is no direct conduit.
Quick - look up the size of a B-29 bomber, its fuel load and engines, then compare those to a Boeing 767. Now remember that the B-29 was running close to empty, while the 767 had a full fuel load.
The problem that a single person can't throw a nationwide election without leaving evidence.
Too cynical?
And the only way that that's going to happen is by glassifying Iran. Are you willing to go that route? Are you sure?
Huh. Never thought of that. I posted already, so I can't mod it up. And if someone is versed in Islamic thought, please post... I'd love to hear how that would go. I suspect there'd be a slight rewrite about what is meant as opposed to what is, and people won't have to pray every 18 minutes on a carefully calibrated carousel. I'd still love to see attempts to implement this though. :)
I was right with you... until you pulled out concentration camps and 9-11 conspiracies. The bad part about Bush isn't the potential for concentration camps, it's how much he can screw things up WITHOUT slipping into movie-style dictatorship. Nazi Germany wasn't like Castle Wolfenstein (not even Return To), and Bush's USofA isn't like Deus Ex. That's the trouble, and what makes it so hard to get a proper assessment.
Yup. Now combine this with the fact that if Iraq had actually had nuclear-tipped ICMBs, the USA would not have attacked it, and you have
a) a very powerful incentive for Iran to have nuclear missiles for self-preservation
b) less of a self-preservation instinct than other nuclear nations that came before
c) a lot of powerful Iranians who are very pissed at certain segments of the world population
All of this means that there isn't shit anyone can do to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons (short of turning it into a giant glass parking lot), and that Iran will be far more dangerous than Iraq ever was. Thanks, Bush and Co. There are so many things wrong with invading Iraq that that decision alone - regardless of how well anything else turns out - will cement Bush's place in history as worst president ever.
All I can say is that your assessment of the various positions is so simplistic that I don't even know where to start to debunk them.
I'll leave it at my original statement - you're an idiot.
Shrug.
And avoiding contact with all people is the only way of avoiding being killed by someone. Fact. Doesn't mean it isn't completely stupid and illusory. Sorta like communism. Right?
Wow, you ARE an idiot.
Assuming a specificity of 95%, the probability of one false positive in 4 sets of 2 samples is exactly 1% (minus some rounding). If we assume a specificity of 99%, that probability becomes 0.04%. The quality of the lab and Landis' physiological make-up were not part of the discussion in the paper. Those points were extensively discussed during the hearings, and were all dismissed - especially Landis' claim that he's special.
I believe that's because Google has better lawyers than the public.
You always have a sample A and sample B. The two samples are collected at the same time. You cannot test positive without sample A AND sample B showing a positive response. If there are 8 samples, it simply means that there are 4 pairs of samples. The athlete cannot test positive without both samples in a pair coming back positive. All 4 A samples could come back positive, but if no B sample comes back positive, the athlete is determined to be clean.
Incorrect assessment. It doesn't matter whether any 2 of 8 samples shows a positive result. It matters whether two specific samples show positive results, and it doesn't matter a lick whether any of the other 6 samples show positive results.
Probability is hard. Even harder is to properly understand how to apply it.
As for what the specifity is - good question, and I don't know. It'd be important information.... though I suspect 95% and above is a fairly good assumption.
Absolutely. I was responding to Berry's general comment on doping tests, not whether one particular lab was fucked beyond salvation.
Didn't see Berry's article. Thanks for pointing that out, as it was indeed very informative. It's rare to find people point out the difference between sensitivity and specificity.
That said, my understanding is that all of his process points were addressed during the investigation, and his issues with sample size are incorrect. The specificity of two samples is not 95% - it's not a single measurement for each pair of samples, it is two completely separate measurements. As a result, the likelihood of a false positive for both samples in a pair is 0.25% (0.05^2).
The point that Barry missed is that a single positive result is unremarkable. Two positive results from two samples collected at the same time is very remarkable. It seems that his statistical approach was solid, but he missed a lot of the science behind the issues.