Please fund a study to test the effects of piracy versus global warming.
It's a no-brainer. It is clear that the rise in mean global temperatures is positively correlated both with increasing numbers of pirates and with the transition from wind-power to fossil-fuel powered vessels used by those pirates. However since correlation isn't causation this tells us little. Ergo it would be a waste of money to fund the study you suggest.
Try harder next time
I really like PHP. It is however not a bloody programming language, it's a scripting language.
I really hate PHP, but what I hate even more is being confronted with this mysterious distinction between "scripting" and "programming" languages.
A language might be strongly or weakly, dynamically or statically typed. A particular implementation might employ a compiler, a virtual machine or interpreter. These are meaningful distinctions. But what (with the possible exception of a hardware specific control language) does it even mean for a language (as distinct from its implementation) to be a "scripting" language?
Would PHP cease to be a scripting language if an object code compiler were available for it? Is 'C' a "scripting language" just because it's interpreted? And what about a language which has never actually been implemented, what in the language specification determines unequivocally if that language is 'scripting' or a a 'programming' language?
If a woman says that holding the door for them is the same as rape, thats militant feminism
I would call it 'self-parodic' rather than 'militant' feminism, but whatever we call it, it is some distance removed from a SCUM-like gendercide.
Yet for some reason like in everything else, the fringe become the spokesmen
The usual gender-neutral term would be 'spokesperson' in singular and 'spokespeople' in plural, correct! If you are referring to a particular woman or man, honouring their individuality by using 'spokeswoman' and 'spokesman' respectively, would also be acceptable usage (and in IMHO preferable, though I'm in a minority there).
The interesting question is who decides to elevate the fringe (here "like in everything else") to this role. It's a little like selecting the most out-there young Earth creationist as a foil for one's attacks on Christianity in general.
you are conflating feminism with militant feminism, I was very clear in my argument about who i was talking about
It was indeed very clear whom you were talking about. However conflating the "near 100% of _real_ feminists" with "the militant kind," --of a variety which have hardly existed since some mythical 70s --was rather central the central theme of your reply. Valerie Solanas is dead dude, relax.
mmmm... no. That is a no true scotsman fallacy
And your exclusive focus on the "the militant kind" is a strawman fallacy. Welcome to the club.
I have yet to know any woman who would eliminate, reduce or otherwise alter the proportion of men (already the minority); not my mother, my current or any previous partners or any other feminist I've known. None, zero, zilch. Where are all these women who frighten you so?
Today, [the militant kind of feminist who wanted "men reduced in population, made subservient to women, or just outright used as slaves or eliminated"] express that same misandry by pushing policies supporting that mentality in education, media programming, civil law, criminal law, and, are now making/funding their presence in subcultures, like technology and gaming.
Yup that's it, girls who want to write games or watch three dimensional female characters on TV are just exactly that kind of militant misandric feminists. Mary Daly eat your heart out!. Your insecurity, and that of the many other boys here, borders on the paranoid. Just grow a pair mate!
Could it be instead that civilization caused a general lowering of testosterone, because high testosterone levels were no longer vital to survival?
If you follow evolutionary theory, that's the first conclusion one should reach.
The selection pressure could be directed either way. It could be, as OP opines, that civilisation mitigated against selection in favour of higher testosterone levels. But it could equally be, for instance, that the development of human intelligence and thus more effective weaponry resulted in those with a greater propensity to conflict (and assuming higher testosterone levels actually does this) selectively eliminating themselves (or each other) from the gene pool. I'm not sure which in particular is the first conclusion one should reach.
From experience; I would be willing to bet that ANYONE living with scarcity threatening day to day living is willing to cheat, lie, con, finagle and it can get so bad that you steal, mug, burgle,injure and could possibly kill, dependent on circumstances.
Exactly! Posting this as a difference between "socialism" (as the GDR arguably was not) and "capitalism" (as the FDR certainly was not) is to miss this simple point. Those brought up in a society of relative abundance (FDR) find less need to cheat than those brought up with relative scarcity (GDR). Let's repeat this across Sweden and the US and see if the effect is as marked (or even in the same direction).
The final option on the list fits your situation.
Obviously not. But since this is a poll to determine people's experiences with the longevity of non-incandescent bulbs, AC's "situation" is of no interest.
Dude. Chill. Sounds like you've done considerable research on the subject and I salute you for that.
It is not I who needs to chill. It is you who needs to put aside your emotion (and perhaps tribal affiliation) and examine at the data dispassionately.
Nothing in that post required "considerable research" (though trying proving that there has been any significant levelling off may well). The data is there, I gave you the link, the tools are there, I gave you the link for that as well, you are a geek (I presume): Where's the problem? Have a look. (And I would suggest, should you not want to mislead yourself, to pick as a starting point a year which is neither particularly hotter nor cooler than the trend).
One doesn't have to be a genius or perform all kinds of complicated mathematical analysis plotting trends to see that YES, the global temperature rise has indeed levelled off for the past 15-17ish years.
The temperatures have continued to rise. Yes the rate over the last decade and a half looks lower than the long term rate, however that is a meaningless observation. You would need to perform all kinds of complicated mathematical analysis to prove that the decrease in the rate of warming was in any way significant (giving even the weak statistical meaning to that term).
It still doesn't negate the FACT that there hasn't been any observed warming recently. The only thing that continues to show a warming trend at this point is your imaginary plot... which doesn't match up with reality.
It is a LIE that there hasn't been any observed warming recently. You have simply been misled. As you can clearly see, should you plot the actual data as I suggested, that period gives you a regression line with a positive slope.
However, it is tautological, that selecting from any data set, a number of data points which, given the set's variance, are too small to enable any significant effect to be demonstrated, will result in an inability to demonstrate any significant effect. So it is true that there has been no significant warming over the last decade and a half. But that observation is, as you so aptly put it, a "parlor trick."
Given that there are also various factors which should work against warming operative over that period (solar variation, the El Nino/La Nina cycle) one might even wonder, but for the fact that the period is also too short to show any significant cooling, why temperatures are apparently still increasing.
I have no idea what you are referring to as my "imaginary plot." Do you not understand that the plot I am helping you to draw is the very data you suggest shows a levelling off?
Have a look for yourself. It's not difficult. You only need to download R and run the code you have been given; checking for yourself, that the given anomalies match the actual data; improving on if by reference to the resources which exist for R programming; and thereby become informed.
Put not your faith in disinformation sites!
This 'statistical noise', if it continues, will be knocking on the door of 'trend' in the not too distant future... so I guess we'll see.
There's another question you can ask yourself with R: How many decades of continuous cooling or even just flat-lining temperatures would be required to negate the significance of the long term trend? My guess is, depending on the rate, that 5 to 8 decades should suffice. But that also requires real analysis.
Hey... Citation was requested... I provided.
A citation was requested, but you did not provide any citation worthy of consideration.
No idea to whom the website belongs.
It doesn't matter to whom the website belongs. What matters is whether the citation is either to a recognised (eg ISI listed) peer reviewed journal appropriate to the subject matter, or to some similar source of data carrying due authority and credibility. I mean a citation to someone's slashdot comment, for instance, would hardly be admissible would it?
Right this moment - the global warming appears to have leveled-off. These are simply facts... no parlor tricks here.
Just for a quick check throw the yearly anomalies (here's the GISSTEMP data) into R and see if the slope is flat. Here
year <- c(1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013)
anom <- c(33, 46, 62, 41, 41, 53, 62, 61, 52, 67, 60, 63, 50, 60, 67, 55, 58, 61)
Then plot it and draw a line of fit. (For interest you can check the correlation using cor(year, anom).)
plot(year, anom)
fit <- lm(anom ~ year)
abline(fit)
Does that even look flat to you?!
Now given that this is part of a curve which is showing an unequivocal rise over the last 50 years, let alone the entire record, please devise a test to demonstrate that these 18 years show any significant "levelling off" of the long-term trend. And then get back to me with the code. Hell no, get back to the scientific community, with your code
The real question you ought to ask however, is what relevance so short a period (15, 16, 17 or even 18 years) has to data which is not only extremely noisy, but is known to be subject to multi-decadal cycles? If someone asks you to look at climate data over a period of less than at least half a century
Facts? No parlor tricks? Having examined the data for yourself, do you still believe that?
You apparently haven't tried texting with a teenager before...
Wrong. I have one at home with whom I regularly (attempt to) text (not when he's at home).
But maybe you didn't appreciate that the sentence "[P]erhaps you believe the teenagers with whom you converse lack intelligence," ironically leaves open the possibility that they don't.
Many of their texts are random gibberish unless you know their lingo and acronyms.
ikr
An example might be "CTN
"U will f@%*ing TN! Or U will lose that phone sunshine!!!" I don't get too many TDTMs from him
How is that much different than a cat walking across the keyboard?
It's linguistically meaningful?! But what is your point? The teenage boy-bot in question was apparently not fooling his human interlocutors by using such a flurry of acronyms.
I don't personally text with teenagers, with the exception of my daughter, but she doesn't write crap like that as bad
Are you claiming that your teenage daughter is able to produce verbal output meaningfully distinguishable from a cat walking across a keyboard? Surely not!
The idea is to create a machine that is intelligent
The idea is to create a machine with verbal behaviour of a level sufficient to convince a human that they are conversing with another human. Neither a cat strolling across a keyboard, nor the gibberish of an infant is likely to satisfy that test. But perhaps you believe the teenagers with whom you converse lack intelligence?
Turing was explicit that intelligence was to be inferred by that behaviour because, he argued, we accept that other humans, based on their verbal behaviour, have minds. I'm not sure I agree.
The obvious missing option(s): I've (mildly|seriously|radically) downgraded my security practices. Or simply I've given up.
You're out.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
