That's where I think you're mistaken; they don't say, "q will be such", they state something more like, "if q continues to be such, we expect ___ with an X% level of confidence" (ya know, like scientists tend to do).

I found this IPCC glossary:

Finally, the IPCC projections are criticized for being, if anything, too conservative in their projections. Time and time again they've said X in Y years and in Y - Z years X is seen to be having an effect. And when something stupid does come out (Himalayan glaciers melting in 30 years), they correct it. Ya know, like scientists do.

Also, don't confuse media headlines with IPCC projections, just like you can't expect to see realistic scenes of IT in movies.

And please, check out the link a few posts above that points to the Ars Technica story where the comp sci prof has a look at the models - he was impressed - they're pretty good. Or, "all models are wrong, some are useful" and climate models are useful.

They don't make predictions, they make projections; if you can't get that right, you're worse than the climate models.

Similar to confusing weather with climate.

Newtonian physics doesn't make accurate predictions (at relativistic speeds, for example), but it's still accurate (enough) for models. Or was Isaac Newton a "physicist" instead of a physicist because he didn't cover all cases?

Replying to self: broken link == missing link:

Ars Technica climate model coverage

Have you seen climate models, or do you just deny the ones that you don't like due to your standard of "truthiness"?

Ars Technica covers climate models nicely: (see page 2)

I agree, simply because I'm paid 50 cents to post this.

How much were you paid?

Sorry, that's petro-state.

Too cold for bananas up here.

The windscreen is kept clean by the butler strapped to the bonnet / hood and operating a squeegee.

Of course.

When he said suggestions (not examples), I think he meant something like the NSA's Information Assurance recommendations.

Check it out, it's quite informative (+5 Informative).

It's with sadness that I don't recall that specific event, though the parents assure me that I was watching.

I do recall other, related events though, just not the big one.

Also, posting AC will remove your given mod points, unless perhaps you logged out altogether.

Easy to test: check score on some post, then give it a unique moderation. Check the score to ensure it was recorded. Post a reply as AC. Check score again: your mod will be gone.

I'd add to that bug fixes for obscure hardware as new bug reports are filed.

But I also agree with a poster above and below - once I have a working app, I skip the upgrades generally.

Perhaps, but I thought that moving things into Google Play was mostly in response to the "fragmentation" issue, and / or because manufacturers and carriers were unwilling to issue updates for Android. Perhaps compensating for allowing too much freedom for carriers to add crapware, sell handsets, then neglect the customers.

The separation of many features into Google Play allows them to be updated without the participation of the aforementioned parties - is this not the case?

Having said that, I try to avoid Google services where possible - I don't like any one entity knowing too much about me.

I read it as "Ford Self-Driving R&D Car Smells Small Animal From Paper Bag At 200 Ft." and my first thought was, "What the hell kind of test is that?!?"

Split second later, "Waaiit a second, that can't be right."

But hey, my truck smells like a small animal in a paper bag - from 2 years ago.

*goes back to sleep*

Just a heads-up: posting anonymously will undo the mod point unless logging out before posting (I'm guessing on that), or from another browser, of course.

Yes.

Just too much outrageousness to easily summarize in one (or two) posts.

Popehat does the usual excellent job, plus has links to other sources for anyone that wants a different take on it. Popehat's coverage is rather in-depth from the legal perspective (Ken was a former LA DA and now defence attorney with 1st amendment focus if I recall correctly).

Ah, good question.

He pulled out of a WalMart in New Mexico without coming to a complete stop.

Then he looked nervous when pulled over. Allegedly appeared to be "clenching buttocks" when asked to step out of car.

Then, the officer got on the radio and heard from a colleague that the suspect had some previous drug related incident. Which the cop on the scene spun into "was caught with drugs up his butt".

The (uncertified) drug sniffing dog gave the signal, allegedly, on the guy's car seat.

Court gave search warrant for suspect's butt based on police officer's claim (unverified) of previously having hidden drugs up his butt.

2nd police officer's report makes no claim of previous incident being about drugs up butt.

The search was done in a different county (possibly outside jurisdiction of warrant) after hospital #1 refused to participate. Some of the search (colonoscopy at least) was performed after the valid time period of the warrant (rendering warrant invalid / expired?).

This is not an isolated incident.