Comment Re:Promising??? (Score 1) 41
What are these adverts of which you speak?
What are these adverts of which you speak?
Could be back just in time for Xmas!
As I'm dyslexic, if that's all you found, then I'm doing well. I didn't said I was an editor.
He said "One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years"
Right, so you admit you're full of shit. We have the additions to your made oup quote of:
a) "One study".
b) "estimates" rather than "will be".
c) "during summer" rather than at all.
c) 22 years rather than 20.
d) and now, given the exact quote we have a starting date. 2007. Which means you;re 15 years too early to say it's not going to happen.
You can see him claim 5-7 years here (from 2009)
That video shows Al Gore being as conscientious as ever, quoting the science as best he can in a way understandable to the layman.
Again:
a) Quoting a study.
b) In summer.
c) 75% change.
Again you are full of shit, claiming things that are not true because you grossly misstate them.
This is why you're an idiot and not a skeptic. Real skeptics argue with facts. They don't try to deceive. You could learn a lot from Al Gore, not just about AGW, but about integrity.
What's news then, is that Amazon can't deploy a simple perl script to fix common typography errors such as these.
There's no such thing. Every character has it's place, and a non intelligent script is most certainly going to get some wrong. It's going to replace some perfectly placed characters with some incorrect ones. And an author with a 100% correct book would be justifiably angry if Amazon changed it.
No script can replace a human editor. Not yet anyway.
Gonna piss off the typography police here, but...
Yes. They mean the same damned thing, and don't give me any crap about one looking a little longer than the other. A hyphen is a dash is a minus sign is any mid-height horizontal line.
It's not a matter of pissing anyone off. You're just wrong. The fact that you don't care that you're wrong is neither here nor there.
What would you label Al Gore "the polar caps will be gone in twenty years!!!"
One of the things that makes you an idiot, not a sceptic is the belief you can just invent a quote based on something you half remember from a denier site.
Another thing that makes you an idiot is the complete lack of knowledge that the north polar ice cap is indeed shrinking every year.
A third thing that makes you an idiot is believing that the truth or falseness of AGW depends in any way on what Al Gore says, even if you hadn't invented the quote.
You're exactly the kind of idiot that doesn't deserve the title skeptic.
Ah right, yes that makes sense now.
That's meaningless. The vast majority of what's different between iOS and OSX is the UI, and the OSX UI wouldn't be appropriate in any way for a phone.
Of the other differences in the frameworks/libraries, iOS is the more modern version.
If there's fine print, then there's no need for the opinion of the creators. Indeed there's no need for their opinion either way, because if it's not in the license already, in written words, no one is subject to it.
Comedy always dates. Morecambe and Wise was hilarious in it's heyday in the 1970s, and well deserved a majority of the population watching the Christmas specials. But anyone watching now would be mildly amused at best. This isn't because 1970s audiences were wrong, or were just enjoying a few highlights. It was virtually all very funny. It's just that comedy dates.
Same goes for The Young ones. Same for League of Gentlemen and Little Britain, which have already dated. Same goes for Red Dwarf and The Office.
I'm sure the same is true of Monty Python and Spike Milligan, though as I was a kid when they were first broadcast I can't speak from authority there.
At one time, the jokes in Shakespeare would have been genuinely funny.
If they can have several successful theme parks based on Lego, I see no reason why they can't for BBC TV shows.
So long as it's more theme park than museum, it'll work.
Bans on smoking in public places and workplaces typically extend to TV studios.
They don't in England. So long as you can justify it dramatically, and there is no reasonable replacement there is an exception for theatrical film and TV smoking indoors.
So a brief shot at a distance you could reasonably be required to use an ecig as a replacement. But a longer close up shot may require the generation of ash, and the diminishing length of a real cigarette.
In Scotland however, there is no such exception.
(This is AFAIK, based on the rules in the year after the smoking ban came in. It's possible that it's changed, but I doubt it.)
Then you need a better monitor. The difference to the detail is very significant.
HOLY MACRO!