My point was that regardless of which link I saw those numbers from, they were true. But in retrospect, had I gotten them from the source instead of the The Guardian link, I suppose it could have been presented in such a way as to make clear why they only used 4000-plus papers when arriving at that 97%. So you are right, it does matter which link I saw the data on.

While technically correct, that line overlooks the fact that I did check out the The Guardian links. Which I thought it was clear that I did check out at least one of TFS links, but I apologize if I had not made that clear. At any rate, I certainly wasn't basing this on things coming out of my ass. Likewise, someone with an anti-AGW agenda to push would also not be basing such a claim on things coming out of their ass. They have the The Guardian article to point to, which I at least did not see them include an explanation as to why only 4,000 of the 12,000 total papers were used to arrive at 97%.

Does The Guardian have a similar reputation to Fox News? If so, I was unaware, but instead of being condescending, perhaps it would be more beneficial to point out that a particular news source is not very reliable. If not, then perhaps your beef should be with The Guardian, not the person who based their information on a The Guardian article.

Of course, if you thought that I was trying to push an anti-AGW agenda, then I suppose I don't blame you for being condescending towards me. But it wasn't clear to me that that was the reason, nor is it clear now if it was. Regardless, the only thing a condescending attitude is going to do is drive someone on the fence to instantly oppose you.

I am beginning to suspect that you are not taking me seriously, that you believe me to be pushing an anti-AGW agenda. Or if I'm being really cynical, that you are trying to push an anti-AGW agenda by claiming a pro-AGW position, but then being really condescending to others about it.

At any rate, I actually got it from a paragraph from this particular TFS link.

Not that which link I got it from really changes anything. Please note that I am not saying they did not look at 2/3 of the papers, only that they ignored 2/3 when calculating a 97% consensus. Or if you don't like "ignored", perhaps "did not include in the calculations" would work better for you.

Please note also that I am not automatically jumping to the conclusion that there is a sinister reason for not including them in the calculations. There is probably a really good reason. I am simply saying that unless/until that reason is brought up, some people will consider that 97% to have been deceitfully arrived at.

"If we look at the results, out of over 4,000 papers, 97% take the position that climate change is man-made."
"But what about these nearly 8,000 other papers?"
"97%!"
"But why..."
"97%!!!"

Maybe it wasn't actually his intent, but it's how I interpreted it.

This isn't about comparing counts, this is about ignoring counts, about (possible) cherry-picking of results. In the priest example, you are ignoring everyone who has no opinion on the existence of (a) God. Don't you think that including those numbers might change things?

Likewise, TFA mentions that 11,994 papers were included in the survey, but that they arrived at the 97% value by looking at just the 4000-plus papers that took a position on the cause of climate change. Or put another way, they ignored nearly 2/3 of all the papers when calculating that 97%. Why? I don't know. All I'm saying is that it needs addressing, otherwise people will cling to that as proof that scientists are hiding something.

Actually, it said 97% of the papers that took a position on the cause agreed that humans are the main contributing factor, which I believe is what GPLHost-Thomas was addressing. Limiting yourself to just those papers that have taken a position on the cause of global warming can be seen as like limiting yourself to just people who have taken a position on the existence of (a) God.

Maybe there's a valid reason for it, making the two not like each other at all. But it should be addressed, otherwise people will cling to that, saying "See? See? What about all those papers that did not take a stance??? These hippies are clearly hiding something!"

Maybe, maybe not. I know when I first saw 35.760 and 22.220, I saw the decimal, but the trailing zero made me think that, for some reason, they were using European notation. It wasn't until I got to the part about the previous record being set by the Apollo 17 astronauts that I realized tens of thousands of kilometers/miles was probably the incorrect way of reading it.

I'm sure these companies already factored this in to the decisions they made, but it isn't just about the cost of going to trial for this one thing vs settling out of court for this one thing. You also have to factor in how many fewer patent trolls may try to entice you to settle out of court if you demonstrate that you will call their bluff and take them to court (or how many more patent trolls may come knocking when they see what easy pickings you are).

Always possible. I had to remove some scareware from my brother's PC the other day, and its description in Windows task manager, IIRC, was something like "Apple Right Click".

Ahh, gotcha. Thanks for explaining what you meant.

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you please explain?

Actually, Fluttershy is.

Um, that is, if that's alright...

Not sure if it was your intent, but also for the record, one can be a furry and also be heterosexual.

Because the mechanics of cooling something in space are not the same as cooling them on earth.

On earth, in your typical home AC unit, the freon or whatever runs in a sealed, continuous loop, with one end of the loop being where heat is absorbed, and the other end being where the heat is expelled. This works because at that other end, a fan is blowing air across the radiator, ensuring a fresh supply of cool air to absorb the heat from the AC unit.

But in space, there is no air. So instead, as I understand it, they just dump the hot liquid out into space.

The way I read the post, it sounded more like ericloewe was suggesting that that would be a method the owner might use to prove in a court of law that due diligence was not performed.

Oddly enough, this actually feels on-topic for once.

Because Chii has as much authority to name a planet as this "Uwing" company does.

So the question now is, what will xbox live cost those that buy the $500 version? If it is the same $40-$60 that it costs today, then for those who buy the $300 version, will their xbox live cost drop after 2 years? If so, then for anyone who was planning on getting xbox live anyway, it'd make sense to go with the $300 version, assuming everything else about the versions is equal.

$500 + ($40 * 2) = $580
$300 + ($10 * 24) = $540