I thought that the supposed thingy they found was higgs like, but they needed to gather data on a boat-load more to ramp up the confidence level.
Perl definitely is hard to read as normally practised, but you can write very legible Perl with little added effort. If you avoid regular expressions and use English.pm and can't read the code, you'd probably have trouble reading even COBOL.
by raising the wages of those under them artificially it does in fact harm them as costs will go up
Pareto noticed that 80% of Italy's land was owned by 20% of the population. He then carried out surveys on a variety of other countries and found to his surprise that a similar distribution applied.
... Distribution of world GDP, 1989, Richest 20% Quintile of population - 82.70% Income, Second 20% - 11.75%, Third 20% - 2.30%, Poorest 20% - 1.40% Pareto principle
seems what you think is hilarious is the way the world works; if you double the minimum wage, 80% of the benefits will go to the top 20th percentile of income earners.
My view is that raising the minimum wage will decrease the M.W jobs available, but what's happening in Seattle is being spun in so many ways by third parties with vested interests you can't believe anything. Restaurateurs tend to be whiny sucks, dismal businessman all to ready to blame anyone but themselves for running their businesses into the ground. Resteraunts often run for years on the verge of bankruptcy, putting a few of these out of their misery isn't the end of the world.
No He's saying that flipping burgers at McDonalds should be a career path not a career destination. If you cleaning rooms at the Holiday Inn and don't see an opportunity for management, move to where there is an upward path.
That's almost like saying, "If consuming water is good then drowning to death in it must be better". In short, improvements are generally on a bell curve: there's an optimum level of any given factor. Too much or too little tends to create problems.
Oh no now he's talking that "voodoo Regan era economics", if this keeps up then puppies and kittens will start dying; think of the baby Harp seals!
The reason is because only a relative few readers are qualified to discuss the latest in astrophysics, let's say, but anyone can jump in and talk about politics.
Therein lies the problem.
Not really, think back to all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth from those convinced that the LHC was going to vomit out world eating quantum black holes, around here anybody can jump in about anything.
Yea, well you were not kept as slaves, killed for learning to read, beaten with inch and a quarter thick poles (often to death). Your families were not sold separately to different owners and broken up. You were not systematically excluded from education, jobs, housing, medical care for generations and eveb lynched for generations (as recently as the 1990s for several of those). The police don't selectively stop you, shoot you, arrest you while letting other races go without an arrest record.
So affirmative not really so much about helping or hurting you or your minority group. It's about trying to correct evils of the past and make things fair enough again that we don't have violent civil unrest, mass rioting and destruction of property.
If you have 2% of the population and 2% representation at harvard, you don't need help from harvard.
Oh fuck that, everybody has ancestors that were kept as slaves; even in the US, Free Black's were proportionately more to be slave owners than whites. The sad truth is Blacks are far more likely to racialy discriminate against Blacks than any other race is.
noun (pl) -tuses, -tus
1.(esp in manuscripts) a break or gap where something is missing
2.a break or interruption in continuity
3.a break between adjacent vowels in the pronunciation of a word
4.(anatomy) a natural opening or aperture; foramen
5.(anatomy) a less common word for vulva
After weazeling around with doctored and/or adjusted temperature records, they say that warming is on hiatus, or stopped. If warming stops, Climatologists don't get paid, if it's warming but it's natural variability, they don't get paid, they're going to see anthropogenic global warming until the next ice-age.
Skeptical science edits posts after comments have started without notation, and deletes comments without explanation, they are an unacceptable source for almost any purpose; when I have mod points anybody referencing to either SS or WUWT almost automatically get modded overrated as either insights irrational reactions and turns conversations into flaming-troll fests. If you find a supporting reference more authoritative than the IPCC's AR5, please feel free to post it for my perusal.
There has been a slowdown in increase. Not a stop of global warming. Many factors can explain that.
Dude there has been an 18 year cessation of increase.
In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence).
Because the IPCC recognises the hiatus.
Anyways, the myth that global warming stopped has been debunked many times.
A joint report from the UK Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences in February 2014 said that there is no "pause" in climate change and that the temporary and short-term slowdown in the rate of increase in average global surface temperatures in the non-polar regions is likely to start accelerating again in the near future
When announcing the annual World Meteorological Organisation climate report in March 2014, the WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud said that there had been no pause, with 2013 continuing a long-term warming trend showing "no standstill in global warming". 2013 had been the sixth warmest year on record, and 13 of the 14 warmest years on record had occurred since the start of 2000
So the UK Royal Society, US National Academy and World Meteorological Organisation is denying the IPCC AR5?
18 years is not long enough. Also, it only works when you start in 1998 because it was a very hot year. But 2014 was even hotter, so it is wrong to say there has been no warming during those 18 years.
It wasn't started in 1997, it was started at the present and worked back as far as you could go without showing additional warming.
1. The basic premise of Global Warming is adding CO2 increases Earth surface air temperatures,
2. Ben Santer said it takes 30 years to show an anthropogenic climatic signal,
each year that passes without additional warming casts increasing doubt on the GCMs future predictions; it will be difficult for the temperatures to increase fast enough to get bach on track for the predictions.
The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true. Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right
Some people would consider saying something that they were only 38% sure of to be lying.
Would you rather the RSS data showing 18 years of no warming instead?