Fact is it takes quite a lot of time to string one of these people along. Last time I did more or less what is on this tape, and stopped it just shy of downloading anything. I asked the guy, "What does your mother think about this?" He seemed confused, so I said, "Is your mother proud of what you are doing, trying to trick old people into hacking their little computer?" Then I yelled at him a little bit more.
So yeah, you can do it, but as someone else said here, your time is more valuable than theirs.
But if you look at the facts of that rpisode you will find some serious truth there. It's the same with this issue. It may be that global warming is entirely true. You all seem to think so, having studied the issue so closely over the years. And it is certainly true that some of the criticism, especially of Michael Mann, has been over the top.
It is ALSO true that there has been some serious fraud and disarray in the climate science field that cannot be simply explained away by some of you "climate scientists" doing the same thing to critics that climate scientists are claiming is being done to them. Watch this post get modded down if you doubt that.
For example, (and this is one of dozens), do you know what the phrase "Hide the decline" means? It was featured prominently in a YouTube post Mann didn't care for and is part of numerous howlers uncovered by the Climategate emails. Here's what happened.
In a multi-variable graph these scientists put together several plottings of temperature measurements that showed the temperature was rising. This included bona fide modern thermometers. ONE of the measurements, however, showed temperatures DECLINING during the same period when every other measurement showed temperatures RISING.
Hmm. That didn't look so good because if they published it with that sole line going down, they would have to EXPLAIN it, and they didn't want to do it. So what did they do? The Climategate emails show this clearly:
They erased the line. They HID THE DECLINE by showing it as it went into the decline, but then it disappeared and was absent as the graph showed a rising temperature, sans this errant line that wasn't behaving itself.
Tsk, tsk, you say. They shouldn't have done that. In the interests of full-disclosure and, you know, TRUTH, they should have published their results and not HIDDEN THE DECLINE.
But it gets worse:
The DECLINE was shown by the line representing tree-ring data. Now you all know about tree-ring data, right? And you know the rings get fatter when it's hot (or wet, let's not forget) and thinner if it's cold. AND since there were no accurate thermometers thousands of years ago, guess what these scientists used as a "proxy" for thermometers. This is what Michael Mann is famous for. He used tree ring data from a few trees in Siberia, among other places, but FEW TREES, to "prove" that the climate has been warming.
SO, if the modern tree-ring data is showing a decline in temperatures when every other measuring device they used was showing an increase, HOW could you reliably use tree ring data from thousands of years ago to prove anything at all? The DATA SHOWS THE OPPOSITE.
This shows and roves fraud. The emails confirm it because they are a smoking gun. They've been caught red-handed.
But you guys don't want to hear that and you don't want to investigate the truth of it. You just resort to doing what Michael Mann says is being done to him by calling the critics of global warming cooks and conspiracy nuts and suggesting they ought to be thrown in jail.
Now, do you want to hear about the famous climate scientist Al Gore who, in his huge graph on sea water temperature and CO2 levels, mixed up cause and effect when he claimed rising CO2 made the oceans warmer when, in fact, the warming oceans out gassed CO2 and made the levels rise? You don't want to hear that, do you? Al Gore refuses to debate it, too. Then he'd have to defend his screw up.
The most astonishing thing here is the attitude that if a scientist said it, it must be true, but when Michael Mann complains that he's being called names you perk up your ears. Here we have proof of massive fraud in this area and you don't seem to care.
is 3400 miles? Really??
So? What can you do about it? When we travel we tell our kids not to expect constant contact. If someone dies, we can't do anything about it. If someone is hurt, they don't need us there to observe them. We're not cutting our vacation short. WHY do people need to be in constant contact or "available"? It isn't necessary.
It's true. When I look at their activities and their lifestyle when they were 65, I am much more active and act "younger" than they did at this age. This is not just a perception issue on my part. My father would never have plaid SW:TOR with his grandson nor eagerly awaited Dragon Age Inquisition. The bar has moved up for everyone across the board. And yes, I DID retire early at 55. That just gives me more time to level up!
He said he had both. "I am a felon with several misdemeanors." He may have been unclear, but he did not mix them up.
He also did not enumerate any of them. That doesn't automatically mean they were for non-serious crimes and has nothing to do with the fact that the US has some idiotic laws on the books that can make felons out of "really nice people." This "poor baby, I'm so sorry you live in the US" crap just turns criminals into victims.
He had at least one felony and several misdemeanors in his background. That points to some sort of "life of crime" that is likely more than youthful indiscretions. Without more information we can only speculate what those were. This is information OP has not provided, perhaps willfully, as the type of crimes would surely would surely influence our answers.
When a company does a background check, they get back more than just "1 felony, 3 misdemeanors." They get back what he did. And if they don't want to hire him under those circumstances, they may have very good reasons.
Sometime what you do actually does influence your future. But "He was just turning his life around" is a stock phrase in nearly every article about yet another arrest. What you do shows your character, and if that messes you up, that's really too bad, but tough.
It's all relative. If the spouse is looking for zero noise and a whisper-quiet front room, turning on a cell phone will be too loud. But compare a laptop to a tricked-out gaming box with multiple cooling fans and a huge power supply, with all the attendant cables and peripherals and a laptop is relatively benign.
I have an Alienware 17" and when the graphics card fan starts up you can definitely hear it, but I've never had a complaint. It's unclear from the OP if it's just box noise that is the issue here, or if it's possibly surround sound with deep bass explosion that is driving spouse nuts. If it's the latter I can certainly understand the issue and suggest a pair of good headphones,
Hard core gamers will tell you a laptop is inappropriate, but I can't imagine playing at a desk in front of a large monitor. On a soft couch with the laptop propped in my lap is far more comfortable, though a touchpad mouse does not bode well for quick reaction times.
BTW, I have to laugh at those slashdotters telling OP to grow up and stop gaming. I'm 65 and play Star Wars, the Old Republic and Dragon Age: Inquisition with my grandson.
result? No noise.
Nice idea where distances are cooperative. New York to LA--not so much
With a story like this, it's clear you are 48.
I think the idea is that B&W TVs were a "fad" in the fifties, not the late seventies. If you were 65, your original comment would make sense. At 35.....maybe not.
Why this would be marked a Troll is puzzling in that it is an absolute fact.
Although I realize you are a "physicist," not a "psychologist," it's still one of those "phy" type words. What do you think of Slashdot's (so far) overwhelmingly negative reaction to its editors asking for questions about the SCIENCE of the show for the show's SCIENCE ADVISOR and instead getting comments about the show's characterizations, humor, laugh track, and a fixation on the size of Kaley Cuoco's breasts? As the show's SCIENCE ADVISOR are you in a position to change or influence any of these "transgressions?"
Is this proof that the Geekdom of Slashdot is not capable of paying attention to the question at hand and has completely missed the point, were all forced to play the cello as kids, are letting their pent up emotions get in the way of asking an intelligent question and instead choose to lash out at a show they all watch, or still, after all these years, are incapable of getting laid? Or all of the above?
Actually, she had them "augmented." She said it was the best thing she has ever done.