I have 4 Ikea CFL's from 2006 still going strong (out of a 6 pack, the other two went outside on the front and back door and died a horrible immediate death in a motion light). I also have a LED bulb from 2010 in constant use working well. I have a handful more sitting in a package that I can't use because the ceiling fan is on a dimmer. I don't know if I'll ever get to them.
I didn't really mean to yell at you. I was characterizing the fervor of the blog you linked.
If you feel it was sloppy, that 's the great thing about peer reviewed science. You are welcome to re-do it yourself. This was a simple study, with an easy to understand methodology, so I'm not sure what you find "sloppy". Please do elaborate.
Repeat the experiment yourself.....
Step 1) Researchers made a list of scientific papers from peer reviewed journals that search keywords found to match something about climate change. 11,000-12,000 of them. Here is the raw data (the one that your linked blog said the Norwegian scientist just couldn't somehow get his hands on, no matter how hard he tried or emailed, that your blog implied was a coverup). http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt
Step 2) Review and determine if the paper takes a stand on global warming. Exclude the papers that do not. (Since the whole point of this experiment is to determine that percentage of papers for or against AGW)
Step 3) Determine the percentages of the remaining papers. Are they for or against? Publish result.
All this other stuff you and the blog bring up... is it dangerous? how much is man made? etc, etc is outside the scope of the study. The point of *this* one particular study is to find out what percentage of published, peer reviewed papers, attribute AGW to man made causes. Coming up with the "consensus" of scientists. If you have other questions, look to other research, but don't knock this paper or setup straw man arguments based on something it's not. That's just shady.
Have you actually read the paper and the rebuttal in the blog you posted? The scientific paper specifically says says they removed the papers that did not take a position on AGW. Then the blog post comes along and says OMG! They threw out some papers and sensationalizes the very thing the scientific paper was up front about. How can the research paper count something in the for or against column (the very point of it's study) if no position is taken? It's a stupid sensationalist strawman.
Scientific Paper: We removed from our study the papers that took no position for or against AGW. Here are the results of the papers with a position. This paper is not about how severe the conditions are, just tabulating the percentage of papers that conclude climate change is man made, and those that are not. That is the purpose of this research. Here is our data, linked to for your review. You can even download the PDF's and spreadsheets and review it in the linked data section.
Your lame blog rebuttal: A sensationalized OMG! The scientific paper EXCLUDED papers that didn't take a position. How can their data possibly be credible now???? And even worse, they won't even say if its dangerous or not!!! This paper is a crock! Your lame blog then cites a letter from a scientist who asked for the data (even though it is all linked to and available on the IOP website) and the stufy authors didn't get back to them. The blog then cites this as daming proof that the study must be a joke. Because no one hand fed this guy data he could have downloaded off the site.
You see why people can't take you seriously? Get yourself some peer reviewed data and we'll talk.
The 97% number is not nonsense, as you claim, it comes from this widely cited peer-reviewed study. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
After reviewing over 11,000 scientific papers on climate change, of the papers that took a position on climate change (either for or against), 97% concluded it was indeed happening and induced by man.
Agreed. Just look at the FPV videos publicly searchable on Youtube. These guys aren't staying confined to R/C airfields. They are buzzing people in public parks, doing high altitude flights over Manhattan - flying over heavy traffic and hotshotting through bridge supports, we've seen reports of creepos using these to look in peoples second story bedroom windows and filming thru the windows. It really was only a matter of time before these guys ruined it for everyone. The writing was on the wall for anyone even casually following the FPV scene.
IIRC, you own the airspace overhead to a height of 83 feet or something like that. In between that and 500ft is sort of ambiguous, and anything over 500ft belongs to the FAA. There was a planet money podcast on NPR that explained this some time back. Clearly the FPVers are going well over the altitude designated for hobbyists. Also, goggles or no, recreational R/C *requires* the aircraft be within visual site of the operator. Clearly that's not the case for a lot of these "stuntaz" with their quad copter toys.
"I bet your not playing it on a xbox 360 which is 3 times more powerful then the current pc so you're argument is invalid."
Thanks. I needed a good laugh to end my day
Agreed. As a USA based AT&T customer, I had a fine time in Edinburgh over this last New Years holiday with my 5s. I bought AT&T's international data plan and used Wi-Fi when possible, so it really ended up being pretty cheap too. No problem getting LTE in the city, and 3G in the countryside touring castles and whatnot.
When I was in gradeschool in the 80's, "touch math" was all the rage at my magnet school. I'm pretty sure it damaged me for life. I kid you not. To THIS VERY DAY, I cannot do simple math functions without actually drawing out and touching numbers - or imagining myself touching them in my head. My brothers who had standard math and memorized times tables are far better than I am at math. I really wish I hadn't been some experiment for the latest and greatest teaching fad.
Pixelmator and Sketch are working well for me.
I've got a shrinkwrapped copy of Wildcat 5 specifically for this reason. When everything old is new again, I'll be the king hipster!
This whole "felons voting" thing is sort of bogus. You make it sound like inmates are finding a way to vote. In the State of MN, once you have been released from jail. Finished probation, and otherwise "paid your debt to society", you have to go in front of a judge and ask for your voting rights to be restored. Many people are unaware of this. If YOU got out of jail and did your time and were a normal citizen, wouldn't you just assume you would be able to vote? This whole schedule a court date, possibly hire a lawyer, and "restore your voting rights" thing isn't well known, and many people who have been out of jail FOR YEARS, do what every American is supposed to do and show up at the polls and cast a ballot. There is legislation under review to automatically restore voting rights upon completion of your sentence - which is much more reasonable. A fundamental right, like voting, shouldn't be held behind lock and key and access to the courts after someone has paid their debt to society.
So yes, some released felons didn't follow the process and by law the votes should be thrown out, but you are making the mistake of assuming every single incorrectly voting felon voted for Franken. If you attribute and assign those votes according to the percentages for and against that voted in the general election, which is much more reasonable than your blanket assumption, then Franken still wins.
This was basically the premise of the book "Kill Decision". A shadowy government/private contractor apparatus launches a series of attacks on America specifically to get the American public to by into the logic you've suggested. Dreams of new defense spending contracts spurred on "The Activity" and was supported widely. Of course, our hero puts it to a stop - but for how long??
It could be worse. You could be stuck with Moodle.
You seem to know your stuff. What's a good mid-range brand for an intermediate student? I'm tired of renting. What's the, say, Intel Core i5 of violins?
There's a lot of random free stuff out there. This list is pretty up to date usually. You'll need something motorized though...