Ack, forgot a part: Safety assessment for environmental damage- again, nothing hugely great to indicate that there's much worry there, although I have heard reports of cross pollination in wild populations of corn (by which I assume they mean corn relatives). Not sure just how prevalent it is or how accurate those reports were, but either way, the issue here isn't so much what harm they cause to the environment as the net harm. Farming is very bad for the environment, especially with our large population, so it isn't if GMOs cause harm, but if their use is a net reduction in damage, which it appears to be.
Because most of the westernized world (their target market) has it as a day off.
Probably as simple as that..
oh and some marketing goon probably thinks he's being clever.. considering (afaik) none of their titles deal with WW1, it's nothing more then a gimmick.
Alright, answer me two questions : HTML5 is really the flash killer, yes? Isn't an open replacement for Flash an improvement over flash? I'd assume that HTML5's openness will help avoid Flash's spammyness, right? In particular, all the pop-up ads that circumvent the "Block Pop-Ups" button are using Flash now, so they'll all go away right?
I'm not sure that HTML5 will beat the Flash plus FlashBlocker combo, but that's not realistic for most users, and variations on NoScript could accomplish the same ends.
It's possible, if you place the site in the 'Trusted Sites' security group.
One outfit I support has an app that receives orders online rather than fax/mail. The system simply serves up
The system requires me to lower script security permissions, place the site in the trusted sites, and doesn't use https. On the open internet. All to run some vbsscript to force the
When the tech gave me these instructions on the phone, I asked him on the spot if they were concerned with this glaring infection vector. They didn't seem to care.
Of course, since a good majority of business comes through this customer, we shut up and use it
using the same unsubstantiated "facts" that you do, I made just over 1.1 million last year selling a custom computer software program to a very targeted group of customers who have no other means of doing what my software does short of writing their own.
"Science is coming up with a hypothesis, gathering data, testing the hypothesis, AND REPEATING IT. You don't "find problems". You come up with an idea and you test it for validity. Then you make sure OTHERS can test your hypothesis, independently, to further verify your hypothesis. If this is done enough times and validated each time, you have a theory."
I think what you're writing is not what you mean to say. The whole point of developing repeatable experiments is to find problems -> science is not a process of finding more evidence that fits your theory, it's the relentless process of searching for any evidence that could contradict your theory.
For example, you have a theory that all swans are white. Finding 1000 white swans leads you to posit this theory. From here, searching for more white swans isn't going to help your theory any -> if you search for only white swans, and find 900,000 more white swans, you've added very little to the robustness of your theory. On the other hand, if you spend a whole bunch of time looking for just one black swan, and don't find it, you're getting warmer. Find that one black swan, though, and the theory goes poof.
Asserting that you have 10 proxies that all agree very closely, then one of them starts "disagreeing" is not an excuse to ignore the "disagreement" -> it's a clarion call to start questioning the other 9 proxies.
Oh, and BTW, citing peer review for AGW, when most of the AGW reviewers never even asked for the data behind the papers (Jones, et. al), doesn't help your cause.
"Natural variation? Can you show this? Can you show definitively that additional CO2 has no impact on global temperatures? Basic physics would seem to indicate otherwise. I also suppose acid rain and ozone depletion were "natural variation" as well."
Natural variation is the null hypothesis in this case -> the burden of proof is to show that a) the "additional CO2" is generated by man, and b) that the "additional CO2" is the primary driver of temperatures. Just because we cannot clearly identify a detailed alternative hypothesis does NOT mean that your hypothesis is true.
Oh, and google "acid rain myths" and "ozone layer myths". The answer is yes, they were natural variation.
"And even if it were natural variation, how does that make things any better?"
Simple - it means we should spend more time on adaptation than prevention of something we cannot prevent. It's like misdiagnosing the reason for automobile fatalities -> if you think it's caused by weather conditions, which may or may not have a small perceptible effect, and you work your butt off trying to stabilize weather conditions, you're going to miss the simple things like seatbelts and airbags.
"Until that time, I will continue to follow the scientific consensus."
Which is your right, of course. I just wonder how many scientists will have to "non-consent" for you to finally change your mind. 100? 10000? 10%? 50%?
Do you even know how many scientists there are, and how many of them believe in your "consensus"? My guess is that this is simply a repeated sound bite, but I could be wrong.
My money's on the old title sequence and/or music being back for the next episode. They've made minor tweaks to it in the past, so I wouldn't be surprised if they respond to the criticism.
If you do something in-game that is immoral, and none of the NPCs are coded for a reaction, is it truly immoral?
If you steal from someone in real life, it may not matter either. Sure, some guy came in and stole my mom's jewelry while we were out. Did he care that we felt "violated" or that some of those were heirlooms? Did it matter to anyone but us? If the thief is the protagonist, what's to make him care unless something happens to him in game?
The catch is this: something needs to happen whether he acts morally or immorally. Sure, I can get auto-killed by a guard for PKing a n00b or whatever, but what if I NEVER kill a n00b. What if I NEVER steal? What if I obey the good laws as well as try to help others? Shouldn't that count for something? You might say, "Well, you're not in jail." But that's lame. I made a decision to resist temptation. To take the higher ground. I want people to notice. I want:
"Wow. The last noble hero who came to save us stole our grandmother. But you just walked in, asked us for information on the location of the evil warlord, and went on your way. How can we ever repay you?!"
"Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never." -- Winston Churchill