You know that models don't return 1 temperature, right? Looking at a chart like that tells you nothing about how accurate a model is. Models depend on a lot of inputs and, depending on what the inputs are, usually return a range for what they are forecasting. Usually, when talking about a model, there are multiple variations of inputs put in when trying to predict the future (as it's hard to know exactly what will happen). The proper way to validate a model is to take the original model, put in the actual data for the inputs and see if the predicted output matches the actual output. Just looking at a previously published paper tells you nothing unless you know that they correctly predicted the inputs.

THIS is how you test how accurate models actually are. The fact that you think that particular graph means all climate models are terrible (and the fact that you think it's a big deal that they tune models to fit past data, as that is the CORE of modeling in general) tells me all I need to know about how much you know about forecasting models. Which is obviously not much. (Note: my knowledge isn't about the specifics of climate change models, so I don't know exactly how much weight they put on various factors; my knowledge is about forecasting models in general and my specialty was population modeling).

You do realize that that is false, right? Last year, they did a comparison between what the 1990 IPCC models predicted and the actual change up to 2010. If you used actual emissions data and included the other actual climate-forcing data (volcanic eruptions, etc.), the model was very accurate in it's predictions at the 20 year mark. It's hard to judge the models since then, as there has not been as much time, but the models up to that point proved accurate. One can only assume that as our knowledge of climate has increased, our models are more accurate now.

Oh, I know this. That's why I accept it now that it's canon. It is just my opinion that it's a needless complication that doesn't provide much benefit. I'm not saying they are necessarily wrong for doing it or anything. I also don't think it necessarily brings down the quality of the show (unless they were to one day hire a terrible actress as the Doctor, but that could just as easily happen with males) It is just something I don't particularly like. Basically, I guess the best way to explain my feelings for it are that if I were in charge of the show, I would have considered the idea and rejected it. Doesn't make me like the show any less, really. It's a fine line, but I overanalyze things, anyway.

Actually, they have recently (I don't know if it was this regeneration or the last one) offered the role to a black actor. He turned them down, but it's not like they ignore black actors when they try to decide on the next Doctor.

One of the few things Neil Gaiman has done that I don't like (it was his script, if I remember correctly, though I don't know if it was his idea to have that in there).

Don't get me wrong, now that it's there, I would accept a female Doctor, but up to that point there had been no indication that time lords ever changed sexes. With sex being a changeable characteristic, labels like "mother" and "father" get confusing and they've previously been used. What do you call a time lord who fathered you while he was male, but is now female? What if your birth mother is still female? Are they both mother? Are they both father? It just seems like it doesn't add all that much to the show except a level of confusion (it's not like there is a shortage of actors to play the part).

Of course, I realize this is all my opinion and, like I said, I would accept a female actor there, now that it has been established as canon. I just think it was a silly idea to establish it as canon.

Polyandry is still polygamy.

Polygamy - more than two partners, no matter the sexes
Polygyny - 1 man, multiple women
Polyandry - 1 woman, multiple men
I have no idea if there is a term for multiple men and multiple women that is more specific than polygamy.

JFK was assassinated in 1963. Star Wars came out in 1977. I'm thinking that you are not remembering things correctly here.

Shutting down and rebooting take all of 1 extra click, using the quickest ways to shut down (without creating your own shortcut) on both OSes.

I use a ton of applications. I use most of them side-by-side. Amazingly enough, I do it quite often with Windows 8. I used the Desktop, rather than the Start Screen. I don't go into the start screen. I even keep the most common applications that I use on the desktop of my right screen, so it doesn't even take me an extra click when I start up. For me, using Windows 8 is nearly identical to using Windows 7, with the main differences being that I have a taskbar on both my monitors and when I hit the Windows Key and start typing the name of an application I want to use (if it isn't on my taskbar), I have to look in the top left of the screen instead of the bottom left..

THAT'S a valid reason not to buy 720. What's NOT a valid reason is "My friend loaned me his console and COD game, so I bought a 360. That can't happen with the 720." Because that CAN happen with the 720. Loaning games to friends with another X-Box? Not happening. Loaning X-Box + games to friends who don't have one? Still can happen.

Rather than flexibility of PLATFORM, he probably meant flexibility in DESIGN. You can have a very flexible set of development tools that only work on XBOX and you can have a very rigid set of development tools that work on all platforms.

But that doesn't make his opinion wrong. Generally, the calm and neutral opinion is the correct one in situations like this.