sees_all1

[hide=sunspot stuff] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/ [/hide] Sunspots fit the temperature graphs pretty well too [hide=pie chart of greenhouse gases] http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_contrib.html http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html [/hide] CO2 is about 3.618% of all greenhouse effect sources http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/03/al-gore-getting-rich-spreading-global-warming-hysteria-media-s-help Al Gore increased his wealth 100 fold after leaving the White House http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html Al Gore stands to become a billionaire from Global Warming regulations.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html Over-blown media hype is over-blown. http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm Bad sensor placement -> bad data -> bad analysis -> over-blown headlines Forgive me of being skeptical but there's been quite a bit done to disillusion me.

They never realized the Earth was cooling (except for some work done in the '60s which was based on Milankovitch cycles, which are poor indicators on planets with changing atmospheres), in fact, the more studies done, the more we find the Earth is warming faster than we previously though. The focus has switched to climate change because it's the broader problem. Global warming is only one issue withing all of climate change. Climate change includes various other factors such as changing precipitation patterns, desertification, and mass extinctions.. There is no scientific debate about whether or not the Earth is warming, but scientists have stopped calling it 'global warming' because it's only one problem of many. And not because people started challenging the conventional wisdom? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html Markets can only truly be free with perfect information and no externalities. Both of which are not satisfied under current systems. Our current economic system is not adequate for a globalized world. Chances are that a forced labourer in the DR Congo died for the battery in your (and my) cellphones, laptops, etc. Tell me, is that price included in the purchace price? Externalities are HUGE in the globalized economy because we can ship all of the negative effects to the 'third world' and take all the possitives for ourselves. That's a heart-wrenching story. How is it relevant to a government taking over the entire economy? Right, and tell me, who decided what credits everyone are assigned? Are you naive enough to believe that there won't be any lobbying involved? How will stopping carbon fuel consumption help that child in DR Congo from dying? I'm sure you have dozens of examples of things that were invented because of cap and trade...

I think the entirety of "climate change" is a hot mess. Five years ago it was always "Global Warming". Bleh Bleh Bleh Global Warming Bleh Bleh Bleh. Then they realized that the earth might've been cooling, so it became "Climate Change". This whole business of politics mixing with science mixing with business is complete bullshit. The scientists go to the law makers warning them of catastrophic events in the future if they don't give grant money for their research. The scientists then find a result supporting their claim, rapidly publish it to the media with some trumped up headline to make a name for themselves or to get more grant money for their research. Meanwhile, politicians realize that they can influence the entire economy by regulating carbon based fuels or CO2 emissions. Killing the world's largest free market and controlling the reins is a big government wet dream. Also, business people realize there must be a solution to the trumped up problem and come out with a "free-market" solution of carbon credits. They then invest time in calculating carbon "footprints" and setting up a clearing house to allow trade of these made up carbon credits. Guess who is made a monopoly when this solution is mandated by law makers? We then find out that some of the "science" behind climate change wasn't science at all, but some other motivation. We also find out that one of the biggest reports written - comprehensive - by the IPCC wasn't properly written and one of the biggest scare numbers that the glaciers would be gone in 25 years was in fact a typo, and should've been 300+ years. Excuse me, but I'm going to sit this one out. The opinion I've formed thus far is that everything presented to date has had some greedy agenda. The one thing I can't stand is crony capitalism or legislative favors. This entire process has been filled with it. I don't care if the science is correct or the doomsday predictions are true; you've [climate change proponents] already lost my confidence and trust. Try harder next time.

enjoy the banhammer

Just wrote code to convert a black and white bitmap of characters into hex pixel data, for hard coding data. Yes, I'm that awesome.

Seeing the holiday shopping season has started, I'd like to know what you all are giving others, and whats on your wish list. I'll start - For my parents, I'm writing them a check for bar stools. They're remodeling their kitchen and won't have space for them come Christmas, but they'll enjoy them once the dust settles Older sister and brother in law - gift cards to buffalo wild wings, macaroni grill, along with a bottle of wine (unsure which one yet) and six pack of Sam adam's. Older brother - Holiday gift box of Johnie Walker Black Label, includes flask Younger sister - Purdue sweatshirt, sweatpants Younger sister - stud earrings 1/4 ct total weight diamond set in silver. Youngest sister - Lego Winter Toy Shop 10199 Youngest brother - Hot Wheels Sky Jump track set and Beyblade Metal Fusion Light Sword Yes, I have a big family. Fortunately they were all easy to shop for. On my list are work clothes. I think I'm getting something like 6 pairs of dress pants and 6 dress shirts. Should be a good Xmas.

My pic18f4525 isn't playing nicely. I'm trying to get some LEDs to blink, but nothings happening. No idea how to debug it. Bleh.

I spent $200 on silicon, aluminum, plastic, and probably some other materials too. Hopefully when I'm done with them I'll have made an LED cube. Oh, I also programmed a PIC microcontroller for the first time in 4 years. Now I just need to relearn everything I forgot... :shock: All I want to do is make some LEDs blink in a cool pattern.

Or they're celebrating Mod Poppy's bday

Women who have abortions are 50% more likely to have ectopic pregnancy in the future than women who don't. That study doesn't differentiate the two, and not separating the two groups adds a confounding factor to your carry to term vs abortion statistic. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Abortion+Increases+Risk+of+Ectopic+Pregnancy+by+50%25.-a055354985

http://afterabortion.org/2004/death-rate-of-abortion-three-times-higher-than-childbirth/ There are many things wrong with your statement. Firstly, all statistics for abortions are lumped into pregnancy statistics. Secondly, all women with previous abortions are lumped into pregnancy statistics. The risk for complications in the pregnancy after an abortion greatly increase due to scarring. Also, post-abortion complications are under reported due to the secret nature of the procedure itself. About 10% of women have complications after abortion, with about 2% being major. Also lumped into pregnancy statistics are the conditions of the babies themselves, a premature baby might not pose much of a risk to its mother but the complication is certainly life threatening to the baby. Basically anything saying otherwise and NOT reporting/removing these factors is likely to have a serious flaw in its statistic, and quite probably a biased source.

Did you grab Tip.it's F2P list?

I got 68 on the Astronauts... but that test sucked with its numbers, names and random punctuation. I was up to 85 on Wizard of Oz when I bumped my trackpad and my browser went away. Oh yeah, I'm lying down on my laptop, perhaps I'd be better with proper posture on a desktop, sitting upright?

"As a P2P player, I will quit over this" Yep, I did say that. Means Jagex won't get my $6 / month. Why would anyone support a company that does exactly what you don't want them to? Also, a game with a player base as large as RuneScape has won't disappear in a year. The point I'm trying to make that you might've missed is that Jagex needs to grow its F2P community fast, or it won't get new members. If you want to grow a game, you don't start by kicking your existing player base between the legs.

...no, that's not how statistics work... That's how cross tabulating works. I checked, and I'm pretty sure it's not. If you were taking two questions and showing how they interact, that would be cross tabulating (or at least it might be, depending how you did it). Blatantly ignoring one of the three options on a single question is not that. (If it is, mind explaining? I'd love to learn, honestly; I hadn't heard that term before.) When I made the statement, I qualified it. "Of the people who care" means of the people who didn't respond "I don't care", which only leaves "Yes" and "No". Statisticians do it all the time in polls, usually their qualifier is "Of likely voters", or "Moderates", etc. Say those that responded yes are 80%, and those that responded no and don't care are 10% each. Then of those that care, (80% + 10% = 90), 88.9% said yes (80 / 90).

...no, that's not how statistics work... That's how cross tabulating works.

The poll says 80% when I look at it. The poll is obviously unreliable, as are all self-selected polls. It does say 80% under the category of "no", but when you remove the people that don't care, it becomes 90%.

As a P2P player, I will quit if Jagex goes through with this.

Not if the colts suck worse.

And which post are you referring to, or are you just trolling? This whole thread, and no I'm not trolling. You could've carried this debate on in the thread that already existed, but no, you wanted a poll, as if that would provide the Holy Grail you've been looking for to keep F2P hiscores open. I'm just placing in the caveat that even if you get 100% of people supporting you, you can still be wrong, and actually, the number of people who agree with you is largely an irrelevence unless Jagex decide to open a referendum on the issue (which they won't, so why bother holding one of your own when it carries no weight at all?). We know that Jagex frequents fan sites, even if they do not post. Arguments are everywhere, and it doesn't provide a tidy summary of what everyone think. Sometimes the most vocal minority out-shout the majority because they care more. Also, if Jagex does go through with this update, we can see that of the people that care about the hiscores, 90% don't want this update. Ignoring 90% of your customers has never been a healthy business decision. Oh, and the way I know the number is 90% is because of that poll.

And which post are you referring to, or are you just trolling?

Because making a poll took 30 seconds... You mad bro?