jcd11235

What are the CD's that are not being properly organized? Are the artists listed exactly the same? For example Eminem w/ Snoop Dog would not be the same artist as Eminem or Eminem w/ Dr. Dre. Are they compilation albums, such as a movie soundtrack might be? You can select the songs and, via get info (cmd-i on a Mac or ctrl-i on WinPC), and check "Part of a compilation". This will keep the songs from appearing as a different artist in the artist browsing pane. Alternatively, as has been mentioned, you can manually rename the artist name to the same artist for all songs you want to appear as such. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

If viewed that way, wouldn't it make more sense to pay for it in the same manner as forensic departments are funded? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No, it's basic physics that we cannot stop using energy. All we can do is conserve and seek alternative sources. Also, you can't seriously be relying on Hansen: Okay, I've sifted through dozens of sources, and don't recall Hansen. Where did I use Hansen as a source. I can't seem to find any such reference in my post. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I will give you credit, it has (surprisingly) passed the first stage of peer review, sufficient to be published in a legitimate peer reviewed journal. Unfortunately, it has failed the subsequent worldwide peer review. Here is one thorough debunking. Comment number 14, by Richard Ordway, offers and especially lucid layman explanation as to why the Douglass et al. study was academically dishonest and can reasonably be disregarded. Some highlights: A new study (that is already full of fatal omissions and inaccuracies) has just come out in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal (Inernational Journal of climatology). Remember, a study needs at least two things to really be important scientifically: 1. To come out in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal (this is true with this study). 2. This same study has to stand up under world-wide peer-review scrutiny for accuracy (This study has already failed this criteria). … Even if the study were right…(which it is not) mainstream scientists use *three* methods to predict a global warming trend…not just climate computer models (which stand up extremely well for general projections by the way) under world-wide scrutiny…and have for all intents and purposes already correctly predicted the future-(Hansen 1988 in front of Congress and Pinatubo). … Now, on to actual problems with the paper: Any real scientist, ahem, includes error bars in their projections because of possible variables. The study does not include them. If it did, or they were honest enough to, they would fit the real-life records (enough to overlap the two records) and be a non issue. Secondly, this study is dishonest and does not show all the evidence available (v1.3 and V1.4)…boing…this paper has just failed peer-review. Science is an *open* process and you just don’t cherry pick or real scienists will correctly invalidate your results. Third, with this omitted data, the computer models agree with the actual data (enough for it to be a non-issue). Fourthly, the study does not honestly work out the error bars for the models themselves by giving them reasonable uncertainty for accounted-for unknowns such as El Nino (Enso) and other tropical events. Now however, there are honest unknowns with the models and how they (slightly) mismatch histoical records…but they are accounted for in the big scheme of things…more work needs to be done…but it does not invalidate what the models are saying for general warming trends … In other words, this study is a strawman and the authors know it. Study 1 Debunked here (to the extent that it contradicted IPCC findings, although the author didn't claim IPCC findings were incorrect). In short, the global temperature time series clearly does not follow the model adopted in Schwartz's analysis. It's further clear that even if it did, the method is unable to diagnose the right time scale. Add to that the fact that assuming a single time scale for the global climate system contradicts what we know about the response time of the different components of the earth, and it adds up to only one conclusion: Schwartz's estimate of climate sensitivity is unreliable. We see no evidence from this analysis to indicate that climate sensitivity is any different from the best estimates of sensible research, somewhere within the range of 2 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2. A response to the paper, raising these (and other) issues, has already been submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, and another response (by a team in Switzerland) is in the works. Moving right along, we have Dr. Robert M. Carter's testimony before the Senate's Committee on Environmental and Public Works, December 6, 2006. Dr. Carter is a known global warming skeptic. Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community. He is on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector. … Professor Carter told the Herald yesterday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had uncovered no evidence the warming of the planet was caused by human activity. He said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research. … A former CSIRO climate scientist, and now head of a new sustainability institute at Monash University, Graeme Pearman, said Professor Carter was not a credible source on climate change. "If he has any evidence that [global warming over the past 100 years] is a natural variability he should publish through the peer review process," Dr Pearman said. "That is what the rest of us have to do." Source So, Dr. Carter receives funding indirectly from oil and tobacco companies, is not considered an expert in the climate science community, and doesn't think peer review is important. Not exactly a model of credibility, is he? Study 2 acknowledges anthropogenic warming, and hypothesizes an additional cause of warming. Okay, I'm through, for a while anyway. I've gone through almost half the page, and found only two real studies, neither of which contradict anthropogenic global warming, and one piece of testimony from a biased scientist who is not only not well respected in the field in which he claims to be an authority, but also doesn't recognize the necessity of peer review. I have to say, thus far your "list" is far from compelling. Are you referring to the billions at stake for the petroleum companies? I haven't started my car in 7+ months. I tend to conserve electricity, also. I'm not perfect at it, but not bad, either. You may not be. Many people are. No one can stop using completely. We burn energy simply resting. All we can do is stop wasting and seek alternative sources. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

All I can say is what goes around comes around. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You're probably never going to see snow in Las Vegas, AZ, global warming or not. It's not that rare there, if you lose the August requirement. It never snows in Las Vegas AZ. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Wow. $7 billion dollars for a 3 bed 2 bath home in California? What would such a home go for before the housing bubble burst? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I've done that a few times. The first time was basic training, but the rest were as a civilian. Surprisingly, except for the Army, I've always run into someone I know quickly after relocating. One place I don't recommend is Florida. I've lived in a few Florida cities here, and spent considerable time in a couple more. Some are better than others. (Right now I'm in Orlando and hate it, can't wait to graduate and get the hell out of Dodge.) The best feature of the state is the cosmopolitan culture, especially around the large DZ's. On this side of the country, Atlanta seems appealing. On the other side of the Mississippi, there's Las Vegas and the mid to northern west coast. I recently heard there is a very high demand for teachers in Las Vegas. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You're welcome. I'm glad to hear everything is working okay. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

What do you mean by hard booting? Forced shutdown? That is rarely a problem. I've only seen it be an issue once, when it was done during startup on a machine with kernel modifications. Your restore discs that came with the machine have a hardware test on them, and you can also use them to do an archive and restore, but again, the need is rare. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Other (easier) option is to open Activity Monitor (Computer_Name -> Hard_Drive_Name -> Applications -> Utilities). Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Unplug power adapter from MBP. Remove the battery. Wait a minute. Hold the power button down for ~10 seconds. Replace battery. Plug in power adapter. Reboot. Does problem persist? If it's only in your main account, disregard this post! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

There's more to be said for station / program managers that are apolitical....admittedly, a VERY rare breed. For local news, that's true, but I was thinking more along the lines of world and international news. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The fist step in nearly every case of Mac troubleshooting is to create a new user account and see if the problem persists there. To clarify, you don't need to create a new account every time you troubleshoot, you just want to see if the problem exists for all users, or just for the one with which it was first experienced. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I hadn't heard that about NBC, though I can't say I'm surprised at the possibility. NPR has always seemed to me to be pretty ethical in that respect (and others). IMO there is a lot to be said for non-corporate owned media. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You're probably never going to see snow in Las Vegas, AZ, global warming or not. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You're making less and less sense with each post in this thread. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I didn't notice any real difference between the first half and the last half of the letter. To me, it read like an eight page sermon. In its comparison of the teachings of Christ and the actions of Bush, it was rational throughout. On the other hand, an attempt to use religion in an appeal from one nation's leader to another nation's leader is rather irrational. Ahmadinejad didn't seem any more delusional in the letter than Bush has seemed at times these past seven years. Unfortunately, that's a pretty low bar. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Climate scientists are not a close-knit “social” group that engages in group think. Hundreds of scientists work in this field and we are a competitive bunch. We compete for scarce research dollars, academic recognition, and professional standing. Every scientific publication that my colleague or I have published has been subject to rigorous and independent peer review. Peer review in my field is anonymous. Authors play no role in selecting peer reviewers. And it is quite possible --- indeed likely --- that a journal will select someone who has expressed skepticism in one’s work as a peer reviewer. -Dr. Michael E. Mann, before a House subcommittee, July 27, 2006 Wasn't peer reviewed? I believe you are mistaken on that point, sir. It has been reviewed by many climatologists and other scientists. To be generous, the M&M critique was found to be an exaggeration of the facts. Others might argue that it was a blatant attempt to mislead readers and offer the appearance of a large amount of doubt on a topic for which there is little scientific doubt. Let's examine the paper's peer reviews more closely, shall we? First, a (very) general overview: Another study by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) claimed that temperatures estimated by Mann et al. (1998) from 1400 to 1980 contained errors, and that corrections to the data showed that the early 15th century was warmer than any period in the 20th century. However, these claims were countered by Mann et al. (2003b) who found that McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) made errors in their analysis and omitted or truncated key proxy indicators from 1400-1600. Mann et al. (2004) acknowledge that their 1998 paper contained several errors that, when appropriately corrected, had no effect on previously published results. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) claimed that the method of Mann et al. (1998) is biased toward producing a ‘hockey stick’ shaped curve and underestimates uncertainty in the 15th century. This assertion was tested by von Storch and Zorita (2005) and Huybers (2005) who found that the normalization used by Mann et al (1998) tends to bias results toward having a “hockey stick” shape, but the scope of this bias is exaggerated by the choice of normalization used by McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) and by an error in their estimation of significance levels. Source Now, from

Your double standard of evidence is amusing. You expected absolute proof before action could be taken on the part of the children (who, I might add, were largely unclaimed by any parents at the time of the raid, essentially making them orphans until known otherwise), yet if any of the mothers thought to be underage were not, you seem to assume the whole case was boggled. Thus far, I haven't read anything to indicate that the authorities did not do right by the kids. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

But those people are backing up their claims with links to peer reviewed scientific research. Please link to the scientific studies that support that claim. Otherwise, the claim sounds like "what it is - a bunch of crap." As they should as long as there is no credible research contradicting the findings. They are absolutely taking that into account. But, they also recognize that the rate of warming we are seeing is unprecedented. We know of no time when the earth has warmed so much, so quickly. No, the reason they aren't taken seriously is because they don't cite any peer reviewed evidence, and, in some cases, the contributions are made by persons known to be lacking in professional integrity (e.g. Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen). At the end of the day, if you want to refute scientific claims, you must use science to do it, backed with evidence of equal or superior credibility. The global warming skeptics have thus far failed in this regard. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The problem with sticking to the "3 R's" (Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic) is that, in today's world, they don't prepare students for anything except middle school. (Admittedly, the writing does, all too often, get underemphasized, even through high school.) We need to expand the required curriculum, not pare it down. The five C's (Communications, Computers, Calculus, Civics, Critical thinking), plus a healthy dose of science (Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Geology) and social studies (history, geography and economics) are needed if we are going to "promote the general welfare" of the nation into the next century. A high school diploma is no longer generally sufficient to obtain the employment necessary to provide workers with enough income potential to provide for a small family and retirement. Well paying unskilled jobs are rapidly disappearing, being obsoleted by technology, or outsourced, as we adjust to a global economy. As more nations develop economically, this trend is likely to continue. I believe we owe it to tomorrow's workforce to adequately prepare them for the conditions they will likely encounter. Today's Associate of Arts standards (with more stringent mathematics requirements) should be the new standard for completion of compulsory education. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I can think of of occasions when FOX promoted a bogus story (the story about the Cintons stealing everything that wasn't bolted down on Air Force One comes to mind). I can't think of any times when NPR (or even NBC) did the same. Would you care to provide examples? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Increasing the geographical reach of national sovereignty and increasing available resources, including space, is political. So is retaliating against a third party that attempts to prevent trade between two parties. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Kids still hold such jobs. They might have to wait until their sixteen to wash dishes, but there are a few jobs young teenagers can hold, although there are more restrictions than if an eighteen year old held the job. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!