or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

Citation?
Agreed. I do like the 5 day charge, although a result of that is that I sometimes forget to charge it when it needs it. It warns at 20% and 10%, but I still forget. A full charge from empty seems to take about 3 hours, although I haven't timed it.
I'd expect their battery life estimates to be reasonable. The current Pebble Steel advertises 5 day battery life, and that's exactly what I get with relatively heavy use - all day notifications.
Although I'm not sure what functionality would make a color version a significant improvement over the current Pebble Steel. 
Interesting exercise but I don't see the law enforcement use for this, since cell phone locations can be tracked fairly accurately in real time with a simple, formal request to the cellular provider. And the extensive "fingerprint" of route profiles required for this to work seems likely to be beyond the resources of any other possible user.
OK - let's leave it at that. We are going in circles here. Your position is misinformed and illogical in my opinion, and you are stating the same opinion of my position. Scientists, I can argue with. You, metaphorically, are speaking a different language. And if we can't even agree on what the survey papers claim to show, then we have little chance of making progress on the actual subject of discussion. We'll find out one way or the other, sooner or later.
OK - we are on the same page, to use a horrible cliché. Dichroic prisms are actually very efficient - not much light is lost.
Already answered - there is certainly consensus among scientists on GW. Anyone who disagrees must either unknowingly be unable to read basic data or must believe that there is a global science conspiracy to fabricate data. If the former then simple reading of the literature will fix that. If the latter then no data or argument will convince them. On AGW there is also consensus, but it depends on how the question is asked. If it is restricted to "do you believe that the...
No - because that is not what the studies claimed. Read those studies.     Quote: Sorry - which elements of that are not what was claimed in that article? It explicitly claims that the scientists feel ostracized: "Williams (2007) expresses the outcome of being ostracized (i.e. the excluded 3%) - as “the kiss of social death.”" It explicitly claims that there is no 97% consensus, and actually argues that a minority agree with AGW: "As this report shows, there’s no 97%...
That's a good question. However - what @waterrockets posted is not a copyrighted article, but a post from another site that comprises lots of individual pieces of content from other sources that may or may not be copyrighted, and it is attributed, so I wonder if that makes a difference.
New Posts  All Forums: