jeremyhfht

NOD 32, in my studies a few years ago, was listed as the #1 antivirus on almost all test results and analysis. For a commercial antivirus, it's definitely one to consider buying. However, for a free antivirus, Avast is the #1. It has a better interface than AVG, more updates, a better development team, etc. One of the reasons it's so good is because at one point it was commercial software. That bar hasn't fallen since it became freeware. Unfortunately, AVG has fallen. Some years ago the decline began, and I hear presently it's nothing but a husk of its former glory. Both in design and functionality. More points about avast: Avast has better adware detection, it CAN detect trojan viruses (wtf? The one that says it doesn't needs his head examined), and has some of the fastest scan times of any antivirus. It also has the best autoprotect I've seen (It virtually scans everything you do passively with no impact on your system).

Perhaps if you did a bit of research into what junk DNA really is, you'd discover that it's inactive DNA (such as retroviruses that are long "dead"). Much like how human genes can be "on" or "off", only these strands of DNA are no longer complete. They've been evolved out of our system. Thus, they're "junk" and always "off" because they're no longer used. Then again, since you used the word "believe" I doubt there's any discussing something as trivial as facts.

Lets assume your brain is capable of such things. The reason the third eye is situated there is because a lot of people experience muscle spasms or tensing in that area when they're focusing on something heavily. It can also happen with high brain activity (I think). Other "chakras" can be explained in a similar manner. I think it's fascinating how ancient cultures attributed solid meaning and placement to various organs throughout the body simply by analyzing their emotions and senses. Anyway. Visions and similar things would require a high amount of brain activity and focus, which would cause you to tense in that area.

Let me tackle your quote first. That quote was not "beginning research knowing what I'm going to show". I had initially done a number of graphs using an online tool. I didn't post this graphs because they were sub-par and didn't let me do everything I wanted. The statements I made are in conclusion to some of my research. Not pre-emptive conclusions without any. Your "emphasis" is from a conclusion of those graphs. So far Excel doesn't disagree. It's also laughable because a large number of other graphs including ones supporting global warming show that sunspot number doesn't match with current temperature, and at about the same time (my aim was to provide better looking graphs with more detail). If you continue inaccurate accusations such as this one, my opinion of your intelligence might be dwindled by your unreasonable nature. I hope this explanation is enough to dissuade further problems. Though, perhaps it is my fault, as I probably wasn't totally clear on my intentions. In fact, scratch that, I definitely was not. One purpose of this post was a learning exercise. I've never done anything like this before. Also, I do have excel (I apparently had an old microsoft office 2000 CD). Although I fail to see how that could effect accuracy of a simple graph, since the same data is being used. All I'm doing is turning data from reliable sources (such as Nasa) into graphs. As well as providing some extra-graph comparisons and possible correlations derived from said data. Nothing could be wrong with my graphs if they were based on accurate data. And graphing isn't exactly hard work. The only part that could be argued against would be the correlations. Which I obviously can't make since the graphing isn't done yet. And, no offense, but suggesting my work can't be taken serious because I've never had the expression "w/m^2" explained before is both arrogant and elitist. Also wrong, since it has dick all to do with a large portion of the graphs and data. If you're done looking for excuses to ignore me, perhaps you can go on to provide suggestions?

This is a difficult one. I think cognitive psychology is the most enjoyable.

I'm sorry, but what? I'm not fluent in measurement jargon, so what do you mean by "W/m^2"? I'd love to continue our semantics debate, but it's obvious it'll go nowhere (they seldom do). It too strays from the topic at hand. Which nobody seems interested in anymore. Lets just leave it at "I disagree". Unless you wish to make a new thread about it.

Who says I have? I merely posted the results of my various inquries. It's not like I need to provide you with the whole story. I came to that conclusion by making various graphs and comparisons. I merely want a better program to provide everyone else with those graphs (my current online graph maker doesn't make averages properly). Yes, yes it was an appeal to authority. In suggesting I leave this to climatologists you suggest that only they can do a proper job. Thus, their status as a climatologist automatically makes them accurate. Hardly an equivocation, since by definition that's appealing to their authority. And swan: Sorry, I forgot.

I take umbrage. I'm well aware of how many factors are at work when it comes to global climate change. My research currently is focused on when sunspots have a strong influence and when they don't. Not generally focused on anthropogenic warming. Need I also mention the appeal to authority you made? I don't think many of the famous autodidacts would enjoy your point of view. As for the rest of the discussion, it appears you all decided to hijack my attempt at scientific results with your beliefs and political stances. If you so desire, I'll make that "hocky stick graph" my first research target. But this thread is NOT where you should discuss it. --- Work so far: While attempting to produce similar results as the nine year average, I did come upon a problem. They didn't add up, for obvious reasons I was too busy to pay attention to. Lance did have an important point. A nine year average wouldn't make sense when a solar cycle lasts for eleven years. Using nine years would produce a biased result because it would end up getting the lower/higher ends of a cycle, and not the higher/lower to balance it out into a true average. This was my err, and one I quickly corrected. During my correction, and further review of the massive amount of numbers, I discovered that most of the time sunspot averages don't make sense at all. Excepting events where sunspots are so low they cause miniature ice ages, the temperature average doesn't always like to follow. The reasons should have been obvious from the start. Sunspots are not the only thing that control the earths temperature. Earths core can even have an effect on global temperature, after all. As can global rainfall/snowfall averages, and cloud cover, as well as other factors. Which leads me to an important point. Averaging sunspots and comparing it to the temperature averages will almost always produce a mismatch result. Granted, not as much of a mismatch as we've seen since the late 80's-present. Comparing them on the basis of averages serves no scientific purpose in this discussion. To prove this, I was going to prepare a number of graphs to show both 11 year averages and year averages up close. In more detail than most shoddy graphs allow, and they include numbers for better calculations (as opposed to "measuring the bumps to see if they match"). Unfortunately all of the free graph software proved inadequate. So I'll need a bit of time to purchase Microsoft Office (for Excel). Unless someone can provide a free/nonfree alternative that's better. In PM's, preferably.

I'm afraid I can't think of any off-hand. Since most of the ones I can think of have since been changed. I suppose my gripe lies with how long it takes for said articles to be properly edited (I'm a terrible editor myself, so I cannot contribute). That and some of the elitist bias that comes with their mathematics articles. However, my claim of liberal bias was not one of evolution or similar facts. It was in how their discussions take place, and how articles are treated. If you mistake me as a conservative fundamentalist nut-job, you're quite wrong. I'm a nonbeliever, after all. Be nice. I said that I like some of their simpler explanations, as it helps those not so versed on some topics. Not that I like their factual inaccuracies. If you weren't so biased towards opposing the very mention of "conservapedia", perhaps you wouldn't have misjudged my intents. As I explained, I can't think of liberal biased links offhand. I can think of plenty elitist attitudes though. One need merely observe the hostility when there are attempts to add simpler explanations to math articles like this one. I only got a firm idea of the concept through a college friend of mine clarifying a few things.

Be fair, you guys. I like this conservative version because it gives some things a good (excluding their bible-biased articles) different perspective. Wikipedia is, after all, an extremely liberally-biased encyclopedia. It's a fresh change to see a conservative biased one. Although I should make it clear. Conservapedia is a less...intelligent encyclopedia. Its page on falsifiability compared to that of wikipedia is kind of sad. However, it's probably good for introductions on things people aren't familiar with. Since it's much simpler.

I'm afraid the graph you used isn't very truthful. If you do some math from the websites I provided, then measure it against the sunspot averages shown in that graph, you'll find they're not accurate. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ As you see in the more trustworthy graph (this is one of the ones I based my research on), and if you follow my nine year averages. I did my own research because of graphs just like that one, which appeared to lie. Excuse me? Sir? I dealt with the time lag by using averages from nine year lengths. They match with the graphs perfectly until about 20 years ago. In fact I mentioned in my post that I wish I knew the exact amount of time lag. I'm going to sound rude here, but did you even read the post?

EDIT: I accidentally placed this in the wrong section. Goddamnit. Can a moderator move this? Recently I began a new inquiry into anthropogenic global warming/climate change unlike my previous ones. This time I had both experience debates provided, and a new perspective to explore that my earlier research queries blessed me with. My original stance was that of some confusion. As I wasn't entirely sure of the whole picture. Debating this on various forums helped substantially, and also aided in the gathering of information required for me to delve deeper into the anthropogenic climate change theory. - My first links will deal with the history and development of various climate change ideas. The first of which is Global Cooling. During the 1970's, recent increasing awareness about Earths Ice Age's caused a media frenzy. In very short order, people began to hypothesize that the earth was in a cooling trend (based on temperature history from the 1940's to the 1970's). The hypothesis was never accepted by the majority of scientists, but due to intense media popularity it drew a lot of support from the people and a few supporting scientists. Today, scientists believe that the high amount of aerosols did cause the planet to make a short climate shift to slightly cooler weather. - The Dust Bowl was a more localized event, but still warrants mention due to how it came to pass. If you care to read up on the history, you'll discover that it was originally called the "great American desert". Yet slowly but surely, settlers began to colonize the grassy plain. An important think to point out is that through the 1800's and 1900's there existed a scientifically backed saying. "Rain follows the plow". One of the most politically motivated scientific errors. In an ironic twist of fate, because so many people adhered to this saying and began to mass-colonize/farm the plains with destructive agricultural habits, it caused the dust bowl by removing moisture from the ground. As you should have noticed if you read about the "Great American desert". - There are two major differences in these events. One was caused by humans (anthropogenic), while the other was caused by variations in sunspots. I've prepared a few graphs and numbers from them. This was to gauge the temperatures and the years so I could properly measure sunspot activity and its effects. I also have a reliable list of sunspot number averages by year. Which I then added and calculated averages from to produce three nine-year averages for various years. The three samples I did were from 1937-46 (beginning of the cold period from 40-70), 1965-74 (end of it), and 1975-84 (start of the warming). The sunspot averages (which you can calculate yourself. I advise using google for adding all the numbers quickly in one string) in order are: 67.82, 75.5, and 91.87. The global mean temperatures (in C) are (two numbers for the start and end year, separated by a comma on the next year): 0.03 -0.1, -0.2 -0.1, -0.1 0.05. I list only two because global temperature appears to lag behind sunspot averages by a few years or so (I know not the exact time. I wish I did). Using the graphs, you can see the temperature fluctuation averages more clearly, and get a better understanding of what the sunspots did during each nine year period. - The temperature and sunspots which are most noteworthy, however, are 1975-84 (91.87, -0.1 0.05). Global warming theory says that we should be causing global warming, not sunspots. Yet sunspot number averages are far higher in that nine year period than even 40+ years prior. Make your own conclusions. Further averages of sunspots (keeping with the nine year count, so averaging remains the same) of 1985-94, and 1995-04: 87.28, 71.5 Temperature averages for those years (by graphs): 0.05 0.1, 0.1 0.4 One can also use Nasa http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/. My above calculations do not attempt to disprove anthropogenic global warming. Merely to prove that, up until around 1985-94, temperature averages followed sunspot spikes. Also, these calculations DO NOT prove anthropogenic global warming. What they do prove, is that something other than the sun is causing us to warm up.

actually, they do sell laptop parts, they sell the hard drives, ram, CPU's, and motheboards. You can build your own laptop, but I'm not sure about getting the case for the thing (the keyboard and monitor).

I had considered a detailed analysis and rejection of Fausto's hypothesis, but it's summed up by saying: What an awful piece of writing. He's posted it on a few other threads I know of, too. Each one pretty much said the same things you all have.

http://www.bbspot.com/News/2005/01/firefox_vs_internet_explorer.html QED.

The only ones I can't get are ones that require high amounts of abstract visual thought. I have absolutely no ability in the sector of "here is the image, make it using this"

Well, it could very well be that there isn't many hardcore debates going that interest people. Forums tend to go to hell if everybody is intelligent, and they're all intelligent enough to find no reason to disagree. So basically, once the idiots all leave, there's no more debate forum.

Well, during the school months a lot of people are at schools. Higher education, highschool, etc. So that isn't surprising.

Yay, nothing like brain implants that would completely destroy/damage your brain with a strong enough EMP. I'll be against anything cyberized until the day I die.

He is NOT writing "romantically". He's combining words improperly, using poor sentence structure, and if that's poetry I'll stab my eyes out. The entire point behind clear speech is so that you don't require a translator. I've read numerous scientific books and all of them speak clearly even WHEN using jargon, this guy takes the cake for the most BS and least content I have seen so far. Also, as the above poster states, made-up words and phrases.

If I may translate: This is pure jargon. It isn't meant to be understood, it's just meant to make the reader seem intelligent. Then again, so does most of the post. I'm sorry to say, but jargon does not equal intelligence. Instead, ability to convey your ideas properly does. In the future, kindly speak in easily understood terms (usage of a broad vocabulary is recommended, but not obscure words like the ones you kept choosing). And as for the rest of the post, the prior poster pretty much hit most key points on the head.

Depends on where you buy it. Newegg isn't the only place. Plus, most of the time you have to go to a ton of different websites to find cheaper prices with different parts.

Do. Not. EVER. Buy. A. Computer. What you do is buy computer parts separately after doing a crapload of research so you can build one damn good machine (probably BETTER) for HALF the price.

I find those that do that so very sad. If I ever buy a game console, I'll wait until it's dirt cheap. The games will still be around, and THEY will be dirt cheap. Sort of like waiting until the PS3 is out to buy a PS2. In the end, only you benefit, and the market can screw itself. P.S: This is why patience is a virtue. Haha

Wait, I only see one side of things not both? You've just generalized my entire behavioural pattern based on one post. I could have made a side-by-side comparison, but I only mentioned points where assembly is superior. If it's one sided to show some good points about a language, then attack a few points some people believe is "superior" about another, then fine. You've called yourself one-sided. I'm really not sure what the hell you're getting at. And now you know why most software sucks. The "less than gurus" tend to know less about what they're doing. In the proccess they make less-than-good programs (in fact most of them are absolutely hideous). Also, leave development time out of this. My statements say nothing about superior development time. But those people that DID build it atom by atom know an infinite more than those that just threw it together. You have 5 cars, and a ton of knowledge to start building cars faster and better. woo. That's like saying it's better to buy swords that are factory made (aka: wall hangers) over hand-made ones. The wall-hangers fly appart rather quickly. Also, you're going off on your own tangent here. Assembly gives you better control, smaller, faster, cleaner, etc. Also more knowledge of how it works. Higher level languages: Faster development time, slower programs, relies fully on hardware advancements to keep up with the size increasements, etc. I think assembly wins. Yet again, (must I repeat myself?) I mention nothing of assembly being faster. I will say, and as the evidence so far has shown, assembly is superior. Which is why my "argement" is aimed at people learning assembly first so they get a better idea of what the hell they are doing. Let me use the sword example again: Factory made swords are made very quickly, but break very easily. Hand-made blades are made very slowly, but can cut a tank in half. Yeah, hand-made blades are better. Yes that's an exaggeration, but I believe you are being far too forgiving in your comparisons. it isn't 98% vs 99%. It's 50% vs. 99%. No, see, I should be. "old-time" programmers were better by average because they had to know what they were doing. Which is another reason assembly should be learned first. However, running and jogging are entirely different. You compared apples to buicks there. I'm not sure how the comparison even *works*. Do explain. Stop. Putting. Words. Into. My. Mouth. Enough straw-man tactics. I have conceded (repeatedly!) that development time is needed and superior in that aspect. Yet you seem to be focused on development time alone rather than my other statements. Now let me explain this: As hardware improves, software becomes less compact (since it doesn't need to be compact). Programs become larger, and extra-features can be thrown out. However at the same time less needs to be known about the finer-details. Less and less people know what they're doing at base levels and tend to make more and more mistakes (since the hardware can handle those mistakes, oh well!). There isn't a "requirement" for good programming. The more hardware can handle insanely large software, the less programmers will be required to be good at. And, presently, despite all the development time current languages bring, companies have this policy (mostly microsoft): It compiles, SHIP IT! (this is because most OS's shipped by microsoft aren't really "completed" until SP1). Development time doesn't mean superiority (I'm repeating myself again! Yay!). It just means development time. Also, that link basically says what I've bene saying (another note: I've been saying nothing about superior development time! Maybe if I repeat that enough...)