There was no "open width" tab. Sometimes there is, sometimes there ain't.
Yes, via dis-asserting "lock toolbars". For whatever reason you could change toolbars while locked but you couldn't widen up the address block. Doesn't make much sense, but t'is how it is.
Well, I managed to get there by opening Internet option. It worked for a while but it didn't stick. With Windows that isn't totally surprising to me.
Yup :-)
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
te:
This is what you like to think - if your mental processing can be dignified with the title "thinking".
In fact your "analysis" is the knee-jerk reaction of a nitwit who doesn't realise calling somebody "a bumbling fool" doesn't actually work if they can actually construct a coherent argument - it makes the abuser look stupid. Since you really aren't all that clever, this may have escaped your notice..
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
-- Cogito, ergo cogito cogito?
Slowman owes us a scan of his passport showing a _recent_ visa stamp permitting admission to the US of A, does he not? He certainly implied I couldn't stop him. Slo-o-o-o-ow-man prove me wrong ;-)
I'm always pleased to note that I'm the highest standard for Slowman's disdain, but please don't feed the jerk. Let him die that most unpleasant of deaths... alone ;-)
...Jim Thompson
-- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
te:
Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson wants me to post a scan of some part of my passport on the web where any identity thief could find it?
He's stupid enough to think that him reporting me to the FBI as "dangerously anti-American" would do anything except label him as a hare-brained nitwit, so he may even be stupid enough to think that he's making a reasonable request.
Why would I take him that seriously?
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
e:
aol
One of John Fields many delusions is that he thinks that he can either recognise or construct a coherent argument.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
-- Wrong, as usual. As I understand it, while cognitive processing _is_ carried out in the cortex, there are limits to that requirement in that if I see your face twice I don\'t have to store the image twice in order to associate it with "you", Since I only need to compare the map I made the first time to the image I received later on to make the match. It also stores everyday memories, and as we age the number of memories increases, requiring the area (actually, the volume, since even a single neuron lives in 3 space) of the cortex to expand. Since it\'s bounded, externally, by the skull, the only way it can increase its volume is by wrinkling into the softer tissue on the inside.
e
es
up!
Which is to say it isn't wrong at all, but John Fields will proceed to blather on for a paragraph or two, hoping that the reader will not notice that he hasn't actually falsified my argument.
Which still happens on the surface - the top layer or so - of neurones, and is thus perfectly irrelevant to the question that John Fileds seems to think he is discussing.
Wrong. The memories are stored in the neurones we have, not in new neurones, and the memories change the way the neurones respond to particular combinations of inputs.
Wrong.It starts off wrinkled.
No.Birds are small -brained - as you appear to be - but at least they use the whole of cerebral tissue that they have got. You may like to think that you use the whole of the miserable volume of cerebral tissue you were born with, but this is just one more of your numerous delusions.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
ronment/...
n right-
oup
o ....
re
nn
is
fhe
ot
y g ye.
My conclusion was that the hockey stick curve had been replicated, and was consequently non-controversial. You quoted a section from my link that deplored Mann's lack of willingness to cooperate with McIntyre's witch hunt, which had to do with Mann's statistical techniques. Academic statisticians did find Mann's statistics to be less than flawless (as academic statisticians are prone to do whenever they run into real scientists analysing real data).
Since you couldn't separate the two issues, it is fairly clear that you don't know much about the science involved, and your presonal opinion on that particular subject isn't worth much.
Common courtesy might have suggested to you that you shouldn't get into an argument about stuff you didn't actually understand - at best you are guilty of wasting everybody's time.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
right-
See? You did it again: "Witch hunt". That's typical. It is unprofessional.
Yeah, right, and you seem to diss the competence of whole government science panels ... Oh man.
Then why do so many people here think otherwise?
To me professionalism includes letting others express different opinions without attacking them on a personal level.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
e,
ence.
.I've read quite a lot of what McIntyre wrote when he originally went after Mann, and I've read what he puts on his web-site from time to time. I think that "witch hunt" is exactly the right description - McIntyre indulges in enough minor dishonesties to suggest that his approach isn't anything like as as professional as he presents it to be.
There's nothing "professional" in ignoring that kind of fraud.
I'm not dissing their competence. They were asked to look at the dispute, and they found that the hockey stick was pretty much right, that Mann's statistics weren't flawless, and that Mann could have been more cooperative with McIntyre's (somewhat unreasonable) demands. The fact that pretty much any of them would have no more cooperative than Mann is beside the point - you don't get to serve on thise panels if you don't know how to play politics, and Congress wouldn't have been happy with the proposition that you don't willingly give potential competitors free access to the data that you have painfully accumulated, even though the accumulation was paid for by public money.
Most of them aren't as smart as you are.
This works fine in a professional environment, where the different opinions are alternative ways of getting to a common target. Anthropogenic global warming has become intensely political, and many of the commentators are not seeking to understand what is going on, but rather trying to obscure the scientific concensus by emphasising irrelevant questions. Since Mann's result has been replicated repeatedly, the putative weakness of the statistical techniques that he used to extract his result isn't of any importance, which doesn't stop the denialists from trumpeting it from the roof-tops at every opportunity.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.