1,422 Forum Posts by "JerkClock"
At 1/4/08 09:19 PM, poxpower wrote:Not really
Argumentum Ad Nauseum, you may wish to believe that, but that does not change the fact that what I said is true.
nuclear reactor
I see you are stubbornly pointing to magic numbers again, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
I'm THIS close to banning you
Not surprising coming from a mod who broke the BBS's no flaming rule on me several times. Of course you would want to ban someone who disagrees with you and call them a troll when they are not. Because you can't stand people who don't accept your point of view.
you show it.
You've
you would get completely different values every time you tested something.
By that same logic, a tool which measures room temperature at 825 degreesC consistantly is accurate, and it is not.
Who are you?
Is again irrelevant. It has no effect on the truth of the statement.
a little temperature over time does NOTHING
Still being a proponent of magic numbers eh?
That doesn't even work since gravity is higher in some places than others.
Well actually that doesn't disprove expanding matter. If the Earth, or any other object out there were a perfect shape maybe it would.
but we know that the moon's gravity is much lower, so it would "expand" slower
Yes and the moon is noticably smaller than the Earth, so that does not disprove it either.
Yet the moon is always at the same size relatively to the earth.
But that's not necessarily true. You see it would take a lot to measure that and it may not be noticble within a human lifespan. If you consider the Earth may be expanding at a slow rate, even with the moon expanding at a fraction of that the proportions may go unnoticed over the course of 100 years. At least with out current technologies.
Molecular motion affects temperature, not the other way around.
Which is exactly why when the temperature is lower the molecular particles move slower.............Right. In any case, it's a basic property of temperature to effect other temperatures it borders, which means even things that create their own temperature would be effected by surrounding temperatures. You haven't disproven that, you know that right?
Those aren't broad ideas
Well whatever they are, you can't disprove a general idea as easily as you can disprove a specific one and that's my point.
Weak.
It's not implausible, you may wish to think it is but it isn't.
you don't know what heat is
Yes I do, you're just trying to pretend you know stuff which you do not.
yes it does
Give a reason that the mantle does make drift constant, other than playing semantics with "elastic" and "plastic."
Well, it assumes that only the Earth's magnetic field would cause a world-wide magnetic field of a specific directionality, which is true.
So? That doesn't mean it's the only thing which can do so at all. And we don't even know for a fact that the Earth has always had its magnetic field or when or how it came about if it didn't always have it.
Decay is constant.
Too bad that was disproven by a link your buddy pox posted.
I said relatively constant.
Which it wouldn't be if it's going to eventually stop. It would be a process which started out much faster and has slowed with time, and is still slowing.
Well, they turned up frequently in my geology lectures.
And that's your problem, you believe what you are told without questioning it. I used to receive lectyres about second hand smoke being more dangerous than what the smoker breathed, but I was never stupid enough to believe them.
Radioactive decay involves the breaking of intra-atomic bonds
It doesn't matter because temperature effects the speed of all molecular particles, not just electrons.
I explained the terms plastic and elastic
Correct, you played semantics, which isn't a valid argument.
the properties of the mantle
The properties which your own link invalidated.
You have to tell me what would actually cause the change in activity.
Well "enough small changes" would indicate that it's nothing specific, just a lot of small changes to varies things throughout the universe.
That's why they come up with alternative ways to test the idea as well.
Such as?
On top of that, this only works if you ignore the more malicious aspects of the universe, such as the way it's filled with rocks hurtling through it at enormous speed, which could wipe out all of the life on a planet in the event of a collision, which did happen to Earth a while back.
Which have provided us with much of the Iron we have made use of, as well as other things. Also we have means tosurvive it if we see one coming, course have to live way underground and stuff. The point is we are unlikely to be wiped out, and the space rock that have crashed into the Earth in the past have had various unseen benefits to us, even though not many are aware of them because they hear the word "meteor" and think "disaster" and nothing else.
What exactly makes such a configuration less likely than any other?
That's like asking what makes getting the same number on 5 dice less likely than getting the same number on 3. Don't know what else to tell you.
If you're talking about energy as a whole becoming sentient and self-transforming, the idea doesn't really make sense conceptually in this universe.
Neither does the idea of life in and of itself, or even the existence of matter(because ultimately you get something from nothing no matter what you do). However pure energy makes more sense as a life form than biomatter.
At 1/2/08 03:41 AM, Coop83 wrote:
By dint that the Regular users are the ones who sit down and take their bans, obviously never submitting anything to the portal ever again.
No I said perspective Flash authors who are trying to contribute are.
This argument is taken so far out of context. Like Haggard says, it is from 2001,
Irrelevant, it doesn't matter if he said it yesterday or 1000 years ago, it still holds water, and he has not changed his mind.
Ask him now, see if he says the same.
You bug him about it.
Ooh, Latin.
Irrelevant. I notice you failed to address the fact that your argument was a logical fallacy.
Technically, they would be of the same opinion,
Well not really, proof?
At 1/2/08 03:56 AM, poxpower wrote:
You believe atoms decay yourself.
It's proven.
I guess you're just as crazy as them.
Not really because it isn't contradictory to the temperature thing.
Or maybe you have nooooooooooooooooooo idea what you're talking about because you haven't listened to a thing that Elfer or me has said in this entire thread and you haven't clicked on a single link we've shown you or watched a single video.
Unsubstantiated and erroneous Ad Hominem fallacy, too bad your theory about me not clicking links is busted wide open by me analyzing a link elfer posted on the exact page you posted this. Not unexpected considering you lack a logical argument.
Prove it.
Argumentum Ad Nauseum. I've told you, it has major gaping hole. They are trying to prove something with a theory about decay that is directly disproven by what we have proven about the effect of temperature on molecular particles. How ironic, coming from someone who accuse me of being stubborn minded.
You're saying that atoms DECAY. which is THE BASIS OF RADIOMETRIC DATING.
Nonsequitur.
No the basis of radiometric dating is that decay constant no matter what the fuck happens, which directly contradicts what is known on how energy and temperature effect the movement of molecular particles.
Theeeeeeeeen you're saying that some wild cosmic fluctuation, which you have shown NO PROOF OF, EVER,
Erroneous statement laced with Ad Nauseum, as expected from someone who laacks a logical argument.
I explained this several times, but you remain oblivious, how ironic, coming from someone who accused me of being stubborn minded. The vast size of the universe combined with the reasonable assumption that over 1000 years there can be enough minor changes throughout, is proof that a notable change in cosmic rays can happen over 1000 years. I didn't say it will or will not happen, just that it very easily can.
How come, if these wild fluctuations you claim exist, have made it so that when tested, things appear to be an age that varies in the millions and billions of years.
How would variance in the millions and billions not indicate unreliability?
What you're saying is that things will decay FASTER, correct?
No I'm saying it can decay faster or slower
And how are you qualified to determine this again?
Irrelevant Ad Hominem fallacy. Who I am is irrelevant to the validity of my argument.
Here read this: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ph y00/phy00543.htm
Nice link, you've proven for me that decay is not constant. It directly states that decay is effected by temperature. Which means you can not reliably determine the age of something which is millions or billions of years old. It even notes that extreme heat or energy fluctuations can effect it measurably within a human lifespan. Which means stuff such as lava flows and lightning strikes or ice ages can fuck up your "readings." Or as your link puts it:
If decay rates were found
to be temp/pressure dependent, a good deal of geologic dating work would be
rendered meaningless.
Indeed, too bad the page itself proved that "geologic dating work" is "meaningless"
Those "practical purposes" he describes include carbon dating. Yes, at ridiculous temperatures, radioactive decay can theoretically be altered, however, not with any temperature you'll find on earth.
Over 10, 20 years no, but over millions or billions of years, it's quite significant.
Special pleading by ignoring the fact that you still haven't explained how pairs of animals managed to migrate tens of thousands of kilometres around the world.
Erroneous claim, I explained it several times by now, you are just too lazy to go back and read it.
200monkeys wrote:
Well, since gravity is only a theory
Actually it is, I don't disbelieve it, but it is. Ever hear of expanding matter?
At 1/2/08 03:15 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: It's called special pleading. It's where you believe only what suits your position and discredit anything that opposes it.
How am I "special pleading" by arguing in non-absolutes. Your presupposed argument is erroneous and ironic, as you guys are the ones who won't believe anything but what supports your arguments, like for instance when you state that temperature does not effect that which it surrounds.
At 1/2/08 02:48 AM, poxpower wrote:
Who tested what with what methods again?
You're trying to tell me that because a lot of people blindly believed the radiometric principle that it's a solid method, and that doesn't make it so.
And how are these methods faulty?
Because it assumes temperature and energy fluctuations won't effect decay, and they most certainly will.
And how are you qualified to determine this again?
Because I happen to know that temperature effects the speed at which molecular particles move, which would in turn effect the rate of decay.
Oh that's right, you're not, you're a dumbass. You're willfully ignorant or just the most persistant troll I've ever seen anywhere. That would be like Martin Luther King Jr. ripping off his mask and being an albinos skinhead underneath and saying "fooled yah suckahs, I'm in the KKK, WHITE POWAAAH".
Erroneous Ad Hominem fallacy.
Seriously, your ENTIRE argument so far is "well it would be possible that thing X would be a certain way for no reason at all other than to support my theory that it could be this way"
See that's your problem, I am not saying anything is or isn't a certain way, that doesn't make my argument faulty. In fact doing the opposite makes a person's argument faulty, you can not argue in absolutes and say that you are right no matter what, then accuse other people of being stubborn minded, because that is what you are doing. You "science" is no more proven than you claim God to be.
At 1/2/08 01:12 AM, poxpower wrote: Someone who knows SOOOO little that they value their own personal opinion on facts higher than all the research of all the men and women in any given field.
And again, that's Argumentum Ad Populum, it means jack shit when they tested using the same faulty methods. In fact, that is Ad Nauseum on your part, because you haven't proven their methods of testing were any good. In fact you went to prove the opposite when you tried to claim magic numbers existed where temperature started effecting stuff despite that being contrary to how science works.
No, the one repeating the same attack over and over is you. Don't pull that "IKYABWAI" shit.
At 1/2/08 01:12 AM, poxpower wrote: Here's a fallacy for you JerkClock: Ignorance Syndrome.
Erroneous personal attack.
Someone who knows so little that he actually presumes to know everything.
Erroneous personal attack.
http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warri orshtm/ferouscranus.htm
Oh please, you're just saying that because I said that's what yall were several pages ago. No I think someone who, say, repeatedly denies that temperature has effect on its surroundings would be a ferrous cranus.
At 12/30/07 10:45 AM, Haggard wrote:
Great. Digging out a review made in 2001. That's six years ago,
Which is irrelevant because it is:
1. Still a valid point, the decent Flash that sucks up 5MB+ we all love watching takes up way more bandwidth than the spam no one watches except to blam.
2. It's also something he has yet to change his opinion on.
You do know how DoS-Attacks work, do you (if not, just ask google)?
Yes, and as explained the spam doesn't do enough. Wade Fulp, the proponent of this measure didn't even site DOS attacks as the reason(he had a much different reason), so your argument is asinine. Ask any admin and they will tell you the site has sufficient bandwidth to handle it.
Well, the same could happen to NG if spam groups flood the portal with an endless stream of crappy submissions.
Do you even know what it would take to DOS newgrounds? Or are you just talking out of your ass? I don't know myself, but suffice to say if the admins are not, and never were worried about spam Flash DOSing the site(and they haven't), we shouldn't either.
At 1/1/08 03:34 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: JerkClock, stop pulling this bullshit "fallacies" out of your ass and start arguing properly.
Erroneous poisoning of the well, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
So far, all you have presented as evidence is a picture of an ambiguous brownish blackish object embedded in the snow, and dodgy anecdotes that are basically all disproved as hoaxes.
Unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, how ironic, coming from someone who thinks that the person arguing temperature doesn't effect that which it surrounds has a valid point when he clearly doesn't.
This is Newgrounds. If we want to call you a delusional asswipe, we will.
Irrelevent appeals to emotion, laced with invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
It doesn't somehow make your argument any stronger.
Nor do your erroneous Ad Hominem attack make it any weaker, so your remark is irrelevant.
At 12/30/07 01:40 AM, SoulMaster71 wrote:
Futile? Fail? No. I am not fighting against only the KK. I fight against all spam in the Portal, for the protection of NG from garbage.
And what happens when you "protect" newgrounds from "garbage"?
If the KK grows up,
I'm not going to say trolling is mature because it isn't, but do you honestly think whining and crying about it is any more mature? Cus if you do you're full of shit.
We only wanted the restoration of the proper function of the blam/protect system.
It's functioning fine, just ask liljim.
And I admit, one thread, one man, alone cannot stop the KK, cannot blam any and all spam that they submit to the Portal. But all together, if all enemies of the spammers vote in unison, then the spam will be blammed.
Again, how does it hurt you if their spam gets through? You have failed to answer this point over and over.
You say our battle is "futile".
It is, people with way higher voting power than you such as myself are voting to protect their entries, and we aren't going to stop just because of your whining. In fact, I've actually voted 5 on some whereas I would have voted 2 just because I know how much it pisses whiney little people off.
At 12/30/07 04:31 AM, Coop83 wrote:
So regular users don't contribute to the site?
Where did I say that?
Tom said that he did that to speed up the portal.
It was Wade Fulp who did and not Tom, your statement does not hold. In fact, Tom has been spotted stating the opposite:
http://web.archive.org/web/2002122117380 4/www.newgrounds.com/portal/readreview.p hp3?user_id=1
I just found it very ironic. :)
Our bandwidth problems aren't primarily the result of crappy Portal movies.
So your bandwidth argument fails.
It appears to be the widely held belief of the users discussing here (i.e. everyone except you) that the system works.
Argumentum Ad Populum. Everyone in the world can believe a lie if they wish, but it is still a lie.
This also appears to be the case in the Administrators of the site.
Actually it is the opinion of one administrator on the site, you don't know what the rest of them think, even if you did, that's Argumentum Ad Verecundium. Just because an authority holds an opinion, does not make that opinion correct.
At 12/26/07 12:57 PM, Haggard wrote:
To exaggerate that thought a bit: Why not abandon the laws? People have always found a way around it (or do it anyways, even though there's a law against serveral actions), so why not just burn that fucking thing?
"Exaggerate" is key. You're comparing a mountain to a molehill. Scaling back laws that do not work isn't the same as invoking anarchy.
Coop wrote:
I'm overruling this by the example that regular users are willing to sit down and wait for their ban to expire, before resubmitting.
Yes, regular users, and that is the crux of the problem. It doesn't hurt the spammers, it hurts the users who want to contribute, as I've been saying all along.
No, I'm saying that my voting habits haven't changed, but I have genuinely seen an increase in the number of protectable submissions of late.
Didn't say they didn't, I said those who were biased towards blamming have been getting punished and those of us biased towards protecting have more voting power due to not being punished, didn't say anything about your voting habits.
And I will bet you that if this measure is removed, the system will be overrun with crap submissions
Even if that's true, so what? More blam points, what's wrong with that?
I'm suggesting that we have made an advance and that you have buried your head in the sand over this, now that you have your opinion
Unsubstantiated and erroneous presupposition.
At 12/29/07 07:04 PM, FatKidWitAJetPak wrote: Oh they don't necesarilly Spam the forums, but I have seen way to many of their Flashes on the Flash Portal that are just flying dicks and flashing lights with really loud noises. And what is really annoying is that it loads about 9 MB. 0_0
They do it to be annoying. I used to submit Flash that ran at 120 fps and was only 2 frame, one solid red, the other solid yellow. The reviews were hilarious. And if it gets through who cares? Free protection points I say.
At 12/25/07 08:34 AM, Coop83 wrote:
Yeah, you can't handle the fact that you play World of Warcraft, are an overweight virgin and still live in your parents house? You've got some issues to sort out boy.
Lol, you know you're the first person to actually have a good sense of humor like that.
At 12/24/07 04:05 PM, Elfer wrote:
No, your understanding of temperature is erroneous.
No it isn't, you can claim it is all you want but you saying it doesn't effect that which it surrounds doesn't make it so.
radioactive decay
I understand exactly how it works, it involves the movement of molecular particles, which is effected by temperature, no matter how much you try to deny it.
But when you have a very broad idea, it's hard to find evidence that demonstrates that idea exclusively.
Not really. Just because your idea isn't specific doesn't mean it isn't specifically proven. The ideas that the sun is hot and that vinegar is acidic are both broad ideas. But they are both proven.
the giant elliptical boat
Is about the only boat that could survive such a flood. A normal boat would be flooded out and sink.
Non sequitur.
Erroneous claim laced with twisting of what was presented in a way that supports your argument, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
Oh for fuck's sake. Temperature doesn't affect what it surrounds. Heat does. Get it straight.
You are contradicting yourself. Heat is hot temperature, you basically just said, "Temperature doesn't effect what it surrounds, temperature does" which makes no sense. It doesn't magically start effecting its surroundings when it gets hot.
But they mean very different things.
I know the difference between the two, simply naming those words to twist your argument is playing semantics.
the properties of the mantle therefore must have a significant effect on the speed of continental drift.
Which does not mean it has to be constant BTW.
Here, words and pictures. If there's something in this link you don't understand, look it up for yourself.
Just on page one of that there are 2 errors, it assumes that only the continents can cause magnetic anomolies(which is false on so many levels) and that it can know the age of rocks which amazingly enough, relies on the radioactive decay thing, which erroneously assumes decay is constant.
Also I noticed the part where it said plates get heavier as they cool. Which in turn means they get lighter as they heat up. Which in turn means they get less resistant to movement as they heat up, which means that since, as you yourself said, no drift happens without convergence(and hence heating up of plates as they sink below others into the mantle) that continental drift is not something which happens at a constant speed.
Especially when you consider the last line, "At some point, we will run out of heat, and the plates will stop moving." Funny how plates that will eventually stop moving go at a constant speed.
Correct, I brought up two terms that are important in understanding continental drift,
Funny that they didn't turn up in the thing you linked.
at absolute zero
Didn't say it ever reached absolute 0. I said that things generating their own heat are still effected by their surrounding temperatures. And that is true. Your body generates its own heat, but can still break down in the cold, and would still fry in extreme heat. Game consoles get warm after a while in use(ie. generate their own heat) but lower or increase the temperature too much and they can not function.
It's the same with everything that generates its own temperature.
Well, material properties such as elasto-plastic behaviour,
Which you still have given no details about.
and in the same vein, chemical bonding.
That's erroneous, I didn't contradict chemical bonding.
But they do have the same change of sinking
Right, because you say so.
Give me a REASON
I did and you're ignoring it. 1000 or more years is enough for there to be enough small changes throughout the ever vast universe to create a notable change in cosmic rays, that is a reason.
That's not as populum.
That's correct it's Ad Populum, not as populum. If 1 million people repeat a fault experiment because they were told it's the right way to test things when it isn't, that doesn't make them correct all of a sudden, they're still wrong.
Fine. I'm waiting.
It has been found that stuff such as supernovas in other galaxies and various other cosmic activity actually benefits us here on earth. Now this could be argued to death, but the more the universe is studied, the more it gives signs of being 1 of 2 things:
1.A universe aimed at protecting and regulating earth
2.A self regulating universe.
Whether it be option 1 or 2 the universe is pretty massive. It is possible but unlikely something that massive could coincidentally form this way. However, consider the mass amount of energy throughout the universe. Now with energy being a major underlying element of things, if we as complex bio-organisms can come to life, why can't energy? And if it did, being that energy is important in all properties of physics and chemistry, in theory, such a being may be able to control matter or even the laws of physics themselves.
I think he's still a dumbass.
Erroneous invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
He provided nothing other than is deranged rantings with nothing to back them up.
Erroneous personal attack.
At 12/25/07 04:21 AM, Coop83 wrote:
I'd hardly call myself fat - going to the gym 4 days a week tends to be counter-porductive to achieving maximum waist. My broadband connection is supplied by Virgin Media and my parent's don't have a basement. My computer is set up in the dining room.
Bullshit, you play world of warcraft, which disproves everything you said.
Yes exactly, blam happy crybabies need to grow up and get over it.
At 12/24/07 05:59 PM, BlueHippo wrote:
Also, this could be wrong, due to me not being around (cux ima n00b)... but i assume there was a yes/no system originally, and then at a later date, the whistle system was introduced. If someone could confirm/deny this that would be swell ;)
Well I've had an account in 2003, and before then had een lurking in 2002. I can tell you that the abusive button does indeed pre-date whistle points, however it's been here at least as long as I have.
Funny how anyone has yet to tell me how it is that if "spam" gets through the portal they lose out.
At 12/22/07 06:06 PM, Coop83 wrote: 051) 19,496 || + 0,960 || PenguinLink
052) 18,928 || + 0,875 || Coop83
053) 18,451 || + 0,763 || shunshuu
054) 18,062 || + 2,318 || JerkClock 8
Good gosh, I'm at 54 but still nearly 2000 points from the top 50.
At 12/24/07 03:50 PM, Coop83 wrote: Save number 19,000 occured while I was on WoW,
You're a fat aging virgin living in his parent's basement? Wow, I never would have guessed.
At least you can easily remove the spam on Wikigrounds.
Well yeah but the point was I'm an extreme inclusionist. You have to get pretty fucking bad before I'll consider it spam, and even then it's still usually better than what he's been posting.
At 12/23/07 01:43 AM, Elfer wrote:
don't lie
I'm not, you are the one saying temperature doesn't effect that which it surrounds, which is in fact erroneous.
You're just making shit up
Argumentum Ad Lapidem. I'm not making anything up, temperature effects everything it surrounds. That's a fact, no matter how much you try to deny it Ad Nauseum.
It doesn't invalidate your belief, it invalidates the idea that you have scientific evidence for it.
This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous. A broader idea is in fact much easier to prove, because you only have to prove the general idea.
What I'm telling you is "man owns boat, flood occurs" does not necessitate the Christian god.
Does anything? Just because it doesn't necessitate him doesn't mean it isn't more likely that he intervened.
Also, the person didn't need to build a boat in anticipation of a flood.
I doubt they would build a giant eliptical boat for fishing.
no evidence
Erroneous claim laced with Ad Nauseum, as expected from someone who thinks temperature does not effect that which it surrounds.
Be specific.
I gave specific reasons, several times in fact, but you are ignoring them and pretending like I didn't say them now, as expected from someone who thinks temperature does not effect that which it surrounds.
That's not semantics at all
Yes it is, you are playing semantics with "magnitude" and "proportion."
"Magnitude" and "proportion"
Yes I know, that doesn't you aren't trying to play semantics though.
I explained to you a few times
No you've made statements of your own which defied physics, such as trying to say temperature doesn't effect that which it surrounds
I refuse to give them
Exactly because you know I'll debunk them like I did your asinine idea of temperature not effecting what it surrounds.
There is no way that I'll be able to explain this
Well then give a link that does.
total lack of comprehension
The only lack of comprehension is you trying to say that temperature won't effect things it surrounds.
story book
A story book you wrote knowing it is false and nothing but a story is not the same as a large number of followers, witnesses, and documentation, you fail.
You brought up Pangaea, you brought up continental drift.
You brought up "elastic" and "plastic", playing semantics fails you again.
radiation thing,
Temperature will effect it whether it generates it's own heat or not, and you have failed to prove otherwise.
you've dismissed quite a lot of physics with the high-speed continental drift idea
Which physics, give me the details and I will explain this.
If buoyancy has no effect
Then you can't say heavy things will have an equal chance of sinking as lighter things, period. You'd have to have another explanations, which as of now you do not.
no reason
Unsubstantiated and erroneous presupposition, laced with Argumentum Ad Nauseum. As expected from someone who lacks a logical argument. Saying that over a thousand years there can easily be enough minor changes across the entire universe is a reason and a good one, you deliberately ignore it and invoke Ad Nauseum.
three complete misunderstandings
Unsubstantiated and erroneous Ad Hominem attack, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
many people getting the same results
Argumentum Ad Populum. They're blindly following what they've been told and not questioning it. So they don't question whether radiometric dating is even reliable when they perhaps should.
a few stupid fuck Christians
Argumentum Ad Lapidem, laced with invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
Oh yeah, I have a bunch of that type of evidence for pastafarianism.
No you don't, you're making it up. If you'd be willing to listen(er read), I can tell you what I'm talking about.
Poxpower wrote:
Nothing that happened on earth affected it, that's guaranteed
No it's not garenteed at all. Temperature doesn't have a magic number where it suddenly starts effecting stuff whereas it didn't before. Science doesn't work that way.
Line Elfer said, they date layers of snow and they can go back THOUSANDS of years, because snow doesn't melt in the antartic. This method has nothing to do with radiometric dating. It's like counting the rings on a tree.
I think what he said is they measure the layers of snow that are packed on during winter. Problem is in places like the arctic, doesn't it snow year round?
Ok let me explain it to you.
According to the link I gave though, they're not both equally accurate.
Alright I'm done here
Ah cut and run.
At 12/23/07 07:31 PM, Haggard wrote:
And because spammers found a way around it it should be abandoned?
YES, that's exactly the course of action that should be taken. It was supposed to weed them out, but didn't do a fuckin thing to them and only hurt the poor constructive user who only want to contribute, that an extremely good reason to throw it the fuck out.
Well, do you have an example of any user that had this happen to him?
I can't link to them if they're deleted dude. :|
At 12/23/07 03:22 PM, Bahamut wrote:
JerkClock - 18000 saves, General. 18K saves is better than all the bullshit coming from HypaShadow.
Most of the spam I have to delete from wikigrounds is better than his bullshit.
At 12/23/07 04:48 AM, Coop83 wrote:
What basis makes you say that it doesn't work?
The fact that spammers found a way around it.
Since that was implemented, I've noticed a marked improvement in the number of Saves per day I'm getting and a noticable decline in my Blams per day. My voting habits have not changed, yet this change has to be down to something. Perhaps it was the fact that we're seeing less crap and more quality entries through the portal, due to this new rule?
That's not because of its implementation its because users who used to mass 0 vote everything have been getting reset(in both B/P and XP) and those of us who are biased toward protecting Flash have accumulated more voting power with time.
Bah, 18000 saves isn't an accomplishment, now the fact that I made general, that's an accomplishment.
At 12/22/07 05:39 PM, NEVR wrote:
Good job man! I've had a pretty good week B/P wise:
Weekly: 500 B/P Points (140 blams and 360 saves) since last Saturday (12/15/07). Pace of 71.429 B/P per day.
Yeah I knowI've got more than that. As a matter of fact I've gotten 110 saves today and the day isn't even over yet. Funny because I've gotten less than 10 blams.
At 12/22/07 05:18 PM, Coop83 wrote:
What he's trying to say is that NG hasn't decided what should happen, but they've got 2-3 years to think of that. If we leave them to get on with the other aspects of running the site (Like making the last Secret :P) they will deal with this issue when it becomes more pressing.
Dunnoit sounded pretty clear cut to me, he said there's levels past 60, just that they haven't decided if they should get their own icons yet.
That was put in place to stop people from spamming submissions in order to use alternate accounts to get the Blam Points.
And it didn't work, it hurt the users who want to contribute to NG.
Personally, I think it should be 2 entries blammed in a fortnight for a 5-day ban. Something like that would be effective, but not over the top, as you can still make worthwhile progress in a flash in 14 days.
I think it should be never.
At 12/21/07 12:11 PM, Coop83 wrote:
Why would they make it rescale when Pimp hits level 60? It defies logic.
You're damn right it does, but so does making members get banned from submitting Flash if they get 2 entries blammed within 30 days, and so did it defy logic when they put the scaled system in the first time they did it. So I dunno.
Putting the experience requirements and therefore the Voting Power back on the sliding scale seems like it might still be a possibility, but given that the only people who need to know about this at the moment (for the next 2 years :P) are the Admins, we can merely speculate.
I know, I just strongly hope they do not.
