According to the data it's reporting from NOAA, scenario B has occurred (one degree of warming). El Niño seems to have little to do with it as well, as the warming is concentrated away from it (North America and Europe).
I'm wondering where you are getting your information from. Particularly, when I search my own zip on ISP search sites, I get anywhere from 4-6 providers even though I only have 2 options. There's possibly a discrepancy between what's reported and what customers actually have.
"better" doesn't seem a good description for the gaming community's connection to studios. In many cases, gamers themselves might even strong-arm media outlets for studios with or without permission, hence the inflated scores. The recent fake review on Mario Odyssey comes to mind.
I've speculated that it might be related to ransomware picking up in recent years. In particular, wannacry and notpetya coincided with some of bitcoin's surges in price.
Before this, purchases with Bitcoin not for investment purposes were niche in the illegal or attempts at regular purchases that only involved a few users. After these large-scale attacks, Bitcoin has basically been forcibly introduced to the populace at large to (possibly) retrieve their data.
I could argue that this has finally attached Bitcoin's value into something more than trust: data. Hence, bitcoin's value is mirroring the value of another increasingly valuable commodity.
Apparently this was an argument brought up back in 2014 as well[1]. While it focuses more on TV and porn instead of phones and 4chan, in the end the FCC only managed to actually use this power via the nature of the medium (since TV uses spectrum). The only internet that could fall under this is mobile internet, which already doesn't fall under net neutrality (since a lot of carriers have been introducing zero-rating for plans for awhile now without resistance).
Seems that they attempted to, but they can't definitively disprove it.
Basically, they couldn't find evidence, but they can't disprove the hypothesis and they can only tell from the year 2012. Thus, they can't see if stores let their advertising expire before that year or see the reviews stores had before advertising if they started before that.
He predicted an earthquake in the Philippines and other areas that didn't happen 2 months ago and one in New Zealand 1 month ago. He also made a prediction for a 9.0 earthquake in Nepal after the eclipse and slowly dropped the number over the days to fish out a "prediction". He was also hedging his bets on this earthquake and was giving preference to Japan, not Mexico.
The guy's a charlatan that was basically throwing predictions at the wall till they stuck and is now hoping no one notices his failures.
I disagree. I've read some of his forecasts and he's getting better over time. He put Mexico within the sphere of possibilities.
I think there's something to his solar flare theory. It may not be the only the only piece, but it seems to be a piece. He'll have an uphill battle to fight but it's fun to read his stuff.
Interestingly, the 1 star reviewers are claiming the book was leaked and that they did in fact read it.
It does seem like they still didn't read it though despite having access to it. They're universally a sentence long and are either vague or GG talking points that don't really have to do with the book.
He still gets a lot of flak from that "invented the internet" comment. Probably one of the few comments in politics that makes critics of it even more angry if they don't take it literally.
Isn't it interesting that such a minor (and misconstrued) comment could have such a lasting effect on the man's career while the guy now in power spews far more outrageous falsehoods daily and it just doesn't seem to matter.
> He still gets a lot of flak from that "invented the internet" comment.
He never claimed to have invented the internet.
He did claim to have taken the initiative in creating it in the context of a broader claim about taking the initiative to advance various important economic, environmental, and educational advances through policy and legislation.
Well yeh, that's what I was getting at hence the "don't take it literally" part.
I've seen people still don't like what he said even after knowing it was not literal. Some people just don't want to see the internet as something not only invented by the government, but was not the total wild west they romanticized it as.
You know, I've not paid attention too much when this argument is made since I usually keep my pony on snopes, not politifact, but I'm glad curiousity got me this time. This is a bit misleading in itself.
Bernie's saying its 50%~, Trump is saying its 60%~. Sure its a 8 percent difference at most, but that difference reveals how they got their number. The gist of both articles is that Bernie is inflating his number with people that have part-time work but want full-time while Trump is inflating with high school and college students.
The rulings on both articles basically point to this: Sander's number has more issue with semantics than actually including people that are not actively seeking a job like Trump's number. Trump doesn't get POF because of your objection: while derived wrong it's "decently" close. Quotes because an 8 point difference is very large when talking unemployment numbers.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-bc-us-sci--30-years-of-war...
According to the data it's reporting from NOAA, scenario B has occurred (one degree of warming). El Niño seems to have little to do with it as well, as the warming is concentrated away from it (North America and Europe).