Welsh is a complete phonetic language - the digraphs LL, Dd, Ch, etc follow predicable pronunciation as opposed to english with often requires a-priory knowledge about pronunciation.

'Ll' is a single letter in welsh so it would be wrong to read it as related to the english 'L' which seems to be why english speaks sound so retarded trying to say 'Llanelli' or 'machynlleth'

Disclaimer : welsh is my native language and I have met Ioan Gryffyth at various cultural events.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - findthumb requested by eric3579.


The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 3:56 - length declared by eric3579.

*cấm chỉ

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by blackfox42.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by blackfox42.

As someone living in the land 'o piracy, I can recommend these ... uh ... "competitors":
www.yts.re
www.eztv.ch

But to be fair, well over half of the first set of "sins" (before adding in sins for movies not available on Netflix) were really nitpicky or even just plain arbitrary. Like the very first one:

"Netflix was established in 1997 as a subscription based DVD-by-mail service, who, within it's lifetime, helped transform and revolutionize the consumption of online video streaming." = SIN ???

http://www.levidia.ch/movie.php?watch=the-interview

if you want to watch the screener leaked version

I prefer the Wootly link, which should be the first one in the list.

If you want to deleve in to it yourself, hidden variables are a good place to start picking holes in QM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory

Also if you're interested I keep my mother's website online, which still gets interest from scientists and students researching it http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - findthumb requested by eric3579.

You can call it 'personal belief', I call it educated guess work, because I've paid attention and most models were on the low side of reality because they don't include all factors

Try as I might, I just can't ignore this. Here's what the actual scientists at the IPCC themselves have to say in their Fifth Assessment Report on assessing climate models:

an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble
For reference the CMIP5 is the model data, and the HadCRUT is the instrumental real world observation. 111 out of 115 models significantly overestimate the last decade. AKA, the science says most models were on the high side.

Now, that is just the last 10 years, which is maybe evidence you can declare about expectations going forward. But lets be cautious before jumping to conclusions as the IPCC continues on later with this:

Over the 62-year period 1951–2012, observed and CMIP5 ensemble-mean trends agree to within 0.02ºC per decade (Box 9.2 Figure 1c; CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend 0.13°C per decade). There is hence very high confidence that the CMIP5 models show long-term GMST trends consistent with observations, despite the disagreement over the most recent 15-year period.

So the full scientific assessment of models is that they uniformly overestimated the last 15 years. However, over the longer term, they have very high confidence models trend accurately to observation.

As I said, if your personal belief is that models have consistently underestimated actual warming that's up to you. Just don't go spreading doubt about the actual science while sneering at others for doing exactly the same thing solely because they deny the science to follow a different world view than your own.

I'm guess from you're tone your American, or at least only figure Americans are going to be reading? You note that 'we' can't get to the moon, while Chinese rovers navigate it's surface. You note with alarm what coastal Florida will face from sea level rise, and not an entire nation like Kiribati. When we look at a global problem we can't ignore technology just because it's Chinese, or focus so hard on Florida's coast we ignore an entire nation in peril.

Sea levels aren't going to be fine in 2099 and then rise a foot on the eve of 2100. They will continue to rise about 3mm annually, as they have already for the last 100 years.(on a more granular level slightly less than 3mm nearer 1900 and slightly more nearer 2100 but the point stands). Coastal land owners aren't merely going to see this coming. They've watched it happening for nearly 100 years already and managed to cope thus far. Cope is of course a bad word for building housing near the coast and at less than a foot above sea level. It's like how occupants at the base of active volcanoes 'cope' with the occasional eruption. All that is to say, the problem for homes built in such locations has always been a matter of when not if disaster will strike. The entire island nation of Kiribati is barely above sea level. It is one tsunami away from annihilation. Climate change though is, let me be brutally honest, a small part of the problem. A tsunami in 1914 would've annihilated Kiribati, as a tsunami today in 2014 would, as a tsunami in 2114 would. And we are talking annihilate in a way the 2004 tsunami never touched. I mean an island that's all uninhabited, cleared to the ground and brand new, albeit a bit smaller for the wear. That scenario is going to happen sooner or later, even if the planet were cooling for the next 100 years so let's be cautious about preaching it's salvation through prevention of climate change.

Your points on food production are, sorry, wrong. You are correct enough that local food growth is a big part of the problem. You are dead wrong that most, or even any appreciable amount is to blame on climate change now or in the future. All the African nations starving for want of local food production lack it for the same reason, violence and instability. From this point forward referenced as 'men with guns'. The people in Africa have, or at least had, the means to grow their own food. Despite your insistence that men with guns couldn't stop them from eating then, they still did and continue to. A farmer has to control his land for a whole year to plant, raise and harvest his crop or his livestock. Trouble is men with guns come by at harvest time and take everything. In places like the DRC or Somalia they rape the farmer's wife and daughters too. This has been going on for decades and decades, and it obviously doesn't take many years for the farmer to decide it's time to move their family, if they are lucky enough to still be alive. That is the population make up of all the refugee camps of starving people wanting for food. It's not a climate change problem, it's a people are horrible to each other problem. A different climate, better or worse growing conditions, is a tiny and hardly worth noting dent in the real problem.
CO@ emission restrictions do not equate to global economic downturn, they could just as easily mean global economic upturn as new tech is adopted and implemented.
I stated meaningful CO2 emission changes. That means changes that will sway us to less than 1 foot of sea level change by 2100 and corresponding temperatures. Those are massive and rapid reductions, and I'm sorry but that can not be an economic boon too. I'm completely confident that electric cars and alternative or fusion power will have almost entirely supplanted fossil fuel usage before 2100, and because they are good business. Pushing today though for massive emission reductions can only be accomplish be reducing global consumption. People don't like that, and they jump all over any excuse to go to war if it means lifting those reductions. That's just the terrible nature of our species.

As for glaciers, I did read the article. You'll notice it observed that increasing the spatial resolution of models changed the picture entirely? The IPCC noted this and updated their findings accordingly as well(page 242). The best guess by 2100 is better than 50% of the glaciers through the entire range remaining. The uncertainty range even includes a potential, though less likely GAIN of mass:
. Results for the Himalaya range between 2% gain and 29% loss to 2035; to 2100, the range of losses is 15 to 78% under RCP4.5. The modelmean loss to 2100 is 45% under RCP4.5 and 68% under RCP8.5 (medium confidence). It is virtually certain that these projections are more reliable than in earlier erroneous assessment (Cruz et al., 2007) of complete disappearance by 2035.

If you still want to insist Nepal will be without glaciers in 2100 please provide a source of your own or stop insisting on contradicting the science to make things scarier.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

My recommendation, from cheaper to more expensive:

Thrustmaster T-Flight HOTAS, Saitek X-52 or Pro, CH Fighterstick + Throttle, Warthog.

Only the Thrustmaster (but not the Warthog) and Saitek stuff will have a twist rudder axis, which is a convenience for space sims. I hear good things about the HOTAS-X, and in the States it's only about $50 or so, so it's cheapest by far but wants a bit for buttons and HAT switches.

Personally, I'd go cheaper on the control setup if it meant you could also afford a head tracking setup like a TrackIR (ideally) or an ED Tracker.


I have a bunch of this stuff because I'm a flight sim nerd, but for Elite Dangerous I use the throttle from a Saitek X-65 and a Logitech Extreme 3D stick.

" @ Ant and everybody else;

Hello, Grammar Warrior! It doesn't matter! I'm eleven, [yeah, yeah.] At least they aren't typing like this;
lol u so stupid if ur a grammar nazi sooo stupid I mean like omg smh!
Text slang sucks, I know.
But these are simple typos. Newtboy made a mistake by typing it's instead of its? Hey, let's start a war!
Shut up, and thank you...

... TEA PARTY ANYONE? " .


Now that you are Eleven you can learn to read the terms of service/usage agreement.

Section Ch.0.g.g.I of the act

Personal Use

The Service is made available to you for your personal use only. Due to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (which is available at http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/coppa1.htm), you must be at least thirteen (13) years of age to use this Service. You must provide current, accurate identification, contact, and other information that may be required as part of the registration process and/or continued use of the Service. You are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your Service password and account, and are responsible for all activities that occur thereunder. VideoSift reserves the right to refuse service to anyone at any time without notice for any reason.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.