[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.frontpage.client

Any body still alive here?

Any body still alive here?

Real Troll

9/12/2015 10:09:00 PM

Just wondered if anybody is still alive here. Expression Web4 used to
be one of the best but it seems people have all died and moved on to
NetBeans IDE 8.0.2.

Dawlish

11/27/2011 2:50:00 PM

On Nov 27, 12:59 pm, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 12:19 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:44:56 -0800, Dawlish wrote:
> > > On Nov 26, 6:37 pm, Michael Dobony <sur...@stopassaultnow.net> wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:19:00 -0500, Viejo Vizcacha wrote:
> > >> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environmen...
>
> > >> > VV
>
> > >> Per one ignorant idiot here the correlation between CO2 and
> > >> temperatures is a measly r=.3, a WEAK correlation. Check it out in ANY
> > >> statistics or research methodology textbook. It is FAR from even being
> > >> a contender in cause and effect conclusions, unless one is vying for
> > >> guberment money from the Banjo Fatalities Department or a professor in
> > >> college and forced to deal with the topic of AGW.
>
> > > errrr no. Use the whole GISS, or Hadley temperature sequence. The
> > > correlation is 0.87 with Spearman's rank and 0.91, with PMCC. Try it.
> > > Then explain how the correlation is so strong. Not easy without
> > > considering CO2, is it?
>
> > And YOU know that correlation proves causation.
>
> > Especially when all your data sources are known to originate with frauds.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> 87% and 91% correlation Temperature rise and CO2; significant at the
> 99%+ level. Any explanation you have for that?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You appear to have dodged those correlation figures. Now go back and
explain then, instead of waving your arms about and ranting.

Dawlish

11/27/2011 2:53:00 PM

On Nov 27, 1:34 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 04:59:59 -0800, Dawlish wrote:
> > On Nov 27, 12:19 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:44:56 -0800, Dawlish wrote:
> >> > On Nov 26, 6:37 pm, Michael Dobony <sur...@stopassaultnow.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:19:00 -0500, Viejo Vizcacha wrote:
> >> >> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environmen...
>
> >> >> > VV
>
> >> >> Per one ignorant idiot here the correlation between CO2 and
> >> >> temperatures is a measly r=.3, a WEAK correlation. Check it out in
> >> >> ANY statistics or research methodology textbook. It is FAR from even
> >> >> being a contender in cause and effect conclusions, unless one is
> >> >> vying for guberment money from the Banjo Fatalities Department or a
> >> >> professor in college and forced to deal with the topic of AGW.
>
> >> > errrr no. Use the whole GISS, or Hadley temperature sequence. The
> >> > correlation is 0.87 with Spearman's rank and 0.91, with PMCC. Try it.
> >> > Then explain how the correlation is so strong. Not easy without
> >> > considering CO2, is it?
>
> >> And YOU know that correlation proves causation.
>
> >> Especially when all your data sources are known to originate with
> >> frauds.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > 87% and 91% correlation Temperature rise and CO2; significant at the
> > 99%+ level. Any explanation you have for that?
>
> Climate Gate I and Climate Gate II show that most of the "climate
> scientist" are frauds faking data and writing conclusions that aren't
> supported by the data. It would appear that the correlation is grossly
> overstated, given the negative correlation over the last decade.
>
> Secondly, correlation does NOT prove causation. There is an even stronger
> correlation of climate change with solar cycle. Since the "climate
> scientist" pretend that they don't know what is the physical mechanism
> for this correlation, they ignore it. Mind you, they don't have a
> physical mechanism for CO2 causing climate change either, so their
> judgment is not just irrational (as not knowing a mechanism doesn't mean
> there is not a cause and effect relationship) but subjective upon the
> conclusion (see paragraph one of my post for proof of fraud).
>
> Correlation between A and B can be due to:
> 1) A causes B.
> 2) B causes A.
> 3) C causes A and B.
> 4) Random chance.
>
> Solar cycle, CO2 and global climate change are all correlated. CO2 and
> climate change is more weakly correlated than Solar Cycle and CO2.
>
> There is NO WAY CO2 can cause changes in Solar Cycle. That leaves either
> solar cycle cause CO2, or chance. It isn't chance, ergo...
>
> Since Svenmark has shown the mechanism of why climate change is driven by
> solar cycle, and simple chemistry says a warmer climate means more CO2,
> and the physics says more CO2 will not cause more warming... Q.E.D.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So why didn't it cool in a 3.5 year solar minimum? And why is there no
such strong correlation between solar cycles and temperature increase?

What an questions for a denier to have to answer - when he's said the
only alternative to CO2 causing the present warming is the sun.

PS 87%/91%. Don't forget.

Dawlish

11/27/2011 2:54:00 PM

On Nov 27, 1:35 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 05:01:45 -0800, Dawlish wrote:
> > On Nov 27, 12:19 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:44:56 -0800, Dawlish wrote:
> >> > On Nov 26, 6:37 pm, Michael Dobony <sur...@stopassaultnow.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:19:00 -0500, Viejo Vizcacha wrote:
> >> >> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environmen...
>
> >> >> > VV
>
> >> >> Per one ignorant idiot here the correlation between CO2 and
> >> >> temperatures is a measly r=.3, a WEAK correlation. Check it out in
> >> >> ANY statistics or research methodology textbook. It is FAR from even
> >> >> being a contender in cause and effect conclusions, unless one is
> >> >> vying for guberment money from the Banjo Fatalities Department or a
> >> >> professor in college and forced to deal with the topic of AGW.
>
> >> > errrr no. Use the whole GISS, or Hadley temperature sequence. The
> >> > correlation is 0.87 with Spearman's rank and 0.91, with PMCC. Try it.
> >> > Then explain how the correlation is so strong. Not easy without
> >> > considering CO2, is it?
>
> >> And YOU know that correlation proves causation.
>
> >> Especially when all your data sources are known to originate with
> >> frauds.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Oh. I missed the "fraud" allegation. Do read the BEST survey - Judith
> > Curry was a part of the working team - it will disabuse you of that
> > notion.
>
> You're idiot. The e-mails speak for themselves.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You haven't read the BEST survey have you?

And 7 enquiries; all found what you didn't want to see - and you are
still squealing about the unfairness of it all.

11/27/2011 3:12:00 PM

Dawlish <pjgno1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 27, 12:59?pm, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 27, 12:19?pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:44:56 -0800, Dawlish wrote:
>> > > On Nov 26, 6:37?pm, Michael Dobony <sur...@stopassaultnow.net> wrote:
>> > >> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:19:00 -0500, Viejo Vizcacha wrote:
>> > >> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environmen...
>>
>> > >> > VV
>>
>> > >> Per one ignorant idiot here the correlation between CO2 and
>> > >> temperatures is a measly r=.3, a WEAK correlation. Check it out in ANY
>> > >> statistics or research methodology textbook. It is FAR from even being
>> > >> a contender in cause and effect conclusions, unless one is vying for
>> > >> guberment money from the Banjo Fatalities Department or a professor in
>> > >> college and forced to deal with the topic of AGW.
>>
>> > > errrr no. Use the whole GISS, or Hadley temperature sequence. The
>> > > correlation is 0.87 with Spearman's rank and 0.91, with PMCC. Try it.
>> > > Then explain how the correlation is so strong. Not easy without
>> > > considering CO2, is it?
>>
>> > And YOU know that correlation proves causation.
>>
>> > Especially when all your data sources are known to originate with frauds.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> 87% and 91% correlation Temperature rise and CO2; significant at the
>> 99%+ level. Any explanation you have for that?- Hide quoted text -
>
>You appear to have dodged those correlation figures. Now go back and
>explain then, instead of waving your arms about and ranting.

You ask far, far too much of a stupid rightard.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
rfischer@sonic.net | Goethe

Dawlish

11/27/2011 4:40:00 PM

On Nov 27, 3:27 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 06:53:44 -0800, Dawlish wrote:
> > On Nov 27, 1:35 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 05:01:45 -0800, Dawlish wrote:
> >> > On Nov 27, 12:19 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:44:56 -0800, Dawlish wrote:
> >> >> > On Nov 26, 6:37 pm, Michael Dobony <sur...@stopassaultnow.net>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:19:00 -0500, Viejo Vizcacha wrote:
> >> >> >> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environmen...
>
> >> >> >> > VV
>
> >> >> >> Per one ignorant idiot here the correlation between CO2 and
> >> >> >> temperatures is a measly r=.3, a WEAK correlation. Check it out
> >> >> >> in ANY statistics or research methodology textbook. It is FAR
> >> >> >> from even being a contender in cause and effect conclusions,
> >> >> >> unless one is vying for guberment money from the Banjo Fatalities
> >> >> >> Department or a professor in college and forced to deal with the
> >> >> >> topic of AGW.
>
> >> >> > errrr no. Use the whole GISS, or Hadley temperature sequence. The
> >> >> > correlation is 0.87 with Spearman's rank and 0.91, with PMCC. Try
> >> >> > it. Then explain how the correlation is so strong. Not easy
> >> >> > without considering CO2, is it?
>
> >> >> And YOU know that correlation proves causation.
>
> >> >> Especially when all your data sources are known to originate with
> >> >> frauds.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > Oh. I missed the "fraud" allegation. Do read the BEST survey - Judith
> >> > Curry was a part of the working team - it will disabuse you of that
> >> > notion.
>
> >> You're idiot. The e-mails speak for themselves.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > You haven't read the BEST survey have you?
>
> Never heard of it, it doesn't even show up in Google, and science isn't
> done by "survey", and considering you tend to lie and gibber, I don't
> think there is much too it. Especially since you won't even say what's in
> it - either you don't know or you realize it's stupid.
>
> > And 7 enquiries; all found what you didn't want to see - and you are
> > still squealing about the unfairness of it all.
>
> I didn't say it was unfair, nor did I "squeal". Those are untrue.
>
> What I did point out is that you make a lot of posts with a very low
> truth content, and you gibber fallacies a lot, and your fallacies are
> often based on lies.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Have you read nothing that has posted on here since it's publication??
Try "Berkeley Earth" into google and then read it. It really will
disabuse you of your notions of "fraud" in the temperature record. You
probably still won't think there's much to it, as you aren't very
bright and don't know what's happening, but the rest of climate
science knows and it has been accepted by sceptics (not climate
deniers like you, of course, but who cares about them?).

Jeff Zeitlin

9/13/2015 2:37:00 AM

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 23:09:26 +0100, Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com>
wrote:

>Just wondered if anybody is still alive here. Expression Web4 used to
>be one of the best but it seems people have all died and moved on to
>NetBeans IDE 8.0.2.

I actually preferred FrontPage 2003 (and still use it) to Expression
Web; there was functionality that was never migrated to ExWeb.

Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, has basically abandoned a separate
web-building product in favor of adding basic HTML, CSS, PHP, ASP.NET,
and JScript/CScript/VBScript/ECMAScript functionality into Visual
Studio.

To the extent that there's any support for web-building products from
Microsoft, you'll find it on their community webforums; NNTP has been
long abandoned by them.

9/13/2015 8:22:00 AM

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 22:36:59 -0400, Jeff Zeitlin
<msforums@freelancetraveller.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 23:09:26 +0100, Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Just wondered if anybody is still alive here. Expression Web4 used to
>>be one of the best but it seems people have all died and moved on to
>>NetBeans IDE 8.0.2.
>
>I actually preferred FrontPage 2003 (and still use it) to Expression
>Web; there was functionality that was never migrated to ExWeb.
>

I use FrontPage 2003 to produce all my web sites. I don't like
Expression Web and I have never tried NetBeans.

Steve

--
Neural Network Software for Windows http://www...

EasyNN-plus More than just a neural network http://www....


Real Troll

9/13/2015 8:02:00 PM

On 13/09/15 09:22, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 22:36:59 -0400, Jeff Zeitlin
> <msforums@freelancetraveller.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 23:09:26 +0100, Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Just wondered if anybody is still alive here. Expression Web4 used to
>>> be one of the best but it seems people have all died and moved on to
>>> NetBeans IDE 8.0.2.
>>
>> I actually preferred FrontPage 2003 (and still use it) to Expression
>> Web; there was functionality that was never migrated to ExWeb.
>>
>
> I use FrontPage 2003 to produce all my web sites. I don't like
> Expression Web and I have never tried NetBeans.
>
> Steve
>

Frontpage doesn't create Standards Compliant Websites anymore. It was
good in those days but Standards have changed and these days people use
CSS, and HTML in such a way that styles are kept separate from the
content. Of course you can still do this in FP but you need to adjust
the code manually.

Expression Web 4 (free version) is still available free of charge from
Microsoft website. NetBeans is for creating Applications and it is an
Oracle free product and so Java is required. This is Java NOT
JavaScript I am talking about.


don8051

4/16/2016 8:58:00 PM

On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 3:09:28 PM UTC-7, Real Troll wrote:
> Just wondered if anybody is still alive here. Expression Web4 used to
> be one of the best but it seems people have all died and moved on to
> NetBeans IDE 8.0.2.

I just got a copy of FP 2003 to edit and update our wep page for our RV park. The person who created and designed the web page used FP 2003 but he passed away 2 years ago and nobody knows how to use it and keep it updated.
Will i volunteered to take over the wep page wish me luck.

is there any help of resource?

Real Troll

4/16/2016 10:02:00 PM

On 16/04/2016 21:58, don8051 wrote:
> On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 3:09:28 PM UTC-7, Real Troll wrote:
>> Just wondered if anybody is still alive here. Expression Web4 used to
>> be one of the best but it seems people have all died and moved on to
>> NetBeans IDE 8.0.2.
> I just got a copy of FP 2003 to edit and update our wep page for our RV park.

> The person who created and designed the web page used FP 2003 but he passed away 2 years ago and nobody knows how to use it and keep it updated.
> Will i volunteered to take over the wep page wish me luck.
>
> is there any help of resource?

You might get limited support at this link:

<https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/expression/en-US/home?for...



Servizio di avviso nuovi messaggi
Ricevi direttamente nella tua mail i nuovi messaggi per
Any body still alive here?

Inserendo la tua e-mail nella casella sotto, riceverai un avviso tramite posta elettronica ogni volta che il motore di ricerca troverà un nuovo messaggio per te

Il servizio è completamente GRATUITO!