<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for dopeyman</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/dopeyman/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/dopeyman/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:42:03 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: An Inquiring Nation Wants to Know: 'Who Is Running for President?'</title><link>http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/an-inquiring-nation-wants-to-know-who-is-running-for-president/264606/#comment-702044707</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I was suspicious of this result, so I re-ran it as a comparison between "who is running for president," "obama," and "romney." As expected, the "who is running" search becomes a flat line at zero. Why? Google Trends reports relative search frequencies. Obviously if a person didn't know who was running in this election they'd be searching today and not last week -- that's why it spikes at "100" (normalized) when you graph it alone. But as it turns out, such people are rare in the population. Here's the link: &lt;a href="http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%22who%20is%20running%20for%20president%22%2C%20obama%2C%20romney&amp;amp;cmpt=q" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%22who%20is%20running%20for%20president%22%2C%20obama%2C%20romney&amp;amp;cmpt=q"&gt;http://www.google.com/trend...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">dopeyman</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:42:03 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: MetaEzra -- New campus pub to be good for both Greeks and non-Greeks</title><link>http://www.metaezra.com/archive/2011/10/new_campus_pub_to_be_good_for.shtml#comment-343282322</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Hopefully some Flower Power too. Another name suggestion: Boardman's&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">dopeyman</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:34:55 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: City schools embrace film in new arts curriculum</title><link>http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2009/12/03/city-schools-embrace-film-new-arts-curriculum#comment-24685869</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Crucial question: Are we talking the 1950s "Body Snatchers" or the 1970s one starring Donald Sutherland and Leonard Nimoy? (I'm assuming not the 2000s version....)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">dopeyman</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:04:55 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: WHIMMED.</title><link>http://whimmed.tumblr.com/post/43430882#comment-1023896</link><description>&lt;p&gt;for real?!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">dopeyman</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:54:49 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: WHIMMED.</title><link>http://whimmed.tumblr.com/post/41408987#comment-859512</link><description>&lt;p&gt;you're starting to look more and more like your cat.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">dopeyman</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:35:43 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: WHIMMED.</title><link>http://whimmed.tumblr.com/post/38757040#comment-696433</link><description>&lt;p&gt;can you please get fucked already? all this talk about shlongs and oysters, yet no hardcore emo action.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">dopeyman</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:16:52 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>