Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:2014 (Score 1) 65

Twitter shows you comments in most-recent-first mode, which is sometimes confusing when news breaks. A few weeks back my twitter feed was filling up with things like
"[dog emoji] [knife emoji] [knide] [knife] !!!"
and it took a while to get down to the comments about "there's a new vulnerability called 'Poodle' out today."

Comment: Medical / nursing school capacities (Score 1) 610

by billstewart (#48283129) Attached to: Statisticians Study Who Was Helped Most By Obamacare

Maybe Obama did something about this quietly, but I'd think one of the first things he should have done was worked to increase medical school capacities for training doctors and nurses, along with making it easier for immigrant doctors and nurses to get licensed here. Sure, it's a long-term activity that wouldn't significantly improve health care costs or availability during his two terms, and maybe the next batch of Republicans would take credit for it, but it's still critically important.

A lot of us baby boomers are going to be retiring, or even if we can't afford to retire we'll still be getting old and decrepit. And a lot of doctors are boomers, partly because everybody recognized that as a good job when we were growing up (both financial and social good), and it was before the tech booms turned everybody into software entrepreneurs, and also we had fewer kids than our parents' generation (the Millennials are catching up demographically, but with the economy and student loan problems, fewer of them can afford med school, and med school capacities are still limited.)

Comment: It turns out to work really well (Score 1) 610

by billstewart (#48283045) Attached to: Statisticians Study Who Was Helped Most By Obamacare

I have several friends who were keeping their old jobs for the insurance, and Obamacare has let them leave their jobs to do other things. One's a writer who was able to go full-time writing, and the usual software/computer consultants who are now on their own or starting startups. The lawyer who started a small partnership with a couple of friends could have done that anyway, but since she's got kids, the difference in insurance costs was significant.

Those aren't the heavily-subsidized plans - they're just the "you can buy an individual plan at similar rates to what a large company gets" plans, plus the "not denying your coverage for pre-existing conditions" effects.

Comment: Not that I'm a Glass user (Score 1) 307

by argStyopa (#48281299) Attached to: MPAA Bans Google Glass In Theaters

...but FUCK YOU MPAA.
$10 ticket, $10 popcorn, $10 soda to sit in shitty seats, have crappy sound, sticky floor to watch what's likely an execrable film for what, 90 minutes?

No thanks.

I'll either watch it at home, or if I *really* want that AUTHENTIC experience, I'll go to http://take-up.org/ where this group rents out otherwise-unused tiny (50 seat?) mid-20thC theaters iin Mpls neighborhoods to show 35mm projector classics on the Big Screen like Casablanca, Buckaroo Banzai, Yojimbo, or Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. $25 for 5 tickets, plus a concession stand that sells normal candy at decent prices AND Coca Cola with sugar.
It's a great experience, and if it wasn't 40 miles from my house, I'd go multiple times/month.

So truly, fuck the MPAA and their whole crew.

Comment: Re:so how did they form? (Score 2) 195

by mrchaotica (#48277987) Attached to: Most Planets In the Universe Are Homeless

Planets are a gravity source to pull all the dust and shit together. The dust and shit is a gravity source too, for that matter.

If you have enough dust to make a big enough clump, you get a star (and maybe orbiting planets, as sub-clumps). If you don't have enough, you get a planet by itself. If you have a whole fuckton-plex more, you get a galaxy. The same process happens at all scales.

Comment: Re:Abrupt, but like 100 years abrupt? (Score 2) 124

by jandersen (#48276771) Attached to: New Study Shows Three Abrupt Pulses of CO2 During Last Deglaciation

What upsets me is how demonizing the argument about Global Warming / Climate Change is

Well, I suspect that somebody has an interest in derailing the discussion and avoiding a proper, level-headed, scientific discourse. The blame falls on both sides, but I don't think those involved in climate research are at fault; they do, after all, come out at regular intervals with corrections and amendments to their previous work, something we don't see much of from the other side.

The earth will change its temperature. That will happen with or without us, just look at the historical record. Earths temperature isn't stable.

This is well known and has been for more than a century. What is new is that we are contributing significantly to the warming, and that we may be in danger of initiating a very abrupt climate change; this will most likely result in major extinctions as well as causing big problems for ourselves - with 6 billion (or is it 7 now adays?) people on the planet to feed and shelter, that is not something we need.

And for all those who argue we are burning too much fossil fuels, those carbon atoms weren't created into existence in the ground as they were today,

True. They were extracted from our atmosphere at a time when the sun was significantly cooler than now. Returning it all to the atmosphere now would definitely not be a good idea.

All of science works better when there are those who are skeptical. It refines your proof if you are right, or betters your understanding if you are wrong.

Very true - but the word 'skeptical' has been hijacked by people who are not honestly skeptical. Skeptical means that you have considered the fact and reached a different conclusion, and it implies that you are willing to change your conclusion if you gain better insight. In that sense ALL scientists are skeptical.

Comment: Re:Good idea beyond the "renewable" fad (Score 1) 244

by jandersen (#48276689) Attached to: Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years

Good idea beyond the "renewable" fad

Renewable will have to become a lot more than a fad, and sooner rather than later, I think. Not because I think the Apocalypse is nigh or anything like that, but because it takes time for this new technology to mature, and the benefits, once it is mature, are going to be immense. It will of course be painful to some - all change is - but isn't it better to go through those changes voluntarily and being able to control the pace, than being forced because we are choking in our own filth?

Comment: Re:left/right apocalypse (Score 1) 472

by jandersen (#48276621) Attached to: Imagining the Future History of Climate Change

Don't get me wrong - although we don't quite reach the same conclusions, I feel you discuss and argue very intelligently and I respect your style. If only everybody else would follow your example.

You are right, of course, that because of the longer time horizon in the climate models, it takes longer to refine, but I feel we can still have some confidence, since we can test against historical data. And while I feel confident that you know the difference between a model that is somewhat imprecise and one that is completely wrong, it appears that this fact escapes the attention of most - what I hear too much is that 'not 100% precise' == 'completely wrong'. Which is nonsense, of course. We already know enough to realize that we need to do somethng, even if we don't have all the details; or at least, that is how I understand it.

White dwarf seeks red giant for binary relationship.

Working...