Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Yet another reason to insist on software freedo (Score 1) 277

by Cl1mh4224rd (#47472381) Attached to: Sony Forgets To Pay For Domain, Hilarity Ensues

Early Tuesday, gamers woke up to find out that they couldn't log in to any Sony Online Entertainment games--no Everquest, no Planetside 2, none of them.

Could the users have used another server to connect with each other?

Not much of a gamer, I take it? Most, if not all, of the games affected are not peer-to-peer style multiplayer games; they're MMOs. There's no matchmaking servers involved here.

Comment: Re:Faith in God (Score 4, Interesting) 299

by Cl1mh4224rd (#47376057) Attached to: Site of 1976 "Atomic Man" Accident To Be Cleaned

I know this will get modded down pretty quickly on Slashdot. This site is notoriously intolerant of the faithful, but that doesn't make it right. Have fun modding me down troll, just keep in mind you're doing it for the same reasons sectarian bigotry happens all over the world. No one thinks they're a bigot while they're being a bigot. And if you're teaching your kids this mentality at home? Shame on you.

Am I allowed to point how very wrong this particular belief of yours appears to be in reality, or is that off limits?

Comment: Re:One non-disturbing theory (Score 5, Insightful) 304

by Cl1mh4224rd (#47355135) Attached to: Ninety-Nine Percent of the Ocean's Plastic Is Missing

no no no, couldnt be, we have to go with the scary version, we cant go using reasonable options, how will anyone get funding for research???

I find this to be quite bizarre; this notion that all "scary" alternatives are somehow unreasonable and only non-scary alternatives qualify as reasonable.

Comment: Re:War of government against people? (Score 1) 875

by Cl1mh4224rd (#47233687) Attached to: America 'Has Become a War Zone'

Why would you ask for a citation for his statement and not include one for yours?

Because my claim wasn't made in support of a particular argument. Also, are you suggesting that one needs to provide evidence that there might be something wrong with a prior claim before the person who made that prior claim is required to support it? Pff...

Comment: Re:China anyone? (Score 2) 174

by Cl1mh4224rd (#47199781) Attached to: Greenland Is Getting Darker

Look, China puts out over 33% of the emissions today AND RISING. And America is at 15% and dropping.

This is deceiving. It implies that all countries should have equal emissions, regardless of the size of their population. While it's true that China's emissions are increasing (which is bad) and the United States' emissions are decreasing (which is good), as of 2010 the United States still puts out 3x the amount of CO2 as China on a per-capita basis (source).

Comment: Re:Global warming (Score 1) 160

by Cl1mh4224rd (#47020207) Attached to: The Shrinking Giant Red Spot of Jupiter

Warming on other planets (if such is indeed the case) does not answer the question of whether there is AGW on Earth. It would just invalidate the argument that we have ruled out N(atural)GW.

Yes, it would; but it's not the case. At least not to the extend that denialists claim, or in any way that even hints at a common cause: What climate change is happening to other planets in the solar system

Comment: Re:So? (Score 2) 330

No real way to put this consensus to the test, is there?

Actually, that's the purpose of all that sciency stuff they do. I suppose we could just sit around and see what happens, though. But that's kind of like waiting to see if that car driving toward you on the wrong side of the road actually hits you before you decide to make an attempt to avoid it.

Comment: Re:Consensus achieved (Score 2) 330

Were skeptic scientists kept out of the IPCC.

We [the Independent Climate Change Email Review] conclude that there is evidence that the text was a team responsibility. It is clear that Jones (though not alone) had a strongly negative view of the paper but we do not find that he was biased, that there was any improper exclusion of material or that the comments on the MM2004 paper in the final draft were “invented” given the (continuing) nature of the scientific debate on the issue.

So Jones' comment, in regard to MM2004, would be troubling on its own. However, not only did he apparently lack the power to exclude the paper, he was apparently unbiased in the final comments.

The other paper referenced in Jones' quote is also discussed in the link I provided.

You see but you do not observe. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes"