Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:These guys are deniers (Score 1) 560

by InsertCleverUsername (#46299103) Attached to: How Well Do Our Climate Models Match Our Observations?

If they have links to the petroleum industry perhaps you'd like to share exactly how much they have made and exactly where this money is supposed to have come from.

Admittedly, it has gotten harder. The money used to follow a much more transparent path. See http://www.scientificamerican....

Comment: Re:Minor Fluctuation? (Score 4, Informative) 560

by InsertCleverUsername (#46295513) Attached to: How Well Do Our Climate Models Match Our Observations?

As the old song goes, little things mean a lot. You couldn't see the difference between a little botulin toxin and a lethal dose without a microscope. And I'm sure you wouldn't notice a 0.7 C difference between one room in your house and another, but multiply that amount of energy to a global scale and it starts to add up. Consider what climatologist James Hansen said about the current rate of increase in global warming: “(it's) equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day, 365 days per year. That’s how much extra energy Earth is gaining each day.”

Comment: Re:Exactly 0% argue static climate (Score 1) 846

by InsertCleverUsername (#46106725) Attached to: Global-Warming Skepticism Hits 6-Year High

Climate change became the more popular phrase simply because so many people refused to accept that just because he planet as a whole is warming doesn't mean that every area also gets warmer.

In other words, the word with more play propaganda-wise got used. I go with the more accurate term.

Actually, it was Frank Luntz, a right-wing political consultant that's credited for the name change. He thought "climate change" sounded less scary and easier to ignore. Here's a quick read on Wikipedia with some of the back story on how climate science became a political football:

Comment: Re:Republicans should "go for it" (Score 1) 311

Naturally, the platform has to be mainstream enough to appeal to everyone possible. The reality is that the party has been co-opted by extremists hostile to some important pieces of science that impact policy. Here's your cites:

Exhibit A
Exhibit B (Yeah, it's Obama's list, but most would certainly embrace the denier label)
Exhibit C []

There are enough dangerous nuts in the great GOP Venn diagram (and a considerable overlap with elected officials) that the GP is basically correct.

Comment: Re:Reasons to be hesitant around Kurzweil (Score 1) 267

by InsertCleverUsername (#41620161) Attached to: Kurzweil: The Cloud Will Expand Human Brain Capacity

"His speech and music synthesis stuff is solid"
was solid. Now it's decades old and he has done nothing. I have come to understand he wasn't some sort of genius, but just in the right place at the right time.

Really? He just got lucky, like those morons Da Vinci and Einstein? Sounds like a vineyard of sour grapes to me.

Comment: Presented for Your Consideration... (Score 1) 532

So... Grampa finally croaks at the age of 101. Hasn't been able to see, hear, taste, smell, or think straight for the last 15 years. When his magic soul is divinely uploaded to a new, angelic, ether-based model, is his consciousness just like it was when he died? Senile, socially disengaged, and slow to understand anything going on around him? Or, as many believe, would it be transformed to its former glory, when gramps was a young adult.

O.K... Now think about how differently you looked at the world; the skills, interests, and personality you had when you were much younger. Grandfather is a categorically different person from the vital young man he once was (he'd probably yell at him to get off his lawn if they met). So, in what sense would that angelic being be the same guy that died and not more so a recreation of somebody that existed 75 years ago?

I just can't see how the Judeo-Christian concept of an afterlife is anything but a big pile of paradox.

Comment: Re:Waste of money (Score 1) 532

What a waste of money!

Why not give the money to Aubrey de Grey and/or the SENS Foundation

Amen. If de Grey, Kurzweil, and friends are right, by the end of the century religion and the clamoring for its promised afterlife will naturally extinguish. Who in their right mind would sign up for suppressing their sexual urges, spending their money building churches, and ruining several hours every Sunday, when there's no pay off?

Comment: Re:Waste of money (Score 2) 532

Belief in an afterlife being just some made up story is simply your opinion.

Finally someone who "gets" it. They keep telling me that Spiderman is a fictional character, but I have read his texts and heard his message of justice and good deeds. I know that there are different versions of his tale, but that certainly doesn't mean that my understanding of his powers isn't de facto truth.

Comment: Re:The Answer for $5M (Score 1) 532

Will his consciousness cease to exist or will his ability to show us it exist cease?

That's sort of a serious part of the question. Does someone's consciousness really cease to exist or just our ability to perceive it.

I have a magical unicorn that shits gold bars. The downside is that you won't be able to perceive it until you buy it from me for $10,000 (no personal checks, please). But, considering the value of gold, obviously you can simply assume the unicorn exists, right?

Comment: Re:Don't do personal shit at work (Score 2) 782

by InsertCleverUsername (#40351747) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What's Your Take On HTTPS Snooping?

That's your problem right there. Instead of spending an extra 2 hours a day at work, and also expecting to do 2 hours of personal stuff at work, people with "important" jobs should just go home at 5pm sharp and do their shopping and banking at home.

It's more like an hour of personal stuff and three extra hours of work (including work from home), but you're quite right on the point of reclaiming our personal lives. I'm not sure why we put up with it.

There are worse things in life than death. Have you ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman? -- Woody Allen