Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:We've been doing it for a long time (Score 1) 289

No, that source concludes: "The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 +/- 0.44 W/m^2 from 2005 to 2013."

Are you able to read? Did you see that my comment was about DEEP ocean? Did you see that the very title of the paper is:

Deep-ocean contribution to sea level and energy budget not detectable over the past decade

??? The comment about temperatures at other depths is irrelevant to the point I made ABOUT THAT PAPER.

Do you know what the word "context" means?

As for other depths, this paper contradicts the other one I cited earlier. Are you telling us that you get to decide which one is correct?

Comment: Re:So basically (Score 1) 426

by Jane Q. Public (#48440887) Attached to: Republicans Block Latest Attempt At Curbing NSA Power

I've learned how to handle questions by watching you. If you manage to directly answer my question, that will show me that the right thing to do is directly answer your question. If you continue to simply evade my question, that will show me that the right thing to do is evade every question you ask.

I answered your question in my last post.

Did you get my point about "escalating" not just beyond what is socially acceptable, but even further, beyond what is legally acceptable? Once again, to be clear, I'm not accusing you of breaking any laws, I was making a point. Harassment is odious behavior. It is far worse than simply calling people names.

As I stated before: you seem quick to judge others but at the same time appear blind to your own transgressions.

I don't owe you anything, despite what seems to be a feeling on your part that I do. So this is all you're going to get. If you aren't satisfied with the content of my answers, my best suggestion would be to just go away.

Comment: Re:Arguably not the GMO that caused harm here (Score 1) 289

In many cases direct genetic modification is *less* intrusive than other techniques of creating more suitable species of plants...the non-GMO method generally involves forcing random mutations via chemicals/radiation and then selecting for the traits you want. Of course there may be a bunch of other mutations that you didn't select for/against that could cause problems in people.

However, we do not know what long-term unintended consequences there may be to this type of gene modification, because there has been no long term. While selective breeding of natural mutations -- even of a relatively "forced" variety -- has been around for millennia.

The point being that one method is time-tested and the other one not. We don't have any long-term examples of jellyfish genes crossed with plant genes. We do have evidence that bacterial and viral genes have invaded other organisms, but again those we have evidence of were very long ago and have had eons to weed out any bad variants or effects.

I do agree, however, that the regulatory system is faulty.

Comment: Re:Arguably not the GMO that caused harm here (Score 1) 289

I would suggest that the GMO itself isn't actually harming anything.

And I would disagree.

Societal / economic issue aside, when an altered genome that was controversial in the first place, and was promised not to be cross-fertile, proves otherwise and starts cross-pollinating other strains uncontrollably, we should take that as a strong warning.

Ever read Jurassic Park? The book, not the movie.

Comment: Re:We've been doing it for a long time (Score 1) 289

Since the oceans are warming, it's wrong to say "the globe isn't warming."

Warming, according to whom?

This says long-term trends have not been detected, up to 2000.

This says no warming trend in upper ocean SINCE 2000.

This -- which is the longest and most comprehensive study to date -- says there is no detectable warming in the deep ocean.

So I don't know who you've been listening to, but my sources say it isn't happening to any noticeable degree.

Comment: Re:So basically (Score 1) 426

by Jane Q. Public (#48437417) Attached to: Republicans Block Latest Attempt At Curbing NSA Power

Do you somehow think your behavior isn't bullying and harassment?

I don't "think" it, I know it. I haven't been following you around and spamming YOUR comments with insults. That is not a matter of opinion it is provably true. I have only been replying to your own harassing comments.

Listen up: while YOU might find name-calling as a matter of opinion objectionable, there is a line -- and it isn't all that fine of a line -- between that and LIBEL. (I am not accusing you here of libel, that is just a neutral statement of fact.)

There is ALSO a fine line between replying to a comment, no matter how angrily, and HARASSMENT.

Name-calling might not be a nice thing to do, but libel and harassment are behaviors that are so odious they are actually ILLEGAL. Illegal behaviors are grounds for lawsuits. That is also a statement of fact.

Do you understand the difference between those kinds of behaviors, or not?

Comment: Re:We've been doing it for a long time (Score 0) 289

Tell us exactly what the problem is with this corn. Is it killing anything? Is it affecting anything?

I would very definitely call this HARM.

Introduced plants spreading where they are very definitely unwanted are called invasive species.

Companies suing farmers whose fields have been invaded without their consent is abusive monopolistic behavior. (Read: "corporatism".)

I could go on, but those are 2 harms that have been proved. One to crop diversity, the other to society and free markets.

Comment: Re:So basically (Score 1) 426

by Jane Q. Public (#48437167) Attached to: Republicans Block Latest Attempt At Curbing NSA Power

Here's a quiz, Jane. Is the rest of this comment a proportional response, or is it an anger-driven escalating over-reaction?

You just gave away who you are. But I knew already.

Sock-puppetry is another form of dishonesty. It's also universally despised here on Slashdot.

But you've been told that before. So why don't you cease the BS, and STOP HARASSING ME?

Or do you somehow think that my behavior is evil, but bullying and harassment isn't? It's that hypocrisy rearing its head again.

Comment: Re:Nope... Nailed It (Score 1) 175

by Jane Q. Public (#48437111) Attached to: It's Not Developers Slowing Things Down, It's the Process

Well, they also think that they're "agile". And have another expensive trendy tool to ensure it.

But according to the description their methodology very clearly ISN'T "agile", whether they think so or not.

Agile isn't a tool, it's a method. And that method doesn't include eons of top-down planning, no matter what tools are used. But I may be preaching to the choir here.

Comment: Re:We've been doing it for a long time (Score 1) 289

If the globe isn't warming, that must mean the oceans aren't warming because they're part of the globe. Is that the case, Jane?

I stated what I stated. If you have a specific argument to make, then make it. Otherwise kindly go away. I won't argue over insinuations.

Comment: Re:We've been doing it for a long time (Score 1) 289

Just curious: are you saying you don't believe GMO corn spread beyond its boundaries and hybridized with other corn, after Monsanto had claimed that wasn't possible in its applications to USDA? (Hint: it has been proven in court.)

Are you claiming that the roundup-ready genes have NOT been found in other plants growing near cornfields?

As I say: I am just curious what your point is here.

Comment: Re:We've been doing it for a long time (Score 0) 289

Isn't that the same precautionary principle that should have been used before we started spewing CO2 into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates? Especially given that several mass extinctions were preceded by rapid CO2 releases?

Since the satellite AND balloon AND un-"adjusted" ground temperature measurements ALL say the globe isn't warming, even while CO2 has risen significantly, I wouldn't worry much about it.

But more to the point: even if that were not true, and CO2 warming were proved (it is not), we didn't really suspect any actual warming until the late 70s... more than a hundred years after we started "spewing" it into the air. So... no.

Comment: Re:Heh... (Score 1) 101

by Jane Q. Public (#48436711) Attached to: The Software Big Oil's PR Firm Uses To "Convert Average Citizens"

The fact that Jane mistakenly thinks the very first, most fundamental equation in this problem is "irrelevant" should be a red flag that Jane doesn't understand physics as well as professional physicists.

The fact that you insist that I provide you with something I already gave you, a long time ago and repeatedly, represents either a fundamental failure to understand on your part to understand the concept, or simple dishonesty. But your lack of understanding -- OR dishonesty, whichever it turns out to be -- is not my responsibility.

As before, I'm writing this for other readers, so that they are not taken in by your misinformation. That is the ONLY reason I have replied again.

I have no obligation to prove to you AGAIN what I have already proved. As others will have no problem seeing when I publish.

I shall not reply again. Stop harassing me. Your comments have been reported.

The biggest mistake you can make is to believe that you are working for someone else.

Working...