Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:NEWS: Law enforcement officers doing actual job (Score 0) 87

by Jane Q. Public (#47754663) Attached to: Early Bitcoin User Interviewed By Federal Officers

Let's not overstate this. The account given by Bingo is a good one, and on the facts it shows two law enforcement officers just doing their job: gathering background information, and they're doing it in a way to minimise the hassle for the ordinary member of public they're interviewing. Bingo mentions no powerplays beyond them identifying themselves as LEOs.

Yeah. And if I were just a small-time user of some bitcoin service, my "preparing" for questioning by law enforcement would be to get ready to tell them to get stuffed if they got pushy.

Comment: Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score 1) 429

by Jane Q. Public (#47754399) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

The purpose of the climate models is to forecast climate, not short-term events that have no effect on the trend.

You don't know that it has no long-term effects on the trend. ENSO hasn't been understood long enough. THEORETICALLY, it may be true, but it sure as hell isn't proven. Even now it is not well understood... which was part of my point.

If you can't model climate over 10 years, you can't model it over 100. No reliable advance predictor of ENSO is known. Now they're saying there is a longer-term trend that they can't predict, either. At least so far. Which throws an even bigger wrench into the works.

But what's really funny is how this definition of "long term" changes with the temperature! Not all that long ago, warmists were saying "A trend has to be 10-12 years before it can be called 'climate'." But once the "pause" -- I'm being polite -- was about 16 years long they started saying 20 years, and 30 years. It's hilarious.

This "pause" is one month away from being 18 years long... only 1 year shy of the entire warming trend since 1979, which is what everybody was screaming about in the first place.

Yes, I've seen the "evidence". Probably a lot more of it than you. But unlike most folks, I've seen the evidence on both sides of the aisle. The evidence for warming was never very convincing and has become less so as time has turned up new evidence.

Comment: Re:not so fast (Score 1) 121

by Jane Q. Public (#47754369) Attached to: Why Do Humans Grow Up So Slowly? Blame the Brain

In ALL human societies, men prefer women younger than themselves that are physically attractive, which correlates with fertility. In ALL human societies, women prefer men with high social status, and greater resources.

As a generalization, this is true enough. So, I will amend my comment. They might be genetic factors, but they aren't overt physical factors. The fact that males tend to be older when they mate is not a matter of sexual maturity, which generally comes long before then.

Comment: Re:not so fast (Score 5, Interesting) 121

by Jane Q. Public (#47754043) Attached to: Why Do Humans Grow Up So Slowly? Blame the Brain

Not necessarily. The major threat to children in primitive hunter gatherer societies is not predators but hunger. By staying smaller during their formative years, they reduce the amount of calories need to survive.

This. Also, it takes time to learn the vast amount of information that it takes for a human being to really be smart enough to manipulate its environment... which evolution has obviously selected for. Chimps, for example, often actually outpace human learning for up to 2 years, but then humans continue to learn while the chimp rapidly levels off. Keeping resource use to a low level during this long learning phase is likely a long-term survival trait.

Also it should be noted that another factor in humans' slow growth is already known: humans can only have babies with brains so big, before birth becomes a very big problem. So a longer period is needed for the human brain to grow to its adult size.

But the selection pressures are different on boys and girls. Girls are generally able to procreate as soon as they reach puberty. But boys need to wait till they are older, and have built up social status. So it makes sense for girls to mature faster, and that is what happens. Look at a group of kids in 4th or 5th grade, and the girls are several inches taller than the boys.

It is more accurate to say that boys and girls mature at different rates.

If you adjust for the probable influence of estrogen mimics in our current environment, human females start to mature sexually before males do, but actually finish their sexual maturation later. You are referring more to social factors than genetic: often males need to be older to establish themselves in order to semi-permanently mate, but that is not the same things as physical sexual maturity needed to procreate.

Comment: Re:Told ya... (Score 3, Insightful) 205

It sure was said to be stupid by a boatload of people on Slashdot when the rest of us tried to say it really was a slippery slope.

I have a feeling a lot of people will be looking back at what many of them call "crazy conspiracy theory" today when some of those things turn out to be real, too.

Of course many of them really are just crazy conspiracy theory. But not all of them. Real conspiracies can exist and have existed throughout history.

But there's another thing that some people don't account for: a lot of people, operating under the same (often but not always) erroneous assumptions or misinformation, can make it look like there is a conspiracy when it's really not conspiracy at all. Just a lot of people making the same mistakes.

Comment: Re:Oh please, we've had this for decades (Score 1) 74

This just illustrates that government attempts at "surveillance" of their own citizens can be used against them, and actually constitute a very serious national security risk.

If they don't start getting that through their heads (which they really should have by now), they're in for a very serious surprise.

Comment: Re:I seem to remember... (Score 1) 268

by Jane Q. Public (#47750087) Attached to: Dropbox Caught Between Warring Giants Amazon and Google

Fuck off. Everything you posted IS COMPETITION. Dropbox refuses to compete. They offer 2 tiers and ridiculous prices. If they had offered me a 30GB plan I would have jumped at it but my money is no good to them. Instead I would have to beg for "extra" space and game the system. So FUCK dropbox. They wont offer what I want so I've gone elsewhere. Thats called competition.

It is NOT "competition" if the big boys are "dumping" their services at below cost in order to gain market share. Dumping is an anti-competitive practice which is illegal for very good reasons.

I don't know if technically dumping a service at below cost is illegal the same way as product dumping is, but if it isn't it should be. It is not competition, it is the exact OPPOSITE.

Comment: Re:Mandatory panic! (Score 5, Interesting) 411

by Jane Q. Public (#47737693) Attached to: South Carolina Student Arrested For "Killing Pet Dinosaur"

Mandatory panic! Alert the police! Search EVERYTHING! Connect the dots! Personally, I blame the teacher for not sufficiently explaining the limits of the assignment.

I doubt very much the reaction would have been the same if he'd written that he did it with bow & arrow.

As far as I am concerned, it was the school's actions that were criminal. First, censorship is not the business of schools. Second, they called the police over a non-crime. They didn't even have a reasonable suspicion that any crime had been committed.

It's one thing to say "no guns in school". It's quite another to ban any mention of them. This isn't China.

Comment: Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score 1) 429

by Jane Q. Public (#47734545) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

You've written multiple long-winded posts about how the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist. Are you recanting those statements?

I've written multiple detailed comments to other people about specific claims about the science. If you wish to interpret them as saying "the greenhouse effect does not exist" that is your business, but it is not quite what I said and not what I was thinking.

Comment: Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score 1) 429

by Jane Q. Public (#47734529) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

That being the case, you may thank me for the educate I gave you on the topic that led to you changing your mind.

You didn't "educate me" about anything. Fourier's own writings make it clear that he initially believed De Saussure's apparatus warmed via trapping of radiation, which we know today to be false. It worked by preventing convective cooling... just like a real greenhouse does. No "trapping of radiation" was involved... which we KNOW from hundreds of years now of observation of real greenhouses. Yes, I'm saying Fourier (at the time he wrote those notes) was wrong.

He later postulated that gas in the sky could work via a similar mechanism, holding energy by trapping radiation. However, he correctly noted that the effect in the atmosphere would not be the same, because it includes convection. The problem with this idea is that the first effect -- the radiation trapping -- did not occur at all (we know this from real greenhouses).

The point of the particular comment which you linked to above was not that the greenhouse effect does not exist (that's a different discussion). The point was that the "physics" it was based on was an incorrect conjecture by Fourier about De Saussure's apparatus. The effect did not exist in De Saussure's apparatus. All of the temperature is accounted for by absorption by the blackened cork, and lack of convective cooling.

You then go on to state that if there were no radiation trapping, all the radiation would go straight off to space and the earth would be very cold. But if you really believe that to be true, I suggest you look up how long it takes lunar regolith (in no atmosphere) to cool entirely by radiation once it rotates out of sunlight. You're in for a very big surprise.

Comment: Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score 1) 429

by Jane Q. Public (#47734331) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

ENSO has no long--term effect on climate. ENSO is a short term variation.

This is completely irrelevant to my point, which was not about the total energy budget.

THE PURPOSE of models is to do forecasting. So far, no models can accurately project the behavior of ENSO. Now we have a proposed cycle that supposedly drives or at least overwhelms ENSO, but is equally unpredictable. At least so far.

If the model can't forecast not just ENSO, but a larger cycle that supposedly drives or overwhelms ENSO, then the models are that much LESS useful for forecasting.

Get it? I made no comment about energy either staying or leaving. Conservation of energy is not relevant to this point.

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.

Working...