Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Systems perpetuate themselves (Score 1) 228

by MacDork (#48137501) Attached to: Pentagon Unveils Plan For Military's Response To Climate Change

Because it's already too late. Even if we stopped CO2 production entirely, today, all of this stuff would still happen.

Got any proof of that? Last I checked, there were metric fucktons of CO2 disappearing into unknown sinks. If "the real climate scientists" can't even tell us where all the CO2 is going, how do you know it's too late for remediation efforts?

+ - US says it can hack into foreign-based servers without warrants->

Submitted by Advocatus Diaboli
Advocatus Diaboli (1627651) writes "The US government may hack into servers outside the country without a warrant, the Justice Department said in a new legal filling in the ongoing prosecution of Ross Ulbricht. The government believes that Ulbricht is the operator of the Silk Road illicit drug website. Monday's filing in New York federal court centers on the legal brouhaha of how the government found the Silk Road servers in Iceland. Ulbricht said last week that the government's position—that a leaky CAPTCHA on the site's login led them to the IP address—was "implausible" and that the government (perhaps the National Security Agency) may have unlawfully hacked into the site to discover its whereabouts"
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Lol (Score 1) 482

by MacDork (#48053319) Attached to: Online Creeps Inspire a Dating App That Hides Women's Pictures

I got an idea. Let's make a post about it on /. and let the relationship geniuses there tell us what's wrong with it. :P

It's a dating site. If you don't come back and pay them/look at ads, they die. Of course it's broken. It's supposed to be. Look at these numbers. Much different from 1970, before dating sites came along and ruined everything. The "dating" sites are ensuring all you ever do is have bad dates. If you get luck and find a partner, you're the exception, not the rule.

Comment: Re:Why only LGBT? (Score 0) 280

by MacDork (#48047369) Attached to: Facebook Apologizes To Drag Queens Over "Real Name" Rule

Why would you insist on turning this into LBGT vs CIS rather than acknowledge the real name policy is just plain dumb? I sense a closet homo who feels guilty about jerking off to tranny porn :) That goes for all of you who modded this up as well.

The policy adversely affects writers, artists, actors, and about eleventy brazillion other legit reasons to use a pseudonym.

Comment: Re:Two new deniers are born... (Score 1) 207

by MacDork (#47993771) Attached to: Study Links Pacific Coastal Warming To Changing Winds

Wait. Do my ears deceive me? You are denying a well known scientific observation because it doesn't fit with your AGW doctrine? You think the OCO-2 sat is a 280 million dollar conspiracy to debunk AGW? Denier! Denier!! dave420 is in a denier of teh science!!11!ONE!

You guys are idiots. You want to know why there are so many people who are skeptical about AGW? Look in the mirror. If you don't know anything about climate science, keep your opinions to yourselves please. You aren't helping your side of the argument. Here's a quick list of papers I found with google. You could find hundreds more in no time at all.

  1. [1] Broecker, W. S. et al., 1979: Fate of fossil fuel carbon dioxide and the global carbon budget, Science, 206:409-418
  2. [2] Siegenthaler, U. and H. Oeschger, 1978: Predicting future atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, Science, 199:388-395
  3. [3] Siegenthaler, U. and J. L. Sarmiento, 1993: Atmospheric carbon dioxide and the ocean, Nature, 365:119-125
  4. [4] IPCC (1994) Climate Change 1994, Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and an Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emission Scenarios eds. J. T. Houghton, L. G. Meria Filho, J. Bruce, Hoesung Lee, B. A. Callander, E. Haites, N. Harris and K. Maskell for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain
  5. [5] Joos F., 1994: Imbalance in the budget, Nature, 370:181-182
  6. [6] Hesshaimer V., M. Heimann and I. Levin, 1994: Radiocarbon evidence for a smaller oceanic carbon dioxide sink than previously believed, Nature, 370:201-203
  7. [7] Broecker, W. S. and T. Peng, 1994: Stratospheric contribution to the global bomb radiocarbon inventory: Model versus observation, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 8:377-384
  8. [8] Dale, V. H. and H. M. Rauscher, 1994: Assessing impacts of climate change on forests, Climatic Change 28:65-90
  9. [9] Kheshgi, H. S., A. K. Jain and D. J. Wuebbles, 1996: Accounting for the missing carbon sink with the CO2 fertilization effect, Climatic Change, in print
  10. [10] Hulme, M., S. C. B. Raper and T. M. L. Wigley, 1995: An integrated framework to address climate change (ESCAPE) and further developments of the global and regional climate modules (MAGICC), Energy Policy, 23:347-355
  11. [11] Manne, A., R. Mendelsohn and R. Richels, 1995: MERGE: A model for evaluating regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies, Energy Policy, 23:17-34
  12. [12] Peck, S. C. and T. J. Teisberg, 1994: Optimal carbon emissions trajectories when damages depend on the rate or level of global warming, Climatic Change, 28:289-314
  13. [13] Keller, A. A. and R. A. Goldstein, 1994: The human effect on the global carbon cycle: response functions to analyze management strategies, World Resources Review, 6:63-87
  14. [14] Hudson, R. J. M., S. A. Gherini and R. A. Goldstein, 1994: Modeling the global carbon cycle: nitrogen fertilization of the terrestrial biosphere and the "missing" CO2 sink, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 8:307-333
  15. [15] Dregne, H., M. Kassas and B. Rosanov, 1991: A new assessment of the world status of desertification, Desertification Control Bulletin, UNEP, 20:6-18

Comment: Re:Two new deniers are born... (Score 1) 207

by MacDork (#47980651) Attached to: Study Links Pacific Coastal Warming To Changing Winds

I wonder... do you actually believe your spiel or do you just keep copy/pasting it to karma whore? Last time, I pointed out that there are significant unknown sinks of CO2. Yet here you are, lobbing the same half truths at the audience. So, tell us oh wise one... if you were in charge of the planet today, what would you do to reduce atmospheric CO2, given that the real climate scientists don't even know where it is all going now? I'd love to hear your plan, glorious leader.

Comment: AGW (Score -1, Troll) 795

by MacDork (#47964359) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

People think that a study that uses statistical wizardry to show correlations between two things is 'scientific' because it uses high school math and was done by someone in a university building

"And here we see that increasing CO2 levels is causing increasing global temperatures..."

Yep, coorelation != causation.

Are we running light with overbyte?

Working...