Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:No data, so choose your favorite villain (Score 1) 103

by Black Parrot (#47716527) Attached to: Scientists Baffled By Unknown Source of Ozone-Depleting Chemical

Any chance to pin that on the content mafia or patent trolls? C'mon, at least ONCE such a story has to hit someone we can uniformly hate and not be controversial.

So long as you don't blame it on Tesla, Bitcoin, or Starts with a Bang, everyone here will cool with it.

Comment: Re:god dammit. (Score 1) 428

by Copid (#47713343) Attached to: Solar Plant Sets Birds On Fire As They Fly Overhead
I think the logic is that if the variable we want to reduce is "number of birds killed" then there may be ways of reducing it more effectively that don't involve halting production of a really useful energy resource. There's *lots* of stuff humans do that kills birds. If birds are really the concern, our energy might be better spent elsewhere.

Comment: Re:Poor material choice (Score 1) 154

by Bogtha (#47712607) Attached to: Wheel Damage Adding Up Quickly For Mars Rover Curiosity

Given the nature of the mission and power source (multi-year if not multi-decade operation on another planet with no hope of human intervention if something should go wrong)

Curiosity was intended to last two years, it's been going for almost three. It wasn't intended to last this long, and it definitely wasn't intended to operate for decades.

Comment: Re:Chess (Score 1) 273

by Capsaicin (#47709755) Attached to: Of the following, I'd rather play ...

And even chess has chance.....what move do you make when you can't calculate far enough to know which move is good?

Good point, chance arises by virtue of the complexity of choices made both by you and your opponent, instead, for instance, of the incomprehensible complexity of the physics which determines how a die will roll. And games such as Go, which are also touted as not having the element of luck, being even more complex involve even more chance. I believe OP was looking for Noughts and Crosses.

Sub specie aeternitatis Chess, Go or the roll of dice are as predictable as Tic-Tac-Toe. Chance is merely the horizon of human anticipation.

Chess players pray to the godess Cassia.

The goddess Caïssa of course.

Comment: Re:I am skeptical (Score 1) 155

My opinion is that these climate risks are greatly overstated as is, but that doesn't mean that I don't recognize the potential moral hazard in geoengineering approaches.

Well I'm in no position to assess the accuracy of any stated risks, however I think risks should always be overstated. Which is a cheeky way of saying the worst-case scenario has proper place in risk assessment. After all, it is "better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions ..." Whatever the accuracy of your assessment of the risks, the above statement does not seem unreasonable per se.

I'm sorry that I misunderstood you point about moral hazard, you were quite right. I should have been on stronger ground to challenge the Straw Man that the "assumption" that humanity's sole purpose is "to keep the climate the same as it was in 1850" is seriously entertained (by serious people). ;)

Comment: Re:Transparent? (Score 1) 155

Nonsense ... pointlessly trying to convince me ... [t]he brainless child ... suffering the same illogical symptoms ... a moron ... you should get out of your realm of intellectual dishonesty and join the real world more often ... the church of global warming ... if you made an attempt at cognitive dissonance, you could achieve a mental state ... your beliefs ...

Yup, just logic, facts and reasoned debate.

Comment: Re:Transparent? (Score 2) 155

I see, you have no logic or facts capable of countering the post

Your post reveals you to be impervious to facts (I'm not sure about logic). Why would anyone waste their time trying responding to someone with an obvious allergy to reality by giving them facts? Seriously? If you want facts go read the IPCC WG1 report.

I am not surprised as this is what "scientific debate" devolves to

Scientific debate takes place within the serious scientific literature. Slashdot is not it. You are not in a scientific debate, you are literaly some dumass with a massive sense of entitlement, ideologically devoted to deny science. AC's reply to you was spot on.

That It is simply impossible to have any serious conversation on this subject is your choice alone.

Comment: Re:I am skeptical (Score 1) 155

There's a moral hazard to anything that makes a risk less harmful.

Or more explicitly moral hazard describes a situation in which a risk taker is insulated from the consequences of taking that risk. Thus, one would think that a terrestrial geo-engineer taking risks with the viability of the planet was in no position of moral hazard (hence the dig about extra-terrestrial engineers who would not bear the consequences of the risky proposition of geo-engineering).

But I misunderstood what it was you were getting at. You are saying that the moral hazard is that we continue to construct coal-fired power stations (in place of nuclear or other green energy ;p), on the basis that geo-engineering solutions are believed to be practicable, yes?

Comment: Re:Who needs oil? (Score 3, Insightful) 263

by Jeremiah Cornelius (#47707849) Attached to: If Fusion Is the Answer, We Need To Do It Quickly

Fusion would break the stranglehold of petro-exporting countries in the Middle East as well as belligerent exporters like Russia and Iran.

Then? The Banking vampire elite will need to generate new, ethnically-rationalized hate-conflict to keep us all at each other's throats - instead of removing their boot from our collective face.

The degree of technical confidence is inversely proportional to the level of management.