Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:About Fucking Time (Score 1) 435

by dywolf (#48657327) Attached to: In Breakthrough, US and Cuba To Resume Diplomatic Relations

There are a multitude of different "real" unemployment rates that one can quote; I've never heard of one that includes people who willingly decline to participate in the workforce (i.e., students and homemakers) The traditional definition includes people who desire work but whom have abandoned all hope of finding it. In any case, if you actually believe the

you've never heard of one....except of course for the one you linked to which included all sorts of categories of those who willingly removed themselves from the workforce. which was rather the point.

the unemployment rate is 5.8% at present time. your belief in it isnt required.
the definition hasnt changed: a person is unemployed if he/she is without job and have actively looked for work within the past four weeks.

in case you missed it, there was a recession. that always triggers a reduction in the laborforce participation rate, as people find alternative avenues, such as going back to school, enlisting in the military, retiring, or staying home. there are also other avenues of work that wont show up in the any of the employment statistics, since they rely on businesses reporting numbers.

so yes, people HAVE willingly dropped out of the workforce in recently years.
the labor force participation rate is in a slump.
that doesnt change that the unemployment rate is 5.8%.

and you said "start a war".
that is a completely different thing from "committing an act of war."

Comment: Re: hooray for the government (Score 1) 68

by dywolf (#48637755) Attached to: Councilmen Introduce Bills Strongly Regulating UAV Use in NYC

Yes. Let's look at Chicago.

Such as this graph: http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfro...

Seems Chicago isnt the hotbed of crime it's been made out to be.
Their gun ban was in effect from 1982 to 2010, when it struck down.
The recent uptick in homocides occured -AFTER- the gun ban was struck down,
so if there is any correlation to drawn (and im not saying there is), its not the one you are trying for.

Chicago homocides peaked in early 90s, with the increase and subsequent decrease matching the peak in crime around teh country, both in locations with and without gun bans. The recent uptick is nothing like the historical crime rates.

Or as summed up at :

Most significantly, it is important to understand that Chicago is not an island. Although Chicago has historically had strict gun laws, laws in the surrounding parts of Illinois [incuding the suburbs of Chicago] were much laxer — enabling middlemen to supply the criminals in Chicago with guns they purchased elsewhere. Forty three percent of the guns seized by law enforcement in Chicago were originally purchased in other parts of Illinois. And even if the state had stricter gun laws, Illinois is not an island either. The remaining fifty seven percent of Chicago guns all came from out of state, most significantly from nearby Indiana and distant Mississippi — neither of which are known for their strict gun laws.

It’s also important to put Chicago’s very recent increase in gun violence in perspective. Data from the University of Chicago Crime Lab’s Harold Pollack shows that this uptick, while certainly worrying, isn’t anything like a return to the historic peaks during America’s crime wave. Pollack notes that “Chicago ranks 79th on Neighborhood Scout’s list of the 100 most dangerous places to live in Americathe idea that Chicago faces a unique or unprecedented rise in homicides is incorrect. Our problems are all too familiar and chronic throughout much of urban America.” Chicago, following the national trend, has experienced a significant downturn in homicides in the past decade and a half:

And there was event a report into what caused the the 2012 spike in homocides, which was chiefly a result of an uptick in gang violence:

he points to three factors are particularly important: escalating gang conflict as a consequence of police crackdowns and shifting gang territory, outdated law enforcement practices, and — yes — access to guns.
Chicago’s streets are flooded with guns: it has roughly six times as many guns as New York City per capita, despite its restrictive laws. So if gang conflict escalates, and the gangs have easy access to guns, the homicide rate should rise. This explanation fits with the fact that 87 percent of Chicago homicides in 2012 were gun-related. New York, by contrast, did not experience a surge in homicides in 2012.

The guns that fueled this fire came from a small number of individuals bringing guns into the city. A study of Chicago’s gun market (which, incidentally, concluded that tight enforcement of Chicago’s gun ban and restrictions significantly disrupted illegal gun markets) found that most of guns in high-crime neighborhoods entered through a small, tight network of suppliers and middlemen: “Gun suppliers report that 60-80% of their sales are negotiated through brokers (we assume the 80% figure) and by our own estimates gun suppliers account for around half of all gun sales in the GB community.” Because most criminals weren’t comfortable going out of their neighborhoods to buy guns, and Chicago had no gun stores in the city, they relied on this network to get them guns from outside of Chicago.

Comment: Re:Denying Catastrophism, not Science (Score 1, Informative) 718

by dywolf (#48635011) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

Nearly everything you just said is blatantly untrue.

The Arctic ice cap IS shrinking.
Its mass loss is an undebatable fact.
The total volume and mass of ice is only 25% of what it was in 1979. That's not up for debate. That is a fact.
When plotted, the trend is clearly downward. Ignorant people have been siezing on the fact that "2013 and 2014 were higher than 2012 before" while ignoring hte overall trend, or the fact that 2012 was a record low, and the past few years while higher than 2012, are still lower than the plotted average. it IS shrinking.

Actually yes.
There is more sea is because the water is freshening. Again: not a debateable fact. The less salty water is, the higher the temperature it can freeze at.
To say its freezing because its cold is to ingore the fact that the sea ice is increasing, EVEN AS THOSE REGIONS ARE WARMING, both air and sea temps.
On its own warming environment cannot produce more ice, thats not how ice works. It is only by accounting for the chainging composition of the freezeing water, specifically its salinty, that we can explain how ice can increase at the same time that both air and sea temperatures in the area are rising. Its because of fresh water inputs from the melthing land ice chainging hte local salinity of the sea water.

And you pulled out the same tired of myth about the "heat islands." and "the heat isnt there."
guess what, the scientists arent dumb. they were after all the ones who first noticed the heat island effect. and its already been shown several times that even removing the data from said heat island (of which the sensors make up less than 25% of the total data; ie, most sensors arent subject to the phenonona youre referencing), the warming trend is still readily present, and it doesnt even effect the overall plotted data or trendlines. notice: not just compensating for the HIE, but wholly and completely removing those data points from the data, and it doesnt affect the overall picture.

In short: you're full of it and dont have a clue what youre talking about.
But that doesnt stop you from spouting the same myths over and over without any scientific evidence.
And as long as you do, I'll be there, beating you over the head with the facts drawn from actual science and observation.

Comment: Re:Denying Catastrophism, not Science (Score 1) 718

by dywolf (#48634765) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

not insightful.
not factual.

just more drivel backed by nothing but what comes out the south end of a northbound bull.

frankly i get tired of posting the same links to the same actual facts and actual science over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, cause idiots like this, dont take the time to actually learn about what they are talking about. and then they spout more wrong nonsense. and they get modded insightful for it, because the mod system here is a joke.

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 5, Insightful) 718

by dywolf (#48634275) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

No you havent. If youd been looking you wouldnt have said the stupid things you did.

Changes in behaviour are all but irrelevent for measles, polio, or smallpox. Its so contagious that if an infected person walks through a room, that room is contagious for as much as 4 hours after the person left. Ppeople were forcibly quarentined in their homes by law enforcement to prevent its spread, and even so it infected 3 to 4 million people each year in the United States. Of those people, 400 to 500 died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 4,000 developed encephalitis (brain swelling) from measles.

Yet within a couples year of the vaccine being introduced and a widespread vaccination program start measles cases plumetted, from millions per year to fewer than 20k. By the 1990s it was declared eliminated from the US, even though our population had doubled and more people lived in closer quarters in cities.

"at the same pressure"

You do realize that in order to be at "the same pressure" you have to be more than 50 km (50,000 meters, or >160,000 ft) above the surface of Venus?
that on the surface pressure is more than 90x greater than earths? and temperature is greater than 850F ?
what you said is an invalid comparison, a misdirection that relies on ignorance, and that is ultimately irrelevent.
(im not even sure its true, as im quite sure from the venus article earlier this week, that we established that even at the same pressure, the temperature is signifcantly higher)

If you cant find satisfactory answers, its either because you havent been lookng hard enough, or you simply lack the intellect.

Comment: Re: Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 718

by dywolf (#48633987) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

so you obviously dont actually know anything about the NIPCC.

the NIPCC are not actual scientists, and they have not put forward evidence capable of withstanding scientific scrutiny.
the NIPCC cherry picks data that supports them, rather than presenting all the data.
When TFA talks about "conclusions based on a priori convictions"...the NIPCC is one of the groups they are talking about.

The sole purpose of the NIPCC is not to present any evidence, nor even survey and report on on the sum body of all the research.
Rather it's sole purpose is to poke holes in the IPCC, something its members are paid to do:

On the other hand, according to the Heartland 2012 budget plan, the purpose of the NIPCC report is to critique the IPCC report. According to the Heartland 2012 Fundraising Plan, its purpose is to create a rebuttal to the IPCC report.

In short, the purpose of the IPCC report is to accurately summarize the most up-to-date state of climate science research and understanding, whereas the purpose of the NIPCC report is to try and poke holes in the IPCC report (unsuccessfully, as we will see below).

Second, unlike the IPCC report, the scientists contributing to the NIPCC report are paid for their efforts. The overall Heartland budget for the NIPCC reports from 2010 to 2013 is nearly $1.6 million ($388,000 in both 2011 and 2012), with $460,000 going to the lead authors and contributors ($140,000 in both 2011 and 2012). The 2011 Interim NIPCC report has 3 lead authors (Craig Idso, Fred Singer, and Robert Carter) and 8 contributors (Susan Crockford, Joe D'Aleo, Indur Goklany, Sherwood Idso, Anthony Lupo, Willie Soon, Mitch Taylor, and Madhav Khandekar), most of whom also receive a monthly salary from the Heartland Institute.

Note that Heartland is not the only think tank contributing to the NIPCC report; the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CSCDGC) and Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) are both listed as contributors on the document's front cover.

Basically these scientists are paid with the specific goal of arguing against the scientific evidence in the IPCC report, whereas the only goal of the IPCC authors is to produce an accurate, comprehensive review of the climate science literature. Indeed, this represents the biggest difference between the IPCC and NIPCC: the former is a comprehensive literature review, while the latter is a very select literature review.

The NIPCC cherry picks data, chiefly that of "skeptics" that support their already made conclusions and goals:

The NIPCC report exclusively examines the literature published by climate "skeptics," whereas the IPCC report examines the work of both "skeptics" and mainstream climate scientists.

The NIPCC repeats and perpetuates bad science and myths, including cliamte myths that contradict each other:

Climate scientists Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt have also documented a number of the long-debunked climate myths propagated in previous NIPCC reports, which we have rebutted by examining the full body of scientific literature at Skeptical Science (click the links below for the myth debunkings):

In addition to being long-debunked myths, several of these arguments contradict each other. For example, arguing that the planet isn't warming, but it's warming because of the sun, and it's warming because of natural cycles, and warming is good anyway. The report also argues that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than today; however, if the planet is sensitive to the factors which caused the MWP, then it's also sensitive to greenhouse gas changes, which contradicts the "climate sensitivity is low" argument.

The NIPCC is not valid science, or anything resembling it:

To sum up, IPCC mainstream climate science is about taking an accurate, comprehensive view of the entire body of climate science evidence[..]

Rather than taking this sort of broad overall view of the scientific evidence, the Heartland Institute pays its scientists to disregard most climate science research and focus exclusively on the few "skeptic" studies which support their very narrow focus on poking holes in the IPCC report.

The difference between the two groups could not be more clear.

Courtesy of

Comment: Re:Global Warming Skeptics??? (Score 3, Interesting) 718

by dywolf (#48633501) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

They dont account for the sun?
Son, that the was among the first things they looked at.
And theyve looked at it several times since.
It's not the sun, son.
If it was the sun, we would be cooling right now.

The 11yr cycle bit is also misleading: there is some periodicity, but there is a lot of noise in that signal, as shown in this graph (which also conventiently shows that temperatures, and solar output have been moving in opposite directions for the past 35 years):

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 718

by dywolf (#48633431) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

questioned by rational people with rational doubts who are willing to listen to evidence, or have evidence of their own.
not cranks with no evidence and no willingness to listen.

which you would understand is the point of the article, if you had bothered to read them.

their point is best summed up like this (from TFA):

Skepticism is all about critical examination, evidence-based scientific inquiry, and the use of reason in examining controversial claims. Those who flatly deny the results of climate science do not partake in any of the above. They base their conclusions on a priori convictions. Theirs is an ideological conviction—the opposite of skepticism.

Comment: Re:hooray for the government (Score 1) 68

by dywolf (#48626667) Attached to: Councilmen Introduce Bills Strongly Regulating UAV Use in NYC

oh please.
stow your insanity for a moment.

differing classes of rules based on size and type make sense.
and standard "congested area" rules are just common sense.
licenses or other certs in specific circumstances also make sense.

unregulated use by an unlicensed individual in a city like NYC means eventually someone will fly a 100+lb drone down Park Avenue and have it crash on someones head.
or worse two of them due to collision.

public safety/endangerment rules always in place would largely cover a lot of it, but they would leave a lot open to the interpretation and discretion of the individuals responsible for enforcement (most likely NYPD).

so creating some rules that actually spell it out, and make the appropriate concessions for commercial use, ensure operators and their devices arent a danger, and provide common sense exceptions for recreational use in Central Park, all fall within the purview of City Council (or w/e NYC has), and is simply rational rules making and is in the public interest.

Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.