Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Whistle blower (Score 1) 583 583

You brought the "party politics" into a Snowden discussion, "bro." Nice projection.

Bullshit. I repeat: I was speaking of POLITICIANS, not of parties.

That's the third time I've said basically the same thing. Has it sunk in yet?

The only reason I used the word "butthurt" is because that's the way you've acted.

Comment Re:NTSB fines? penalties? (Score 1) 82 82

No, TFS has it correct. It's classified as "Commercial Spaceflight," and the Federal Government deliberately moved jurisdiction from NASA to the FAA.

It must have been relatively recent, then. Even so, I repeat that I doubt the "usual rules" apply here.

Having said that, FAA would seem the logical organization, given that its mandate is about interstate commerce.

Comment Re:Thursday (Score 1) 99 99

Math and methodology only works if you know how and where to apply it. Not being an expert in any of the fields you are discussing, you wouldn't know.

That's hilarious. Data is data.

It doesn't matter where you apply your math or methodoloy, if you're doing them in an obviously incorrect way. A point which you keep seeming to miss. Scientists are not gods, they deal in the real world with real data just like so many others do.

Oh, the irony of you making that statement.

You don't seem to know what irony means either, Mr. Coward. Do you think I am not (or never have been) a scientist? On what do you base that assumption?

Comment Re:Thursday (Score 1) 99 99

Creationists only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of biologists. Anti-vaxxers only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of medical scientists. Moon landing crackpots only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of NASA scientists. 9/11 Truthers only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of materials scientists. Obama Birthers only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of forensic scientists, etc.

The Dunning-Kruger table has been rather turned. Have fun.

Since it has been clearly explained to you many times that I am not any of those things, no they're not.

The only logical way to put those statements together is that you claim I am those things. It's not just an implication, or your final sentence would make no sense.

But making potentially damaging false claims about people in public, when you know (or reasonably should) that they are not true, is called libel. You know that, too.

So no, the tables aren't turned. They're right where they were before you made that ridiculous libelous comment. If anything, you have locked the tables firmly in place. That was a real dumbass thing to do.

I have to wonder why you keep doing it.

Comment Re:Improving data [Re:The Gods] (Score 1) 384 384

As I stated earlier: you can save all your misdirection. All it takes is simple logic to clearly show that Karl et al. results are an outlier.

I didn't exactly make this up, either. Lots of others have been saying it. In fact, even many of the big news sources haven't dared to touch Karl with a 10-foot pole. It's just that -- ahem -- "credible".

Serious (and valid) critiques of it started to appear even before it was officially published. And several papers have come out since which disagree.

I'm not going to go look them all up. But if you want a good idea of just how *desperate* this paper appears to be, have a look here.

No, I do not claim Watts is any kind of "final authority". It's just one example among many. If you haven't found at least 10 takedowns of the "science" in Karl et al., you haven't been looking. (Or paying attention.)

Your other rantings about past things you disagree with are of no interest to me. I stated it clearly enough in that last quote of me you supplied above. You're still doing the same old shit. Calling it something else wouldn't make it any more "charming". Actually, it would be lying.

Comment Re:Whistle blower (Score 2) 583 583

Thanks for taking a Snowden discussion off onto your tangent of "Hillary sucks!" Real helpful. Did you vote for George W, too?

I didn't bring politics into it. I was only talking about certain politicians. And I clearly stated Hillary wasn't the only one; I only used her as an example because she's an easy example.

So... usually I would tell you to take your questions about my votes elsewhere, but I don't mind saying: no, I did not vote for George Bush.

Now take your butthurt party politics and go away.

Comment Re:NTSB fines? penalties? (Score 2) 82 82

In this case, most of the blame appears to fall on the FAA.

I would expect that it's classified as some sort of "Experimental" vehicle at this point, for which the usual rules do not apply. So I doubt the FAA has much to do with it either.

Even so: given the known design of the craft, how could he possibly NOT know that unlocking the tail section prematurely was dangerous? I mean, seriously. "Oh, sure, let's just let it flap in the breeze at a few thousand miles per hour. No big deal."


Comment Re:Whistle blower (Score 2) 583 583

If you don't think the U.S. is suffering mightily from BOTH, you aren't paying attention.

Just as an example (because she's the easiest, I'm not claiming she's the worst) is Hillary Clinton. She has NO real accomplishments to her name, and scandal has followed her everywhere she went. (I rather think a more descriptive phrase would be to say she "led" scandal wherever she went.)

Back during the investigation of Richard Nixon, one of her supervisors accused her of being too dishonest of an attorney to participate. (YES, a staunch Democrat said that.) He said she "... conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House ... and the rules of confidentiality." She ALSO made important documents "disappear" during that period. Surprise, surprise.

Yep. Even back then. Nothing seems to have changed. If you think that's just "incompetence", I suggest you start re-thinking before elections come around.

Comment Re:Whistle blower (Score 2) 583 583

The big difference with all of the above is he does not accept the consequences of his actions.

No, that's a false statement. If he had any realistic expectation of being treated like a citizen rather than a terrorist, and get a real "trial by his peers", he wouldn't have had to go to Russia. (Remember: he didn't go there first, the U.S. chased him there.)

Realistic thinking says he has almost no chance of a real trial. He would be treated as a terrorist. Government has said so more than once.

So no, he's not hiding from his actions. He's hiding from ridiculous OVERREaction on the part of government. This is the reality:

He had no realistic means of coming forth with the information from within the United States.

He didn't want to go to Russia, and did not at first. That was a last resort.

Government has (yes, really) called him a terrorist and strongly indicated he would be treated as such.

So no. As long as government is being crooked and dishonest, he's not refusing to take responsibility for his actions. He's evading unconstitutionally harsh treatment from his own government.

Comment Re:The important details: Slower and over 540$ (Score 2, Informative) 75 75

So get a cheaper 4th Gen Core i whatever. Or go with an AMD APU or CPU and get a discrete GPU in the mean time.

I think you missed the point. GP expressed a wish for a 5-gen chip with more cores, and no graphics.

There's a lot to be said for that.

Comment Re: um...yay? (Score 2) 469 469

However, dressing like a professional doth not a professional make. HP would do well to remember that.

I worked for a software house around 2000. They said they expected "professional" attire, including collared shirts (men & women) and knee-length skirts or dockers and better for pants. No jeans.

Now, that might actually seem reasonable... except for the fact that I sat in a cubical doing my programming and seldom even saw my co-workers, much less anyone else. So who the hell was I supposed to impress? My boss? There were only 5 programmers in the whole place, each to our own space. I seldom even glanced at my boss other than once a week meeting.

Very occasionally a customer came to the office. And I saw one, only once. And I had advance notice.

So when I was alone there in my cubicle, why the hell did anybody care if I even wore anything from the waist down? Or up, for that matter? Since the dividers were 6' high?

Someone give me an answer that is based on reason, rather than tradition. If you can find one.

Comment Re:um...yay? (Score 2) 469 469

Seriously, Political Correctness is fine and cute, but when it gets to getting shit done, it's time to stop the silly games and concentrate on what really matters.

PC always had a "you're screwed if you don't toe the line" attitude.

It was never fine and cute. It has always been about social control.

Comment Re:Improving data [Re:The Gods] (Score 1) 384 384

That's an opinion, not a fact.

Absolute bullshit. Karl et al. conclusion is an outlier. And you don't have to be a scientist to know it... if it weren't, there wouldn't have been news media all over the place reporting "No 'Hiatus' After All".

Outliers are outliers. They can be recognized from their conclusions, as I did, but by lay people they can also often be recognized by the media uproar they stir. Simple logic says that if it hadn't been NEWS, it wouldn't have made a stir in the news.

No adjustment performed by NOAA or NASA implies they think people in 1937 didn't know how to read thermometers.

Again, nonsense. NOAA and NASA assume that high and low temperature records were taking at particular times of day. There is no rational basis for making that assumption on a large scale. It might be true in many cases but before there were standards, people at least attempted to take high temperature readings at the hottest part of the day, and low temperature readings at the coldest.

Again, that's just simple logic, which seems to be beyond your ken.

The rest of this is your same old "bringing up old shit and inappropriately trying to insert it into current conversation", as you did above by inserting statements made weeks ago, entirely out-of-context.

When are YOU going to learn that tactic is utterly dishonest and despicable, not to mention just plain invalid logical argument?

You've argued here with at least several things I've said in the past which had absolutely nothing to do with the context of the current conversation. Not only does that not refute my point, it rather shows you for the asshole you are. That comment is based on my strong opinion of your consistent (and recorded) actions.

If you didn't have to work so hard, you'd have more time to be depressed.