Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Local CO2 (Score 1) 64 64

The sentence in the summary is a bit ambiguous certainly. CO2 is measured as an aspect of air quality in a specific location, not because it is a pollutant in itself. Or if you like, a sound is not necessarily noise, but put a lot of sounds together and you get noise pollution.

Nice try, but no. You're comparing the feel of apples to the smell of oranges.

In anything like a real-world outdoor scenario (see the other post on this page about Mexico City), CO2 levels aren't going to vary enough to have much of an affect on anything locally.

So lumping it together with "pollutants" that do makes no sense at all.

Comment Re:Local CO2 (Score 2) 64 64

It is no more political reason then it would be political to measure the amount of rain that is falling.

Utter nonsense. Even if you assume that CO2 is a "pollutant" (and that's a pretty huge assumption not backed by actual science), it wouldn't have any effect locally unless large areas were covered with hundreds of thousands of PPM. And then it would be easy to tell, because -- the only serious local effect possible -- people and animals would be keeling over en masse.

Rain, on the other hand, has immediate and very local effects.

And as for

pouring into the atmosphere at a rate of more than 100x what nature produces

... man, go back to elementary school. That hasn't happened, isn't happening, and isn't going to happen.

Comment Re:IE all over again (Score 3, Interesting) 361 361

When I upgraded to Windows 10 yesterday, there was a screen that came up that asked me if I wanted to reset the default apps. I said no for my browser and media player, and when it completed, Chrome and VLC were still the default applications. I think it's a little underhanded, but not as underhanded as the article suggests.

Mozilla is whining anyway; when they switched search providers from Google to Yahoo I had to go through and specify it on EVERY INSTANCE of Firefox I have. Since I use --no-remote and segment my web browsing this was actually a royal pain in the ass. Granted, Google was the old "default," so I had never changed it, but it was still an undesired change in behavior. If they're going to whine about Microsoft doing the same thing then they ought to look at their own behavior.

Firefox is still my browser of choice for personal use but for others I've started to recommend Chrome. It's just less hassle to support it for your luser friends. The future of Firefox and Mozilla is not an encouraging one, which is a pity.

Comment Re:I'm surprised they missed "Wi-Fi Sense." (Score 1) 483 483

uploads a supposedly-encrypted form of your wireless AP's password to a Microsoft server for safe-keeping

It's a bit hard to get outraged at MSFT when GOOG has been doing the exact same thing for the last three or four Android versions.

Comment Re:Whistle blower (Score 1) 592 592

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) 83 83

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:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score 1) 1173 1173

That's not destruction of property, that's maintenance of property. Want a better analogy than the soccer ball? If your neighbor parks in your driveway without permission you can probably have him towed. What you can't do is take a 9 Iron to his headlights.

Comment Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score 1) 1173 1173

No, that would still be destruction of property. The fact that it's on your property does not give you the right to destroy it. If the neighbor's kid kicks a soccer ball over your fence does that give you the right to slash it with a knife before you return it to them? Of course not.

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) 385 385

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.

A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. - Winston Churchill

Working...