Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 177

The only one "desperately begging for attention" here is you. It's the only rational explanation for your lengthy rantings. I'm hardly looking for attention... in fact I'd be very happy if you just went the hell away.

And your links to "lecturing scientists" are rather amusing... including the one where after all you had done was try to attack the messenger, I called you out on it.

The discussion here was not about the hotspot, and you didn't "debunk". You quoted one person's opinion.

Jane, you'll never realize that you're only demonstrating your own foolishness by compulsively lecturing scientists about what scientists think.

I didn't lecture you about what you think. I asked you a question. Which you did not answer.

And you're the one here spouting about time machines, not me. I don't know what your schedule is, nor do I care. You didn't give me (or anyone) any actual evidence that it wasn't you. You just made the claim. I still find it strange how you project your own imaginings on others. It's an interesting (if unsociable) habit.

Now, if you wanted FINALLY get to the actual subject that was under discussion, then by all means: show me that John Cook is not in fact a cartoonist. Or show us that...

Abstracts were randomly distributed via a web-based system to raters with only the title and abstract visible. All other information such as author names and affiliations, journal and publishing date were hidden. Each abstract was categorized by two independent, anonymized raters.

... as claimed in the paper was true. Show us that the #3 author did not write this in their online forum:

"We have already gone down the path of trying to reach a consensus through the discussions of particular cases. From the start we would never be able to claim that ratings were done by independent, unbiased, or random people anyhow."

Or that Jose Duarte's summation is false:

There appears to be no question that they knew, well before submitting the paper, that they had not implemented independent ratings, since as she mentioned, they were discussing particular papers in the forums the whole time. Yet, they still reported in their article that they used independent raters. What is this?

Those are the only relevant issues discussed in my comments, and you haven't addressed one of them. Yes, you did lose the argument. So what did you do as a result? Admit you were wrong? Apologize? NO, you came here and wrote a page of whines like a child, trying to make me look bad again.


And finally, stop sock-puppeting as Anonymous Coward. It makes even you look bad.

Comment Ya I'm having trouble imagining it (Score 2) 156

Everyone I know, even the cheap types, keeps some kind of wired Internet. It is usually faster than wireless and always cheaper per GB. If you were an EXTREMELY light user I suppose you could go all wireless all the time, but even for the casual user who likes to surf the web on a daily basis and watch cat videos, you'll easily use more data than a wireless provider is interested in letting you have cheap and they'll charge and/or throttle.

Simple example: T-Mobile gives me phone, text, and 1GB of data for $50/month. It would run me $30/month more to get unlimited data (they'll throttle if you get too excessive though). That's for a single device, and gives 7GB of tethering. Speeds are in the realm of 40mbits max, 20-30mbits normally. So that'd work only if your phone is going to be the one-and-only device you use for most things, and do a little surfing on something else. If you want to add a tablet to it you'd be talking adding another line/device which brings it up to about $100/month with 10GB of data per device.

Ok well then having a look at the cable company for about $60/month they'll sell you a 50mbit connection with a 350GB soft cap (meaning if you go over they complain at you and try to upsell you, they don't charge or throttle). You'll really get those kinds of speeds too, pretty much all the time.

That's more money, but not a ton more. Presuming you would have the basic phone plan anyhow you pay about $30/month more than the unlimited or $10/month more than the two devices. With that you get a faster connection, the ability to connect as many devices as you like, enough data to watch Netflix, download games, and so on. Also, you can, of course, upgrade your speed. They'll happily sell you 100mbit or 300mbit for a bit more per month (about $75 and $100 respectively) whereas the mobile speed is what it is.

Not surprising then that all the people I know keep a wired connection. Personally I don't find I need much LTE data, I use WiFi most of the time at work and home, so the 1GB cap is fine for me (more than fine actually) but I need a lot more on another connection. Looking at my usage I used about 350GB last month. Not the kind of thing a wireless provider would be ok with.

Comment Even if it isn't some blend (Score 4, Insightful) 565

Most fruit juices have a lot of sugar. Fruit contains a lot of fructose, water, and fiber. So squeeze out the water that contains the fructose, the fiber gets left behind, and you have something that is by volume and weight a tons of sugar.

Apple juice is a good example. If you go and have a look at the Simply Apple stuff at a grocer you can see easily. It really is 100% pure apple juice. They don't add any sweetener or anything else, they just squeeze the juice out of apple and bottle that shit up... and it is as high calorie as soda. 180 calories per 12 oz (355ml). For comparison Pepsi is 150 and Mountain Dew is 170.

I love apple juice, it tastes fantastic, but you can't fool yourself in to thinking that because it is juice it is magically good.

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 177

Oops. Time to correct myself. After a quick glance over (which is all this is worth), I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2).

I thought I had seen such, but it seems I was mistaken.

Interesting, though, that you would come HERE and add more harassment after you lost an argument THERE. Why is that, you think?

It could be that you are finally seeing the true way of ethical behavior, and replying to my previous Slashdot comment, in the same medium in which you were addressed the other day.

But from experience, I think that's about as likely as contracting leprosy from a wild armadillo... in Vermont.

More likely -- again just my opinion but justified by circumstances -- you were trying to "get back" at me here because you lost the Twitter argument so miserably.

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 177

Wait... I will amend that.

Your comments DO have something to do with comments of mine in recent days which have been misrepresented, out of context. Yet again.

Your incessant postings of things which are completely irrelevant and not even roughly comparable (in context), is just more proof of the impression of "clueless nutcase" your presentation of yourself screams to others.

I am aware that you were not happy of my showing how ridiculous your arguments were on Twitter. But this isn't Twitter. If you're going to discuss Twitter, why don't you copy ALL of what I said here?

The obvious answer is that yet again you want the advantage of misrepresenting things, outside the real context in which you were shown to be acting and writing foolishly.

No sympathy here. As I stated earlier, you have been reported. Your blatantly unethical behavior is being recorded for posterity. Have a day.

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 177

No, you don't even have a single solitary example of me using that d-word.

Admittedly it was a paraphrase. Far be it from me to intentionally put words in the mouth of someone else. However, the gist remains... I have you on record belittling nearly every scientist I mention who disagrees with your belief, and putting on pedestals those who agree with it. I also have you on record telling me all about your apparently unshakable belief in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and that someone who disagrees is endangering humanity.

I also enjoyed (no, "enjoyed" is not the right word, "got some satisfaction out of" would be more accurate) your tacit admission above that by harassing people, you feel you're acting as the point man for the Climate Police Goon Squad. Pretty rich, that one. Not your exact words, of course, but as you do seem to realize, actual context is very important.

I don't care what your religion is. That doesn't give you license to harass or libel people.

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 177

"And by the way, if you really wanted me to go away, you wouldn't have written back again []." Repeatedly. On both Twitter and Slashdot.

The circumstances are not remotely comparable. I haven't deliberately and incessantly intruded into YOUR conversations in order to harass you, or any other individual. You clearly have been doing so to me. I reply simply to defend myself from your misrepresentation and libel.

Your behavior is nothing like mine. In any significant way. Dream on.

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 177

For instance: John Cook

John Cook is not a "mainstream scientist". He's a cartoonist. Get real. But of course, you have seldom let facts get in the way of your libel.

According to many past statements of yours, anybody on "your side" of the argument is a "scientist". Anybody else is a denier.

I have reams of examples.

Further, your statement that I have "harassed" those people, as opposed to just making occasional critical comments of their work, is libel. It's utterly false. And rather egregious libel at that. You're projecting your own behavior on to me, when in fact (again there are reams of documented evidence): I have not "harassed" these people. You, on the other hand, clearly HAVE harassed people. As you're doing now.

Every time you make comments like this, you dig a deeper hole for yourself.

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 177

I will not discuss tweets with you here on Slashdot. If you want to respond appropriately, you will do so in the same medium you are supposedly responding to.

Doing otherwise is strong evidence that you intend (just as you did here) to misrepresent statements out of context. It is also evidence of harassment. Which brings up: why have you been so obsessed with my comments to other people?

Cross-media posting is one of the characteristic hallmarks of cyberstalkers.

You have been reported. Again.

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 177

If?! IF the quote I showed him which I labeled "2013" wasn't from a 2015 paper, then Lonny's comment about a 2015 paper wasn't what this entire exchange has been about!

Yes, "if". Do you really expect me to be interested enough in your BS to check dates on the incessant quotes you make? What a laugh.

But since YOU brought it up: that paper has ALSO been criticized for its low-credibility theory of how low clouds and a new model of convective atmospheric mixing could (unverified and currently unverifiable) explain discrepancies in model sensitivities.


Yep. 2 papers (2013 and 2015) = 2 new unverifiable climate models that disagree with everyone else's climate models.

You have been reported. Again.

Comment And what, pray tell, is a "digital agenda"? (Score 4, Insightful) 109

Because it seems the US likes technology plenty. The US is a bastion of high tech research and production. Intel, AMD, nVidia, Texas Instruments, Analog Devices, Broadcom, IBM, most of the big names in chip technology are US companies with US R&D centers, and many of them have a lot of US production. That's just one example, you can point to plenty of other technologies that the US does a ton in, it is just a good one since those chips tend to underlie our digital devices these days.

Same deal on the purely digital side of things, namely software. The US is a mainstay in virtually every segment of software.

So what is this "digital agenda" that the US so desperately supposedly needs to not fall behind? Because they seem to be doing well.

Also as an aside, what's wrong with being #2 or #3 in something? I've visited a number of other countries, and by definition not all of them are #1 at most things. They are still very nice places to live and I have no issues. Seems that between #1 and "stone age shithole" there is a whole range of "quite nice places to live". So who cares if China is #1 at something?

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 177

Further, if your quoted passage (that was presented out of context as has been your usual habit) was NOT from the paper, then my mistake. Fine. But I cleared that up straight away. So what the hell are you ranting about? There is nothing more to be said.

I told you, I will not discuss tweets here on Slashdot. By definition, that's another demonstration of your out-of-context bullshit. Which by now any reasonable person would have to conclude is 100% deliberate misrepresentation. You can talk about lapse rate here all you want, but that wasn't I was referring to on Twitter, mistakenly or not.

If you want to discuss something on Twitter, then do it on Twitter. IN CONTEXT.

You have been reported yet again.

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 177

You still don't understand that your "recent comment" baselessly accusing that recent PAPER of having credibility problems is completely irrelevant?

Since my comment about the paper is what this entire exchange has been about, which YOU started by the way, how could it be irrelevant?

It's so utterly, bizarrely illogical that you would rant for so long about something that you say yourself is irrelevant, I have to say, once again, that you have given me strong reason to suspect you're a dangerous, stalking, harassing nutcase. And by "dangerous" I mean that you appear to me to be seriously unbalanced. GO AWAY.

Nothing recedes like success. -- Walter Winchell