Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Not a consensus (Score 1) 327

Because there's a very limited number of these golden tickets, and unless you're born into a politician claim, it's about as likely as winning a lottery (except you only have to buy a ticket to win a lottery, whereas getting elected generally requires doing a lot of sleazy things).

Comment Not real science (Score 1, Insightful) 327

Any theory that has no way to falsified is not science. The level conflict of interest is too damn high with climate "scientists". It's nothing but a bunch of collectivists trying to push their top down authoritarian government down everyone's throat - AS ALWAYS - and this is just another means to that end. Don't believe it? Here's a simple litmus test.

1) Does it actually help the problem in a meaningful way, or does it simply grow the top down authoritarian government?

For each proposed "solution", if the answer to the above question is "yes", and it most certainly is so far, what other conclusion can be reached? The goal of AGW "science" is to grow government, period.

Comment Re:Wind Wind Everywhere (Score 1) 193

For an AC you are most wise. However it may be a while before the economics of wind-turbines in areas with lower wind currents is practical – it would be intriguing however it there were lanes of wind that worked in an almost binary fashion allowing for more smooth, more continuous output -- it might even been an under-researched idea.

Comment Wind Wind Everywhere (Score 1) 193

And not a gust to reap.

I find it ironic that with 3 Category 4 Hurricanes Developing In Pacific we have a lack of wind. It seems a shame we can’t mine wind in some semi-relocatable way and store the energy in some form like maybe cracking hydrogen from seawater. Similarly for lightning. Seems we let these large energy events pass by without getting some real use out of them.

Comment Changes Nothing (Score 2) 617

People believe what they want to believe – this will make no difference. While the carbon dating is somewhat ambiguous (and gives more than enough wiggle room for believers), this will similarly give those who don’t believe in Islam, the complete certainty this completely disproves Islam without any further consideration.

I myself do not believe in Sky-Faeries, and many here will rush to blame Religion for most of mankind’s woes (or perhaps more specifically Islam more than most) but the real problem is adherence to any ideological Dogma and cherry picking or distorting facts to fit your Dogma.

Don’t be expect to win any friends or converts by trying to push this down Islam throat as proof Mohammad is not divine. It will be seen as a Zionist/Christian/American plot to deceive the faithful.

Comment Re:The reason for these laws (Score 1) 726

First of all, the Nazis actually managed to pull that trick before.They convinced enough people to vote for them to get into parliament, then leveraged politicians who underestimated Hitler, defects in the German constitution and apathy to take power.

I would argue that it wasn't something that could be prevented by muzzling them (if anything, I suspect it would have made them even more popular). Generally speaking, if your society is so close to the brink that it can be pushed over by an election, it's already well and truly fucked. The real fix is to not get there in the first place. In a healthy society, a Nazi-like party would gather some protest votes and such, but would never be in a position to define policy.

For instance, in a first past the post system (like the U.S.) third parties have virtually no chance to gain any influence at all. That means that many political viewpoints are ignored, and power remains with the entrenched parties, which are not required to act in a democratic manner (superdelegates).

This is not entirely true. In the American system, FPTP merely pushed a large chunk of political squabbles inside the parties, with primaries instead of general elections. And extremists can still gain political power that way - just look at Tea Party. For all the ridicule heaped on them, they did sweep quite a few states, enough for a strong faction of their own in the parliament. Again, this is an indication of an ill society, and not something that you can resolve by legislation - at best, you can sweep symptoms under the rug for a while.

If you really think that no form of speech is worth restricting, go look at how ISIS is recruiting people. That's pure speech.

I'm fine with restricting speech that directly leads to a crime. This is basically the "imminent lawless action" standard that is currently in force in US. The key part here is "imminent", and the onus is on the prosecution to prove such. It gives you the ability to prosecute people who actually manage to incite someone to a crime (because in that case the commitment of the crime is prima facie evidence of imminence), and it also gives some wiggle room for cases that are very borderline, but it's hard to abuse because it's so strict.

In case of ISIS speech, it boils down to this. People should be allowed to advocate for it, praise the virtues of the Caliphate, argue in favor of Sharia (including the promotion of death penalty and torture killing for apostasy and adultery) etc. That's all free speech. When it becomes a specific call to action that is illegal (e.g. an invitation to join ISIS), and that call is not just a random diatribe but is actually directed towards an audience that is likely to heed it, then that becomes fair game. And, of course, giving specific directions on where to go and whom to talk to in order to join, or providing specific instructions on how to wire money, is fair game.

Comment Re:Because we are distracted by "global warming" (Score 1, Insightful) 149

Well, one is a real disaster with actual physical evidence and the other is global warming, a theory that consists of no actual evidence. And no, the temperature records, no matter how much you manipulate them, do not prove anything one way or the other.

But don't believe me, just look at the predictions made two decades ago, or even one decade ago - zero came true. How many will come true next year (zero) and the year after (zero). How many full decades of incorrect predictions is it going to take before people universally mock the AGW congregation? The collectivists that are running this scam are dragging what used to be the trusted name of "science" thru the mud to try and push their collectivist agendas. The price will be that the public no longer trusts science.

Remember that! Zero evidence. Zero correct predictions. They claim they can predict an open thermodynamic system with nearly infinite variables, but meanwhile, in realsville, we know you can't even accurately predict things in a closed thermodynamic system with just a few variables! Every other branch of science LOLs at the methodology (or lack of) used by the AGW guys - especially the statisticians whose discipline they've hijacked and attempted to turn into a propaganda machine. How are those "more hurricanes" working out for you? What? No F4 or F5s since the prediction was made! That's actually statistically significant IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION!

But we're supposed to change the entire world's way of life - coincidentally into a top down authoritarian state controlled utopia - and we're supposed to believe that that's totally a coincidence. We're supposed to not think that just because that is also the collectivist wet dream that they're just using AGW as a means to an end! I mean, god forbid we consider that people pushing for a global takeover of every country's economy have an agenda. Because people, especially people in power, never have anything but the most genuine altruistic motives. Sure, global warming was in part created by a famous statist politician that has since then enriched the fuck out of himself using it, but I'm sure he had his scientist hat on that day, so it's all good, we need not question his motives - even if he doesn't seem to be terribly concerned with the environment based on his own actions.

Then they defend their theory primarily with the logical fallacy "appeal to popularity" (look at everyone who agrees!!) or "ad hominem" (you're not qualified to talk about this therefore your logic is no good here) and fail to provide any evidence supporting their theory - or indeed even have an actual scientific theory in the first place!

Remember this one thing: If your theory cannot be falsified, it isn't actually a scientific theory.

Comment Re:The reason for these laws (Score 1) 726

A quick glance of the Wikipedia page on it disagrees with you, not that Afghanistan is related to Germany.

Instead of doing a quick glance, you can try reading the thing - it's linked from that very Wikipedia page, in fact.

"The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam"

"In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam."

[on political parties] "The program and charter of the party are not contrary to the principles of sacred religion of Islam"

"The provisions of adherence to the fundamentals of the sacred religion of Islam and the regime of the Islamic Republic cannot be amended."

And this is how these work out in practice.

But the Wiki entry on that doesn't say what you assert either.

The wiki entry does actually say exactly what I said: that in German constitution, there are certain provisions that are deemed immutable, and that one of them pertains to a "democratic nature" of society, which is interpreted to mean that no political party isn't allowed to organize on a platform that would promote changing that nature. It's actually a feature of the political system that is distinctive enough that it has its own unique name, "militant democracy".

Comment Re:The article does not say... (Score 2) 149

I think deforestation is mostly due to countries trying to increase the amount of arable land they possess, not related to old growth nightstands and dressers. Considering that this action is taken to try and feed starving people, you're going to be hard pressed to get them to stop it.

panic: kernel trap (ignored)