Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Experimental science vs narrative science (Score 1) 302

by Xyrus (#46820673) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

The article conflates two very different types of science. One is experimental: cigarettes cause cancer. That's a testable, provable (and proven) hypothesis. The scientific method can be used. Alternate explanations can be systematically disproven.

Then there's the science that says, "because X and Y are true, it makes sense that Z is true". Note that it does NOT say "therefore Z MUST be true", which is what the article is implying. Z is something like the story of the universe from Big Bang through inflation up to today, or the story of manmade global warming. "Science" can project itself in those directions and come up with some answers, but there is no scientific method on a narrative. There are no controlled experiments. Every alternate hypothesis cannot be evaluated. They are at best projections, models. They're not "truth" without faith.

Global warming is a scientific result from the study of climate and the physics/chemistry governing the climate system. Fourier came up with Greenhouse theory in the 1820's and the first climatological model to show anthropogenic global warming was developed by the father of of physical chemistry Svante Arrhenius in the late 1800's, long before computers came on the scene.

No scientific method? No controlled experiments? Have you ever cracked open anything other than an elementary school textbook? And you seriously wonder why scientists don't bother listening to people like you? "The last 200 years of physics, thermodynamics, and chemistry is all bullshit," is basically what you're saying, and has as much credibility as a prostitute preaching abstinence.

Comment: Re:So what? (Score 3, Informative) 348

by Xyrus (#46793373) Attached to: VA Supreme Court: Michael Mann Needn't Turn Over All His Email

But Mann - the scientist who warns us that global warming is real and dangerous based on a computer model - refuses to give out the computer code and data that he used to form his assertions. To me, this doesn't sound very scientific or very honest.

Exactly. But...well...I think he needs to work on hiding stuff. Because...I mean, whenever I try to hide something I don't make a website about what I'm trying to hide and post it on the internet: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann...

Do you know how to use a search engine?

Comment: Re:How icky. (Score 1) 796

Yeah, it sucks that some of you were horribly treated when you were young, but get the fuck over it already.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Victims of constant bullying exhibit the same symptoms as those who have been repeatedly physically/mentally tortured over long periods of time. It stays with you for the rest of your life, even with good counseling. Those behavioral and emotional patterns get etched into your fucking brain like a steel-cutting laser. You don't just "get the fuck over it".

If you still get overwraught to the point where you fantasize about killing people at shit that happened 10 years ago on a playground, you have problems and you need to address them.

No doubt. But that isn't the issue here. The issue here is that despite all the "zero-tolerance" bullshit the environment from when they were kids and the environment today hasn't changed, which will lead to more fucked up people living in an already fucked up society increasing the chance that they will do something fucked up.

So in light of that, I have established a set of rules with my son to deal with bullying (which were the same set I used when growing up):

1. Tell the kid to stop.
2. If the kid doesn't stop, talk to the teacher.
3. If the teacher doesn't do anything or it continues, talk to the principal.
4. If the principal does nothing and the bullying continues, use deterrent force.

It's amazing how little deterrent force it takes to stop bullying.

Comment: Re:Lobbying aside (Score 1) 420

by Xyrus (#46760887) Attached to: Intuit, Maker of Turbotax, Lobbies Against Simplified Tax Filings

Most of them only look at how much they're getting back, which is the majority of people. If you really wanted it to sink in, you'd need to end paycheck income tax withholding and actually have them write a check on April 15.

If you want to destroy the country that would be a good way to go about it. Most people can't even responsibly manage their finances, yet you want to give them the additional responsibility of setting aside enough money to pay Uncle Same come April 15th?

Comment: Re:When is the "UN" not the United Nations? (Score 1) 432

by Xyrus (#46747655) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

If you get 12 scientists in a room that have volunteered to produce a report on global warming, what would you expect them to produce? Something that says everything's peachy?You won't see this old boy freaking out over something dumb like this.

Of course not. You'll be dead long before the worst of the consequences of our inaction actually take hold. So why would you care anyway?

Comment: Re:Starship Diversity? (Score 5, Funny) 392

by Xyrus (#46663813) Attached to: How Many People Does It Take To Colonize Another Star System?

On a vaguely related note: Assume you send N ships on this voyage. Do you send N copies of the same ship, and hope the design has no fatal flaw (while acknowledging the advantages of parts redundancy) . Or do you send N different designs in the hope that diversity of design is overall more reliable?

You send N ships and let them breed of course. It may cause an occasional bumpy ride, and sure some of the younger ships will keep asking "Are we there YET?!?!". Then there will be the rebellious phase where the ships pierce their deflector dishes, get decals plastered over their aft thrusters, and deviate to the Orion Nebula because "that's what all the cool ships are doing". But in the end, you'll end up with enough mature and responsible ships to keep things going.

Comment: Re:This is unacceptable (Score 1) 1746

by Xyrus (#46657185) Attached to: Brendan Eich Steps Down As Mozilla CEO

I feel bad for him, it is only because of his public position that this is an issue. If you dig deep enough, none of us should keep our jobs.

There's a difference. A CEO leads a company. He or she is the face of the company. Whether they like it or not, if their actions and beliefs will reflect on the company. Holding unpopular views or views that are contrary to those of the company or, at the very least, contrary to the rest of board will make it likely that you'll be "encouraged to explore other opportunities".

Businesses operate in their own best interests. They are not democracies. Seeing the negative publicity and the potential repercussions to their image/reputation, the rest of the Mozilla board felt that having him as CEO would be bad for business.

Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom of consequences. Publicly taking an unpopular socially conservative position while holding a position of power in a business catering to a fairly socially liberal base is going to generate some consequences. It would be like a Republican Senator in Kansas growing a brain and giving a speech lauding the research and science behind evolution, climate change, vaccines, etc. You wouldn't expect that senator to get re-elected and wouldn't be surprised if a recall vote came screaming out of Fox News.

Comment: Re:April Fools stories are gay (Score 1) 1482

by Xyrus (#46638719) Attached to: OKCupid Warns Off Mozilla Firefox Users Over Gay Rights

Strange how you pick out homosexuality as a sin but fail to mention all the other ridiculous "sins" spelled out in that book. You don't mention the "it's okay to rape pillage, and murder as long as you follow these guidelines" section or the "Genocide? It's good for the environment and it's ok for you!" section. You also don't mention the "Women have no rights and are supposed to be a man's bitch" section, the "Shut up bitch before I stone your ass" section, or any of the other questionable sections in the bible that, when viewed by any sane member of society, makes them ask "Wait a second, I thought the bible was supposed about some benevolent sky wizard floating in the clouds or something?".

All you're doing is selectively picking and choosing the parts of the bible that happen to agree with your views and biases and putting blinders on to everything that doesn't. If you're going to use a 2000 year old book of mythology as a basis for your beliefs, shouldn't you be using the whole thing instead of just the parts you like? Isn't a sin to do this as the bible is supposed to be the "Word of God"?

Rhetorical questions. I'm sure you have a million excuses. But basically, keep your hatred and bigotry to yourself. We have enough of that in the world WITHOUT your personal sky wizards and zombies further fanning the flames through religious edicts and 2000 year old myths.

Comment: Re:Projections (Score 2) 987

by Xyrus (#46627251) Attached to: UN Report: Climate Changes Overwhelming

Really? And where is your research indicating that there has been a statistically significant climate deviation from the projections? Last I checked the last 30 years have shown a very prominent warming trend.

When you can show 30 years of flat or cooling temperatures, and you can actually back that up by some reviewed science, then you'll have a something. Comparing a single year, five years, or ten years for a climatic trend is nothing but garbage. There is way too much short term variance to make any significant claims.

Comment: Re:More Corporate Greedmeisters (Score 1) 466

by Xyrus (#46569553) Attached to: AT&T Exec Calls Netflix "Arrogant" For Expecting Net Neutrality

You mean like right now? You don't get rich by working hard. You get rich by being born rich, by fucking over other people, by being really lucky or by being REALLY fucking smart. Of all of those cases only one of them involves hard work and not many people are born smart enough to come up with a real money making idea.

Pretty much. Economic mobility in this country is primarily down. The upper 20% control pretty much everything. Income for the middle and lower classes have been stagnant and or dropping. If you aren't already well of it is extremely difficult to become well off. If your family is already in a whole you are most likely going to stay there.

The economic statistics are depressing. And of course the upper crust fight tooth and nail to make it worse. It isn't sustainable, but then again they don't really care. It will be interesting to see how much longer this can last before the whole thing collapses.

Comment: Re:!bank (Score 1) 357

by Xyrus (#46566819) Attached to: Cryptocurrency Exchange Vircurex To Freeze Customer Accounts

As we have seen, keeping any amount of money at an exchange's account is a recipe for disaster. They can still be used, but only if you take care to move your money out of it as soon as possible.

Exactly. Exchanges are COMPLETELY UNREGULATED. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that prevents them from just closing up shop and taking the coins with them. This is exactly the same as walking up to a stranger on the street and handing them your wallet, and should have about the same trust level.

Keep transactions small, keep only what you absolutely need on the exchange, and move everything else out as quickly as possible. It never ceases to amaze me that people don't do this. They'll say "Oh it's too inconvenient to do that!" Well losing your coins is a hell of a lot more inconvenient in my opinion.

If you play fast and lose with your coins, expect to lose them.

Possessions increase to fill the space available for their storage. -- Ryan

Working...