Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Interesing... (Score 1) 364

by Xyrus (#49139483) Attached to: Lawmakers Seek Information On Funding For Climate Change Critics

SO, they're only investigating the funding sources of people who disagree with their position.

Well, that couldn't be biased at all, now could it?

I guess your bias prevents you from reading. Documenting funding source for research is STANDARD PRACTICE. Hiding those sources and then LYING TO CONGRESS ABOUT IT has a tendency to viewed unfavorably.

Comment: Re:We already have them (kinda) (Score 1) 318

The Phalanx system on US navy ships is, once activated, pretty much automatic. Anything within it's radar envelope automatically gets a dose of 20mm cannon fire. It's designed to take down anti-ship missiles, but will engage pretty much anything moving towards the boat that it's radar can pick up.

And if you happen to be the target, you are going to have a bad time.

Comment: Re:Reduced carbon storage (Score 1) 419

by Xyrus (#49115451) Attached to: What If We Lost the Sky?

This reminds me of Major Payne.

Marine Private: AHHHH my arm, my arm!
Major Payne: Want me to show you a little trick to take your mind off that arm?
[Marine nods and Payne grabs the private's pinky finger]
Major Payne: Now you might feel a little pressure.
[Major Payne breaks the Marine's pinky]
Marine Private: AUGGGGH! My finger, my finger!
Major Payne: Works every time.


Comment: Re:Right... what could go wrong? (Score 1) 419

by Xyrus (#49115423) Attached to: What If We Lost the Sky?

Seriously. We have a perfect understanding of the climate. We can predict to a tenth of a degree what the weather will be two weeks or two hundred years from now anywhere on Earth.

Weather and climate are not the same thing, and opening your idiotic diatribe with such a statement demonstrates you have very little understanding of basic math, physics, and chemistry. Global warming was predicted well over 100 years ago by Svante Arrhenius (considered the father of modern chemistry). He was the first to synthesize the work of Fourier and others from the early 1800's to produce physical model demonstrating how much impact increasing green house gases would have on average planetary temperature.

So almost 200 years of physics and chemistry, vs. one random internet poster who comes right out of the gate equating climate and weather. Who has more evidence supporting their argument?

Comment: Re:And... the evidence? (Score 1) 437

by Xyrus (#49107971) Attached to: How One Climate-Change Skeptic Has Profited From Corporate Interests

And his evidence? What about the evidence? What does him accepting money have to do with his results?

Did he fake his evidence, or fudge the calculations?

Science is all about the observations and the predictive conclusions. It shouldn't matter if he was funded by the devil himself - if science can't refute his observations and conclusions, then it's the science that must be revisited.

His papers in regards to climate have been thoroughly destroyed. A quick Google search will yield plenty of information on the topic. Just avoid the science denial sites.

Comment: Re:Need to consider this (Score 1) 182

by Xyrus (#49082971) Attached to: Theory of Information Could Resolve One of the Great Paradoxes of Cosmology

What if the universe is 120 times larger? Maybe our part of the observable universe just looks like it happened from a Big Bang.

For all we know our universe is just the latest in a string of "detonations" due to a locus of instability in the omniverse, Think of it like ripples in water caused by a drop falling into it. Each drop (the "bang") creates a universe and the resulting "wave" pushes the preceding bangs outward, causing expansion. Simultaneously all other bangs are hidden by the peaks of the wave since they all reside in the troughs.

The waves in this case would represent a multi-dimensional "buckling" as result of the explosions, creating what amounts to an infinite potential well between each one. From down in the "troughs", you can't see anything beyond your bounded but infinite space. And that space would appear to be expanding due to the unseen force of new bangs pushing yours outwards.

Now if there's some sort of aether/friction/resistance/etc. in this omniverse then it may be possible, after a long enough period of time, for the amplitude of the waves to diminish allowing observation, or even "crashing" into previous bangs.

Basically you can come up with just about any crazy idea you want once you start pushing the boundaries of the observable universe. However, coming up with something that can be validated scientifically is another matter.

Comment: Re: Numerology (Score 1) 182

by Xyrus (#49082671) Attached to: Theory of Information Could Resolve One of the Great Paradoxes of Cosmology

The idea does actually work if the assumption is that we are living in a simulation, similar to ours. ;)

That's actually what I thought too. I've actually pondered this before. If we are in a simulation then stuff at the microscopic
or macroscopic only has to exist when viewed and can be generalized to a much lower resolution the rest of the time which
would greatly reduce the processing power required. This might also help explain some of the observation effects of quantum
physics where it seems that things act differently when observed.

No, you can't generalize to a low resolution case most of the time because the resulting computed "frames" would begin to deviate immediately from any form of calculation you try to apply. Chaos and all that.

Comment: Re:So it was the 1950's PATRIOT ACT (Score 1) 313

Because short of the martial law of troops in the streets with body armor and M16's..... Oh wait... Our COPS have those now.
Well they dont have assult vehicles...... Wait....
Nor do they have grenade launchers...... Welll.....

So basically they have been planning on the shit we have today for decades?

Well yeah. You don't throw frogs into boiling water. They jump. You have to put them in the water and then slowly turn up the heat..

Comment: Re:Yep it is a scam (Score 1) 667

by Xyrus (#48873097) Attached to: US Senate Set To Vote On Whether Climate Change Is a Hoax

Funny thing is that the summary directly contradicts the title. The democrats are attaching riders to the Keystone XL bill that declare climate change caused by man a fact. This is just as bad, but done by the other side of the aisle.


All we need is for congress to start wearing sponsorship badges like NASCAR and drinking Brawndo. Idiocracy here we come.

Comment: Re:Yep it is a scam (Score 4, Funny) 667

by Xyrus (#48873085) Attached to: US Senate Set To Vote On Whether Climate Change Is a Hoax

I like how everyone assumes not only that a supreme being exists, but also that it has a penis.

Of course god has a penis. Read the old testament. Only something with a penis could be deliberately that childish, evil, and destructive and not only expect people to be happy about it, but also people to worship the ground he walks on.

Any program which runs right is obsolete.