Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:BS (Score 1) 174

by BarbaraHudson (#47979365) Attached to: CDC: Ebola Cases Could Reach 1.4 Million In 4 Months

With a disease with a high infection rate, even if more than half die within a month, you still have this huge pool of newly infected people to draw from. Thus, you can have both an increase in the number of carriers and an increase in the number of dead month-over-month, until you simply run out of people.

You are also continually playing "catch-up", as both the number of cases and the number of deaths continues to ramp up faster than your response.

Now throw in mistrust of western medicine, lack of treatment facilities, lack of effective treatments, lack of basics, and you have a pretty good formula for rapid spread of a disease with high mortality rates.

However this ends up, the world will not be the same after.

Comment: Re:Mind boggling (Score 2) 46

by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (#47979203) Attached to: Now That It's Private, Dell Targets High-End PCs, Tablets

Statements like these are mindboggling.... "Because they are no longer reporting to Wall Street, they can be more competitive." Your share holders want you to maximize profits and growth, this rarely results in wanting you to be less competitive...

Only if you treat market rationality as axiomatic, rather than as something that requires empirical demonstration...

It is not beyond the realm of possibility; but it is hardly self evident.

Comment: Re:But - what's changing the winds? (Score 1) 67

by geekoid (#47978835) Attached to: Study Links Pacific Coastal Warming To Changing Winds

You are so attached to your provably(and proven) wrong belief that you don't even read the abstract before spew you emotional based nonsense and polluting the comments.

Nothing in the study refute the fact that excess greenhouse gasses are trapping energy.

Unless you are ready to overturn 100+ years of science the proves greenhouse gasses trap energy?

anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address the facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?

Comment: Re:I barely read the abstract (Score 2) 67

by geekoid (#47978609) Attached to: Study Links Pacific Coastal Warming To Changing Winds

no.
They have shown that a local effect, pacific northwest, might have had a bigger impact on local winds. The fact tat ther wind changes can be do yo e;levate GLOBAL energy trapping isn't addressed in any clear way.

The fact that they used global model and tried to apply them to a local event is suspect.
No matter, it's one study. Lets see follow up.
NOTHING in the study refutes the fact that the lower atmosphere of the earth is warming do to excess CO2 trapping energy.

Comment: Re:Two new deniers are born... (Score 1, Informative) 67

by geekoid (#47978565) Attached to: Study Links Pacific Coastal Warming To Changing Winds

If you don't think excess greenhouse gasses, (CO2, tc) are cause an increase in trapped energy, then you are an idiot. This is proven science.

anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address the facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?

Comment: Re:The article isn't any better. (Score 1) 731

by swillden (#47978545) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

It isn't predictive capacity just in the sense that it will describe how known things happen - it should describe what will happen in a previously unknown situation, which is where experimentation comes in, whether it is contrived or found in nature. Take the theory that angels pushed planets around and that the movement of the stars was governed by the whim of the gods - when a theory came along (Newton's gravitation) that both described current phenomena, and also was able to predict something previously unexpected (the return of Halley's comet) it was a resounding vindication of the theory.

Yes, and the converse is also crucial: For example the Michelson-Moreley experiment observed a phenomenon (or, rather, lack of one) which defied explanation under Newtonian Mechanics. Because Newton's theory is a good explanation there was no way to make minor adjustments to it which could explain the null result. Instead, we got special and then general relativity, which completely changed the explanation to one in which gravitational forces don't really even exist.

To put it another way, what you said is that good explanations have "reach"; they explain more than the phenomenon they were created to explain. Further, they also tell us what those other phenomena are, because the explanation itself implies that reach (though sometimes we don't see all of the implications). And, finally, they are not easily modifiable to account for new observations which don't fit the theory.

This makes explanatory theories far more than simple predictive tools, and is the reason that the empiricist view of science as merely a process for deriving predictive rules is incorrect.

Comment: Re:Faulty premise (Score 1) 64

by Kjella (#47978525) Attached to: Sci-fi Predictions, True and False (Video 1)

Couldn't you just as well say "Fantasy is about considering and exploring the human ramifications when certain aspects of reality are changed"? If you don't care about the science, you're just using sci-fi as window dressing to take you somewhere else, like Avatar is essentially Dances with Wolves with a ton of fancy gadgetry. You can do a historic war movie like 300 or contemporary one like Enemy at the Gates or a futuristic one like Independence Day and it's often the same story of a desperate stand against overwhelming forces with everything in the balance. For that matter, so could many of the great battle scenes in LotR that don't deal with the ring. It's only occasionally the science is an essential plot item and rarer still that it has any real scientific substance. In Star Trek, they just say "beam me up, Scotty" and you're back on the Enterprise, it might just as well have been Gandalf throwing a teleportation spell. That essentially just makes it futuristic fantasy, with sufficiently advanced technology to make it indistinguishable from magic.

The Tao doesn't take sides; it gives birth to both wins and losses. The Guru doesn't take sides; she welcomes both hackers and lusers.

Working...