Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: this isn't just about beliefs (Score 2, Insightful) 822

by abarrieris5eV (#30248646) Attached to: Engaging With Climate Skeptics
If this were any other scientific theory this wouldn't be happening. Politicians are in on this, politically deciding which evidence is valid and which is not, on both sides of the issue. The "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" isn't even strictly necessary most of the time. If this were string theory I wouldn't care. The problem is that this is being used to advocate drastic changes in public policy. Policies Al Gore supports would end factory farming and dramatically drive up energy prices. The only possible outcome of this is an immediate and severe increase in the price of food, and famine in much of the undeveloped world. It would lead to millions perhaps billions of deaths over the next several decades. If you're asking me to standby and let our politicians kill millions through famine, because the alternative is even more devastating destruction, you better have some evidence that: A) Your doomsday scenario is fairly certain B) the policy changes you suggest will definitely prevent it. While the evidence for A is getting slightly more convincing, all the evidence seems to be against B. When DDT was banned millions died of malaria, I don't want my generation being responsible for another such well meaning, naive, indirect mass murder.

Comment: Re:College Reasearch using Wikipedia not allowed (Score 1) 632

by abarrieris5eV (#30234936) Attached to: Contributors Leaving Wikipedia In Record Numbers
APA papers that reference wikipedia? I might have to go throw up if your talking about the American Psychological Association, unless someone is doing a study on wikipedia contributers, nothing, absolutely nothing, from wikipedia should be referenced in a published paper, ever. Anything authoritative enough to get into a scientific journal needs to be peer reviewed, and sure as hell not anonymous.

Comment: dolphin? (Score 2, Interesting) 434

by abarrieris5eV (#30234800) Attached to: Australian Govt. Proposes Internet "Panic Button" For Kids
What strikes me most about this is that the dolphin shape has been decided, while other details, like: what will the button actually do? where do we buy/acquire the tech? is this a good idea? are still undecided. It's like in the hitchhikers guide book where they are back in time on earth with the golgafrinchams and they are wanting to invent a wheel, and the most important decision to them is what color (colour in the book I suppose) to make it.

Comment: Re:We need free books first (Score 1) 265

by abarrieris5eV (#30111904) Attached to: Free Software For All Russian Schools In Jeopardy

I'm horrendous at being able to accomplish big projects on my own, with no funding.

Pretty much everyone has that problem. If you need some entry level physics or EE or some more advanced materials science stuff maybe I'll contribute one day. Free education is possible, just like you say. At the same time I'd be sad to see the brick and mortar schools go. You can't replace being physically in the same buildings with the same labs for a lot of stuff.

Comment: Re:The answer is so EASY... (Score 1) 159

by abarrieris5eV (#29886391) Attached to: Should a New Technology Change the Patent System?
That is no different than the tax system now. The IRS doesn't do accounting for people, but in any system where fudging some numbers in a few books will result in longer patents making a lot more money you would need auditing and oversight, not to mention processing all of the filings about R&D costs, making sure they are somewhat reasonable, endless regulations as to what constitutes an R&D cost (travel? consultants? internet bandwidth that the company might have had anyway but was also being used for the project?). All of those regulations would need enforcing. It would just be a huge can of worms.

"Catch a wave and you're sitting on top of the world." - The Beach Boys

Working...