Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: huh? (Score 2, Insightful) 359

by argStyopa (#48889613) Attached to: Behind the MOOC Harassment Charges That Stunned MIT

A 32 year old woman took a year to recognize that the harassment "started day one", and when she was "pushed" by her PHYSICS professor to participate in online sexual roleplay and send naked pictures (which she did?) she didn't comprehend that his interest in her might be more than academic?

At what age is someone expected to be able to deploy the word "no" on their own behalf?

Comment: Re:Let the consumer choose (Score 2) 790

by argStyopa (#48878213) Attached to: Fake Engine Noise Is the Auto Industry's Dirty Little Secret

EDIT to the above (love Slashdot's posting system):

What *needs* to happen is that someone needs to show up to a gearhead rally with a Prius wired with that SAME digital file and BETTER speakers, meaning that right next to the "roaring Mustang" is an even-louder Prius, sounding otherwise identical. LOL.

Comment: Let the consumer choose (Score 1) 790

by argStyopa (#48878189) Attached to: Fake Engine Noise Is the Auto Industry's Dirty Little Secret

As long as it's clear to the buyer what's going on, who cares?

People spend good $ on stupid crap all the time.
Is an automobile owner paying for "fake engine sound" any sillier than someone spending $15 a month to kill pretend monsters to get pretend gear to better kill pretend monsters?

Personally, I admire the efficiency of an engine that can generate 200+ horsepower that you can barely hear from 10' away. That's astonishing, if you think about it. But I get it, some people want the sound. Seems sorta silly to me, but that's just me.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 661

by argStyopa (#48875927) Attached to: US Senate Set To Vote On Whether Climate Change Is a Hoax

First, I'd politely suggest that the first step toward constructive discussion is not to patronize the person you're talking to. Condescension might make you feel great, but isn't a great way to start a difficult discussion.

OTOH, if you're actually genuine about believing that "anyone who doesn't agree with global warming doesn't understand science"...then you might want to check your biases. There are a LOT of scientists - including some climatologists - who disbelieve the all or parts of the current paradigm that "the planet is warming and humans are the main cause". Let's use, for example, Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) who's shown that observed temps are *radically* different than pretty nearly all the climate models put forward by the IPCC: ...if that doesn't make you suspicious of "sky is falling" predictions by the IPCC, what would?

As you posted AC, and I don't even know if you'll come back to respond, it's not worth a comprehensive discussion here, so I'll be as succinct as possible. (If you do come back, and want to have a constructive dialogue, I'd be happy to.)
First, we'll set aside all of planetary history before the last 3m years (because they were warmer), I'd invite you to look at this:
or more zoomed in for specifics:

There are *clearly* nearly-vertical temperature and CO2 spikes every 100k years or so. The last one was about 100k years ago.

If something happens repeatedly, say, a dozen times in a row, in a reasonably consistent cycle, and then it happens a 13th time, a reasonable observer is going to assert that what ever caused the previous 12 is causing the 13th, and whatever caused them to end will ALSO cause the 13th to end. The fact that you happen to be present to see the 13th, doesn't mean you're the cause.

Comment: Re:They already have (Score 1) 661

by argStyopa (#48875861) Attached to: US Senate Set To Vote On Whether Climate Change Is a Hoax

First, warm, but not the hottest dozen in history. Do you even realize when you're being absurdly hyperbolic?
(from the 1990 IPCC report:

Second: Climatologists have been scrambling for an explanation of why their models predicted constant warming, but it seems to have vanished for much of the past 15 years.
This has led to the current theory that the oceans have absorbed far more warming than modeled previously. Could be science, or could be desperately shifting goalposts. Your mileage will vary based on your politics, most likely.

Comment: Re:Sounds logic (Score 1) 348

by argStyopa (#48875565) Attached to: Regular Exercise Not Enough To Make Up For Sitting All Day

But all in all, the society we've created - that largely includes (and one might say is a result of) jobs filled by people sitting at their desks - in the net has resulted in an increased lifespan. That's incontestable.

Teasing out causality is a challenge, of course, and I wouldn't presume to do so, but the simple fact is that we are - in terms of health & lifespan - better off than we were in 1940.

Comment: Crazy Talk (Score 2) 253

by argStyopa (#48875391) Attached to: IRS Warns of Downtime Risk As Congress Makes Cuts


I know this is a crazy idea, but maybe we could have a serious discussion about what our government spends its money on, instead of just continuing to write checks for every bloody social program or war we feel like funding, and then kicking the can to future congresses by coming up with a "sequester" that takes a flat cut of every budget.

I mean, yes, at least taking a TINY bit from each budget is better than never cutting spending at all, but that result is what you get when the room is filled with incompetents too stupid to compromise/prioritize in any way.

Two points:
1) the fact that we're the wealthiest nation with the highest standard of living ever in human history, and are having this discussion is pretty pathetic.
2) Congress is largely to blame, but POTUS gets much of this as the nation looks to him for leadership, yet he cheerfully - like everyone else in Washington, largely in both parties - as if the money will never really run out. Every SOTU speech is filled with new programs he wants to enact, and new things to spend $ on. To repeat:


I know, I don't belong in politics. Clearly, I'm irrational by Washington standards.

Comment: So to be consistent... (Score 1) 428

by argStyopa (#48875295) Attached to: Science By Democracy Doesn't Work

(Since I agree that science-by-democracy is stupid)

Does that mean we can ALSO expect Global Warming folks to stop spouting the phrase "an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on..."

Or is it ok for one side, but not the other?

Seriously, though: while I again agree that this vote was stupid, let's all be very clear that the response to Global Warming - whatever the cause - is entirely political.

If you have a problem, it's entirely reasonable to ask specialists about the problem, the causes and consequences. But as we don't have infinite resources to address every problem in existence, choosing WHICH problem to try to solve is not a scientist's choice, it's a political choice.

+ - The Blue Book is Open

Submitted by argStyopa
argStyopa (232550) writes "130,000 pages of declassified files from Project Blue Book (and its predecessors) has been posted online at the result of decades of FOIA requests. Previously the National Archive has had these available in microfilm, but this is the first posting of the full collection online. Somehow, there is no mention of Roswell 1947 in the documents, leaving conspiracy theorists something to chew on as well."

"The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was." -- Walt West