Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Bullshit (Score 0) 443

by argStyopa (#48020825) Attached to: Scientists Seen As Competent But Not Trusted By Americans

The fact is that Climate Scientists have been hoist on their own petard.

I don't recall climatologists calling Al Gore out on his ample waves of bullshit in An Inconvenient Truth, nor particularly his Nobel or Academy Award.

The leftish pap that glossed over the massive fallacies, misstatements, and begged questions in that movie had to be dug out by amateurs, on the web, dissecting the data and video on their own time.

Had a single, reputable scientist stood up and said "ok, Al, you've grossly and misleadingly overstated some stuff" *maybe* climatologists would have more credibility in the eyes of the public.

It's very easy and convenient to dismiss the - OFTEN - really stupid stuff said by the anti-global-warming crew. But climatologists inability to criticize their own field or data with any seeming sense of objectivity, to state clearly their guesses, and their propensity to say "the dog ate my homework" when pressed to provide the data has destroyed their moral position.

To suggest that climatologists, in particular, have any entitlement to credibility is nonsense. They've thrown it away themselves.

Comment: Re:Continuous work vs accidental reduction (Score 1) 260

by argStyopa (#48020769) Attached to: Obama Presses China On Global Warming

It's not a separate matter. (BTW I agree that it's hypocritical for Obama to criticize China on CO2 emissions.)

Either you're motivated by RESULTS (regardless of reasons) or POLITICS.

Ask an enviro-crusader this:
If the Koch Brothers could singlehandedly reduce world CO2 burden by some huge number, let's say 5%, but it would make them an additional profit of $1 billion, would you advocate that solution?

The answer tells us whether you're an environmentalist or demagogue.

Comment: Re:The pot calling the kettle black (Score 1) 260

by argStyopa (#48020683) Attached to: Obama Presses China On Global Warming

So?

Do you want actual reductions or promised reductions?

Means or ends? Which is more 'valid' for you - a country that 'promises' to meet the goals but doesn't, or one that meets the goals without trying?

If you're SERIOUSLY about saving the planet, and not about politics, only one of those choices matters.

Comment: If you really had piles of $, ie the DOD.... (Score 3) 37

by argStyopa (#48020631) Attached to: Marines Put Microsoft Kinect To Work For 3D Mapping

...you'd build a situation room on the scale of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... EXCEPT the floor is made of pushrods, each representing a pixel of the minimum terrain-definition reachable by satellite tools at whatever scale you want.
Each pushrod, of course, has an actuator under the floor that would allow it to raise up, allowing you in moments to download a satellite heightmap, and voila- have the floor of the room immediately show the terrain represented in actual 3d.
Make the rods white, of course, so overhead projectors can at flood areas with color - blue for water, green for vegetation, built-up areas in yellow, or to allow highlighting certain areas visually with lighting during a presentation.

Of course, as higher-resolution maps become available, the scale of what you can display at full resolution grows smaller as the tech improves, but then again you can always have varying-scale presentations, showing the whole area at one scale, and zooming into another (resetting the pushrods) for detail view.

A smart contractor, of course, would just lobby for bigger facilities.

That's what I would do, anyway.

Comment: Hothardware paying Timothy? (Score 1) 131

by argStyopa (#47995973) Attached to: Euclideon Teases Photorealistic Voxel-Based Game Engine

...to link to them, instead of the damn video in the first place?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

(warning: unbelievably unctuous narrator included)

I'm curious how they deal with occlusion, as the demonstrated environments are fully-realized, yet - unless you're popping that laser-scanner in 100+ locations - there's no way that there aren't going to be surfaces occluded from the scan?

Comment: Really? (Score 0) 903

by argStyopa (#47995857) Attached to: Miss a Payment? Your Car Stops Running

The implication of this summary, anyway, is that it's somehow unreasonable for lenders to want to get paid?

My guess is that if a person with a credit score north of 800 misses a payment, they don't shut their car off? I wonder why?

The FACT is that there is an entire underclass in this country that skate by living above their means hanging one vendor after another out 30, 60, 90 days...begging for more time, getting a payment plan....not paying that, etc. Hell, I've heard people say with a straight face that they borrowed money (or ran up credit cards) with no intention of ever paying it back.

That's irresponsible, and causing lenders to go to extraordinary lengths to protect themselves.

Some people have hard circumstances, no doubt. But nobody's ENTITLED to own a car. If you can't really afford it, don't borrow as if you could. Oh, and pay your bills. Then you don't have to worry if you're going to be able to get your daughter to the emergency room.

Comment: Re:The pot calling the kettle black (Score 3, Insightful) 260

by argStyopa (#47982753) Attached to: Obama Presses China On Global Warming

Histrionic nonsense.

U.S. total CO2 emissions for coal, oil and natural gas were 5,584 (million) metric tons in 1997. U.S. CO2 emissions rose to 6,023 (million) metric tons of CO2 in 2007 before they began to fall. In 2012, U.S. CO2 emissions fell to 5,293 (million) metric tons. That is 291 (million) metric tons less than they were in 1997 and 730 (million) metric tons less than their 2007 peak.

291 (million) metric tons below 1997 levels is a 5.2% reduction in CO2 emissions. It EXACTLY meets the Kyoto requirement.

Comment: Good (Score 1) 184

by argStyopa (#47974807) Attached to: Netflix Rejects Canadian Regulator Jurisdiction Over Online Video

Rarely are large corporations the "good guy" in any modern narrative - both from their own actions generally, but also a anti-corporate meme in journalism (as long as we studiously avoid reference to their own corporations, of course).

I'm glad for this, because the only entities that have the power/lawyers/money to tell government to pound sand anymore are megacorps.

Comment: My only question... (Score 5, Funny) 475

by argStyopa (#47972837) Attached to: US Strikes ISIL Targets In Syria

Do you think I could start a business with protest signs?

I mean, since the Left was so prolific in producing "war monger" and "the president is a war criminal" signs from 2001-2007, and they don't really seem to use them anymore, I bet I could buy them cheap and sell them to the Right, who apparently need them now?

Comment: Re:Folks need to see 'The Day After' (Score 1) 340

by argStyopa (#47972385) Attached to: US Revamping Its Nuclear Arsenal

Let's not forget that The Day After was shameless propaganda of an order that would make Leni Reifenstahl blush.

The Hollywood establishment despised Reagan and was willing to do anything to portray him as a crazy warmonger and highlight public terror of nuclear weapons.

The movie, btw, full length: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
 

Comment: Re:More lucky than careful... (Score 2) 340

by argStyopa (#47972339) Attached to: US Revamping Its Nuclear Arsenal

True....and false.
An unarmed missile IS barely a dirty bomb, but a wave of missile launches, say from 1962 to 1989 or so, would likely have prompted the other side to launch their counterstrike (the point was to get them launched and in a high ballistic arc before the other guy's landed as the fear was that successive EMPs might deactivate crucial circuitry in your outgoing warheads).

So yes, your unauthorized launch in and of itself was not even a V1-level explosion.
What it would have likely started might have been armageddon.

Comment: Nothing new (Score 1) 203

by argStyopa (#47963873) Attached to: Kickstarter Lays Down New Rules For When a Project Fails

Nothing is new under the sun.

The same ancient rule still applies: Caveat Emptor.

If you throw money at someone with no contractual guarantee in return, there is simply no protection for your money. It's still your money - throw it at whomever you want. But don't expect sympathy because you "lost" it if the person wastes it, eats it, or somehow fails to execute what they said that that would.

As kickstarter started generating large sums of money the conmen and shills naturally have taken notice.

"Pok pok pok, P'kok!" -- Superchicken

Working...