Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:debate (Score 2) 593

by bigwheel (#46153783) Attached to: Watch Bill Nye and Ken Ham Clash Over Creationism Live

This.

There is an interesting and informative debate to be had. But like any debate, it is a waste of time for those who remain closed-minded (on either side of any issue) and only looking for a win.

Consider that the Big Bang happened 14 billion years ago, whereas Man has only been on the scene for about 200,000 years. There is probably a large pool of knowledge that is not available to Man. Based on elapsed time and size of the universe compared to Earth, you'd have to be pretty arrogant to think that Man has anything more than a speck of knowledge. And that is even with the assumption that time is linear. If you allow for screwing with the concept of time, then it gets even worse. What happened before the Big Bang?

Maybe the earth is just a petri dish or set of dishes, where "the creator(s)" used an eye dropper full of pond scum, to see what evolves. Maybe the creator is planning to keep the parts that have certain characteristics, and then flush the rest down the toilet. The truth is that we don't know. It could be possible that the creationists and evolutionists are both right -- or both wrong.

Hopefully, Nye and Ham will have a polite debate that attempts to search for truth, rather than merely trying to win a meaningless "gotcha contest".

Comment: Re:Global warming. (Score 1) 168

by bigwheel (#45849455) Attached to: Helicopter Rescue For All Passengers Aboard Antarctic Research Ship

Meanwhile, the IPCC silently slashes its global warming predictions in the AR5 final draft.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes-its-global-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/

"Unnoticed, the IPCC has slashed its global-warming predictions, implicitly rejecting the models on which it once so heavily and imprudently relied. In the second draft of the Fifth Assessment Report it had broadly agreed with the models that the world will warm by 0.4 to 1.0 C from 2016-2035 against 1986-2005. But in the final draft it quietly cut the 30-year projection to 0.3-0.7 C, saying the warming is more likely to be at the lower end of the range [equivalent to about 0.4 C over 30 years]. If that rate continued till 2100, global warming this century could be as little as 1.3 C."

No fanfare. No mea culpa.

Comment: Re:This Proves Global Warming is a LIE! (Score 1) 182

by bigwheel (#45655873) Attached to: Coldest Spot On Planet Earth Identified

Well, at least a few of us are wondering how much fanfare there would be if they discovered a record high.

Disclaimer: This is not the deep south. But with double-digits below zero F every night for the past week, some global warming would be kind of nice. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM

Comment: Here's some arithmetic (Score 1) 239

by bigwheel (#45624545) Attached to: Tesla Model S Battery Drain Issue Fixed

Regarding self-discharge:
Li-Ion has a self-discharge rate of about 1% per month. A Tesla S has an 85kwh battery pack. So, 85 * .01 / 30 = only 0.027 kwhr/day

Regarding the energy used by door locks and clocks:
An average car battery is about 40 amp-hours @ about 13v. (about 0.5 kwh total capacity) Yet, you can leave a car sitting for a couple months and it still has enough energy to start the car. But the Tesla would completely drain the same battery in a half-day.

So, for a car sitting in the garage doing nothing, 1.1 kwh/day wasted energy is much better than 4.5. But it is still embarrassing for a car that claims to be green.

Comment: Re:Well, isn't this nice (Score 1) 961

by bigwheel (#45527867) Attached to: Why Scott Adams Wished Death On His Dad

The real problem here is the utter insufficiency in determining when a person is really alive or dead.

^ This is the heart of the issue. Same with other dilemmas. Said differently, when does this thing become a human, and when does it cease to be a human?

I recall reading a sci-fi book back in the 70's, about a guy who was in a vegetative state. He was being kept alive on a machine, and unable to communicate. But his mind was still good enough that he could think logically. So, much of the story was about his thought process; whether or not he wished he were dead, and how this compares to a person who has good physical health but no mind. Sorry that I could not find it via Google. But it was an interesting read that got you thinking.

If a machine is faking a heart beat on an lump of rotting meat, then by all means pull the plug. But if there is still a functioning brain that lost connectivity with the body, then the decision becomes more difficult. In my case, if I'm capable of reasoning, then I'd just as well spend the rest of my life daydreaming while keeping a distant hope that I could someday be connected up to some sensors and actuators. But I can understand how many people would prefer that someone pulls the plug.

Either way, a living will would help a lot, and save the prospective plug-puller a lot of anguish.

Comment: Re:I wish them success... (Score 1) 186

Yes, good ol' Libertarian "The government shouldn't violate my right to violate others rights!"

I assume you made that up to sound clever.

From the very first part of their faq: http://www.lp.org/faq "Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another." I'm pretty sure that the "do no harm to another" phrase applies here.

Nothing is rich but the inexhaustible wealth of nature. She shows us only surfaces, but she is a million fathoms deep. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Working...