Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Not necessarily hate (Score 1) 1482

by bledri (#46634815) Attached to: OKCupid Warns Off Mozilla Firefox Users Over Gay Rights

Based on that set of axioms, it can be completely loving to encourage someone to repent of his sins and choose to follow Jesus. Practicing homosexuality is a sign that someone isn't doing that. It would therefore be unloving or even hateful to affirm homosexual relations.

His intent is not relevant, it's his actions that matter. The fact that he comes to these conclusions through religious beliefs makes them no less oppressive. The only reasons to oppose gay marriage are religious, or "ick factor." Neither have any business in a state's constitution.

I personally feel that boycotting FF over this is a bit much, but I think people have every right to do so.

Comment: Re:April Fools stories are gay (Score 1) 1482

by bledri (#46634659) Attached to: OKCupid Warns Off Mozilla Firefox Users Over Gay Rights

Thinking one group of people is subhuman, and not worthy of the same rights isn't "an opposing view", it's bigotry.

This isn't a quip at you, but I'm interested in your response; It's an honest question. Am I a bigot because I consider child molestors, rapists and nazis subhuman? These are groups of people. Some with mental health problems, others with aggressive theological views... All scourge of the earth in my eyes.

Are you equating being gay to molesting children, raping and genocide of the jews, gypsies and homosexuals?

Comment: Re:April Fools stories are gay (Score 4, Informative) 1482

by bledri (#46634603) Attached to: OKCupid Warns Off Mozilla Firefox Users Over Gay Rights

But laying this at the feet of "The Left" much less Obama is utter horseshit

Not really, no. This tactic of destroying people's livehoods by virtue of internet slacktivism is unquestionably a page out of the leftist playbook.

You're kidding right?

If you think that only liberals boycott companies and people they disagree with, you are living in a cognitive bubble.

Comment: Re:Two different things here.... (Score 2) 917

by bledri (#46341435) Attached to: Apple Urges Arizona Governor To Veto Anti-Gay Legislation

2. Refusing to participate in/support an event that goes against one's religious beliefs. Similar bakery, but now someone (straight or gay) asks for a wedding cake for a gay wedding (with two grooms on top, say). If the baker has a religious belief that opposes gay marriage, must they still provide the cake?

If the baker has a genuine religious belief to oppose interracial marriages, can they deny providing a cake to an interracial couple? This is a real thing, people use Deuteronomy 7:3 among other verses to justify it. Their beliefs are repugnant, but "genuine." My answer is that if you sell to the public, you sell to the public. Selling someone a cake is not "supporting gay marriage." It's selling them a cake. The baker is free to have all the hateful, unloving, non-compassionate thoughts they want. Presumably God can read minds and will understand that they are good righteous people.

Comment: Re:Toyota Prius was named the Best Green Car. (Score 5, Informative) 318

by bledri (#46341267) Attached to: Consumer Reports Says Tesla Model S Is Best Overall Vehicle

... that electric cars are no greener than what the energy company uses to generate and transport electricity.

What's funny is it would take someone only a few seconds to look up the relevant facts, but they never do. If someone is opposed to "green technology," they just let their confirmation bias decide that statements that align with their beliefs are obviously true. ICE engines are incredibly inefficient. All that noise that requires a muffler is wasted energy. All that heat that requires a radiator is wasted energy.Power plants are fairly efficient, as are electric motors. Don't believe me? Run the numbers:

Using the magical power of the internet, we can find out that a power plant burning petroleum produces 12.7 kWh per gallon. Tesla recently drove two Model S cars across the country (3,464.5 miles). The total energy consumed by both cars was 1197.8 kWh. It would take a power plant 94.3 gallons of gasoline (1197.8 kWh / 12.7 kWh / gallon) to generate the electricity used by both cars, so each car drove 3,464.5 miles on the equivalent of less than 48 gallons of gasoline. That's 72 MPG. What 5 seater, high performance, luxury hybrid gets 72 MPG?. It doesn't matter if the power plant is burring coal, power plants and electric motors are so freakin' efficient they blow everything else out of the water. Furthermore, it's much easier to scrub the exhaust of a power plant, than of a car.

And guess what, the US produces energy using all sorts of fuels: coal, natural gas, hydro, nuclear, wind and solar. Hybrids only burn gas, no alternative. Electric cars are green, get over it and stop spreading FUD to people too lazy to google reliable sources and perform simple math.

Comment: Re:Landing legs... water landing... (Score 1) 73

by bledri (#46334869) Attached to: SpaceX Testing Landing Legs On Next Falcon9 Rocket

This time, the landing legs will supposedly be actuated. They'll fold out just before "landing". I don't think they've done this before, or at least it didn't look like it from the videos. Cool. ...

Now, this is all awesome stuff, but I can't help but wonder... What good are landing legs when you're landing in the ocean?

... I just don't understand what the landing legs are for.

They are doing this to collect data with the goal of eventually boosting back and landing near the launch pad for rapid reuse. The legs actually do help, they reduce aerodynamically induced spin and the terminal velocity. But mostly this is a test so they can gain confidence to return to land.

Comment: Re:"Back to the launch site"? (Score 4, Informative) 73

by bledri (#46330923) Attached to: SpaceX Testing Landing Legs On Next Falcon9 Rocket

How does this work? The rocket will have gone far down range before the first stage separates.

* First stage reverses direction and comes back. Very fuel expensive, I'd be amazed if they're planning this.

That's exactly what they intend to do. They refer to it as "boost back." Fuel is cheap compared to the price of a rocket. Right now they are working on a fully reusable first stage and a capsule that lands under propulsive power. After that they'll work on the second stage returning (it can just complete an orbit instead of boosting back. Here's an animation they put out to show the concept.

Here's an article explaining the current status of the effort and what they hope to achieve with this test.

Comment: Re:Exactly how much fossil fuel was burned... (Score 1) 357

by bledri (#46145369) Attached to: Tesla Touts Cross-Country Trip, Aims For World Record

based on 1197.8 kWh it took to drive, you can figure that out here: or
1281 lbs of coal, or
1197800 cubic feet of natural gas, or
95 gallons of residential fule oil.

Just to keep things in perspecitve for the tree huggers.

Funny, you didn't do the conversation to gasoline which the same source provides. The 1197.8 kWh, was total for both cars. That's 3,464.5 miles on 46.1 gallons of gasoline (1197.8 kWh / 2 cars / 13 kWh per gallon of gasoline) based on the source you provided. In other words, a big, heavy, powerful, luxury car went 3,464.5 miles on the energy that could be produced with 46.1 gallons gasoline. That's 75.1 MPG, in the dead of winter.

EV's are way more efficient than ICEs, even when the power is generated with fossil fuels. And EVs have the potential of being powered by nuclear, solar, wind, and hydro. Can an ICE do that?

Just to keep things in perspective for people that have the numbers directly in front of themselves but choose not to do the math.

Comment: Gender Bias is Real (Score 1) 247

by bledri (#46115349) Attached to: Red Team, Blue Team: the Only Woman On the Team

Read this blog post which references actual studies and then tell me gender bias is not real. Can't read? I'll summarize it: send out a resume to a bunch of people. Sometimes use a male name, other times use a female name. Have the recipient rate the candidate and guess what? The resume with the male name scores higher in their estimation. When asked how much they would pay the candidate, the male is always valued higher. Even if the person evaluating the resume is a women.

Many orchestras now perform blind auditions, because they discovered that gender and physical appearance of the candidate skewed their perception of the candidate's performance. There are studies that test people's cognitive abilities after the most subtle forms of "priming." Stereotype susceptibility is a real thing, proven in study after study. Remind a group of asian girls they are asian before they take a math test, their scores increase. Remind them they are girls, their scores go down.

We are social animals, even those of us that lack social skills, and constant social pressure has real world ramifications. It amazes me that a site of self-professed nerds is populated with so many people that don't question their own biases.

Comment: Re:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score 1) 1038

by bledri (#45995459) Attached to: Controversial Execution In Ohio Uses New Lethal Drug Combination

... No, it's not. It's yet another example of how shit the EU is, and how they think that their unelected parasite 'politicians' should be able to interfere with other countries' justice systems.

It's an example of treating one's principles as more important than profits. They don't wish to participate, even indirectly, a nation killing it's own citizens. Isn't that within their rights?

You must be either French, German, or gay.

And you seem to be a really unpleasant person, regardless of your genealogy and orientation.

Comment: Re:Not even half the story (Score 1) 770

by bledri (#45991315) Attached to: Creationism In Texas Public Schools

of course it is, only dumbass creationists think its not

A falsifiable theory wouldn't need religious zealots for its defense. Q.E.D.

The behavior of random humans has no bearing on the validity of a scientific theory. In said human's defense:

  1. Creationism is not a theory, it's a mythology.
  2. Intelligent Design is not a theory, it is an argument from ignorance thinly veiled in the language of science to bolster creationism. ("It's too complex to understand, therefore God did it!" is not science. It wasn't when Newton invoked it when he could not solve orbits with more that two bodies, and it's still not today.)
  3. Teaching either of these as "science" undermines science and that pisses people off.
  4. Angry people behave angrily.

Comment: Re:There's a Incandescent bulb Lobby? (Score 1) 767

by bledri (#45963413) Attached to: Incandescent Bulbs Get a Reprieve

I really can't understand this Rider!

I just can't understand what there is to be gained from the Incandescent bulb lobby?

Republicans are very very odd. What can be gained from this?

  1. They can claim they are reducing government interference in the free market.
  2. They can claim a victory against evil environmentalists and the "Big Green" lobby.
  3. They can blame the original law on Obama and claim to have thwarted him (the reality of the law pre-dating Obama is not relevant.)

Comment: Re:I Don't believe Evolution either. (Score 1) 1010

by bledri (#45826937) Attached to: New Study Shows One-Third of Americans Don't Believe In Evolution

Believing that our universe came forth by accident from nothing and then that our planet just happened to be one which could support life, and then we evolved initially from primordial ooze,

None of this has anything to do with evolution. You are talking about physics, cosmology and abiogenesis (the first "replicators"). Presumably evolution began from those replicators, before the single-cell organisms.

and then from single- celled organisms into... fish... then monkeys.. and then people, is completely unbelievable and unrealistic. It would take a tremendous leap of faith and abandonment of logic to believe then entire big-bang to evolution concoction of theories.

Faith is believing something without evidence. There is a ton of evidence that supports evolution as the most viable explanation of the diversity of species on the planet. It's survived 150 years of predictions, experiments and challenges.

Evolving from simple to complex violates the laws of thermodynamics.

The specific claim is that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Whoever told you this either does not understand the second law of thermodynamics, or is outright lying. The second law of thermodynamics only applies on average across the entire system and in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system, the Sun pumps huge amounts of energy into the Earth which in turn radiates it back into space. As a matter of fact, the energy coming in is in the form of high energy photons and the radiated energy is an even greater number of low energy photons. That energy fuels life on Earth (and therefore "fuels" evolution.)

Let me put it another way. If evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics, so does a sperm and egg growing into a human.

It is far easier to believe that were were created in perfect form, and have De-evolved over the years due to various factors.

Actually, it's easiest to believe whatever conforms to our beliefs and the beliefs of the social groups we identify with. But the ease of believing something is not a valid justification and in no way validates those beliefs. Relativity is really unintuitive, but if the GPS system did not adjust for time dilation it would not work. Quantum Mechanics does not match our day to day experience, but experiment after experiment validate it. Modern electronics would not exist without Quantum Mechanics. I suspect that even Newtonian Physics are not as intuitive as we "feel," we are just taught it at a young age and have a grown accustomed to the ideas. A few hundred years ago, it would have seemed absurd and completely counter-intuitive that the Earth orbits the Sun or that the wandering stars were other planets, etc.

I'm a lifelong Democrat, but I voted for Romney :-) for the sake of protecting the unborn.

That's great you voted your conscience. I voted for Obama for the living. Sadly that didn't work out so well, though I think Romney would have been even worse on most of the matters I care about.

Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of themselves. -- Lazarus Long