Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Science creates understanding of a real world. (Score 1) 770

by danbert8 (#47860759) Attached to: How Scientific Consensus Has Gotten a Bad Reputation

I do thinking adding energy changes the system. I however don't believe that the increase in temperature on the planet will cause the doom that AGW proponents are claiming. I don't doubt the temperature trend, I doubt the effects that they predict based on the temperature.

Look to history for evidence for a catastrophe on a warm planet. The warmest periods on the planet are the ones where life was most prolific.

Comment: Re:Science creates understanding of a real world. (Score 1) 770

by danbert8 (#47860743) Attached to: How Scientific Consensus Has Gotten a Bad Reputation

Or you might be the dumb fucker... Half a dozen degrees in a century is absurd. And the fact that extinctions are occurring is not evidence for a catastrophe, as like climate changing, extinctions are a natural part of this planet. The IPCC is not interested in science, they are interested in the fearmongering that you have bought in to.

I'm not claiming to be more clever that anyone else, I'm pointing out that you aren't interested in science, you are interested in politics.

Comment: Re:Science creates understanding of a real world. (Score 2) 770

by danbert8 (#47855833) Attached to: How Scientific Consensus Has Gotten a Bad Reputation

While I am sure the most vocal "deniers" and those with the most camera time are the crackpots who say the earth isn't getting warmer. However, there are many legitimate reasons to doubt how much of the observed warming is caused by humans and how much damage might occur in the future because of the human caused portion of the warming.

The climate is changing (Has the climate ever been constant?)
The current trend is warming (Was it warming before humans started affecting climate?)
It appears that the warming is increasing (How much is due to human causes?)
The warming will likely cause damage to human settlements (Is it more cost effective to move the humans? How catastrophic will it be? Are there potential benefits that might offset the damage to civilization? Might we be better off on a warmer planet?)

The main points are agreed upon my most rational people, the questions in parentheses are the ones that get glossed over. They are the assumptions based on the data that all of the money and the "carbon is pollution" politics that affect all our lives.

Comment: Re:Rapiscan (Score 0) 146

by danbert8 (#47714753) Attached to: Researchers Find Security Flaws In Backscatter X-ray Scanners

No, Rapey-scan.

I can just visualize the conference room where they decided the name of the product:

Hey guys, we need to name this unconstitutional search device that shows nude images of disgruntled people who will hate us. Any ideas?

Well we want it to sound fast so they don't blame lines on it... How about "rapid scan".

Hmm, that doesn't sound very awesome... How about "Rapiscan?"

But doesn't that look a bit like it has the word "rape" in it?

No! Get your mind out of the gutter Simmons. No non-pervert would ever pronounce it that way!

Well basically something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Comment: Re:This is ridiculous. (Score 3, Insightful) 146

by danbert8 (#47714695) Attached to: Researchers Find Security Flaws In Backscatter X-ray Scanners

It wasn't a failure of security that caused 9/11, it was a failure of policy. The by the book way to deal with a hijacking was to comply with the terrorists with the idea that they just wanted the passengers and plane for ransom, not to use the plane itself as a weapon. Today the pilots would intentionally crash the plane before they would allow the hijackers control over the aircraft.

How many QA engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? 3: 1 to screw it in and 2 to say "I told you so" when it doesn't work.

Working...