Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Same old, same old. (Score 1) 775

Some policy that may help. Is have a system in place where people who want to teach, can and make it a half decent carrier. Right now in a lot of places its just a poorly paid job with a lot of political overhead often from an incompetent principal or a clueless education board.

Comment: Re:Rewarding the bullies... (Score 1) 775

My biggest problem with Bullies is that hitting someone in school is somehow ok. But if your in a pub or something.......

In Austria 14 year olds can have criminal records. The cops come to the schools and explain that if you hit someone that is an issue not for the school, but the police. There was very little physical bulling at school there. In fact violent crime in Austria is very low.

Comment: Re:Rewarding the bullies... (Score 1) 775

Yea most of the bullies in my school live about 3 miles away from where they grew up and quite frankly have very boring lives and have done nothing of note. Perhaps a bit of drunk and disorderly. A few killed in a car accident (drunk driver). But mostly just minimum wage workers with not a lot going for them. I don't know if they are happy or not.

Comment: Re:china has smog, so its clearly chinas fault. (Score 0) 156

by delt0r (#46779681) Attached to: Pollution In China Could Be Driving Freak Weather In US
And out of that 20% of the worlds GDP, how much is manufactured in China?

Also what is so important about GDP. Why do we need so much of it? And if i have more of it, will i be happier?

Yes i have done a bit of economics. But really economics makes some pretty arbitrary measures of what is productive.

Comment: Re:more pseudo science (Score 1) 852

I review not as i am reviewed. But how i wish that all science is reviewed. Impartially and based on purely the science. Of course i, as a human cannot truly do that and would be an idiot if i didn't think that my personal biases don't interfere. For example the paper i am currently reviewing is written by people I personally know and like. But i try. Note there is *nothing* about being a skeptics in that. Almost all reviewer instructions do not require skepticism in the paper your reviewing. Papers are not "proof" or whatever. They are suppose to be just good science that contributes to the field, and can turn out to be wrong, or just useless.

I mean look at discussion here about this. You can't be skeptical about AGW and not get flamed to death. And most scientist are not sceptical of a paper claiming "more proof of AGW" or Climate change or any other currently non controversial view point. But then try and publish something like "Only mild effects likely with high probability due to increased CO2 levels". Everyone reviewing that is very very sceptical to the point where your likely to be rejected before they finish the abstract. That is assuming you got it past editors. Sure you can say "Authors fail to demonstrate that X is related to Y", but are your reviews themselves reviewed? You can just say what you want and reject it, maybe the editor catches it but mostly not.

Its not just climate change, many things in science are like this. Its just that climate change science is very public now. This has made it worse. Skeptics moved on a long time ago. Example, there are astrophysics who don't think the big bang is a credible theory and can still get jobs at a university. Good luck with that if your not on board not just with climate change. But doom and gloom climate change.

Scientist are just people. We are not more or less susceptible to normal human failing just like everyone else. Perhaps in climate change its worse because we have scientist try and be politicians as well.

Comment: Re: Thorium Sanity Clause (Score 1) 172

by delt0r (#46745909) Attached to: Cost Skyrockets For United States' Share of ITER Fusion Project
Thorium is not Uranium. 232Th absorbs a neutron in the thermal spectrum where it has a high cross section, decays to 233Pa which then decays to 233U with about a 30 day half life IIRC. That is one of the advantages of a Thorium fuel cycle. No need for fast neutrons to get a breading ratio of 1.

Comment: Re:Should have gone with thorium (Score 1) 172

by delt0r (#46745357) Attached to: Cost Skyrockets For United States' Share of ITER Fusion Project
You can't inject fact into LFTR fanboy discussions. It never works.

While we are at it there are more facts.
1. Never shown a breading ratio of 1.
2. Never done in situ reprocessing.
3. Not been shown to be cost effective.
4.Can never "fail" or break or whatever is clearly BS. There is no never. There is only mitigate risk.

A demo plant needs to be built which is 10 years at best, and quite a few billion+cost overruns. To validate the design it need to be run for a while tracking things like corrosion etc. which is at least 5 year but more like 10 or more. So its at least 20 years away. And yes the nuclear proponents that want this are very realistic about how quick to market it will be.

Comment: Re:more pseudo science (Score 2) 852

That's because all scientists are skeptics.

That is nothing but bullshit. I am a scientist. My bread and butter is getting stuff published.

Scientists are just people who persevered long enough with education to get a PhD and continue on. We are as stupid as the rest of humanity. We believe things without data or proof*. Without even logic. We have dogma and lifetime carrier invested viewpoints. We have truthiness about what is bad science and good.

We are just other people. Don't be the fool and assume we know better.

* For example, organic food is healthier or more sustainable, or the classic for german scientists, Zugluft.

Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft ... and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor. -- Wernher von Braun