Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Largest Climate march in history (Score 3, Informative) 182

by durrr (#47963577) Attached to: Hundreds of Thousands Turn Out For People's Climate March In New York City

Mass hype was harder back then.

Now you just create a facebook page, fill it will fact-stripped alarmist language with several "Last call! we're all going to burn in this life if nothing is done! Like and share" and get big enviro pick it up and you'll have it disseminated globally soon enough, with several hundreds or thousands of environmentally minded people jetting in form all over the place to participate in your political-religious activist parade.

Comment: Re:Not much different than the fire starting laser (Score 1) 180

by durrr (#47911753) Attached to: How Governments Are Getting Around the UN's Ban On Blinding Laser Weapons

An intentional blinder could be built to sweep square miles of terrain from a drone. The protocol at least prevent that sort of weapon, though it's a bit retarded that trying or succeeding in killing someone is totally okay but anything less is not.

Comment: Re:Not much different than the fire starting laser (Score 3, Informative) 180

by durrr (#47911567) Attached to: How Governments Are Getting Around the UN's Ban On Blinding Laser Weapons

It's wavelength dependent. visible light will blind people but for the military combat lasers they probably use wavelengths that the eye is opaque to, meaning no focusing on the retina and damage due to minor scatter and reflections, but will still literally cook the eye if directly exposed.

Also, the military type blinder weapons that was developed in the past to intentionally blind had a kilometer+ range. Blindness at 50 meter or blindness at 2km? Is it really a getting around or unintenional consequences(in the same manner that less-lethal weapons can still be lethal)

Comment: Re:Great one more fail (Score 1) 599

by durrr (#47901687) Attached to: High School Student Builds Gun That Unlocks With Your Fingerprint

You'll love the next gen firearm that uses geolocation to make sure you don't use it in government buildings and face recognition to ensure you don't shoot your family or self, with additional settings for not firing against facebooks friends. With the premium service it will also refuse to fire unless sure you'll hit your target to save bullets, platinum service will also check the financial status of the would be victim along with consulting expert systems for potential legal complications and only shoot if it considers you to have good case in court or can hire a better lawyer than the victim or his family.

The gold plated gun edition will feature a waterpass lock and only fire when held sideways and use force feedback to ensure aiming is utterly impossible. Built in police radio optional.

Also, using the sentinel edition activesecurity feature you can leave it on a table facing your least secure window and it will automatically shoot would-be burglars and call the police on its own!

For families with pets or young children you can get it covered in brightly coloured rubber that's food safe and chewing resistant.

Comment: Re:Not just Reno (Score 1) 444

by durrr (#47887641) Attached to: If Tesla Can Run Its Gigafactory On 100% Renewables, Why Can't Others?

If you can finance it yourself and find it profitable or sensible to do so, then feel free to do it yourself, but don't call for government intervention based on some simple napkin calculations.

Also, the WA situation doesn't sound very stable, utilities failing could mean some price spikes and other problems.

Comment: Re:Not just Reno (Score 2) 444

by durrr (#47887323) Attached to: If Tesla Can Run Its Gigafactory On 100% Renewables, Why Can't Others?

How is the energy free when you need a 3kW solar system on every house for it to work? Also, they cost more than $3k.
Also, if each house needs 3kW to sustain itself, what's left to distribute? Also, homes use what on average? 30% of the total electricity?
Also, trying to load balance over long distances doesn't work because we don't have superconducting electricity grids yet. Also, intermittency means you still need classic power at approximately the same extent as now to fill in the gaps.

I can prove that an underground solar farm would be a great idea with a back of the napkin calculation, reality however is not so easily simplified.

Comment: Re:Meanwhile in the real world... (Score 1, Informative) 427

by durrr (#47861625) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013

If natural systems can sink all supposed manmade change, why could natural systems cause all the change too? If the natural sink capability massively underrated too, what's to say there's really a cause to worry at all?

If we really will be screwed by society being forced to change due to climate, what's to say we won't be equally or greater screwed if we're forced to change due to policy? If natural variability is underrated as suggested by the previous paragraph, what's to say we can't be fucked over twice; first by policy and then by natural climate drift? Unless you're denying ice ages we already know that natural drift have a very wide range.

What about the people with stake in large multinational wind and solar producers claiming we can save ourself with all-renewable society? Are they saints incapable of lying, or could it be that any alarmism and climate hype serves their cause and fills their pockets?

Why should we listen to people like you who claim that we're bound for disaster with certainity, while at the same time IPCC is revising their predictions downwards for every new report released. Why should we suppress the debate by claiming it's all settled when it obviously isn't?

Why is polarizing hardline rethoric constantly used by environmentalists? Why is the pro-agw side always the good side and everything else is universally bad? Could it be that you're not actually seeking facts to improve earth science, but just want to advance your activist agenda and shallow ideological belief?

Comment: Re:Talking Point (Score 0, Flamebait) 427

by durrr (#47861441) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013

Why should I trust a non-peer reviewed blogpost from the PR outlet of the people finding themself in an embarassing pinch due to the catastrophic failure of their models?

Why should I even trust their peer reviewed material when it obviously have minimal to no predictive power and by their own admission have become a failure due to temperatures being wildly divergent to their models/guesses.

What functions do peer review fill when the peers are just as clueless as the authors but just happen to share the hunch or opinon? We might as well use anonymous online polling.

The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives. -- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project