Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:no problem (Score 1) 306

I hope you realize how crazy this makes you sound.

I hope you realize that you just gave us more evidence, consisting of yet another astounding "coincidence" on top of all the others.

I hope you realize just how remarkably similar your writing is to that of khayman80, and how the timings of your replies so neatly coincide and cooperate.

Comment: Re:How to regulate something that is unregulateabl (Score 3, Interesting) 101

by Jane Q. Public (#47552787) Attached to: US States Edge Toward Cryptocoin Regulation

perhaps they will require a licence to accept payments using them?

Regulations? Licenses? Hmm. As it happens, we already have pertinent "regulations".

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 10:

"No State shall ... make anything but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"

Comment: Re:How to regulate something that is unregulateabl (Score 1) 101

by lgw (#47552681) Attached to: US States Edge Toward Cryptocoin Regulation

Gold notes were just as virtual as anything else. Physical gold coins, or barter for consumables, is the only way to avoid virtuality, and there were many practical reasons we went away from that. Nothing, of course, will prevent a government from debasing a currency - it's what they do, it's all they do.

User Journal

Journal: Mars, Ho! Chapter Thirty Six

Journal by mcgrew

I got woke up early again, about five thirty this time. Fire in passengers quarters number forty seven. God damned drills, but I had to get up and inspect forty seven anyway. I put on a robe and trudged down there.
Yep, just a stupid drill. I noticed that Tammy was in the commons with the German woman as I walked past on my way back home. It was still early enough that I could still get another hour's sleep or so.

Comment: Re:Klemperer rosette (Score 1) 85

by RockDoctor (#47551639) Attached to: Nightfall: Can Kalgash Exist?
Configuring the Nightfall system as a Klemperer rosette would be one way of achieving the result - but the symmetry would still be broken by the orbiting moon that gives the eclipse.

You'd have to have the various stars in more-or-less concentric orbits of different periods. Then, at some point, they'd all get lined up in one (small angle of direction) from which they could all be simultaneously eclipsed. Ah, no, I see my error ; you only need to get them into one half of the sky for the other half to experience darkness.

But again, that wouldn't work for a Klemperer rosette configuration, either from the central location (not necessarily occupied) or from any of the rosette objects in a rosette of more than three objects (here there are 6 objects).

Comment: Re:You are one ignorant jackass (Score 1) 211

by mcgrew (#47549375) Attached to: Apollo 11 Moon Landing Turns 45

You, sir, are an abusive moron who is obviously not intelligent enough to realize that the Mars rovers are spinoffs from Apollo. Were it not for Apollo there would be no Hubble, no Martian robots, no ISS, none of the space exploration done today. Obviously unlike you, I remember Sputnik. We can thank the Russians for Apollo.

Now crawl back to 4chan where flamebait like yours is welcome. Where in the hell are the moderators?

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 1) 289

You did nothing of the sort. You made the (quite incorrect) claim that Latour wasn't accounting for the fact that the subject at hand is net heat transfer. But that claim is simply incorrect. I repeat that Latour has written about this extensively, which you would know if you bothered to actually read more of what he has written than one blog post.

You took a badly-worded sentence or two and jumped on them as though Latour made a mistake. But his only mistake was wording a couple of sentences badly. He does in fact NOT suggest that warmer objects absorb no radiation, and he has written as much many times. (Which apparently you did not know. Why?) So you were tilting at windmills again... or should I say straw-men?

You have refuted NOTHING but a couple of unfortunately-worded sentences, which Latour himself publicly corrected shortly after that post appeared.

You failed. If you could actually prove his actual argument wrong, as opposed to the argument you mistakenly thought he made, you'd do it to his face or publish your results or both. Because, after all, it would be important to this cause you so avidly defend. But you haven't. Is that because you knew you were making straw-man arguments, or because you simply didn't bother to research the subject you were attempting to refute? Either one represents failure.

You have not been able to actually refute Latour. The only place a genuine "refutation" occurred is in your own mind.

Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell.

Comment: Re:no problem (Score 1) 306

Since I have neither, I wouldn't know.

I would also like to point out here the absolutely amazing fact that "Layzej" stopped replying the moment you popped up. What a "coincidence".

Well, this has been an interesting evening. Not only did I catch you in an outright lie, you accomplished exactly nothing but spreading more ad-hominem and attempted "character besmirching" based on that lie.

Comment: Re:no problem (Score 1) 306

No, you publicly claimed you were paranoid. One of the only true things you've ever said.

NO, I did not. That is NOT what I wrote in the comment. That isn't even a distortion, it's just a plain old lie.

What I wrote was that I thought for a time I was being paranoid, but that the situation turned out to not be paranoia at all; it was real.

Stop lying about me. Period. Take your distortions and you lies and go crawl in a hole somewhere.

Comment: Re:no problem (Score 1) 306

So, just in case the meaning of my comment above was not clear to you:

If there is any vestige of "paranoia" in my personality, then I think it's pretty fair to say that it was probably caused by you. Because nobody else has been doing these strange and outside-normal things.

Did the word "stalker" never come to mind when you were researching my life?

Comment: Re:no problem (Score 1) 306

It's worthy of note in your paranoia diagnosis...

Are you claiming I am paranoid? Just trying to clarify.

It's amazing how you seem to have this entire collection of Slashdot comments I made years ago right at hand. I've mentioned this before. What is the basis of your (apparently unhealthy, and definitely creepy) obsession with me?

Researching (and apparently indexing) years of other peoples' Slashdot comments is not something your average normal person does.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 0) 289

Do you see how crackpot websites which make "ridiculous" claims that you might have made when you "knew next to nothing about the subject" might not be the best source of science education?

Since I've received exactly no education from there, how would I know? Do you really need me to repeat that again before you get it through your head?

Venus vs. Mercury has everything to do with the Slayer nonsense you're spreading. You're just regurgitating even more misinformation that I have to debunk. That's the exact opposite of a favor! It's the same absurd behavior I've repeatedly asked you to stop.

Let's be specific. Explain to us what Venus vs. Mercury have to do with Pierre Latour's thermodynamic argument in regard to greenhouse warming? Stop prevaricating, and say what you mean. Do you have an actual argument to make?

Again, thanks for finally being honest. Youâ(TM)re not interested in valid science, just something you can use to argue, even if it doesnâ(TM)t hold up under scrutiny. Youâ(TM)ve used this "principle of superficiality" to spread civilization-paralyzing misinformation which seems plausible at first glance to non-scientists, but doesnâ(TM)t hold up under scrutiny. In fact, I said as much last year:

And yet, you have failed for 2 years to refute Latour. Gee, that's interesting. What isn't holding water again? Are you sure you have that straight?

Yet again, trying to inflate your ego at the expense of others. It won't wash. You know you can't refute Latour, so you are piling straw-man on top of straw-man to try to make yourself look good. Again, I say: if you have a specific argument to make, then make it. Other than, that is, just rehashing the failed arguments you made 2 years ago. Quoting yourself complimenting yourself doesn't prove anything.

I am going to ask you again: why have you made it a habit of taking certain peoples' comments out of context, and then arguing with those comments when those other people aren't present, about things they did NOT say?

Stop dancing and beating around the bush. You're being utterly and disgustingly transparent. You've made not a single valid argument, but only implications. You've also thrown quotes of yourself about, plus more of the same old ad-hominem, out-of-context, straw-man arguments you've been making all along. But there isn't any meat anywhere.

And I think it's doubly hilarious that you're trying to argue with me about something I told you in plain English I wasn't even arguing. Only you.

A consultant is a person who borrows your watch, tells you what time it is, pockets the watch, and sends you a bill for it.