Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I am skeptical (Score 1) 151

The IPCC report does discuss what happens if we don't, and it's more than enough to call for some kind of measures. A proper outcome of geoengineering studies will treat that as the control: "This is what we get if we do nothing... this is what we get if we just control carbon output... this is what we get if we apply technique X/Y/Z".

It's just that measuring "this is what we get" is really hard. Temperature is the easiest to predict (and even that is proving aggravatingly difficult on scales smaller than multiple decades), but it's not the only factor. And we need to take ALL of the effects into account to judge what's going to be most cost-effective.

I'm really just asking for somebody to make the case as clearly as possible. A comment downthread told me "Oh, you just throw a bunch of water into the air, and the clouds will fix it." I *know* it's not that simple; it's obvious that a lot isn't being taken into account.

Unfortunately, most conversation about climate change is dominated by the just-plain-stupidity of denialism, rather than getting to ask the hard questions. I want them to be asked, though I'm also sadly fatalistic: denialism has pushed us, as you have said, past the point the ship has sailed. I end up thinking of this as largely academic, and by the time it comes to be implemented it'll be much too late to help. But we're going to do the research anyway. I'm just hoping it will come with enough of the right answers to be compelling to those prepared to understand it.

Comment: Phone permissions suck (Score 2) 72

by Gothmolly (#47712697) Attached to: Your Phone Can Be Snooped On Using Its Gyroscope

Every app seems to want access to your full memory, location info, camera, microphone and contact list. Why does a flashlight app need all this?

I carry a phone because I have to for work, and I need something to read while on the crapper, and that's it. People who use all these fancy apps are the product, not the customer.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 0) 662

by drinkypoo (#47712321) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

I'm a different AC, but I think you made his point. "You are unlikely to see another human being for days" in those hundreds (is it really thousands?) of square miles precisely "because practically nobody lives there or will ever go there."

Yes, I did. I also made the point that his point is irrelevant. We're talking about a minuscule proportion of the population. It's not that their wishes should be ignored, exactly; I believe that creation and protection of rights is a valid pursuit. But "It is virtually impossible for people to not run into each other," is still a completely valid statement. Virtually nobody lives in a situation where they won't see other people. Someone always turns up, if only for a sample of something. Maybe you. And frankly, there really is nowhere like you describe in the USA, either. There's a number of large private ranches of thousands of acres; those guys often have stories of trespassers. And a large portion of the country is owned by the Bureau of Land Management, which regularly portions big sections of it off for military and police training, and which patrols it regularly and investigates fires, target shooters in hunting season and hunters out of season, and the like. Then there's the big state parks, which are full of state park rangers on horses and in Jeep of various types, and IIRC Chevy trucks. They manage to cover quite a bit of ground.

So yes, it is virtually impossible to not run into people. You have to go to significant lengths, especially since people are actually looking for people in those supposedly empty places. Sure, you could get lost in the asscrack of some mountain somewhere, but even getting there is beyond the reach of many people. Only a tiny slice of the world population even lives away from someplace where you can avoid seeing people for more than a few minutes at a time.

Comment: Re:Slippery path (Score 1) 69

by cdrudge (#47708865) Attached to: YouTube Music Subscription Details Leak

They aren't commercials, but I hate the DJs between songs. I just wish they would play songs, one after another. I don't care about whatever drivel they want to talk about as if they were real DJs.

And while I know you said music stations, if you ever go to one of the talk stations, commercials are awful. ESPN radio seems to be about 50/50 mix between actual talk and commercials. I understand SiriusXM doesn't have control over ESPN's inserted ads, but the ones that SiriusXM plays in the spots where local affiliates would insert local ads....argh. Get rich quick schemes, shady testosterone supplements, trucking company help-wanted ads, and franchise opportunities are just awful.

Comment: Re:Slippery path (Score 1) 69

by cdrudge (#47708781) Attached to: YouTube Music Subscription Details Leak

You are really overestimating the amount of work that could be required. Applications like Couchpotato for movies make it as simple as visit IMDB and you can quickly queue up an entire artist's career with just a few quick clicks. Headphones is similar for music, but not quite the same. I don't imagine it would be too hard to something similar to Couchpotato once an organized source becomes readily available.

Comment: Re:Leave New York (Score 4, Insightful) 201

by cdrudge (#47708751) Attached to: $125,000 Settlement Given To Man Arrested for Photographing NYPD

Exactly. Leave New York and go somewhere safe and free and rights are respected. I'd suggest somewhere in the safe Midwest, close to a major city so that you have services and activities that are of interest, but not too close so that you are under the actual jurisdiction of the big city's police department. I hear the St. Louis area is nice and quite. Maybe Ferguson?

It's not a New York City problem or even a big city problem, it's a law enforcement problem.

Comment: Re:Will they ban this ? (Score 1) 662

by cdrudge (#47708711) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

Perhaps it was poorly stated on my part. What I was meaning was an article about WBC picketing a funeral does not make the article homophobic just because the subject the article about is.

The original comment was would Fark prohibit a legitimate news article that reported on a (horribly understated) misogynistic action. And I was saying no, because it wasn't the news article that was necessarily misogynistic, rather it was the action being reported on. If someone came along and said that the victim got what she deserved, then that would be prohibited.

The bugs you have to avoid are the ones that give the user not only the inclination to get on a plane, but also the time. -- Kay Bostic