Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Another great Scalia line (Score 1) 1052 1052

by harlequinn (#50005463) Attached to: Supreme Court Ruling Supports Same-Sex Marriage

Nowhere does it say "as defined by a bigoted interpretation of a specific god".

It sure as fuck doesn't say "unalienable rights except as overruled by a ratified vote".

There exists in the modern world a legal classification of "married", which conveys upon you certain legal rights and privileges. What SCOTUS has done is say "the 14h ammendment says"

.
There is no religious exemption.

Doesn't "unalienable rights except as overruled by a ratified vote" cover exactly what exists in the states that have not allowed same sex marriage? (I'm not saying I agree with their laws - their laws encroach upon liberty, which I don't like).

Since the laws banning it applied exactly equally to everyone (i.e. a same sex couple, of any sexual orientation, was not allowed to marry), how did it not exclude everyone equally? Therefore treating everyone as equals under the eyes of the law.

Same sex heterosexual couples can get married (in states that allow same sex marriage). Suggesting otherwise would be both heterosexist, hypocritical and wrong. It has already happened - http://www.theaustralian.com.a... - Their reason for marriage is perfectly valid. People can get married for whatever reason they want. The people upset at their marriage are hypocrites. The whole point of allowing same sex marriage is that any two people who want to marry should be able to, for whatever reason they want - suddenly reversing that stance when two heterosexuals do it is poor form.

This law should now make it legal for friendship marriages for the purpose of becoming an American citizen legal as well.

Comment: Re:Poor Scalia (Score 1) 1052 1052

by harlequinn (#50005427) Attached to: Supreme Court Ruling Supports Same-Sex Marriage

Lets congratulate heterosexuals as well.

Why? Because under the change, two same sex heterosexuals can get married as well.

Same sex marriage does not equal "gay marriage". Gay marriage is a subset of same sex marriage.

This is a right that will apply to everyone (just as banning same sex marriage was a rule that applied to everyone).

Comment: Re:Have you SERIOUSLY considered the MATH? (Score 1) 298 298

I'd say that change over time is 100% certain for everything. Nothing has ever been the same since time began. The state of the universe is change.

Lots of mutations consistently happening over a long period of time is not even analogous to "then a miracle occurs", let alone "exactly equivalent".

There is proof that small mutations occur. There is not proof of mutation occurring in real time. I.e. no one has observed a mutation happen under a microscope (we don't have the technique) - we have proof after the fact by comparing changes in DNA.

Nothing happened "just right". It just happened. It is essentially meaningless. You shouldn't care about it.

You might as well start asking "what are the chances that matter is attracted to matter?" or "what are the chances that all the stars in the milky way lined up to make a giant spiral arm?".

Stuff happens, we see it happening, we can model it, we don't know why it exists, that is life, enjoy it while it lasts. :)

Comment: Re:And yet... (Score 1) 298 298

The sum total of thousands of tiny changes (adaptations) over a long period of time = evolution.

Evolution is reversible. Evolutionary pressures can act in reverse.

It is best to think of evolution in terms of "has an organism changed". If it has changed, then it has evolved. So even one tiny change, whilst it does not necessarily show any dramatic difference, is evolution.

The world is not a static thing. It is continually slowly changing in every way. It's just the way it is.

Comment: Re:Bzzzt! Thank you for Playing! (Score 1) 573 573

by harlequinn (#49311087) Attached to: Greenpeace Co-Founder Declares Himself a Climate Change Skeptic

No, he's correct. Evolution has not been observed happening in real time at a genetic level. We have observed the long term effects of it. I.e. we can compare the DNA of one batch of bacteria in the E. Coli long-term evolution experiment with another batch and see that they have changed, but we don't know which exact bacterium started the change and why or how that change occurred during cell replication. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Or, as in your example, we can compare the DNA or RNA of a virus with a previous generation and we know it has changed. We didn't see it changing. We don't know why it has changed. I.e. we didn't see it evolve, but we observed the effects of the evolution (a changed organism).

Comment: Re:This is interesting.... (Score 1) 573 573

by harlequinn (#49311015) Attached to: Greenpeace Co-Founder Declares Himself a Climate Change Skeptic

Science is almost never settled and is always up for debate (don't be a bigot).

Climate change science has not been settled. Every year better and better models come out superseding the older models. This comes about by climate scientists debating the merits of their existing models.

"Does climate change happen naturally? Yes? Is the current experience of climate change natural? No."

In regards to the second question you posed the answer is yes and no. "Natural" (non-anthropogenic) climate change has not paused while anthropogenic causes increased in effect.

Comment: LEDs are bright (Score 1) 182 182

by harlequinn (#48007469) Attached to: Breakthrough In LED Construction Increases Efficiency By 57 Percent

"they still fall behind more conventional forms of lighting in terms of brightness."

The most advanced consumer LEDs have a higher luminous efficacy than HID, fluorescent, and incandescent lights. They have for several years now.

The luminous flux of LEDs is good as well. Although the total power of LEDs tapers off after around 30W, manufacturers use large arrays of the more efficient low power LEDs and achieve incredibly high luminous flux. E.g. Cree sells a flood light that is 850W and outputs 75000 lumens.

For domestic use, LEDs have higher luminous flux than competing lighting techniques.

 

Comment: Re:My power bill has never been higher (Score 1) 169 169

by harlequinn (#47989817) Attached to: South Australia Hits 33% Renewal Energy Target 6 Years Early

The SA price is about 0.40 USD per kW/h (including taxes). That is a conservative number from the cheapest providers. It only goes up from there.

http://www.energymadeeasy.gov....

Compare that to the USA

http://www.eia.gov/electricity...

They average about 0.13 USD per kW/h.

"It is better for civilization to be going down the drain than to be coming up it." -- Henry Allen

Working...