Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: tl;dr - economics matters (Score 1) 215

by hsthompson69 (#48428039) Attached to: Lessons Learned From Google's Green Energy Bust

I did read the article, which was filled with all of the appropriate doom and apocalyptic visions, but the ultimate conclusion is really rather useless - hope and pray that magic comes along.

"Our society needs to fund scientists and engineers to propose and test new ideas, fail quickly, and share what they learn."

"We’re not trying to predict the winning technology here, but its cost needs to be vastly lower than that of fossil energy systems."

Simply *wanting* a technological innovation doesn't make it happen. Even massively funding all kinds of R&D doesn't necessarily make it happen - not all R&D is created equally, and unless you can discern between useful work, and not useful work, you're looking at huge amounts of waste.

Comment: Re:They're looking in the wrong place (Score 1) 421

by hsthompson69 (#48133361) Attached to: Texas Health Worker Tests Positive For Ebola

Damn. I take it back - I had no idea their "protocol" was so weak:

"that the nurse in question was wearing the recommended personal protective gear for handling an Ebola patient, including a gown, gloves, mask, and eye shield"

I thought these folks were treating this guy with full body suits, not just eyewear, gloves and a dust mask.

Whoever told them this protocol was sufficient should have to treat the next ebola patient with the same protocol.

Comment: They're looking in the wrong place (Score -1, Flamebait) 421

by hsthompson69 (#48124981) Attached to: Texas Health Worker Tests Positive For Ebola

I bet a dollar the infection didn't come from the patient she was treating, but some other contact in her life who got infected during the period of time "patient zero" was out and about the community.

It's more likely ebola is out in the community than health care professionals who understand the deadliness of the disease walked around with a torn suit or didn't pay attention to protocol.

The question now is, just how many more infected folk are out there in Texas, and how far and fast will it spread to other states while the government assures us there's no reason to panic?

Comment: Re:Great one more fail (Score 1) 600

by hsthompson69 (#47910755) Attached to: High School Student Builds Gun That Unlocks With Your Fingerprint

And just why *can't* it be 2.5 million, or 1.25 million? You've got underreporting of crime just by victims, one. Then you add on top of that LEOs who *don't* actually file reports for reported crimes, or downplay them to fudge their statistics. I'll agree, we're speculating on "known unknowns" here, but it's not an unreasonable guess.

Here's some basics: http://www.fbi.gov/news/storie...

1.2 million violent crimes reported, 9 million property crimes reported. Add on top of that the rate of non-reporting by victims. Add on top of that the improper non-reporting by LEOs. 2.5 million passes the smell test at least on orders of magnitude, and you've got no facts to refute that.

But hey, forget that for a second, and think about it - would you hire more cops to reduce crime? Would you put another 10k officers out on the streets to make them safer?

Would you equip these cops with guns? Wouldn't that mean, more guns in the hands of good guys == less crime?

Comment: Re:Great one more fail (Score 1) 600

by hsthompson69 (#47906605) Attached to: High School Student Builds Gun That Unlocks With Your Fingerprint

Hardly what I'd call diligent.

A far cry from "proven to make up data and conceals data that doesn't fit his ideology".

Maybe you find this kind of diligence more to your liking? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

And this is known as lying.

Like using a trick to hide a decline? :) Or maybe identity theft and forgery? http://fakegate.org/

I'll gladly pillory John Lott for sock puppetry if we'll put Peter Gleick and Phil Jones in jail for their sins :)

Ted Goertzel considered multiple regression to be not of much use in proving causal arguments

And there we agree - data diving is notorious for being unable to differentiate correlation and causality (The China Study being a prime example - http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/... - the AGW scam is another).

That being said, John Lott has undoubtedly done a more thorough job than any other researcher in the field on trying to include control variables - for all the critiques that can be laid against him, there's simply nobody else out there doing a better job...and he's even *invited* his naysayers to critique his work, reaching out to them to try and add to the body of knowledge, looking for control variables they might think of that he might not.

Here's an excerpt, regarding Susan Glick:

"However, when the publicity broke on the story with an article in USA Today on August 2, she was among the many people who left telephone messages immediately asking for a copy of the paper. In her case, the media were calling, and she “need[ed] [my] paper to be able to criticize it.” Because of all the commotion that day, I was unable to get back to her right away. ABC National Television News was doing a story on my study for that day, and when at around 3:00 p.m. the ABC reporter doing the story, Barry Serafin, called saying that certain objections had been raised about my paper, he mentioned that one of those who had criticized it was Ms. Glick. After talking to Mr. Serafin, I gave Glick a call to ask her if she still wanted a copy of my paper. She said that she wanted it sent to her right away and wondered if I could fax it to her. I then noted that her request seemed strange because I had just gotten off the telephone with Mr. Serafin at ABC News, who had told me that she had been very critical of the study, saying that it was “flawed.” I asked how she could have said that there were flaws in the paper without even having looked at it yet. At that point Ms. Glick hung up the telephone."

Hardly what I'd call diligent :)

Comment: Re:Great one more fail (Score 2) 600

by hsthompson69 (#47905965) Attached to: High School Student Builds Gun That Unlocks With Your Fingerprint

Want to talk about lawlessness in the US?

http://whitegirlbleedalot.com/

The problem is that LEOs regularly refuse to investigate or report crimes that happen, or misclassify them to reduce their severity - http://www.latimes.com/local/l...

It certainly could be as high as 2.5 million, but hey, I'll give you half of those as exaggerations, and we're still talking huge numbers.

More good guys with guns, less crime. A good guy can be an LEO, or a law abiding CCW holder.

Or is it your position that somehow LEOs are superior gun handlers? http://www.indystar.com/story/...

Comment: Re:Great one more fail (Score 1) 600

by hsthompson69 (#47905949) Attached to: High School Student Builds Gun That Unlocks With Your Fingerprint

Read your cite, his critics made baseless accusations against him, and had to recant:

"Levitt settled the second defamation claim by admitting in a letter to John McCall that he himself was a peer reviewer in the 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics, that Lott had not engaged in bribery (paying for extra costs of printing and postage for a conference issue is customary), and that he knew that "scholars with varying opinions" (including Levitt himself) had been invited to participate."

Go back to your Creationist land where your brand of "reading comprehension" means something...

Comment: Re:Great one more fail (Score 3) 600

by hsthompson69 (#47902831) Attached to: High School Student Builds Gun That Unlocks With Your Fingerprint

Cite, or it didn't happen. John Lott may be annoying, and there's certainly room to question his statistics, but he's done a far better job than all the anti-gun "researchers" out there in actually doing the due diligence of getting as much data as possible and explaining both his analytical methods and any potential weaknesses they might have.

If you haven't actually read his book, you might want to give it a try, so you can actually argue intelligently against his work, rather than just parrot anti-gun talking points about him.

Comment: Perspective, get some. (Score 1) 600

by hsthompson69 (#47902805) Attached to: High School Student Builds Gun That Unlocks With Your Fingerprint

http://www.marshallbrain.com/c...

"Buckets seem so innocent -- how can a bucket kill a child? Unfortunately, about 20 children die in the U.S. every year because they drown in buckets."

If you're worried about one penis shot per year, and are willing to put fingerprint sensors on firearms to stop it, what kind of fingerprint sensor are you going to put on buckets, that *kill* 20 times more people?

Ready to regulate buckets, bitch?

Comment: Re:Great one more fail (Score 1) 600

by hsthompson69 (#47902787) Attached to: High School Student Builds Gun That Unlocks With Your Fingerprint

Don't forget dirty hands, bloody hands, the moment when you're wounded and have to switch hands, or even whether or not it works after you've sent 100,000 rounds down range.

The corner case this addresses is the retention issue - what happens when a bad guy takes your gun out of your holster, or out of your hands, and uses it against you. The holster case is already well addressed by various duty holsters with level 3 retention, and the out of your hands case essentially means they're physically overpowering you, and they'll do just as much damage to you up close with the hunk of metal they've just taken from you.

They're addressing a corner case that has even less possibility of happening than 0.01%

Comment: Re:Dynamic CO2 Absorption (Score 1) 427

by hsthompson69 (#47899567) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013

Except if you look at the data, it absorbed about half of human CO2 emissions *throughout* history, including recent history:

http://theresilientearth.com/?...

So the question still stands - why did CO2 sinks in our environment increase their absorption at the same time we increased our emissions?

It's like you're pouring 10 gallons per second into a tub that has a drain that removes 5 gallons per second, and then when you move to 20 gallons per second, the drain magically increases in size to remove 10 gallons per second.

Something is moderating the size of that drain, and it's not the water coming in...

Comment: Re:Let's look at the data (Score 3, Informative) 59

by hsthompson69 (#47884997) Attached to: Ozone Layer Recovering But Remains Threatened

Also, from the cited report:

http://ozone.unep.org/Assessme...

"Total column ozone declined over most of the globe during the 1980s and early 1990s, by about 2.5% in the global mean, but has remained stable since 2000. There are indications of an increase in global-mean total column ozone over 2000–2012, consistent with model predictions. However, a total column ozone increase that would be attributable to ODS decreases has not yet been observed."

Money quote: "However, a total column ozone increase that would be attributable to ODS decreases has not yet been observed."

Comment: Oceans are basic, not acidic (Score 1) 427

by hsthompson69 (#47873893) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013

Let's be very clear here:

1) oceans are *basic* not acidic. Reducing pH of oceans at this point is *neutralization*, not acidification;

2) ocean pH varies orders of magnitude more than any proposed amount of neutralization:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

"It turns out that far from being a stable pH, spots all over the world are constantly changing. One spot in the ocean varied by an astonishing 1.4 pH units regularly. All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, and that’s referred to as “catastrophic”, yet we now know that fish and some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day."

It could be an indication that the compensation effect of the oceans is coming at an end.

How can you possibly assert that as an explanation? Let's assume, for the moment, that the missing sink is the oceans (rather than say, increased plant life, or some other part of the carbon cycle we don't understand) - the moderator of how much CO2 they could absorb every year must be the amount of surface area of the oceans, yet without changing the surface area of the oceans, you're asserting that they magically figured out how to absorb *more* CO2 in later years?

Please, *why* would the oceans in 1980 absorb x CO2 from the atmosphere, but then in 2014, they absorb Y > 10x?

Possible suggestion: Absorption of oceans is driven by ocean temperature, and from say, 1980 - 2014, increasing ocean temps absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere. So then what regulates ocean temperature? Cloud albedo and solar activity primarily, with maybe some minuscule contribution from underwater vulcanism. Sadly, we've got no model linking cloud albedo to CO2, or solar activity to CO2, much less human CO2.

In any case, the fact that natural CO2 absorption has varied so greatly over the years indicates some other moderator than human CO2 emissions on final global CO2 levels.

What the world *really* needs is a good Automatic Bicycle Sharpener.

Working...