Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Bah, character-set ignorance. (Score 3, Interesting) 38

by ibwolf (#47796565) Attached to: Iceland Raises Volcano Aviation Alert Again

This is wrong on all counts. It is very much traditional for us Icelanders (yes I'm from Iceland) to transliterate eth (ð) as d and accented characters like á without the accent.

Th is only used to transliterate the thorn (which Slashdot refuses to render).

What is annoying is when the eth is transliterated as o. I have one in my last name and I've had trouble with checking in to flights booked via Expedia due to this nonsense.

Comment: Re:Actually... (Score 3, Informative) 123

by ibwolf (#47695255) Attached to: No, a Huge Asteroid Is Not "Set To Wipe Out Life On Earth In 2880"

Even a common place apendectomy has a mortality rate of about 2% last time I checked.

You must have checked it a VERY long time ago. It is true that the rate of complication is about 2-3%, but the MORTALITY rate (i.e. the number of people that die as a result of the surgery) is

estimated at one to two per 1,000,000 cases of appendicitis

(Source: http://www.surgeryencyclopedia...)

Not 1 in 50 as a 2% mortality rate would indicate.

Comment: Re:n/t (Score 5, Insightful) 278

by ibwolf (#47465251) Attached to: The debate over climate change is..

No, all of science is debatable. Even Newton and Einstein.

The ones insisting that science is "settled" and undebatable are the same old religious authority figures dressed in new clothes.

Newton is a good example. We know for a fact that his 'laws' (or more accurately, models) of motion are wrong. We've known that for a very long time (that is why relativity was needed, Newton's model, for example, failed to predict the orbits of the planets accurately).

Now suppose you are building a bridge. It needs to withstand certain strains. Plugging the details of your plans into Newton's models shows that it will not withstand them. Claiming that since Newton's models are wrong, you can safely ignore this result and build your bridge anyway, is clearly nonsense.

The reason it is nonsense is because the limitations (or inaccuracies) of Newton's models are irrelevant to its application in this scenario. To wave away Newton, in this instance, you'd need to present extremely compelling evidence that we've been wrong these past 300 years in believing Newton's laws held any value at 'human' scale.

This would be an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary proof. Given how unlikely that is, we say that Newton is 'settled'. In that we know the limits of his models and have a mountain of evidence to back them up where we believe they do apply. You can't just point at the known limitations of his models and in a handwavy manner extrapolate that since his models aren't perfect, they are useless. You must provide extraordinary proof they Newton's models are wrong.

So lets move over to climate science.

Its a younger field, but it does rely on a number of fairly simple and testable models. Including that carbon dioxide (CO2) traps heat in the atmosphere. This can be easily tested (and has been repeatedly). Claiming that this is false, requires extraordinary proof and this can generally be considered settled.

The claim that us humans are releasing immense amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and have been doing so to an ever greater degree for over 200 years is also easily proven and can be viewed as 'settled'. That is to say, you'd need extraordinary proof to claim otherwise.

There is a mountain of these small, 'settled' issues that, when taken together, lead to a fairly unassailable (barring extraordinary evidence to the countrary) conclusion; We are having an effect on the global climate.

The exact effects are what is left for (real) scientific debate. But even there we know that the overall temperature of the planet will rise by some amount due to the presence of more CO2 in the atmosphere (claiming otherwise requires, again, extraordinary proof, although the exact amount of heating is still subject to some debate).

TL;DR Climate science is far from settled. However, the fact that we are having an impact on the climate is settled and arguing otherwise requires extraordinary proof.

Comment: Re:Aluminium (Score 1) 365

by ibwolf (#47339737) Attached to: Germany's Glut of Electricity Causing Prices To Plummet

...but you can turn off the plant to free more of the existing electricity...

No you can't. Aluminium plants take time to shut down. A sudden loss of electricity will destroy the equipment used to smelt it. So you'd need many hours to wind production down and then many hours to get it started again.

The last thing any aluminium smelting plants wants is downtime. That is why they are run 24/7. Shutting them down takes a very long time and costs a lot of money.

Comment: Re:Too Big to Be Indicted... (Score 2) 245

by ibwolf (#47203913) Attached to: NSA's Novel Claim: Our Systems Are Too Complex To Obey the Law

The banks, on the other hand, are very easy to "kill" — just stop using them. Unlike the government, they have no way to compel you.

Yes, "just" stop using them. Like we can "just" stop voting in all these rubbish politicians.

Most people can't stop doing business with them because they are already in debt and clearing that debt will take decades. Even if not in debt, not having a bank account and debit/credit card(s) and other financial services can cause you all manner of difficulties.

Banks, on top of providing essentially services, have built a money sucking machine. And they've made very sure to entangle the leeching part thoroughly in with the good bits.

The only way to address this, without plunging the economy into chaos, is for the government to step in and untangle it (cutting the proverbial Gordian knot). "Just" not doing business with the banks will either accomplish nothing (because you can't get enough people involved) or will precipitate a financial collapse.

Unfortunately, getting the government to do something about this "just" requires us to vote some decent people into office *sigh* yes, "just".

Comment: Re:Everyone prepare for Armageddon! (Score 4, Insightful) 182

by ibwolf (#46989031) Attached to: Oil Man Proposes Increase In Oklahoma Oil-and-Gas Tax

As if cutting/reducing services does not place a burden on its citizens?

If something can be cut without the citizens noticing it, then cut it (regardless of overall financial health, it's just waste).

But most services are there for a reason. It may be a lesser burden (especially if you take the long term view) to raise taxes than to allow certain services to degrade past the point of utility.

Comment: Re:Are you kidding (Score 4, Insightful) 818

by ibwolf (#46765551) Attached to: Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

In most democracies there are usually two parties that most people vote for (Both of which are different shades of shit).

Citation needed!

Most (European anyway) democracies are parliamentary democracies with 4-6 major parties plus some number of smaller/fringe parties. Typically, no one party has a majority and coalition governments are the norm.

Comment: Re:Tracking` (Score 2) 233

by ibwolf (#46668387) Attached to: Most Expensive Aviation Search: $53 Million To Find Flight MH370

It's estimated to be $200,000 per plane for live tracking. "Billons" would be a huge exaggeration.

That's 5000 planes per one billion. There are almost one thousand Boeing 777s in operation today. Add in all other comparable, i.e. long range aircraft (757, 747, 787 plus the Airbus equivalents) and you are quickly into the (very low admittedly) billions.

Comment: Re:Obvious Answer (Score 5, Insightful) 747

by ibwolf (#46482995) Attached to: Measles Outbreak In NYC

Remember, those who do not vaccinate their children put their children at risk, but these are THEIR children, not 'ours'.

This is simply not correct. There are a number reasons some children can not be vaccinated, including allergies and other health problems. Generally, if vaccinations are widespread, those that can not be vaccinated will benefit from the herd immunity afforded by general vaccination. When the number of non-vaccinated kids goes up, the effect of the herd immunity goes down putting the children that can not be vaccinated at risk.

Comment: Re:How are nuclear weapons going to help though? (Score 1) 498

by ibwolf (#46453373) Attached to: Ukraine May Have To Rearm With Nuclear Weapons Says Ukrainian MP

I don't give a flying fuck who invaded. Starting a nuclear war over some local pissing contest is NOT an option.

What is to you a "local pissing contest" is to the Ukrainians a foreign invasion.

How would you feel if Putin had decided that Alaska should really go back to Russia and sent troops there? That is exactly what has happened in the Ukraine.

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman

Working...