Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Time for a new date (Score 1, Informative) 197

If "peak oil" was in 2008 you better tell the Lefties at The Nation, they apparently didn't get the memo

Peak Oil Is Dead. Long Live Peak Oil!

A note to the Guardian might be helpful as well.

We were wrong on peak oil. There's enough to fry us all

Some of us made vague predictions, others were more specific. In all cases we were wrong. In 1975 MK Hubbert, a geoscientist working for Shell who had correctly predicted the decline in US oil production, suggested that global supplies could peak in 1995. In 1997 the petroleum geologist Colin Campbell estimated that it would happen before 2010. In 2003 the geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes said he was "99% confident" that peak oil would occur in 2004. In 2004, the Texas tycoon T Boone Pickens predicted that "never again will we pump more than 82m barrels" per day of liquid fuels. (Average daily supply in May 2012 was 91m.) In 2005 the investment banker Matthew Simmons maintained that "Saudi Arabia cannot materially grow its oil production". (Since then its output has risen from 9m barrels a day to 10m, and it has another 1.5m in spare capacity.)

Peak oil hasn't happened, and it's unlikely to happen for a very long time.

Comment: Re:What a fool (Score 0) 288

The US affordable care act was a mere 2,000 pages long and is spawning tens or hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations governing, regulating, taxing, and reshaping American healthcare. Next to that the development of regulation to govern all aspects of the internet, world wide web, and its many manifestations is peanuts. It will probably be about as successful as the "Affordable" Care Act, AKA Obamacare, but it can be done none the less. That should suggest to you that nobody should give them the idea of actually do it if we want to avoid a fiasco.

+ - Indian Scientists Significantly More Religious Than UK Scientists->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Rice University reports, "Indian scientists are significantly more religious than United Kingdom scientists, according to the first cross-national study of religion and spirituality among scientists. ... The surveys and in-depth interviews with scientists revealed that while 65 percent of U.K. scientists identify as nonreligious, only 6 percent of Indian scientists identify as nonreligious. In addition, while only 12 percent of scientists in the U.K. attend religious services on a regular basis — once a month or more — 32 percent of scientists in India do. Elaine Howard Ecklund, Rice’s Autrey Professor of Sociology and the study’s principal investigator, said the U.K. and India data are being released simultaneously because of the history between the U.K. and India. She noted that their differences are quite interesting to compare. “India and the U.K. are at the same time deeply intertwined historically while deeply different religiously,” Ecklund said. “There is a vastly different character of religion among scientists in the U.K. than in India – potentially overturning the view that scientists are universal carriers of secularization.” Despite the number of U.K. scientists identifying themselves as nonreligious, 49 percent of U.K. survey respondents acknowledged that there are basic truths in many religions. In addition, 11 percent of U.K. survey respondents said they do believe in God without any doubt, and another 8 percent said they believe in a higher power of some kind. Ecklund noted that although the U.K. is known for its secularism, scientists in particular are significantly more likely to identify as not belonging to a religion than members of the general population.""
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Typical Government Hypocracy (Score 1, Interesting) 241

by cold fjord (#48017105) Attached to: At CIA Starbucks, Even the Baristas Are Covert

No, this is all about some pretend thing in their heads that they're special enough to kill and yet smart enough to be hidden. The truth is most people are aware of how unimportant they are as a target and don't even attempt to hide themselves.

Do you think that journalists and aid workers are so unimportant as to not be targets? It seems that ISIS disagrees with you.

Jihadi John: FBI 'identifies' Isis militant who 'beheaded' British aid worker David Haines and US journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff

If they can be targets, why not CIA/NSA/FBI officers?

And it isn't just an overseas threat.

Oklahoma Beheading Suspect Shared Photos of Himself Giving ISIS Salute

The CIA/NSA/FBI all take advantage of this, have a certain level of loathing of the "sheep", and don't want to be placed into the same category because it fundamentally goes against their feelings of superiority of not being so "stupid".

Maybe what it actually goes against is their attachment to their head?

Honestly, "operational security", "ongoing investigation", and "national security" are the words of cowards more often than a real and meaningful thing used to actual protect the populace at large. And I should know as an Anonymous Coward, right?

Even though they can be and have been abused at times, what they are in fact are genuine issues that have to be dealt with by people in responsible positions in government. The fact that you don't deal with that demonstrate your post is disingenuous nonsense.

Comment: see his employer... (Score 0) 288

Consider the division of the police force with which he works. His section sees computer crimes day in, day out. He is tasked enforcing computer laws for the city of London (i.e. not metro area, so he's likely dealing with financial crimes "on the internet" and similar), which is a rather tall order...and I sincerely doubt he's particularly concerned about Joe sixpack getting a movie off the pirate bay.
We can laugh about how out of touch he is and how ludicrous it is to suggest a website license, but it's also a reasonable fear that the same infrastructure keeping the pirate bay resilient to the *AA's could as easily be used for worse things that could have a more profound effect on the economy of the region.

Comment: Re:So. (Score 3, Insightful) 125

by dgatwood (#48016901) Attached to: FCC To Rule On "Paid Prioritization" Deals By Internet Service Providers

But 3.7 million is big compared with the entire voting public. On average, only about 100 million U.S. residents actually vote in any given Presidential election, and even fewer in midterm elections.

There's a rule in politics that for every one person who complains about something, ten people dislike it, but didn't complain. So if 3.7 million people cared enough to complain about the lack of net neutrality, over 40 million people know enough to be strongly in favor of net neutrality. And most of those folks are likely to vote in the next election.

To put that into context, it is quite possible that net neutrality matters to 2.5 times as many likely voters as abortion.

Comment: Re:Time for a new date (Score 2, Interesting) 197

If you think that Artic or deep ocean oil is expensive, try going completely without and let us know how expensive that is. Which economy will you ruin, who will you starve, to do without?

Every tree planted reduced CO2. Are you advocating the planting trees, or just cutting off oil?

Alternative energy sources and new technology can decrease our dependency on oil, do you back them?

What is your concern?

+ - Scientists Seen as Competent But Not Trusted by Americans->

Submitted by cold fjord
cold fjord (826450) writes "The Woodrow Wilson School reports, "If scientists want the public to trust their research suggestions, they may want to appear a bit "warmer," according to a new review published by Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. The review, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), shows that while Americans view scientists as competent, they are not entirely trusted. This may be because they are not perceived to be friendly or warm. In particular, Americans seem wary of researchers seeking grant funding and do not trust scientists pushing persuasive agendas. Instead, the public leans toward impartiality. "Scientists have earned the respect of Americans but not necessarily their trust," said lead author Susan Fiske, the Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology and professor of public affairs. "But this gap can be filled by showing concern for humanity and the environment. Rather than persuading, scientists may better serve citizens by discussing, teaching and sharing information to convey trustworthy intentions."""
Link to Original Source

+ - US Army Sending Elements Of 1st Infantry Division HQ To Iraq->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Stars and Strips reports, "The 1st Infantry Division headquarters will deploy to Iraq soon as the U.S. military steps up its campaign against Islamic State militants, the Pentagon said Thursday. It will be the first division headquarters assigned to Iraq since U.S. forces withdrew from the country at the end of 2011. About 500 soldiers from the Fort Riley, Kan.-based division will be heading for the Middle East next month with about 200 of them going to Iraq ... “They’re going to provide command and control of the ongoing advise-and-assist effort in support of Iraqi and peshmerga forces. And they’re going to continue to help us all degrade and destroy ISIL,” Kirby told reporters, referring to the Islamic State by one of its acronyms. The new headquarters personnel will be working out of the joint operations centers in Baghdad and the Kurdish capital of Irbil, as well as the Iraqi defense ministry.""
Link to Original Source

Debug is human, de-fix divine.