Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:unfair policy (Score 1) 151

by phantomfive (#47802867) Attached to: Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

So if a large proportion of these climate scientists don't think that doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause problematic warming what (according to them) is causing the current problematic warming trend?

Do you understand the logical fallacy of "loaded question?" Look it up, because your question commits that fallacy.

Most scientists accept that there's been some warming. How much of it is caused by CO2 is an open question, because the models need adjusting (though to be fair, the main difficulty is likely in over-estimating feedbacks). Scientists disagree on that problem, but the main question that matters from a practical standpoint is, "what should we do?" There's no consensus on this at all.

1) Should we do nothing, because eventually technology will replace coal before anything bad happens? (this is suggested by John Christy).
2) Should we do nothing, even though damage will be caused, because the damage will be easier to fix than to prevent? (I believe Bjorn Lomborg holds this view).
3) Should we replace all coal plants with nuclear immediately, even at great expense? (this is proposed by James Hansen)
4) Should we spend a lot of money on research for fusion?
5) Should we spend a lot of money to help push forward the electric car? (I saw this proposed in the Wall Street Journal)?
6) Should we replace all coal power with wind and solar? (this isn't actually possible with today's technology, but some people want it)
7) Should we agree to the Kyoto protocol, damaging the economy while making little impact on CO2 release?
8) Should we agree to the Copenhagen accord, which will do little, but cost billions in transfer payments to impoverished countries?

This is just scratching the surface of possible responses, and there is absolutely no scientific consensus on how to respond to AGW, or even if it needs a response.

Comment: Re:Wait.... what? (Score 2) 211

by phantomfive (#47802763) Attached to: Ukraine Asks Zuckerberg to Discipline Kremlin Facebook Bots

Add into that the fact that countries like Ukraine were meant to be buffer states. States that didn't hold too closely to the west but weren't part of Russia to give Russia a sense of security. Historically Russia has seen pressure from two major geopolitical areas, Europe and China. It has become a relatively paranoid country.

You have to be careful with generalizations about regions like this, because historically, Ukraine was once the most powerful country in Europe

Comment: Re:Fragmented: too little vs too much (Score 1) 88

by phantomfive (#47802447) Attached to: MIPS Tempts Hackers With Raspbery Pi-like Dev Board

that was too many choices.

Now it wasn't. Maybe from some obscure business standpoint it was 'better,' but to me it was like having more playgrounds.

The reason there are fewer now has nothing to do with standardization, it's because they weren't able to keep up with the manufacturing processes. At the embedded level, where manufacturing process doesn't matter as much, there are still a lot of different ISAs. Recently I've been playing with the Parallax Propeller

Comment: Re:Since nuclear is "too cheap to meter"... (Score 1) 218

by PopeRatzo (#47801839) Attached to: Feds Want Nuclear Waste Train, But Don't Know Where It Would Go

No, it is still the lowest forms of argumentation, not because of the factuality of the ties of a speaker with the technology or industry they are defending, but because they attack the speaker instead of the arguments they present

But the son was not presenting an argument. He was putting words in his dead father's mouth.

In any case, whatever he meant, it was a rhetoric statement, torn completely out of context and expressing a personal sentiment, not the official stance of the atomic energy program.

At least you're tacitly admitting that saving consumers money was never part of the nuclear fission story.

Comment: Re:unfair policy (Score 4, Informative) 151

by phantomfive (#47801195) Attached to: Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

What I find most amazing is this: 97% of the best climate scientists we have on earth have concluded that we have a problem.

This is wrong, you read the poll wrong (maybe this one?). Here is the part you misunderstood: 97% of climate scientists say man-made CO2 has an effect on the global temperature (and the rest probably clicked the wrong box on accident).

Do you understand that there is a difference between "having an effect" and "is a problem?" Because there is a huge difference, and the people answering the poll understood that there is a difference. Even scientists who are frequently labeled 'deniers' will answer yes to that poll, it's almost like asking a non-question.

Comment: Re:Since nuclear is "too cheap to meter"... (Score 1) 218

by PopeRatzo (#47799365) Attached to: Feds Want Nuclear Waste Train, But Don't Know Where It Would Go

Accusations of shilling are among the lowest form of argumentation.

Unless you happen to be identifying an actual shill.

The person who is attributed with explaining away his father's quote is not some pseudonymous person on the internet. He actually happens to be an nuclear industry shill. Calling him such is not a "form of argumentation". It is simply informative.

Now calling you a shill would be a low form of argumentation. I would never do that without evidence. So keep going. Before you're done, who knows?

Comment: Re:Rules of war (Score 5, Interesting) 211

by phantomfive (#47797543) Attached to: Ukraine Asks Zuckerberg to Discipline Kremlin Facebook Bots

(heaven forbid they try, there are NATO air resources all around the place and those might get involved, resulting in a far larger-scale war).

NATO will not go to war with Russia over Ukraine. None of the members of NATO have that obligation since Ukraine is not a member, and moreover, none of them want to risk lives to defend Ukraine. It's a similar situation to Hungary in the 50s......did anyone help them? Of that situation, Krushkev said:

"In a newspaper interview in 1957, Khrushchev commented "support by United States ... is rather in the nature of the support that the rope gives to a hanged man."

Comment: Re:Since nuclear is "too cheap to meter"... (Score 2) 218

by PopeRatzo (#47797189) Attached to: Feds Want Nuclear Waste Train, But Don't Know Where It Would Go

"I would say my father was referring to fusion energy. I know this because I became my father's eyes and ears as I travelled around the country for him."

So, a nuclear advocate covers for his nuclear advocate father's boneheaded remark pretending that nuclear energy would be cost effective. Or at least that's the assertion of someone named "Blubbaloo" who is the person who created the "too cheap to meter" wikipedia page. It is the only wikipedia entry that "Blubbaloo" has ever seemed to have made. And one that he seems to guard very carefully. And the only person who has ever disputed the meaning of Strauss' statement was his nuclear advocate son.

It's funny that a "physicist" wouldn't be able to understand the concept of externalities.

Here's a little detail from the talk pages of that very interesting wiki artifact:

We should not discount the popular impact of this statement. I added "Newspaper articles at the time..." and I wonder why there is any question about Strauss' meaning. Clearly the New York Times, writing about the Sept. 16 1954 speech, understood that Strauss was referring to the entire atomic energy program. Even if Strauss was misunderstood, he did not take any great pains to clear up the record. User:wkovarik -- Bill Kovarik, March 15, 2011.

A direct copy of the entire speech would clear up most of the questions around the usual (often mangled, as the one included today is) quotes. (Did the NYT reprint the entire speech or just portions?)
Robert Pool, 1997 p.71,[1] quotes this preceding line, often left out: "Transmutation of the elements--unlimited power ... these and a host of other results all in fifteen short years. It is not too much to expect that our children...." etc. There's little question that Strauss was waxing poetic; more to the point: many sources say he was encouraging science writers to promote fission power to these ends. Which completely makes sense considering their need to create more plutonium.
His view was not widely shared; in 1951, General Electric's own C. G. Suits, who was operating the Hanford reactors, said that "At present, atomic power presents an exceptionally costly and inconvenient means of obtaining energy which can be extracted much more economically from conventional fuels.... This is expensive power, not cheap power as the public has been led to believe."[2] Twang (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"many sources say he was encouraging science writers to promote fission power to these ends."

Shills is shills, ya know?

Comment: Re:My money is on SpaceX (Score 1) 191

by HangingChad (#47797147) Attached to: Battle of the Heavy Lift Rockets

They have the vision and agility that NASA lost in the sixties.

I get smacked down here for suggesting that NASA is no longer the best agency for moving the space program forward. SpaceX soft-landed two boosters in the ocean and are ready for a land trial. They did that in their spare time. It would have taken NASA 10 years and $20 billion dollars to replicate that achievement. NASA also relies on contractors with obscene overhead rates.

SpaceX is living proof that NASA wastes billions.

Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.