Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: So, it's just another Democrat PAC masquerading (Score 0, Insightful) 247

by jnaujok (#47202363) Attached to: Mayday Anti-PAC On Its Second Round of Funding
This "Anti-PAC" is just a PAC supporting the two largest Democrat campaign finance bills which are more properly termed the "Silence Dissent Acts" or "Incumbent Protection Act" then any kind of real campaign finance reform.

So, all they are is another Democrat PAC masquerading under a fake name. Oh, they claim to support three other bills with bi-partisan support, which are bills sponsored by four back-benchers (Tom Petrie anyone? 30+ years in Congress and I don't think he's successfully sponsored one bill.) that will never make it out of sub-committee.

So, two hyper-left (Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Dianne Feinstein type) proposals, and three non-events.

Anti-PAC, it's another way of saying "Democrat".

Makes you wonder why they feel they have to lie about their intentions.

Comment: Maybe... stop growing food in a desert? (Score 5, Insightful) 545

by jnaujok (#46444911) Attached to: Meat Makes Our Planet Thirsty
In case no one has noticed, California is a desert (or nearly one) for most of its area. Before the farm subsidy act of the 1950's, no one grew food crops in California, and no one raised cattle. Then, after subsidies were based on your distance from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, where they get 30-40" of rain a year, suddenly California became *the* address for raising food. When you can raise dairy cattle at a loss, milk them at a loss, and produce a gallon of milk for $6, and still sell it for $2 wholesale -- and the government ensures you're making a profit by handing you a $5 a gallon subsidy, of course you're going to raise cattle and farm in California.

California has to drain the Colorado river, and the showsheds of something like 1,000,000 hectares of mountains to even get close to their water needs on a good year. In the meantime, farms in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, and the rest of the heartland are all collapsing into bankruptcy, unable to compete with the ever-increasing subsidies bought by the legislatures of California with its 50+ congressmen and electoral votes.

Comment: Re:Oh noes.... (Score 1) 358

by jnaujok (#45086627) Attached to: 90% of Nuclear Regulators Sent Home Due To Shutdown
Assuming, of course, the Captain Planet model of industry, where the moment the Federal Regulator steps away, the CEO pulls the lever to dump the toxic waste into the nearby river.

Or, maybe the guys running the plant (and likely living nearby) don't want to die in a nuclear waste spill either.

I'd think that one regulator on-site, one shift a day, would be more than enough to catch any worrisome behaviors. Maybe with a surprise inspection once a week on an off-shift time if you really think "Mr. Slimeholio" runs the plant.

Comment: Oh noes.... (Score 1) 358

by jnaujok (#45085685) Attached to: 90% of Nuclear Regulators Sent Home Due To Shutdown
The article says 90% of employees is 3600 furloughed. Which would say the remaining 10% would be 400 workers.

To monitor 100 plants.

That would mean you could have one regulator on-site 24 hours a day, seven days a week (That's 21 eight-hour shifts for the math challenged) or 5 shifts per person, with one overtime shift.

At every plant. 24/7 surveillance, with 10% of the workforce. What the hell were they doing before that? 10 regulators per plant, 24/7?!?!?!

Comment: Re:BUYING SLASHDOT ACCOUNTS (Score 2) 1105

by jnaujok (#43765519) Attached to: 97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made
Arrhenius stated only that CO2 acted to absorb heat (long-wave infra-red radiation for the nitpickers). He posited that if you added CO2 to the atmosphere the heat would increase. What Arrhenius didn't know, or didn't fully grasp, is that at 280ppm, the atmospheric CO2 already absorbs 97% of all incoming long-wave infra-red radiation. Doubling the CO2 to 560ppm, would not make it absorb 194% of the radiation, it would make it absorb about 99% of the incoming radiation. Since CO2 accounts for approximately 4-7 degrees C of the Earth's warming (there's arguments on the exact figure) that would be an increase of about 0.08 to 0.14 degrees C. Now, there are some factors that add to that (re-radiation, tropospheric concentration and re-reflection of albedo infra-red, etc) that could make that as much as 1 degree C of surface warming. But that's it.

Adding twice the CO2 doesn't mean twice the temperature. And the feedback mechanisms are neutral to negative. They must be, or the 7000ppm CO2 of the carboniferous period would have resulted in Earth looking like a ball of molten rock.

Now, let's get back to the real point.

Climate scientists continue to make statements like, "We can expect more Katrina's every year!" Yet the U.S. is now in its longest cycle without a major hurricane landing since records began being kept in the 1930's. "We can expect more tornados to ravage cities across the U.S.!", yet tornadic activity across the U.S. is at a 50 year low. Total thunderstorms are average at best, and while there is some evidence of slightly stronger convection cells, there's a certain bias in the fact that we never before had satellites capable of sampling and quantifying such activity in seconds rather than days.

In short, the evidence all points the other way.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no shill for gas or oil or coal. I'd rather see all of it go away. Give me clean, safe, cheap, plentiful nuclear power every day of the week over all of that. Preferably LFTR designs spread out like candy all over the country. I'd love fusion too, but like my Grandfather who was promised to see it "within his lifetime" and died in 1988, I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Solar power is a joke, with its rare earths and sulfur-hexafluoride washes doing a dozen times more damage to the environment then they'll ever recover in a lifetime. We've already tapped 95% or more of the hydropower on Earth, and I doubt the birds will live through putting up enough windmills to power a typical city, much less the planet. Not to mention, that has it's own problems. Wind Power Potential Overestimated

Your point, "We've seen warming" ignores the one great thing about climate change -- the climate is a complex system -- it is always changing. It is a vast, living, breathing system taking in all life on earth, all changes in the sun, all chemistry in the oceans, every wave, every sunbeam, every butterfly flapping its wings. It must be constantly changing. We are looking at a tiny sliver of it and saying, "Oh no, we're all doomed!" We act as if we want the climate never to change, not one iota, not one jot.

The climate never changes on Venus, on Mercury, on Mars... They all have one thing in common. They're dead worlds.

Give me a changing climate any day over that.

Comment: Re:BUYING SLASHDOT ACCOUNTS (Score 2) 1105

by jnaujok (#43765423) Attached to: 97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made
So, the fact that both Tornadic activity in the United States and Cyclonic Activity globally are at 50 year lows all point to this "increased activity". Somewhere you have failed to notice that your claims must be backed up with data. Also, you have failed to explain why the actual global temperatures over the last 30 years have come in below the lowest predicted warming of all the models used by the IPCC, yet they continue to increase the predicted response. The last IPCC report posited a 3.0 degreeC/century rise in temperature, while actual data points at 1.2 degrees C/century or lower.

I work in computer science, and there's a name for a model which cannot predict, it's called "broken" or "incomplete". The fact that you now wish to make multi-trillion dollar, economy-wrecking, and real-life endangering decisions based on computer models that still can't agree with each other, much less the facts, is frightening beyond belief.

The amazing thing to me is that the same crowd that doesn't trust a banana with an extra gene inserted through a science evolved through 60 years of study, or grown with a fertilizer used for 80 years without a downside, are completely willing to take steps that will result in starvation, civil wars, and economic catastrophe over an increase of 0.012% of a particularly harmless gas in the atmosphere, which is required for life on Earth. A gas which, during the most life-bearing phase of the earth's history, was almost 20 times as abundant. All of which is based on computer programs developed by non-computer programmer programmers, over the course of a few months, which are less than accurate in the short term, and whose predictions are wildly inaccurate over the long term.

Not to mention, if tree-rings are such great thermometers, why has the dendrochronological record not been updated since the 1980's? Surely in the billions being funneled to climate research, someone can pay some grad students $10 an hour to go get some tree cores with a hand-drill every weekend?

Most of these climate scientists wouldn't know the climate it if rained on them.

Comment: Re:Better Arguments (Score 1) 1105

by jnaujok (#43765415) Attached to: 97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made
You want an analysis of the article itself? I could do that, but someone already has: Cook's Survey not only Meaningless, but Misleading

The survey is full of self-confirming bias, and selection bias. And the 97% number ignores the 65% of the papers that said *NOTHING* either way about AGW. In fact, if you take only those papers that explicitly endorse AGW, versus those that deny it, the ratio is actually flipped, with the "deniers" winning out.

In fact, by percentages of publications, the number that support AGW have been steadily declining year after year since 1995 according to the very numbers in this paper. Make of that what you will.

That was a brief synopsis for those of you too lazy to RTFA.

Comment: Re:BUYING SLASHDOT ACCOUNTS (Score 0) 1105

by jnaujok (#43765407) Attached to: 97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made
Would you like me to work the Navier-Stokes equations for you to show convective heat transfer in a fluid body? I'm quite aware of what heating does, and I'm also quite aware that you have no concept of the numbers being talked about here. You talk about adding thousands of watts per square meter to a liquid forcing a transition to a gaseous (and often turbulent) state. The difference the math talked about here is 1.3 watts per square meter, out fo 1365 watts per square meter. And spread that over a 30 kilometer high column of gas. The overall increase is down in the third to fourth decimal place. Climate scientists know that, and they posit that there are dozens of "positive feedback" methods that will drive temperatures higher and higher. They believe the climate is in a unstable dynamic equilibrium, rather than a stable dynamic equilibrium -- think the difference between being on a roller-coaster poised at the top of the hill, or one at the bottom of a valley.

We have heard words like "tipping point" or "past the point of no return" which are all associated with an unstable equilibrium. Yet the climate of the Earth is no such thing. Yes, we may be able to push the roller coaster a little way up the hill, but when we release it, it will roll back down to the bottom again. The climate is the same way. It must be, or over the 4.6 billion year long life of this planet, some event (the Siberian Traps for instance -- look it up) would have long since sent the planet spiraling into catastrophe.

Anything -- ANYTHING -- we humans can do is temporary. To believe otherwise is the most blatant of arrogance on our part. The fact is, the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might be having some effect on temperatures. But so what? We live in every biosphere. No one is going to die from it. It could be good. Things will change. So what -- they've changed before. We'll adapt. Some things won't. They'll die. There's this thing out there called evolution. It's been doing that for nearly 4 billion years.

So, your boiling pot of water, while a wonderful visual, is totally wrong. To get a more accurate model, turn your burner up to full, and when you've got a nice rolling boil, light a match and add it. See if you can spot the difference. That's the real model.

Comment: Re:BUYING SLASHDOT ACCOUNTS (Score -1, Flamebait) 1105

by jnaujok (#43755373) Attached to: 97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made

The hypotheses must make testable predictions.

Please cite the testable predictions that the Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Science conglomerate has made. Please include any time when they stated a falsifiable claim. In other words, a prediction, which if found not to occur, would falsify their model.

The only one I found was made back in the 1990's which claimed that the Tropical troposphere would show faster and larger warming than all other areas of the planet.

This did not happen, and is not happening. In fact, the tropical troposphere has cooled over the entire satellite record. In response to this, the climate scientists have modified their models so they can "reverse forecast" this occurrence. Their model was proven wrong, their theory proven wrong, so they simply changed the rules.

Every time there's a heat wave or a drought, we hear, "GLOBAL WARMING!" shouted from the rooftops, yet when we have the coldest spring on record in the U.S., we're told that's also caused by global warming. We're told after Hurricane Katrina, that such "extreme weather" was going to be continuously increasing as the warming drove the weather. However, total Accumulated Cyclonic Energy hasn't increased. In fact it's been the lowest levels in history. We have gone over 2500 days without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or above) hitting the United States. Again, that's the longest stretch in the history of records. And yet, we're told this must be caused by global warming as well.

So, if it gets hotter, it's global warming, if it gets colder, it's global warming. In the end, there's no way to prove it wrong. By your own definition, that's not science.

No climate science prediction showed the current 15 year period of global cooling, and yet we see them talking about 97% agreement. This doesn't point to settled science, this points to a monopoly on the publishing of papers.

97% of people in a room can call a rabbit a cat, but that doesn't make it a cat.

Comment: Re:Summary is Wrong (Score 1) 720

by jnaujok (#43536223) Attached to: FAA On Travel Delays: Get Used To It
Gotta call Bullshit. Sequestration cut every program by 1.4%. And there was a mandatory 1.7% increase on most budgets. If we really cut all programs 10% then it wouldn't be $44B in savings this year, it would be $370B in savings. We'd still be spending over $1T we don't have, but that would be a vast improvement over the $44B we're actually cutting.

Comment: Re:The most important rule of gun safety (Score 1) 1013

by jnaujok (#42351313) Attached to: Using Technology To Make Guns Safer
The full and proper set of rules is:

1 - Always treat a gun as if it is loaded, unless you, personally, have ensured that it is not.
2 - If you do not intimately know how the gun is loaded or unloaded, or how to check for a chambered round -- consider the gun is loaded.
3 - If another person tells you the gun is not loaded, treat it as loaded.

My dad taught me those when I was 8. I've always followed those rules to the letter, and I have never had a single accident with a gun. I have taught my kids the same rules, and they have never had a single accident with a gun.

This is not rocket science.

However, one of my "gun control nut" friends continues to tell me that there is no safe way to have a gun in your home without your kids blowing their heads off. This, despite me demonstrating that, with proper training, a gun is completely safe.

Comment: Re:Bias (Score 1) 1013

by jnaujok (#42350601) Attached to: Using Technology To Make Guns Safer
Horrible example. The term "Cancer Stick" for cigarettes was coined in 1873. "Coffin Nails" was a favorite term since the 1890's. We didn't need the tobacco companies to tell us anything, we all knew it. Personal responsibility is the fact that, knowing this, people smoked them anyway. And I say this as a person who watched his two pack a day uncle die of lung cancer at age 59. He knew damn well that they were killing him, but he refused to stop smoking. He never thought they were anything but bad for him.

Guess what, alcohol can kill you too, so can cheeseburgers. So can not exercising. I suppose you want Big Brother government to tell you what you can eat, drink, and do with your free time too. Funny, our current "health-conscious" president is a notorious chain-smoker.

Comment: Re:Still haven't seen a good argument (Score 1) 1013

by jnaujok (#42350471) Attached to: Using Technology To Make Guns Safer
About three years ago in Colorado Springs, three drunk teenagers broke into the home of a 93 year old man and his wife. The teenagers were all swinging baseball bats and tire irons. The 93 year old male pulled out a Colt .45 ACP fired one warning shot and then drilled the first kid in the chest, one-shot. Great. The other two advanced, and hit his arm with the bat. At that point, his aim was no longer ideal. He took four more shots to get one in the arm of the attacker, then a second round that disabled him. At this point the third attacker fled, and he fired one more shot that grazed the buttocks of the third attacker. Police, called by the wife at the start of the attack, took 4 minutes to arrive. They followed the blood drops to the third attacker who was arrested.

Total rounds fired: 8
Rounds remaining: 2 or 3 (not sure if he had a chamber + 10, or just the 10 in the mag)

Had the third attacker continued to press, he would have had a chance to drop them. The three attackers were later linked to another home invasion where they had beaten an 80+ year old couple to death after repeatedly raping the wife. Your three round limit would have ensured two more dead victims, and only one dead attacker.

If you limit weapons to three rounds, all you ensure is that home-invasion teams will start having at least four members.

+ - Adapteva Kickstarts Hundred-Dollar Supercomputer -> 4

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Fabless chip vendor Adapteva Inc. has launched Parallella, a Kickstarter initiative that could fund the development of the startup’s multicore processors and create an open source community for parallel programming.

The startup is asking for $750,000 to pay for a mask set for its 16-core Epiphany chip. If it gets the money it promises to deliver a $99 reference board for the chip. With two days left, they are just about $100,000 short of their goal.

The parallela hardware is a credit-card sized board with an A9 dual core chip running Ubuntu 12.04, connected to their 16 core epiphany chip, offering a total of over 20GFlops of computing for only 5 watts of power."

Link to Original Source

"Catch a wave and you're sitting on top of the world." - The Beach Boys

Working...