Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Worse than it seems. (Score 1) 187

by khallow (#47933419) Attached to: Obama Presses Leaders To Speed Ebola Response

Sadly, I think that if it happened now, we would be in a situation where people staying home would end up causing them to loose their home due to a lack of income, and any calls to help those people would be met by Neo-Con hate.

I guess you ought to leave the thinking to grown ups. So why would "neo-cons" want to foreclose on a zillion underwater (in the sense that the debt owed is more than the price the home can be sold for) home loans? That turns a temporary shutdown of the loan repayment revenue stream into a large permanent loss. They haven't bankrupted themselves enough that month?

Comment: Re:Won't solve the real issue. (Score 1) 62

by khallow (#47931857) Attached to: Funding Tech For Government, Instead of Tech For Industry

If people don't fleece him enough and he actually turns out to be successful, that just means the make-jobs program worked.

Again, that's not what he's doing. Public funding is potentially a huge profitable gravy train. This has little to do with creating jobs except incidentally. The only people who would be fleeced are taxpayers, which is already rather easy to do.

Further, while I haven't brought it up before in this discussion, what is supposed to be the benefit to just "creating jobs"? Hiring people for make-work means that they aren't available for more productive work.

Comment: Re:I hate to be this guy... (Score 1) 176

Well, you have a plan? Because right now, taking over the bad countries and making them good countries that don't starve their citizens doesn't seem to work. I suppose we could create a dependent, exponentially growing dependent class of people who need our continued munificence to survive. But last I checked our resources weren't similarly exponentially growing over the rest of eternity.

Or I suppose we could just kill the starving people. But that's not in the spirit of the thing.

Ultimately, it's going to be those starving people who have to help themselves. And they are, depending on location. The developing world is in a far better state than it was in 1950, which seems to be a low point for what was at the time, the Third World.

Comment: Re:Won't solve the real issue. (Score 1) 62

by khallow (#47922215) Attached to: Funding Tech For Government, Instead of Tech For Industry

What he is trying to do is make jobs.

Ugh, that's a terrible characterization especially he actually has a valid business model, invest in start ups whose business model is doing highly profitable services for government. It's not about "making" jobs, but hoovering up public funding for profit.

I think the spin about returning tech to government is an attempt to evade the opposition to government expenditures. It may also be an attempt to portray the VC fund he represents as being one of a few players in that sector, even though it probably isn't IMHO.

"I have money. Do this job and you can have some of it. I don't care how valuable this job actually is. I just want to see people doing this job"

That's not what he's doing. It's a standard VC fund with the expectation of profit. They just happen to specialize in start ups providing government services.

If you were accurate, he'd be fleeced in short order (your last sentence in other words) and life would move on, but with one significantly poorer and wiser entrepreneur.

Comment: Re:Car Dealers should ask why they're being bypass (Score 4, Informative) 148

by khallow (#47913935) Attached to: Court: Car Dealers Can't Stop Tesla From Selling In Massachusetts
I see you can learn something from this example.

The original post indicates he didn't go in uninformed. A classic negotiation tactic is to let the other side go first. Asking a salesman to show you something is a good opening move for an expensive purchase even if you know exactly why you are there and what you want to buy. When the salesperson went immediately to the product of the day, that gave away that they were acting in bad faith.

Comment: Re:protesting downmod (Score 1) 597

by khallow (#47913833) Attached to: Extent of Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record Levels

No, you do not need a control to draw conclusions.

What control do we use for the conclusion we have about gravity?

Please, be ignorant somewhere else. It's not that hard to do gravity experiments with controls. For example, a good example is the Cavendish experiment. Here, there are two heavy movable weights which pull via gravity on two smaller weights. You can move the heavy weights around so that they pull on the small weights in the opposite direction or remove them altogether, giving you a control.

Further, we can observe dynamics of regions of low density space and see how those are far less dominated by local gravity that the surface of Earth is. This is another study of gravity that gives you a control.

OTOH, the ozone hole is in tiger-repelling rock territory. We don't know how often or under what circumstances ozone holes have formed over the past few million years. Is it a regular thing or is it very unusual? Your assurances aren't worth the effort of making them. We need actual evidence instead.

Comment: Re:Time for new terminology (Score 1) 597

by khallow (#47912981) Attached to: Extent of Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record Levels

And warming, while accurate, doesn't really define what the real problem is. Warming isn't the problem. It's what happens as a result of the warming that's problem. The additional energy into the climate system shifts the climate, which we, as a civilization, depend on. Also, warming gives the impression that every place on Earth is going to get warmer, which is not the case.

In other words, because the innumerate can't quite grasp what "global warming" and its implications mean, we're going to use a far less accurate term for propaganda purposes. "Global warming" as a label does not given the impression you claim it gives. I think a huge part of the problem is this ridiculous doublethink and cognitive dissonance.

Especially the cognitive dissonance that goes into claiming as you do that we have very accurate models of how the Earth's climate is changing - via global warming - yet still claim that we're ignorant enough of the situation that we have to use an all-encompassing label "climate change" that means by definition any sort of climate change possible.

Since then, the science has only improved. We've gone from basic physics models to complex integrated global climate models. And they all show the same thing.

Namely, that we've still haven't been able to improve a bit on the original estimates of Arrhenius about the temperature forcing effect of a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Despite a century of work on the most important parameter of so-called "climate change" now has the same error estimate as Arrhenius's original estimate.

Comment: Re:Written in stone no doubt (Score 1) 213

by khallow (#47895109) Attached to: Congress Can't Make Asteroid Mining Legal (But It's Trying, Anyway)
Even if it were written in stone, we have the following:

Article XVI

Any State Party to the Treaty may give notice of its withdrawal from the Treaty one year after its entry into force by written notification to the Depositary Governments. Such withdrawal shall take effect one year from the date of receipt of this notification.

Just written notice and one year later you are free of the entanglements of the treaty and it's just as written into stone as the rest of the treaty. That's why having Congress pass laws like this is interesting. It provides an easily attainable alternate framework to the original treaty.

It is not best to swap horses while crossing the river. -- Abraham Lincoln