Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Slashdot links to Discovery (Score 1) 37

by Khyber (#48639767) Attached to: NASA Video Shows What It's Like To Reenter the Earth's Atmosphere

One of the WORST places for any sort of real information given their 'reality' shows, especially on this site, and fucking Slashdot links to it.

ABANDON SHIP. Timothy, Samzenpus, and the others are fucking bought out wholesale and have ZERO credibility in ANYTHING any longer.

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 553

What would you label Al Gore "the polar caps will be gone in twenty years!!!" and the people who believed in drowning polar bears?

What do you call people who said weather would be extreme and unbearable within a few years, but it never happened.

These are extraordinary claims, yet they are proven false time and time again. THE only thing Science has proven, is CO2 levels rising. The rest of the predictive outcomes have been largely falsified.

Comment: Re:cowardice (Score 1) 499

by Khyber (#48636571) Attached to: FBI Confirms Open Investigation Into Gamergate

"Police suspected all along that Todd might not be telling the truth, starting with the fact that the 'B' was backward, Bryant said.

'We have robbers here in Pittsburgh, but they don't generally mutilate someone's face like that,' Bryant said. 'They just take the money and run.'"

Thank you, AC. I forgot this little statement existed.

I'd mod up if possible.

Comment: Re: Science, bitches, that's *how* it works! (Score 1, Insightful) 170

by Archangel Michael (#48635637) Attached to: Quantum Physics Just Got Less Complicated

It is approximately right, but completely wrong. These are not mutually exclusive. Arguing approximations are perfectly accurate is itself a grave error.

We do use Newtonian Physics, not because they are correct (they are not) but rather because their approximations are within tolerances of certain deviations from accurate.

Comment: Re:As long as we're being more specific.... (Score 1) 553

by dAzED1 (#48635575) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'
it must really bother you that the ozone layer is recovering after a global effort to fix it, huh. I mean really, it impinges on the ultra-wealthy to do whatever they want, and that's a bad thing to the likes of you...society saying enough is enough on issues that effect everyone? Horrible, it should be the 0.1% making those decisions! (misdirection is such a fun tool, eh?)

Comment: Re:Backfire (Score 1) 553

by dAzED1 (#48635543) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'
um, there can be varying degrees of something. Just because two people are attractive, for instance, doesn't mean they're equally attractive. Outright refusing to engage in honest debate however, does make someone something other than a skeptic; with so much actual data painting a relatively clear picture, if you're going to say that picture is something else then... The foundations of statistics are based on the idea that if a pattern emerges with very little deviation - very few outliers in the data - then you can be very certain (to some degree) of the conclusion. If you're going to deny the very process itself, versus the results, then we have to throw away most of what we know - not just climate change.

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 553

by dAzED1 (#48635435) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'
were I to show data that average temps on Mars increased during generally about the same time range, I could point to the cause being external (ie, something with the Sun). Thus it wouldn't be anything humans were doing. That (were there facts to back it up) would be an example of actual skepticism. Covering your eyes and yelling "I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA" is not.

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 2) 553

Why do not the people who have a vested interest in AGW not being true fund the research to prove it,

I'm sorry, but you have it exactly backwards. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. AWG proponents have made some huge claims that simply have not even come close to happening. Some, have actually been proven to be false on their own face (drowning polar bears).

One cannot prove a negative. This is the basis for "Innocent until proven guilty". What you've asked for is assume guilt, and prove innocence.

As for AGW, the only thing you can prove is increase in CO2. Everything else is conjecture based on simplistic models that have been consistently proven inaccurate. Scare tactics of "by the time we prove it, it will be too late" is like religious people saying "By the time I prove to you there is a god, you're already dead and it is too late". Basically, AGW proponents are arguing Pascal's wager.

Comment: Re:deniers and skeptics [Re:Established science] (Score 1) 553

No. Deniers have made up their minds already;

You can say the same thing about the bots that have blindly accepted "experts" opinions. The problem is, many of the proponents of the AGW don't care about the science part, because they are too fucking busy crying wolf. Drowning Polar Bears was a story, until it was proven false. YET there were so many willing to believe the story, because it fit their religious narrative. Same can be said of just about anything Al Gore says, but he still attracts crowds of worshipers listening to his sermons, WHY?

There isn't much difference between the two religious camps, except one gets excused by the AGW proponents much more quickly. Why?

Until you can recognize the religious fever on your own side, and dismiss it as easily as you do the other "nutjobs" you are part of the problem.

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 0, Informative) 553

mistakes happen

Which is why we should NEVER ever stop questioning "science". Newtonian Physics is wrong, but close enough to be functional in many circumstances.

Science should be about continuous improvement, which requires ongoing skepticism.

AGW or "climate change" is one of those things I simply do not believe is "settled science", mainly because of the huge number of variables, and the models and advocate predictions have completely been falsified. It is the modern version of Piltdown Man (once "settled science", taught at university, and people even got PhD's based on it)

Call me a denier all you want. I'm not denying the "Science" part of this (CO2). I am denying the predictive hyperbole from the likes of Al Gore, who keeps making ridiculous claims, while having a huge Carbon Footprint (carbon offsets not withstanding).

And if you are going to make fun of Fox News, great, but the real person you should make fun of is the stupid chicken littles who have been proven wrong, but continue to spew their idiocy and the climate lapdogs keep licking up.

Comment: Re:Gawd, I love that man (Score 1) 84

by mcgrew (#48634665) Attached to: Dick "Smitty" Cheney

Your experience was much different than mine. I was in college when Carter was President, and he stopped food stamp benefits for poor college kids. I often went hungry. I'd voted for him, voted against his reelection.

Under Reagan I worked for Disney. Reagan slashed the capital gains tax, which unleashed an orgy of hostile corporate takeovers, one of which was unleashed on my employer, who took a big financial hit from its defense and cut everyone's hours. I had trouble paying my bills for a while. There were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of these hostile takeovers and takeover attempts. Of course, a recession followed this but none of the pundits connected the dots and they treated Reagan like a demigod.

We moved back to Illinois when Leila was born, and it took well over a year to find a job. Thanks for the recession, Ronnie.

I got a job finally, in 1987, but half the people I knew were looking for work until the nineties. That was Reagan's fault, but Bush did nothing to alleviate the situation.

There was something about Clinton I just didn't like; he came across as a sleaze and I think I voted Libertarian that election, I don't really remember, but it wasn't a vote for Clinton.

I was wrong about him; he put 100,000 new cops on the street, and my crime-ridden neighborhood got a neighborhood cop and crime plummeted. He signed PWORA which ended generational welfare. I voted for his reelection.

As to Bush II, can you name a single positive thing he accomplished? I can't.

As to Obama, my opinion of his mediocre President went up a little when he started opening Cuba; it's long overdue. We've had relations with China and Russia for years, it should have happened when the Berlin Wall came down and the USSR split up.

Possessions increase to fill the space available for their storage. -- Ryan