Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:"Fully Half Doubt the Big Bang"? (Score 1) 455

by luis_a_espinal (#46824125) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

Yes but how can a person know to accept that model without first learning the model?

1. By being aware of it (considering the enormous hoopla that it generates in the media and politics), and

2. By referencing to professional authority.

Hypothetically speaking, when a doctor tells me that I might be at risk of prostate cancer due to X/Y conditions, I do not need to know the exact model by which prostate cells can become carcinogenic due to X/Y factors. I rely on the doctor's authority on the subject.

My grandma back in my country of origin (a very poor third world country) never finished elementary school. She is a very simple person, but she is aware of things like evolution and the Big Bang Theory (there are shows and news about these topics going on for decades on TV and radio, even in Third World countries). So, 1) she is aware of them.

And 2) though she does not understand the principles, she has always said that one should listen to the people who know more about a topic, be it science or milking cows.

That such thinking is not common place in a 1st world country like the US, that is something I find troubling and disturbing.

So why poll the general public about this question when most the general public really only knows what they were told to recite in school or what they saw on Nova?

Hmmm, to gauge if people actually pay attention what they recite in school or in Nova (as opposed to what type of panties Kim Kardashian wore on her gazillion-dollar wedding. It is not rocket science you know.

"Acceptance of science" partially means do you trust what the popular theories are as presented in the media without actually doing the math or analyzing the data yourself

If you (the generic "you") cannot do the math yourself (I mean, can you do the math - the whole math - behind the Big Bang Model?), and if the popular theories are "popular" in the sense that they are presented by the bulk of the scientific community and/or typically reputable educational shows like Nova, Discovery, Frontline or Scientific America (and not "popular" as in "It is not in the Bible, I heard it on the 700 Club" or "I saw it on A&E or in 'Nazis vs Zombie Aliens' on H2), then the answer is ... fucking duh, yes.

, and it partially means have you heard of this topic before so that you even know what scientists tend to think about it.

Well, it does work with smoking. Scientists overwhelmingly think (and have shown) that smoking causes cancer.

So then, why it is not acceptable to rely on experienced opinion for vaccination, evolution and cosmological models of the universe?

The people who refuse to see this are typically motivated by unsubstantiated fear (vaccination will give you the cooties, mercury and autism!!!) or religious dogma (it's not in the Bible!!!!).

Comment: Inigo Montoya wants to have a word with you (Score 1) 455

by luis_a_espinal (#46823905) Attached to: The US Public's Erratic Acceptance of Science

Don't ALL scientists doubt the Big Bang and other models for the universe in the sense that they are all subject to comparison with observations? If a model conflicts with observation, the model either must be dropped or modified.

Science isn't about believing something to be true.


Comment: Re:Fags are cool (Score 1) 169

by luis_a_espinal (#46822083) Attached to: GitHub Founder Resigns Following Harassment Investigation

It's going to be hilarious when openly gay people join your workforce en mass.

Where I work, several of my colleagues are openly gay and simple statistics suggest that some are gay but not open about it.

There are zero issues. You are wrong.

Yeah, because your personal anecdotal evidence is representative of working conditions everywhere. Good that your place of work is not filled with homophobic assholes, but for that piece of anecdotal evidence, I can enumerate half a dozen I've personally witnessed where gay people have been subjected to a hostile environment.

Comment: Re:The term "Sexual Harassment" is very misleading (Score 2) 169

by luis_a_espinal (#46814321) Attached to: GitHub Founder Resigns Following Harassment Investigation

What are you, 12 years old?

No. Just calling a spade a spade. What explanation can there be to mention that the "other guy" is/was the "ex-boyfriend" as a counter-argument? What relevant information does that elucidate? What is the point?

Passive-aggressively demonizing other people like that is as immature as it gets online,

Not as much as mentioning that the "other guy", the harasser, was "the ex-boyfriend" as if that explained things, without context with which to interpret that precious pearl of information.

short of doxxing to incite harassment.

If you say so, it must be so. See, if the shoe fits, wear it or see a podiatrist (or in this case, psychiatrist.)

Comment: Re:Lovely Concept, but the true answer (Score 1) 72

Also, when it comes to handling all simple 404, there could be a browser extension that would redirect you to People would be able to use that on existing content. It's what I'm already doing manually, only this would be faster.

By the way, I always thought that URIs were supposed to handle precisely this - that they were supposed to be unique, universally accessible identifiers for contents and resources - identifiers that, once assigned, wouldn't need to be changed to access the same contents or resources in the future. Oh, hell. Now we have to add extra layers on top of that?

Well, they are. Content does not have to have the same longevity or life-cycle as the URI that once pointed to it, though.

Comment: Re:The term "Sexual Harassment" is very misleading (Score 2) 169

by luis_a_espinal (#46814185) Attached to: GitHub Founder Resigns Following Harassment Investigation

Say what you will, but the AC is correct about this being a risk that vanishes in an all-male workforce.

The risk doesn't vanish. It simply gets masked, just as one would mask if we have an all Caucasian (or X=whatever ethnic label of your choosing) workforce where racial problems vanish all of the sudden.

It's going to be hilarious when openly gay people join your workforce en mass.

What kind of message does that send?

That women shouldn't have to deal with harassment?

It tells the world that women just can't handle the same work environments that men can,

Men don't sexually harass men... usually. And most men do not sexually harass women either. It's just the perverted few who think it is women's fault for being unable (or unreasonably unwilling) to deal with their creepy world views.

It is the same argument that was made against Blacks from working shoulder to shoulder with Caucasians - they'd get harassed, and when wouldn't put up, there would be complains that they are not up to the task of dealing with "the realities of work" (read, "being a good boy.")

You are the problem.

Mirror, mirror. Who had the biggest problem with women of them all?

Comment: Re:The term "Sexual Harassment" is very misleading (Score 1, Insightful) 169

by luis_a_espinal (#46814101) Attached to: GitHub Founder Resigns Following Harassment Investigation

And women wonder why companies are so reluctant to hire them.

It is not "companies". Not even "some companies", but some men.

Having an all male workforce means not having to deal with headaches like this.

It also means fostering an environment where juvenile-minded males never grow up into reasonable, professional men, fostering a culture that eventually and surely will spawn a molester or sociopath.

Posting AC because you liberal pussies are going to clutch your pearls and mod me down into the dirt, even though deep down you know I'm right.

No, you are wrong. I know that deep down. Posting as myself because my gonads prevent me from posting like a coward.

Comment: Re:The term "Sexual Harassment" is very misleading (Score 3, Insightful) 169

by luis_a_espinal (#46814065) Attached to: GitHub Founder Resigns Following Harassment Investigation

What part of ex is hard to understand?

Indeed. I'd add that part is the same part creepy sociopaths do not get when they "misunderstand" a "no" for a "yes".

Anyone who says this:

The "other guy" being an ex boyfriend

is the type of person I would not want near me, friends, co-workers or relavites.


Oklahoma Moves To Discourage Solar and Wind Power 431

Posted by samzenpus
from the who-needs-the-sun? dept.
Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Paul Monies reports at NewsOK that Oklahoma's legislature has passed a bill that allows regulated utilities to apply to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to charge a higher base rate to customers who generate solar and wind energy and send their excess power back into the grid reversing a 1977 law that forbade utilities to charge extra to solar users. 'Renewable energy fed back into the grid is ultimately doing utility companies a service,' says John Aziz. 'Solar generates in the daytime, when demand for electricity is highest, thereby alleviating pressure during peak demand.'

The state's major electric utilities backed the bill but couldn't provide figures on how much customers already using distributed generation are getting subsidized by other customers. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. and Public Service Co. of Oklahoma have about 1.3 million electric customers in the state. They have about 500 customers using distributed generation. Kathleen O'Shea, OG&E spokeswoman, said few distributed generation customers want to sever their ties to the grid. 'If there's something wrong with their panel or it's really cloudy, they need our electricity, and it's going to be there for them,' O'Shea said. 'We just want to make sure they're paying their fair amount of that maintenance cost.' The prospect of widespread adoption of rooftop solar worries many utilities. A report last year by the industry's research group, the Edison Electric Institute, warns of the risks posed by rooftop solar (PDF). 'When customers have the opportunity to reduce their use of a product or find another provider of such service, utility earnings growth is threatened," the report said. "As this threat to growth becomes more evident, investors will become less attracted to investments in the utility sector.''"

Comment: Re:Riiiiight (Score 1) 348

by luis_a_espinal (#46809123) Attached to: Google: Better To Be a 'B' CS Grad Than an 'A+' English Grad

I am a systems administrator who works for a radiology department. First, I would like to say that I wouldn't want a call center tech reading my MRI no matter how adaptable he or she is.

It is a poor analogy, but I think I understand what the recruiter was trying to explain

And maybe he needs the help of a A+ English major so that he knows how to explain himself better </rimshot>

Comment: Re:Sick Society (Score 1) 250

Bloomberg is a hypocrite, not a hero. He's all for disarming the general populace since he has the money to live in a secure home and hire armed guards for personal protection. The rest of us don't have that luxury and must fend for ourselves.

If you "fend for yourself" with a gun, you're more likely to be murdered by it than to save the life of you or someone you love.

Citations please.

Never mind the chance your young child will blow off his head, or that of a friend.

That's what locks and safes are for. It's not rocket science and yet the hordes of idiots that live among the anti-gun crowd (and the idiots who own guns without a lock) seem too stupid to grasp this very simple concept.

Comment: Re:Sick Society (Score 5, Insightful) 250

It is a people problem. Studies have shown that the vast majority of first time murders already had extensive violent criminal records. Clearly the justice system is not doing these people or society justice, since there were ample opportunities to intervene before they took a human life.

15% of murders are committed by a domestic partner. 56% of murders are committed by friends or acquaintances. The notion that murders are committed against random people by some set of hardened, life-long criminals is not supported by data. Perhaps all the more so, given that convicted felons are generally prohibited from owning firearms.

Likewise, given that 65% of gun deaths (as distinguished from murders) are suicides, I have to say I consider it highly unlikely that the vast majority of gun violence is committed by people with extensive criminal records

There is data collected by the FBI and local state agencies if you'd like to check. For starters not all homicides are gun-related. Secondly, the question is not whether it is strangers murdering strangers, but whether 1) poverty and drug-related crimes/drug-related environments are fueling the bulk of homicides (and gun-related homicides in particular) and 2) the typical perpetrator has already a crime record.

The data I alluded, collected by various law enforcement agencies and 3rd party organizations/analysts points into that direction. African Americans and Hispanics (my community) are dis-proportionally represented in gun-related homicides. When you break down gun-related homicide by race, we find that among non-Hispanic Whites, the murder rates are comparable (slightly higher but still comparable) to those in Western Europe.

Furthermore, 80% of gun-related homicides are committed by hand guns, not the ZOMG assault weapons politicians like to ban. I cannot find the link to the FBI study where it showed the type of handguns used the most in homicides, but it clearly mentioned the majority of them were on the cheap end, 2nd-hand saturday night special type of hand guns, not the $500+ firearms the typical law-abiding gun-owner possess.

So, clearly, race and income are a factor. Since race and income are (still) tightly correlated in the US, we can generalize this by simply saying it is a class-related phenomenon. Add to the fact that drug-related crimes significantly affect African Americans (where there has been a marked breakdown in families and an increase in single-parent families), Hispanics and to a lesser extend Caucasians in the South due to the "meth" belt, we see a strong correlation with the war on drugs.

Now, I'm not saying we should not have tighter controls with firearms. I own firearms, and I conceal carry wherever it is legal. But I also acknowledge we should have much better ways to track who buys or sells what. Illegally acquired firearms and straw sales are a major factor in gun-related crime. So we have to deal with it.

But the primordial factors here are race/economics, poverty, even health ([a href="" target="new"]refer to lead poisoning as a possible cause in the spike of crime from the late 60's to the 80s[/a]). Most importantly, it is culture.

Fins and Swiss have significant %s of gun-ownership, and the Swiss can open carry, and yet you do not see the significant murder rates as in the US (though there are rates of spousal murder where alcohol is involved, but that is a universal.)

Honduras is the capital murder of the world, and although gun laws are flexible, most people simply do not own a piece legally (prices are out of reach to most - ownership is for the well-to-do). Poverty is rampant, the police is ill-equipped to deal with gang/drug related violence, and the country lacks institutions to deal with recidivism.

Nicaragua, adjacent to Honduras is the poorer of the two, with gun laws and legal private ownership %s are pretty much the same. And yet, murder rates are smaller than in Costa Rica (a much richer, more democratic and educated country.) Police is well-equipped and have actively engaged in social measures to deal and prevent gang-related violence. People have pretty much shunned violence (perhaps as a response of suffering decades of civil wars.)

So, it is not just weapons ownership, but positive crime prevention measures that go above and beyond mere incarceration. It is not just the number of weapons possessed, but poverty and family breakdown. It is culture.

Both the anti-gun lobby and the NRA minions have the entire enchilada wrong. They both focus on a faux proxy, guns. Because that is what sells to the retarded masses. No one wants to deal with the real issues, which is culture, education, economics and poverty, family (de)composition, an unfair war on drugs, and an unfair justice system that is, let's face it, not race (or income) blind.

Let us go and defend/ban ownership of ZOMG $1000K assault weapons which do little to nothing to most of gun-related crime. Let us defend/ban ownership of handguns (that will never be nixed, not in a hundred years). It is easy to fight about that than to deal with the real issues. Sources:


You can not get anything worthwhile done without raising a sweat. -- The First Law Of Thermodynamics