Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Sure... (Score 1) 339

You can't really call me a moderate based on my thinking we should proceed 'with a degree of tentativity reasonable for any such endeavour' without knowing what I consider a reasonable degree of tentativity for this endeavour :) Maybe ITER or something will get us to fusion quicker than we master long term weather prediction (the future of computing being another difficult field to predict long term), but we're doing pretty good at short term weather modelling as we are with short-medium term climate changes.

Comment: Re:Sure... (Score 1) 339

On a scale beyond a century, there's just no reason to expect climate stability in the first place.

Especially with large carbon emissions such as during the PETM or now. In any event, the graph you reference isn't really useful for century by century analysis as each small marker is 10,000 years. If you were particularly keen eyed you might be able to reach conclusions on a millennial basis - but the lines are so thick I doubt even that's reasonable At best I can see is that there are short term spikes.

On a decade by decade scale, there's no evidence of warming in the 17 years of reliable satellite temperature data.

Actually there's lots of evidence for warming in the last 17 years. If you are thinking of the 'hiatus', this marks a period where warming of the air-surface barrier (where we live) is less rapid than models predicted. There is still warming, as evidenced by the fact that we keep breaking global temperature records on a month by month and year by year basis. We just thought it'd be a few tenths of a degree warmer (it's been rising 0.05K a decade rather than 0.12 it had previously been doing since the fifties). Hence 'hiatus'. But warming half as quickly is still warming, and pick a slightly different start point to measure from, and the hiatus disappears. source

There are no obvious conclusions to draw, as the system we live in is simply too complex for hand-wavy, back-of-the-envelope calculations to be interesting.

This is not really a fair comparison to how the science is done is it?

There are some obvious conclusions to draw. We can measure the energy entering the earth's atmosphere from the sun pretty well. We can measure the energy escaping back out pretty well too. There's more coming in than going out. Unless we're themodynamic skeptics too, the conclusion seems pretty obvious.

Climate science is at the phlogiston / aether / Freud stage right now.

That would be where it was in the 19th Century. Now it is at the weather predicting stage. The system is chaotic and specific long term predictions are difficult, but the physics doesn't lie. We can either ignore what we know and hope something 'chaotic' will sort out the problem, or we can act on the best information we have right now with a degree of tentativity reasonable for any such endeavour.

Comment: Re:Is there a single field that doesn't? (Score 1) 460

by mod prime (#47968587) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

I don't think an "ElevatorGate" is an answer to any question I made.

It's not an ElevatorGate, it's a scandal/controversy that occurred in an elevator when a man asked a woman he has never met before about 'sex'. Scandals sometimes get the suffix -gate attached to them in 'homage' to the Watergate scandal. The Elevatorgate scandal was the context of the entire discussion and was therefore exatly what my 'nonsense' post/accusation was about. Therefore this answers the following two questions:

Who in his sane mind asks a random women he never has met before about 'sex'?
So what is your nonsense post/accusion about?

And also rebuts your claim that

My point is...stuff like this is not happening anyway.

Had you Googled this you would have discovered this information much faster than having me type this out for you.

Comment: Re:Is there a single field that doesn't? (Score 1) 460

by mod prime (#47968357) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

I'm making a fuss? Let's review your input:

In what retarded world do you live that you consider to ask a girl in public: "you wanna fuck me?" is okey?

Why would anyone do that, oh yes ... certainly in your experience this happens.

For fuck sake read what you have posted two posts back.
What has my answer to do with the bullshit you wrote in the post parent to this?
Who in his sane mind asks a random women he never has met before about 'sex'?
So what is your nonsense post/accusion about?

You have serious problems! Don't interpret bullshit into other peoples posts!

Now, in case you were wondering - that's making a fuss. I am just answering your queries, if that bothers you, you don't have to actually post.

I'm not interested in ElevatorGate stories ... so no, I have not googled it :D

If you aren't interested in the answer to your questions. Don't ask them.

Comment: Re:Is there a single field that doesn't? (Score 1) 460

by mod prime (#47967183) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

I am sure you are not aware of this but many guys are shy. They do not want to have the world witness them getting turned down in a forceful and rude manner by some girl they thought was not actually a bitch.

I am sure you are not aware of this but so are many women. Among other things I suffer from anxiety and paranoia. On the other hand, I've managed to have sexual partners my entire adult life.

But fine - treat all women like they are bitches just in case they are. See how that works out for you.

Incidentally, if women are turning you down like this? This is a sign to change tactics. And that doesn't involve isolating women and making sexual advances on them. I imagine, like me, you are not a looker. So if you approach a woman in a context that means the approach is a sexual one, you may get a direct answer, it might be rude but that's people for you. There's probably a reason like she used to turn people down gently but too many guys didn't get the hints. Who knows? Either way, maybe you shouldn't be walking up to women in bars and asking them if they want to dance/drink etc unless you are hotter than the girl you are hitting on (to sum up a complex situation crudely) or you can take lots of rejections in the hope of the occasional jackpot.

This kind of shit makes me want to hate women and treat them like animals. Fuck them and their requirements for special treatment. You know what? Fuck you for supporting that shit.

OK, I get it. You are a angry hate filled pipsqueak that doesn't know how to approach women without them telling him to fuck off. Keep it up, I'm sure it's really smart and it'll totally get you laid.

People are people. Women are people. Men are people. Women do not deserve special treatment just because they have been treated like shit in some cultures and some periods of time.

Nobody is asking you to treat women 'special'. But it's probably a good idea to give special treatment to someone who you want to fuck, even if you have the attitude you do. But more importantly, if you aren't able to realize that being a woman is a different experience than being a man with different perspectives and different fears I can't help you. If you think that women should feel perfectly safe alone with strange men in elevators may I remind you of Ray Rice?

They are the weaker sex so therefore they deserve special rules? Fine. But to be balanced, if one thing is given, another must be taken. Remember that.

All fear the Internet Tough Guy!

The thing is, women have a lot more to lose in recreational sex with strangers of the opposite sex than men do. If you can't recognize that element of the psychology of women, you are going to continue to have women tell you to fuck off.

Comment: Re:Is there a single field that doesn't? (Score 1) 460

by mod prime (#47956445) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

What attitude? I mean if you think it's remotely smart to try and hit on a feminist in an empty elevator go right ahead. But a) you'll probably make her feel uncomfortable rather than sexually interested b) she may escalate the situation in ways you don't like.

There is no order. It is advice. Ignore it if you like, but that means you are a bit of a creep who worries women rather than attracting them.

What the world *really* needs is a good Automatic Bicycle Sharpener.

Working...