Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Looks like the prophet's gunmen (Score 1) 825

by phayes (#49613155) Attached to: Two Gunman Killed Outside "Draw the Prophet" Event In Texas

I have no doubt that the anonymous coward troll without the courage to post under his own name would want to carry a gun because he is afraid of the police (because...). However, I doubt that that is the reason eth1 does.

People with legal arms are very rarely those who have anything to fear from the police.

Comment: Re:It's been nice knowing y'all (Score 1) 417

Way to go there, champ: When you cannot address the fact that the study made claims with what should have been clearly evident invalidating flaws, use one pirouette after another to avoid addressing the flaws themselves. What's next? A criticism of my grammar or punctuation?

The topic is not ocean acidification (which no-one is contesting), it is whether the species extinction which occurred after the Permian mega eruptions are uniquely incumbent on acidification due to augmenting CO2 levels without attempting to take into account (for starters) the accompanying sulfur & ash emissions would have on the global climate.

It's not attacking the messenger when one points out that a position has invalidating flaws (nor is it when noting that such flaws should have been self-evident).

Comment: Re:It's been nice knowing y'all (Score 1) 417

So, in your opinion the climate effects of sulfur and ash from mega volcanoes sufficiently active to cover a surface equivalent to Europe is directly equivalent to the passage of CO2 from 300ppm to 400 or even 500ppm. Care to justify what is clearly an enormous mistake? How about trying to explain how any serious scientist could make such a mistake?

Please do so without referring to anyone capable of making such an elementary mistake in a derogatory fashion, we wouldn't want you to again ignore the forest because of the trees in the way.

Comment: Re:Wouldn't be a problem for Shuttle or DreamChase (Score 1) 78

by phayes (#49452119) Attached to: SpaceX To Try a First Stage Recovery Again On April 13

Because side-stacking has been proven to be an inherently dangerous technology?
Because the shuttle launch-refurb-refurb-refurb-refurb-refurb-refurb-launch cycle has been proven to be extremely costly?
Because the cross-range capability that wings add has zero utility and even the AF which forced it's adoption on the shuttle doesn't want it anymore, other than for two x vehicles that they have launched a grand total of twice?
Because the shuttle was only 1970's tech and only somewhat viable at great effort & cost?
Because, contrary to your misguided opinion, no-one in the last century had the guidance and computer capability necessary to make landing a first stage reliably possible?
Because the rational among us are glad to see the end of that white elephant?

Comment: Re:It's been nice knowing y'all (Score 1) 417

The Idiots publishing this "study" also completely overlook any side-effects of gargantuan volcanic eruptions on the climate. Atmospheric CO2 causing acidification is apparently the same the same to them as as gigatons of Sulfur. Climate effects of all the ash in the atmosphere? No incidence, apparently...

1 Mole = 007 Secret Agents