Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Has Jane/Lonny Eachus betrayed humanity? (Score 1) 180

But Jane/Lonny Eachus is still arguing about the fact that we're responsible for the CO2 rise by linking to that absurd rant and claiming it makes climate science "very Unsettled".

Why are you discussing someone's tweets here in a blatantly off-topic manner here on Slashdot? Oh, right... because you continue to claim it's me. Though that doesn't make it any less off-topic.

After visiting those links, I think to native speakers of English it's pretty clear: "unsettled" is wordplay on the phrase "settled science".

But since you bring MY name up, I will repeat this: I DO NOT dispute that humans have contributed to an increase in CO2 concentration. How much of an increase is due to human activity is not known. The only thing *I* dispute (as opposed to someone else) is whether said increase in CO2 is a significant cause of "global warming". I have stated this to you repeatedly, yet you keep trying to claim otherwise. That's called denial.

But I should not even have replied to you at all, since your comment was, after all, entirely off-topic.

Comment: Re:well (Score 1) 180

There is an intent clause in the law. The "surveillance" has to be for the purpose of seeing onto my property, or the goings on there, specifically.

Note that this does not give a pass to mass photography by drones or helicopters, either, since then the intent would still be surveillance.

Comment: Re:Someone with no brain is running NASA (Score 1) 139

by Jane Q. Public (#47713507) Attached to: Wheel Damage Adding Up Quickly For Mars Rover Curiosity
Uh... yeah. How about 40 years ago?

Granted, those wheels were not exposed to as much rock, but they drove 2 passengers much farther than Curiosity has gone, at a far higher rate of speed. The astronauts even hotdogged it a little bit. No damage whatever.

GP was correct: it was a questionable design decision from the beginning. Somebody made a bad choice.

Comment: Re:Hydroelectric Dams (Score 1) 386

by nine-times (#47711373) Attached to: Solar Plant Sets Birds On Fire As They Fly Overhead

About 40,000 people die in car accidents every year, in the US alone. It's one of those things that I keep pointing out because people keep seeming to fail to realize how many people that is. When people say, "We can't have solar power because it'll kill a thousand birds!" or "We can't have freedom (i.e. NSA spying and CIA torture is ok!) because otherwise we might have another 9/11, which killed a thousands of people!"

40,000 people die every year due to car accidents. Nobody is talking about giving up cars.

Comment: Re:well (Score 5, Interesting) 180

B) Do people legally have privacy in an uncovered yard? I don't think they do. I'm talk about legal, not rudeness.

In my state, the answer is Very Definitely Hell Yes.

It is strictly illegal for anybody (including law enforcement without a warrant) to use ANY means to view something on your property that isn't clearly visible to a common pedestrian or vehicle going past. That means, for example, that it's illegal for anybody (including police) to so much as use a stepladder to see over your back fence. It is termed "illegal surveillance" and the law was in place long before drones existed.

It's even illegal to stare in my front window from the sidewalk, or with binoculars, even if my curtains are open. Same law. You can look in as you go past, of course. But you can't "watch" for a long time.

Comment: Re:What's the problem... (Score 1) 92

by Jane Q. Public (#47704605) Attached to: Apple Begins Storing Chinese User Data On Servers In China

If they wish to do business in China they have to comply with the Chinese law. It's that simple. I can't for example launch a company here, then start breaking the laws in the US while still being able to do business there. I have no idea why that is so damn difficult for you to understand.

No shit, Sherlock. That isn't, and hasn't been, anything I'm arguing about.

The factories do a lot of parts for a lot of companies, not just Apple. They would not be shut down if they lost Apple, they'd still have plenty of other customers.

They'd just lose 80% of their business, not all of it. Duh.

The Chinese economy isn't dependant on Apple.

I didn't say it was. But a surprisingly large chunk of it is. I don't think you realize how important that chunk is.

Comment: Re:Will they ban this ? (Score 0) 664

by Jane Q. Public (#47704547) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

No, for the same reason why a news article that talks about a white supremacist assaulting a African-American isn't automatically racist. Or one about Westboro Baptist Church picketing a funeral of someone who was gay doesn't make it automatically homophobic. The context of the whole article is what makes it misogynistic (or racist, or homophobic, or ...)

But isn't is supposed to work both ways? A news article about a black man beating a white man isn't automatically racist or discriminatory, either. Nor is an article about a gay person beating up a straight person.

The problem here is that the policy is apparently all about "misogyny", which makes it inherently discriminatory. The policy should be about sexism. Misandry is sexism, too. And there has been a lot of that around, too.

User Journal

Journal: Mars, Ho! Chapter Forty Two

Journal by mcgrew

Me and Bill hauled ass out of there towards Mars as fast as his crippled boat would take him. I did another inspection because first, I hadn't done a full inspection yet that day, second because I'd pushed her pretty hard, and third because I sure didn’t need any new surprises. We were at a third gravity because of Bill, and he was having a hard time keeping up. A third gravity? On batteries? I need to have him teach me some of that nerd

Comment: Re:What's the problem... (Score 1) 92

by Jane Q. Public (#47701507) Attached to: Apple Begins Storing Chinese User Data On Servers In China
I don't think I'm the one being stupid here.

I said the government can come and tell Apple to give access to the data.

How? ON what basis? Apple is not based in China, and there certainly isn't any international law that would compel Apple to do so. You argue:

Apple can't conduct business on the Chinese soil unless the Chinese government lets them, so they have no other choice than to do anything the government tells them to.

So you really think China would willy-nilly force Apple out of the country, and in the process (because they would have no choice) shut down some of their own largest companies, which make Apple products?

You really don't get it. Governments can't just do any old shit they want, and damn the economy. I mean, we know Obama thinks he can, and look at the mess he's made.

"Life is a garment we continuously alter, but which never seems to fit." -- David McCord