Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Abrupt, but like 100 years abrupt? (Score 1) 121

by saloomy (#48275561) Attached to: New Study Shows Three Abrupt Pulses of CO2 During Last Deglaciation

CaptainDork isn't implying anything. S/he says it's okay to attack the character of an individual who is skeptical of the facts, not beliefs.

Right but his sentence could be read another way (or so it did when I first read it).

Can he do that by practicing illegal discrimination? If you bothered to read the Slate article linked by CaptainDork, you'd see that Ken Ham is engaging in just that.

It is illegal, so he can't. But then, I wasn't commenting on how he builds his park, or who he hires to build it. Only whatever he wants. (so long as it passes building codes, but then again, I was really stating my principles not what is legally possible.

That's the point. Again, read the Slate article linked by CaptainDork. And if you're too lazy to do that, then here you go:

Thanks for that. But no, I did read the article. I just don't agree with Ken Ham spending public funds to build something based on his beliefs, and not our collective scientific knowledge. I don't think the government has any place paying for the support of ANYONE's beliefs, including Ken Hams. I know the article was stating that Kentucky did so, and I'm glad I am not from Kentucky. Again, I was really stating what I think is right:

I just don't want him influencing public policy or spending public funds on projects that are not based on science.

Comment: Re:How did they ID the part? (Score 1) 84

Bullshit.

So what are the odds that a white woman of earharts build, along with western womans shoe, and a sextent would be found on an island a few hundred miles from where earhart went missing and a piece of aluminum that would fit the window of her plane?

Pretty high if you sight the same group as the source but you left out some crucial details:

"We know that in 1940 British Colonial Service officer Gerald Gallagher recovered a partial skeleton of a castaway on Nikumaroro. Unfortunately, those bones have now been lost," Gillespie said.

So how are you so sure that it was her body? There is no positive ID. Don't feed me the old "well who else could it have been?" line. There is no positive ID. If you had the bones and could do DNA testing with someone who is a relative, that would be a verifiable positive ID.

In both your sources (this article's source and the Discovery News articles you mention, the same group has made both claims. Its not like they are financially invested in finding her or anything.

For years, Richard Gillespie, TIGHAR's executive director and author of the book "Finding Amelia," and his crew have been searching the Nikumaroro island for evidence of Earhart ... According to Gillespie, who is set to embark on a new $500,000 Nikumaroro expedition next summer, the two became castaways and eventually died there.

Woops!

Comment: Re: And so therefor it follows and I quote (Score 1) 350

by saloomy (#48275065) Attached to: Italian Supreme Court Bans the 'Microsoft Tax'
Just because something is licensed for a "0" cost, doesn't mean its necessarily free of restrictions. Pandora has free radio, and I assure you, you can not (legally) rip the songs off of it and redistribute them on a website, for example. Free != open source GPLed. It just means no money need change hands for the license.

Comment: Re:How did they ID the part? (Score 1) 84

The link from your article to the photograph hosted on the Miami Herald website is 404 Not Found. Surprising. What "Imaging Specialists" are they using? How can a 1937 photograph ID a particular piece of metal that is deformed and found at sea? The shape is... well... deformed! Surely its discolored.

Comment: Re:Abrupt, but like 100 years abrupt? (Score 1) 121

by saloomy (#48275023) Attached to: New Study Shows Three Abrupt Pulses of CO2 During Last Deglaciation
What are you implying? That it's OK to attack Ken Ham, or that its OK for Ken Ham to attack people who don't believe as he does?

Ken Ham can build whatever he wants on his own dime, in his own land. I just don't want him influencing public policy or spending public funds on projects that are not based on science.

Comment: How did they ID the part? (Score 4, Insightful) 84

Was there a serial number? Was there an inscription? Did she leave a palm print?
If I had spent millions of dollars, and involved hundreds of people, I'd sure grab on to even the remotest of possibilities so I didn't have to walk away empty handed!
FTFA:
The piece, which measures about 24 by 18 inches (61 cm by 46 cm), did not appear to be a standard part of a Lockheed Electra, but TIGHAR researchers recently began to look into the possibility it might have been installed on the plane as a patch after a window was removed, he said. On October 7, a TIGHAR team examined a plane at Wichita Air Services in Newton, Kansas, that was similar to Earhart's aircraft. Because the plane was being restored, it was possible to look at its interior and see where the sheet of metal recovered in 1991 would have fit, Gillespie said.

Not conclusive... sorry!

Comment: Re: Not a chance (Score 1) 629

by saloomy (#48274847) Attached to: Why CurrentC Will Beat Out Apple Pay
No. When you register your card with Apple Pay, you AUTHENTICATE with BofA (or whoever your bank is). BofA requires you to call them in so they can ID you and accept your registering the card with Apple Pay. Capital One allows Apple Pay to launch the Capital One app and authenticate it through logging in there. Re-read my comment and try again.

My bad on the parenthesis thing.

But I say "Anonymous Coward", I have seen your lack of parenthesis on multiple comments! HAHA!!!! /sarcasm

Comment: Re:Abrupt, but like 100 years abrupt? (Score 4, Interesting) 121

by saloomy (#48274815) Attached to: New Study Shows Three Abrupt Pulses of CO2 During Last Deglaciation
Sounds like they really just don't know.
It likely was a combination of factors, they say, including ocean circulation, changing wind patterns and terrestrial processes.

But at least they are studying and learning.
"This abrupt, centennial-scale variability of CO2 appears to be a fundamental part of the global carbon cycle. "Previous research has hinted at the possibility that spikes in atmospheric carbon dioxide may have accelerated the last deglaciation, but that hypothesis had not been resolved, the researchers say.

The earth has been from +14 to -6 degrees on average from where it is today. Historically speaking, were in the "colder than usual" range of the bell curve today, and thats with using ice cores to detect CO2 levels and temperature histories. Its not like we had a thermocouple hooked up to a server recording that data for millions of years. These deductions are best effort conclusions on data that only tells a very broad stroke of the story.
What upsets me is how demonizing the argument about Global Warming / Climate Change is. The earth will change its temperature. That will happen with or without us, just look at the historical record. Earths temperature isn't stable. And for all those who argue we are burning too much fossil fuels, those carbon atoms weren't created into existence in the ground as they were today, unless you believe the earth is 6000 years old!
They were a part of the global carbon cycle, and buried during mass extinction events and processes that sequestered them to where they are today. It isn't science to say "for sure this and for sure that". Its science to say: "To the level of our current understanding...". Thats it. You can't know for certain, just like they didn't know for certain that the earth was the center of the universe, even though it was proselytized. Its not OK to attack the character of an individual when they are skeptical of your conclusions. All of science works better when there are those who are skeptical. It refines your proof if you are right, or betters your understanding if you are wrong.

As for the problems associated with climate change, it will happen. For those of us living where it will flood, there will be a new continent to live on, once it unfreezes (again!).

Comment: Re: Not a chance (Score 4, Insightful) 629

by saloomy (#48254933) Attached to: Why CurrentC Will Beat Out Apple Pay
Apple Pay registers the card pretty fast, but not with BofA, you can't use their App to authenticate the card, you have to call in (at least you did when I registered my Credit and Debit cards. Capital One allows you to sign into the app and it instructs Apple Pay to go ahead.

On the subject of "who will win", I think that the easiest payment options with the most security and largest spending consumer base will win. Historically, thats users who use Apple. QR codes and Bank ACH transfers lack two of the three things - security and ease. They also miss the boat on a big number of other ancillary benefits Apple Pay has going for it:
1. Apple Pay can be used online.
2. There is no massive treasure trove of data for hackers to steal.
3. You can not ACH from a credit card. Guess where most of the retailers get their money from? Hint: Its not people's bank accounts, those are used to pay off credit cards.
4. If CurrentC participating retailers block Apple Pay (which is really to block NFC transactions), it stands to reason that Apple may block any CurrentC applications from their App Store. They could always point and say "In response to...".

Apple Pay will end up being just another NFC service, but NFC will ring the winner. What is Walmart / Best Buy / CVS going to do? Displace Visa/MC in the hundreds of countries that are already in? How many Visa terminals are there? Right.
I suppose they have all the legal work figured out as well, and don't mind bankrupting themselves in the process. /sarcasm

Comment: Re: There will be what we end up using (Score 1) 554

by saloomy (#48235045) Attached to: Rite Aid and CVS Block Apple Pay and Google Wallet
What I meant was many stores will have their own payment systems, and others will support the broad systems from Apple/Google, and some will be late to the "payment revolution", and so on and so fourth. Once it makes economic sense to adopt system X, they will adopt it. We still have to see how Apple Pay stands up to real world threats, heavy load, availability concerns, network issues (if the store is not in great cell range), etc.... We still don't know what happens when you take the big system you just made and apply it to the big load waiting for its availability and adoption. Time will tell us what the stores end up using because it will be the best system from a realistic point of view.

The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.

Working...