Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Because the CIA is evil. (Score 1) 266

Don't be a fool.

Right back at you.

No one cared about Saddam's chemical weapons until it turned out he was never even close to having nuclear ones. The U.S. went into Iraq (for the second time) on the promise that Saddam Hussein had or would soon have a nuclear weapon and that he was likely to use it against the United States or one of it's allies. The information to justify this claim came from a single source, a drug-addicted Iraqi defector who basically said whatever his handlers wanted as long as kept him supplied with booze and drugs. This information was deliberately fed to intelligence agencies of several different countries to create the appearance of multiple sources.

The false pretences were nuclear, when the claims proved too absurdly wrong, the story changed to be chemical weapons, instead. Which Saddam didn't have either since he had long ago used the ones that the United States had provided to him.

Comment Re:Snowden unquestionably hurt the intel community (Score 1) 266

There is a book on the subject that details how Snowden negatively impacted US intelligence.

He certainly "negatively impacted" US intelligence, though it's a lot like how a police officer "negatively impacted" the criminal he just arrested. The US intelligence agencies did all the harm to themselves, and when you were made aware of their criminal activities, you chose to blame the messenger and the not the criminals.

Comment Re:Yeah, I've worked with a few of those (Score 1) 488

Yes, I'm pretty sure that the correlation is the other way than the headline.

Based on what evidence?

That would-be terrorists are more likely to become engineers, in part to get the necessary skills to make the "tools of the trade".

Seems like a slow and expensive way to learn how to make a bomb.

Comment Re: Time to change my job description.... (Score 1) 488

That is true, but stupid people often think that anyone wearing a turban is Islamic. Seriously.

As a side note, It's interesting to see that Gamergate's war against "corruption in the games media" now extends to fabricating evidence to slander their critics. I guess Gamergaters really are dedicated to showing us all who the truly dishonest people are...

Comment Re: If you don't like the textbooks, (Score 1) 337

Its not a scientific debate unless the critics argument is science, backed by evidence.

It's also not scientific debate if one side has created an unfalsifiable hypothesis and alters any contradictory data until it supports said hypothesis.


Hell most of their arguments are not even coherent

Seems he was right. If the hypothesis was really unfalsifiable there wouldn't be any "contradictory data" and therefore nothing to "alter". Your arguments are not even coherent.

Comment Re:Not actually that bad... (Score 2) 387

Indeed. The second linked article is a hit piece on Bill Nye. It uses prejudicial language and selective quoting to distort what Bill Nye actually wrote in his book about climate change. It implies he's saying NASCAR is the anti-NASA because people who like NASCAR are stupid which is severe distortion. He was actually talking about it being the anti-NASA from a climate change point of view. He even makes the somewhat amusing point that if you imposed a fuel limit (one tank, for example), a stock Toyota Prius would win the race because none of the standard cars could finish it. The point being that NASCAR could spur a lot of technical innovation by imposing a limit like that, although I think having read the comments above, Bill's may actually be wrong, the NASCAR rules seem to be pretty strict about not allowing technology to play too large a role in the race.

Comment Re:Cui bono? (Score 1) 369

Quite frankly, I start to get pissed. Ok, folks, from both sides of the fence, please tell me why. Why would the "other side" lie, and lie so vehemently to start something that is nothing short of a religious war by now?

If you really want to know, you should probably read or watch Merchants of Doubt (or do both). The interviews with global warming deniers in the movie are particularly illuminating.

What's in it for you, specifically?

Nothing, really. Mostly, I post corrections when people write things that are ridiculously wrong.

Comment Re:Great news for sceptics (Score 1) 369

But... it is an outlier. What is your point?

The point is that the same people who claimed for years that 1998 was an outlier that meant nothing, seamlessly switched to claiming that 1998 was so absolutely normal that it proves there has been no warming at all in (this year - 1998) years (or, in exceptionally dishonest cases, that it has been cooling since 1998).

Comment Re:Slashdot would lynch him alive... (Score 1) 519

But interestingly enough, the supposedly rabid atheists around here who "bravely" stand up to those "totalitarian oppressor" church-ladies on here have a huge blind spot / sick fetish for the most hard-core Islamic fascim you can think of.

You are deeply ignorant of atheism and atheists. You might want to shut up before you embarrass yourself.

Some Christian doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Government funded execution squad, no trial.

Too late.

Of course, there are two cases that I know of that kind-of-sort-of fit your description. In one, the case is ongoing although the cake maker has twice lost his case that refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple isn't discriminatory, and in the other case the bakers were fined a large amount of money for publishing the home address of the complainants, recklessly publicising it, and inciting a campaign of harassment against the couple. In both cases, the defendants were tried and found guilty of violating the law.

ISIS executes gays by throwing them off of buildings? How dare you be intolerant of other people's culture!

So you're going to stand with Infowars and claim that not enough of the people you hate denounced ISIS for executing gays so they must be explicitly supporting ISIS even though the people you hate did denounce ISIS, but not enough for you to believe that they actually meant it? Or can you find a single example of someone saying that we should tolerate ISIS's murderous rampages?

I see no reasons to be more irate with ISIS when they are killing gays, then when they are killing Christians, or Muslims who don't believe the "correct" interpretation of the Koran, or doctors, or professors or really anyone else. They are a bloody-minded, murderous, bunch of religious fanatics that's not news. The news that religious fanatics who hate gays have killed 0.04% more people in their own territory for their invented reasons, just isn't spectacular enough to get people up in arms any more. Frankly, ISIS's murderous thugs killing anonymous gay people is just sad, depressing news, it's not shocking any more because the body count is already so very high.

Comment Re:Sigh (Score 2) 519

Actually, it may be even more than that. According to the Atlantic article What ISIS Really Wants, the goal of ISIS is to bring about the apocalypse and thus end the world. So maybe, they want to be evil, with a capital E. Because, I don't think you can get much more evil than wanting to kill everybody everywhere.

Comment Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times? (Score 1) 735

Do we have the evidence that shows that the amount of CO2 increase should actually increase the temperatire by 1C?


Maybe the amount of CO2 we released only accounts for 0.5 degrees and there is some other yet undiscovered source for the other 0.5 degrees unrelated to humans and to CO2.

No, it's actually more than 100% human contribution, because the natural contribution is negative. That means without anthropogenic green house gases (and other sources such as land use change and albedo reductions) the earth would be cooling. So it's not just us, it's entirely us.

I'm just saying, do we have proof of this?

Yes, enough proof to convince 97% of the scientists who study this. The other 3% are mostly libertarians who refuse to accept the evidence because it's ideologically unpleasant for them.

Do we really know there is no alternative explanation for sure?


We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on when it's necessary to compromise. -- Larry Wall