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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:eating less (Score 2) 254

This is simply not true. About 20 years ago, I lost the ability to walk. (Also sit, stand, etc.) I gained a lot of weight.

Three years ago, I was put on an exercise regime that made it so that I can walk again. It is very intense - so intense that I get tendonitis of my joints once ever few months (and they don't let me stop exercising then either...).

I have not lost any weight at all. I look better, and obviously feel better, but my mass is more, not less.

Comment Re:So global warming is a farce after all (Score 1) 313

Thanks for posting this link. The linked report demonstrates the issue precisely.

On page 7 of the pdf summary report, it talks about the "bad stuff" that is predicted due to climate change. The major data points given are that crop yields will fall. This is in direct opposition to all the science I have read on the topic, for example Obama's EPA.gov site says "Agriculture and fisheries are highly dependent on the climate. Increases in temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase some crop yields in some places."

They try to paint a highly negative picture, but then provide the data in chart below that. Crop yields are steadily increasing.

Whenever I look into the source data, I see this kind of thing. Dire consequences predicted, but then even a cursory examination of the data show that the prediction has been falsified.

Data points:

*) Fish failures predicted - real data shows that the fish simply move north/south (https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply)
*) Crop failure predicted - real data shows steady growth of crop yield (https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply)
*) Land flooding predicted - real data shows that the land movement effects swamp any issues with the sea rising (Florida has no problem, Louisiana has major problems) (https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-coastal-areas)

Does anyone have a prediction of "bad stuff" made in an IPCC report that has actually happened? (I am limiting "bad stuff" to things that my children's children will actually care about) The old reports are now old enough that there predictions should be apparent by now. I have reviewed the reports, and the cases I looked at (sea level rise, crop failures, fishing) were all falsified by what happened in reality.

If the IPCC has no predictive power, why should we use it to guide policy?

Comment Re:fascinatingly crafted reply... (Score 4, Funny) 302

Yes, but are you a climate change HOAX denier?

I posit that this is an area on which we can all agree!

Either you are a (climate change) (HOAX denier), or you are a (climate change HOAX) (denier). But we are now all (climate change HOAX denier)s! So let us bask in our reconciliation!

Comment Re:More condoms less climate change (Score 1) 180

Looking at how this study was constructed, I believe most of the reported decline is likely just selection bias.

They did no original data collection - they just reviewed existing data sources. Unfortunately, the existing data sources are from conservation movements. They do not care about the New York rat population (which is doing just fine), those organizations are trying to track the species that are struggling.

So if a species is struggling to survive, it was far more likely to be included in the report than if the species was doing well. Selection bias.

It's depressing how rarely you see good statistics in science these days.

Comment Re:fallacy (Score 3, Insightful) 177

The problem with that approach is that you will tweak the algorithm until it works in 1996.

In other words, you will incorporate 1996 into the test set.

This is the big problem with almost all climate studies, and the reason why people that understand statistics really hate the current climate "science" as it is done. You really do need to make a prediction, and then test the prediction. If you get it wrong, you cannot re-try against the same data set until it works.

Comment Re:Small dick russians (Score 1) 264

You need to look deeper - it's not that Trump works for Putin; It's that Putin's organization is in competition with Clinton's organization. Putin does not want the competition, even in the US criminal market.

It's just business, it's not personal.

Comment Re:Minefield (Score 1) 562

Agreed - By the way, if anyone is considering not voting: please vote anyway.

Both these people are awful. If they win with only 40% of the popular vote because everyone voted for Fred, they will not be able to claim a mandate for sweeping evil changes. If you vote for a 3rd party, it weakens both bad candidates...

Comment Re:Really? (Score 5, Insightful) 244

Um, no. Niel Armstrong really did fly the lunar lander. He really did run it almost totally out of fuel, because he had to avoid a huge rock. If he hadn't done that, the vehicle would have gone splat.

By the way, the computer was completely spazzing out during the landing and was not giving good data. Fortunately it was written in a way that kept the important stuff going regardless.

http://space.stackexchange.com...

also

http://www.dickgordon.com/Apol...

Comment Re:Wherever data is collected, it is abused (Score 1) 185

I used to think that as well, but in an Economics study I learned some unfortunate downside to legal prostitution. Unfortunately it seems that if prostitution is legalized, illegal forced prostitution increases. That sucks.

I'm not sure if the solution on balance should be to make prostitution illegal or just increase the resources expended against forced prostitution, but there is a downside I at least didn't know about earlier.

Comment Re:it's pretty simple (Score 1) 178

I'll give you a hint: I was disabled, and literally did not have enough money for food. I went to the government for help. I was rejected, while other people (of a more politically favored class) that were not disabled at all were given money.

Eventually, I found a job were I could work somewhat. I then had to pay taxes to support those favored by the government, when I could barely afford rent.

You trust the government, because you have never been abused by it. You're probably also pretty good at getting others to give you what you want by talking.

I sucked at that, though I got better. The government, and unions, help a certain class of people by harming everyone else.

To me, you union/government guys guys are simply either inexperienced or insane. The path you chose has never worked. It has been proven mathematically impossible via simple, well understood economics. Yet you persist in believing that if only we gave all the power to "person X", whether a union boss, a President, or a scientist, everything would be better.

Anything that does not increase production hurts the majority, and only benefits a more powerful minority.

Comment Re:it's pretty simple (Score 0) 178

1) The world does not owe you a living

2) If someone is willing to do your job as well as you for less money than you, they should have the job.

If the world followed these simple rules, people would quickly shuffle to the job where they produce the most benefit for society. Society as a whole would be better off, including the displaced workers once they find their niche.

When you have protectionism, such as unions, by definition you are stealing jobs from someone that needs it more. The whole argument about pay going up or down is a red herring; if pay decreased globally, then prices would also decrease globally. If pay rises, prices rise in step. The only thing that can make society better off as a whole is increased efficiency and increased production. Anything else is just theft from those weaker than you.

Comment Re:40cm? (Score 1) 225

What you are missing is that the collision is happening at extreme hypersonic speeds. That means that when the first atoms to collide hit, they literally cannot get out of the way of the next line of atoms. (The speed of sound is basically the fastest the atoms can move to get out of the way.) So that matter hits and is stopped, and is unable to get out of the way of the rest, etc, etc. So you end up with everything smashed to incredible pressures (higher than the inside of the sun) which causes incredible heat (vaporizing an approximately equal amount of impactor and impactee). Then that cloud of super-heated gas interacts with the stuff around it for a very short time.

Slashdot Top Deals

Uncertain fortune is thoroughly mastered by the equity of the calculation. - Blaise Pascal

Working...