Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Comment Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score 1) 523

Why is this flagged as insightful? The Russians would be happy if the war ended, but only if Assad remains in power. Their military budget is limited, and the longer they're there, the heavier the price they're paying. America would be happy if the war ended. I have no idea what the hell you mean by "politically unpopular compromise". Current leadership has done plenty of "politically unpopular" compromising already. See the Iran deal for reference. The Turks would be happy if it ended because it would bring much needed stability along their border. The Kurds would be happy because it would mean they're not fighting daily for their very survival. Claiming they're happy with the current situation shows you have absolutely no idea whatsoever about what they're facing. ISIS is probably the only group that would want the war to continue and spread. Israel wants the war to end because Assad, Russia, and Iran are allied. Ending the war now would be advantageous to Israel. Allowing it to continue will likely mean an eventual victory for Assad and a reunified Syria allied with Iran on Israel's border. Iran would like the war to be over, but only with a decisive defeat of the Sunni groups participating

Comment Re:NASA disagrees with you (Score 1) 205

Ah, so we have two scientific studies that contradict each other. No consensus! And the scientists of both studies can point to why the other study is inaccurate. So given the fact that there is no consensus on this subject, why then do you choose to support one study over the other, especially when there isanother study that seems to support the other?

Comment Re: Shocking! (Score 1) 526

Did I state that all science must be a scam? Did I state that random blogs should be trusted over "all scientists in the field"? No, I didn't. I posted some links that should make you question how accurate their theory is. Just because there's a large group of scientists supporting a theory doesn't mean the theory is sound. And when there's evidence that maybe it's not as sound as they're claiming it to be, perhaps you should be just a bit skeptical and not buy in 100% without doing some more investigating. Just for the record, you did exactly as predicted, dismissing the evidence provided with those links because they're from "random blogs". Even though those links contain actual data.

Comment Re: Shocking! (Score 1) 526

First reply, and it's a post that completely ignores all links provided and instead tries to deflect attention to a different site. FYI, the Berkely Earth Surface Temperature project used the same adjusted temperatures the links I provided call into question. They didn't use the original data as recorded. Nice try though, "bitch".

Comment Re: Shocking! (Score 3, Insightful) 526

Oh the irony! A consensus of scientists agreed that fat was the culprit for heart disease and obesity. The consensus scientists, led by Ancel Keys, verified time and again through peer-reviewed experiments and studies (albeit with falsified data) that fat was the problem. They destroyed the life and work of John Yudkin, the lone scientist who disagreed with the consensus and had the research and data to prove that sugar, not fat, was the culprit. And now you're here in slashdot posting about another consensus of scientists who must be believed because they've verified time and again that their theory is valid.
I look forward to the dozens of responses my post will generate in which all of these links are denounced and dismissed because the authors are hacks, frauds, not real scientists, or whatever else in order to justify ignoring the actual data.

Comment Re: And the crowd goes mild!!! (Score 1) 226

Intermittency of wind power in the UK for 2013 and 2014: http://www.caithnesswindfarms....
The analysis showed:
-average capacity factor across the UK was less than a third of maximum capacity
-average capacity in any given month varied from 16.2% to 50.8%
-total time during which turbines produced less than 10% of rated capacity totaled 3165 hours (131.8 days!)
-total time during which turbines produced less than 5% of rated capacity totaled 1200 hours (50 days!)
-output from wind turbines was extremely intermittent
Conclusions drawn from this study are that increasing wind turbine capacity DOES NOT increase the average capacity, DOES NOT reduce the periods of low or very low output, and DOES NOT reduce intermittentcy or variability in an hourly period. What this means is that MORE windmills do not provide any possibility of closing conventional fossil-fuel power stations. All wind power potential must have an alternative source of backup for when the wind isn't blowing. The costs of these backup plants are NOT being included in the true cost of wind power. Also not being included in the numbers are the cost of premature failure of turbines, which is proving to be much higher than originally estimated:

Comment Re: And the crowd goes mild!!! (Score 1) 226

No, renewables are not cheaper than nuclear. Hydroelectric is cheaper. Solar is more expensive. Onshore wind on it's own is cheaper, but wind power requires backup generation, and when the backup costs are factored in, nuclear is still cheaper. Offshore wind is more expensive. And onshore wind requires a massive amount of land in order to match the output of a single nuclear plant.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 709

3-4% is NOT a massive difference when you're using the excuse of a sun that is "quite a lot colder than it is now" to explain away CO2 concentrations 10x or more higher than today. And it's not just in the Cretaceous that CO2 levels were much higher, there are other time periods as well that don't fit the flawed narrative.

Slashdot Top Deals

Feel disillusioned? I've got some great new illusions, right here!