Posts by brainbone 94 publicly visible posts • joined 27 Oct 2011
"It’s like bringing your own cockroach to McDonalds, then making a complaint about their hygiene"
No, it's more like dropping a bus load of customers off at McDonalds, but McDonalds insists that they will serve the passengers at a slower rate than everyone else, unless the bus driver pays McDonalds an inconvenience charge.
"That sir is faith. Not science"
Same is said about evolution through natural selection. We can't predict exactly what evolution will produce -- there are far too many variables -- but we know environmental pressures will shape an organism's DNA.
Just because you don't understand the nuances of a given theory, doesn't make it wrong. AGW _is_ falsifiable. Much like attempts to falsify evolution by natural selection, so far _every_ attempt to falsify AGW (as should be done -- every hypothesis and theory must be vigorously and continuously tested as new data arises) have only served to validate the theory.
There are many articles out there that claim to have falsified evolution by natural selection, but every single one of them have failed -- even if the original authors refuse to admit defeat. (Often the original authors do admit defeat, but ID zealots keep regurgitating the old, inaccurate, information.) This _exact_ same thing holds true with AWG.
"there has been no warming"
Hogwash.
see:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere-intermediate.htm
and Glenn Tamblyn's response to Roy W. Spencer's tantrum (the basis of your position):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/#comment-82536
Just like the "Evolution through natural selection people" bully and intimidate anybody that believes the earth is 6000 years old?
There is FAR more bullying and intimidation coming from both the intelligent design crowd and AGW deniers than any scientists. Explaining how any why your belief is wrong is not "bullying", no matter how gutted you feel afterwards.
"At some point Americans are going to wake up and see ..."
... that the Earth far older than 6,000 years?
... that evolution by natural selection is real?
... that corporations are /not/ people?
... ... ...
Sorry, I don't think enough of my fellow Americans will be waking up. Critical thinking is not taught in the majority of our schools, nor is it nurtured in the majority of our families.
I have the lucky "choice" of Comcast (cable) or CenturyLink (dsl). Problem is, DSL maxes out at 7mbps in my area, but I'm lucky to get 1,5Mbps. Cable has a minimum of 30Mbps, up to 105Mbps. 30Mbps cable or 1.5-7mbps dsl (no real difference in price). Not really any "choice" there, unless you enjoy watching paint dry.
> "You'll note that there are points where high CO2 correlates with high temp, and also points where low CO2 correlates with high temps. There are also points where increasing CO2 correlates with rising temps, and points where increasing CO2 correlates with falling temps"
All this tells us is that c02 isn't the only driver of climate, and not a single climate scientist will claim it is. But we do know it is one of the drivers of climate. It's ridiculous to think that we can dump endless amounts of it into our atmosphere with zero effect, especially when we can model and observe quite the opposite.
"What predictions of climate scientists' models *ever* been proved to be even remotely accurate?"
Look around you.
Does evolution through natural selection predict exactly what lifeforms you're going to end up with? Of course not. What do you expect the climate models to predict? Exactly where, when and what a temperature increase will be? Exactly where and when we will see increased climate volatility? We simply don't have the computational power to do that. But they did accurately predict increased average temperature and climate volatility as c02 level rise. Have these not come to pass? What's next? Are you going to say that evolution isn't real because there are "gaps in the fossil record?"
"Since the vast majority of "scientific" opinions - or perhaps that ought to be scientific "opinions" - are paid by one special interest group or another, and many, mostly AGW advocates by both, your reasoning leads to the conclusion that we can ignore the entire issue"
One group has a vested interest in disproving and creating controversy, much like ID and evolution. The other has, for the most part, scientific method. The reason I put "scientist" in quotes, is because most of the deniers do not apply scientific method to the data at hand. They find what they think is an issue in the data (like a warm or cold period), and, just like god-in-the-gaps with evolution, they believe they've blown the whole thing out of the water, without taking all the evidence as a whole. Like standing too close to a Monet, and saying "All I see is dots!".
"Hypotheses which cannot make predictions..."
They have made predictions... and, so far, they've been right. You just don't like the predictions they've made.
"'I can't think of another reason therefore he did it' doesn't cut it in the real world I'm afraid."
Lets see: Witness saw him enter the pub with a gun. gun was fired. Suspect has power residue on his hands after leaving the pub. Suspect has history of action. No other individual in the establishment has a gun, nor was another gun found.
That's not "can't think of another reason". That's, "given the evidence, no other reason fits".
Same thing applies to C02 and climate change -- except we have even more evidence with c02 and climate change.
"To what extent we are contributing to it is still a very open question."
To the average Joe? Sure, but then Joe may also believe the earth is only 6000 years old.
The more data that is gathered, the more apparent the current warming trend is related to c02, and our release of it. While you can argue "correlation does not equal causation", and "climate is too complex to model accurately", those claims do not hold up to the preponderance of evidence.
Trying to maintain your claim is like saying "I saw Bob enter the pub with a gun. I heard one shot fired, and when he left, police captured him and found powder residue on his hand. We know that no one else left the pub, and a thorough search turned up no other gun. Bob also has a history of shooting guns in pubs, but I just don't believe Bob fired the gun. Correlation doesn't equal causation, don't-cha-know."
We know the release of c02 has an effect on climate -- there is no denying this. We know the level of c02 in the atmosphere is increasing -- there is no denying this. We know our climate is changing -- there is no denying this. All other proposals for why the climate is changing have been found wanting -- there is no denying this. We have models that show c02 being a probable candidate. Yet Bob still didn't pull the trigger?
"Scientists" that have been paid by those benefiting from denying anthropogenic climate change don't count.
Remember the lead pollution from leaded gasoline? There were plenty of paid shills, some of them "scientists", that twisted the results of others' research attempting to show there wasn't an issue -- and it worked for many years.
Are you saying we should still allow tetraethyl lead in our gas because a few paid shills, and millions poured in propaganda, tried to convince the public that it wasn't an issue?
The first AI that we'll recognise as equal to our own will happen after we're able to simulate the growth of a human in a computer in near real time. This ethically dubious "virtual human" will be no less intelligent than ourselves, and what we learn from it will finally crack the nut, allowing us to expand on this type of intelligence without resorting to growing a human, or other animal, in a simulator.
So, would the superstitious among us believe such a "virtual human" to have a soul?
"As for nuclear power plants, if they are so safe why can't we all have one in our homes?"
Nice logical fallacy you have there. Travel by commercial airline is statistically safer than automobile, yet we all don't have a commercial airliner in our garage. Does the fact that I can't maintain service for a Boeing 747 in my garage somehow make them less safe?
Please tell point me to these "loads of security issues" in Android's Dalvik JVM. Android has security issues, but I haven't seen Dalvik pointed out as the attack vector for these issues.
And read up on exactly what Oracle's suit was about, and why they effectively lost. A nine-line rangeCheck function, and the "structure, sequence and organization of the Java Application Programming Interface (API)" does not make a JVM, nor does it equal "loads" of code.
AC says "In order to make Java secure it needs a complete rewrite from the ground up (not constant patching that currently happens)."
You do know that Android doesn't use Oracle's JVM, right? It uses Dalvik JVM -- Dalvik doesn't have the same security issues that Oracle's JVM has -- and it doesn't run in a browser on Android -- the main attack vector when using Oracle's JVM.
While I disagree with Page's habitually unscientific pandering to climate change deniers, he is absolutely correct when it comes to pointing out the mass hysteria that surrounds anything "radioactive" or nuclear.
Compared to all other sources of energy we have today, nuclear is by far the safest -- especially when you factor in pollution (including CO2) from other energy sources. Now, if we could only see meaningful investment in generation 4 reactors, like MSR.
"The only thing is that Eric Schmidt and co pay many millions in lobbying to make sure that the elected legislators will not change the law"
Yes, but politicians *should* have no "Fiduciary duty" to these lobbyists. A politician's duty *should* be to their constituents, the vast majority of them not being part of any particular lobby. Unfortunately too many of us are distracted by shiny advertisements when it comes time to vote. Should we blame the billions dumped into campaign contributions, or our own complacency?
>Strangely enough building a nuclear plant ain't cheap and how much do you need for decommissioning and waste management?
Look at my post above. Nuclear doesn't not need to be expensive and waste generating. If half the amount invested in solar and wind was invested in developing MSRs or any of the other "new" nuclear technologies, we would be in a much better place right now.
Just because our current LWRs are wasteful and expensive, doesn't mean all nuclear is. Nuclear is a very large field.
* Ahem *
Why, so often, do us "greens" avoid talking about modern nuclear technologies, or if we do, immediately start demonizing them without understanding the technology?
Please take a look at the Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) as just one example of an energy source that us greens should be embracing, without delay:
http://transatomicpower.com/company.php
The problem with calculating probable outcomes is there's always a chance that the outcome will not happen as predicted.
In a society with advanced enough technology to calculate the probable intent of a human with anything over 50% accuracy, I would hope that there is also enough knowledge to see obvious issues with prosecuting individuals based on predictions of possible future actions or thoughts.
My guess is that, just as this article states, it would be used for more effective treatment of the mentally ill.
That depends on the type of non-believer you're talking about. Are they non-believers because they only think the existence of a supernatural God is simple unknowable, or is it because they fully understand the extremely low and ever shrinking probability of having a supernatural force governing our lives?
It's the defining difference between Agnostic Atheists and Atheists. An Agnostic Atheist could be conceivably flipped to an Agnostic Theist with a simple change of perspective, where an outright Atheist will generally not be converted without proof of the supernatural claim using scientific method.
I think it was meant to read something like:
"He's also said Macronix intends to commercialize the technology,"
Probably started out thinking something like, "He's also said the technique will be commercialized," but then suffered from a brain fart in the transition.
... sits squarely on anyone who encourages superstition by holding faith in it up as an admirable virtue and on those that refuse to speak up and call it what it is.
If you seek to coddle insanity, the result should come as no surprise. Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, Astrologists, Spiritualists, ..., ... all of them nutters.
"Can't we admire the wonder of the universe without using it as a chance to insult each other's beliefs?"
No. Every new scientific discovery should be openly paraded as more evidence against mindless superstition. How else will the virus of superstition ever be extinguished? By continuing to believe it some sort of virtue that deserves admiration and respect?
While it's a serious issue, and needs to be fixed -- any type 1 that isn't in tune enough with their condition to know when they're dropping fast and need sugar is probably already at high risk of death, sans the exploitable pump.
Sure, you'll need a great amount of sugar, a glucagon injection, and are going to feel sick as hell in the end -- but you'll survive it, just like you always do.
Also, note that the pump can't exhaust the full reservoir all that quickly. You'll probably start feeling it before it completes, not just as hypoglycemia, but as pain in the infusion site from the prolonged injection. In addition, 150 to 300 units, depending on the reservoir you have, is the worst case. The exploit would have to take place immediately after your 3 day refill for you to have a chance of getting the full dose.
In short; Yes, it needs to be fixed quickly -- but lets not over react.
"only accept incoming transmissions provided a button is physically held down on the device"
The pumps in question use wireless to communicate with Continuous Glucose Monitors (CGM). While a link with the CGM should be much more secure than it currently is, having to hold a button down every 15 minutes to get a reading kinda defeats the purpose of the CGM and isn't the correct path to take for security.
Its main reason is so the device can communicate wirelessly with its optional continuous blood glucose monitor (CGM) -- AKA "the cybernetic wood tick". Downloading pump history, etc., was secondary, since that could have been done over a wired port -- however, since the wireless ability was now there for CGM, why not just use it for everything?
Newer versions of the pump will eventually use this configuration to allow it to automatically decide the dosage to give you based on the predicted values from he CGM (from what I understand, human trials are underway) -- however, unless they also integrate a glucagon pump (in addition to their lack of insulin, type 1 diabetics also don't produce glucagon, hence their susceptibility to hypoglycemia), you won't catch this type 1 using one.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
