×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Physicists Identify Possible New Particle Behind Dark Matter

Frnknstn Re:LAMP (103 comments)

No, WIMP's opposite is LAPP (Linux, Apache, PostgreSQL, Python)

about three weeks ago
top

Soda Pop Damages Your Cells' Telomeres

Frnknstn Re:Overly broad? (422 comments)

It *could* be that HFCS is worse than some other sugars

HFCS is demonstrably WORSE than cane sugar. The extreme majority of double-blind taste tests have shown people prefer cane sugar in their soft drinks.

As far as health effects go, HFCS is quite possibly better than cane sugar, in that people may drink less of the bad-tasting HFCS swill :)

about a month ago
top

Microsoft Announces Windows 10

Frnknstn Re:OMFG, stupid (644 comments)

I didn't know Teslas had tanks? What do they store in them?

about 2 months ago
top

Solar System's Water Is Older Than the Sun

Frnknstn Re:Not necessarily. (173 comments)

Tell me, why do you think the scientists didn't consider this?

about 2 months ago
top

CIA Tested Primitive Chatbots For Interrogation In the 1980s

Frnknstn Re:It seems that Republicans... (65 comments)

deciding your fate

Your fate? Really? That is rather mystical of you. To quote the philosopher S J Conner, "There's no fate but what we make for ourselves"

about 2 months ago
top

New HTML Picture Element To Make Future Web Faster

Frnknstn Re:Progressive JPEG (161 comments)

[quote]require the client to establish a completely new HTTP connection for every request[/quote]

Yes, like we did until very recently. However this would only be for the very large images. The smaller files are the ones that benefit most from keepalive techniques: the.js, .css, small layout images. They can still be sent on a single connection.

[quote]It will also break HTTP caching[/quote]

No, it won't. A cache that serves an incompletely downloaded file is already broken.

[quote]prevent the server from sending too many bytes, which will sit around in caches between the server and the client.[/quote]

That... is not how TCP works? The data that is sent to the client before the RST packet reaches the server will not "sit around". It will get delivered and dropped by the client.

about 3 months ago
top

New HTML Picture Element To Make Future Web Faster

Frnknstn Re:Progressive JPEG (161 comments)

I don't think you were paying attention to how a progressive .jpg works. The file has only the full-detail image in the file, but the as you load more and more bits from the file, the quality improves from unrecognisably blurry to sharp and detailed.

Simply request the file from byte 1, load until you get the level of detail you need, then close the connection. If you need more detail later, just resume the download.

about 3 months ago
top

Black Holes Not Black After All, Theorize Physicists

Frnknstn time to get old skool (227 comments)

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

about 4 months ago
top

Oculus Suspends Oculus Rift Dev Kit Sales In China

Frnknstn Re:Why not limit them to one per customer? (131 comments)

Your glibly stated solution was that limiting the sales to one per customer would curtail scalping.

You did not offer any details about how personhood would be determined or how the limit would be enforced, so I was had to limit my response to a glib reply. I pointed out that one thing China has is a lot of people, and so on the face of it "one per person" may not be all that effective. You are wecome to elaborate on your plan?

about 5 months ago
top

UN Court: Japanese Whaling "Not Scientific"

Frnknstn Re:May I have a source please? (188 comments)

I think we both have very different understandings of how this conversation unfolded. Here's what I saw:

Cyberax: Cooking adds 10-20% to actual caloric content of food. Mainly because it breaks down complex molecules, making them easier to digest.
Leonard: I'd like to know your source, not because I'm doubtful, but because I wish to learn more.
denzacar: [links that are not valid source material]
Frnknstn: Those links are not good.
denzacar: [sarcastic avoidance]
Frnknstn: [likewise sarcastic response]
denzacar: [... ... looong post ... ...]

How discussions are supposed to work:

Frnknstn: Those links are not good.
denzacar: You missed something, [...]
Frnknstn: Ah, I see, thanks.

Alternatively:

Frnknstn: Those links are not good.
denzacar: Yeah, those are all I found.
Frnknstn: Ah, I see, thanks.

about 8 months ago
top

UN Court: Japanese Whaling "Not Scientific"

Frnknstn Re:May I have a source please? (188 comments)

... well, no, I do not. Sadly my computer lacks the processing power and storage capacity to host a web search engine on the scale of Google. Luckily, a company called "Google, Inc." run Google on a set of public-facing webservers, so feel free to use those.

See, I can purposefully misunderstand simple requests, too. I asked for a primary or secondary source. The implied question was "As you have more knowledge about this than I do, can you recommend a credible primary or secondary source that is freely available?"

about 8 months ago
top

UN Court: Japanese Whaling "Not Scientific"

Frnknstn Re:May I have a source please? (188 comments)

Those are three book reviews of the same book. Do you have a primary or secondary source?

about 8 months ago
top

More Troubles For Authors of Controversial Acid-Bath Stem Cell Articles

Frnknstn Re:No true Scotsman/scientist would ever... (99 comments)

Science that includes some fraudulent data can be science. Bad science, but science nonetheless.

A scientist skipping a intermediate few steps and then filling in some data to match his expectations so that his paper can be published -- that is fraud, and science.

Another good example is climate change denial science. It willfully ignores counterarguments, cherry-picks data to fit hypotheses, but it still counts as science.

about 8 months ago
top

Sun Not a Significant Driver of Climate Change

Frnknstn Re:Way to state the obvious (552 comments)

NO, you dimbulb

Then our discussion is at an end, as you do not understand how science works.

Postma claims he can test for the greenhouse effect:

what it comes down to is a difference in the âoeempirical observableâ that either version predicts.

Postma proposes a methodology for the test:

In the physical greenhouse effect, the temperature inside the greenhouse can not exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating. In the radiative greenhouse effect, the temperature inside the greenhouse can exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating.

Postma describes his resulrs:

What I found was that the maximum ground surface temperature was only equal to the maximum solar heating temperature

BUT HE NEVER DID THE TEST.

It doesn't matter if the test was a good test, well designed or logical. It doesn't matter if the results he didn't get are supported by the best fucking theoretical backing imaginable, Postma fails at basic scientific honesty.

about a year ago
top

Sun Not a Significant Driver of Climate Change

Frnknstn Re:Way to state the obvious (552 comments)

I did read Latour paper, after this discussion had been going on for some time. My response to it was in this comment. There are many valid refutations for it, I even linked to one.

The conclusions offered in Postma's web post are not supported by any evidence. His proposed experiment makes no sense, but that doesn't matter because nobody ever actually performs it. He makes outlandish claims without citation. This is the reason why nobody can offer a scientific refutation of the web article: THE WEB ARTICLE HAS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS TO ATTACK.

I have tried to explain to you instead the logical failings in that page. You have ignored or misrepresented my statements in an almost pathological manner.

As a last, desperate attempt to find some sign of reason in you, let's see if we can find even the most basic common ground. In the article, just before the results section, Postma finally defines the experiment he intends:

What was the empirical observable that is different between the two versions?

In the physical greenhouse effect, the temperature inside the greenhouse can not exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating. In the radiative greenhouse effect, the temperature inside the greenhouse can exceed the temperature of the maximum solar heating.

Can you at least admit that in the experiment he did, he maybe, sorta, should have actually measured some temperatures inside a greenhouse?

about 10 months ago
top

Sun Not a Significant Driver of Climate Change

Frnknstn Re:Way to state the obvious (552 comments)

"There are two things called "The Greenhouse Effect" (false)"

It is NOT false, and I showed you a historical reference that proved it.

Let me direct you to my earlier words:

Regardless, we are all telling you now that there is only one effect correctly referred to as "the greenhouse effect" in science, and that it not the same mechanism that keeps greenhouses warm. Any source that claims otherwise is incorrect, no matter how official-sounding the domain name.

I did not elaborate further because, as I stated, I did not want to get into a semantic argument, because it does not materially affect my argument.

Once again, I do not claim that nobody ever believed that the mechanisms were the same. I even link to a NASA for-kids education module that states exactly that. What I say is that those people are incorrect. It is entirely possible for someone to believe something that isn't true, as I am sure you will agree.

With regards to that exact quote you mentioned, it comes from Arrhenius's Worlds in the Making, and while I do not have the full text of the book with me perhaps some larger quotes would give you some perspective on his work:

"To a certain extent the temperature of the earth's surface, as we shall presently see, is conditioned by the properties of the atmosphere surrounding it, and particularly by the permeability of the latter for the rays of heat."

"That the atmospheric envelopes limit the heat losses from the planets had been suggested about 1800 by the great French physicist Fourier. His ideas were further developed afterwards by Pouillet and Tyndall. Their theory has been styled the hot-house theory, because they thought that the atmosphere acted after the manner of the glass panes of hot-houses."

As you can see, as far back as your 1906 quote, "The Hothouse Effect" refers to heat rays, not convection. I do not have Fourier earlier work either, so I cannot comment on whether his theories were about trapped radiation or convection.

THE EVIDENCE, as I have already told you more than once, is provided in the other article

I will try to keep this short, since reading is clearly not your strong suite. Here was my original statement:

Frankly, that "Climate Sophistry" page is absurd.

I did not mention the second document because I had not at that time read it, because the first article was, as I say, absurd. No amount of other links will be able to redeem it because its problem is not maths or science (climate or otherwise). The problem is it is logically inconsistent in itself. To be blunt, IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE, as I explain in my earlier comment. As I stated:

Regardless of the size of the greenhouse, the increased temperature (increased, that is, over the external temperature) will be due to trapped convection.

You then responded with:

I am guessing that you are trying to say that the temperature inside and outside would go up by the same amount

which was a good guess, especially since the very next sentence I wrote in that comment was "The same CO2 density inside and outside the greenhouses means that the CO2 would increase the greenhouse temperature and the external temperature by the same amount."

Well done.

Once again, Postma's pivotal claim is that The observed heat increase in a greenhouse can be entirely explained by trapped convection. As I pointed out in the same comment as before, he provides two sources for that claim: his experiment that doesn't involve a greenhouse at all, and another that does not provide his conclusion.

Once again, and for the last time, I hope this sets the matter to rest. Regarding the rest of your most recent reply with arguments about Latour's thermodynamics claims, I will again quote what I said earlier:

Frankly, it sounds like you are trying to move the goalposts
[...]
I suggest [...] you discuss [Latour's thermodynamics claims] on the appropriate forums rather than attempting to shoehorn them in to this discussion.

I am willing to admit that I did find a relationship between Postma's article and Latour's: they are both as absurd as the other. I am willing to bet that this skydragon book you are pimping is just as absurd as both.

about 10 months ago
top

Sun Not a Significant Driver of Climate Change

Frnknstn Re:Way to state the obvious (552 comments)

"There are two things called "The Greenhouse Effect" (false)"

It is NOT false, and I showed you a historical reference that proved it. You came up with some cockamamie theory (semantic nonsense argument) about why MAYBE it didn't mean what the plain English words very clearly do mean to any reasonable reader. No points.

about 10 months ago

Submissions

Frnknstn hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

Frnknstn has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?