Slashdot Mirror


Doomsday Clock Moved Two Minutes Forward, To 23:57

An anonymous reader writes As reported by CNN and Time, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has moved their famed Doomsday Clock two minutes closer to midnight. Now at 23:57, this clock attempts to personify humanity's closeness to a global catastrophe (as caused by either climate change or nuclear war). According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, this change is due to a lack of action regarding climate issues, the continued existence of nuclear weapon stockpiles, and the increased animosity that now exists between the United States and Russia.

216 comments

  1. Moar indicators pleaz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    How bout one for how racist America is? Or how mean Republicans are? These are other things we need to be able to fake track.

  2. IMO by Osgeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

    its horseshit scare tactics that dont work anymore over nonsense bullshit that has no leg to stand on

    so who cares, move it to 1 am, doesnt mean a damn thing

    1. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      so who cares, move it to 1 am, doesnt mean a damn thing

      Ah, the stone age. Fun times.

    2. Re:IMO by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nuke the doomsday clock!

    3. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The 'bulletin' is a perfect example of what happens when social justice warriors are allowed to take over.

    4. Re:IMO by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      We are already 20 minutes into the future of that clock.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    5. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The new "2012"... people will gasp when it hits 00:01

      Another thing, I'm kind of sick of us Americans pointing fingers at other countries while being the hypocrites we are. Fuck all that shit!

      captcha: unravel (like this fucking nation)

    6. Re:IMO by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the days when the Doomsday Clock was published by actual atomic scientists, it measured their perception of how imminent the Cold War danger was. The end of Communism cut the Doomsday Clockers adrift, much as Salk vaccine did to the March of Dimes.

      So are the SJWs who found this thing in the attic and dusted it off advancing the clock because of carbon, or because of Islam? Let me guess...

    7. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      its horseshit scare tactics that dont work anymore over nonsense bullshit that has no leg to stand on

      so who cares, move it to 1 am, doesnt mean a damn thing

      Uh, I could be spitballing here, but maybe, just maybe, the original designers of the clock felt that humanity should fucking care.

      Or perhaps it was created to point out that they should. It's not called the Bake-A-Cake clock.

      And don't get me started on horseshit scare tactics. Politics have caused more panic and damage with global warming than 10,000 clocks ever could.

    8. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      much as Salk vaccine did to the March of Dimes.

      Salk schmalk. The March of Dimes was cut adrift by inflation.

    9. Re:IMO by rossdee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "so who cares, move it to 1 am, doesnt mean a damn thing"

      They'll do that in March anyway.

    10. Re:IMO by fuzznutz · · Score: 2

      its horseshit scare tactics that dont work anymore over nonsense bullshit that has no leg to stand on

      so who cares, move it to 1 am, doesnt mean a damn thing

      I had no idea the doomsday clock was still a thing. The last I heard about it was way before the Berlin Wall fell. This is clearly a PR stunt to try to remain relevant in a world that no longer worries about Soviet ICBMs raining down.

    11. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So are the SJWs who found this thing in the attic and dusted it off advancing the clock because of carbon, or because of Islam?

      Really? Can't even read TFS?

      1. Continued existance of nuclear weapon stockpiles. There is enough nukes to destroy every single major city in the world. If a nuclear war ever starts between Russia and US, there is enough nukes on either side to destroy every single city (minor cities of 10,000 people included), including those of all allies. And I do not mean like Hiroshima - that's toy proof-of-concept nuke. Today, you'll get 40 nukes on a city like New York - nothing survives. Even rats in the sewers get cooked.

      A nuclear war was almost started on numerous occasions already, and that's by accident - I'm not even counting Cuban Missile Crises. There was an incident that wired a missile that allowed one person to launch it, from a car battery.... another because of "sun glare" ... another from no launch codes at all ... another from geese .... another from malfunction .... How many more times do we dodge annihilation because some idiots want to play tough? Roll the dice enough times, and you'll get snake eyes.

      2. WTF has Islam have to do with anything????? Seriously, WTF? Just because "fear of radicals" is used to create a totalitarian police states, that has nothing to do with doomsday.

      3. As to global warming, just because you are too stupid to understand timescales longer than a decade does not mean everyone else is as stupid. What do you think will happen when sea level rises by 1m? or 2m? Put a dike around Florida? Or do we pump water out of Bangladesh to allow 300,000,000 people to continue living where they are?

      Global Warming will cause major upheavals in human world. Some people just think a little more ahead than your next birthday... 200 years? yeah, for you that may be never, but that sea level rise during next 200 years is already fixed in stone.

    12. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to be on the "right" side of a debate, make sure you're on the side that has a name synonymous with being right.

      Oh, so I'll just name my new movement the Being Right About Everything All The Time Club, and then no-one can possibly disagree with anything I say.

    13. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the days when the Doomsday Clock was published by actual atomic scientists, it measured their perception of how imminent the Cold War danger was. The end of Communism cut the Doomsday Clockers adrift, much as Salk vaccine did to the March of Dimes.

      So are the SJWs who found this thing in the attic and dusted it off advancing the clock because of carbon, or because of Islam? Let me guess...

      Islamic terrorists made out of coal and graphite.

    14. Re:IMO by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Climate Change Deniers have taken to calling themselves Skeptics precisely because of this negative connotation to our cause, just as AGW proponents changed to talk of Climate Change when they saw that Global Warming was no longer winning over the masses with their fear-mongering.

      Yep, it is hilarious considering that those deniers are part of the religious right (often stating their reason for denying climate change is something about god). To them, skeptics have the negative connotation. I guess they can't ask for people to believe their claims "on faith" anymore.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    15. Re:IMO by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      Salk was done in by too much vitamin c.

    16. Re:IMO by Bartles · · Score: 2

      They problem is they have advanced it so far that it has become meaningless. Like always having an orange national security threat level.

    17. Re:IMO by fltsimbuff · · Score: 1

      1. That's neither here nor there. We could decrease "stockpiles" by 1,000% and still have enough to bring about "doomsday." ALL nukes will go away AFTER doomsday, no earlier. ANY use of nukes can bring about doomsday. Even if we each only have 1, their use would bring about WWIII and no doubt more would be rebuilt and used as soon as they could in a large scale conflict like that.

      The important part of the equation is how close people are to actually using nukes. That is the useful thing to track. People are constantly saying how the nuclear standoff is so dangerous, but don't seem to think about all the wars it has prevented from ever starting due to the mutual deterrence. A little education on strategy and past warfare goes a long way to helping to understand how important this has been. It would be nice if we could uninvent them, but what's done is done.

      3. All very true, but has nothing to do with a doomsday clock. The doomsday clock carries with it an implicit "imminence" (hello! clock? minutes to midnight???) to the issues it is measuring. Climate change doesn't fit that at all. Furthermore, the constant hyperbole and "the sky is falling" coming from people who are fighting for climate change awareness is sounding ridiculous to reasonable people.

      Instead of educating people on how CO2 affects the atmosphere, and how this could turn our planet uninhabitable over time if we don't curb our emissions quickly, people falsify reports to make up effects and data that supports their arguments, and talk like the world could end tomorrow. These things get disproven and seem absurd and they get called on the lies, and then perfectly reasonable people turn their noses at ALL the climate change evidence. It has gotten to the point where they want to change "skeptic" to "denier" so they have license to point and laugh at how stupid all the "deniers" are, when the deniers are being created by the very people that insist they are crazy.

      STOP the hyperbole and the outright lying about climate change, and maybe people will start believing the truth, and we can all "row in the same direction" on solutions.

    18. Re:IMO by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Theres also the problem that if you were to predict that there was a 99% chance that the world blows up today, MAYBE someone will believe you. Predict that for the next 20 years, and youre sort of nuts if you think anyone will take you seriously.

    19. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      awww, did some girl turn you down for sex? that's the only type that complain about "social justice warriors"

    20. Re:IMO by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Climate Change Deniers have taken to calling themselves Skeptics precisely because of this negative connotation to our cause, just as AGW proponents changed to talk of Climate Change when they saw that Global Warming was no longer winning over the masses with their fear-mongering.

      Yep, it is hilarious considering that those deniers are part of the religious right (often stating their reason for denying climate change is something about god). To them, skeptics have the negative connotation. I guess they can't ask for people to believe their claims "on faith" anymore.

      Wrong on both counts.

      First, your revisionist history does not match recorded history. Most of the people you call deniers have ALWAYS labeled themselves skeptics. There are some just plain disbelievers, who disbelieve based on faith. But the majority of them follow the actual science.

      Second, most of these skeptics are NOT right-wing religious fanatics.

      Both of these myths have been promoted by the True Believers: the alarmists who can't back up their claims with real science.

      The recent declaration of 2014 as "the hottest year" -- when it wasn't anything of the kind -- is a wonderful illustration of the idiocy behind CO2 warming alarmism. Self-described Climate Scientists claimed the satellite temperature record would be the most accurate ever. And it is. But now that the satellite data is disproving their pet theory, they just leave that data out.

      It's really quite hilarious.

    21. Re:IMO by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      It is a bit telling when they consider themselves "skeptics" of climate change only, and take a bunch of other stuff on faith.

      Well I suppose that doesn't include the people that claim to be skeptics of science itself. I don't know what confusion of ideas leads to that conclusion.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    22. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you presume that, presume a lot about others don't you. not that you actually have any evidence for that, just going on faith of your belief!!.

      Your an idiot

    23. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Thank you for stating it exactly the same way I thought it.

    24. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really is the best way to be sure!

    25. Re:IMO by Meski · · Score: 1

      Well played. DST for the Doomsday Clock.

    26. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had no idea the doomsday clock was still a thing. The last I heard about it was way before the Berlin Wall fell. This is clearly a PR stunt to try to remain relevant in a world that no longer worries about Soviet ICBMs raining down.

      You must be new to Slashdot then, because they have a story about it every fucking January. http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=doomsday+clock Damn newbies.

    27. Re:IMO by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Your an idiot

      No, "you are" an idiot.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  3. More Global Warming Alarmism!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yes....let's compare the aeons long climate changes to the threat of instant extinction due to global nuclear war. Do these global warming alarmists think that some "Day After Tomorrow" type even is going to wipe out the planet? That people not driving a hybrid car is the same as detonating a nuke in a major urban area?

    Global warming is a hoax. A wealth redistribution program. That's it. Al Gore and the rest of the billionaire elite can keep the peons down all they want. But the scam is getting more and more ridiculous. The claims more and more outrageous. What's next? Amber Alerts over gasoline guzzlers? EPA patrols at night to enforce a driving curfew or carpools?

    Want to stop 'man made' global warming? Kill yourself. End overpopulation. Starting with the UN and every politician.

    1. Re:More Global Warming Alarmism!!!!!!!! by aaron4801 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Obviously this group is advocating a simple solution: Set off a couple nukes. Not only would that reduce the world's stockpile, it would also start a mini nuclear-winter, which offsets global warming! It's clearly the solution to both problems these guys worry about.

    2. Re:More Global Warming Alarmism!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Global warming is a hoax.

      Try to separate reality from politics. Al Gore and the rest of the billionaire elite may well be using Global warming as an excuse to keep us peons down yet such actions are independent of and speak nothing about whether global warming itself is occurring nor does it shed any light on what potential consequences if any may be. These are things that require careful research and consideration to arrive at an understanding that isn't completely worthless.

      It is possible to concurrently agree with a climate prediction while strongly disagreeing about what should be done about it.

      A wealth redistribution program

      Gasoline is a wealth redistribution program if ever there was one with hard earned dollars going to fund cartoon empires with medieval sensibilities all around the globe.

      The claims more and more outrageous. What's next? Amber Alerts over gasoline guzzlers? EPA patrols at night to enforce a driving curfew or carpools?

      Doubtful "elite" have appetites for things which also negatively affect them. Taxing shit they dislike to death so peons can't afford is more their style.

      Want to stop 'man made' global warming? Kill yourself. End overpopulation. Starting with the UN and every politician.

      As an agent of the Aschen confederation you should demonstrate more patience.

    3. Re:More Global Warming Alarmism!!!!!!!! by Chas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A wealth redistribution program

      Gasoline is a wealth redistribution program if ever there was one with hard earned dollars going to fund cartoon empires with medieval sensibilities all around the globe.

      Yeah. But with gasoline. You get...gasoline. Something for something.

      With "carbon credits" you get...what? Some guy going "Good for you dude! And thanks for the cash!". Something for nothing.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    4. Re:More Global Warming Alarmism!!!!!!!! by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Why the bickering about whether it's man made or natural? I honestly don't want to resolve the question on whether someone set my house on fire or whether lightning hit it while it's still burning, first I want it extinguished, then we can find out what caused it!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re: More Global Warming Alarmism!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because our grandchildren are going to be pissed off. The funny thing is how it shows how risk averse the billionaire businessmen have become. Why aren't they rushing towards the payoff off of green technology? There's gold in them hills.

    6. Re:More Global Warming Alarmism!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When there's an arsonist around, you want to make sure to stop the arsonist. You can't stop the lightning. Right now, even though most climate scientists think there's an arsonist around, the sky's still dark and stormy.

      It's one thing to send a fire truck (green technology) to put out the fire at your house. It's quite another to divert a river (climate change "solutions") to put it out.

    7. Re: More Global Warming Alarmism!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's precisely because they're risk averse. They're waiting until they can see the payoff, then they'll put their money in when it's safe. The rich may have money, but asking them to part with it is like asking a poor man to give his socks away.

    8. Re:More Global Warming Alarmism!!!!!!!! by khallow · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yeah. But with gasoline. You get...gasoline.

      To the AC who missed this most important half of the gasoline "wealth redistribution program", you fail economics. To the moderator who modded Chas's post as "troll", get off my internet. This is a basic observation about the oil trade that everyone should acknowledge from the start.

    9. Re: More Global Warming Alarmism!!!!!!!! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      You just did.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    10. Re: More Global Warming Alarmism!!!!!!!! by Kichigai+Mentat · · Score: 1

      You can't stop the lightning.

      No, but you can prevent its effects by using a lightning rod.

      --
      Rawr
    11. Re: More Global Warming Alarmism!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would equate the lightning rod to green technologies. It's a small thing that has big long-term implications. Too bad the fight to stop climate change is still on the path of diverting rivers, where massive reductions in carbon output without a satisfactory replacement will (no question) cause far more problems than it solves.

    12. Re: More Global Warming Alarmism!!!!!!!! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, there is a way. But my lawyer said it's still illegal. And it's still likely that someone would keep me from doing it forcefully.

      I'll just wait 'til at least the latter doesn't apply anymore.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re: More Global Warming Alarmism!!!!!!!! by Bartles · · Score: 1

      A small thing? A lightning rod costs 50$ tops. Requires almost no maintenance, and is not subsidized or mandated. Can you say any of those thing about green technologies?

    14. Re:More Global Warming Alarmism!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow the paid right wing authoritarian spin drones have descended upon this thread like a pack of vultures on a dead rat. I think we can safely nuke this entire thread; there is absolutely no value to be found anymore.

    15. Re:More Global Warming Alarmism!!!!!!!! by dave420 · · Score: 2

      Amongh many other things, with carbon credits you get less CO2 pumped into the atmosphere, giving humanity more time to come up with a solution, and a method of partially funding it at the same time. It would help you to know what you're complaining about before doing so, in order to differentiate you from some ignorant talk radio listener railing against whatever his chosen broadcaster hates this week. I know it's tempting to post pithy one-liners in order to try to make a point, but when the one liners merely illustrate your lack of understanding, it's not particularly beneficial to the discussion, or to you, to do so.

    16. Re:More Global Warming Alarmism!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well no, actually. You get a license to pollute, which regardless of the politics around global warming is kind of important because it forces a move towards recognising truer costs.

      Because, you see, up until now industries that burn fossil fuels have been given a state sponsored advantage, they're one of only a few industries that are allowed to pollute and not pay any cleanup costs.

      You can't run a chemical plant and just pour excess chemicals into the water system, and you can't run a nuclear plant and just dump the nuclear waste in your local park.

      But for some reason, you can burn fossil fuels and just let those pollutants bellow out into the air, costing billions in healthcare costs that everyone has to pay effectively subsidising the industries that burn fossil fuels.

      Carbon credits are an attempt to resolve this long standing issue, to put a price back on that subsidy fossil fuel burners have long received in having everyone else pay for the side effects of their actions rather than to pay for them themselves.

      But you keep selling the idea that because you don't get the point of carbon credits that they're money for nothing if it makes you feel better about your ignorance of the topic - they're a tax on burning fossil fuels, an attempt to pass some of the subsidy back to the people who provided it with no choice in the first place.

      The public shouldn't have to arbitrarily subsidise some industries over others for no other reason than because "it's always been that way". They can start paying their own way and if it turns out their way isn't economically viable then tough shit. Why should fossil fuel burners be artificially protected against market forces over anyone else with average citizens footing the bill for that protectionism? Why should my taxes and healthcare costs be higher than necessary because I'm having to pay for the effects of their actions rather than them pay for it themselves?

      If you support the fossil fuel industry in this way, regardless of what you do or don't believe about global warming then you're effectively pro-corporate welfare, and anti-markets in one area where it makes sense to let the market decide. Effectively we're using what is basically a few hundred year old technology still and can't move forward because these subsidies make that technology artificially cheaper than it should be.

    17. Re: More Global Warming Alarmism!!!!!!!! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      He was talking relatively. Clearly people are not equating a single 50$ lightning rod with the shifting of the entire global industry to green technologies. Only an idiot would think that - oh, it's Bartles. My apologies ;)

    18. Re:More Global Warming Alarmism!!!!!!!! by Chas · · Score: 1

      Amongh many other things, with carbon credits you get less CO2 pumped into the atmosphere

      Really? HOW?

      What evidence do you have that the company selling you the "carbon credit" is actually DOING anything.

      Basically what you're doing is the same thing you're doing when you drop something in the offertory at Mass.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    19. Re:More Global Warming Alarmism!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a better reason to wonder about that bickering:
      One side has virtually the entirety of the scientific community with any training in a field even remotely related to the issue at hand.
      The other side has a mixture of people who're pulling in a fortune from the industries most heavily involved, and people who don't believe it, essentially, because they don't believe their god would allow it. Despite his track record.

    20. Re: More Global Warming Alarmism!!!!!!!! by Bartles · · Score: 1

      No, asshole, he was calling shifting of the entire global industry to green technologies a small thing. Like lightning rods. Clearly, it's not a small thing.

  4. Oh yay, more about the bullshit clock by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, when something says that we are so close to destruction for over half a century... well you have to wonder why anyone would put any stock in it. It is a bit hard to reconcile with being on the edge of destruction, and yet everything continuing to not be destroyed.

    1. Re:Oh yay, more about the bullshit clock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be afraid, it will be over soon. Also, a nuclear winter works against global warming, so it will even out. yay.

    2. Re:Oh yay, more about the bullshit clock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Apparently we're closer (23:57) to an apocalypse than in any time during 1960 - 1984. This includes the Cuban missile crisis.

    3. Re:Oh yay, more about the bullshit clock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. I consider the nuclear stockpiles a peacekeeper in itself. As long as sane people hold onto them....

    4. Re:Oh yay, more about the bullshit clock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. I just watched this episode of 'Scorpion' and those nukes seem to be pretty damn hackable!

    5. Re:Oh yay, more about the bullshit clock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, due to the climate change problem, they actually moved it backward by 500 million years and 62 minutes.

    6. Re:Oh yay, more about the bullshit clock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be afraid, it will be over soon.

      Could it be over this weekend, please? I really don't want to go to work on Monday.

    7. Re:Oh yay, more about the bullshit clock by Imrik · · Score: 2

      Nukes are generally almost completely unhackable as they use technology designed during the cold war, no networks, no commercial interfaces. They're probably far more vulnerable to social hacks than technological ones.

    8. Re:Oh yay, more about the bullshit clock by ultranova · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You know, when something says that we are so close to destruction for over half a century... well you have to wonder why anyone would put any stock in it. It is a bit hard to reconcile with being on the edge of destruction, and yet everything continuing to not be destroyed.

      Did you know the most dangerous drivers are not those who have just gotten their license, but those who have had a bit of experience? The reason is that new drivers are all too aware that they're one bad decision away from being gruesomely killed, while those who have driven for a while let their guard down because "nothing's happened so far, so nothing ever will".

      This is true for dangerous acitvities in general. Someone who's handling boiling acid for the first time will make damn sure to think what they're doing. Someone who's done it a hundred times is busy thinking what they'll be having for lunch. And then acid gets somewhere it shouldn't, and suddenly things get very exciting again.

      We haven't been destroyed because we've been very lucky. During Cuban missile crisis American ships actually dropped depth charges on a nuke-carrying Russian submarine. The captain and the political officer were all for launching it in retaliation, but the idea was vetoed by Vasili Arkhipov. And it's not the only time humanity's fate has hung on the decisions of a single person.

      And of course this is all ignoring the possibilities of, say, biological warfare advancing technology is bringing to within reach of even non-state actors. You may not have noticed, but some of these actors are nowhere near as rational nor benevolent as the Soviet Russia of old.

      Finally, the dawning of the Information Age is challenging whole new facets of human capacity for evil. Hypocrisy is quickly becoming impossible as privacy continues to erode. At the same time, anonymity serves to strip away pretensions of civility and expose the grinning skull beneath all too many faces. With Industrial Age, the choice was "cease warring or die"; with Information Age it's "stop being hypocrites or have your souls crushed". Given that it took two world wars to get humanity to the point where we had any chance to survive harnessing the power of the atom, I shudder to think what it'll take to prepare us for omnipresent computation.

      We're running a gauntlet, a purgatory forcing us to choose between our shadow or increasing amounts of pain. Every aspect of our existence is being confronted by its shortcomings like never before, for there are no more second chances. Humanity will either demonstrate it has mastered its dark side before it will master nature and reach the stars, or it will send itself to oblivion so more worthy beings might inherit them instead. It's not two minutes to midnight, it's Judgement Day.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    9. Re:Oh yay, more about the bullshit clock by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So Crimson Tide rather than Scorpion?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Oh yay, more about the bullshit clock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, when something says that we are so close to destruction for over half a century... well you have to wonder why anyone would put any stock in it. It is a bit hard to reconcile with being on the edge of destruction, and yet everything continuing to not be destroyed.

      Back when the clock was built, mankind had already demonstrated just how fragile we are by engaging in not one, but two World Wars, in which we used a nuclear device to finally end our last one.

      Given the evidence in 1947, I'd say they were justified at the time to think we were capable of sealing our own fate.

      Now, the wait-around-and-see tactic...I wonder how well that worked out for all those who lost their savings and investments when we attempted to destroy the global economy in 2008? Should we simply call bullshit on every story coming out about a looming recession, or another tech bubble? Cause you know the Great Recession was like half a century ago...

    11. Re:Oh yay, more about the bullshit clock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I think part of his point is that the clock isn't based on anything. It's completely arbitrary. One event moves it a minute, another two, then then other events aren't noticed at all. When things are good, does the clock ever move back?

      I'm with the original comment here. This clock may have started with good intentions, but today, it seems like nothing more than a propaganda tool for certain agendas, a feel good action similar to clicking the "Like" button on a Facebook page. That sure helped, you clicked a button! Much change, so help, many feelings, wow.

      It doesn't do anything, doesn't tell us anything we don't already know, doesn't solve any problems. I don't see it as useful for anything other than scare mongering.

    12. Re:Oh yay, more about the bullshit clock by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Well, I've been listening to the BBC's history of the first world war, particularly how it started in the first place. What was just some useless (and lucky!) Serbian terrorist turned into a European catastrophe remarkably quickly through a chain of events based on one country not liking another country and manoeuvring the situation to give them an excuse for local 'peach keeping' annexation.

      At the same time I was listening to how Russia was entering the Ukraine "to keep the peace", even though they were not sending any troops over there, and Europe and America were getting unhappy with them, giving them an excuse to impose financial sanctions. Trivial politicking just like our World Children like to play, except this is just the same as happened back in 1914.

      I think it'll all be fine, but Russia won't back down but might just enhance its action in a fit of pique, and you never know where it might end, despite no-one wanting war. Just like in 1914.

    13. Re:Oh yay, more about the bullshit clock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, when something says that we are so close to destruction for over half a century... well you have to wonder why anyone would put any stock in it. It is a bit hard to reconcile with being on the edge of destruction, and yet everything continuing to not be destroyed.

      Did you know the most dangerous drivers are not those who have just gotten their license, but those who have had a bit of experience? The reason is that new drivers are all too aware that they're one bad decision away from being gruesomely killed, while those who have driven for a while let their guard down because "nothing's happened so far, so nothing ever will".

      See also "The Killing Zone: How & Why Pilots Die". From the description of the first edition (2e being published in 2013):

      You can fly through the zone. Or you can die in it. Most pilots earn their private certificate with 40 to 70 flight hours. Then they leave their instructors behind and enter the killing zone. Grimly embracing the period from 50 to 350 flight hours--a vital time for new pilots to build practical and decision-making skills--this deadly zone lays in wait for those who err, killing more pilots than all other periods put together.

      Problems start to occur when you think you know what you're doing--but don't.

    14. Re:Oh yay, more about the bullshit clock by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      one country not liking another country and manoeuvring the situation to give them an excuse for local 'peach keeping' annexation.

      Peach keeping?? If that was all they wanted, we could have shipped them Georgia's (the State, not the country) entire supply rather than have to deal with a world war....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    15. Re:Oh yay, more about the bullshit clock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That terrorist happened to kill the heir to the most important empire in Europe at the time--something most would consider destabilizing. After WWI there were no more empires within Europe, though the Soviets recreated one fairly quickly.

    16. Re:Oh yay, more about the bullshit clock by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Did you know the most dangerous drivers are not those who have just gotten their license, but those who have had a bit of experience?

      Have you ever insured a car? It's a while back, but I'm pretty sure my premiums went down in the first few years, not up.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re:Oh yay, more about the bullshit clock by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      And, amazingly enough, we are safer because of it.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    18. Re:Oh yay, more about the bullshit clock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently we're closer (23:57) to an apocalypse than in any time during 1960 - 1984. This includes the Cuban missile crisis.

      The clock is not updated continuously. The Cuban missile crisis had begun and been resolved between updates and so never registered.

    19. Re:Oh yay, more about the bullshit clock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he's trying to say that drivers on week 1 of their driving may be a little safer than those on week 10-20, when they feel they "know what they're doing" but have never had someone slam on the brakes in front of them, or had to dodge a obstacle in the highway. It's the false belief of experience. He's not saying guy with 1 week experience is safer than the guy driving 5+ years.

    20. Re:Oh yay, more about the bullshit clock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called a black swan event: it has never happened, so it seems unthinkable that it would happen. That said, although it's unlikely to occur in any given year, the chance is not zero – and in the case of nuclear war, it only has to happen once. What risk of extinction would be acceptable to you? 1% per year? 0.1%? There has been a disturbing number of close calls during the last half century. We are only still alive, according to the last commander of the Strategic Air Command, Gen. Lee Butler, "by some combination of skill, luck and divine intervention, and I suspect the latter in greatest proportion."

      By the way, here's the actual article from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Not sure why it wasn't in the summary.

    21. Re:Oh yay, more about the bullshit clock by jdschulteis · · Score: 1

      When things are good, does the clock ever move back?

      Yes.

  5. Fear by Koby77 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Be afraid. Very afraid.

    1. Re:Fear by CurryCamel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      or alternatively - go do something already!
      Looking at all the smart(ass) comments on slashdot gives me hope that 'living in harmony and peace' is not beyond our intelligence capabilities as the human race (how hard can it be?!?). Somebody just needs to kick the cynics' collective butt.
      Fair try with the clock. 7/10.

    2. Re:Fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I run a refrigerator 24/7 with the door open. If everyone did the same, we would significantly cool the planet.

    3. Re:Fear by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I run the AC backwards to cool the outside in the winter. Does that help as much?

  6. Re:nobody fucking cares by Oligonicella · · Score: 0

    Says someone who isn't getting any.

  7. ^^Winner by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The risk of nuclear war was very real during the Cold war. Today, those countries are trading partners and run in a far more responsive manner, Russia is a democracy.

    The idea of the Doomsday clock being closer than the cold war is silly.

    Take the clock, put it in the trash. Disband the committee. Perhaps the symbol helped awareness during the Cold war but this is just a joke now.

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    1. Re:^^Winner by quenda · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Russia is a democracy.

      Ha, good one Trollston! You had me there for a minute.

    2. Re:^^Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What democracy is surveilling its own population and having leaders from the intelligence agencies?

    3. Re: ^^Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USA?

    4. Re:^^Winner by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hmm... well, when you ignore the definition of democracy and use the good ol' school metric of "grading by average"... They might even get away with a C-

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:^^Winner by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which one isn't? Even though I'd debate the intelligence of some agencies, but the first part?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:^^Winner by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 2

      The idea of the Doomsday clock being closer than the cold war is silly.

      Considering that the doomsday didn't eventuate during the cold war then it is not necessarily wrong to say that it was closer then than now. The main difference between the danger being face now and then was that back then you didn't have a huge segment of the population disbelieving the experts who said that the world was in danger. Nobody was so stupid enough to say that just because people died before the atom bomb was invented that it means that bomb couldn't be responsible for killing anyone now (to adopt one of the anti-AGW lines).

      We are actually closer to danger now because politically we are further from a solution than we were back then. At least both sides recognised that they had to consider the ramifications of their actions and that something had to be done. Fast forward to today, and the two sides now want different things; one wants to change things while the other wants to keep the status quo. That is far more dangerous than what we had in the past.

      The other crucial difference is that for the danger of doomsday to exist back then, someone would have to make the decision to "push the button". Someone would have to decide to be actively responsible for armageddon. The danger we face now is opposite. If we don't take action this time then the predicted doomsday will happen by itself. Nobody has to press any button to make bad things happen. We are closer to doomsday because the button was already pressed years ago when we started down the path of rapid expansion of our use of fossil fuels.

      The fact is that the doomsday clock actually worked during the cold war. It kept the issue in the minds of the people, so that the political will was there to solve the problem. The clock wasn't accurate nor inaccurate. It was a symbol.

      In the same way, the changing of the clock isn't striving for accuracy in as much as it is raising the notion that we are facing a crisis in the public perception. And it is needed now more than ever.

    7. Re: ^^Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bzzzt! Sorry, the answer is: Every democracy, everywhere in the world.

      I'm sorry, Americans. The rest of us all wish it was just you.

    8. Re:^^Winner by quenda · · Score: 1

      They might even get away with a C-

      For what? Voting in a dictator counts as a democracy, does it? The Russians dabbled in democracy, and then rejected it.
      In the context of an English-language forum, modern democracy means a multi-party parliamentary system with rule of law, as invented by the British. Without an effective opposition, the parliament becomes a rubber stamp for the executive, and politicians stop caring about votes. In some countries this can work better than a multi-party system, but it functions very differently from a democracy in the Western sense.

    9. Re:^^Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia is a democracy.

      Ha, good one Trollston! You had me there for a minute.

      Russian Federation is an utopian state. Rest of the world unfortunately is brainwashed to the point that even with free access to the proper media freely available on the internet people refuse to open their eyes.. If the rest of the world didn't spend an average of over 90% of GDP on military, with help of Russian troops (who are all volunteers) we could all have referendum with an over 100% turnout rate and vote for joining and living in the Bright Future which is in fact HERE and NOW. Your governments simply doesn't want you to know this fact. Putin as a man who finally made Bright Future possible is simply beyond questioning as his approval rating is also over 100% and for the sake of efficiency is the one voting on everything. As a country with a proper voting process, Russian Federation is, without a doubt is not simply a democracy but a direct democracy at that.

    10. Re:^^Winner by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, democracy in the Western sense, where you only have two parties and they are both stooges to the corporations and have no real power. Democracy does not exist.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    11. Re:^^Winner by quenda · · Score: 1

      Yeah, democracy in the Western sense, where you only have two parties

      No, thats just the US, and other countries with first-past the-post voting system.

      they are both stooges to the corporations and have no real power.

      Talking about the US again? Though that is only a relatively recent development.

    12. Re:^^Winner by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So tell us, when did the US have a system that effectively allows more than 2 parties to exist? Aside of the few transition periods where parties died out and new ones emerged, there has never been a 3+ party system.

      The last time a candidate in a presidental election won a state was 1968. The last time a non DemRep came in second was Roosevelt in 1916, though one may dispute whether that "counts" considering that he WAS prez before. But we might as well count it since there has not been a single other occasion since the civil war (which was the ONLY time when there was actually a "free for all" game). But that price is a tad bit high if you ask me just to break up the two party dictatorship.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:^^Winner by quenda · · Score: 1

      I don't know a lot about the US. But of course it has always been ruled by the elite - the founding fathers were from the 1%, and the "revolution" was just a change of management that did nothing to benefit the common man. But while fearful of mob rule, they felt a greater duty to the commoners than today's politicians seem to. (or at least the white commoners)

        The recent development I think is the power of the corporations, rather than just wealthy individuals. The corporations seem to have less collective conscience.

  8. Re:nobody fucking cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sex is overrated. The people who are fucking all the time have nothing better in their lives.

    Says the guy posting here and not having sex.

  9. Re:nobody fucking cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you want my come back, then scrape it off your mothers teeth.

  10. republicians in u.s. congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the real reason it moved forward 2 minutes... otherwise it would've only been 1 minute.

  11. Re: In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well Obama and the Dems need one last scare before they get booted out of office, so I guess this counts

  12. you can't boil this down to one variable by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    maybe when it was just the US vs USSR this might have been almost workable but at this point you really need a different clock for every nuclear power.

    And short of that, this stupid clock is meaningless.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:you can't boil this down to one variable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And speaking of nuclear had not the same bunch of partisan hacks not gotten the only unlimited form of carbon free power generation stopped in the 1970s because of their very unscientific emotions about it, they would not be talking about carbon at all. But no, statistically showing how nuclear power has killed less people in America than Ted Kennedy's car does not fase political zealots a bit.
       
        OH look, the non-scientists have come up with a clock showing how long you have to live. Lets send them money! Instead of a doomsday clock the AGW true believers should have a device showing all the beach houses owned by their private jet flying donors. When you see the true believers flee the coastline cause, you know, they said it would all be under sea water by now, then you know they actually believe the pap they spew. Until then just look at them and laugh. If they don't understand then offer them $1 for their supposedly pre-gone beach house. They won't move from their beach house because they don't believe what they say they do.

    2. Re:you can't boil this down to one variable by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I agree the anti nuclear lobby is composed almost entirely of idiots on a level with Jenny McCarthy's vaccine conspiracies.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:you can't boil this down to one variable by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I also suspect that the part of the antinuclear movement which is not composed of idiots is composed of oil companies.

    4. Re:you can't boil this down to one variable by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Why? There's a hundred ways I could die in the next year, but there's no problem aggregating it so I don't see why the clock can't represent total risk. Besides, it's probably going to cascade anyway. If Russia pulls the trigger in Eastern Europe then NATO will get involved, China probably don't want NATO forces on their borders and at least somewhat back Russia and might decide the time is right to take back Taiwan and those Japanese islands and it all goes down hill from there. IS has openly stated their goal is to wage war on everyone until it's one caliphate. If shit hits the fan in the Middle East you know the US will back Israel which will drag NATO into it and the oil would bring everyone else. Same with North Korea, it could easily become a proxy war between China and the US that turns into a true war. I'm not exactly sure how an India-Pakistan war would escalate but an all-out war there already has 1.5 billion people involved. And that's just where it sparks, if you could guess that the rise of Hitler would lead to the attack on Pearl Harbor your crystal ball is good.

      Remember, the world is a lot more connected than it used to be, with floods in Thailand the price of hard drives worldwide doubled. No matter where war breaks out it's going to have a lot of impact on US companies and US markets and there will be a lot more incentive to protect US economic interests around the globe than there used to be in the 1940s. Even when it's not cold war power plays it's going to be a lot harder to dismiss as not our problem.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:you can't boil this down to one variable by khallow · · Score: 1

      And that's just where it sparks, if you could guess that the rise of Hitler would lead to the attack on Pearl Harbor your crystal ball is good.

      The two weren't correlated so your crystal ball would be broken.

    6. Re:you can't boil this down to one variable by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      And if you're going to look at the vacuous idiots, at least McCarthy is easy on the eyes!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    7. Re:you can't boil this down to one variable by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      More likely coal companies. Coal is the real competitor to nuclear.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    8. Re:you can't boil this down to one variable by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      You can't distill complex information down to a single variable. If you could, then you could see everything important in front of you with ONE pixel.

      You can't do that. Accept that it is complicated and deal with the complexity. Do not pretend you have magical powers that allow you to boil down very very complex datasets into a single variable.

      That is a big issue with the whole AGW debate. One temperature for the whole planet is unreasonable. You need to break the data out and show the regional surface data, show the sat data, show the ocean data... etc. And then looking at everything you can make an assessment. But boiling it all down to one variable is nonsense.

      Same thing happened in the economic crash of 2008. The stupid finance companies boiled financial risk down to ONE number.

      How did that work out?

      You cannot do it. Smarter men then either of us have thought they could have they've failed every time. Don't.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  13. Shouldn't it be past 12? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We were told in something like 2005 that unless there was action X within 4 years then we would be heading to disaster. X didn't happen.

    Repeat 5-6 times in incremental years for small variations of X.

    Isn't it past 12 then?

    1. Re:Shouldn't it be past 12? by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 2

      We were told in something like 2005 that unless there was action X within 4 years then we would be heading to disaster.

      No, we were not told that. Your assertion is simply a lie. Global warming happens over a much longer time period than this. There is not one single climatologist who would make such an absurd statement as to predict disaster within 4 years.

    2. Re:Shouldn't it be past 12? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's talking about climatologists? Climatologists also agree that global warming isn't a catastrophe in the classic sense (like Day After Tomorrow). This is politicians and news media we're talking about.

    3. Re:Shouldn't it be past 12? by Bartles · · Score: 0
  14. Scientists raise DPISs (doomsdays per year index) by CptJeanLuc · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Newsflash: after analyzing recent world events, new astrological analysis of improved data on planetary bodies, measurement of comet gases from the Rosetta mission and observations of the direction of travel of a newly beheaded chicken as compared to the earth's magnetic field, scientists raise the Doomsdays Per year Index Scientifics (DPISs as defined by 1000 times the expected number of doomsdays per year) from 25 to 41. In related news, sales of canned food and generators are up 25%.

  15. Re:nobody fucking cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What have you found that's better thanks sex? Heroine?

  16. why in earth by ruir · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    a bullshit clock makes it to news and slashdot?

    1. Re:why in earth by DiamondGeezer · · Score: 1

      Reasons.

      --
      Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
    2. Re:why in earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reasons.

      Yeah, that reason being politics.

      It's one of those common languages in society. Problem is we should switch to another common language like math.

      Let's just not let it get all weird though. I don't want to be excused from Grandma's Sunday dinner table due to my stance on Algebra.

  17. hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Psychologically speaking, what they're doing is worse...

    Then again, arent these people who contributed to those problems in the first place?

  18. Re:nobody fucking cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vibrator.

  19. I got a better clock by Nyder · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's always set to 4:20.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  20. Re:Wow you sure showed me! by Imrik · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Genes aren't the only things that are hereditary. Many behaviors are learned from the environment rather than being innate to a person's biology.

  21. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This metaphorical clock thing is boring. It's not going to change anything. It just shouting at the wind.

    It was a neat idea when it was first introduced but I think the metaphorical clock idea is destined for the dust bin.

  22. Balderdash by jabberw0k · · Score: 5, Funny

    That man in the White House has won the Nobel Peace Prize.

    1. Re:Balderdash by Isaac-1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Make that was given, regardless of if you are an Obama supporter or not, you must admit many of the resasons he was given the prize so early in his presidency were not based on actions, but based on campaign promises that never came to passs.

    2. Re:Balderdash by DiamondGeezer · · Score: 0

      I always thought that it was because of his skin color.

      But I always regarded the Nobel Peace Prize as an expensive joke anyway.

      --
      Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
    3. Re:Balderdash by Livius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obama got it for not being Bush, which at the time was a major step forward for world peace.

    4. Re:Balderdash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps after the war the remaining decedents of the Vikings hop into their boats, sail to Washington and rape and pillage the survivors for the Piece Price medal. "We are very disappointed and want it back, or else!"

    5. Re:Balderdash by aliquis · · Score: 1

      "He may not have been perfect but he was the best candidate we had!"

      Anyway, considering the current events one would believe Abdullah Al-Saud could had been up for discussion and if him why not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi?

      It's a weird world.

      May I suggest the prices simply stay in Norway? =P

      Or be given post-mortem to everyone who have been sacrificed for their will to think and wish to live free and who dared tell or show it.

      Can any solution for bringing the region forward more than just a peace-deal happen without also accepting that part of their Islamic ideology should be ditched?

    6. Re:Balderdash by SirKron · · Score: 1

      ... and was at war through his entire administration.

    7. Re:Balderdash by phayes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Has world peace made a major step forward in the years Obama has been President? No. In fact by abandoning Iraq before they were ready Obama fostered the Islamic State which we will be spending the next few presidencies working on.

      Obama was indeed handed the NPP for not being Bush but that says more about the NPP's political leanings and how irrelevant the NPP is than anything else.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    8. Re:Balderdash by skam240 · · Score: 1

      It's more like us invading Iraq fostered the Islamic State. Sadam's army would have crushed the IS had they tried invading Iraq with him in power rather than running away as today's Iraqi army did. Not only that but we lost a great counter weight to Iran by taking Sadam out and set off wide spread inter-ethnic / inter-faith violence in the region which has only helped the IS advance.

      All Obama did was end our misguided and arrogant attempt at nation building

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    9. Re:Balderdash by phayes · · Score: 1

      Oh sure, Obama is the prince of peace. He won the NPP, closed Guantanamo & left Iraq in a state capable of dealing with IS.

      By cutting and running Obama abandoned the partnership with the Sunni tribes that were the main reason violence in Iraq went down to the level it did as Obama took office. In doing so, Obama created the power vacuum that birthed ISIS. But of course some will blame Bush for everything bad in the world.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    10. Re:Balderdash by purplie · · Score: 1

      No, it was given (symbolically) to Americans for not voting in another Bush.

    11. Re:Balderdash by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The partnerships are still there. Bush created the power vacuum, not Obama. It's rather apt to blame Bush for the invasion of Iraq, as he chose to invade it. You thinking it has nothing to do with it is incredibly telling.

    12. Re:Balderdash by phayes · · Score: 1

      It's only apt to blame Bush if you chose to ignore Obama's mistakes. But of course Obama won the NPP so for people like you, he can do no wrong. Bush's actions had repercussions, but the rise to power of IS is almost purely Obama's responsibility.

      Obama, by cutting and running - getting out as fast as he could, surrendered sovereignty to the Al-Maliki Shiite government who promptly declared the heads of the allied Sunni tribes terrorists and refused to integrate the sunni tribal members (as promised) into the national army nor continue to pay them to combat AQ. The allied tribesmen and the troop surge (criticized by Obama as sending more troops into a lost cause) that broke AQ in Iraq. It was Obama's abandonment of the Sunnis that what created the power vacuum that created IS. Had Obama not abandoned the Sunni tribesmen and forced Al-Maliki to respect the promises given to the Sunnis there would be no IS.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  23. Wait a second... by Cheviot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When did they add climate change to the Doomsday Clock and what makes the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists experts on how much closer global warming puts us to global catastrophe?

    1. Re:Wait a second... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      what makes the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists experts on how much closer global warming puts us to global catastrophe?

      They have a consensus.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Wait a second... by Cheviot · · Score: 1

      Understand, I don't disagree that global warming is a serious global threat. I just wonder why atomic scientists are judging it's relative danger.

    3. Re:Wait a second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what makes the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists experts on how much closer global warming puts us to global catastrophe?

      They have a consensus.

      Yes, 97%.

    4. Re:Wait a second... by grumling · · Score: 1

      Sadly, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is against using fission for producing electricity, which, along with large-scale hydro, is the only way to actually reduce greenhouse gas without impacting quality of life.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    5. Re:Wait a second... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      They're allowed to have an opinion, too, and they are scientists, after all, which means we might actually want at least to consider what they have to say. We're free to disagree with them, but we really should have some good reasons for that.

      Those who aspire to become nuclear physics do not study a "nuclear scientific method"; they learn how to apply the scientific method to the field of nuclear physics. Folks who want to become climate scientists do not study a "climate-scientific method"; they learn how to apply the scientific method to the field of climate science.

      Do you see where I'm going with this? Would I pay attention to a similar group of medical doctors, or chemists? Sure, why not?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    6. Re:Wait a second... by Cheviot · · Score: 2

      Don't get me wrong, I value their opinion. But if suddenly I found out that odds of an earthquake were added to the National Weather Service's hurricane warning system I'd be asking the same question.

      The clock has always been about the odds of nuclear annihilation. Saying it's now also about global warming makes no sense.

  24. boohoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 80s called, and wants it's clock back.

  25. What a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leftists upset with the outcome of the last US election invent some FUD to blame on Republicans.

    *yawn*

    1. Re:What a surprise by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wait, there's a left now in US politics? When did that happen?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:What a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because overt Communism isn't on the ballot doesn't mean there is not a left. But I wouldn't expect a communist to tell the truth.

    3. Re:What a surprise by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, then maybe you can point me to the US left?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  26. Re:Wow you sure showed me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're not campaigning for gas chambers, what would you want to see come of the discovery of an inferior race?

  27. dumb data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation. It's not man made, the sun spots control the heating of the planet. Carbon trading is a potential $trillion dollar business. It appears one key player is Sir Maurice Strong, going back 20 years. Al Gore, wants your money.

    As far as the USSR goes we should maybe consider buying their oil....??

  28. Re: Be a scientist and look at the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The human race.

  29. Re:Be a scientist and look at the data by vo76topside · · Score: 1

    It has more to do with poverty than race.

  30. Re:Be a scientist and look at the data by FoxMcElroy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Which sex is responsible for the vast majority of crime? Which sex has the most deadbeat fathers? I'm reasonably confident you're male because women don't post like this, statistically. Were you born a deviant creature? Black people scored much worse in the 1970s than white people and the gap has been closing. Are their genes adapting at an incredible rate? Since there are many black people far smarter than you or me, it's clear environment is far more important than genes. So, how do you think a racist environment affects children? You don't want to make anything better, but you could.

  31. Re:nobody fucking cares by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    What have you found that's better thanks sex? Heroine?

    No, you can have sex with a heroine. The word you want is heroin. HTH, HAND.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  32. Re:Be a scientist and look at the data by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Which sex is responsible for the vast majority of crime?

    That's a good question. Women are likely convicted less when guilty (read also following section) so it's impossible to say.

    Which sex has the most deadbeat fathers?

    And now we see how surveys are conducted.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  33. Re:Be a scientist and look at the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which sex is responsible for the vast majority of inventions, literature, art, science, and technology?

    The candle that burns twice as bright...

  34. Panties in a bunch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leftists get their panties in a bunch and start shrieking. Slashdot follows suit....

    Is there anything new?

  35. Re:Wow you sure showed me! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0

    That sounds like a loaded question. If we find through scientific research that either dogs or cats are smarter than the other, will we exterminate the other ones for just this reason? Why should research in genetics necessarily imply unethical actions to follow?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  36. Re:Be a scientist and look at the data by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

    Which race is massively over represented in prison? It isn't Asians.

    Americans. At least the last time I checked.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  37. Re:Be a scientist and look at the data by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2

    And now we see how surveys are conducted

    "Not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those" - Sir Humphrey Appleby

  38. Re:sponsored links? by Immerman · · Score: 0

    What the fuck is up with these people who want other people to foot the bill to provide them with completely free services? Selfish, shortsighted assholes.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  39. If No One Cares by SumterLiving · · Score: 1

    When you say "no one cares and this whole Doomsday Clock idea is stupid"....why are you even commenting. There has to be better things for you to do. Oh that's right, you're all hurt by others talking about things you don't find interesting or don't understand. Just like that 4 year old in the store yesterday.

  40. Re:Be a scientist and look at the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...burns half as long.

    Which sex is responsible for the vast majority of wars, hate-speech, fear-mongering, religion, and taxes?

  41. Re:Be a scientist and look at the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Which race is massively over represented in prison? It isn't Asians.

    Depending on which country you're in, Caucasians.

    Which race comes dead last on IQ tests, time after time? It ain't the Jews.

    Depending on which country you're in, Caucasians.

    Which race has the most deadbeat fathers? It isn't the Irish.

    Depending on which country you're in, Caucasians (including Irish).

    Worldwide this race is an albatross around civilization's neck.

    Troglodytes. Ie: You and all the people who would place the blame on a person's race rather than their situation.

  42. It's not Russia we should be worried about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia will do what it has always done: gripe, threat, thump its chest, and little more. Even the ex-KGB thug currently in the Kremlin, however stupid, is not crazy. No, the problem is religious fundamentalism. Those fanatics are convinced that they are in possession of the absolute, only truth, and that if you don't agree with them, your mind must be changed to agree with them, or you must simply be disposed of. History has been witness of such things, showing how things get worse and worse as killing technology improves. Just wait till bigots from ISIS lay their hands on thermonuclear or biological weaponry; with their view it's-our-way-or-no-way the world might not last long. They can't of course currently do anything much in this respect, but let's not forget that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and Iran is making every effort to acquire them. And while ISIS may not be their faction of choice, their goals are the same.

  43. Global warming = doomsday? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    you have to wonder why anyone would put any stock in it.

    Especially given that they now track global warming. Nuclear war is a doomsday scenario but global warming is most certainly not. It may cause economic hardship and the displacement of populations as sea levels rise plus the need to alter crops etc. but it is not going to wipe humanity off the face of the earth. Since the clock is supposedly set by scientists if they can be so wrong about something scientific then I have little faith they can predict the likelihood of nuclear war either given that this depends on politics.

    1. Re:Global warming = doomsday? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      It certainly won't knock 'humanity off the face of the earth' but it could well cause significant population and natural resource competition.

      Guess what two of the most common reasons for human warfare are?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  44. Re:Be a scientist and look at the data by tmosley · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'd say it has more to do with the way the human brain processes skin color than poverty (blacks account for most of the prison population even accounting for socioeconomic status) or "race" (there really isn't such a thing--more genetic diversity in the human population of Africa than the rest of the world combined). Dark skinned (not just black Africans) people as a whole will, over the long term, always wind up making up the bulk of the population of the lowest tier of society, no matter which society they are in. Studies on young children show that the brain associates darker skin with masculinity, aggressiveness, and misbehavior, while white skin is associated with good behavior, trustworthiness, and femininity.

    Following this line of thought leads to a societal setup that, when compared to history, has created the only successful black societies--segregation. Places like Harlem and Greentown were successful prior to integration (or their total destruction in the face of the prospect of integration), as were civilizations like Nubia, Mali, and Great Zimbabwe, which successfully traded with civilizations populated by lighter skinned peoples.

    Many of the problems associated with dark skinned people around the world can thus likely be attributed to societal feedback loops (self-fulfilling prophesies) and brain drain, where the best and brightest "get out of the ghetto" rather than taking charge of the ghetto and making it a better place. Of course, many black societies also have their own cultural problems (corruption in Africa, anti-intellectualism in America, for example), but those don't explain the more widespread effect, and the fact that SKIN COLOR in and of itself is the most powerful predictor of IQ, no matter whether you are looking at America, India, Africa, Australia, or anywhere else.

    If you think this post is racist, then you think reality is racist and there is nothing I can do for you.

  45. Re:Be a scientist and look at the data by tmosley · · Score: 1

    The same one that will do anything (but generally prefers to do constructive things as that is lower risk) for a small (large over time) chance at performing the reproductive act.

  46. Re:nobody fucking cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can have sex with heroin as well.

  47. Re:Be a scientist and look at the data by Iconoclysm · · Score: 1

    So basically, one sex was participating in the world more than another. Makes sense.

  48. More BS due to Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only this assclown would have an affect on the doomsday clock with environmental issues. Next will be tranny gets insulted in womens' bathroom, tick tock.

  49. DST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the Doomsday Clock effected by Daylight Savings Time?

  50. Re:Be a scientist and look at the data by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    Which sex has the most deadbeat fathers?

    Is this a trick question? Something from Common Core?

    Was I left behind as a child?

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  51. Re:Be a scientist and look at the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The one that wants it twice as much takes half as long to finish.

  52. Re:sponsored links? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All advertising is spam, without exceptions. Die in a fire.

  53. Endings by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Well, that's what I want to talk to you all about; endings. Now, endings normally happen at the end. But as we all know, endings are just beginnings.
        You know, once these things really get started, it's jolly hard to stop them again. However, as we have all come this far, I think, under the circumstances the best solution is that we all just keep going. Let's keep this going in sight, never an ending. Let's remember that this world wants fresh beginnings.
        I feel here, in this country, and throughout the world, we are crying out for beginnings, beginnings. We never want to hear this word "endings".
        I know we all want to sit down. I know you want to take it easy. Of course we're looking for the good. Of course we're looking for the fresh start.

    1. Re:Endings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mike Oldfield: Amarok (1990).

  54. Re:nobody fucking cares by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    What have you found that's better thanks sex? Heroine?

    Heroine's are OK under the proper circumstances but they tend to be all bossy and in charge of things, after all, they are the heroes.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  55. Re: sponsored links? by Kichigai+Mentat · · Score: 1

    You're welcome to start paying to visit each and every website you want to see any time now.

    --
    Rawr
  56. seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no mention of China's recent aggression, the saber rattling despots in north korea, the iranian nuke seeking acivities to NOW bump it up ??

    Imagine a EMP/EMI event going off over a 500 mile square major urban area - todays lame-asses without ther latte and internet (oh and also power/heating/cars/phone and soon after that no water/food for weeks)

    It'll be seeming doomsday for that herd of turkeys and no need for a major exchange between the rukies and us,.

  57. Re: sponsored links? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would if a good micropayments platform would emerge. They get less than a cent from advertisers for my eyeballs. I would pay that.

  58. Re:sponsored links? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck is up with these people who want other people to foot the bill to provide them with completely free services?

    If slashdot doesn't want me to disable ads, then why the fuck do they provide a "check here to disable ads" for some non-paying users? Is it really so unreasonable to expect them to honor such a setting if they provided it?

  59. Galaxy Quest by PPH · · Score: 1

    Wasn't that a scene in this movie where the self destruct timer continued to count down to :01? In spite of the correct code being entered. Because all self destruct timers seen in movies are disabled with only moments to spare for dramatic effect.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  60. Re:sponsored links? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some users of this site have the option of turning off ads. Those of us with really high karma and I would guess a long posting history have this option.

    I can disable ads, but I'm posting as AC so the trolls don't try to screw that up.

  61. Re:sponsored links? by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Sure, I always run with that option enabled, and get a lot fewer ads. But pissing and moaning that a high-karma perk isn't 100% effective is pretty poor form. Slashdot is a business venture after all, not a public service. It needs to make a profit somehow.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  62. Climate change is mostly natural, get over it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given the ever increasing data supporting natural climate which completely undermines even the most steadfast shills and ignorant lemmings, you would think people would eventually embrace factual data, logic and reason but, sadly and disturbingly, such is not the case. Climate change fan boys' intellects are dominated by nothing to do with science. It seems that scientific data is now a commodity; something to be manipulated, traded and used for political gain, amassing of power and accumulation of wealth. And for jumping of cliffs.

  63. The trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even when all nukes go off, you'll never destroy 100% of life on this earth. Doomsday is only in millions of years when the sun expands. Do some quick math of 99% of 7 billion.

  64. Midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all night.

  65. "caused by either climate changer" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There goes slashdot again, (and the bought and paid for "Bulletin of atomic 'scientists'"

    The Climate change "movement" was started by the Rothschilds and their banker friends:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdqNds9pNuI

    This is why climate change is even an issue. The bankers own the scientists and the scientists will push bankers agendas all day long until society gives more of their liberties for security.

    Enjoy your person "carbon footprint" tax in the future you easily mind controlled coward motherfuckers

  66. Re:sponsored links? by Bartles · · Score: 0

    I'd never click on one, or look at it directly anyway. So they're ineffective on me, they just make my pages load slower. I pay for my internet connection, I'm not going to pay to view ads. So, screw off.

  67. Re: Wow you sure showed me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lay off the darkies... we gotta take care of the muzzies first.

  68. Re: sponsored links? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    I've actually written a comment about this and it's doable today, with crypto-currencies.

  69. Semantic Drift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember the last time the doomsday clock was 3 minutes to midnight. That was worse. Our fearless leaders were drinking the kool-aid and there was a decent chance to destroy the world right now today by accident. A chance of one city being nuked is not that. Hundreds of millions displaced by climate change is not that. Hard times are not the end of the world. Problems sure but not the end of the world. Perhaps it is time to retire the doomsday clock. Not that it isn't still ticking but my version would still say 5 minutes.

  70. Three minutes... by Snufu · · Score: 1

    to miiiiiiid-niiiiiight!

  71. Surprised nobody posted Iron Maiden! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://youtu.be/7sXPmz9b4lM

  72. Relevance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're all scared like 1960s housewives.

  73. Re:nobody fucking cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What have you found that's better thanks sex? Heroine?

    Heroine's are OK under the proper circumstances but they tend to be all bossy and in charge of things, after all, they are the heroes. [Emphasis added.]

    You say that like it's a bad thing...

  74. So which will happen first? by vandamme · · Score: 1

    Year of the Linux desktop?
    Doomsday?
    Nuclear fusion?

  75. Re:sponsored links? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot is a business venture after all, not a public service. It needs to make a profit somehow.

    I miss the days when .org meant something.

  76. This is still a thing? by KapUSMC · · Score: 1

    The Doomsday Clock is currently closer to midnight than it was during the Bay of Pigs. Really? REALLY?

  77. Tell Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell Me........
    Over and Over Again..............

  78. Re:sponsored links? by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Even .orgs need to pay the bills, and they can get quite high on high-traffic sites. So, either it's a vanity/public service project that somebody is paying for out of their own pocket, advertising material for an organization that generates income elsewhere, a charity (how often have you made a donation to keep the lights on here?), or it needs to generate income.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  79. Re:Be a scientist and look at the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The one that wants it twice as much takes half as long to finish.

    Men would have babies in 4 1/2 months! That way they can be deadbeat faster!

  80. I thought this was too dumb to be real... by TEKutz · · Score: 1

    "My father was a watch maker. He abandoned it when Einstein discovered time is relative. I would only agree that a symbolic clock is as nourishing to the intellect as photograph of oxygen to a drowning man." -Jon Osterman fuggin nailed it; more precisely, Alan Moore did.