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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:quickly to be followed by self-driving cars (Score 1) 571 571

I hear some studies say the stock market is a better investment than real estate, while others say the opposite.

The difference of opinion comes about because it depends who you are. For those who work in the investment industry, or have other insider knowledge, the stock market is extremely profitable. But much of those profits are made from the retail investor, who more often than not loses money in the long run.

Overall the stock market goes up, but that doesn't mean the average person has much chance of making any significant money that way.

Property is a much better investment for ordinary people.

Comment Re:Doubtful (Score 3, Informative) 571 571

On what basis do you make the claim that they are "nicer to drive?

On the basis that everyone that test drives one says the same thing.

I'll put a BMW M3 -- or if you prefer a soft ride a Rolls Royce -- up against a Nissan Leaf any day.

The fact that you have to compare cars from such different classes makes my point. A Tesla is nicer to drive tham an M3. A Nissan Leaf is nicer to drive than a Nissan Versa.

And you have it completely the wrong way around on snow handling. EVs are out in the snow when ICE cars are stuck. It's the low end torque and the extra weight. Don't bother arguing the point, you'll find out if you google.

Biofuels are irrelevant (except for pork barrelling). Virtually all ICE cars run fossil fuels. But when I said in all ways, I clearly didn't just mean the global warming effect. I meant more generally that ICE cars are oily, sooty things.

Comment Re:Truck Stops, Gas Stations, etc (Score 1) 571 571

Current charge times make "recharge when the driver stops for breaks" impossible.

Of course they don't. You don't have to charge an EV from empty to full every time any more than you have to wait for an ICE vehicle to go empty then fill the tank to the top. With an EV the thing is to top it up at every opportunity. The batteries won't be empty, and you don't have to wait till they are full.

And frankly, current ranges on EV's make them pretty much useless for trucks.

EV trucks can carry a lot more batteries than an ICE. The range is whatever you want to make it.

Long distance trucking is probably something that'll come along later, but trucks for local business deliveries is an area that EVs particularly shine in. So much so that some local delivery vehicles have been electric powered for decades, even when the only battery technology available was lead acid.

Comment Re:Truck Stops, Gas Stations, etc (Score 1) 571 571

In the UK the vast majority of the traditional stations have already gone. They've been replaced by stations in the car parks of supermarkets. That's been due to price competition.

But as it happens that's a very good place for EV chargers. You can get a fair top up whilst doing your shopping. Or vice versa. And the charge may well be free so long as you spend enough in store.

Comment Re:Does indeed happen. (Score 1) 634 634

Lord you are an idiot... people are idiots, juries are idiots, and idiots work at such companies.... You however, are a complete idiot

Quite amusing to see you blame everybody but yourself for your logic failure. You're a bigot, you don't think things through, we know that already.

Comment Re:Does indeed happen. (Score 1) 634 634

It's neither anecdote nor data, it's a fact.

If you say "500 companies last year were fined for discrimination", that number could be a lot or a little.

You said it was impossible to enforce. The facts are that is is not impossible, because people do succeed in claiming compensation for such discrimination.

That doesn't make it common, which is what you implied.

This isn't about what you think I implied, it's about the wrong thing that you actually said.

It is impossible to police against anyone who remotely knows what they are doing. There are always stupid people who actually admit what they are doing, but if you use the right words, it isn't that hard.

Wrong again. There's a couple of obvious ways of finding evidence of this. One is that you make the same application under different names, only varying the one characteristic that you think is being discriminated against. That's strong evidence if the applications are treated differently.

The second, where the is a larger company that has a significant number of people in similar roles, is simply to loon at the demographics of who is employed, and compare with applications.

There may well be other ways, depending on the case.

Again, this established law (depending on jurisdiction) and has been successfully actioned on. The weak no-true scotsman argument makes no odds.

If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.

Working...