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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Troll (Score 1) 549 549

You're saying that if I've been paying taxes all my life, and I have cancer and I could be cured for $50,000, but I don't have $50,000, the government should leave me to die, like that guy in the NEJM article http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/1...

Sounds good to me. Fuck off. I'm tired of the pretentious, entitled parasites who can be bought for an empty promise.

Comment Re:Troll (Score 1) 549 549

In reality, it's not capitalism that drives trade. Consumers drive trade, and consumers don't care whether their consumption is funded by capitalism or socialism.

The humans of a hundred thousand years ago would probably like a lot of the stuff we have now (say like comfy homes that can keep out large predators and a plentiful food supply that means they don't have to work to live). But despite their demand, they didn't get what they wanted.

Consumers don't make the stuff or services we use. They don't deliver them either. There is a vast, almost completely private infrastructure that does that. Consumption doesn't inherently create or do anything.

Comment Re:Oh Great! More Central Planning! Just what we n (Score 1) 274 274

Do you seriously believe that switching to LED bulbs and driving a car that gets only 29mpg (which is terrible gas mileage in reality, only relative to your other gas guzzler does it seem reasonable) will achieve anything? Even if every single person in the world did this, it would make no effective difference.

It would do more than completely eliminating coal burning plants. Transportation generates a similar amount of CO2 to coal burning power plants. And in addition, massive reduction in electricity demand would reduce the number of coal power plants.

Some things simply cannot be solved by laissez faire capitalism. In fact it creates many problems, which is obvious to anyone willing to open their eyes for two seconds. That does not mean that the solution is the opposite, a totally planned central economy, but a sensible mix of the two. The knee-jerk reactionary repugnance to anything with even the mildest whiff of small-s 'socialism' is seriously damaging. It damages the health and happiness of every person, and now it is seriously damaging the planet. Nothing is black or white, perhaps a little subtlety should be given its chance. People have been sold the right-wing view for so long now they've forgotten what the middle ground even is. Centre-right policies are seen as far left, which is ridiculous.

It's not a mild whiff of "socialism". It's a massive restructuring of our society and economy on shaky grounds. What happens when the next imaginary ecothreat comes through? If we continue to use the same decision-making process as we're doing here, then it's going to be a long stream of poor decisions and a descent either into regional dissolution or even a new dark age, if the whole world should buy in for the duration.

Comment Re:Oh boy, here we go... (Score 1) 274 274

If that doesn't make a difference, then those other countries will be committing ecological suicide.

Economic suicide doesn't work that way especially if the US's reduction turns out to be useless no matter the reason. It's the countries that make the pointless sacrifice that will be suiciding not the ones that don't.

Comment Re:Troll (Score 1) 549 549

The obvious rebuttal is that leaders of state are very much group creatures. For example, Hitler didn't kill six million Jews all by himself.

Whatever merits the current market (or any free market, if possible), favoring individuals unequally with more than 7 billion people around is bound to problems

Problems that don't really exist, let us note. I have no problem with exceptional individuals being favored over 7 billion or so people who aren't exceptional.

Comment Re:Not surprising (Score 1) 278 278

The problem is not want to buy but can afford to buy. Tesla is at the high end of what I would consider the car pricing range if you leave out the super premium and exotics. As a result, many people who might preferentially buy one simply can't afford one.

Sure, but that's only an issue if the regulations specify Tesla levels of performance and efficiency. I'm suggesting the regs could be written with the most efficient ICE automobiles on the market *today* as the benchmark for what is feasible. These are by not necessarily fantastically expensive, nor are they hair-shirt city cars. The Mazda 3 is a four door sedan that seats five and has an engine that delivers 184 hp at 26 mpg city/35 highway; MSRP is 18.8K$. If you need a people mover you can get a seven passenger Mitsubishi minivan rated 25 city/31 highway for 23.2k$.

It's clear that the current state of the art in ICE makes affordable, practical cars that exceed the current average mileage technologically feasible. They're being sold now. If on the other hand you want high performance, e.g., to go 0-60 mph in under 4 seconds, then you're talking big bucks and exotic technology.

What manufacturers won't be able to do is slap a tarted-up body on a primitive $26,000 truck chassis, call it an SUV, and charge $50,000 for it. I'm talking about the Silverado based Suburban. I think there's a place in the world for such vehicles, but it's insane to charge an additional 24k to slap two rows of seating in place of a pickup bed; there's plenty of headroom to charge a gas guzzler tax on that one.

Comment Re:"Totalitarian" is a political fighting word (Score 1) 69 69

The "totalitarian theory" that makes such an equation does not seek knowledge about both concepts, it intends a relativization of facist and, significantly, National Socialist crimes.

Which is reasonable, because ideology is irrelevant to whether a state is totalitarian or not. But sure, being murdered by a Communist is clearly morally better than being murdered by a Nazi.

The gent who wakes up and finds himself a success hasn't been asleep.

Working...