Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: The reason is more simple (Score 1) 656 656

Government, frankly, sucks at trying to pick winners... rather it does a better job of picking the losers...

Does it? Everyone says stuff like that, and as long as I've been alive people have been picking on the government's ability to do it's job. But if you look at results objectively, things in most western countries are improving over time, and that is because our systems of government actually work. Drama is part of the democratic process, don't mistake that for lack of progress.

Comment: Re:Keep him happy (Score 1) 170 170

Find somebody who has money, and keep him happy. That's what the best hookers do, and it has fed me and my family for 25 years.

WTF?

I found a (Chinese) family with money and I build whatever software / servers / sites they ask me for. I even live where they asked me to live.

Oh, that sounds a little better :)

Comment: Re: The reason is more simple (Score 1) 656 656

It works in the short run no matter what everyone does, because food is already in the system.

It doesn't work in the long run because what you end up with is a nation that digs ditches and fills them in, doing nothing useful.

Correct, which is why subsidies for things like solar panels are only ever short term, and stimulus packages are usually a one-off type deal
Not sure about your local area, but our industry got a big boost for about 5 years, enough to get it kick-started, then they were wound back. The industry is now almost self sustainable (not quite but getting closer every day), but I'm guessing the same goes for EV tech. Even if it takes 20 years of welfare, it's nothing compared to the 100 year+ return we should get from such an investment.
In summary, in *some* cases, giving people public money *can* have a net gain on the overall economy.

Comment: Re:"Harbinger of Failure" = Hipsters? (Score 1) 285 285

Ah yes, the much vaunted "Hipster-Hate" of the Slashdot neckbeard crowd. Quick, get on board the Hipster-hate train before it leaves the station!

I was a hipster in 2007, got over it by 2010, and am already on the next cool thing which I can't tell you about (for obvious reasons). If you're living in 2015 and either a hipster or hipster-hater then you are most likely closer to the Walmart end of the spectrum.

Comment: Re:lettice under LED grow lights? (Score 1) 204 204

"And if you have ANY interest in doing this efficiently, then you'll use the sun and not LEDs."

Sun = ~93 lumens per watt.

LED = ~220+ lumens per watt.

Try again when you're actually educated in the subject, okay?

And what is the kwh cost for the Sun's energy compared with LEDs?

Comment: Re: The reason is more simple (Score 1) 656 656

Lots of money would enter the economy, but no useful work would get done. Such spending makes us all poorer, not richer.

Er you are quoting Keynes on economic stimulus which does actually work (in certain cases)
Eg Australia did exactly that when the GFC hit and it survived intact without a single recession, unlike pretty much every other economy that went down the austerity path, and are worse off because of it.

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 1) 834 834

In the Air Force's defense, it's not their fault that the President insists on dragging them into land wars in Asia.

What I find strange is that a President invests in such a large airstrike capability, but then spends decades picking fights that require no advanced air strike capability.
I was taught at school back in the cold war days that the future of war will be small, land based, counter insurgency style (ie what effectively panned out in the 30 years since). If my teacher got that, and I got it, how come the POTUS doesn't get it?

Comment: Re: Cost of making the USA piss their pants: Price (Score 1) 404 404

I LOVE frustrating people like you

I'm not frustrated, I come here to discuss concepts and be challenged. When the other party switches from debating the topic to attacking me personally then I know for sure their argument was weak.

Comment: Re:The reason is more simple (Score 1) 656 656

These incentives are helping to encourage a new industry that is generating new jobs, and putting food on people's tables.

At the expense of old industries, and old jobs disappearing, and leaving formerly employed people wondering how to put food on their tables.

Unless the "new industry" in question increases TOTAL demand for the category of things it represents (autos in this case), all it does is move jobs from that factory over there to this one over here.

In other words, every EV sold is one less gas burner sold. So it IS a zero-sum game.

But in a global economy you have no choice. If you stick with Oil burners, and China succeeds in creating a revolutionary EV, then your entire industry and economy die in the ditch. And people starve on the streets
The only path to success is to compete, which is what we are doing. Sure there'll be some mistakes along the way, but your choice is to compete and maybe win, or maybe just keep your head above water. If you sit on your hands and do nothing then the only possible result is failure.

There's a whole WORLD in a mud puddle! -- Doug Clifford

Working...