Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Restored some faith (Score 0) 184

by NetNed (#48604783) Attached to: Linking Drought and Climate Change: Difficult To Do
Comments here have restored some faith in slashdot commenters to me slightly. I was always baffled when the so called tech savoy community was "all in" on climate change with all the information that is at their finger tips on the internet and articles like this resulted in trying to shout out people with the claims of "deniers, deniers, deniers!!!"

Comment: Re:Haters gonna hate (Score 1) 695

I think half the time it's the "I am not going to admit I was fooled" crowd that has to stick to the lies they have been fed. To admit otherwise means they might be full of shit. You can tell them all the facts and how numbers were manipulated, how temps were hen pecked to show warming, how no warming has happened in 15 years, how the guy Al Gore called his "mentor" on climate change actually admitted that green house gases effects have been massively overstated and how the amount of money spent has been wasteful and would be way better spent elsewhere. You tell them that and the only thing they can come up with is "You are a denier!" like that is a actual valid rebuttal. When you have to change the name of what you believe because the actual name is a action that isn't happening, I think you seriously need to look in to what you believe and the actual facts of the matter. None of the "believers" what to do that because their biggest fears might come true, that they have been duped and are completely wrong.

Comment: Re:Obviously. (Score 1) 695

Sorry, but while the preservation of land is about the environment, it is not about the climate. Just like the whole weather is not the climate bullshit passed off as fact one time, then when it's supporting climate change, it's fact the other way. So you can't claim all is about one. But that same token I could go as far to say that buffalo, just like is claimed like cattle, put off CO2 so they have contributed to green house gases. I don't want to see any species extinct but to claim that was all in the name of climate change is complete and utter bull. If anything climate change has done more harm to the setting aside of lands and protecting animals since it is in direct competition for funds with each other, and "climate change" is raking in the money quite more massively then producing parks and protecting wildlife. Hell, hunting has done more in the way of funds to protect species and insure proper management then any climate group around. Add to that all the holes in so called "facts" from groups like the IPCC and you'd have to either be a idiot or obtuse on purpose not to see the scam for cash that the whole thing has become.

Comment: Success! (Score 3, Interesting) 98

by NetNed (#48261849) Attached to: Hackers Breach White House Network
Step one: get person to "hack" the white house network
Step two: Claim "It's Russia!"
Step Three: Stir up media reports about "How safe is the internet really" and "Do we need the government to police the internet?"
Step four: Put in place controls that cripple the internet, spies on all Americans, and causes more laws to be written that stomp of the rights of Americans.


Yeah they can track down who is illegally downloading the latest Bastille album but they have these loose "links" to Russia that they claim if "fact!" it is them.


Couldn't be THIS could it?????

Comment: Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China (Score 1) 256

by NetNed (#48212623) Attached to: Michigan Latest State To Ban Direct Tesla Sales
At 200 miles a day, a tesla would not be a good choice unless you like a added level of stress in your day. I know what the number and stats are for range, but those are akin to the MPG ratings on gas vehicles. If you are in the perfect environment where access to charging isn't an issue, you'd be ok, but that's few and far between in most parts of the country. Add in cold/heat effects on range to the equation too. With the price of teslas right now, if you spent that then ended up being stressed about range issues, I am pretty certain it would be the last tesla you would buy. And for that matter, who would spend this much on a car and be doing their own maintenance on it? Not many. I think the maintenance argument is weak at best. If you do regular oil changes (3000 to 5000 miles, maybe more depending on car and driving style) and don't drive a vehicle in to the ground so to speak (never clean it, never maintain it, drive it like you stole it) non-regular maintenance would be pretty much the same between the two. Plus tesla's main argument for not having private owned dealers is that the cars are "too technically advanced" for private dealerships to work on. Does that mean I would have to send my car to California to have issue serviced? I am sure they have some awesome service program that takes good care of the owners in these events, but I am also pretty certain that this is more about control then it is it being "too advanced". I'd say the Volt, Leaf and others have as much or even more technology and dealers can work on them just fine.

Comment: Yeahhhhh (Score 2) 331

by NetNed (#48194707) Attached to: 3D-Printed Gun Earns Man Two Years In Japanese Prison
The reason Japan has low to no gun crime isn't the law, it's the values instilled in all there. They are more about the "group" then the individual, which is most have saw in the way they run their businesses and the way employees feel about the businesses they work for. Add to the the sense of tradition and honor that goes from the extremely rich down to the poorest of people. Not that this system is better for the individual as I would bet their suicide rates are massively larger then the US, but to say it's because of stiff penalties on gun is fooling yourself.

Comment: How is it... (Score 1) 38

by NetNed (#48167841) Attached to: Internet Companies Want Wireless Net Neutrality Too
That no one seems to get this? We have a tiered system now for internet access and it works damn good I believe. I get the bandwidth I pay for, If I want more speed, I pay more. Once you add in "net neutrality" it all turns to a pay for what you use system which will most definitely drive up prices. How the hell do people not see that? This is one big scam to bilk more money out of the consumer in the end. Does anyone really think that Google, Facebook, Amazon.com, and eBay are looking out for consumers on this one?

If it's worth hacking on well, it's worth hacking on for money.

Working...