Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? (Score 1) 108

by ScentCone (#48902267) Attached to: Fark's Drew Curtis Running For Governor of Kentucky

You want to know who also agrees with you, terrorists agree with you, which is why they use terror to force people to do things that the terrorists want them to do.

Really? You equate our constitutional system of checks and balances to terrorism? Terrorism is the simple majority deciding that they can tell you what to do. Are you OK with 51% of the population deciding that you no longer get to speak freely, because they don't like what you have to say? That's democracy. A constitutional republic (which we are, that's not really open for debate, even when you confuse it with something else, like a monarchy - and you're very confused, here) has tools in place to prevent people like you from rallying 51% of the people who vote to do things like have the other 49% enslaved, or killed, or whatever you'd like to see done in the name of your having the majority of simple votes on the matter.

Democracy ie representing the majority

The majority is not always right, and the people who wrote our constitution knew that. It's why the country isn't run like one bit PTA meeting or a dog club. We have three branches of government, and the legislative branch is broken up in to two houses specifically to blunt the tyranny of the majority. You either haven't ever studied the basics of how the constitution is structured, or you have, and your pretending you haven't so that you can make your really bad analogies. Please try to get it straight.

Comment: Re:Science by democracy doesn't work? (Score 1) 438

by khallow (#48902151) Attached to: Science By Democracy Doesn't Work

Yes. Generally if we consider something has positive externalities we tend to subsidize it.

Unless it happens to be fossil fuel production and usage. Then we tend to pretend positive externality doesn't exist.

Oh really. Now you are taking numbers out of your ass. If you think you are right, publish it. I am sure your methodology will be laugh at.

So what? We were looking for something comprehensive that covers the whole issue and was more accurate than the Stern report and other such reports. I found one such.

Comment: Logic flaw above... (Score 1) 187

How does Uber improve "the amount of car pooling we do" in a significantly useful way (i.e., one that furthers the goals for which car pooling is usually advocated)?

Consider if an individual leaves their home, drives 8 miles to their destination, and later returns home driving another 8 miles. Total miles of pollution and "road space" is 16 miles worth.

Suppose that same individual uses Uber using the same type of car. Obviously the same 16 miles would be traversed - but even then, the car weighs slightly more so would consume slightly more fuel and produce slightly more greenhouse gasses. But, in addition, an Uber driver will almost always have to drive from wherever they are TO the customer's location to pick them up and have no one else in the car during that time - and this scenario repeats on both the outbound and the inbound trip. Suppose that, on the average in that area, the Uber driver "deadheads" three miles on each trip. Now we an additional six miles of driving and associated environmental impact (including road congestion).

Sure, in the 'self driver' case, there's 0 miles of dual occupancy (a.k.a. carpooling) while in the Uber case there's 16 miles of dual occupancy (with slightly higher pollution due to the additional 150 or so pounds resulting from dual occupancy) -- but the cost is an additional six miles of single occupancy.

About the only "carpooling" type benefit is that less space needs to be devoted to parking at the destination if enough people take taxis, Uber, public transport, cycle etc...

If the goal is to increase average vehicle occupancy, why don't we just pay people to pile into cars and then drive the cars in circles?

Comment: Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? (Score 4, Insightful) 108

by ScentCone (#48899339) Attached to: Fark's Drew Curtis Running For Governor of Kentucky

Even if it is simply "I will hold public opinion polls and honor their conclusion"

So, you'd be OK with him supporting mandatory labeling on all foods that contain DNA? Because 80% of the population says they support their government helping them out with that.

I'd never support a politician who says he'll do what the majority say they want. We don't need mob rule directly, or by proxy, either.

Comment: Re:Insurance (Score 1) 187

Statistically, a commercial driver drives way more than a noncommercial driver, and they're much more likely to be sued, and for more money. It's absurd to argue that they should be able to drive on insurance rates calculated for statistical norms of noncommercial drivers.

The number of miles you drive every year is one of the factors used to calculate your non-commercial insurance rate. Go read your complete auto insurance policy if you don't believe me. There's a line in there for number of miles driven per year. Most people ignore it, but if you exceed it and get into an accident, your insurer may refuse to cover you.

Comment: Re:More Global Warming Alarmism!!!!!!!! (Score 2) 199

by khallow (#48898349) Attached to: Doomsday Clock Moved Two Minutes Forward, To 23:57

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.

Comment: Re:Science by democracy doesn't work? (Score 1) 438

by khallow (#48897235) Attached to: Science By Democracy Doesn't Work

It's more complex than that. Of course your willingness to pay for them will be $0. And let say they are willing to reduce their CO2 emission to close to 0 because they don't want their country to disappear. It won't be enough. Their sea level will still rise because of you. Does it mean they should pay the cost (losing their island) because you emit CO2? Seems unfair to me. You should pay for your own negative externalities, and not push them to other people or other generations.

Well, how much is an island worth? Again, I don't see anyone paying very much to protect these things. If it's not valuable to anyone else, then it's not valuable to me.

And if we're paying for our own externalities, shouldn't we also get compensated for our own externalities with the opposite sign?

Alright, where can I read these reports? I want something comprehensive that covers the whole issue. So don't give me a source that covers only a specific country/region or a specific consequence.

How about the Stern report where you take the estimated cost of global warming and divide it by ten. Then take the estimated cost of carbon dioxide emission reductions and multiply them by ten? That's a report that probably has more accurate cost/benefit analysis than the original report.

Comment: Re:That makes sense! (Score 1) 107

by ScentCone (#48896591) Attached to: Bomb Threats Via Twitter Partly Shut Down Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport

Bringing a fighter jet to a bomb threat. That makes sense!

You don't have much of an imagination, do you? Or pay any kind of attention to actual events, pretty much ever?

Escort aircraft can make observations and help with communications and recordings that can't be made any other way. One of the threats suggested the bomber was on board, implying the possibility that he might make demands which could include, possibly, making that aircraft into a weapon aimed at a metropolitan area ... which might require destroying the aircraft before that could happen. Fighters are routinely deployed when other aircraft stray from where they're supposed to be, cease communicating, etc. Which you'd know, if you paid attention.

Comment: Re:Good news (Score 1) 416

by ConceptJunkie (#48895935) Attached to: Disney Turned Down George Lucas's Star Wars Scripts

A lot of people say that having seen the movies as an adult they don't hold up as well as when they saw them as kids. Does "Star Wars" affect me the same as an adult as it did when I was 12? No, but I still think it's a fine movie. However, my opinion of "Empire" has increased significantly since I first saw it with my Dad in the theater.

Comment: Re:Good news (Score 1) 416

by ConceptJunkie (#48895909) Attached to: Disney Turned Down George Lucas's Star Wars Scripts

Lucas is a visionary. He sucks at the details. He set out to recreate the Saturday morning serials with "Star Wars" and was very successful in setting a new bar in special effects. His vision for the scope and scale of the movie, the simplicity of the characters, being mythical archetypes, perfectly fit what he was shooting for, and made for a fun and exciting movie. But he can't write dialog to save his life. Even the dialog in "Star Wars" wasn't great, and in the sequels, it was awful. He also cannot direct people, because everyone in the prequels looked like awful actors, even though they aren't.

But he's got the vision, an eye for the kind of spectacle that makes great movies, and should be recognized as such. The problem was when he was allowed to also do those things he was really awful at.

Mathemeticians stand on each other's shoulders while computer scientists stand on each other's toes. -- Richard Hamming