Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Fleeing abusive companies? (Score 1) 174

by Rockoon (#47732881) Attached to: When Customer Dissatisfaction Is a Tech Business Model

For a long time the idiots would say,"Well who cares if the corporations buy off the government? The corporations need the people to survive so they act in the people's best interest."

For a long time the idiots would say, "Well who cares if government regulation harms corporations? The government needs to regulate so that the corporations will act in peoples best interest."

Except we find that when you attack a group they don't just sit their and take it. They defend themselves. In this case they first defend themselves by influencing government to not harm them, and then since that influence came so damn easy they leverage that influence for offense as well as defense.

Since a never ending series of honest regulators is impossible (surely you admit it) then each additional regulation has its own chance to be a corrupted regulation. Now even if the probability of a particular regulation being corrupt were quite small (and surely you admit that the probability is higher than you are comfortable with) then the effect of having extremely large numbers of them guarantees that there exists large numbers of corrupted regulations.

15 years ago the official listing of all federal regulations in effect, contained a total of 134,723 pages in 201 volumes. Thats just federal.

Since the real problem is that not all regulators are honest then clearly we both thus conclude that the problem is not solvable by regulation. The problem is only solvable by identifying and booting corrupt regulators before they can regulate. All these shallow attempts to place the blame on corporations falls short of the problem.

Comment: Re:Well, that's bad news... (Score 1) 345

by Rockoon (#47727991) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic
realclimate makes claims about people and journals that dare publish what their coveted journals reject, which surely are not in the "scientific literature."

..perhaps you didnt notice the bashing because you wanted to do some swinging of the stick yourself...

And this is on top of the for-a-long-time-now well known blatant censorship at realclimate...

The people that run and moderate realclimate are precisely the "high priests" at the center of the issue. Their standard operating procedure when a paper finds its way into a journal they dont control which casts doubt on their own research is to (a) bash the journal, (b) bash the authors, and (c) post a fallacy-filled rebuttal that ultimately declares victory over the straw they constructed.

Comment: Re:Source is HVAC Contractors (Score 0) 292

by Rockoon (#47716941) Attached to: Scientists Baffled By Unknown Source of Ozone-Depleting Chemical

Water is a liquid as well, yet I'm breathing it as humidity every day

When I open up the tap in my kitchen sink, am I "blowing off water straight to atmosphere" ???

Of course not, showing us all that you didnt know that Carbon tetrachloride was a liquid while making your first post blaming a bunch of people that you clearly have other different issues with. You assumed that this stuff was a gas and because you have such a great track record with assumptions you didnt even both to verify it. This seems to be a repeating pattern in your life because for some strange fucking reason its not important to you to be informed before opening your fucking mouth..

The correct order of operations is (1) Theory, (2) Evidence, (3) Conclusion. It is not what you have been doing which is (1) Conclusion, (2) Evidence, (3) Theory.

Comment: Re:Because of the expansion (Score 1) 109

by Rockoon (#47688385) Attached to: Why the Universe Didn't Become a Black Hole
I find it more interesting that if you graph the density of black holes of varying mass/radius, that you see that the required mass density to form a black hole drops as the mass/radius increases. The radius of the event horizon of a mass equal to the estimated mass of the visible universe (just the ordinary matter) is about 15 billion light years and has a density of only 8.703E-27 kg per cubic meter (about 29 orders of magnitude less than the density of ordinary water at sea level.)

Comment: Re:can't cross chip in one clock. big deal. (Score 5, Interesting) 168

by Rockoon (#47684693) Attached to: Processors and the Limits of Physics
Even more obvious is that even todays CPU's dont perform any calculation in a single clock cycle. The distances involved only effects latency, not throughput. The fact that a simple integer addition operation has a latency of 2 or 3 clock cycles doesnt prevent the CPU from executing 3 or more of those additions per clock cycle.

Even AMD's Athon designs did that. Intels latest offerings can be coerced into executing 5 operations per cycle that are each 3 cycle latency, and then thats on a single core with no SIMD.

Its not how quickly the CPU can produce a value.. its how frequently the CPU can retire(*) instructions.

(*) Thats actually a technical term.

Comment: Re:Oversight and regulation (Score 1) 340

by Rockoon (#47676681) Attached to: Berlin Bans Car Service Uber

Pretty much yes. Official taxis charge regulated, metered rate, which ends up being very cheap.

So what you are saying is that if the vehicle is clean, has a working AC, and is very cheap.. then its 100% certain to be an official taxi?

Perhaps you have a really severe problem with reading? You are claiming that if these things are true, then it is 100% certain to be an official taxi?

You are claiming that there isnt even one single non-official taxi that is clean, has working AC, and is very cheap. Not a single one. Zero of them. Not 4 of them. Not 3 of them. Not 2 of them. Not 1 of them. None of them.

Comment: Re:This isn't 'nam! (Score 1) 327

by Rockoon (#47668533) Attached to: California May Waive Environmental Rules For Tesla

Irrelevant. By your logic, the only thing worth doing is whatever magically solves the problem on the planet, and anything else is useless.

Thats not my logic. Thats the logic of the stupid justification to give TESLA special treatment.

Lets state your position exactly: Its OK to give TESLA special treatment that avoids State environmental laws because while TESLA will be directly harmful to the environment this harm will in theory be less than the environmental benefits. While this is a theory we pulled out of our ass instead of based on any actual study that estimated both, we believe that its accurate.

Now lets suppose the claim is correct that the Gigafactory will have a net benefit on the environment even though it directly harms it. Doesnt that mean that the States environmental laws are harmful? The laws actually hurt the environment?

Now here we are, the States laws are admittedly harmful by both you and the State itself, and the solution both you and the State support is to give special treatment to a chosen one. And you (but not the State, yet) justify this special treatment on the grounds that it in theory provides a net benefit.

We can only conclude that net benefits are the only thing important to you. So it is your theory, not mine, that wreaks of the very thing you claim of others. What a special person you must be to not be guilty while you go off claiming that others are guilty of what you yourself have not only introduced, but used as a justification. It is your argument, not mine, that (and I quote) "the only thing worth doing is whatever magically solves the problem on the planet"

Heaven forbid the State had sane environmental laws or at least wanted to treat everyone fairly. Heaven forbid. Instead we have the State picking winners and losers as usual and you justifying it with fucking crap logic, by your own admission.

Comment: Re:So, such rules are bad for keeping people worki (Score 1) 327

by Rockoon (#47668483) Attached to: California May Waive Environmental Rules For Tesla

A coke oven is a chemical? Or did you not read the sentence fully?

So we go after someone for not culling the "complete" list of things that cause cancer to include only chemicals, even though quite clearly there are well over a hundred chemicals in this list?

Apparently so.

Why do we do that?

After all is said and done, a hell of a lot more is said than done.

Working...