Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: Time (Score 1) 163

by drinkypoo (#49610581) Attached to: Tesla's Household Battery: Costs, Prices, and Tradeoffs

Some time in the future, noise and exhaust pipes will no longer be associated with "power", but rather "wastefulness". That is when electrics really will shine.

That's already how most people feel in most of the world. Big loud exhausts are seen as a cry for help, expensive cars as a penis substitute, etc. And now, all the most aggressive American cars have forced induction. Even superchargers mute the engine note, and turbochargers also quiet the exhaust, so this is the beginning of the end of loud. It will still be a thing, but it won't be a thing you can just go buy off the lot, because emissions regulations will kill it by driving people towards more technology instead of more liters.

I know the Hellcat is kind of a conspicuous counterexample, but they won't likely be able to continue to make vehicles like that much longer, so enjoy them while they're here.

Comment: Re:No matter what Uber says ... (Score 1) 21

The trouble with impounding cars is that those aren't the people who are behind it all.

Within the first week of Uber showing up in a city, you can hear quite plainly how this is an illegal cab, frequently operating with improper licensing and insurance, and which is in violation of the law.

At which point, you are either a gullible fool who thinks he is going to 'fight the power'. Or you have willfully said "fuck it, I'll keep being an illegal cab and make some money".

What you can't argue is that poor little you had no idea you were breaking the law.

And then that becomes your damned problem, and you don't get to claim to be an innocent victim. Because you knew damned well what you were doing was illegal.

You've made yourself a patsy so a tech startup who doesn't give a crap about you can continue their self created mythology of being the underdog fighting for the little guy.

But at the end of the day, it's the people driving the cars who are breaking the law.

Got talked into thinking you were doing this out of some sense of nobility? Bummer dude.

I'm betting Uber isn't paying anybody's legal bills or fines. Because even Uber knows that the suckers on the front lines are expendable to them.

Comment: Re:Time (Score 1) 163

by drinkypoo (#49610541) Attached to: Tesla's Household Battery: Costs, Prices, and Tradeoffs

There is significantly less room for electrics here, since bikes can already quite easily be very efficient,

It takes an expensive and/or gutless motorcycle driven gently to be efficient, and it's well-known that most motorcycles have atrocious emissions. That's only changed recently... and it's made them very expensive. That's a lot of motivation to keep old bikes around, forestalling the adoption of emissions technologies. Motorcyclists are in general more reluctant to adopt new technologies, which makes sense when you are going to be rushing along over the road protected by some leather or nylon and a plastic brain bucket and with all those technologies stuffed up your ass. You want to be pretty sure they're not going to blow up.

That said, EVs aren't exactly new tech any more, and yes there are a number of contenders these days, put those things together and you get my GP comment.

Comment: Re:Skewed (Score 1) 21

Ah, but Uber's story only works if they can basically re-define what the local law is according to their own wishes.

Uber likes to hide behind their lie about only being a tech company, and they love to stress this whole "little guy fighting for the underdog".

The problem is they have to deal with reality, and the Libertarian notion of subverting regulations making you a noble and better person isn't an argument which is accepted in most places. In fact, it will simply get you arrested or fined.

The regulations exist. You are subject to those regulations. Your own perceived nobility in deciding those regulations don't apply to you is your damned problem, but it doesn't make it fact.

And the fact is, in places which have regulations around the licensing and operations of commercial vehicles -- you don't simply get to decree that the law doesn't apply to you because you stepped in unicorn poop.

I figure the people who run Uber are either collectively delusional, or collectively lying bastards. What they aren't is magically exempt from laws and regulations because they claim to be.

And if they don't like it ... that's really too damned bad for them. And, like a child throwing a temper tantrum, it doesn't change a damned thing.

Comment: No matter what Uber says ... (Score 2, Insightful) 21

Uber isn't some magical entity which exists outside of laws and regulations, no matter what its owners keep trying to tell us.

Uber has basically said "why, no, we're special because we say so, and we don't give a crap about your laws", and then they go on to say "we're not a transport company, we're a tech company, who happens to behave like a transport company".

I have precisely zero sympathy for Uber, and I think more places should be impounding cars and arresting people who have basically decided "fuck you, I'm going to run a commercial car service and keep saying loudly how I'm not a commercial car service".

This bullshit about "Long-term, established transportation companies with powerful lobbying arms or the newcomer making use of disruptive technology?" is exactly that ... it's bullshit. It's how Uber tells their underdog story, but it's a complete lie.

This has nothing to do with established players with powerful lobbying arms. This has everything to do with how governments have regulated commercial vehicles, and Uber using their bullshit story to sound like the plucky underdog.

Uber is a tech startup, acting like a spoiled child, and decreeing they aren't subject to laws.

The whole underdog thing makes for great PR copy, but is otherwise a complete fucking lie.

Comment: Facebook is G+'s best advertising (Score 1) 41

If Facebook keeps driving people away, maybe one day G+ will be more than an also-ran.

Facebook was making me hate people I thought I knew. G+ makes me hate people I don't know, yes, but it also makes me like people I don't know, so that's still infinitely superior to facebook.

Comment: Re:Learn to read (Score 1) 376

by drinkypoo (#49610207) Attached to: Two Gunman Killed Outside "Draw the Prophet" Event In Texas

"I am in no way defending either the loud xenophobic fascist Wilders or anyone that wants to take a shot at him.",

Saying that doesn't make it true, and it isn't. By saying that they shouldn't have done what they did, you are blaming the victim. Thus, you are defending the actions of the gunmen, by placing blame on the victims. Stop it, because you're really being an offensive piece of shit and we must either ignore you or respond aggressively to your failure to defend the first amendment.

Comment: Re:tip of the iceberg (Score 1) 376

by drinkypoo (#49610199) Attached to: Two Gunman Killed Outside "Draw the Prophet" Event In Texas

Did Charlie Hebdo engage in deliberately pissing on someone's beliefs?

Yes. And that specific right must be protected or freedom of speech is lost. The right to mock an idea is probably the second-most important right in the category of ideas, just after the right to have them and just before the right to espouse them.

Comment: Re:tip of the iceberg (Score 4, Insightful) 376

by drinkypoo (#49610191) Attached to: Two Gunman Killed Outside "Draw the Prophet" Event In Texas

Then join with me in BBQ pig in a synagogue.

That is a stupid thing to say in one way, and an insightful thing to say in another. The radical Islamics consider the whole world their temple, and it doesn't matter where you do the things they don't want you to do, they reserve the right to murder you for it. So it's a stupid thing to say because this wasnt done in anyone's temple, and it's an insightful thing to say because it doesn't matter if you do it in their temple, they'll try to kill you for it anyway.

I'd make them have their international trollfest way out in the desert so bystanders don't get killed if someone takes the bait.

That's because you do not believe in the first amendment or freedom of speech, and so you can safely shut up now because nobody sane or interested in building a better society is interested in what you have to say.

Comment: Re:Don't Have to Try Very Hard at All (Score 1) 376

by drinkypoo (#49610183) Attached to: Two Gunman Killed Outside "Draw the Prophet" Event In Texas

There you go, apparently Good Christian Values can lead to peoples violent deaths also.. I guess all Christians must also be murderous bastards?

Christianity is also a religion which needs to be stamped out, over time. But there was a time when it was killing people for their beliefs, or on that excuse, and it had to be reined in. This has happened, so now we can move on to Islam, which is the current largest problem in religion.

Unless we label them all.....

Fine with me, but just realize that they're not going to all get the same labels. It's a fact that not all religions are identical, one of which you should not need reminding.

Do molecular biologists wear designer genes?