Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:A clear example of how lobbying hurts everyone (Score 0) 375

by d3ac0n (#42394199) Attached to: The New Ethanol Blend May Damage Your Vehicle

While I appreciate where you are coming from, I think your argument is invalid as it uses an invalid example.

Removing lead from fuel was wise as the lead-laced exhaust caused known neurological side-effects. We removed lead from just about everything we could at around the same time in our history (Paint, plastics, etc.)

However, in this case we are ADDING something to our fuel that has questionable (at best) benefits and real known problems. Unlike removing lead, which could be remedied for certain engines with a simple lead additive, I challenge you to regularly and simply remove the Ethanol from your gasoline. (HINT: You can't. It requires a separation apparatus to remove the ethanol before you put it onto your car.) On top of that , purchasing regular unleaded non-ethanol gasoline has become remarkably difficult in many areas.

In NY State, for example, one cannot legally dispense non-ethanol gasoline directly into an automobile fuel tank. it must first be dispensed into a legal fuel canister or into a boat. Thus people with classic cars must go to boat refueling stations with multiple gas cans and fill those up and then take them home before refueling their classic cars. Or plan on lots of repairs.

Once E15 rolls around (and make no mistake, there were and are plans to FORCE rolling out E15 well before your magical percentages are met) Current car owners will also be forced to do the same thing. The "2001" restriction is idiotic. Many BRAND NEW cars (Like my wife's 2012 Toyota Sienna) have a label right on the fuel filler tank "E10 fuel only, not for higher Ethanol content fuels" My 2008 Jeep Liberty has a similar warning in the manual.

On top of all of that, Ethanol fuel is a complete waste of time. It does NOTHING to make the car more efficient or cleaner. Indeed, it actually causes the opposite effect, causing loss of efficiency, thus requiring more fuel to be burnt for any given task, thus INCREASING pollution. It also causes damage to the engine over time, resulting in further loss of efficiency, more expenditures on repairs, and shortened vehicle service life.

There is absolutely nothing good about using Ethanol in our gasoline engines, and it boggles my mind that this kind of stupidity has been allowed to go on for so long. But then I guess when you are dealing with the "religion" of Leftism that is controlling much of the government, irrational things are to be expected.

Comment: Re:So... Question, (Score 1) 1232

by d3ac0n (#42393847) Attached to: New York Paper Uses Public Records To Publish Gun-Owner Map

Yes, but the The "old style" of involuntary commitment merely required the signature of a licensed psychiatrist (or even a regular physician) and a relative or legal guardian plus the ruling of a judge. Many stories and books have been written surrounding the easy abuse of this process. The "new style" involuntary commitment process involves several rounds of hearings, during which the person potentially being committed is present and allowed to defend themselves They are also afforded legal counsel of their own.

While on one hand the new style is certainly a good thing in that it allows the perfectly sane yet eccentric or the underage and defenseless to defend themselves against relatives or others attempting to prey upon them or get them out of the way, it also opens the door to situations like the Newtown incident, in that someone genuinely dangerous is given plenty of warning of who precisely is attempting to commit them, without any protection for those attempting to commit someone dangerous.

While I think we can all agree that none of us want to go back to the days of unwanted/disabled children and the elderly being committed for the convenience of others, but we have clearly gone too far in the other direction. We need to find a balance point that both takes into account the rights of those that might be committed, and the safety of those who would do the committing and of the general public.

Comment: Re:Kudos (Score 1) 1061

by d3ac0n (#42315139) Attached to: Anonymous Hacks Westboro Baptist Church

Ok, so you are either a troll or a fucking moron.

I NEVER CLAIMED NOR IMPLIED that EACH INDIVIDUAL win was in the level of millions. Only that they make millions off of suing people. Moron.

It doesn't take much to add up a few of their reported cases to get to the million mark. They themselves claim to have over 45,000 case wins, most of them for monetary damages AND for lawyers fees. If you don't think that adds up to millions you are a fucking retard.

You fail at trolling.

Comment: Re:Kudos (Score 1) 1061

by d3ac0n (#42314119) Attached to: Anonymous Hacks Westboro Baptist Church

The thing is Basil, you won't find a comprehensive list of ANY group's lawsuit record ANYWHERE. Not just WSBC, anyone. Go ahead and try. You'll fail because comprehensive lists of that sort don't exist.

They don't exist because it's not a record that is kept. The best you can do is google it or spend time digging through court records.

That's why I used LMGTFY. Because it was a ridiculous request that deserved a ridiculous answer.

Comment: Re:Kudos (Score 1) 1061

by d3ac0n (#42314009) Attached to: Anonymous Hacks Westboro Baptist Church

I admire the Freedom Riders, and they're bikers but they're NOT a "motorcycle gang." Motorcycle gangs are organized criminals like the Hell's Angels and The Outlaws. "Gang" as in "James Gang" and "Capone Gane" and "Bloods" and "Crips." The Freedom Riders are not gangsters, they're normal, law-abiding citizens (mostly veterans iinm) who happen to ride motorcycles.

You are correct. My apologies to the Freedom Riders.

Comment: Re:Kudos (Score 4, Insightful) 1061

by d3ac0n (#42313983) Attached to: Anonymous Hacks Westboro Baptist Church

The reason you predict people are going to respond that way is that you know full well that is exactly the logical fallacy you are indulging in.

No, it is not. I list the TWO things that they have in common with Christian churches, and then go on to list all the things they do NOT have in common with Christian churches. In fact I very specifically point to that they are FEIGNING being a church for tax purposes, and use their lawyer skills to retain that classification.

The problem with using the "No true Scotsman Fallacy" argument is that it:

A. Is only an informal fallacy. (Sometimes Angus really ISN'T a true Scotsman.)

B. Due to (a) it is used overbroadly to shut down argument. The WSBC case is almost textbook:
1 - Crazy group uses Christianity as cover for evil.
2 - Atheists conflate this group with all Christians everywhere as a way of pushing their own agenda.
3 - Christians of all stripes roundly condemn crazy group and reject them while pointing out that these people aren't really Christian.
4 - Atheists start screaming "No True Scotsman! No true Scotsman!" and continue to conflate the two groups.

C. If you are going to conflate a small group engaging in clearly fringe behavior with a larger mainstream group, it is YOUR responsibility as the accuser to show the links. NOT the responsibility of the accused to show lack of links.

Comment: Re:Kudos (Score 5, Informative) 1061

by d3ac0n (#42313123) Attached to: Anonymous Hacks Westboro Baptist Church

To be entirely accurate, WSBC isn't really a Christian church.

Now, because I can just hear the Atheist trolls firing up their "No True Scotsman fallacy" engines, Understand that WSBC is not a church in ANY traditional sense of the meaning other than they are a unified group and they have regular meetings. In that respect they are as much a church as your local NAMBLA affliate group.

If you look down the WSBC roster you will see that first of all, they are ALL related to one another either by marriage or by birth. It's basically the Phelps clan with some other family appendages.

Secondly, you may notice that all or nearly all of the Phelpses are LAWYERS. In fact, they are all very accomplished tort lawyers and/or law staff. When you look at their history you will see that they ALWAYS sue people that assault them, and they almost always win. They have made MILLIONS off of suing people that attack them for their repugnant views.

This is also how they manage to remain classified a church; They are based in a state where church classification rules are loose, and they utilize that and their status as lawyers to keep that classification. (Saves on taxes when the Church makes all the money.)

Then they go out and set up situations where they will likely be assaulted just to make money off of the poor righteous bastards that want to go after them. They keep the threat of violence reasonably low by filming everything and bringing women and children along as human shields, and then when one of them inevitably gets punched or shoved or pushed or gets a hangnail, they sue everyone there, especially any families that are involved in the events they are protesting at.

This is why I LOVE LOVE LOVE the Freedom Riders. Basically a motorcycle gang that specifically follows the WSBC around whenever they protest a soldier's funeral. they surround them and then block them from view with HUGE signs and American flags and drown them out with revving Harley Davidson motorcycles. They never touch anyone from WSBC, but they prevent them from causing any emotional harm to the families of dead soldiers. They've been so effective the Phelpses have nearly abandoned going after soldier's funerals.

This is why I say that the Phelpses are NOT a Christian church. They are just a bunch of dirty lawyers using hate and law to make money hand over fist. I suspect that they may very well believe at least some of the bile they spew, but it is FAR more about money than it is about faith. Frankly, if not for the fact that they seem to be so much about making money hand over fist I'd almost suspect they were an attempt to troll Christianity and tax law surrounding the churches.

Comment: Re:Public Accountability Institute (Score -1, Troll) 190

by d3ac0n (#42263573) Attached to: UT Professor Resigns Over Fracking Conflict of Interest

Spend 5 minutes researching them and you discover that PAI is made up entirely of far left activists, including a former SEIU Union goon, a law STUDENT, and an eco-lawyer.

The UT prof may not be the cleanest guy out there, but his accusers are a bunch a fringe leftist hacks.

Comment: Re:What's good for the goose... (Score 1, Flamebait) 768

but when you have global merchants, local tax rules simply will not work as intended.

(Emphasis mine)

And here is the rub; What is the intended purpose of taxation?

if the intended purpose is simply to fund the operations of a small to moderate sized government then all of your listed "problems" go away as both the corporate and personal tax codes will necessarily be simple affairs that companies will have no problem complying with and paying.

If, however, the intended purpose is to enforce some constantly changing and nebulous concept of "Fairness" (IE: "Paying your fair share") which nobody can agree on (show me a population of a billion people and I will show you a billion different opinions of "fair".) Then you will have what we have now. A ridiculously complex and burdensome tax code full of twists, turns, loopholes and tricks, which corporations will use to their advantage to pay almost no or no tax at all, leaving the burden of supporting the government (which is now a behemoth as big as the tax code, because it takes BIG government to support BIG tax code) on the middle class and the poor.

This is the great irony (and tragedy) of Socialism. The very thing it purports to want to do away with, corruption and corporate control of government and our lives, is the very thing it creates. This is because the mechanism it uses to try and combat "Corporatism", Government regulation, is both Corporatism's genesis and strength.

Simply put; Socialists and leftists of all stripes, the world does not work the way you think it does. The more control you try to exert, the less control you have, and the only thing you destroy is the lives of the people you claim to want to save. So please stop trying to run the world, and let us all alone. Thanks.

Comment: Re:Windows 8 isn't all that bad (Score 1) 740

by d3ac0n (#42206497) Attached to: Windows 8: a 'Christmas Gift For Someone You Hate'

It's not about not wanting to try new things.

Observe:

iPhone/iPad - New Interface. People love it!
Android - New Interface/Multiple versions of the interface. People love it!

2 cases of totally new interfaces, and people have embraced them wholeheartedly and with much gusto. So clearly, people don't have a problem with a new UI look. It isn't that Win8's UI is NEW. It's that its BAD.

If Microsoft had simply given an option of:
1. Traditional Desktop Interface with Start menu but no Aero for desktops/laptops and Metro UI for tablets, choice given at install time

OR

2. Traditional Desktop Interface with Start menu but no Aero AND Metro apps available in resizable windows for desktops/laptops, Metro UI for tablets, choice given at install time.

Then I think that Win8 would have been a smash hit. But because they tried to give us neither of these, and tried to push both UIs on us at once in a really clunky and cumbersome way, people are frustrated and disappointed with it.

Techs and Win8 fanbois are correct when they say that under the UI Win8 is a HUGE improvement over Win7. It starts faster, runs faster, is more hardware agnostic, and is generally better in every way, except for the primary manner in which people experience it, the UI. There it utterly falls flat on it's face.

And that is what people are saying when they say that Win8 "Sucks". Since the UI is the primary method of interaction with a computer, if that UI is poorly done, it doesn't matter how good it is under the hood, users won't care.

Users are willing to embrace useful and functional change as they enjoy improvements to the things they use. However, people wisely reject change for change's sake and bad change. Win8's UI is none of the former and both of the latter. It is unsurprising Win8 is failing.

Comment: Re:This is already the case with in-dash GPS. (Score 1) 445

by d3ac0n (#42130569) Attached to: The Coming Wave of In-Dash Auto System Obsolescence

No it isn't. You can put a Bluetooth enabled stereo unit into any car that has a 12v power supply and someplace to strap it down. I've seen plenty of 1940's, '50's and '60's era "hot rod" cars with totally up to date and modern stereos in them.

A bluetooth enabled stereo will run you between $100 and $200 US. If you want to play DVDs with rear screens the price goes way way up (around $1000), but if you just want to have music and navi from your smartphone, then a Bluetooth enabled one will work.

If you want even cheaper, get a stereo with a headphone jack aux port in the front and use a double male headphone cord to connect it.

Loose bits sink chips.

Working...