Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Because the CIA is evil. (Score 1) 290

No, there were no WMDs in Iraq

Ok, so the WMDs in Iraq, used by Saddam to kill thousands of people in Iraq - those didn't exist? This sort of nonsense is supposed to make you sound credible? Who do you think your audience is - people just like you, but even dumber, who won't wonder if you paid any attention whatsoever to stacks of dead people killed with Iraq's chemical weapons? Man, it must be really annoying to be you, with reality being such a constant irritant like that.

Comment Re:So instead of pseudonyms like "TheseNutz" (Score 1) 241

I don't know about this newspaper, but my local newspaper ties your online account directly to your real identification. You can't even sign up for their website unless you subscribe to the physical newspaper. In order to register for their website (and subsequently make any comments on an article) you have to enter your address and the subscriber number that appears on your bill. There's no way to provide "These J. Nutz" as your identity, unless you managed to get a credit card in that name and are using it to pay for the newspaper.

Newspaper publishers, for whatever reason, really dislike anonymity or pseudonymity these days. You can't even write a "name withheld by request" letter to the editor anymore. It's a shame.

Comment Re:This is *SO* unethical ! (Score 1) 241

Sadly, EULAs and the like tell them they can do this. Courts have upheld it. Which means taking them at their word is pretty much useless.

What? If the user who wants to participate in online discussions on a private company's web site agrees to a EULA that states that the owner of the web site reserves the right to change the conditions of using the site, then that's exactly what you signed up for. The only "sadly" involved is users sadly not reading what they agree to. Most people in the gimme-dat-free-stuff mindset don't think things through anyway.

Real names policies exist because companies say "what value can I get from selling the fact that SuitWrinkler53 commented on the website?" and deciding that they can't sell that information.

Or, if you're a publisher, those policies exist in order to spare the publishers huge ongoing legal expenses in dealing with inquiries and even subpoenas related to digging out real names or other information about trolling, libelous, or otherwise criminal users.

And then you realize they don't know much about the underlying technology, and are probably using something like WordPress.

No, then we realize that you're talking out of your ass and haven't bothered to so much as view the source on one of their pages in order to see that you're wrong. And that the paper - like so many who can't afford to go about it in any other way - are using a third party SaaS solution. Which means a single code base for many clients, which means no, customizing it for one customer isn't always desirable or even do-able.

They just have to remind you it's technically private property, and that the license says they can change the terms if they wish.

Oh, so you DO get it. What are you bitching about, then?

Comment Re:Because the CIA is evil. (Score 1) 290

The reason why Saddam was under that disposal and inspection regime was *because* of those things

You mean, the things that didn't exist? What are you saying exactly? You're trying to have it both ways.

What Saddam did in the past and was under restrictions for is itself not a valid pretext for invasion.

Sure it is, because he refused to comply with the requirements that arose from everything that went before. And you're STILL pretending that his forces never ceased to target those protecting the no-fly zone, wasn't robbing from UN food and relief funds to buy more weapons, and so on.

Where was the evidence of WMDs? None.

I know, I know, you're trying to wish away the deaths of thousands of people killed with exactly those non-existent WMDs that you simultaneously say were the basis for the inspection regime. I suspect you're don't actually listen to yourself, in order to avoid realizing how silly you sound.

Almost 15 years past we have not found any evidence of hidden/buried caches

Right, just the places where they USED to be, and which were blocked from inspection while he was still in power.

Comment Re:Because the CIA is evil. (Score 0, Troll) 290

Do you mean waterboarding? The very same technique to which thousands of US military people have subjected themselves during routine training? That sort of thing?

And "behind the Irag invasions" ... what? Do you meant the invasion conducted by dozens of allies following Saddam's attempt to take over Kuwait? Or do you mean the follow-up invasion that occurred because Saddam never met any of his obligations following the cease-fire has his invasion was pushed back, and as he continued to fire on aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones over the territories occupied by the ethnic minorities he'd been systematically killing with air strikes and WMD's? Silly me, of course you know all of that, and you're just a cowardly anonymous troll out to re-write history and, as a another lying little lefty, trying to distract everyone from the fact that the party you want in power will be run by Hillary Clinton, who saw all the same intelligence and supported (through her own votes and vocal support) both the original conflict and the second one that completed it. Hint: people actually pay attention, so just lying about it doesn't actually change history.

Comment Re:Because the CIA is evil. (Score 1, Interesting) 290

There was never any strong evidence for WMDs regardless of what rumors may have been out there

You're actively pretending that Saddam didn't USE his chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. And you're completely mischaracterizing the UN inspection team's early observations of large caches of VX that could NOT be later accounted for (remember the huge, completely phony "documentation" dump provided by Saddam's people to the UN, followed by active blocking of UN inspectors whenever they asked for unplanned inspections of the very places they thought they might find such things?). Yes, I remember Hans Blix, but you're choosing not to remember how things actually played out on the ground as his inspectors were turned away time and time again.

Comment Re:Because the CIA is evil. (Score -1, Flamebait) 290

Seriously, the CIA is responsible for the creation of Al Qaeda as a threat to America, you're welcome for 9/11.

So let's see ... as everyone has had to do through all of history, we worked with regional interests to help push back against the greater bad guy (the Soviets, continuing to try to expand their territory). The regional guys turn out to have their own post-Soviet-fight agenda. You, however, as typical nonsensical racist, think that people from that region aren't able to make their own decisions or set out to fulfill their own wishes. No, to you those Foreign Brown People are like zombies that would sit and do nothing without the controlling wizardry of Teh Eeevil Amerikkka blah blah blah.

the drone killing campaign which spawns ten terrorists for every one it kills

I see. So you're a bigger fan of going in on the ground with huge column of armor and troops and the supporting logistics so that we can, instead of using deliberate air strikes, get into a non-stop series of random street fights while trying to kill the same terrorists, but instead rack up huge collateral damage while also telegraphing every move on the ground and chasing the targets out of range for months on end. That is an EXCELLENT alternative. And of course that strategy wouldn't do anything to inspire new jihaddi recruits, no not at all.

stupid illegal invasion of Iraq

Oh, here we go. I didn't realize you were just trolling. Sorry. Since you're revising history and just making stuff up, I guess we'll call it a day.

Comment Re:Easy solution (Score 1) 470

Yes, I read the articles. What I stated is that the article is biased and wrong. Your opinion is that the article is right and that one or two anecdotes explain the electric car market. I'd contend that actual empirical sales figures for different types of vehicles and actual costs for different types of vehicles are more illuminating than a couple of anecdote's written by someone with a well-known bias, but YMMV. :)

I'm willing to be proven wrong. Have you ever seen any data from a relatively neutral or reputable source indicating that electric cars on average have lower total cost of ownership than comparable gas vehicles?

I picked one at semi-random (literally, the first one I found in a Google search) and looked up the TCO on Edmunds:
Spark EV, 5 year TCO $34K
Exact same car, gas version, 5 year TCO $28K

So in exchange for your car only having an 82 mile range before needing to be charged vs a 300+ mile range before a much faster fill-up, you only need to pay 22% more for it. What a deal!

Unless you are in a rare and special situation, the EV version isn't going to be a good deal for you. You're paying more and getting less. That's why only 1.6% of new cars sold are EVs... it doesn't make sense for the vast majority of people to buy them. Occam's razor, the simple reason is the correct one here, no need for conspiracy theories about dealerships.

Comment Re:Easy solution (Score 0) 470

The problem isn't that dealers don't want to sell them to anyone if they can make a profit on them, it's that customers don't want to buy them. i.e. they're 1.6% of new car purchases (leaving out trucks,minivans, suvs, etc.. just comparing to cars).

So most sales guy's experience is that even if someone walks in wanting to ask about the latest electric car, they're really going to end up buying a gas car once they get the facts about range, battery life, etc..., so why not just sell them the gas car that makes more economical sense to them in the first place and not waste everyone's time.

Of course, the three left-wing elitist publications linked from the summary believe they need to run everyone else's life when it comes to purchasing "green", so they just can't understand that the vast majority of people don't want to throw away their money and time on an environmental status symbol, so they blame the dealer. Glad their buddies don't control things like light bulb regulations, or we wouldn't be allowed to buy less expensive bulbs, either.... oh wait...

Comment Re:Extrapolating from two anecdotes (Score 0) 470

The summary links three different left-wing (for the US) news sources complaining about dealers because electric car sales aren't as high in the US as their wishful thinking believes they should be.

In October 620K cars were sold in the U.S., of which 10K were plugin electric. That's right, 1.6% of cars. That's not counting the trucks, minivans, SUVs,etc.. Heck, they sell twice as many luxury (not regular) SUVs a month than plug in cars.

How about for a reason they don't sell, almost nobody wants to buy one because they don't make economic sense for the vast majority of people who want to use their cars more for driving places then making an expensive environmental fashion statement? Without taxpayer subsidies, virtually none would be sold. Even with subsidies, it's more economical to buy a gas car, even if you include the gas and total repair costs for both over their effective mileage life.

People aren't stupid, but environmental elitists at the NY Times, Mother Jones and Green Car Reports think they know better than all the car purchasers out there what they should be buying and if they aren't buying it, it must be some sales guy's fault. What a load of B.S...

At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer.