Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Political tax (Score 1) 434

Besides, it's free speech.

I belong to the kind of people who categorically deny that organisations have a right to free speech. Unless we want to drown deeper into a world dominated by faceless, irresponsible entities we need to keep basic human rights human rights.

If you want to state an opinion, then you're allowed to do so. If you disagree, then go lobby your congresscritter to repeal the first amendment because it makes you feel safer knowing that people can no longer say things that you don't like.

There's a big difference between me stating an opinion and a multinational company spending millions on a PR campaign.

Comment Re: Political tax (Score 1) 434

It's the "global climate catastrophe" which is where they are claiming damages which is going to be hard to prove a causal link and even harder to establish a monetary value of damages.

That is how tobacco lawsuits started. Unable to prove that smoking causes cancer, unable to prove how much it contributes, unable to prove the tobacco companies knew.

But after an initial wave of failures, things turned around. A few leaked documents proved that tobacco companies did know, that they did bury the studies that proved it, and advances in medicine provided the evidence for smoking causing cancer.

And in the past almost 20 years, we've seen the opposite: Lawsuits against tobacco companies are largely successful.

Someone has to get the ball rolling. Yes, maybe this lawsuit will fail, but it provides one step on the ladder, and there will be more lawsuits learning from the mistakes of this one, and one day, if they are not out of business by then, oil companies will actually pay some of the externalized costs of their business.

Comment Re:Grab some popcorn (Score 2) 434

I'm not sure we actually KNOW that the current warming trend is entirely man made,

Yes we do know that.

If you don't know, it's because of exactly the PR efforts of oil companies and others with a vested interest to confuse people, create FUD and dillute one of the strongest scientific arguments ever made in the history of the world.

The case for man-made climate change is so rock solid, we have more scientific evidence of it than we have about gravity or water being wet. No question has been studied for so long by so many. This is in part because of all that propaganda against the facts, and in part because climate is a very complex topic.

To say that we don't actually know about man-made climate change is utterly ridiculous. Denying the existence of the sun on a cloudless sky at noon is a more reasonable position to take.

Comment Re: Political tax (Score 1) 434

Soo... what do you expect then? An immediate halt to the world's oil supply?

That isn't what this is about.

An immediate halt to manipulating public opinion about climate change is more like it.

Before you can fix a problem, you first need to agree what the problem is. The very methods of tobacco and now oil companies to muddle the waters, bring out false studies, bury correct studies, etc. etc. is aimed to prevent or delay that something is done about the problem - because these companies profit from the problem, and don't pay for the negative effects they cause.

Comment Re:Alternative (Score 2) 434

You missed the point.

We all live in the real world, today, and have to operate within those parameters. NYC is trying to do that, and the addition of shifting pension fund money around shows that they realize they are contributing to the problem and are taking steps to change that.

The energy companies, on the other hand, knew about climate change and the role of fossil fuels half a century ago, and what did they do about it? Try to bury the problem.

Same as the tobacco industry did.

Only fair if they face the same consequences. Not for being oil companies, but for intentionally manipulating public opinion in the name of profit, to the detriment of everyone else.

Comment Re:"I bet they were instructed to ignore the risk" (Score 1) 366

Because a proper risk evaluation should have shown that this risk was too high to be acceptable.

Risk can be accepted, there is nothing special about that. When you drive to work in the morning, you implicitly accept the risk of a traffic accident. When a company does business, they accept a lot of risks, because without taking risks you can't do business.

But you evaluate your risks and rate them and any halfway sane evaluation of this risk would've broken even the most aggressive risk acceptance criteria.

Comment Re:"I want repaired processors for free" (Score 1) 366

or likely even bankrupt Intel.

That's called a business risk.

Taking risks is the reason that profits are morally justified.

No, I don't buy this "it would bankrupt us" bullshit. Should've thought about that before you decided to cut corners. When a real person robs a bank or shoots someone "but I have a mortgage to pay" is not a defense that works very well.

I'm with Theo on this one, as unrealistic as it might seem. But hey, 40-hour work weeks seemed complete nonsense 200 years ago. Flying to the moon was SciFi less than a hundred years ago. "Unrealistic" doesn't mean "impossible". It needs a strong will.

At the very least, they should pay everyone who owns an Intel processor the worst-case performance impact as compensation (e.g. 30% of the CPU value).

But, of course, nothing of that kind will happen. Lawyers will tie this up in court until all the executives could sell their stock, then make a settlement for a fraction of that.

Comment Re:Dream on (Score 1) 366

Basically he's asking for every processor produced in the last 20 years to be replaced for free. If you think that's realistic I've got a bridge to sell you.

It is not realistic, but it is right. They manufactured a defect product and sold it. There should be a recall and free repair, and if that's expensive or difficult - their problem not mine.

Of course, in the real world their stock price already recovered, sales will be back to normal within a month, and by summer only some obscure computer geeks will talk about it. And maybe a bunch of lawyers trying to get rich on class action lawsuits.

Furthermore to get compensation he will have to show actual harm incurred.

With the patches being applied, your CPU now runs 10-30% slower. How is that not actual harm?

Comment Re:Alexa, fuck off (Score 1) 177

You don't like it because when you say you want to buy something, it suggests a particular brand of what you just said you wanted to buy?

No, I don't like it because it makes its selection based on how much someone else bribed it with, not based on my past preferences or a quality-to-price comparison it has run in the background.

Comment Re:Who cares what a stock analyst thinks (Score 1) 120

You think that stock price needs to be somehow supported by physical assets, but that isn't true and hasn't been for decades.

I buy Tesla stock because I believe that in the future I can sell it for more than I paid for it today. And I believe that because I believe that Tesla will prove that it has the right mission, and more people will want to buy into that. I believe they are doing a lot of things right, not just technologically and by betting on electric cars, but also by cutting out the dealers, which not only in America have a bad reputation.

What, you think any of the tech companies you mention have the physical assets to justify their stock prices? If you sell off all the physical assets of Google or Facebook, you can probably buy a single-digit percentage of their stocks from the profits. They have revenue streams - but Tesla has that as well. Heck, people don't even pre-order iPhones a year in advance!

There's even some questioning if overall the car market will shrink because younger generations have less interest in owning cars.

Yes, it will. I am one of those people, didn't own a car for 10 years (after selling my old one), now owning one again because I moved into the countryside. But you know what? Tesla is on the right track there as well, understanding that electric cars and autonomous driving go together. In the near future, taxis will go the way of the Dodo bird, and will be replaced by autonomous car-sharing vehicles, which you summon to your location by App and when you are done they drive off to the next customer.

Guess who is closer to having a car like that than any other company?

Comment Re:Of Course (Score 1) 120

it's really difficult to argue that an EV you can buy and drive home right now is not competitive with a Tesla Model 3 that you have pay $1,000 to reserve the opportunity to buy the entire car in 1-2 years (or longer).

That is true, but here's the thing: I bought a new car late last year. I so much wanted an electric car. So much that I already had a company over to check for installing solar panels on the garage and give me a quote.

I checked the entire market, and in the end bought a BMW again, combustion engine. Yes, there are EVs which I can buy and drive home in 3 months ("right now" is only if you take the exact car that is standing, if you so much as want another color, 2-3 months is the typical wait). But none of them was the car I wanted to buy. The main reason was range, the second reason was that many of them felt like not serious cars, like someone tried and is checking if it falls apart in a road test.

The Model S came the closest to what I wanted in an EV, but honestly speaking my BMW gives me a lot more comfort and better designed small details for half the price. Whenever BMW makes a 5-series EV or Tesla hires someone with car design experience and stops doing the everything-through-the-touchscreen thing (there are reasons for haptics, Tesla!), label me interested. But the next Bolt or Leaf or whatever model? I don't even care.

Slashdot Top Deals

Whenever people agree with me, I always think I must be wrong. - Oscar Wilde