Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Physics (Score 1) 263

In what universe is it a reasonable expectation that the amount of energy required to produce a fuel will be less then them amount of energy it produced when burns? Answer none.

You seem to allude to laws of Thermodynamics here, which is beyond stupid. The energy we expect to extract from the plants comes from the Sun. It is the same energy, that powers the plants, the animals, and the humans. Our bodies manage to harvest this energy with a surplus — and always have.

That some methods of producing "biofuels" end up consuming more fuel than is produced, is the inefficiency of the methods, not the principle.

The question is , is scientifically _possible_ to create an efficient enough process that the energy in the plant material itself

We should not need to answer it — Collectively. If an Individual finds such a way, he should be able to sell such fuel to willing buyers. The existing government mandates are stupid and Illiberal. In addition to violating most basic and obvious human rights, they are also inflating the costs of fuel both for machinery and for humans — because raw materials for biofuels are grown instead of food.

Comment Re:Physics (Score 1) 263

It's not. It's VERY cheap for us to make it

Great. Then you can keep using it, thus using less actual oil. This will keep oil-prices lower world-wide.

And if you have so much of this stuff, you don't know, what to do with it, you can export into all the other countries ruled by respectable leaders (that is, not by Trump) — from North Korea to Canada.

Comment The supposed reason... (Score 4, Interesting) 135

According to TFA, the Department's employees explained their reluctance to use the environment-friendly vehicles by their low mileage:

But sources say some personnel are reluctant to use the electric cars because they can only go 80-100 miles on a charge.

Strange — though low in comparison with a gasoline- or (especially) diesel-powered car, the distance seems quite sufficient for a city's police car. Do they really ever need to exceed 50 miles in a day?

Comment Re:Illusion of privacy outside (Re:ride-hailing) (Score 1) 109

And, again, if you don't carry the phone at all times? Or pull the battery?

Not something you would do normally. And if you do, you'll be flagged by the system just for that. It will certainly retain your picture and the driver will remember you, etc.

BTW - the goal isn't total anonymity. It's FRAGMENTATION of data

No disagreement here. Yet the cellphone gives marketeers and police alike a single source...

The link for the credit cards was from 2007.

The first link was from 2007 and talked about BOFA piloting the program. The second link is from 2014 and talks about the credit-availability to illegals from a much wider array of financial institutions. "Illegal immigrant" and "no credit card" are (nearly) orthogonal — if anything, an immigrant can get a card from a bank in his home country... Other options exist too.

And, after all, both Lyft and Uber accept Paypal and debit cards. Having an established credit is not necessary...

I think, I'm done here. It is getting tedious — especially because I find myself hunting for evidence to cite, while you reply with unsubstantiated (or outright incorrect) statements...

Submission + - LAPD not using the electric BMWs it announced in 2016 (

mi writes: In a 2016 well-choreographed press conference, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck got out of an electric BMW driven by Mayor Garcetti to tout the city’s ambitious project.

The cost: $10.2 million, which includes charging stations. However, the cars have seen such little use, that cost translates to about $15/mile...

Some of the use they do get, is improper, alleges TFA.

Comment Re:Illusion of privacy outside (Re:ride-hailing) (Score 1) 109

Thank illegal immigration and the underground economy created by it -- many people have no choice OTHER than to pay cash for services.

More naiveté. An illegal immigrant can get a credit card, not a problem...

But if cash is paid, all the system knows is that cab #5A4D went from point A to B at such-and-such a time and date.

Your naiveté is touching. We already know, how easy it is to uniquely identify you just by your web-browser. And that's something you can control somewhat.

With an active smartphone in your pocket, you are uniquely identifiable by definition — the MAC-addresses of your WiFi and Bluetooth chips betray you. It may be just a bit more difficult to obtain the IMEI from your phone's conversations with the cell-towers. Not to decipher the context of your SMSes and voice-conversations — that'd be illegal and impractical — but simply to keep track of your movements.

Will these systems know your name? You only need to slip up once, allowing to tie your phone to your name (and your cellular provider has the link already). Perhaps more importantly, they don't need to know your name to peddle wares to you — they just need to know, where you are going with any frequency.

Customer photos aren't uploaded to said system.

As I already said, not for very long. The ever-Increasing wireless bandwidth will make real-time uploads of such images to the cloud practical... But these are not even necessary to identify you...

Comment Illusion of privacy outside (Re:ride-hailing) (Score 1) 109

Also, your link implies that the cameras use local storage

Not for very long. As soon as a smart criminal or two take the recorder along with the driver's money at the end of a ride, the next generation of such cameras will be hailing "instant uploading of videos to the cloud". And the cabbies will upgrade. They are upgrading already — credit card acceptance by taxis is rising. Though cash still remains an option, that too may be on its way out.

BTW, cities like New York have required data-collection from taxis for years — and now require the same from Uber/Lyft as well. Scandals like this will, no doubt, happen again.

At any rate, I can accept the opposition based on privacy — even if I still think, you are naive, if you think, paying cash in a taxi is substantially beneficial to your privacy. But anything based on the supposed "illegality" of Uber/Lyft is just nonsense.

And taxi companies are taxi companies -- they're not into selling your data to marketeering filth

Unless you turn off and disable your smart phone, when you enter a cab, tracking you personally is already easy — and will become more so, when the new generation of taxi equipment is adopted. To Uber, Lyft, or traditional taxis (as well as to any retailer, policeman, or passer-by) the WiFi and Bluetooth radios in your phone already uniquely identify you... Crap, it is already happening.

May as well ride Lyft and save money...

Comment Re:ride-hailing (Score 2) 109

No sarcasm intended

You are not 110010001000, are you?

His objection (sincere or sarcastic) was not the diminishment of anonimity, but simply the alleged illegality.

they accept cash. Cash = anonymity

Not quite... Many taxi companies keep record of where each ride originated and ended. And many (most?) take at least a picture of the passenger, if not a video of him. Such video-equipment is a booming business.

Of course, Uber and others are doing it too. Get used to it — with very few exceptions, whatever can be legally perceived, can also be legally recorded...

Comment Re:Employers FORCED to do this... (Score 1) 393

Sane companies manage to comply with the law and provide a safe and welcoming work environment by gently discouraging contentious speech.

Maybe. This does not contradict my point, however. Which is that the "Social Justice" busybodies have found a way for the government to prosecute people saying disagreeable things — without obviously violating the letter of First Amendment, even if blatantly violating its spirit.

Even if Google, in particular, is a willing participant, and would've been doing the same things without the threat of governmental prosecution, the very existence of the threat is an outrage.

Comment Re:Raping gorillas (Score 1) 306

Some citations

Unfortunately, none of the links you are providing support your claim — that cartoon depictions of Blacks as gorillas has contributed to their likelihood of being mistreated. Your repeated references to "Jim Crow", show your being completely misguided. Jim Crow laws were a feature of the Democrat-dominated Southern States, where former slave-owners still held power. For someone accusing the opponent of ignorance, your using "jim crow" and "racism" interchangeably is especially wrong.

The Betty Boop cartoon was created by a Jewish immigrant from Austria living in California. He never owned a slave and his encounters with racism, if any, would all have been on the receiving end.

Racism is not only a southern problem.

Whether it is or not, you connected a watermelon-eating gorilla depicted in a cartoon with the high likelihood of a Black getting raped and/or murdered as a result of asking for police protection. It is that connection, that I find ridiculous — and which you would not (cannot!) substantiate with any actual citations.

Comment Re:Employers FORCED to do this... (Score 1) 393

my biases cause me to be more critical in code review with women on my team then that is a problem

It is a problem for your employer. It is not (should not be) a matter for the Attorney General to address.

so it is reasonable for me to be reprimanded or fired.

Yes, it may well be reasonable. Whether it is or not, however, should be up to your employer, not the government.

Comment Raping gorillas (Score 1) 306

Read some history.

You are welcome to cite the actual historical facts of which you find me ignorant. The above statement is offensively condescending and indicative of your lack of any specific arguments.

Yes, when these were depicted, rape, murder, lynching, & beating were all potential outcomes if blacks complained.

Citations? Citations supporting your implied claim, that such outcomes were not merely potential, but likely — and that the cartoon-depictions increased/contributed to the said likelihood.

The reality of jim crow was ugly.

Jim Crow laws are fully irrelevant to our subthread — these laws did not deny Blacks police protection, nor have the cartoons you found offensive made in the formerly Confederate states, where these laws were in effect. Please, stay on topic.

The reality of racism is ugly and violent.

It being ugly does not mean it was widespread. And it being widespread does not mean, a programmer today must apologize for his algorithm's failure to reliably distinguish between Homo Sapiens and other hominids. It certainly is a feature worth improving or a bug worth fixing, but it certainly is not a manifestation of racism or even of "insensitivity".

Comment Employers FORCED to do this... (Score 0) 393

The more you read and hear about these problems, the more you realize, employers simply should not care about these things. Whether an engineer, a train-dispatcher, or a secretary is a racist or a feminist is irrelevant — what matters is whether or not they do a good job.

And employers do not want to care either — it is an expensive minefield, gravely dangerous no matter what you do.

However, the Illiberals laws and practices force them into policing employee conduct. Our Illiberal overlords, themselves restrained from regulating speech, manage to compel employers into such policing with the overhanging threats of prosecutions for "hostile work environment.

That is, yeah, much as we hate it, it is legal for you to say what you want to say. We can neither fine nor imprison you for saying it, sadly. But we can force your employer to fire you instead, and that's almost as good.

Thus, arguing whether or not Google "has a right" to decide what to do, is completely bogus. Whatever the personal opinions of the company's executives, their hand is forced. Forced by the busybodies, who've shredded the First Amendment.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful illumination? -- Isaac Newton, "Optics"