Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:the CO2 improvements are minor at best (Score 1) 63

> Gassers make just as much particulate, but it's of the most hazardous type, which means their particulate emissions are actually worse than diesel.

That's only true of direct injected gas engines.

Who told you that? That's bullshit. The only way in which DI gassers are worse than other gassers is that they foul their intake valves which have to be expensively cleaned, sometimes including head removal.

Gasoline also has to be refined more than diesel

This isn't true anymore. Diesel is a highly refined product now also. Clean emissions requires clean and homogeneous input fuel and that means more processing.

Not only is it still true (it still takes less energy to make diesel, it just takes more than it used to) but guess what? Automakers are now asking fuel companies to make higher-octane fuels, over 100 on the scale we use in the USA. That's what they need to make cleaner-burning gasoline engines. So gasoline is actually about to get more expensive, both in real dollars and in energy cost.

That car is a rolling smog bank and you are trying to talk about how your input fuel was renewable? Seriously, have you looked at the emissions standards it was required to conform?

That's irrelevant; mine is running nice and clean. It only smokes when you pin it, which even brand new diesels do. And since it doesn't have a catalyst, it puts out nice big fat soot particles that can be trivially swept out of your lungs by your cilia.

They were a joke in the US and a double joke in Europe. It's far filthier than its contemporary gas cars and really bad compares to any modern car of any sort.

And yet, far superior to anything else in the class sold in 1982.

Comment What makes you think I'm trolling? Losing the arg? (Score 1) 53

It's a fact that over and over again device-specific add-ons are ignored. They wind up in bargain bins whether it's tablet-specific keyboard docks or R.O.B. for the N.E.S. Ignore the lessons of history at your peril. Moto G 2nd owner here, in case you think I'm in love with Samsung or something. Anybody else notice they're now stooping to infomercials?

Comment Re:Apple Tried This Before... (Score 1) 457

I guess that depends on how you define that arena. I credit Apple with killing the floppy drive (arguably not just the 3.5 with the Imac but also the 5.25 with the original Mac) and leading the way towards killing the optical drive as well. They were also a big developer for CUPS.

Yeah, their market share is slim, but their followers are astonishingly devout. Even though the hardware is no longer unique you still have a better chance of converting a windows person to mac than the other way around.

Comment Apple Tried This Before... (Score 1) 457

Doesn't anyone remember the G4 cube? I do. Maybe the current crop of Apple execs and designers don't - or they just really don't want to - but it also was released with no headphone/speaker jack. While that was not the sole reason for its failure, it was a contributing part.

The G4 cube was cute - similar to how the SGI O2 (the "toaster") was cute, but cute did not equate to functionality.

Comment Re:VISA program is GOOD. H1B is NOT. It is a joke (Score 1) 240

I work for Google and there are constantly great Ph.D. theses where we hire the inventor to integrate their thesis work into our products. Here's an example of an area that can have major impact on our products and at the same time there is typically one person out there (the Ph.D. student) who knows the topic well and understands all small nuances of it.

Google has offices all over the world, so this is a ridiculous argument at best. Even if you did need them to be face to face, there's no need for anything more than a temporary work visa for that purpose. Got any better explanations than that one?

Comment Re:The Verge is 100% wrong (Score 2) 53

Not only is this a viable play-book for Moto, it's exactly what they should do in order to not become part of the "value" market on the clearance shelf.

History has shown us that statistically nobody buys expensive accessories for electronic devices, not least because they are never compatible for long. So no, it's a stupid waste of time. Also, Moto is already part of the value market. They make cheap-ass Motos as tracfones.

Comment Re:Yeah, he can win (Score 1) 21

Speak for yourself.

I went to caucus and voted for Bernie. My precinct ultimately broke exactly 50:50 between Bernie and Hillary with no votes for O'Malley or anyone else. I went to the next level as a delegate where we apportioned delegates for state according to how our state split (which went to Bernie as well). There was nothing else I could do for my local or state voting.

Comment Re:Conspiracy is Conspiratorial (Score 1) 415

They can make patent-able and marketable products from natural pot and still make a killing.

Like I said, I don't think that they can. I think that there is too much prior art.

Again, I don't think you're being creative enough here. Sure, they can't just ground it up into a pill and expect to patent it; that's a given. But once they do something more than that - say isolate a particular compound, or use a novel carrier with it, or a different delivery system, or compound it with an OTC medication - then they have something they almost certainly can patent.

demonstrate hundreds to thousands of years of prior art.

Again, that comes down to what they patent. They wouldn't be dumb enough to try to patent the plant (or at least a common variety of it) directly; that would fail quickly. Such a thing would be like Toyota attempting to patent the wheel. However when they do something clever with pot extracts, then it changes significantly and it is more like Toyota patenting the circuitry for the solar roof in a Prius.

Actually, it's not clear that the tobacco industry will even be the ones to get there before big pharma. There's a lot of big investors lurking around to see how this comes out.

So then who are the investors going to invest in? The investors want to put their money in businesses with solid potential, not just scattered head shops. No businesses strike me as better positioned to make money off legalized pot than tobacco and pharm, as they have the most similar products to it currently.

Comment Re: Wow... (Score 1) 219

That statement should disqualify you from driving a car.

Right back at you:

While pedestrians are supposed to behave, it's YOUR responsibility to make sure that you never drive in a way that makes it possible for you to run over a pedestrian (or hit other cars, for that matter).

While it's my responsibility to minimize that risk, the law recognizes the impossibility of doing that. It sets specific standards where necessary, such as in the case of motorists passing cyclists in California. In other cases, it is deliberately vague to give leeway specifically for the purpose of assigning fault to the party whose fault it actually is (or for other more malign purposes like selective enforcement, but those are outside the scope of this comment.)

The law recognizes the impossibility of completely eliminating accidents, whether between a vehicle and a vehicle, or a vehicle and a pedestrian. It sets speed limits accordingly, so that even if a pedestrian (or motorist) does something stupid, they will hopefully not die. Let's be clear, though; the law recognizes that physics is a thing, and that a person can change direction more rapidly than a car. We don't make the driver automatically responsible in every situation because if we did, nobody would effectively be able to drive. Instead, we make pedestrians responsible for their behavior in many cases. In most of the US, and apparently in most of the world, jaywalking laws exist which make it illegal to cross the road without consideration for safety. Even in DC, where you don't need to use a crosswalk, it's still explicitly illegal to enter the roadway even in a crosswalk when an oncoming vehicle cannot stop for you. Note that the law does not specify a car traveling at legal speeds, or traveling with the light, et cetera. The driver might well be found at fault in a collision with a pedestrian who stepped out in front of them while speeding, but the pedestrian would still be cited for entering the roadway illegally. The goal of the law is to reduce accidents because they are inconvenient to others, not to be fair.

Oh hell, why am I wasting time. It's not "OK" to hit someone at 25 mph. To wrap it up, I hope you didn't mean what you wrote :)

To wrap it up, you misused quotation marks. I didn't say it was OK to hit someone at 25 mph. You're wasting time because you are an idiot who doesn't understand the argument.

Comment Re:This confirms my previous speculation (Score 1) 444

Sure, although I suspect that for both parties the bigger driving force for the vote is the fear of the other candidate winning. A President Drumpf would likely be disastrously bad for me. From the other side there is nothing that stirs up anger from the GOP as much as the name Clinton.

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Working...