Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Right, blame the consumer, not the company. (Score 1) 76

Because "We pass the emissions test" is an entirely verifiable fact.

As are the false claims of a software company. "Our software does XYZ" when it actually doesn't, is a lie, and not subjective. Which is the point of the complaints. And no, consumers should not have to do research to find out a company is simply making shit up about their products capabilities.

If I buy a game console that prominently displays a DVD video logo on it - then it damn well better play DVD's.

If I buy a car that advertises GPS as a standard feature - then it damn well better come with GPS.

If I buy a soda that says Sugar Free on the label, then it damn well better not have 40 grams of sugar in it. I should not have to spend five minutes on my phone searching to see if the company is lying, and then another five minutes verifying claims and counter-claims.

Comment Re:Science Deniers (Score 1) 304

If you believe the proxy science.

What proxy science. Data and methodologies are publicly accessible and subject to peer review.

I don't trust it since Climategate.

You mean since you found an excuse to get your confirmation bias on - just like the anti-vaxxers. You guys come up with a reason yet for why, in an industry where a single company can make $40 billion in a single quarter, they haven't been able to debunk climate science if it's all faked? When even their own paid scientists admit that climate change is happening, when they actually examine the facts?

while renewable energy is just not nearly as cheap or efficient on the large scales needed to do away with fossil fuels

Outdating talking point #3,475: Wind now competes with fossil fuels. Solar almost does - and that's allowing the fossil fuel industry to externalize most of their side effects. Feel free to skip the baseline red herring, as production capacity can be spaced across the grid to account for the rare windless periods or times of low sunlight.

and the world has no appetite for nuclear

Slight correction: the world has no appetite for the cost of nuclear. Nuclear power is by far the most expensive and ludicrous form of corporate welfare invented by man, with the exception of defense contractors. It simply costs too damn much to mine, refine, construct, secure, maintain, decomission, and store the waste for hundreds of years.

Comment Re:and Eve fucked her son in Christian Bible. WYP? (Score 1) 403

Given you deflect from the argument

Your deflection, I'm addressing the fallacy of "X believes Y because their book says so" head on. The only difference between saying Muslims believe (insert fearmongering of choice here) "because the Koran says so" and saying Christians believe in mother-son fucking "because the Old Testament says so" is the chosen passage of a millennia old rag.

Comment Re:Duh... (Score 1) 304

If Congress hadn't killed the plans for more Navy nuclear powered ships then they'd be using a lot less fossil fuels.

How's that? New submarines are nuclear, and new aircraft carriers are nuclear. The U.S. has been out of the battleship business for some time - so where are these new nuclear ships going to be? And even then, if they started slapping them on cruisers, you couldn't tell the difference in the military's overall energy consumption. And aside from the Navy's use of oil, the Army, Air Force, and Marines are more or less 100% driven by fossil fuels.

The US Navy has been researching synthesized fuels, still carbon based but derived from nuclear power and seawater, not fossil fuels. If Congress would just fund this project properly then we could see this deployed in the military very soon.

Or....Congress could completely gut every single military program and institution outside of the various Guards: Coast, National and Air. It would be more than enough for this nation's actual defense needs. Having a thousand military bases around the world and special forces deployed to 130+ countries has nothing to do with defense and everything to do with empire.

The "drill, baby, drill" people see domestic oil production as a means to stop sending so many of our warriors over to so many sandy places to die for what we can produce here.

Which is another red herring. There is no such thing as a nationalized energy sector in the United States, else the CIA would have have to overthrow its own government. Most of the oil drilled in Alaska, for example, is exported to Japan, because there is only the world oil market.

The Democrats have been openly hostile to nuclear power

As much as they've been hostile to corporate trade agreements like NAFTA and the TPP. Which is to say, not at all. Nuclear power hasn't been held back by liberals, peacenicks or Green Peace. Nuclear power has been held back by the fact that it is completely and utterly unjustifiable based on cost alone. You can't square the circle of spending 15 years building a $15 billion nuclear power plant when wind and solar are far faster and cheaper to roll out, even building in capacity across the grid to address the baseline red herring.

While many people might not like it things like domestic oil and gas production, and more pipelines, are necessary for a smooth transition away from fossil fuels.

Sorry, but I have to ask: did your eyes get a little crosseyed while writing that? We need more fossil fuel production to transition away from dependence on fossil fuels?

I'm tired of so much arguing on if CAGW is real. I want to see people discuss real solutions.

Real solutions have been around since the 70's - and sometimes the 1870's. When wind and solar are already cost-competitive with coal - and that's allowing coal to externalize most of its costs - what justification can there be for nuclear power plants? And again, we can skip the "baseline power" canard as 1) there's no such thing 2) green power generation can be spread across the grid, same as coal or nuclear 3) store excess energy for when it's needed.

If nothing else, you can use spare electricity to pump water into a reservoir, either a lake or water tower, and then use gravity to power a turbine to produce electricity. If that just sounds silly, remember what nuclear power plants do: they heat water. To move a turbine to produce electricity.

Burning more natural gas means burning less coal and oil

Until you factor in all the fossil fuels used in the production of said natural gas, in which case it's a wash. With a side order of earthquakes and poisoned ground water.

Comment Duh... (Score 2) 304

Key word being "military". The U.S. military is the single largest user of carbon fuels. The U.S. military gets most of it's funding to ensure the world's gas station (the Middle East) keeps pumping oil.

So, yeah, you might want to pay attention if even the Pentagon is saying climate change is going to have serious consequences. It's like Philip Morris talking about the cancerous substances in tobacco - if even they are admitting it's a problem, why are you continuing to deny it?

Comment Re:What happened to the 50 million climate refugee (Score 1) 304

They're never called on their (many) mistakes, shitty science and deplorable conduct towards climate realists.

I'm glad you "realists" have such great WiFi out in the Maldives. That's where you've all gone to, right, since beachfront property is so cheap these days? Just make sure you stay there.

Comment Wind and solar are already cheaper than coal... (Score 1) 304

But it was all futile anyway because you are asking people to reduce their standard of living by choice to accomplish a community goal.

...making this post a pantload of denailist dumbfuckery. The only people that would be hurt by climate change mitigation are the capistlists driving climate change in the first place.

Then there's the fact that the cost of addressing climate change is insignificant next to the costs of not addressing it.

Comment so the Je suis Charlie stuff was 100% bullshit? (Score 0) 403

What happened to all that grandstanding about free speech being sacrosanct? Don't tell me it's just about the right to be racist assholes towards Muslims?**

* AE's, don't bother whining about the Nice attack etc when for every drop of innocent western blood spilled, entire swimming pools are filled due to western-backed violence.

* Yes, islmaophobia is racism, because when you're bitching about Muslims, you're using that as a stand in for "Arab" and "black".

Comment Re:Thoughtcrime (Score 0) 403

Yeah, Ratzo, the "jihadis" in Afghanistan helped end the cancer that was the USSR.

Uh huh. How many democracies were overthrown by the USSR? Why don't you come up with a list and compare it to the number overthrown by the CIA and get back to me.

Trunka lunka, donka dee doo, I've got a gulag ready for you...

Comment Re:Holocaust denial (Score 1) 403

This is way beyond holocaust denial - which actually requires denying the holocaust, not just visiting websites talking about it.

This ISIS fan was actively demonstrating sympathy for ISIS terrorism (his defense is laughable

What's laughable is the size of the stones being thrown from within the glass house. The United States and it's allies are the worst terrorist nations on the planet - should we lock people up for reading terrorism-supporting news outlets like the NYTimes or the Washington Post?

Slashdot Top Deals

To understand a program you must become both the machine and the program.