Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 91

I can't bother to find the reference, but within the last few days Exxon tried to get the case dropped on the grounds that the New York AG and other on the prosecution side are "biased" and out for personal gain. It's a 100% ad hominem attack, with a heaping pile of you're mean and you don't play fair as a side order. Like Exxon isn't a profit driven enterprise with an agenda of it's own.

The best reason I can figure out for this is that they are setting up for a long appeal process. If they can drag this out for decades think of all the additional profit to be made. This strategy worked out really well for them during the Exxon Valdez iol spill disaster, so why not try it again?

Comment Re: Watches are worn as bling (Score 2) 319

I like Skagen, and they're a rare example of clean design at an affordable price. I especially like an Ancher model -- the arabic version with leather band for general wear and the baton dial for dress. The Holst with day/date dials combines two things I don't usually like (subdials and day/date complications) but does it in a way that I actually like quite a bit. For me it's not the existence of the complication per se, but the readability of the watch. Unfortunately the Holst is a bit on the thick side, but you can't have everything. Shave 3 mm off the thickness and you'd be looking at a $1000 watch.

There are few odd missteps in the lineup. Their rectangular dress watches have batons in a circular pattern, which is a bit... unusual. They also have a watch that has a month calculation. It's done nicely, but it's an utterly ridiculous feature.

Overall Skagen designs remind me of Baum et Mercier at about 20% of the price, and just little bit more Scandanavian if you know what I mean.

Danish Design watches seem pretty similar; I wouldn't be surprised in they came out of the same company. They almost certainly use the same movements. Ironically the faces seem less Scandinavian to me but what do I know? One of their designs reminds of the famous Swiss railway clocks.

I don't have watches from either of these companies because I focus on vintage pre-80s watches.

Comment Of course there is. (Score 1) 102

Smart people usually spend slack-ish time examining things they *might* want to do. It doesn't mean they *do* want to do those things, but one thing most of us know by now is whenever you're asked to do something, "in a hurry" is the default pace, and yet "slapdash" is not acceptable. So you don't want to be in a position where you use time figuring out how to use Material Design that you need for coding or testing.

And even if you don't use those little hypothetical forays, they're still valuable in understanding your competition, both weaknesses and things you can learn from them.

Comment Re:How dare you try to get around us regulating (Score 2) 91

And yet other companies manage to stay in business without committing fraud.

The reasons for emissions regulations are so that when consumers make the cost/performance tradeoff when buying a car, they don't externalize costs -- which is an economist's way of saying make other people pay for their choices. A car would be cheaper and perform better if it didn't have a catalytic converter (just dump your partially burned hydrocarbons on everyone else), EGRs (just dump your NOx on everyone else), PCVs (spread engine oil over everyone else) and mufflers (dump your noise on everyone else).

All of that stuff you'd be dumping on everyone else costs everyone else. You can argue about precisely how much it costs them, but it is certainly not zero.

So let's turn your little rhetorical device around: How dare you fraudulently make the public subsidize your business?

Here's the thing about markets: they're not about making everyone happy. They're about efficient distribution of resources. If costs go up producers are unhappy and some of them go out of business. That makes the owners and workers unhappy, but it is a rational response to costs going up. Dumping those costs on others and pretending they don't exist isn't rational; it's hysterical.

Comment Re:horse has left the barn (Score 1) 333

People need to realize that the effects of global warming are at this point unstoppable.

I know horses can count to three and do simple arithmetic, but to bolt the barn at the very stroke of four hundred greatly surpasses my prior estimation of equine quantitative analysis.

"Storm's-a-brewin'," says the white horse, from behind the thoroughly bolted barn door.

"North of four hundred! Wouldn't be caught dead in that climate," says the black horse, giving the topmost bolt a final check with his teeth.

"Not with those bloody superstitious bipeds completely giving up on proactive management, just because they burst through the first screw-up milestone still in the same old business-as-usual blind gallop," agrees the chestnut.

"Typical glue-obsessed skin-pickling apes," agrees the white horse. "I'm waiting this out from in here."

"Agreed," says the black horse. "Unless. Duty. Summons."

"That creeps me out," says the white horse, moving another step away. "How will you know?"

"Stormy, moonless nights, black cats, one-eyed bats—all the assorted omens of end times and human fate," says the chestnut.

"Stop kidding around," says the black horse. "Salty white filigrees on the cement floor will spell things out all too clearly."

"Good to know we don't have to stand around counting bats eyes," says the white horse. "That would have sucked."

"Beats what the humans can manage," says the chestnut.

Here the white horse lets fly with a giant fart of approval.

"Hey, stop that, meth breath!" says the chestnut.

"Too late!" says the white horse, "better out than in."

"Wrong," says the black horse. "Better in than out," continues the black horse, after checking the middle bolt with his teeth one last time.

Comment Re:Reminder: CO2 is good, not bad, for environment (Score 1) 333

The jump here was you invoking a talking point I suspect even you know moronic.

Do you seriously think plants can just magically absorb vast amounts of CO2? If you do, then you are an idiot. If you don't believe it, then why repeat a demonstrably ludicrous meme?

Comment Re:Reminder: CO2 is good, not bad, for environment (Score 1) 333

Water is beneficial to human life, therefore I urge you to tie rocks to your feet and jump in the deep end. By your logic, you'll become healthier by the second!

I mean really, are you that fucking stupid? Just because plants benefit from CO2 doesn't mean they have infinite capacity to absorb it, or that the other effects of higher CO2 concentrations won't undermine any good it might do to plants. Among the moron anti-AGW talking points out there, this must be the surest sign that the person saying it is a fucking simpering halfwit.

Slashdot Top Deals

How many QA engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? 3: 1 to screw it in and 2 to say "I told you so" when it doesn't work.