Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:A mystery (Score 1) 115

Interesting that you mentioned the Juke, because I think it's the only car Nissan makes that isn't ugly. I really like it, minus the CVT. But, starting at the bottom, the Versa is one of the ugliest cars on the road. The Altima and Maxima are both bland -- just like the Accord. Their sports cars are nice, but I guess I just don't pay much attention to that niche. But, the Pathfinder --- this one actually irritates me a bit. It used to be THE BEST looking SUV on the market, and now it looks like a minivan. And, the Xterra... yup, it's still an Xterra, waiting for a redesign so it doesn't look exactly the same as it did almost twenty years ago.

Overall, I think Nissan has really dropped the ball in the last 5 - 10 years with their styling.

Comment Re:A mystery (Score 0) 115

They are far less reliable than "Japanese" cars, and probably "American" cars

I'm sure there are lots of differing sources of opinions online, but this site lists VW just after all of the Japanese brands: So, there's a reason to choose VW over American -- build quality.

Why choose VW over the Japanese offerings? Because the Japanese are always about two years behind everyone else when it comes to incorporating new technology in their vehicles. And, they're boring. Just look at the Camry and Accord -- how boring and bland can you get?

Comment Re:Desert (Score 1) 457

Global warming is practically caused 100% by burning fossile fuels.

And this is the level of critical thinking we skeptics have come to expect from global warming disciples such as yourself. Making a statement like this clearly illustrates your ignorance of the fact that the earth warmed and cooled long before fossil fuels were even discovered. No... but THIS global warming is caused ENTIRELY by humans. The sun has nothing to do with it. Ocean acidity has nothing to do with it. The other cyclical machinations of the planet... no effect. It's all humans burning oil.

Just so you know, not even the most ardent, militant, angry anthropogenic global warming evangelist claims that 100% of global warming is caused by humans. If you need proof, in your own words, "FOR FUCK SAKE GOOGLE IT YOURSELF."

Comment Re:Desert (Score 1) 457

Wow. All I've done is ask questions to a guy who made the bold statement that the burning of fossil fuels has lead the the largest displacement of humans. I asked him to back his statement up with some metrics. Not only have there been ZERO rough metrics provided, I've been called an idiot and a shill for simply asking. Certainly, if such a claim is true, there ought to be some stats available to back it up, right? I have not claimed or rejected ANYTHING myself. What I have done is piss some apparently zealous people off by asking simple questions.

Comment Re:Desert (Score 1) 457

we have already migration streams due to global warming

Who? From where? You're saying people have moved due to global warming, yet you can't say from where or how many. And, as you've said, there's no way to even tell.
That's
completely
moronic.

...Which is obviously caused by burning fossile fuels.

Oh, yes -- obviously. Yet, you can't even state a +/- percentage of the portion of global warming that is actually caused by the burning of fossil fuels. So, how is it obvious?

Comment Re:Desert (Score 1) 457

Today, children, we're going to be talking about arithmetic. I know... big word, right? A + B = C. If you know C (total climate change = 100%) and you know B (total climate change not caused by the burning of fossil fuels), then you know A, right? A = C - B.

So, do you still think I'm being *sniff* unfair?

Comment Re:Desert (Score 3, Interesting) 457

I beg to differ. Idiots like you have no place in this discussion.

Until you can learn to communicate in a post-elementary-school-playground manner, neither do you.

A) it does not matter if climate change is based 95% or 99.9% based on burning fossile fuels.

It certainly does if you're trying to ascertain whether fossil fuel burning has caused enough climate change to displace people, as the OP asserted.

Your hypothetical interview scenario is moot and useless. Calculation of population displacement due to climate change would never be based on interviews -- it would be linked directly to (habitable land mass before change) - (habitable land mass after change).

Protip: Use more logic and reason, and less emotion when composing your arguments.

Slashdot Top Deals

A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.

Working...