Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Free space wiping controversial? (Score 1) 300

I haven't seen any evidence that the wiping was done during the email investigation; do you have a citation that says otherwise?

And Slashdot posted this a bit after it hit the mainstream news. The fact that you think that the timing was a plot by Slashdot implies that you are less interested in facts than in political conspiracy theories. When you look around and complain about all of the political mudslinging, now you can think "hey, I'm causing all that! Cool!"

Comment Re:Too secure for insecure? (Score 1, Informative) 300

You're building a strawman; you made a fake argument designed to be easily knocked down. The actual argument being made is: If you complain that Clinton used a non-governmental email server, but you did not complain that Bush+ did the same thing (and "lost" a lot more email), then you are not concerned about the potential email-server crime; you're just a whining partisan idiot.

A similar situation: The tea party folks were incredibly upset that Obama ran a big deficit. You wouldn't know it to listen to them now, but for many years the deficit was the most important thing in the political world and proof that Obama was trying to destroy the USA.

But the deficit under Obama shrunk every year, while the deficit under Bush Junior grew every year. Yet the tea party folks never made a peep of complaint when Bush grew the deficit.

So the most likely explanation is that the tea party folks never really cared about the deficit; they are just whining partisan idiots.

There are of course partisan idiots on all sides of the political spectrum, but the republicans seem the only ones who let the partisan idiots set their policy and talking points. Odd way to run a railroad.

Comment Re:"free" * (Score 1) 990

Sure, but so what? Yes, we all know TANSTAAFL, but we also all know that charging at work is just a minor workplace perk. Pedants shouting TANSTAAFL!!!! are just trying to derail the conversation without all that pesky "adding meaning" or "thinking".

I'm guessing that as EVs become more common, we'll get a lot more parking lots with first a few, then 20%, then 50%, then 100% of spaces with EV plugs. It will add a bit of cost to the parking lot but not much (once it happens at scale), and it will usually be included in the cost of the parking. Some places will meter it, but I'm guessing that even then it will cost far less than the equivalent in gas, and it will be far more convenient than finding a gas station once a week or so.

Comment Re:Driving yes, but charging? (Score 1) 990

And you are misinterpreting the statistics.

On average, sure 10% of vehicle days cannot be served by current electrics. But that's not an even distribution.

Most hauling trucks (both long-haul and local delivery) need the energy density of gas. So 100% of such truck-days are non-electric.

On the other hand, my wife and I each have a car. We occasionally drive more than a single-days charge, maybe 10-20 times a year, but never in both cars at once. So for us, no more than 2.7% of car-days must be non-electric. We also have motorcycles; my touring bike probably needs a gas engine but the others don't.

So it's not 10% for everyone; it's 100% for a few, and a few days a year for most.

Comment Re:Hottest on record ... again (Score 2) 270

The problem is ... I've heard it enough times that it must be at least 5 degrees C hotter on average per year than just a few years ago ... which seems ... catastrophic ...

Errr... If May, June, and July are all 0.5 higher than average, that doesn't mean the earth is 1.5 higher. And if 2015 is, say, 0.45 higher and 2016 is 0.55 higher than average, that doesn't mean that we're 1.0 higher than average. Statistics don't work that way.

Since you don't understand numbers and averages, the rest of your rant seems likely to be nonsensical. Which -- surprise! -- it is.

You can educate yourself on statistics, how they can be used to lie, and how to detect that deceit. Then your opinion may matter.

Or you can keep on believing that you are smarter and more informed than all of the people studying climate, and keep on posting misinformed rants. I suspect that you'll pick this last option, but I'm always ready to be proven wrong.

Comment Re:How can government be trusted to help? (Score 1) 618

I like how your one link contains the quote: "Although not all improper payments are fraud, and not all improper payments represent a loss to the government" but then goes on equating improper payments and fraud (and also equating the dollar value of improper payments with the dollar value of wasted money in the program). That level of logical rigor is common when you quote groups who like to justify their incorrect facts by mis-representing good studies. Seems like those groups assume that their believers won't actually read the studies; seems like those groups are, for once, correct.

Comment Re:How can government be trusted to help? (Score 1) 618

The problem is that government is absolutely the worst group to be distributing money like this. There is no oversight so any such government agency would be rife with fraud.

Do you have a citation for this, or is it just the usual anti-government religion? Because most charities have a lot less oversight than governments.

Folks have done a lot of studies on welfare, medicare/medicaid, and unemployment fraud. Many of the studies were funded by people who really want to prove that governments are inefficient. Most of the studies show very low fraud rates (low single digit percents, like 2%). The exception is that Medicare has a fairly high fraud rate, but that's mostly doctors defrauding the system for more payments, not the poor folks or government officials. Here is one story about this.

But maybe you have a peer-reviewed study that shows that governmental aid for the poor is "rife with fraud"?

Comment Re: So in other words... (Score 1) 312

With vehicles, most of the damage is now well understood. There is an accident, people die. Some issues took longer before we understood that they were a big problem (car emissions causing smog, greenhouse gasses, and other airborn pollutants; drunk driving claiming lots of lives) but now, after a hundred years of almost every american being in or near vehicles daily, we have a pretty good handle on it.

Consider tobacco. For a very long time, smoking tobacco was considered healthy. Even when studies started to show the terrible effects, corporations and deniers tried to deny the studies. I remember my best friend's dad saying "I'm not a lab rat, how they do testing is totally different than how people smoke, so obviously those studies are wrong." Now we know better.

And now we have e-cigs. We have studies which show, not proof yet, but strong cause for concern. We have a market full off cheap products which you say are dangerous, and expensive products which you say are not dangerous, and no labelling or education to teach consumers to avoid the cheap shit. And we have people saying "how they do testing is totally different than how people vape, so obviously those studies are wrong."

The harm from e-cigs isn't "you use a cheap one and you die". It's "some products, or maybe all products, emit toxins which are then inhaled". With cigarettes, we know that inhaling certain toxins has little immediate effect but extremely large effects over many years. Do the e-cigs cause the same issues? We're not sure, but it's not exactly rocket science to say "maybe we should study this and put some regulations in sooner rather than waiting until a few generations have damaged their lungs."

I do like your "Reputable studies that actualy say how they tested the e juice come back with no harmful toxins." Do you remember the reputable studies that tobacco companies did which showed no harmful effects? I don't know if the e-cig companies are lying or not; I don't know if they are fooling themselves or not. But I do know that I don't trust companies to regulate themselves; I've seen how that works out.

Comment Re: So in other words... (Score 1) 312

Do you drive ? Better not as more people are hurt and killed in cars than any e cig has hurt someone.

You are completely correct! Road vehicles are terribly dangerous, and most of us spend hours per week in them. They used to be much more dangerous per road-hour. But then we got:
    * Regulations for safety features in vehicles (seat belts, airbags, crumple zones)
    * Regulations for road design (traffic control, traffic calming, speed control)
    * Regulations for vehicle emissions (many and varied)
    * Regulations for driving under the influence of various chemicals
    * Regulations for amount of time you can drive per day (for commercial drivers only)
    * Regulations for licensing

Plus many more. And now vehicles are much less dangerous than before. The injuries and deaths per road-hour, or road-mile, or any other measure you'd like, are way down. So vehicles prove that regulation can be an effective way of taking a hazardous activity and making it much safer. Thanks for proving my point.

Maybe before shooting your pie hole off you should go and see what the regulators do for the ecig industry

If the choice is between letting an industry make lots of money or keeping people from suffering harm, well, I'm not sure I care about what happens to the industry. Fortunately, that's not the choice. We have many industries which are heavily regulated but make lots of money.

Regulations can be bad, and humans often choose dangerous activities. But bringing up driving means that you have no idea how we make tradeoffs and how regulations work. There is no perfect solution, but there are a lot of terrible solutions.

Comment Re:If a cigarette doesn't "smoke", is it harmful? (Score 3, Informative) 312

Second-hand cigarette smoke has not reliably been shown to increase cancer risk or cause respiratory damage to healthy individuals even when those individuals are children raised in smoker households.

I'm no scientist, but whenlots of scientists say something sciencey, and statisticians back them up, I tend to believe it, even if it's something I wish were untrue. You may make different choices. (I picked that link because I've been using Politifact a lot the last few months and while I sometimes disagree with their results I like that they explain their process and carefully list their sources.)

The secondhand smoke numbers are not as solid as, say, measurements of gravity; it's a very hard thing to measure directly, so the studies are mostly doing indirect statistical analyses. So it's always possible that there is another factor there that we are overlooking. But the vast preponderance of evidence points one way, and it's not the way you say it does.

Comment Re:Always question a study... (Score 1) 312

Thus it is wholly-possible to engineer a substantially-safe e-cigarette, if examining specific concerns of e-cigarettes (conversion of chemicals to dangerous chemicals; high-temperature vapor irritating the throat and lungs; basic chemical content). This requires engineering of the compound itself and the delivery device.

Are all (or even most) compounds and delivery devices made this way? If not, then it sounds like the solution is to regulate the industry to only permit safe(r) products, along with studies so that safe(r) is based on the best known facts at any given time.

Will the free market solve this without regulation? Without labels and education, consumers don't even have the option of making an informed choice. Without something compelling accuracy in the labels, producers will put inaccurate labels on their products. Without a penalty for producing unhealthy products, producers will design products based on "cost" and "attractiveness", with health a non-consideration. So I'm happy to listen to arguments about solving this without regulation, but I'm not sure how it can be done.

Regulation isn't good, it's just better than anything else we've tried.

Comment Re: So in other words... (Score 1) 312

So you are saying that "cheap shit" is for sale. And presumably the "cheap shit" doesn't have labels saying "this will cause long-term damage, buy our competiter's shit instead".

You are saying that self regulation is not working. In that case, the options seem to be "add non-self regulation" or "force people to make health decisions without giving them useful information about health outcomes". I'm voting for regulation myself, but that's because I'll be paying for these idiots with my health-insurance dollars so I think I have a say.

Comment Re:Logic (Score 3, Informative) 704

Hillary's involvement is Benghazi is what disqualifies her for me.

[ Cutting a anti-H rant which disagrees with the events in every official Benghazi investigation ]

We can agree on a few things:

      * There have been about 8 Benghazi investigations.
      * The first few focused on finding Obama at fault. After the 2014 election, they quickly pivoted to finding Hillary at fault.
      * Most, maybe all of them were controlled by Republicans
      * Republicans have very strong incentives to find Obama and Hillary at fault
      * Republicans are supported by a number of generous billionaires, who also have very strong incentives to find Obama and Hillary at fault.
      * Every investigation has returned largely the same results:
            * Hillary and Obama did not give complete information at first (while conflicting information was coming in), but neither one lied. They gave the facts as they were known at the time.
            * Neither Hillary nor Obama could have done anything during the attack which could have changed the outcome or had any effect.
            * Neither Hillary nor Obama did anything (or failed to do anything) before the attack which directly led to or caused or enabled the attacks.
            * Some lower level people at State made some decisions which were (in 20/20 hindsight) poor, but were not malicious.
      * Some of the people involved in the investigations have not disagreed with the facts in the official reports, but have nonetheless claimed without explicit basis that Hillary and/or Obama lied and caused it and were otherwise EVIL. Again, without facts or clear explanations.

Now here is where we disagree.

You seem to believe that all of the investigations were wrong for some unexplained reason, and all wrong in the exact same way, and nobody involved has clearly explained how they were wrong, but you know more than all of the investigators and can prove that your version is correct.

I believe that you cannot deal with what you WANT to be true disagreeing with reality, so you are making shit up and ignoring facts while truly believing every word you say, You are not lying. You are also not correct.

Comment Re: Russian VPN != "Works for Russia" (Score 1) 704

Fantastic! Now you can prove me wrong. Just find one person who did what Hillary did (mishandle classified data but with no intent to leak and with no data leaked) and is in jail, and you will prove me terribly mistaken.

Or, if you can't, then it will be clear that your hatred of Hillary is greater than your love of facts or fairness or patriotism, and that you will make anything up if it fits the narrative you wish were true.

And what did the FBI basically say? She's too big to indict.

You have a rare talent, to interpret what people "basically" say. My poor brain can only handle what they "actually" say: "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: [various bad stuff]. We do not see those things here."

Slashdot Top Deals

Dead? No excuse for laying off work.