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


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

Comment Re:Doesn't work that way (Score 4, Insightful) 52

To put it another way, this whole line reminds me of the same thing with charity. You have a person with money who supports a charitable cause, and they give a lot of money to it, and someone responds, "..but you still have possessions X, Y, and Z! if you really supported the charity you'd donate more!". But it's a line of attack that the person donating to charity can never win: no matter how much they give, they can still be attacked for owning things, unless they donate to the point that they're homeless in the streets scrounging for food from trash cans.

If the argument was that Al Gore had a particularly high level of environmental impact relative to his wealth and other factors worthy of consideration (his job, where he lives, etc), then that would absolutely be grounds for charges of hypocrisy. But otherwise what you're really complaining about is wealth inequality, and doing the unwinnable argument, "If Person X really cared about Issue Y, then they'd give even more than they currently do!" - regardless of what that level of giving is.

Comment Re:Half assed... (Score 4, Insightful) 52

I think you're confused. They're not buying "carbon credits". They're literally putting money into the manufacture of wind turbines. More wind turbines will exist because of this. 285MW nameplate more. Wherein does the problem lie?

What's the point of them buying stakes on renewable energy companies if in the end their data centers and factories are still using unregulated coal power, usually in cities that desperately need to move away from those?

And what do you think that the additional produced turbines will do - lie around on a factory floor? They'll be installed and generating power on the grid. Who cares where?

And more to the point, you don't just get power from a single power plant. You're connected to a grid which moves power among numerous plants. In particular, on the Chinese grid there's a number of HVDC and HVAC lines that bring power from the sparsely populated interior (wind, hydro, etc) to the densely populated coast. Directly reducing the need for power generation infrastructure on the coast, even though the wind / hydro / etc hardware isn't located on the coast.

Comment Re: Your new president doesn't pay taxes (Score 4, Insightful) 52

And don't claim you didn't vote for Trump. The American ppl did.

Actually, the American people voted for Hillary. 65,4 million to 62,8 million.

If you disagree then you either don't believe in democracy

No, if you disagree, then you support facts. And, for that matter, if you support democracy (aka, the person who gets the most votes wins). The US is, however, not a democracy - at least when it comes to electing the president. Which is why Trump will be president.

Comment Re:Doesn't work that way (Score 1) 52

Are you under the impression that environmentalists think that everyone should stop flying, driving, heating and cooling their homes, etc? Yes, you may find some radicals that believe things like that, but that is not a mainstream position. The mainstream positions are that consumption efficiencies need to be improved and production impacts need to be reduced.

Now, if your argument is that you think that it's unfair that there's such an economic wealth disparity that some people like Al Gore own private planes while many Americans can't afford a car, that so much of the world's production (and thus environmental impact) goes toward servicing the wealthy and so little toward the poor and middle class, and you think that government officials need to be voting for policies to minimize wealth inequality rather than huge tax breaks for the wealthy that give them an even larger share of the total environmental impact on the planet, then I have only one thing to say to that: "Welcome to the Democratic Party!"

But if you're of the impression that the concept of environmentalism is the same thing as reducing income inequality (and thus consumption inequality), you're sadly mistaken. Mainstream environmentalism is built around across the board improvements - things that effect everyone, not just specific groups.

Comment Re:Good luck (Score 1) 162

If you're going to worry about silly inanities like "what are you going to do," then in the short term you should consider: The stock market is shooting up up up in a situation where economists are predicting gloom. What does that mean? That means there is going to be a boom before the bust, baby!

Get ready, history's biggest bubble is coming! The billionaires are running the show. Find a way to dip a cup in, and then get out and keep your little pile of loot for the dark days ahead.

Comment Re: They could always work elsewhere. (Score 2) 162

I hate Wally World and I've never even been in a union.

Don't tell people what their issues really have to do with. Instead, listen to them and they will tell you. In my experience even those union guys are capable of independent thought and can determine what their motivations are.

People aren't going to hate Amazon because the customer experience is pretty good, and they rely on the government to enforce basic labor standards. It isn't something people are very interested in on a per-company basis. Whereas issues with big box stores replacing numerous industries with many fewer jobs is more of a community issue, where the only solution is for the people who care to shop more locally and preserve some fraction of the smaller businesses.

The one time I did shop at Wally World, we received a wedding gift of a $50 gift card from there. Which was easy to solve, we bought a gift for a holiday charity event.

Comment Re:Economic fallacy (Score 1) 162

With automation we're faced with a choice: share their production, or let the poor... go away to wherever people go when all the land is owned and people aren't allowed to subsist anywhere. Wherever that is.

That is the choice, Star Trek, or a small number of people living in defended bubble cities with police that go out and make sure any surviving commoners aren't trying to build homes or farms on any of the land.

Increasing productivity is only "good" for most people if society modifies the economic formula in some way in response to efficiency gains. In Europe they're committed to simply working less hours per worker as a solution. I don't really care which formula is modified, but lets do respond somewhere in the system!

Comment Re:They could always work elsewhere. (Score 1) 162

The job that grows on trees is called Hunter or Gatherer, and unless you have the right family tree it is generally banned, though in some cases you can buy a permit during a season.

Within what is available for individual commercial harvesting with a permit there is often 5 or 6 weeks of the year when money can be made, depending on your region.

And subsistence foraging is difficult or impossible if you're not allowed to live on the land.

Comment Re:They could always work elsewhere. (Score 1) 162

In my experience there is always somebody trying to camp in the parking lot to save money. This says nothing at all about the company or the job. Even at google there are people who want to live in the parking lot. It is also somewhat traditional to provide a place for employee camping, though unpopular these days.

Comment Re:Go away, you're not 21 (Score 1) 218

No, I'm not attempting to claims that.

If I was attempting to claim that, I would have said so.

What I actually claimed is right there for you to read; and there is never any need to make up extra things that I didn't say in order to understand what I did say.

You're as stupid as the other guy. No, nobody magically learns about anything all on their own, the whole idea is idiotic. And just as idiotic is the idea that kids are going to intentionally turn to adults for music recommendations. The reason that kids get their interests from adults is only because the promoters are adults. Adults who are not using advertising or other promotion to interest the kids will be ignored because the kids will figure out that these adults are making recommendations!

You weren't even born human, it is obvious because you were never a human child.

Slashdot Top Deals

Kill Ugly Processor Architectures - Karl Lehenbauer