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


Forgot your password?
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:They want no cash (Score 4, Informative) 558

Guilty as accused, at least up to a point.

However, it is certainly not conjecture that most large retail outfits are actually multi-nationals. Which, by and large, centralise their IT, purchase and logistics operations across countries to some degree. It is also pretty much both logical and normal that said multi-nationals routinely store and analyse data about customer behaviour.

Do you really think that the likes of Rewe and Tesco would bother to exempt Belgium from these analyses?

Considering that Belgium happens to be in Europe, and the considerable penalty for breaching European privacy laws, I would say yes, they would bother to exempt Belgium, since the cost of not doing so can potentially be HUGE, if caught.

Comment Re:Too much hype about driverless cars (Score 3, Informative) 211

Looks like you are arguing from a bias. First, your demand that there should be zero accidents is an idiotic one. Statistics and tests have already proven that there are less number of accidents with automated cars.

Secondly, your pulled-out-of-your-ass argument about dropping safety standards seems to never happened to say flights, or industrial machinery. You put people's lives at risk, your product doesn't sells and you get sued too. Hell of a dis-incentive.

All the argument about being unable to stop a lump of metal travelling at 100kph in 0 time is the most moronic thing I have heard. Do you have some special telekinetic powers to be able to do this, if you had manual control?

The key thing you are missing is that the software is not getting distracted while texting, is not going to be drunken driving and is not going to get into a drag race with others on the road. Its 100% focus is on avoiding collisions while getting you where you want to go.

Comment Re:It reminds me (Score 0) 390

So just like you argue that civilian innocents casualties are unavoidable in war, consider abortions, unavoidable civilian innocent casualties of life. Happy to put things in perspective for you.

If unborn are sacred due to innocence and not committing any sins, same applies for chicken, turkeys and buffaloes. So what did you have for thanksgiving?

The only basic logic you have is an arbitrary once that makes sense to you alone. It is called hypocrisy.

Comment Re:Exception to the exception to the exception (Score 1) 277

I think the common sense would simply dictate that what you want to do is just say that in xyz season/months, the workday will start later.
I am not sure why you need to indulge in all this circus of changing the clock, and pretending that time is something other than it actually is.

Just declare that your work day will start at 10 AM instead of 9 AM during summers, and stop driving the rest of the world insane with these calculations needed to know what time you are pretending to be at, this time of the year, just so that we can do business with you.

I mean this IS what you are doing anyways in reality, from our perspective. Going to office an hour later, in summers.

Comment Re:My two cents... (Score 1) 516

Relying on coal/oil/gas energy is one fire/explosion/spill away from a shortage. (Fire STILL burning since past 60 years. Will continue for 250 years. Entire town abandoned) (Town had to relocate)

Relying on nuclear plants is one tsunami/earthquake away from a shortage.

Let us come back and talk when solar starts causing entire towns to be abandoned.

You were saying? Nice try setting up a false dichotomy, moron.

Comment Re:They WILL FIght Back (Score 1) 516

The false dichotomy you put up here is that if it was a chemical company which caused a spill in ground, contaminating your drinking water, you would have been up in arms against same. You would be objecting to the government spending a single taxpayer penny on the cleanup, and would expect the cost to be extracted from the culprit company.

But just because the pollution/contamination is going in air, you have a different criterion here. And you seem to believe that letting the polluters get away scot-free, without spending on complete cleanup, while taxpayer funds are ultimately spend on same, is not somehow a subsidy by government in itself.

Comment Re:They WILL FIght Back (Score 1) 516

Oil and coal get a shitload of indirect subsidies.

Do the oil and coal companies clean up after themselves? Do they clean up the tons of pollution they help put in air? Pollution causes diseases and health problems. Is healthcare subsidized/regulated by government in most countries? Afraid so. Does government spend millions and billions then, trying to combat the pollution? Afraid so. If our tax funds are ultimately footing the bill for fixing problems caused by oil and gas companies, they ARE being subsidized for well over a century now, much more than green energy.

So if both sides are getting subsidies, especially with your side getting even more so, it is ending up being a free market regardless, since things are on equal footing and even tilted to your side in fact. You are welcome to nitpick nuances.

You might prefer Nuclear, but a) solar plans do not have the problem of where to dump their toxic spent fuel(you can actually recycle solar panels), b) Solar panels are not known for exploding and causing chernobyl like events, and c) in event of a typhoon, earthquake, tsunami etc. a solar panel accident will not usually claim lives and cause you cancer.

It is interesting that you refuse to just move to a different location expecting us to sympathize with your plight, while irony of endangering fellow humans to risk of radiation accident just so you do not get "annoyed by noise" escapes you. Normally a person like you would be considered an asshole.

Shit happens. Highway/Freeway constructions for example, do end up requiring people to move elsewhere. You could have legitimately argued about getting fair compensation from the wind farm utility for the inconvenience to you. Nobody would have faulted that. But instead, you chose to put YOUR convenience over many of others benefiting more in the long run, by opposing Solar and wind power. Worse, you are asking more people to risk their LIVES in nuclear plants so that YOU do not need to put up with "annoying noise". Nice going.

Comment Re:Toronto Municipal Gov't divided (Score 4, Insightful) 169


But not as funny as pretending that somehow the drivers do NOT have valid driving licenses, or that there are some special inspection requirements that are not required for family cars, but should apply here. This is why lobbying is pure evil.

What is next? Ban car pooling? Because it is only a matter of time till someone comes up with a popular "couchsurfing/airbnb" version of car pooling, and just generating revenue via registration & background verification fees and advertising.

Comment Re:Hail resistant? (Score 1) 516

Hellooooo Coch brothers. Are those coal plants and oil wells, fire resistant?

Conventional power sources are only interesting if they won't catch fire with just a stray cigarette, spark, or a bit of lightening falling from the sky.
Oh, and THEY do not just get destroyed but cost lives and add tons of smoke and pollution when that happens.

Nice try.

Comment Re:They WILL FIght Back (Score 2) 516

Nice red herring there.

Did you bother reading the article title however? It talks about SOLAR. If your only argument is that wind turbines should not be near residential areas, nobody is going to disagree much.
If wind power is such a joke, people will realize it is a money losing proposition, and they will NOT invest in wind turbines. Isn't US supposed to be all about capitalism, and stuff? Why are you against market taking its own shape? What are you, a f***ing COMMIE now????!!! :)

Comment Re:"eye sore" (Score 2) 516

From your OWN links :

"wind turbines do not directly make people ill." and "Annoyance is not a disease." and "(sickness) likely caused by the psychological effect of suggestions that the turbines make people ill".
More damningly, "similar irritations are produced by local and highway vehicles, as well as from industrial operations and aircraft.". Will include ultrasounds and what not. You do not get annoyed by those, because your brain and ears have adjusted to those sounds over the years. Try asking those who move in from remote areas away from roads with traffic.

Do you ever actually read things, when desperately trying to google up evidence to fit your viewpoints?

What is confusing is, why is there a debate about wind turbines on an article about SOLAR? Wind turbine are probably irritating and it might be better to install them in deserts, away from residences. Now can you and that idiot Harlequin80 (1671040) shut up about wind turbines already?

Heh. Typical. Solar is doing well? Wind turbines are noisy. Ergo, anything except coal and oil is EVIL. I love the way you guys use "logic and reasoning". Harlequin80 (1671040) and your points could all be valid about turbines, but have no place in an article about SOLAR! And yes, if you do dumb things like that, people WILL laugh at you. I suggest not doing dumb things, if the response bothers you so much.

Slashdot Top Deals

The way to make a small fortune in the commodities market is to start with a large fortune.