They're not exactly the highest professional or unbiased quasi news entity either.
But that does not mean they're wrong.
There is a lot of news going on in the world. Merely deciding what to report will expose anyone's bias.
I have absolutely no problem with FaceBook filtering the news. Because what on earth kind of idiot would get their news from Facebook? That's like doing all your grocery shopping at the 7-11.
In a lot of those places an old computer or CRT monitor would still be used! That is about as green as it gets.
So much of it is still quite useable. Just imagine, say, the computers that suddenly became obsolete when Vista came out, and a computer that chug along hppily on XP ground to a halt (known as Vista Basic fraud)
We are spoiled here, and update a lot - as good consumers. Some folks in some parts of the world are just interested in having something that boots and runs.
The messages use a variety of misleading text. For example, my wife was tricked into upgrading to Windows10 because after clicking "no thanks" a certain number of times, it eventually asked her "do you want to upgrade to Windows 10 now, or later?"
Nope. Your wife or someone else WAY back comitted to doing the upgrade. They clicked, "yes I want to install the upgrade when its available; reserve it now and let me know when its ready" or something along those lines.
THAT was the opt-in or opt-out.
Negative. I have several machines I went through the update process. I also have Win7 on an IMac in a i5 Mid 2011 edition that simply cannot run Windows 10 Will not work with that version of Bootcamp. Yet Microsoft pushed everything to upgrade onto the computer without permission, and it has been trying like hell to get me to upgrade. It is hard for me to believe that I - as you suggest - deliberately told Microsoft to Download an OS that computer will not run. Weird-ass little windows pop up as well, with nothing inside, that I have to ignore - how do I know what will happen?
Did I say any of those things? Or do you just like to make up stories in your head and pretend others believe in them?
I called someone out on vehicle specs, full stop.
No - I like to ask questions. Answer or do not answer - It is your option. And if you do not answer - or if you demand I don't ask the questions, that is also an answer.
If you want to call bullshit, makes sure you smell your reply first.
Tell me though - are you concerned by this? does this make you believe that EV's are dirty?
It then follows, do you take the lightest EV out there and declare every vehicle that weighs more than it as unacceptable?
Personally, if I was teh type of person who liked his Escalade or Lexus LX570, I would be telling the Daily Mail to shut the hell up. Because my Lexus at 6000 pounds curb weight is not only throwing off more of these particulates, but has it's IC pollution as well. If it's bad for say a Tesla, it's much worse for a cehicle that has alomst two normal cars of weight. Glass houses, meet their brick.
This paper may in fact be absolute nonsense yet you have failed to deliver evidence commensurate with your claim.
An important question to ask, is - will an internal combustion vehicle of the same weight as an electric vehicle shed less particulate material?
While not addressed in what I read of the report, it certainly does appear to be based on matter dropped by auto parts such as rubber wear in the wheels, brake pad and rotor wear.
So until we have that comparison, the Daily Mail's report is less than worthless, very bubble sensationalist, and the report by the scientists is a statement that Captain Obvious might make. That's not remotely shooting the messenger, it's based on simple physics that a 5th grader should understand.
Because of course a heavier vehicle is going to produce more wear on those components. Electric, diesel, gasoline, woodgas doesn't matter - It's kinda not just reserved for battery powered vehicles.
And since there are a lot of heavier vehicles running around than the Teslas - the heaviest electrical vehicle I know of - are they now a bigger concern?
The problem with this kind of "analysis", is that even it it's true - and considering the source that's a significant "IF" - it's also predicated on an unchanging world to further its political agenda.
Well, the scientists were pretty much pointing out that that further reductions or shed materials were possible, and that weight reduction was a path to doing just that. Makes sense. The whole scary Toxins thing was just a nasty bit of irresponsible reporting that stoops to the level of being a total fabrication.
Because there isn't anything that an electrical car can shed based on weight that a petrofueled car won't shed as well - because of weight. Looking at the curb weight of a lot of vehicles, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , I'm curious if the good newspaper is as concerned about those as well. I suspect not.
I suspect that they've picked up some cherry picking and fabrication tips from the denialist factions.
Without picking sides, you can't just dismiss this outright. There may be something to this, but it'll need to go through peer review if it hasn't already, in addition to being reproducible.
People who lie large SUV's better hope to high heaven it is not true. Reading through what I could of the paywalled paper, it does ot come to the conclusion that the daily Mail dos, that electric cars are spewing out Toxins at the rate that diesel engines are.
The paper notes that weight reduction is a noteworthy goal, not the hyper ventilating "Electric cars are gonna kill us." that's bullshit, and it is a lie for all that matter.
Here's the rub. Are electric cars the heaviest vehicles on the road? Nope they aren't. Let's take the Cadillac Escalade, which has a cub weight of 5840 pounds. The Tesla Model S has a curb weight of 4,647 pounds. Since the "emissions" are related to weight, like shed tire rubber and brake materials, and the Escalade is almost 1200 pounds heavier, it will shed whatever that weight will make it shed, as well as whatever it's engine produces.
A denialist level cherry picking of data - not on the part of the scientists, but of the newspaper that published what for all intents and purposes, is what the boys down at the shop call a big damned lie. This is going to be just like the Prius batteries give out at XXXX number of miles and all the other BS that is promoted in anti-electric car circles.
Every time they remove a feature from the main firefox people whine horrendously here too. So which is it?
Sounds like different people with different opinions. And its hard to deny that FireFox isn't suffering from some manner of bloat.
I belong to some Yahoo groups - I have no choice in the matter. With all of the battening down of my system, as soon as I go to Yahoo groups, the window goes dark, and a popup shows up telling me about the wonderful new FireFox/Yahoo experience I can have is I install something. It then scrolls up to hide the close window button, and won't let me move it back down for some number of seconds. Then it attempts to track me.
To me, that is something pretty legitimate to complain about. It is certainly another data point when I choose to continue with FireFox or a different browser.
Yeah, I'm sure you've NEVER heard lefty ranters shouting anti-business platitudes before. Maybe you're lucky, maybe you've never had to actually walk through an Occupy camp blocking the entrance to some poor guy's business, shouting at him about how he's a sellout for participating in Eeeeeevil capitalism... um, but do you mind if we use your bathroom?
Yup I have. But you seem to try to turn anyone that disagrees with you into "lefty ranters'.
A person that wants American companies to do well, and a middle class that is well paid enough to buy the products American insutry produces is not a lefty ranter product of the occupy movement.
This is not rocket science. The ideas promoted by some on the supply side of things haven't worked. Trickle down and rising tide boats. Job creator tax cuts. Wars on the installment plan. Mentioned mainly as a tremendous boon for some particular contractors.
Starvation being the most likely outcome since cost of living rarely comes down without it. So many people will die needlessly, crime will rise significantly needlessly, and society as we know it crumbles again needlessly.
Shifting gears here - Keeping in mind that I was Poe-ing, you are right. As America further runs though it's wealth extraction efforts, we are going to have to come to the realization that you just cannot have it both ways. You can't have wealthy producers and impoverished serfs being ruled by them.
Because the end game of that one sided paradigm will be the wealthy producers starting to cannibalize each other. You can't take money from the useless poor. They're starving and have none. So you have to go after your own kind.
Now I really don't expect that scenario to happen, because right now, the Producer outlook has gone a tad pathological, to the point where people like Martin Shkreli are worshipped by many.
As well as horribly reviled by many - which is a good sign that there are at least some limits of greed that people are willing to put up with. Trump even had some nasty stuff to say about this modern American Master of the Uniiverse. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-....
Arrested for a shell game he was playing.
The H1-B program is a sham, it probably started with a noble goal like bringing another Einstein to the country, that is all it should be for. That is not what most H1-Bs are though. They have no special skills and we're enabling this process without getting anything in return.
What we need to be afraid of is a brain drain, where Americans end up going to other countries where there might be better opportunities. We're not there yet, but some day? Something like 6 million smart people by some counts . https://newrepublic.com/articl...
Anyone who has worked with both Americans and Indians can tell you that Americans are far more productive. They are worth more. They are also paid more, by a factor of about 15. For many jobs, Americans are 15 times more productive.
I do find that very plausible. And not the idea that Americans are "better" in some way. It's a different mindset.
Should Americans be paid the same as the people that you outsource to
Why should they? Cost of living in the US is substantially higher than it is in, say, India.
Why should they have a job at all when someone in India is making say 10 percent of what an American worker demands? Doesn't capitalism demand the most money in from the least money paid out for the producers?
If the cost of living in India is low, and Americans making too much and now unemployed, they can move to India. The job creators are not responsible for keeping fat lazy overpaid Americans in money. Besides, the country will improve with them leaving, getting rid of those takers.
This is the kind of stuff that the free market handles and handles very well. Right? As American workers make kess and less, the cost of living will come down - it will have to, or they will starve.
Then, by that argument, EVERY employee should be forced to pay union dues due to the 40 hour workweek, etc., mentioned elsewhere.
Why do you say thet? Deduct the dues from their paycheck, and the company keeps that money. Couldn't be more fair than that. The employee would be able to continue in the workplace, and not be encumbered by them having to join a group htey had objections to, and wouldn' be profiting via lack of work expenses others had.
But why should teachers be forced to pay union dues if they don't WANT to be part of the union?
Why should management have to pay anyone more that doesn't want to belong to the union?
I say if a person doesn't want to be in a workplace union, they should have their wages reduced by the amount of the dues. As well as have to negiotiate their own vacation sick leave and retirement programs.
Now, oyu have an interesting situation. Let's say the non-unionized employees get an extra week of vacation and a better retirement package - that would kill the unions quicker than anything.
Don't forget, at one time unions forced massive reforms that were taken for granted decades later and to some extent still are. Things like the 8 hour day, workplace safety, better pay. I have no doubt some unions have become corrupt over time, but that doesn't mean a newly formed union can't be effective today.
I have mixed feelings on Unions, but it isn't like corporate culture is all that squeaky-clean either.
Slashdot Mirror
They're not exactly the highest professional or unbiased quasi news entity either.
But that does not mean they're wrong.
There is a lot of news going on in the world. Merely deciding what to report will expose anyone's bias.
I have absolutely no problem with FaceBook filtering the news. Because what on earth kind of idiot would get their news from Facebook? That's like doing all your grocery shopping at the 7-11.
In a lot of those places an old computer or CRT monitor would still be used! That is about as green as it gets.
So much of it is still quite useable. Just imagine, say, the computers that suddenly became obsolete when Vista came out, and a computer that chug along hppily on XP ground to a halt (known as Vista Basic fraud)
We are spoiled here, and update a lot - as good consumers. Some folks in some parts of the world are just interested in having something that boots and runs.
As this exercise may draw attention from a wider clientèle than the normal bug hunters.
There's a joke in there somewhere...
Crotch crickets?
I SATA while before I got that.
But it's pretty obvious you are a paid shill.
If you're not, then you're just a moron.
I vote for both.
The messages use a variety of misleading text. For example, my wife was tricked into upgrading to Windows10 because after clicking "no thanks" a certain number of times, it eventually asked her "do you want to upgrade to Windows 10 now, or later?"
Nope. Your wife or someone else WAY back comitted to doing the upgrade. They clicked, "yes I want to install the upgrade when its available; reserve it now and let me know when its ready" or something along those lines.
THAT was the opt-in or opt-out.
Negative. I have several machines I went through the update process. I also have Win7 on an IMac in a i5 Mid 2011 edition that simply cannot run Windows 10 Will not work with that version of Bootcamp. Yet Microsoft pushed everything to upgrade onto the computer without permission, and it has been trying like hell to get me to upgrade. It is hard for me to believe that I - as you suggest - deliberately told Microsoft to Download an OS that computer will not run. Weird-ass little windows pop up as well, with nothing inside, that I have to ignore - how do I know what will happen?
Did I say any of those things? Or do you just like to make up stories in your head and pretend others believe in them?
I called someone out on vehicle specs, full stop.
No - I like to ask questions. Answer or do not answer - It is your option. And if you do not answer - or if you demand I don't ask the questions, that is also an answer.
Thank you, you have answered very well.
If you want to call bullshit, makes sure you smell your reply first.
Tell me though - are you concerned by this? does this make you believe that EV's are dirty?
It then follows, do you take the lightest EV out there and declare every vehicle that weighs more than it as unacceptable?
Personally, if I was teh type of person who liked his Escalade or Lexus LX570, I would be telling the Daily Mail to shut the hell up. Because my Lexus at 6000 pounds curb weight is not only throwing off more of these particulates, but has it's IC pollution as well. If it's bad for say a Tesla, it's much worse for a cehicle that has alomst two normal cars of weight. Glass houses, meet their brick.
This paper may in fact be absolute nonsense yet you have failed to deliver evidence commensurate with your claim.
An important question to ask, is - will an internal combustion vehicle of the same weight as an electric vehicle shed less particulate material?
While not addressed in what I read of the report, it certainly does appear to be based on matter dropped by auto parts such as rubber wear in the wheels, brake pad and rotor wear.
So until we have that comparison, the Daily Mail's report is less than worthless, very bubble sensationalist, and the report by the scientists is a statement that Captain Obvious might make. That's not remotely shooting the messenger, it's based on simple physics that a 5th grader should understand.
Because of course a heavier vehicle is going to produce more wear on those components. Electric, diesel, gasoline, woodgas doesn't matter - It's kinda not just reserved for battery powered vehicles.
And since there are a lot of heavier vehicles running around than the Teslas - the heaviest electrical vehicle I know of - are they now a bigger concern?
because my anal smoke detector went off!!!
Tell your friend to slow down a little!
The problem with this kind of "analysis", is that even it it's true - and considering the source that's a significant "IF" - it's also predicated on an unchanging world to further its political agenda.
Well, the scientists were pretty much pointing out that that further reductions or shed materials were possible, and that weight reduction was a path to doing just that. Makes sense. The whole scary Toxins thing was just a nasty bit of irresponsible reporting that stoops to the level of being a total fabrication.
Because there isn't anything that an electrical car can shed based on weight that a petrofueled car won't shed as well - because of weight. Looking at the curb weight of a lot of vehicles, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , I'm curious if the good newspaper is as concerned about those as well. I suspect not.
I suspect that they've picked up some cherry picking and fabrication tips from the denialist factions.
Without picking sides, you can't just dismiss this outright. There may be something to this, but it'll need to go through peer review if it hasn't already, in addition to being reproducible.
People who lie large SUV's better hope to high heaven it is not true. Reading through what I could of the paywalled paper, it does ot come to the conclusion that the daily Mail dos, that electric cars are spewing out Toxins at the rate that diesel engines are.
The paper notes that weight reduction is a noteworthy goal, not the hyper ventilating "Electric cars are gonna kill us." that's bullshit, and it is a lie for all that matter.
Here's the rub. Are electric cars the heaviest vehicles on the road? Nope they aren't. Let's take the Cadillac Escalade, which has a cub weight of 5840 pounds. The Tesla Model S has a curb weight of 4,647 pounds. Since the "emissions" are related to weight, like shed tire rubber and brake materials, and the Escalade is almost 1200 pounds heavier, it will shed whatever that weight will make it shed, as well as whatever it's engine produces.
A denialist level cherry picking of data - not on the part of the scientists, but of the newspaper that published what for all intents and purposes, is what the boys down at the shop call a big damned lie. This is going to be just like the Prius batteries give out at XXXX number of miles and all the other BS that is promoted in anti-electric car circles.
The surface of Venus is too damned hot, so we would have to have a floating city there; bring on the mega-zeppelins!
Hydrogen would not burn in the CO2 atmosphere.
Oh man, I see a steampunk novel here.
Space nutters are ridiculous. You are going to live in the acid clouds on Venus? In 300kph winds? Christ.
They'll make pretty good time though.
Every time they remove a feature from the main firefox people whine horrendously here too. So which is it?
Sounds like different people with different opinions. And its hard to deny that FireFox isn't suffering from some manner of bloat.
I belong to some Yahoo groups - I have no choice in the matter. With all of the battening down of my system, as soon as I go to Yahoo groups, the window goes dark, and a popup shows up telling me about the wonderful new FireFox/Yahoo experience I can have is I install something. It then scrolls up to hide the close window button, and won't let me move it back down for some number of seconds. Then it attempts to track me.
To me, that is something pretty legitimate to complain about. It is certainly another data point when I choose to continue with FireFox or a different browser.
There's only one political camp that holds positions like that, and which shriek at business owners who point out the hypocrisy.
So who in here's been shreiking at you?
Yeah, I'm sure you've NEVER heard lefty ranters shouting anti-business platitudes before. Maybe you're lucky, maybe you've never had to actually walk through an Occupy camp blocking the entrance to some poor guy's business, shouting at him about how he's a sellout for participating in Eeeeeevil capitalism ... um, but do you mind if we use your bathroom?
Yup I have. But you seem to try to turn anyone that disagrees with you into "lefty ranters'.
A person that wants American companies to do well, and a middle class that is well paid enough to buy the products American insutry produces is not a lefty ranter product of the occupy movement.
This is not rocket science. The ideas promoted by some on the supply side of things haven't worked. Trickle down and rising tide boats. Job creator tax cuts. Wars on the installment plan. Mentioned mainly as a tremendous boon for some particular contractors.
At what point is enough?
Starvation being the most likely outcome since cost of living rarely comes down without it. So many people will die needlessly, crime will rise significantly needlessly, and society as we know it crumbles again needlessly.
Shifting gears here - Keeping in mind that I was Poe-ing, you are right. As America further runs though it's wealth extraction efforts, we are going to have to come to the realization that you just cannot have it both ways. You can't have wealthy producers and impoverished serfs being ruled by them.
Because the end game of that one sided paradigm will be the wealthy producers starting to cannibalize each other. You can't take money from the useless poor. They're starving and have none. So you have to go after your own kind.
Now I really don't expect that scenario to happen, because right now, the Producer outlook has gone a tad pathological, to the point where people like Martin Shkreli are worshipped by many.
As well as horribly reviled by many - which is a good sign that there are at least some limits of greed that people are willing to put up with. Trump even had some nasty stuff to say about this modern American Master of the Uniiverse. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-....
Arrested for a shell game he was playing.
The H1-B program is a sham, it probably started with a noble goal like bringing another Einstein to the country, that is all it should be for. That is not what most H1-Bs are though. They have no special skills and we're enabling this process without getting anything in return.
What we need to be afraid of is a brain drain, where Americans end up going to other countries where there might be better opportunities. We're not there yet, but some day? Something like 6 million smart people by some counts . https://newrepublic.com/articl...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
But don't worry - it's those egghead scientists who believe wrong things. That last was sarcastic.
Anyone who has worked with both Americans and Indians can tell you that Americans are far more productive. They are worth more. They are also paid more, by a factor of about 15. For many jobs, Americans are 15 times more productive.
I do find that very plausible. And not the idea that Americans are "better" in some way. It's a different mindset.
Olsoc... That's the most tortured logic I've seen from you in a while. I'm half convinced you're trolling. ;-)
Caught me!
Huh? deducting the dues from their paycheck IS making the employee pay, that's my point.
Good. That way the non-union employee doesn't profit by it.
Should Americans be paid the same as the people that you outsource to
Why should they? Cost of living in the US is substantially higher than it is in, say, India.
Why should they have a job at all when someone in India is making say 10 percent of what an American worker demands? Doesn't capitalism demand the most money in from the least money paid out for the producers?
If the cost of living in India is low, and Americans making too much and now unemployed, they can move to India. The job creators are not responsible for keeping fat lazy overpaid Americans in money. Besides, the country will improve with them leaving, getting rid of those takers.
This is the kind of stuff that the free market handles and handles very well. Right? As American workers make kess and less, the cost of living will come down - it will have to, or they will starve.
Then, by that argument, EVERY employee should be forced to pay union dues due to the 40 hour workweek, etc., mentioned elsewhere.
Why do you say thet? Deduct the dues from their paycheck, and the company keeps that money. Couldn't be more fair than that. The employee would be able to continue in the workplace, and not be encumbered by them having to join a group htey had objections to, and wouldn' be profiting via lack of work expenses others had.
But why should teachers be forced to pay union dues if they don't WANT to be part of the union?
Why should management have to pay anyone more that doesn't want to belong to the union? I say if a person doesn't want to be in a workplace union, they should have their wages reduced by the amount of the dues. As well as have to negiotiate their own vacation sick leave and retirement programs.
Now, oyu have an interesting situation. Let's say the non-unionized employees get an extra week of vacation and a better retirement package - that would kill the unions quicker than anything.
Don't forget, at one time unions forced massive reforms that were taken for granted decades later and to some extent still are. Things like the 8 hour day, workplace safety, better pay. I have no doubt some unions have become corrupt over time, but that doesn't mean a newly formed union can't be effective today.
I have mixed feelings on Unions, but it isn't like corporate culture is all that squeaky-clean either.