Energy, not cost. I think energy used equates pretty well with environmental cost, unless the Prius factory is using some cleaner form of energy.
I don't necessarily think the report is accurate, but it is a fact that current battery technology is not only energy intensive to manufacture, but environmentally burdensome as well.
The Prius was never for real environmentalists anyway. It's for lazy yuppies who want to put out an environmentally conscious image. Real environmentalists live close to work, bike, or take the bus.
It falls apart in the face of YOUR reality. Fortunately, the rest of us do not live inside your head. You can make any kind of claim you like, but without proof, it's just hot air.
I'm not saying ALL the money is going to mitigate the cost of pollution. That isn't how government works. A better question is, is all the cost of pollution caused by driving being payed for through gas taxes? Of course not, the rest of the money comes from other places in government. And some of the gas tax money goes to other places. That is just how government works.
Anyone equating the gas tax in America to fascism is a fucking idiotic asshat. I'm not saying you, the original poster, or his family deserves to be sent to concentration camps just so you can see how callous and overblown you are being, but it would be good to think about it and understand the immensity of the gulf between reality and the fantasy that goes on in your head.
Fucking libertarians want everyone else to pay for their excesses, and they have the unmitigated gall to call the rest of us fascists. You'd love nothing better than a world where anyone without the money to hire a lawyer and pin your crimes on you would be powerless to prevent them, wouldn't you?
That shit is not going to happen in my country, you selfish fuck.
It isn't to try to force them to drive less, necessarily. It is to try to get the people who cause the pollution to pay for the consequences of that pollution. You aren't trying to claim that cars don't pollute, or that pollution doesn't cost society, are you?
It really sounds like you are trying to force me to pay for the expenses you cause, and I don't quite see how that's fair. Forcing me to pay for the health effects caused by your driving sounds more like fascism to me.
How would you handle things differently, in a way that put the true cost onto the people who caused it?
How do you figure? The way I see it, it's not about what's on the sight, it's about the procedures used to determine what goes on the site. If Viacom is asking Youtube to do something that they themselves are unwilling to do, it absolutely will have an impact on the trial. Viacom is claiming they are screening, yet there is proof that their screening is not working.
The Bastard Operator From Hell, Simon Travaglia. A system administrator turned humor columnist who writes stories about what all sysadmins wish we could get away with. You know, murdering our boss with the Halon system, getting end users to stick paperclips into power outlets, that kind of thing. Published semi-regularly at theregister.co.uk.
If you had read the whole thread, you would have realized that Linux was not to blame. The person posting the original was ken Tilton, a well known anti-free-software troll. In the end, the problem had nothing to do with Linux or open source, but with the poorly designed proprietary system that just happened to be running on Linux.
Ask yourself: why was this posted on comp.lang.lisp?
While you limey's might be content to waste your hard earned money subsidizing bloated socialist government policies, we in the US are not (for the most part).
Forcing people to pay for their own externalities is not socialism. Subsidizing certain activities by making others pay for the externalities is.
Ah, but we don't know the actual cost. Thirty eight billion is a lot of money. Suppose I wanted to skim some of that money, but I knew that the documentation existed in paper and computerized form. Perhaps I know someone in the records department who can shuffle some papers, but then the computerized records won't match. Oops, now those records are gone and we have no choice but to scan in the documents that I have changed, now everything agrees and there is no record of where that extra million or ten went.
Yeah, uhhhhh, right. Malaria parasites, like all good parasites, don't kill their primary host right away. They live in its salivary glands so they can infect anything it bites. These mosquitoes aren't going to live longer. They just aren't going to kill people. Normally, that's counted as a good thing.
Because I said physical driving test where, exactly? A simulated driving test is what, exactly? Chopped ham? The question I was answering was "People who like to drive dangerously IRL have a preference for car racing games? Did they rule that out?"
Well, did they, or are you just posting to see yourself write? Because it sounds like they ruled it out to me, but maybe somebody named "antiMStroll" knows better than, you know, actual scientists. Damn, you are so clever. Maybe you can be a scientist when you grow up.
You aren't a good scientist, you are delusional. You get modded troll because you have all the characteristics of a complete and total quack. You parrot back information from disreputable sources, you say things you don't understand, you keep on bringing up things that have been disproved as if they were fact, you have a highly inflated sense of your own intelligence, you think everyone who disagrees with you is both a moron and out to get you. You ignore anything anyone says that proves you wrong. No one wants to debate you because you understand neither what they are saying, nor even what YOU are saying. It's utterly pointless.
You are one good rant away from being the next Time Cube guy, only not as entertaining. Go wank off at the electric universe site, we really don't care to watch.
Mods, go ahead and mod me down, this is totally off topic. I just had to get it off my chest.
Hehe, I can just picture Simon locking someone in one of these and slowly dialing down the oxygen until he gets that raise or perk or whatever he's after.
Mmmmm, yeah. We sent you a memo about the TPS reports. Everything about the TPS reports goes in a new chapter. Are you looking in the new chapter for the TPS reports? Yeah. If you could just go ahead and make sure to look in the new chapter from now on, that would be great. And, uh, I'll just go ahead and make sure you get another copy of that memo, mmmmm, ok?
Oh, you are too lazy? Then I shall help you out. Yes, they ruled that out by taking people who had never played video games, giving them a driving test, having them play the games, and take another driving test.
Sorry, I know you wanted to feel like you were smarter than these scientists and had, like, totally thought of something they hadn't. Maybe next time.
For most people "good driving" means "The particular way I drive." Drive slow? Slow drivers are good drivers. Drive fast? Fast drivers are good drivers. Drive carefully? Careful drivers are good drivers. Drive recklessly? "Daring" drivers are good drivers.
Nearly everyone thinks they are a better than average driver. They aren't.
Bad drivers have certainly been around long before video games. Hell, I'm sure there were Roman charioteers who yelled at other charioteers, "Learn to drive, ya moron!" That does not in any way imply that video games do not contribute to reckless driving. RTFA, the experiment was well designed.
You all act so fuckin high and mighty - Privacy is a moot point to argue when you live in your parents basement.
You know I'm right
Son, your mother and I have said it before and we'll say it again: if you didn't have such a fixation on ostrich porn, we wouldn't have to monitor your net connection. When you're 18 and you have a place of your own then you can look at all the flightless bird porn you like, but not a moment sooner. Do you have any idea what it did to your little sister to come home and find you naked and covered in egg yolks with your head in a box of sand and feathers stuck up your ass?
Investors tend to be just as stupid and emotionally attached to things as anyone else. (Succesful investors are less so, just like some of the better/. posts are emotionally detached).
/. posts detached? I don't think that's the word you are looking for. Close, but the word you want is unhinged, not detached.
I myself am very smart, but forgetful and absent minded. I used Einstein as an example not because he's a genius, but because I've heard he was also forgetful and absent minded.
I don't generally think about my environment or anything going on in the present moment. My mind is always on some problem or another. I imagine many other smart people are the same way. Genius isn't just a matter of smarts, it's time and inclination. If you don't spend time thinking about problems, you won't solve them. Time spent thinking about these things is time not spent observing the environment, watching for predators, and so forth. No matter how smart you are, there are still only 24 hours in a day.
From what I've seen, there are follower types, who range from stupid to mildly clever. Then there are the type of smart people you talk about, who's natural focus is on the day to day. These people make ideal managers. Then there are the smart people who's natural focus is on the long-term, and they of course make great leaders. But it is a trade off. A leader or manager isn't going to make as good of a follower, and they are both useless without followers.
I went to government schools, mostly, some private. The government schools were better. Only people with no good argument resort to ad hominems, you resorted to ad hominems. Only very poorly educated people have no good argument, you have no good argument, therefore, you must be very poorly educated. Quod est demonstratum.
How about some evidence to back up your claim rather than just being a dick? Because, chances are I can out-dick you without even trying. A dick-waving contest is fun, but rational discussion is more fun. Looking at your website, I would have thought that you agreed, but evidently all that "rational discussion" bullshit goes out the window when someone challenges your dogma.
"OOOh! Look at me! I think Ayn Rand was a sexy genius and a brilliant writer! I'm a libertarian! Like libertarians everywhere, I think everyone has to agree with me or they are evil and trying to take away my Natural Rights and they have no right to exist."
Libertarianism is a still-born sorry excuse for a socioeconomic system. No country has ever embraced libertarianism. No country has ever elected more than a handful of libertarians, and they never will. The only reason anyone ever embraces libertarianism is because they want the right to economically oppress people. Most libertarians would secretly like to own slaves, and think the only legitimate purpose of government is as a police force to watch over their slaves. Libertarians also hate justice, and want only the rich land-owners to have access to it.
You still want to get in a dick-waving contest? Because I can keep going. If you like, I'll look over the publicly available sources of information about you to find more things to mock. This could be fun!
You didn't NEED to reboot, but most server processes only read the timezone information on startup, so it's either a reboot or manually stop & start all server processes. I had our help desk put out a notice that certain things would be unavailable for five minutes Saturday morning and rebooted our Linux servers that needed patching. Logging in to each one and manually restarting all the daemons would have taken longer.
People who are antisocial, misanthropic, selfish and greedy tend to see those characteristics in everyone. When they see people who claim to act out of charitable reasons, it enrages them because it casts doubt on their "It's okay that I'm evil because everyone else is" theory. They feel a burning need to show those kind of people in the worst light possible, to prove to themselves and others that no good exists in humanity. Logic doesn't enter into the picture, so don't bother looking for it in posts such as the one to which you responded.
Sigh. If people were perfect, any system of government would work, but then you wouldn't even need one. The trick is to come up with a system that accounts for people's actual imperfections while still upholding people's rights.
I don't think the rich and powerful lost all shame, as I don't think they had it to begin with. What they had was a sense of connection to and responsibility for their countries and communities. I think they imagined themselves to be like feudal lords, and felt a kind of noblesse oblige. Globalism has destroyed that, and now the rich and powerful live and operate in an extra-national sphere where they are almost completely isolated from the common person.
As Heinlein said, "Never appeal to a man's better nature. He might not have one. Appeal to his self interest instead." How can we show the rich and powerful that it is in their best interest to come down off their pedestal and join the rest of humanity? I think that being on a pedestal, people feel isolated and alone. They may have power, but no true friends, as it is a vicious dog-eat-dog world they live in. The rich have temporary allies who might stab them in the back the moment it is profitable, not friends. Perhaps focusing on this aspect of wealth and power could help convince them there is something in giving up their power that will benefit them.
That won't help with the real crazies, though, and there are a disproportionate number of narcissistic, anti social, and downright sociopathic people in the ranks of the rich and powerful. Rooting them out without resorting to the failed methodology of violent revolution will be the most difficult part of creating a more fair and just system.
I've studied world religions a bit and am unaware of any religion that does not make an attempt at balance. The Greek pantheon is a particularly bad example, the afterlife you go to depends entirely on your actions in life, and the pantheon itself is setup to explain the foibles of human nature.
Animism can take many forms, from Tao-like to Buddhist-ish to spirit worship, but all the forms I am aware of postulate that you, as well as everything else, has an eternal spirit or soul, in which karma accrues. Do you have any specific examples I might be unaware of?
I say that anything existing eternally is not common sense because nothing we experience on a day to day basis is eternal. And an eternal God is merely a placeholder or fill-in for an eternal universe, which ours may well be. We don't know if there is a lrger scale structure outside our own, from which it arose.
I don't believe or disbelieve in God. I have a lot of personal and circumstantial evidence that something, how shall I put this? odd is going on, but I can't conclude there is a God from that. Perhaps my mind is just really good at noticing coincidences.
In the final analysis, though, the existence or lack of a God is irrelevant to my life. If there is a God, and it wants anything from me, it has done a piss-poor job of conveying that to me in a way that is not easily mistaken for other humans trying to pull one over on me. I can only conclude that, if there is a God, it doesn't care enough about what I do to let me know. All I can say is, if there is a God, It and I are going to have some words when I meet It.
Slashdot Mirror
Energy, not cost. I think energy used equates pretty well with environmental cost, unless the Prius factory is using some cleaner form of energy.
I don't necessarily think the report is accurate, but it is a fact that current battery technology is not only energy intensive to manufacture, but environmentally burdensome as well.
The Prius was never for real environmentalists anyway. It's for lazy yuppies who want to put out an environmentally conscious image. Real environmentalists live close to work, bike, or take the bus.
What woman wouldn't prefer a guy who already has a hummer, and thus doesn't need any from them?
It falls apart in the face of YOUR reality. Fortunately, the rest of us do not live inside your head. You can make any kind of claim you like, but without proof, it's just hot air.
I'm not saying ALL the money is going to mitigate the cost of pollution. That isn't how government works. A better question is, is all the cost of pollution caused by driving being payed for through gas taxes? Of course not, the rest of the money comes from other places in government. And some of the gas tax money goes to other places. That is just how government works.
Anyone equating the gas tax in America to fascism is a fucking idiotic asshat. I'm not saying you, the original poster, or his family deserves to be sent to concentration camps just so you can see how callous and overblown you are being, but it would be good to think about it and understand the immensity of the gulf between reality and the fantasy that goes on in your head.
Fucking libertarians want everyone else to pay for their excesses, and they have the unmitigated gall to call the rest of us fascists. You'd love nothing better than a world where anyone without the money to hire a lawyer and pin your crimes on you would be powerless to prevent them, wouldn't you?
That shit is not going to happen in my country, you selfish fuck.
It isn't to try to force them to drive less, necessarily. It is to try to get the people who cause the pollution to pay for the consequences of that pollution. You aren't trying to claim that cars don't pollute, or that pollution doesn't cost society, are you?
It really sounds like you are trying to force me to pay for the expenses you cause, and I don't quite see how that's fair. Forcing me to pay for the health effects caused by your driving sounds more like fascism to me.
How would you handle things differently, in a way that put the true cost onto the people who caused it?
How do you figure? The way I see it, it's not about what's on the sight, it's about the procedures used to determine what goes on the site. If Viacom is asking Youtube to do something that they themselves are unwilling to do, it absolutely will have an impact on the trial. Viacom is claiming they are screening, yet there is proof that their screening is not working.
The Bastard Operator From Hell, Simon Travaglia. A system administrator turned humor columnist who writes stories about what all sysadmins wish we could get away with. You know, murdering our boss with the Halon system, getting end users to stick paperclips into power outlets, that kind of thing. Published semi-regularly at theregister.co.uk.
If you had read the whole thread, you would have realized that Linux was not to blame. The person posting the original was ken Tilton, a well known anti-free-software troll. In the end, the problem had nothing to do with Linux or open source, but with the poorly designed proprietary system that just happened to be running on Linux.
Ask yourself: why was this posted on comp.lang.lisp?
While you limey's might be content to waste your hard earned money subsidizing bloated socialist government policies, we in the US are not (for the most part).
Forcing people to pay for their own externalities is not socialism. Subsidizing certain activities by making others pay for the externalities is.
Ah, but we don't know the actual cost. Thirty eight billion is a lot of money. Suppose I wanted to skim some of that money, but I knew that the documentation existed in paper and computerized form. Perhaps I know someone in the records department who can shuffle some papers, but then the computerized records won't match. Oops, now those records are gone and we have no choice but to scan in the documents that I have changed, now everything agrees and there is no record of where that extra million or ten went.
Read up on malaria before making dumb jokes, m'kay?
Yeah, uhhhhh, right. Malaria parasites, like all good parasites, don't kill their primary host right away. They live in its salivary glands so they can infect anything it bites. These mosquitoes aren't going to live longer. They just aren't going to kill people. Normally, that's counted as a good thing.
Because I said physical driving test where, exactly? A simulated driving test is what, exactly? Chopped ham? The question I was answering was "People who like to drive dangerously IRL have a preference for car racing games? Did they rule that out?"
Well, did they, or are you just posting to see yourself write? Because it sounds like they ruled it out to me, but maybe somebody named "antiMStroll" knows better than, you know, actual scientists. Damn, you are so clever. Maybe you can be a scientist when you grow up.
You aren't a good scientist, you are delusional. You get modded troll because you have all the characteristics of a complete and total quack. You parrot back information from disreputable sources, you say things you don't understand, you keep on bringing up things that have been disproved as if they were fact, you have a highly inflated sense of your own intelligence, you think everyone who disagrees with you is both a moron and out to get you. You ignore anything anyone says that proves you wrong. No one wants to debate you because you understand neither what they are saying, nor even what YOU are saying. It's utterly pointless.
You are one good rant away from being the next Time Cube guy, only not as entertaining. Go wank off at the electric universe site, we really don't care to watch.
Mods, go ahead and mod me down, this is totally off topic. I just had to get it off my chest.
Hehe, I can just picture Simon locking someone in one of these and slowly dialing down the oxygen until he gets that raise or perk or whatever he's after.
Mmmmm, yeah. We sent you a memo about the TPS reports. Everything about the TPS reports goes in a new chapter. Are you looking in the new chapter for the TPS reports? Yeah. If you could just go ahead and make sure to look in the new chapter from now on, that would be great. And, uh, I'll just go ahead and make sure you get another copy of that memo, mmmmm, ok?
Oh, you are too lazy? Then I shall help you out. Yes, they ruled that out by taking people who had never played video games, giving them a driving test, having them play the games, and take another driving test.
Sorry, I know you wanted to feel like you were smarter than these scientists and had, like, totally thought of something they hadn't. Maybe next time.
For most people "good driving" means "The particular way I drive." Drive slow? Slow drivers are good drivers. Drive fast? Fast drivers are good drivers. Drive carefully? Careful drivers are good drivers. Drive recklessly? "Daring" drivers are good drivers.
Nearly everyone thinks they are a better than average driver. They aren't.
Bad drivers have certainly been around long before video games. Hell, I'm sure there were Roman charioteers who yelled at other charioteers, "Learn to drive, ya moron!" That does not in any way imply that video games do not contribute to reckless driving. RTFA, the experiment was well designed.
You all act so fuckin high and mighty - Privacy is a moot point to argue when you live in your parents basement.
You know I'm right
Son, your mother and I have said it before and we'll say it again: if you didn't have such a fixation on ostrich porn, we wouldn't have to monitor your net connection. When you're 18 and you have a place of your own then you can look at all the flightless bird porn you like, but not a moment sooner. Do you have any idea what it did to your little sister to come home and find you naked and covered in egg yolks with your head in a box of sand and feathers stuck up your ass?
Investors tend to be just as stupid and emotionally attached to things as anyone else. (Succesful investors are less so, just like some of the better /. posts are emotionally detached).
/. posts detached? I don't think that's the word you are looking for. Close, but the word you want is unhinged, not detached.
I myself am very smart, but forgetful and absent minded. I used Einstein as an example not because he's a genius, but because I've heard he was also forgetful and absent minded.
I don't generally think about my environment or anything going on in the present moment. My mind is always on some problem or another. I imagine many other smart people are the same way. Genius isn't just a matter of smarts, it's time and inclination. If you don't spend time thinking about problems, you won't solve them. Time spent thinking about these things is time not spent observing the environment, watching for predators, and so forth. No matter how smart you are, there are still only 24 hours in a day.
From what I've seen, there are follower types, who range from stupid to mildly clever. Then there are the type of smart people you talk about, who's natural focus is on the day to day. These people make ideal managers. Then there are the smart people who's natural focus is on the long-term, and they of course make great leaders. But it is a trade off. A leader or manager isn't going to make as good of a follower, and they are both useless without followers.
I went to government schools, mostly, some private. The government schools were better. Only people with no good argument resort to ad hominems, you resorted to ad hominems. Only very poorly educated people have no good argument, you have no good argument, therefore, you must be very poorly educated. Quod est demonstratum.
How about some evidence to back up your claim rather than just being a dick? Because, chances are I can out-dick you without even trying. A dick-waving contest is fun, but rational discussion is more fun. Looking at your website, I would have thought that you agreed, but evidently all that "rational discussion" bullshit goes out the window when someone challenges your dogma.
"OOOh! Look at me! I think Ayn Rand was a sexy genius and a brilliant writer! I'm a libertarian! Like libertarians everywhere, I think everyone has to agree with me or they are evil and trying to take away my Natural Rights and they have no right to exist."
Libertarianism is a still-born sorry excuse for a socioeconomic system. No country has ever embraced libertarianism. No country has ever elected more than a handful of libertarians, and they never will. The only reason anyone ever embraces libertarianism is because they want the right to economically oppress people. Most libertarians would secretly like to own slaves, and think the only legitimate purpose of government is as a police force to watch over their slaves. Libertarians also hate justice, and want only the rich land-owners to have access to it.
You still want to get in a dick-waving contest? Because I can keep going. If you like, I'll look over the publicly available sources of information about you to find more things to mock. This could be fun!
You didn't NEED to reboot, but most server processes only read the timezone information on startup, so it's either a reboot or manually stop & start all server processes. I had our help desk put out a notice that certain things would be unavailable for five minutes Saturday morning and rebooted our Linux servers that needed patching. Logging in to each one and manually restarting all the daemons would have taken longer.
People who are antisocial, misanthropic, selfish and greedy tend to see those characteristics in everyone. When they see people who claim to act out of charitable reasons, it enrages them because it casts doubt on their "It's okay that I'm evil because everyone else is" theory. They feel a burning need to show those kind of people in the worst light possible, to prove to themselves and others that no good exists in humanity. Logic doesn't enter into the picture, so don't bother looking for it in posts such as the one to which you responded.
Sigh. If people were perfect, any system of government would work, but then you wouldn't even need one. The trick is to come up with a system that accounts for people's actual imperfections while still upholding people's rights.
I don't think the rich and powerful lost all shame, as I don't think they had it to begin with. What they had was a sense of connection to and responsibility for their countries and communities. I think they imagined themselves to be like feudal lords, and felt a kind of noblesse oblige. Globalism has destroyed that, and now the rich and powerful live and operate in an extra-national sphere where they are almost completely isolated from the common person.
As Heinlein said, "Never appeal to a man's better nature. He might not have one. Appeal to his self interest instead." How can we show the rich and powerful that it is in their best interest to come down off their pedestal and join the rest of humanity? I think that being on a pedestal, people feel isolated and alone. They may have power, but no true friends, as it is a vicious dog-eat-dog world they live in. The rich have temporary allies who might stab them in the back the moment it is profitable, not friends. Perhaps focusing on this aspect of wealth and power could help convince them there is something in giving up their power that will benefit them.
That won't help with the real crazies, though, and there are a disproportionate number of narcissistic, anti social, and downright sociopathic people in the ranks of the rich and powerful. Rooting them out without resorting to the failed methodology of violent revolution will be the most difficult part of creating a more fair and just system.
I've studied world religions a bit and am unaware of any religion that does not make an attempt at balance. The Greek pantheon is a particularly bad example, the afterlife you go to depends entirely on your actions in life, and the pantheon itself is setup to explain the foibles of human nature.
Animism can take many forms, from Tao-like to Buddhist-ish to spirit worship, but all the forms I am aware of postulate that you, as well as everything else, has an eternal spirit or soul, in which karma accrues. Do you have any specific examples I might be unaware of?
I say that anything existing eternally is not common sense because nothing we experience on a day to day basis is eternal. And an eternal God is merely a placeholder or fill-in for an eternal universe, which ours may well be. We don't know if there is a lrger scale structure outside our own, from which it arose.
I don't believe or disbelieve in God. I have a lot of personal and circumstantial evidence that something, how shall I put this? odd is going on, but I can't conclude there is a God from that. Perhaps my mind is just really good at noticing coincidences.
In the final analysis, though, the existence or lack of a God is irrelevant to my life. If there is a God, and it wants anything from me, it has done a piss-poor job of conveying that to me in a way that is not easily mistaken for other humans trying to pull one over on me. I can only conclude that, if there is a God, it doesn't care enough about what I do to let me know. All I can say is, if there is a God, It and I are going to have some words when I meet It.