Is this just the natural result of unrealistic or even impossible regulations devised by leftist bureaucrats being forced on companies?
Basically: no.
The regulations were neither unrealistic nor impossible. Gasoline powered cars, for example, met the regulations easily.
The companies involved, however, thought that they could meet the emissions standards using diesel engines. Old-fashioned diesel engines are classically dirty and polluting (although also simple and efficient)-- but new "clean diesel" technology was being developed.
VW, however, chose not to license the Mercedes technology and instead develop their own clean diesel approach... which turned out not to work as well as they had anticipated in stopping nitric oxide emissions. So they cheated.
It's easy for regulators to create policies demanding that unrealistic, if not outright impossible, goals be met.
It wasn't a case of regulations that couldn't be met-- it was a case of VW's "not invented here" syndrome.
You do have to pay attention to the fact that the "collusion" in the Spiegel article was not companies colluding on cheating: it was companies colluding on using each others technologies (which VW eventually decided not to do).
If you see black smoke, it is never a petrol car: this is the signature of a diesel, all right.
Diesels may not "normally produce any odours," but they can belch out particulates (which are much much worse to breathe.)
I remember posting about it back when VW diesel cheating was making rounds.
The article is mixing up two different things, and pretending that they are connected. Der Spiegel says that the automakers met in secret to discuss “the technology, costs, suppliers, and even the exhaust gas purification of its diesel vehicles." Then, separately, VW implemented a cheating system to dodge the emissions testing, with other automakers doing similar things, although to lesser degrees.
But the article implies that these two things are connected. Documentation, however, pretty well shows that the original plan of VW was to buy a license for the Mercedes "blueTec" technology, but they abandoned this plan when the Chief Operating Officer changed, who favored using their own developed technology (TDI). TDI didn't work as well as expected, necessitating the cheat.
Der Spiegel attempts to imply that the collusions were to agree on how to cheat, but from the evidence, it looks like the "collusion" was exactly the opposite of what Der Spiegel implies: the "collusion" was to collaborate on technology to avoid producing emissions, but when that collaboration fell apart, they shifted to cheating.
The first three links you give don't assert that the couple (that run Snopes) "admitted to fake news". You did read the title on this thread, right? The articles assert the "some of the people" involved "are biased"-- but, oddly, they don't cite any examples of biases in any actual Snopes articles. So we can ignore these all as irrelevant to the subject.
The last two don't include a citation to "the couple admitting to fake news", but at least are slightly relevant.... but all they are is (in your words) "people calling them liars." The actual details in the Snopes articles critiqued... don't show any lies.
The first one is about Democrats purportedly failing to stand during a Navy Seal tribute. The Snopes article is here. The article you linked was primarily criticizing Politifact, and only briefly mentions Snopes... but nevertheless, it ends with the following statement: "The Daily Wire, PolitiFact and Snopes ALL described the events in the exact same way; exactly as they happened."
The phrase "describing the events exactly as they happened", to me, reads as a statement that the site is accurate.
The second link you give has a bad flaw. The Snopes article being critiqued is here. Notice that the photo-meme that they're debunking is at the very top of the article. But the article criticizing them leaves this out, and pretends Snopes is debunking a somewhat truncated version. Nope. They criticize Snopes for "moving the goalposts"... while themselves moving the goalposts.
In either case, though, none of the citations answers the request for a citation of the purported fact that "the couple admitted to fake news."
Citation needed. Not an assertion, a citation: who said exactly what and when, and show me a link.
Why do you people keep spewing that nonsense?
I'm not sure what "nonsense" you're referring to. I asked for a citation, telling me who said what, and asking for a link. Asking for a citation is "nonsense"?
They admitted to it in an interview. They admitted to it.
Yes: that is exactly what I asked for a citation for. Who "admitted it"? What interview? When? Where was it published?
I'm not sure what part of that you are having problems with. The site says:
Claim: Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen was a Democrat.
Rating: Mixture
WHAT'S TRUE: Omar Mateen registered to vote as a Democrat in the state of Florida back in 2006.
WHAT'S UNDETERMINED: His U.S. political affiliation (if any) at the time of the shooting is unknown.
Seems a reasonable summary of the facts to me. The guy registered to vote as a Democrat ten years ago, we don't know what his political affiliation if any is now.
I suppose you're objection is that this is tagged as "mixture." Since the very third line of the article specifically states that he was registered to vote as a Democrat in 2006, they don't seem to trying to hide this. I just want the facts.
Snopes is way overrated. Relying on Snopes as an authority for fact checking news is foolhardy.
I think you're missing the point. You don't use Snopes to fact check the news-- there are sites like factcheck and politifact for that. You use Snopes for debunking those god-damned "memes" that fly around like mosquitoes, like (the front page on Snopes today) the photo of a whale in a Venice canal, or don't buy Kelloggs Bran flakes because they contain dried ground-up cow dung, or that Donald Trump married Madonna in a secret ceremony in Utah.
Snopes often provides few, if any, additional details beyond what has already been published elsewhere.
Most of these idiotic internet rumors aren't debunked elsewhere.
Difficult to effectively fact-check CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, etc without field reporters to gather details on the ground and various quality sources. Simply regurgitating and comparing what other news sources have published, alone, isn't much of a fact-check.
This isn't the site to fact-check CNN or the NY Times. This is a site that debunks idiot email "memes" showing me a civil-war era photograph of soldiers that shot a pterodactyl.
are we saying they are not "real" scientific journals primarily based on the evidence that they accept prank papers as authentic? Or is there some other, clearly expressible, criteria by which "real scientific journals" can be differentiated from the phony ones? I would like to know the specifics, so this same experiment can be attempted against them.
As GrumpySteen notes above, if there were trivial criteria to say what's a fake, the fakers would simply fake that criterion as well. The overall problem is that there is no longer any entrance barrier at all to putting up a web site, calling it Journal of Impressive Science-Sounding Name, and calling it an "open source journal"-- and since anybody can do it, anybody does do it.
With that said, here are four good criteria for distinguishing real journals from fake ones:
1. Does a real scientific society publish it? Most-- not all, but most-- of the reputable journals are published by societies. Look for The American Physical Society, the Electrochemical Society, the International Academy of Astronautics, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or the like.
2. What is the Impact Factor of papers they publish? Fake papers have zero impact factor. http://researchguides.uic.edu/... 3. Do research libraries subscribe to it? If the MIT library doesn't subscribe to it, you should wonder why.
and last: 4. Does it even have an actual print run? Real scientific journals still publish paper issues-- it's an old-fashioned holdout from the 20th century, but if a journal consists of nothing but an impressive-sounding website, it should draw your suspicion.
None of these are infallable, but taken together, they put together a pretty good picture of what a real journal is, and what's fake.
Not only have others done the same thing before, even without these examples, "peer review" is almost always a load of bullshit..
Again: these are not real scientific journals, and the "peer review" is (as you say) "a load of bullshit" because it does not exist-- there is no actual peer review because these are not real scientific journals.
It's important to emphasize the word "so called" in the phrase "so-called scientific journals." These are not scientific journals. These are what are called "predatory journals," which pretend to be scientific journals, but have no other purpose than to suck money out of people who want to publish in a scientific journal but aren't good enough to be accepted.
True. It's become very common knowledge that bypassing college entirely and obtaining vocational training is a superior tactic in the modern world for the vast majority of graduating high school seniors....
Wow, here's a post where I honestly can't tell whether it's supposed to be ironic, straight, or a mixture of straight with ironic undertones (or ironic with a mixture of straight underneath).
Overall, bypassing college and obtaining vocational training can be a superior tactic for graduating high-school seniors, but it isn't for the "vast majority". There are only so many vocational jobs around, they can by mind-numbingly awful if you don't have a passion and just go into them for the money... and more and more trades are simply vanishing. (I still remember the ads for "become a TV repairman!" showing a guy testing tubes. Anybody ever repair a TV anymore?).
Not only do you sidestep a mountain of expensive college debt that cannot be shed in a bankruptcy,
You can still spend a small bundle on vocational school and apprenticeships and licenses for a trade... and then discover nobody wants you.
you start earning immediately at a very nice wage
No, many-- perhaps most-- decent trades require some training and also an apprenticeship. You don't "start immediately at a very nice wage". You start doing gruntwork at either slave wages, or even paying to work.
If you love welding, or woodworking, or landscaping: good move! Do it! But, for the money-- no, it's an uncertain choice.
Do you have problems to get context/sarcasm right?
In this particular case, I didn't, because you managed to be so over the top that even poe's law doesn't apply, but, in general, yes. Sarcasm is indistinguishable from cluelessness, and there is plenty of cluelessness around, even here in the genius-level posts of genius-among-geniuses slashdot geniuses.
Ideally, you should know something about the background/knowledge/personality/expectations/etc. of the given person
You got it. You could have stopped posting there, that is 90% of the the reason cluelessness is indistinguishable from irony on the net.
You turn out to be so fucking brilliant that you only write posts that are clear and unambiguous because you can instantly figure out how other people decode your posts even though you don't know anything about them or they about you. That's because your brilliance is almost like telepathy, you understand where everybody is coming from. But, you know, a lot of slashdotters aren't quite at your level of perfection, and only think that they understand how everyone is able to decode text that says the opposite of what is actually meant.
The Siesta only works if you work close enough that you can go home during it. If you have to commute long distances to get to work, so that you can't realistically go home during the workday, there's literally zero reason why any rational person should want to take a 3-hour lunch, especially when 2 of those 3 hours could be spent at home with family at the end of the day.
Yes, but Spain doesn't go with this American idea that a middle-class livestyle requires that you live in a house an hour's commute away from work so you can live as far away as possible from the poor people.
More reusable than Falcon-9, in fact, since the Falcon 9 throws away the second stage (which tends to be the more expensive part).
Nope, that's just wrong. In a rocket, the most expensive parts are the engines, generally followed by the capsule (which in SpaceX's case is also recovered and reused).
It turns out that the upper stage is way more mass sensitive than the lower stages. All the real tech goes into the upper stage-- the first stage can be dumb and low performance, but the second stage can't. The upper stage has all the GCD and avionics as well-- the bottom stage has more engines, but it only is fuel tanks and engines-- the expensive stuff is on top.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this just the natural result of unrealistic or even impossible regulations devised by leftist bureaucrats being forced on companies?
Basically: no.
The regulations were neither unrealistic nor impossible. Gasoline powered cars, for example, met the regulations easily.
The companies involved, however, thought that they could meet the emissions standards using diesel engines. Old-fashioned diesel engines are classically dirty and polluting (although also simple and efficient)-- but new "clean diesel" technology was being developed.
VW, however, chose not to license the Mercedes technology and instead develop their own clean diesel approach... which turned out not to work as well as they had anticipated in stopping nitric oxide emissions. So they cheated.
It's easy for regulators to create policies demanding that unrealistic, if not outright impossible, goals be met.
It wasn't a case of regulations that couldn't be met-- it was a case of VW's "not invented here" syndrome.
You do have to pay attention to the fact that the "collusion" in the Spiegel article was not companies colluding on cheating: it was companies colluding on using each others technologies (which VW eventually decided not to do).
AdBlue is a solution of urea and water generically referred to as diesel exhaust fluid. It lowers NOx emissions in diesel vehicles.
Can't you just piss in the tank? It's the same + a few organics that would be burned off
No, the exhaust is filtered through the urea after combusting.
You'd have to piss in the exhaust pipe.
With that said, though, I agree that if you see a diesel car producing black smoke, it's probably an old one. The whole point of the new "clean diesel" technology is that they had "solved" that problem. But that can stop working, and then the out-of-tune car (or truck) belches out smoke like a tyre-fire (primarily when accelerating):
* https://commercial.lubrizoladd...
* https://www.yourmechanic.com/a...
* http://www.dieselsmoke.com.au/
* https://www.bellperformance.co...
I remember posting about it back when VW diesel cheating was making rounds.
The article is mixing up two different things, and pretending that they are connected. Der Spiegel says that the automakers met in secret to discuss “the technology, costs, suppliers, and even the exhaust gas purification of its diesel vehicles." Then, separately, VW implemented a cheating system to dodge the emissions testing, with other automakers doing similar things, although to lesser degrees.
But the article implies that these two things are connected. Documentation, however, pretty well shows that the original plan of VW was to buy a license for the Mercedes "blueTec" technology, but they abandoned this plan when the Chief Operating Officer changed, who favored using their own developed technology (TDI). TDI didn't work as well as expected, necessitating the cheat.
Der Spiegel attempts to imply that the collusions were to agree on how to cheat, but from the evidence, it looks like the "collusion" was exactly the opposite of what Der Spiegel implies: the "collusion" was to collaborate on technology to avoid producing emissions, but when that collaboration fell apart, they shifted to cheating.
New York Times article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/1...
Wall Street Journal article here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/v...
The first three links you give don't assert that the couple (that run Snopes) "admitted to fake news". You did read the title on this thread, right? The articles assert the "some of the people" involved "are biased"-- but, oddly, they don't cite any examples of biases in any actual Snopes articles. So we can ignore these all as irrelevant to the subject.
The last two don't include a citation to "the couple admitting to fake news", but at least are slightly relevant.... but all they are is (in your words) "people calling them liars." The actual details in the Snopes articles critiqued... don't show any lies.
The first one is about Democrats purportedly failing to stand during a Navy Seal tribute. The Snopes article is here. The article you linked was primarily criticizing Politifact, and only briefly mentions Snopes... but nevertheless, it ends with the following statement: "The Daily Wire, PolitiFact and Snopes ALL described the events in the exact same way; exactly as they happened." The phrase "describing the events exactly as they happened", to me, reads as a statement that the site is accurate.
The second link you give has a bad flaw. The Snopes article being critiqued is here. Notice that the photo-meme that they're debunking is at the very top of the article. But the article criticizing them leaves this out, and pretends Snopes is debunking a somewhat truncated version. Nope. They criticize Snopes for "moving the goalposts"... while themselves moving the goalposts.
In either case, though, none of the citations answers the request for a citation of the purported fact that "the couple admitted to fake news."
Citation needed. Not an assertion, a citation: who said exactly what and when, and show me a link.
Why do you people keep spewing that nonsense?
I'm not sure what "nonsense" you're referring to. I asked for a citation, telling me who said what, and asking for a link. Asking for a citation is "nonsense"?
They admitted to it in an interview. They admitted to it.
Yes: that is exactly what I asked for a citation for. Who "admitted it"? What interview? When? Where was it published?
Show me a link.
Claim: Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen was a Democrat.
Rating: Mixture
WHAT'S TRUE: Omar Mateen registered to vote as a Democrat in the state of Florida back in 2006.
WHAT'S UNDETERMINED: His U.S. political affiliation (if any) at the time of the shooting is unknown.
Seems a reasonable summary of the facts to me. The guy registered to vote as a Democrat ten years ago, we don't know what his political affiliation if any is now.
I suppose you're objection is that this is tagged as "mixture." Since the very third line of the article specifically states that he was registered to vote as a Democrat in 2006, they don't seem to trying to hide this. I just want the facts.
Why pretend that the couple that runs it didn't admit to a bias and to intentionally lying?
I'm not pretending anything. You are asserting a fact. I want a source for that fact.
Since you don't seem to be able to come up with a source, I assume you don't have one, and you're making it up.
If you do show a source, I'll look at it.
Snopes is way overrated. Relying on Snopes as an authority for fact checking news is foolhardy.
I think you're missing the point. You don't use Snopes to fact check the news-- there are sites like factcheck and politifact for that. You use Snopes for debunking those god-damned "memes" that fly around like mosquitoes, like (the front page on Snopes today) the photo of a whale in a Venice canal, or don't buy Kelloggs Bran flakes because they contain dried ground-up cow dung, or that Donald Trump married Madonna in a secret ceremony in Utah.
Snopes often provides few, if any, additional details beyond what has already been published elsewhere.
Most of these idiotic internet rumors aren't debunked elsewhere.
Difficult to effectively fact-check CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, etc without field reporters to gather details on the ground and various quality sources. Simply regurgitating and comparing what other news sources have published, alone, isn't much of a fact-check.
This isn't the site to fact-check CNN or the NY Times. This is a site that debunks idiot email "memes" showing me a civil-war era photograph of soldiers that shot a pterodactyl.
The vendor continues to insert their own ads and has been withholding the advertising revenue from us. How is this not outright theft?
Because they are half-owners of the site (Barbara Mikkelson sold her share) and in the middle of a lawsuit.
The gofundme is here, for what it's worth, with more information: https://www.gofundme.com/saves...
They always give detailed sources for their facts, so they're all right with me.
However, it is clear that at least ARJ, which published this paper, bills itself as a peer-reviewed source of information.... [my italics]
You just said that the liars lie, and that fakers put out text stating that they're not fake.
Well, duh.
You seem to find this surprising? That's why we call the liars.
are we saying they are not "real" scientific journals primarily based on the evidence that they accept prank papers as authentic? Or is there some other, clearly expressible, criteria by which "real scientific journals" can be differentiated from the phony ones? I would like to know the specifics, so this same experiment can be attempted against them.
As GrumpySteen notes above, if there were trivial criteria to say what's a fake, the fakers would simply fake that criterion as well. The overall problem is that there is no longer any entrance barrier at all to putting up a web site, calling it Journal of Impressive Science-Sounding Name, and calling it an "open source journal"-- and since anybody can do it, anybody does do it.
With that said, here are four good criteria for distinguishing real journals from fake ones:
1. Does a real scientific society publish it? Most-- not all, but most-- of the reputable journals are published by societies. Look for The American Physical Society, the Electrochemical Society, the International Academy of Astronautics, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or the like.
2. What is the Impact Factor of papers they publish? Fake papers have zero impact factor. http://researchguides.uic.edu/...
3. Do research libraries subscribe to it? If the MIT library doesn't subscribe to it, you should wonder why.
and last: 4. Does it even have an actual print run? Real scientific journals still publish paper issues-- it's an old-fashioned holdout from the 20th century, but if a journal consists of nothing but an impressive-sounding website, it should draw your suspicion.
None of these are infallable, but taken together, they put together a pretty good picture of what a real journal is, and what's fake.
The fact that fake "scientific journals" exist to scam money out of the gullible does not mean that real science does not exist.
Not only have others done the same thing before, even without these examples, "peer review" is almost always a load of bullshit..
Again: these are not real scientific journals, and the "peer review" is (as you say) "a load of bullshit" because it does not exist-- there is no actual peer review because these are not real scientific journals.
It's important to emphasize the word "so called" in the phrase "so-called scientific journals." These are not scientific journals. These are what are called "predatory journals," which pretend to be scientific journals, but have no other purpose than to suck money out of people who want to publish in a scientific journal but aren't good enough to be accepted.
Two data points at the beginning and end is not enough to declare a hockey-stick trajectory.
Sure they are-- just plot them on log paper!
True. It's become very common knowledge that bypassing college entirely and obtaining vocational training is a superior tactic in the modern world for the vast majority of graduating high school seniors....
Wow, here's a post where I honestly can't tell whether it's supposed to be ironic, straight, or a mixture of straight with ironic undertones (or ironic with a mixture of straight underneath).
Overall, bypassing college and obtaining vocational training can be a superior tactic for graduating high-school seniors, but it isn't for the "vast majority". There are only so many vocational jobs around, they can by mind-numbingly awful if you don't have a passion and just go into them for the money... and more and more trades are simply vanishing. (I still remember the ads for "become a TV repairman!" showing a guy testing tubes. Anybody ever repair a TV anymore?).
Not only do you sidestep a mountain of expensive college debt that cannot be shed in a bankruptcy,
You can still spend a small bundle on vocational school and apprenticeships and licenses for a trade... and then discover nobody wants you.
you start earning immediately at a very nice wage
No, many-- perhaps most-- decent trades require some training and also an apprenticeship. You don't "start immediately at a very nice wage". You start doing gruntwork at either slave wages, or even paying to work.
If you love welding, or woodworking, or landscaping: good move! Do it! But, for the money-- no, it's an uncertain choice.
I had to check to make sure this wasn't fake news, but seems to be true; it's reported elsewhere: http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/21/...
(note that I am the original author of that wall of text, that AC has plainly copied-pasted parts of my comments for a reason which I don't know)
It was clearly sarcasm. Weren't you able to detect sarcasm?
Do you have problems to get context/sarcasm right? Do you need a tutorial on how to detect sarcasm on slashdot?
Do you have problems to get context/sarcasm right?
In this particular case, I didn't, because you managed to be so over the top that even poe's law doesn't apply, but, in general, yes. Sarcasm is indistinguishable from cluelessness, and there is plenty of cluelessness around, even here in the genius-level posts of genius-among-geniuses slashdot geniuses.
Ideally, you should know something about the background/knowledge/personality/expectations/etc. of the given person
You got it. You could have stopped posting there, that is 90% of the the reason cluelessness is indistinguishable from irony on the net.
You turn out to be so fucking brilliant that you only write posts that are clear and unambiguous because you can instantly figure out how other people decode your posts even though you don't know anything about them or they about you. That's because your brilliance is almost like telepathy, you understand where everybody is coming from. But, you know, a lot of slashdotters aren't quite at your level of perfection, and only think that they understand how everyone is able to decode text that says the opposite of what is actually meant.
So, it's not that it "has no documentation"-- it's that it can't (or won't) release documentation.
Not the same thing.
The Siesta only works if you work close enough that you can go home during it. If you have to commute long distances to get to work, so that you can't realistically go home during the workday, there's literally zero reason why any rational person should want to take a 3-hour lunch, especially when 2 of those 3 hours could be spent at home with family at the end of the day.
Yes, but Spain doesn't go with this American idea that a middle-class livestyle requires that you live in a house an hour's commute away from work so you can live as far away as possible from the poor people.
I wouldn't mind a long break in the middle of the day, and maybe a nap. Doesn't sound insane to me at all.
More reusable than Falcon-9, in fact, since the Falcon 9 throws away the second stage (which tends to be the more expensive part).
Nope, that's just wrong. In a rocket, the most expensive parts are the engines, generally followed by the capsule (which in SpaceX's case is also recovered and reused).
It turns out that the upper stage is way more mass sensitive than the lower stages. All the real tech goes into the upper stage-- the first stage can be dumb and low performance, but the second stage can't. The upper stage has all the GCD and avionics as well-- the bottom stage has more engines, but it only is fuel tanks and engines-- the expensive stuff is on top.