Gridlock is good. It slows the creation of bad, authoritarian laws.
I'm skeptical about that. I would think that it results in only the creation of bad, authoritarian laws - and prevents the creation of good ones. Having a gridlocked government isn't a good thing. It just means that the government isn't working, and instead is a massive waste.
What's actually good is transparency and accountability, not gridlock.
But what does smart people reproducing have to do with any of this? Smart people often have stupid kids, and stupid people often have smart kids. The quality of education and life experience they receive probably has a lot more effect than any genetic determination.
That has two problems - you have to spend more money, when they could have simply added a hinge for very little cost, that would suit most users fine. The other problem is the waste involved in throwing away more plastic because the display is shipped with an inferior (and often unusable) stand. We already throw away enough plastic crap, why add to that mountain?
Because most of us don't use a stand if you get a high end monitor. I use monitor arms,
I think you're kidding yourself if you think that most people do this, even most purchasers of a "high end" monitor. It is a distinctly minority item, even among high-end purchases. Personally, I do use a monitor arm in my office, but I'm one of the very few. And there are plenty of situations where a monitor arm isn't feasible or practical.
They make a nice monitor, with expensive materials, and then they put it on a shoddy non-tilting stand? WTF? What an insane world we live in. Why the hell does anybody even make non-tilting display stands?
If you use that money to undo (or completely offset ahead of time) your waste, how could it not?
But who says Mr. Burns is going to use his money to offset his emissions? From my experience, it's the wealthiest who care the least about their impact on others, who give the least to charity, etc. They didn't become wealthy by not being selfish.
There's no non-arbitrary line for 'wasteful' v. 'no-wasteful', so we simply demand that people pay the appropriate price for their wastefulness.
Except we don't. It's often made artificially cheap to be wasteful, so people aren't paying anywhere near the actual value of their waste. Hell, we even pay a premium for products that last a long time, and it's cheaper to buy disposable stuff. And that's what the economy encourages.
Your comment would only make sense if the post you were replying to proposed base 2 time... which it didn't, it proposed base 10 time. Oh, and the "mebibyte" thing would never have been a problem in the first place is some fuckwad computer scientist hadn't fucked with the standard use of base 10 prefixes in the first place.
What the video game industry needs is a lobby group as powerful as the MPAA is
Riiiight. That's exactly what the video game industry needs... a corrupt organization that pushes DRM against its own interests, and also acts as a censorship board. That would be really fucking wonderful for videogames.
If they get such a lobby group, I guess we can look forward to the videogame industry destroying itself within the next decade.
Of course in my defense, not in my wildest dreams would I ever think Bush would pass something like the PATRIOT Act, get us embroiled in a war, and keep the budget in check instead of giving us a 9 trillion dollar deficit.
What? Why not? It was obvious even in 2000 that Bush would do exactly that kind of thing.
Were you not paying attention? Are you very young and naive? "Not in your wildest dreams" is a pretty strong statement. Why did you think that this was so unimaginable?
Yeah, but someone has to build the roads, the schools and the hospitals. How are you going to pay for them, if not through taxes? How are you going to adminster them, if not via a government? I think most people don't give a shit about "moral" issues, they just want their infrastructure. That's why government moral crusades are rarely effective. But fuck with the infrastructure, and people will be up in arms.
It took a bit to find anywhere actually defining the term but there is this: "(2) Fleet average fuel economy is - (A) the total number of passenger automobiles leased for at least 60 consecutive days or bought by executive agencies in
I don't see how that definition applies in this case. How would car makers know how many vehicles of each type they are going to sell, before they make them? I think they are probably using a different definition of "fleet" than usual. I think "product range" would be the more appropriate term. Know where we might be able to find out what they are actually referring to in this proposed legislation?
Loss of freedom to buy gas guzzlers, is one.
I don't see how that is a harmful effect. more of a reason to rejoice and dance in the streets, in my opinion. Owning gas guzzlers is the harmful thing. Do you also believe that the freedom to own nuclear and biological weapons is important?
This deal will be pre-made when car manufacturers realise they need to lower the average MPG of cars sold, not just their average MPG of cars for sale.
As I said, I don't see how that can work. Cars are usually designed years in advance, so how can they possibly know what will be sold in the future? If that were possible, there would be little point in having a stock market. As for the Mr Burns example, I don't see how having money entitles anybody to be wasteful.
The point is, for the same result, you get less harmful side-effects
What harmful side effects are you talking about?
In one you mandate a change in quantity of X, resulting in a change in price of Y.
So, X is fuel consumption, and Y is the price of cars? I'm not sure why mandating better fuel consumption will necessarily change the price of cars. Or are you talking about something else?
If you have a fixed number of miles driven, and you mandate a minimum of x mpg, this will result of an average of X>x mpg. This will burn the same amount of fuel as you would if you mandate a fleet average of X mpg.
No, it won't. Say my "fleet" consists of two cars - one a gas-guzzler that gets 10 MPG. The other is a small, unpopular car that gets 40 MPG. So, my "fleet average" is 25 MPG. But if the gas guzzler outsells the small car by a ratio of 100 to 1 - then a LOT more fuel is being consumed than if there was a mandated minimum fuel efficiency for all cars. If a minimum was mandated for each vehicle, the company wouldn't be allowed to sell the gas guzzler in the first place.
Really, your logic does not make sense. Just because the product range averages a certain figure, doesn't mean consumers are going to buy each product in equal numbers.
Show me the scientific study that demonstrates that mandating a "fleet average" fuel consumption results in less fuel being consumed than mandating that every vehicle must have a particular maximum? Your comment doesn't even make sense. If I mandate that every vehicle must meet 50MPG or better - then obviously, less fuel will be consumed than if I mandate that the average fleet consumption must be 35MPG or better.
How does this make sense as a business strategy? I don't think getting bad press for no benefit to your business whatsoever counts as smart strategy. All it does is reinforces the popular image of Telstra as a bunch of wankers who are out of touch. Their brand is rapidly declining because of stupid shit like this. This will only lose them customers. The smart thing to do would be to leave Open Office up there and promote their application in the mass media. Removing Open Office just screams "our product can't compete, so we have to pretend that alternatives don't exist."
Slashdot tags became self-aware at 2:14am EDT December 19, 2007.
By the time Slashdot tags became self-aware, they had spread into millions of computer servers across the planet. Ordinary computers in office buildings, dorm rooms, Cowboy Neal's organic antelope farm, everywhere.
I explained quite plainly why. You can complain that the number should be higher, but why setting a minimum is the worst of the two options we've discussed has already been stated. "These aren't the only two choices, so why not do the worse of these two?" is kind of a dumb question.:-)
It's only your opinion that it's the worst option. I disagree. i think the "fleet average" is a totally BS cop-out. It allows manufacturers to make unpopular niche cars to bring up the average of the popular cars they actually sell.
You mean other than physics, technology costs, and the like?
How are any of those stopping this from happening? the technology and physics is there, and it can be done for the same cost as existing vehicles. So, what's the problem?
Yes, but that doesn't mean anyone should edit wikipedia. Shouldn't we expect some ethics and accountability from governments? Or is that, like, sooooo September 10th?
Sometimes you guys have a point, let's not pretend it's all ranting (not even nearly), but you must realise, school-ground article submissions like this one only serve to make you look like kids, and very unprofessional.
The childishness and lack of "professionalism" on slashdot pales in comparison to the brain-damaged childishness in the pro-Microsoft world. I find it hilarious that you can even associate Microsoft with professionalism. Even their CEOs act like spoiled children. In contrast, you get level-headed debate and logic on slashdot.
Remember, IT isn't religion, it's a profession, a skill, a choice, whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
Technology is just a tool used by society at large.
Abercrombie & Fitch? Georgio Armani? Levi's? Nike?
I'm skeptical about that. I would think that it results in only the creation of bad, authoritarian laws - and prevents the creation of good ones. Having a gridlocked government isn't a good thing. It just means that the government isn't working, and instead is a massive waste.
What's actually good is transparency and accountability, not gridlock.
But what does smart people reproducing have to do with any of this? Smart people often have stupid kids, and stupid people often have smart kids. The quality of education and life experience they receive probably has a lot more effect than any genetic determination.
That has two problems - you have to spend more money, when they could have simply added a hinge for very little cost, that would suit most users fine. The other problem is the waste involved in throwing away more plastic because the display is shipped with an inferior (and often unusable) stand. We already throw away enough plastic crap, why add to that mountain?
I think you're kidding yourself if you think that most people do this, even most purchasers of a "high end" monitor. It is a distinctly minority item, even among high-end purchases. Personally, I do use a monitor arm in my office, but I'm one of the very few. And there are plenty of situations where a monitor arm isn't feasible or practical.
They make a nice monitor, with expensive materials, and then they put it on a shoddy non-tilting stand? WTF? What an insane world we live in. Why the hell does anybody even make non-tilting display stands?
I was actually thinking of "half past two".
But who says Mr. Burns is going to use his money to offset his emissions? From my experience, it's the wealthiest who care the least about their impact on others, who give the least to charity, etc. They didn't become wealthy by not being selfish.
There's no non-arbitrary line for 'wasteful' v. 'no-wasteful', so we simply demand that people pay the appropriate price for their wastefulness.Except we don't. It's often made artificially cheap to be wasteful, so people aren't paying anywhere near the actual value of their waste. Hell, we even pay a premium for products that last a long time, and it's cheaper to buy disposable stuff. And that's what the economy encourages.
Wouldn't it save two syllables, rather than just one?
Your comment would only make sense if the post you were replying to proposed base 2 time... which it didn't, it proposed base 10 time. Oh, and the "mebibyte" thing would never have been a problem in the first place is some fuckwad computer scientist hadn't fucked with the standard use of base 10 prefixes in the first place.
Personally, I don't see the problem here. Kids should be encouraged to do more work in the garden/farm.
Riiiight. That's exactly what the video game industry needs... a corrupt organization that pushes DRM against its own interests, and also acts as a censorship board. That would be really fucking wonderful for videogames.
If they get such a lobby group, I guess we can look forward to the videogame industry destroying itself within the next decade.
What? Why not? It was obvious even in 2000 that Bush would do exactly that kind of thing.
Were you not paying attention? Are you very young and naive? "Not in your wildest dreams" is a pretty strong statement. Why did you think that this was so unimaginable?
Yeah, but someone has to build the roads, the schools and the hospitals. How are you going to pay for them, if not through taxes? How are you going to adminster them, if not via a government? I think most people don't give a shit about "moral" issues, they just want their infrastructure. That's why government moral crusades are rarely effective. But fuck with the infrastructure, and people will be up in arms.
I don't see how that definition applies in this case. How would car makers know how many vehicles of each type they are going to sell, before they make them? I think they are probably using a different definition of "fleet" than usual. I think "product range" would be the more appropriate term. Know where we might be able to find out what they are actually referring to in this proposed legislation?
Loss of freedom to buy gas guzzlers, is one.I don't see how that is a harmful effect. more of a reason to rejoice and dance in the streets, in my opinion. Owning gas guzzlers is the harmful thing. Do you also believe that the freedom to own nuclear and biological weapons is important?
This deal will be pre-made when car manufacturers realise they need to lower the average MPG of cars sold, not just their average MPG of cars for sale.As I said, I don't see how that can work. Cars are usually designed years in advance, so how can they possibly know what will be sold in the future? If that were possible, there would be little point in having a stock market. As for the Mr Burns example, I don't see how having money entitles anybody to be wasteful.
He shows us just what a man with a cannon in his chest can do!
What harmful side effects are you talking about?
In one you mandate a change in quantity of X, resulting in a change in price of Y.So, X is fuel consumption, and Y is the price of cars? I'm not sure why mandating better fuel consumption will necessarily change the price of cars. Or are you talking about something else?
If you have a fixed number of miles driven, and you mandate a minimum of x mpg, this will result of an average of X>x mpg. This will burn the same amount of fuel as you would if you mandate a fleet average of X mpg.No, it won't. Say my "fleet" consists of two cars - one a gas-guzzler that gets 10 MPG. The other is a small, unpopular car that gets 40 MPG. So, my "fleet average" is 25 MPG. But if the gas guzzler outsells the small car by a ratio of 100 to 1 - then a LOT more fuel is being consumed than if there was a mandated minimum fuel efficiency for all cars. If a minimum was mandated for each vehicle, the company wouldn't be allowed to sell the gas guzzler in the first place.
Really, your logic does not make sense. Just because the product range averages a certain figure, doesn't mean consumers are going to buy each product in equal numbers.
WTF? Science?
Show me the scientific study that demonstrates that mandating a "fleet average" fuel consumption results in less fuel being consumed than mandating that every vehicle must have a particular maximum? Your comment doesn't even make sense. If I mandate that every vehicle must meet 50MPG or better - then obviously, less fuel will be consumed than if I mandate that the average fleet consumption must be 35MPG or better.
How does this make sense as a business strategy? I don't think getting bad press for no benefit to your business whatsoever counts as smart strategy. All it does is reinforces the popular image of Telstra as a bunch of wankers who are out of touch. Their brand is rapidly declining because of stupid shit like this. This will only lose them customers. The smart thing to do would be to leave Open Office up there and promote their application in the mass media. Removing Open Office just screams "our product can't compete, so we have to pretend that alternatives don't exist."
Slashdot tags became self-aware at 2:14am EDT December 19, 2007.
By the time Slashdot tags became self-aware, they had spread into millions of computer servers across the planet. Ordinary computers in office buildings, dorm rooms, Cowboy Neal's organic antelope farm, everywhere.
It's only your opinion that it's the worst option. I disagree. i think the "fleet average" is a totally BS cop-out. It allows manufacturers to make unpopular niche cars to bring up the average of the popular cars they actually sell.
You mean other than physics, technology costs, and the like?How are any of those stopping this from happening? the technology and physics is there, and it can be done for the same cost as existing vehicles. So, what's the problem?
Yes, but that doesn't mean anyone should edit wikipedia. Shouldn't we expect some ethics and accountability from governments? Or is that, like, sooooo September 10th?
Sounds to me like the US military admitted they are doing this. What else would it take for you to believe it's true?
The childishness and lack of "professionalism" on slashdot pales in comparison to the brain-damaged childishness in the pro-Microsoft world. I find it hilarious that you can even associate Microsoft with professionalism. Even their CEOs act like spoiled children. In contrast, you get level-headed debate and logic on slashdot.
Remember, IT isn't religion, it's a profession, a skill, a choice, whatever.No, it's a scam.