once hybrid get some real power in the next 4-5 years
erm. you could buy a Ferrari four years ago with a 789hp petrol engine that supplemented it with a 161hp electric one. If 950hp isn't real power then you need to stop looking at cars and think about a large cruise liner.
Of course, you could also have bought the McLaren at the time with a mere 903hp or that little known brand from Germany were selling a hybrid Porsche with a 600hp petrol engine and 280hp electric engine.
But lets say you wanted a practical comfortable car for a family of four. It's not as though Mercedes are selling a 367hp plug-in hybrid saloon right now. Unless you include their S class.
Just what the fuck do you call real power and what are you expecting in 4 years time?
Surely the answer is to keep calculating additional digits of pi while playing the generated music thus far. 114 years should be enough time to hit that 31.4 trillion, and the next three million years probably offers enough time to calculate enough digits to keep going until the heat death of the universe.
Hey Samsung, you can have this one for free: Instead of expensively hiding a shite camera behind the screen, add a small second screen on the rear of the device so fuckwits taking selfies can use the main camera and still see their own idiotic fuckheaded visage.
Dear US Patent Office: This idea is mine, now fucking deny any patents on it because whichever cunt is trying to register is a lying shit if they both say they thought of this and pretend it's innovative.
Everybody else: You don't have to buy a Samsung phone if it doesn't meet your needs, including any that implement my suggestion above.
Me: Keep searching for a phone that skips the whole selfie shit, lets me hold it without inadvertent function and fits in my fucking pocket.
50 inch monitors are available and sensibly priced. HD projectors support larger formats than that if you're sat that far away from your screen. My house isn't that large.
What the fuck is with peoples' inability to tell the truth about the EU and the people that voted to leave it.
Let me quote Article fucking 50 itself: "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union"
So yes, the EU have a fucking obligation to negotiate and conclude a fucking agreement.
Now will you kindly fuck off and stop spreading your ignorance across the internet.
the UK doesn't want to be in the custom union and it doesn't want an open border, but it wants to preserve the Ireland/Northern Ireland open border
You've used the same term ('open border') to describe two very different things there.
Then the UK wants to preserve its trade relationship with the EU, but doesn't want to follow EU regulations. Which means trade treaties, which takes years normally for any country to do.
The trade agreement talks are already in planning.
you don't need some cabal to explain why Brexit negotiations are going badly
No, it's because the Government are fucking incompetent and/or maliciously sabotaging the process.
Brexit is going badly because leaving the EU means leaving the EU, and the UK voted to leave the EU, but doesn't want to lose all of the benefits.
That isn't why Brexit is going badly, it's merely a negotiating start point. This is not unexpected and is not a barrier to successful outcomes from those negotiations.
Your first two points though really just condemn the Democrat campaign.
They spent half a billion dollars more than the Republican one but you're saying that someone else spending a tiny percentage of that was able to influence the outcome of the election sufficiently to win it.
The obvious interpretation is that the Democrats wasted most of their campaign funds and can't be trusted with a national budget.
Irrespective of any foreign involvement it's clear that Clinton ran a fucking terrible campaign (that included insulting many voters she should have been appealing to) and the US media gave Trump an astonishing amount of free publicity. You can't blame Russia for that.
We also have solid proof that Trump's campaign colluded with Russia.
Colluded on what?
Just that you're leaving gaping holes there in your statement. Be specific regarding this collusion.
For instance, colluding to split the dinner bill tends not to cause any alarm. Colluding to overthrow the legitimately constituted government of the USA does.
So far you appear to be inferring one by disingenuously referring to something closer to the other. That's naughty, stop it.
They have a full feedback machine where bullshit stories are invented out of whole cloth, repeated by major right-wing networks, repeated by *the president*, and suddenly all republicans are treating it as fact.
So much the same way that wikipedia turns bullshit into 'verified facts'.
I'm not challenging whether you're right or wrong, just observing that I've heard the same claims about people that aren't republicans too. Maybe we should play a game of "Where did the Republicans learn this tactics?"
I recall it was being used to describe anything supportive of Trump, so he responded by using the term to describe anything that was against him.
While both have an element of hyperbole the sad truth is that there's a lot of nonsense masquerading as truth out there, opinion pieces are being given the same prevalence as hard news and the actual news is now primarily being reported in a far more subjective manner than I recall seeing in the past.
The New York Times is fucking terrible at reporting on the cricket and rugby too. Stuck on a ship with no other news sources and forced to read that horrifically biased shite with no proper sports scores convinced me it wasn't a news source at all, so I completely understand where you're coming from on this.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd rather that than have them watch ideologically biased movies and develop a distorted view that they then impose on the rest of us.
Yes, the Government should offer to start tackling global warming by address its route causes, starting with the kids.
No more clothes made in other countries. No more imported food. No more electronics. No more public transport and definitely no cars.
Lets see how those kids like living Amish, because that's what they're fucking asking for.
It's still a fucking travesty.
Round corners: $1bn.
Technology required to make the device function: $fuck all.
This just further damages the credibility of the patent system.
once hybrid get some real power in the next 4-5 years
erm. you could buy a Ferrari four years ago with a 789hp petrol engine that supplemented it with a 161hp electric one. If 950hp isn't real power then you need to stop looking at cars and think about a large cruise liner.
Of course, you could also have bought the McLaren at the time with a mere 903hp or that little known brand from Germany were selling a hybrid Porsche with a 600hp petrol engine and 280hp electric engine.
But lets say you wanted a practical comfortable car for a family of four. It's not as though Mercedes are selling a 367hp plug-in hybrid saloon right now. Unless you include their S class.
Just what the fuck do you call real power and what are you expecting in 4 years time?
Surely the answer is to keep calculating additional digits of pi while playing the generated music thus far. 114 years should be enough time to hit that 31.4 trillion, and the next three million years probably offers enough time to calculate enough digits to keep going until the heat death of the universe.
Bloody musicians, never think things through.
Hey Samsung, you can have this one for free: Instead of expensively hiding a shite camera behind the screen, add a small second screen on the rear of the device so fuckwits taking selfies can use the main camera and still see their own idiotic fuckheaded visage.
Dear US Patent Office: This idea is mine, now fucking deny any patents on it because whichever cunt is trying to register is a lying shit if they both say they thought of this and pretend it's innovative.
Everybody else: You don't have to buy a Samsung phone if it doesn't meet your needs, including any that implement my suggestion above.
Me: Keep searching for a phone that skips the whole selfie shit, lets me hold it without inadvertent function and fits in my fucking pocket.
50 inch monitors are available and sensibly priced.
HD projectors support larger formats than that if you're sat that far away from your screen. My house isn't that large.
5 years of advertising income for under 20 cents in fines? A sound (if unethical) bit of business that.
Soon all TV will do this
Fortunately dumb computer monitors are as cheap as TVs and the screens are no worse these days either.
I'm not sure they reversed entropy either. I thought that wasn't actually possible (much like time travel).
They took an electron and took it from state A to B and back to A. The energy required to go from B to A probably caused a net increase in entropy.
I concur though that it feels an ambitious headline. Does this mean I'm reversing time when I take a piss into the glass I drank out of?
Well, that's your comment invisibly silenced then.
What the fuck is with peoples' inability to tell the truth about the EU and the people that voted to leave it.
Let me quote Article fucking 50 itself:
"the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union"
So yes, the EU have a fucking obligation to negotiate and conclude a fucking agreement.
Now will you kindly fuck off and stop spreading your ignorance across the internet.
He's a knight. This means he must be involved in politics.
What utter nonsense.
move to America where you can have free speech and only elected representatives are allowed to vote on laws
So Californians don't vote on specific propositions then? You'd best let them know they've been doing it wrong.
the UK doesn't want to be in the custom union and it doesn't want an open border, but it wants to preserve the Ireland/Northern Ireland open border
You've used the same term ('open border') to describe two very different things there.
Then the UK wants to preserve its trade relationship with the EU, but doesn't want to follow EU regulations. Which means trade treaties, which takes years normally for any country to do.
The trade agreement talks are already in planning.
you don't need some cabal to explain why Brexit negotiations are going badly
No, it's because the Government are fucking incompetent and/or maliciously sabotaging the process.
Brexit is going badly because leaving the EU means leaving the EU, and the UK voted to leave the EU, but doesn't want to lose all of the benefits.
That isn't why Brexit is going badly, it's merely a negotiating start point. This is not unexpected and is not a barrier to successful outcomes from those negotiations.
The barriers are elsewhere.
They have no duty whatsoever to Britain
Actually they do. They also have a strong interest in an orderly exit with ongoing funding of prior commitments.
Unfortunately the UK parliament are doing their best to overthrow democracy.
So look, I decided to give myself a challenge and select no more than one comment from any Slashdot story.
https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...
https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
I could go further (by looking further back in time) but I think the point is made.
if you want to have a been
What the fuck?
The length of a daylight in a day does not change, regardless if the sun rises at 4am, 9pm or whatever
No, but whether it's light when you go to work/school or light when you get home from work/school does change and does matter to people.
El Reg has never shown a pro or EU bias in its entire existence.
It tends not to show any biases at all, if you ignore the more recent occasional anti-male article from its San Francisco office.
Basically they hate everybody and operate with all of the cynicism you'd expected and desire from anybody in journalism or IT.
Your first two points though really just condemn the Democrat campaign.
They spent half a billion dollars more than the Republican one but you're saying that someone else spending a tiny percentage of that was able to influence the outcome of the election sufficiently to win it.
The obvious interpretation is that the Democrats wasted most of their campaign funds and can't be trusted with a national budget.
Irrespective of any foreign involvement it's clear that Clinton ran a fucking terrible campaign (that included insulting many voters she should have been appealing to) and the US media gave Trump an astonishing amount of free publicity. You can't blame Russia for that.
Indeed. A certain Mr B Obama tried to influence a referendum in the UK too, although that mostly backfired on him and the idiots that wheeled him in.
Brexit, two high-profile right wing success stories
What the fuck makes you think Brexit is 'right wing'?
Must've been all those Labour supporting strongholds voting to leave. You know, ones like Wales.
Britain has been de-facto paralyzed for years and will weaken the EU as a whole by the exit.
This is true, but it's better than Britain ceasing to exist as an independent country.
We also have solid proof that Trump's campaign colluded with Russia.
Colluded on what?
Just that you're leaving gaping holes there in your statement. Be specific regarding this collusion.
For instance, colluding to split the dinner bill tends not to cause any alarm. Colluding to overthrow the legitimately constituted government of the USA does.
So far you appear to be inferring one by disingenuously referring to something closer to the other. That's naughty, stop it.
They have a full feedback machine where bullshit stories are invented out of whole cloth, repeated by major right-wing networks, repeated by *the president*, and suddenly all republicans are treating it as fact.
So much the same way that wikipedia turns bullshit into 'verified facts'.
I'm not challenging whether you're right or wrong, just observing that I've heard the same claims about people that aren't republicans too. Maybe we should play a game of "Where did the Republicans learn this tactics?"
I recall it was being used to describe anything supportive of Trump, so he responded by using the term to describe anything that was against him.
While both have an element of hyperbole the sad truth is that there's a lot of nonsense masquerading as truth out there, opinion pieces are being given the same prevalence as hard news and the actual news is now primarily being reported in a far more subjective manner than I recall seeing in the past.
The New York Times is fucking terrible at reporting on the cricket and rugby too. Stuck on a ship with no other news sources and forced to read that horrifically biased shite with no proper sports scores convinced me it wasn't a news source at all, so I completely understand where you're coming from on this.