Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Human Based Climate Change vs Climate Change Ti (Score 1) 249

Interesting conundrum. The left wing environmentalists want us to scale back on energy use, which effectively means we cannot support as many people on the earth as we have now. The alternative, they claim, is that doing nothing means we'll have problems growing enough food (due to climate change side-effects) to support the number of people we now have on the earth.

So do something that condemns people to die of starvation NOW to prevent the possibility that people will die of starvation in the FUTURE, maybe.

Of course the latter course does mean that attempts at mitigation (of possible side effects) will be successful and nobody will die of starvation after all but that would not fit with their ideas of an ideal world that has far fewer people in it.

Comment Re: Shouldn't have to run oil by rail (Score 1) 199

No, ONE of the alternatives to Keystone XL is one (or more) pipelines West (to the coast) or East to the (other) coast...

But realistically given the amount of oil in the ground its not a question of which pipeline but how many and on what schedule. Keystone was promoted as an early contender because of the additional oil in the ground in (for example) North Dakota and because of the existing infra-structure in the southern US (refineries and shipping.)

The net result is that Keystone --XL will be built, basically the parts up to North Dakota, because there is and will be close to sufficient need for that anyway. Rail will be used to bridge the 49th parallel until such time as the State Department OK's the crossing. And all of the parts up to the 49th have the required approvals (from the states) to be built. At some point in the future a State Department WILL OK the crossing. Just have to wait.

I had thought they might just implement a short hop. But currently the plan is to use the existing (building in progress) rail terminal in Hardisty Alberta to ship to somewhere in (i think, name escapes me) in Nebraska. This is much longer (close to 2000 km) but utilizes existing infrastructure sooner.

The reason that this is all moving to rail is simple. It is cost effective. It exists. It does not need (new and/or changed) regulatory approval. You just arrange to have your product delivered to one railhead, the railroad will arrange everything else and get it to the destination for you. The cost is higher than rail but still lower than the differential in pricing.

Comment Re:gets rid of drunk driving (Score 1) 722

The analogy is there but you have not got it right.

MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) have campaigned for years to reduce the number of deaths from drunk driving with reasonably success. The point is that they number of deaths was in the range of about 20,000 a year.

That still leaves about 30,000 deaths a year from other causes which mostly are due to human drivers. I.e. some number greater than the problem that drunk drivers presented.

Once autonomous vehicles are available the focus will move quickly from Drunk Drivers to simply Drivers. Think MAHD (Mothers Against Human Drivers). And that will move with Internet Social Media speed. It will simply become socially unacceptable to drive yourself (just like driving drunk) within five years at that point.

And the net benefit to society is similar. Probably in excess of 20,000 people a year who won't die.

Comment Re:Good for the young, healthy, & coordinated (Score 1) 947

The elderly and frail get that way by not getting enough exercise. If you don't stress your muscles as you age you lose muscle mass quickly. If you maintain an active life style and stress your muscles you can maintain high level of physical intensity well into your 60's and 70's.

Most people don't simply because it is simply hard work and they don't like to exercise that is hard work. It also takes a fair amount of time and commitment.

Comment Re:Aggressive and not smart cyclists (Score 1) 947

Because unless the bike-path IS a bike-path it is more probably multi-use. And pedestrians are far more dangerous than cars.

For commuting, bike-paths are typically not well suited as they don't always go from where you are to where you want to get to. If you have a 20 mile commute you want to do that at 20mph and not have to extend it to 25 miles and lower your speed down to 12mph because of pedestrians.

Bike paths are great for local commuters, kids, tourists etc. They are very rarely suitable for commuting or distance training.

Comment Re:Loads of prior research has been done (Score 1) 947

So the Netherlands has made the decision that having people riding bikes is more beneficial than having people driving cars. Less pollution, less wasted resources, people are healthier from the exercise and have more money left in their pockets from not having to pay for a car, gas and insurance. Good for them.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any given program will expand to fill available memory.

Working...