Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Study financed by (Score 1) 235

by FatLittleMonkey (#48644861) Attached to: Study: Red Light Cameras Don't Improve Safety

Click the link, it isn't a "paper" it's a newspaper, and the Tribune article isn't paywalled. (Or at least isn't immediately.)

The article is written as if the yellow-timing issue was something the newspaper had previously caught the city on, while the study is a new thing they've done. Ie, the city reverted the timing to normal before the Tribune commissioned the study. But I'm reading between the lines, it isn't clear, and the "study" isn't published (in the normal sense), so there's no way to know for sure.

Comment: Re:Study financed by (Score 1) 235

by FatLittleMonkey (#48644679) Attached to: Study: Red Light Cameras Don't Improve Safety

Nice attempt to move the goalposts.

However, none of that was related to ShanghaiBill's query, which was whether the change in the yellow-timing coincided with the study. Something that neither the summary nor the Tribune article make clear (although the way the article is written suggests to me the reversion pre-dates the study.) Nor did anything you linked to.

You failed to read ShanghaiBill's comment properly, then went on a rant about him failing to read the summary. Just accept that you were wrong, apologise to ShanghaiBill, and move on. Being wrong doesn't make you a bad person. Trying to twist out of it to save face does.

Comment: Re:Study financed by (Score 1) 235

by FatLittleMonkey (#48644305) Attached to: Study: Red Light Cameras Don't Improve Safety

The key part of ShanghaiBill's query was "in the intersections studied".

In the Tribune article, as in the summary, the comment about the change in the yellow-timing was a completely separate part of the article from that discussing the findings of their commissioned study. From the article I get the impression that the Tribune investigation which led to the reversal of the city's policy pre-dated the newspaper commissioning the study and therefore wasn't a confounding factor, however there's nothing in the summary that makes that clear. (And even in the article, I'm only interpreting the language, it isn't specifically stated.)

Comment: Re:The bane of fan made series - the acting (Score 1) 101

by FatLittleMonkey (#48643637) Attached to: Behind the Scenes With the Star Trek Fan Reboot

Surprisingly, much of the casting works really well.

(Exceptions are that Bones seems miscast and Grant just sucks as Sulu. Grant isn't just hammy overacting, but doing an exaggerated comedic impersonation of hammy-overacting. I guess the producers get cheap props that way, so... the needs of the many...)

Comment: Re: Why does this need a sequel? (Score 1) 299

by FatLittleMonkey (#48592547) Attached to: Blade Runner 2 Script Done, Harrison Ford Says "the Best Ever"

Do you realise how many layers you're adding just to preserve a theory that both the author of the original story and writer of the damn screenplay said wasn't valid? Just give it up.

The analogy drawn between Deckard and the replicants was meant to show the dehumanisation of his job, his life, that he needed Rachel in order to become "human" again, not that he was a super-secret special replicant allowed to roam freely in violation of the very law enforced by the agency that is employing him.

Comment: Re:Doesn't matter even if the publishers win... (Score 1) 698

by FatLittleMonkey (#48552851) Attached to: French Publishers Prepare Lawsuit Against Adblock Plus

While I see your point, all of those certification schemes you see on products (whether "dolphin safe" or "heartsmart" or "sustainable forests"), those companies had to pay to join. The money is, generally, used to verify that the company is compliant with the scheme's goals.

This is no different. It's an attempt by Eyeo to find a balance between dangerous/intrusive ads and allowing content providers to earn a living. But doing so has costs, so if your company wants Eyeo to grant you an exception because you are a responsible advertiser, you need to pay for that extra service.

You don't want to receive something for nothing, do you? Surely the irony would kill you.

Comment: Re:Initially, I worried (Score 1) 84

by FatLittleMonkey (#48540713) Attached to: US Treasury Dept: Banks Should Block Tor Nodes

A compromise would be to let customers indicate whether they want or need to use anonymiser services (wither TOR or conventional proxies). Much like customers who do/don't use their credit cards overseas. Very very few customers would choose this (or even understand the option), so it wouldn't reduce the protective effect compared to a blanket ban on TOR.

Comment: Re:Are they really that scared? (Score 2) 461

by FatLittleMonkey (#48536785) Attached to: Why Elon Musk's Batteries Frighten Electric Companies

This seems very common in the US. The weird, almost religious belief in the "efficiency of business/inefficiency of government" that legislators choose the worst possible combination of business and government. All the loss of control of out-sourcing a monopoly, while retaining all the stupidity and corruption of bureaucracy.

The weirdest thing is that this hatred of "government" seems to come, without a trace of irony, from politicians.

Comment: Re: Are they really that scared? (Score 1) 461

by FatLittleMonkey (#48536765) Attached to: Why Elon Musk's Batteries Frighten Electric Companies

Problem is what if there is a reason where solar generation is interrupted for a period that is longer than the battery storage such as a week long winter storm? Or perhaps a hurricane that damages the solar panels? In a black swan event, are the solarists(?) going to be content with decision to be disconnected to the grid and powerless for what could be a prolong period OR would they be setting themselves up for a "humanitarian crisis"?

How is that different from the "white swans" that we see all the time? Week long winter storms that take out power lines with ice build-up (while preventing repair crews from getting out), or hurricanes that take down power lines across an entire region, or even pull major power stations offline.

Comment: Re: Paradoxes Be Damned (Score 1) 334

by FatLittleMonkey (#48536243) Attached to: Aliens Are Probably Everywhere, Just Not Anywhere Nearby

it seems unreasonable to assume that a highly advanced civilization intent in colonization would invest the economic resources and risk the political or social resources to do so very distant to their own world when much closer, viable options are a possibility.

However, after those first nearby colonies have developed, some of their population will have an economic, political, religious/etc interest in setting up their own colonies slightly further out. And some of those colonies will spawn others yet further out...

Exactly as humans spread around the world by foot and canoe.

And with FTL it would only take a few tens of thousands of years to expand through the entire galaxy, even if colonies developed fairly slowly (by human standards.) Without FTL it would only take a few tens of millions of years.

[And realistically it would happen faster. Colonies which develop quickest are those more culturally likely to seed further colonies. And the fastest developing of those would be the first to seed the next round. The process would be self reinforcing. The culture of colonising would be amplified each round.]

Every successful person has had failures but repeated failure is no guarantee of eventual success.