Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:With the best will in the world... (Score 1) 399

by AK Marc (#49566315) Attached to: Audi Creates "Fuel of the Future" Using Just Carbon Dioxide and Water

No seriously, please tell me. In what sort of realistic scenario is it critical to be able to drive for 700 miles nonstop without ever setting foot out of your car? How can you even do that? Do you not pee? Do you not eat? Even if you could it's not safe to drive that long nonstop, a person is supposed to take regular rest breaks.

I drove from Dallas to Anchorage in 5 days, in winter, in a normal FWD family car. I drove until the tank was empty, and didn't stop otherwise. Averaged over 800 miles a day, solo for 5 days straight, over the Rockies, and through Alaska. For that, it's easier if you can go a full day, without stopping. 12 hours sitting, driving, no breaks.

Yes, I realize that you'll assert this is unsafe, and perhaps unhealthy. But you are wrong. The only way I can prove it to you is to drive 5000+ miles with you sitting next to me, and that'll never happen.

You have a few drinks with you, I like juices, apple-based black currant is sweet and tangy. Water flows through you too fast. Also, have a few unhealthy snacks. You'll get 80% of your daily calories from your snacks. Eat a light breakfast, and a heavier dinner after you stop for the day.

I've also driven from DC to Anchorage, Dallas to Chicago. Dallas to Chicago through Denver. Dallas to Dallas through Ohio and Florida. And probably 50 or more 1000 or longer mile trips. Long distance driving isn't hard, but it isn't a skill that's taught. My first long trip, I was 17 and drove Dallas to Bid Bend, and back. On the way back, I fell asleep and almost killed 4 people (didn't crash, the people in the car with me never realized that I fell asleep). I'd heard 10,000,000 times that drunk kills, but never once that tired kills. And it was the middle of the day. After that, I thought it would be a good thing to figure out the secret world of driving without falling asleep. For the trip I woke up on the shoulder, two wheels in the grass, I drank a large 7/11 coffee (32 or 64 oz), and after the coffee high dissipated, the urge to pee kept me awake the rest of the way.

Comment: Re:Damn... (Score 1) 473

by AK Marc (#49566229) Attached to: Woman Behind Pakistan's First Hackathon, Sabeen Mahmud, Shot Dead
No, they were free to practice their religion where they came from, more so than Mormons are able to practice theirs in the US today. They were unable to practice the oppression of their neighbors they wished to. It was the freedom to oppress that they came here for. And we've been saddled with it ever since.

Comment: Re:Easy fix (Score 1) 140

by AK Marc (#49566163) Attached to: The Engineer's Lament -- Prioritizing Car Safety Issues
The fires weren't that common in the first place. Reminds me of the Chrysler minivan latch scandal. The latch was inferior, so Chrysler went after the parents of the dead kids for being bad parents of the corpses for not belting them in property. But that didn't go over well. The recall didn't make a huge difference as the number of crashes that it involved was actually small, but they were generally horrific, which is why it got so much attention. Similar to car fires.

Comment: Re:"That can be reversed on request" (Score 2) 61

by MightyYar (#49566103) Attached to: New Privacy Threat: Automated Vehicle Occupancy Detection

So let me get this straight rich gits with chauffeurs get priority over everyone else because why, why the fuck, why?

Because "people being chauffeured around" represent such a small proportion of rush-hour traffic that basing a decision around this particular concern would be far more emotional than pragmatic.

Comment: Re:Pinto (Score 1) 140

by AK Marc (#49565927) Attached to: The Engineer's Lament -- Prioritizing Car Safety Issues
And I read a traffic study that demonstrated that 2-3 seconds following distance was the worst distance to follow. Yet that's the recommended range. Closer was more likely to cause a crash, but a lower damage one. Farther was more likely to avoid the crash. The sweet spot for highest probability of the worst crashes was the "recommended" ranges that governments publish. Like so many government studies that show the opposite of "common sense", I found it missing when I went back for it. That one and the one paid for by the US government that showed that smoking pot reduces crash risk.

Comment: Re:Content Expert (Score 1) 329

by AK Marc (#49565597) Attached to: The Future Deconstruction of the K-12 Teacher
If your first job teaching is Chemistry, you must have a bachelor's degree in chemistry (aside for the exceptions for those with an education degree and a "minor" in chemistry). Doesn't that count? Then, once you are a certified full teacher, you can teach almost anything after a quick and easy test, that should be passable by any good HS student in that subject. So there's a difference between the first-subject, sole-subject teachers (who must be experts) and those that "got in" under something else, now teach unrelated subjects.

Comment: Re:Do not want (Score 1) 98

by AK Marc (#49565317) Attached to: Smart Headlights Adjust To Aid Drivers In Difficult Conditions
Then I'm an absolute fucking retard. I've studied crashes (like as in crash reconstruction in engineering classes), and someone walking across a median is invisible when two oncoming cars are at the right distance in the right lighting conditions. The pedestrian is illuminated insufficiently compared to the oncoming glare. Yes, even if wearing white (though not if wearing a full yellow retro-reflective suit).

So the invisible object, whether human, animal, or other, is invisible because of the lighting. But if both cars turned off their lights, the object is visible. You can't turn off your lights all the time and end up safer, but if you can turn off the other guy's lights where they hit your eyes, then you can see it.

There's real science in it, and linked to real crashes that killed real people.

That you are an ignorant buffoon doesn't change reality.

Comment: Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score 1) 286

by AK Marc (#49564479) Attached to: ESPN Sues Verizon To Stop New Sports-Free TV Bundles
You were asked a clear question about your phone. 3 posts later, you still haven't answered. I can only presume because the answer is the opposite of what you are recommending.

The "troll" here was me calling you on a non-answer. Yes, I use my phone with 3 SIMs for 3 continents, 2 non-contract, but the "home" plan is contracted because it gives the best value for the money.

Comment: Re:Wow total distopia (Score 1) 329

by AK Marc (#49564437) Attached to: The Future Deconstruction of the K-12 Teacher

They don't have the power to impose a factor of three multiplier on public education. You'll have to look elsewhere for that.

Not in any one item, but requiring a new standardized test to verify quality, but not allocating the money in that law to fund it means that the school will cut education to pay for compliance costs. Do that 100 times, and you've got your factor of three. 1,000 cuts, and all that. Any one seems trivial. But in sum, they are deadly.

Comment: Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score 1) 286

by AK Marc (#49564425) Attached to: ESPN Sues Verizon To Stop New Sports-Free TV Bundles
I'm saying that if you want to change them, that's the *only* option. I never said it was good. But yes, since it's the only option, it would, by default, be the "best" and the "worst" idea. Waiting 100 years for the shareholders to figure it out without any outside help is not doing anything, and that's the suggestion.

When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision.