Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:its all about the $$$ (Score 4, Informative) 93

by Ichijo (#49102247) Attached to: Chicago's Red Light Cameras Now a Point of Contention for Mayoral Candidates

Its been proven time and time again that red light cameras do more harm than good.

And the opposite has also been proven:

"Crash effects detected were consistent in direction with those found in many previous studies: decreased right-angle crashes and increased rear end ones."

(Right-angle crashes are much more dangerous to the occupants than rear end crashes, so exchanging the former for the latter results in a net improvement in safety.)

To further improve the safety of red-light cameras, consider that almost all rear-end collisions are caused by people tailgating. If each red-light camera were turned into a combination red-light and speed camera, people would slow down when approaching intersections, so someone slamming on their brakes at the last minute would be less likely to be hit from behind.

Comment: Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for (Score 2, Interesting) 458

by Ichijo (#48943507) Attached to: Most Americans Support Government Action On Climate Change

ALL Taxes are regressive.

A revenue-neutral carbon tax would be quite progressive. If the tax were $1 per gallon of gasoline, and if the average person used 500 gallons of gasoline in a year, everyone would receive a $500 tax rebate every year. For a poor person, that's a lot of money. And since the truly poor don't drive, they won't be the ones paying the tax in the first place.

Comment: Re:Demand (Score 1) 224

by Ichijo (#48942407) Attached to: New Study Says Governments Should Ditch Reliance On Biofuels

We're taking food and converting it to fuel...

That makes bicycles, which get 48 miles per gallon of orange juice, sound bad.

And if it's wrong to use a natural resource for transportation when that same resource can also be used to produce food, then why are we using fossil fuels for transportation?

And is it wrong to use land to produce biofuels if the biofuel is used to produce or transport food?

For these reasons, the "no food for fuels" argument doesn't make perfect sense to me.

C for yourself.