Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Violation Video? (Score 1) 229

by Jabrwock (#47486103) Attached to: Chicago Red Light Cameras Issue Thousands of Bogus Tickets

The cameras are very questionable from a safety standpoint because now people don't know how to behave when coming to a stop.

The problem is not that people don't know how to behave, it's that they've been doing it wrong since the day they passed their driver's test and stopped caring, and now cameras are catching them in the act. I'm all for including a copy of the page in the driver's manual that states what you are SUPPOSED to do in this scenario.

When you get to a red light... stop. It's not a yield sign, it's a red light. Stop, then turn right if it's safe. There is no county in the US where a rolling turn is acceptable, it's just the the cops don't bother ticketing over such a minor infraction. Doesn't make it legal though...

Comment: Re:That's what happens when Congress is lazy (Score 1) 109

by Jabrwock (#47300815) Attached to: Supreme Court Upholds Most EPA Rules On Greenhouse Gases

So... creation of greenhouse gasses is not pollution?

According to SCOTUS, it isn't, under the existing laws of the US.

And I doubt Congress would change that anytime soon. Until then, the EPA only gets to regulate CO2 coming from facilities it already regulates under existing laws.

Comment: That's what happens when Congress is lazy (Score 4, Insightful) 109

by Jabrwock (#47300647) Attached to: Supreme Court Upholds Most EPA Rules On Greenhouse Gases

Well then Congress shouldn't give them that power? That was the court's finding, that Congress had already authorized the EPA to regulate any gases produced at a plant that also produces named pollutants. So CO2 gets lumped in with the rest under their blanket authority over existing polluters. Which is why they struck down the ability to expand their authority to non-polluting entities. It was outside their existing jurisdiction.

Congress does that a lot, authorizes blanket authority, and then bitches when it gets exercised. It's like they don't read the bills they pass or something...

Comment: Re:Read the Article! (Score 1) 363

by Jabrwock (#47171793) Attached to: Group Demonstrates 3,000 Km Electric Car Battery

I know it is Slashdot and the summary is misleading about it "adding 100kg over a Tesla battery" but if you actually read the article you would learn that the idea is not to replace the existing Li-ion battery but to have this as well as a reserve. As you point out most people only drive short trips for which a Li-ion battery is well suited. This is just to provide a power for long distance driving.

Or, you know, if people would just actually read the summary, which states that the Li-ion battery would still be retained for short-range trips... :P

I'm sure I could have worded the 100kg bit better to state that the 100kg is IN ADDITION TO the existing weight of the Li-ion battery... but I guess ./'s editors are only interested in correcting my submission title...

+ - Cdn-Isreali group demonstrates 3,000 km e-car Aluminum-Air range booster

Submitted by Jabrwock
Jabrwock (985861) writes "One of the biggest limitations on lithium battery-powered electric cars has been their range. Last year Isreali-based Phinergy introduced an "aluminum-air" battery. Today, partnering with Alcoa, a Canadian aluminum producer, they announced a demo of the battery, which is charged up at Alcoa's aluminum smelter in Quebec. The plant uses hydro-electric power to charge up the battery, which would then need a tap-water refill every few months, and a swap (ideally at a local dealership) every 3,000km, since it cannot be recharged as simply as Lithium. The battery is meant to boost the range of standard electric cars, which would still use the Lithium batteries for short-range trips. The battery would add about 100 kg to an existing Tesla car's battery weight."

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.