Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:So? (Score 1) 300

by Jack Griffin (#49543475) Attached to: Futures Trader Arrested For Causing 2010 'Flash Crash'

For example, a house is valued at $250K, and I put $50K down and get a mortgage for the rest. It burns down, and the lot is valued at $100K. The bank is not going to go through with the mortgage. Heck, I've signed some papers and then hired an inspector, which would be largely pointless if I couldn't back out.

That's right because there's a clause in your contract that states the property must be in the same condition as when you paid your deposit. There are a number of these get-out clauses in a standard contract, but all are based on reasonable conditions, none of which involve "change of market value".

Comment: Re:A sane supreme court decision? (Score 1) 398

Inexperienced drivers don't know how much speeding is safe and that is why limits are set.

This is precisely why people crash. They are brainwashed to think as long as they are doing the speed limit they're ok. Maybe instead of teaching people to behave like robots we could teach them some real skills?

If you fear the police there's a very simple solution, follow the speed limit.

I don't fear the police. They are merely tax collectors. I drive as fast as I like, and ever once in while I pay a fee for the privilege. But this has nothing to do with road safety.

Cops don't care to stop you for a $50 ticket. They rather wait and get the next big fish. I've never been stopped for going 15km/h over the speed limit and I've driven over a million KMs in my life. Obviously I use common sense when going through construction and school areas.

You know the Internet is bigger than just your town/state/country right? Every law enforcement agency is different with different standards and tolerances. where I live you can get a ticket for 1km/h over the limit

That's the issue isn't it? Not everybody can evaluate this by themselves, instead they need to be told what speed they should go.

The math is pretty simple. More speed = more danger. You cannot argue that

If more speed = more danger then shouldn't we reduce the speed limit further? And once we've reduced them,we apply the same "math" we should then reduce them again? Then keep repeating until the speed limit is zero?
I'm guessing "math" (or logic which is what you meant) isn't your strong suit.

and that is why speed limits are set based on ministry of transportation predefined parameters.

and what are those parameters? Can you cite them? It may be different in your area, but I've had some experience in this field and can assure it's not as scientific as you think.

Comment: Re:A sane supreme court decision? (Score 1) 398

BTW, I'm not suggesting that moderate speeding is bad since most of us do it, it's the excessive speeding that's an issue and it's the best way to get a cops attention.

The problem with this is how do you define "moderate", "excessive" and "speeding"?
It's the fact that the authorities refuse to define these terms that contributes to the problem.
We had a fatality in my local area from a Semi Trailer losing control down a steep hill and ploughing into the traffic stopped at the lights below. Investigators put the blame on "speeding". He was doing less than 60 in a 60 zone, but due to significant weight of the vehicle and geography, the driver should've been going slower. This makes sense so far, except the cops see "speeding" as the cause and immediately launch into speeding blitz, picking up people in cars with ABS driving on flat straight roads doing 63 in a 60.

In my experience, it's less about speed and more about careless/reckless behaviour. I have roads I can do 180 on without issue. At the same time there's some roads I'll do 20 under the limit because it's too dangerous to do the speed limit. Focusing purely on the number on your speedo is disingenuous and only leads to confusion about the real risks on the roads.

Comment: Re:A sane supreme court decision? (Score 1) 398

I got busted with a car load of mates in the back of a nightclub car park sharing a joint. The cops knock on the car window and as the we opened the doors to get out smoke was pouring out like a smoke machine. Fortunately the guy with smoke in hand swallowed it, and the baggie was quickly thrown into a storage compartment in the dash (separate from the glove box). The cops gave us the usual lecture, searched the car and found nothing (to which we were surprised since there was a bag of pot in the dash). The cop clearly disappointed called in the dogs and gave us a chance to come clean before the dogs rip the car to shreds. We stay tight lipped, and the dogs go in, sniff around for a bit, but find nothing (even more surprising since these were dogs right?). So we got a lecture and a warning and sent on our way. Got home pulled out the bag and finished off the stash. That was 25 years ago, but taught me a great lesson in security theatre, especially police dogs (which are generally trained for perp restraint and intimidation than drug sniffing).

Comment: Re:$100 billion for 150 miles? (Score 1) 189

by Jack Griffin (#49525983) Attached to: Maglev Train Exceeds 600km/h For World Record

that's $2 TRILLION for NYC to LA if you extrapolate the costs.

Yeah, we could pay for a few years of another pointless war with that much money.

And for that, instead of a useless war on terror, we get a useless train which no one wants to ride because the security theater and speed make it more of a PITA than the airline.

"No-one" is a bit of an exaggeration. 30 million people pay to go on Amtrak each year, so there's at least 30 million people who would want to ride a brand new high speed rail. And that's about 29,999,997 more people that wanted the Iraq war.

The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely 1 bananosecond.