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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:legalism is a crap philosophy. (Score 0) 579

I already understand it unlike you so I don't feel the need to read it again. You'd note if you could get a few braincells together that all my figures were based on total road fatalities. If you'd like to provide some evidence that speed limits in the UK are lower in residential areas than the US feel free, it'd certainly be more useful than your first post here; however, given that 20mph limits are still the exception in the UK, that pedestrian fatalities have been consistently lower in the UK, and that the US also has reduced speed limits in certain key zones you've added nothing so far.

And if you think speeding in the UK is restricted to motorways then you're completely uninformed or delusional.

Comment Re:legalism is a crap philosophy. (Score 1) 579

Personally, I'd be all in favour of people campaigning to raise speed limits - nobody EVER does. But to expect, allow, or ignore people breaking a limit is just stupid and a bad precedent to set. And yet everyone thinks that's fine.

No, it's stupid but entirely predictable. There is a large demographic who think speed limits are fine or even too small. There's a large demographic who want to see them decreased. The status quo is political because you can't increase the limit due to one group and can't enforce the current limit due to another group.

It's a bit like drugs like weed. There have been informal policies not to police possession of small quantities for years in some places, but the law can't be changed to make possession illegal because no politician wants to piss off anti-drug voters.

Comment Re:legalism is a crap philosophy. (Score 4, Insightful) 579

Two things about this, one, slower vehicles are much easier to avoid for careless kids and two, speed kills, every extra ten miles an hour exponentially increases the likelihood of the pedestrian being killed when hit.

So set speed limits at 10mph, or 5mph, or ban cars entirely if decreasing fatalities is always a justification for decreasing a speed limit, because if it isn't then you need a more credible case.

In the UK the normal speed limit in a residential area is 30mph. 20mph limits in the vicinity of schools are becoming more common. In general UK speed limits are quite relaxed, and especially on non-urban roads policing of moderate speeding is very limited; It is not at all unusual to find traffic averaging 80+mph on UK motorways (interstates) which have a 70mph limit, and you could comfortably do 90mph if traffic is flowing with no real risk of a ticket.

All of this should make the UK a very dangerous place for pedestrians if speed limits alone were a primary driver of road fatalities, but they aren't. The UK averages 3.6 fatalities per billion kilometres driven. The US average (where limits are on average lower) is 7.1, which is effectively double. It seems much more likely that issues like car quality, driver certification, road design, car design etc are far more influential.

Comment Re:"Merely descriptive" not allowed. React will di (Score 1) 204

This is the important point. I'm not sure I like making 'react' a trademark here even though it would only apply to web video, because it seems overly broad and I don't think there's a risk of confusion requiring such a generic trademark; however the real issue is that DMCA take-down requests can, and invariably are, used to take down a huge number of things that the person sending them has no right to restrict.

I'd love to find someone who did some form of reaction video before these guys, and fund DMCA takedown requests for all of Fine Brothers crap to make a point, however given how cozy they are with YouTube I doubt they'd be inconvenienced much.

Comment Re:What could go wrong (Score 0) 405

I have yet to see a piece of equipment that can stand up to repeated freeze/thaw cycles from a New England winter.

Thank god you've thought of snow, I bet everyone involved in these products had completely forgotten that water existed and wasn't even aware that it could freeze! /sarcasm

Just out of interest where in France is New England, because I have to assume you are that self-centric that you have to bring up areas relevant with you even when they have fuck all to do with the area being discussed?

Comment Re:What could go wrong (Score 1) 405

Also, there can't be any traffic on the road because vehicles will block the sunlight, greatly reducing the amount of electricity generated.

Although /. comments are without doubt the most valuable thing on here sometimes I have to wonder when ignorant half though out criticism like this is what we end up with. It takes a very very modest intellect to appreciate that outside of very busy highways the % of time when there is a car over any particular bit of road is a tiny fraction. Even if a road was virtually constantly busy at 50mph you'd have around 60-90% of the road uncovered due to gaps between cars. Take a road that has say 50 cars an hour, not even that quiet for a non-primary road and the road would be uncovered for 99.995% of the time.

I'm sure there are lots intelligent questions about this that it would be interesting to know the answers to, ones about cars blocking light are not one some of them.

Comment Re:The whole Wikimedia Foundation needs to disband (Score 1) 104

You don't half come across as an apologist for these firms. Unless you were intimately involved in the case then you don't know why they settled so quickly, and frankly settling doesn't seem to have saved them much in terms of PR so if you think that was their intent then you clearly don't think they're that smart. The companies could easily have afforded the lawsuit so the expense issue is a non-excuse to begin with, and if what they were doing was in no way holding back pay then why bother? Why would someone from Google who was being paid fairly for their job be tempted to move to Apple based on an approach if Apple were going to pay them the same amount? There's no answer that makes sense (and before you say maybe they wanted to work for Apple; it should be pretty obvious that if they did then they'd contact Apple rather than waiting to see if Apple contacted them).

Comment Re:The whole Wikimedia Foundation needs to disband (Score 1) 104

In that circumstance if you follow the order you're only going to get shot if the people who gave you the orders lose; which is exactly why that circumstance is so wrong. Even knowing that you'll be held accountable if your side loses isn't a disincentive, so you're you're punishing people whose only alternative was execution. You can bet that if the Japanese had somehow won WWII they'd have had everyone involved in the nuclear bombing executed for war crimes, so the lesson appears to be don't be born on the side that might lose a major conflict...

In this case it however that all seems rather irrelevant. The worst thing that could have happened here if Arnnon had some principles is he'd have had to have found a high paying job somewhere else instead.

Comment Re:So why the secrecy (Score 1) 171

So you're suggesting that the government can't restrict you from being a passenger in a vehicle in case stop you from assembling but it can restrict you from operating a vehicle even if it that would stop you from assembling? Because the right to assemble, and other rights granted by the constitution, can be withheld if you don't have the appropriate government license?

Comment Re:Gyro data is misleading (Score 1) 85

The driver who is aware of their surroundings but drives in places with crazy drivers will break a lot and sometimes hard, but not cause accidents

Citation needed, or are you just making stuff up because it 'sounds right' to you. Our drivers do the best part of a million hours driving a year so I'll base my position on the results of that data, and the fact that our insurers discount based on exactly the factors you're claiming would increase accidents thanks.

Comment Re:Gyro data is misleading (Score 2) 85

What you're talking about isn't an issue. You don't analyse driving based on samples small enough that one incident of hard breaking is going to flag up as an issue. We analyse our fleets performance and the smallest interval we'll typically do any analysis for is ~50 hours driving. A driver would have to show a consistent bias towards excessive breaking over weeks before we'd investigate further. In our case we'd then look up the incidents on the dashcam before taking any action, but with thresholds set right the odds of a completely innocent driver being pulled up will be negligible.

Comment Re:So why the secrecy (Score 2) 171

One must be able to go to where the assembly is taking place, if air travel is the only reasonably way to get there due to say time constraints, the government cannot prevent a citizen from traveling by air, without due process of law.

This seems like an arbitrary line to draw, especially as an example of why it is wrong to draw an arbitrary line counting privacy as part of the right. Surely requiring people have a driving license would breach your definition, how else could they reasonably reach a remote location within time constraints... One of the issues with treating defined rights as guidelines on what is allowed, no matter how openly interpreted, is that it's too open to different interpretations and abuse by those who control what interpretation is used. Much better to focus on what the government has the explicit right to do instead. Thus the question should be how do they have the authority to do this?

Slashdot Top Deals

Breadth-first search is the bulldozer of science. -- Randy Goebel

Working...