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


Forgot your password?

Comment "Right-of-Way" Misused. (Score 3, Interesting) 278

The organization asks that people default to "giving right-of-way" (yielding) to pedestrians. Pedestrians do not legally have permanent right-of-way. Right-of-way is determined by law, planning, and engineering.

The California Vehicle Code requires that all automobile drivers YIELD to pedestrians in the road, but as pedestrians do not have a permanent right-of-way, they can still be cited for jaywalking.

Comment Awareness only goes so far. ENFORCE! (Score 1) 278

Ya, seriously. Signage and awareness campaigns can only go so far. The engineering is solid. Everyone knows what they *should be doing*. Police need to re-focus a major part of their beat work on traffic violations. All the laws and all the engineering go unheeded if people don't think there are sufficiently detrimental consequences to their actions.

Enforce the damn laws.

Comment Re:Dear Mr Musk... (Score 1) 397

Here's why you're wrong about the tax credit:


"As a tax credit, the amount of your qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle tax credit reduces your tax bill on a dollar-for-dollar basis. In order to claim the credit, you have to have a tax liability you report on your return. It will not increase your refund beyond what is owed. Depending on your liability and other tax credits you take, you may not see the full tax savings of the tentative credit you calculate on Form 8936. This is because the credit is a nonrefundable credit. Nonrefundable tax credits cannot reduce your tax bill below zero and also reduce your tax bill for a number of other credits taken before reducing the remaining tax bill for your plug-in electric motor vehicle credit."

Here's why you're wrong about EV chargers in California Apartments:

AB 2565 makes it a requirement for a an apartment landlard to allow the installation of an EVSE (charger). While the charger can be had for less than $1,000 with rebates, installation still costs. If there's insufficient wiring to a garage. That costs, too. If there is no garage, then you need to buy a weatherized EVSE and have it installed outside. The renter is responsible for all costs, reporting, planning, and including removal when the apartment lease is up. This is cost prohibitive.

Comment Re:Dear Mr Musk... (Score 1) 397

Yes and no.

-- California has a $2,500 direct rebate (it's a check sent to you by the State).

-- The Federal Government has a $5,000 non-refundable tax rebate. That means you have to claim it on your taxes as a negative liability only to reduce existing tax liability. That means if you submit a $5,000 rebate and you're already getting a $250 refund, you get NOTHING from your $5,000 rebate. If you want your full $5,000 value, you have to change your tax witholdings for the year, save what you think you'll have to pay, apply the $5,000 tax rebate, pay what's left, and then look in your "tax savings account" and see what's left. That's your reward. That's not something that low-income people do.

-- To charge an electric vehicle at home, you need a garage or one of those incredibly rare apartments communities that offers EV charging. For comparison, I live in what most would consider a premium apartment community in one of the safest cities in America and there's not a single public EV charger anywhere in this apartment community or the owner's apartment system.

-- You have to travel a maximum distance per day given charge time.

EV are still additional "putt around" vehicles for the upper-middle and upper class. Almost no households live with ONLY an EV.

Comment It's never *just* RAM, Video Card Biases Results (Score 1) 350

It's a bit senseless to test whether there's a big difference between regular desktop use is affected by the jump from 4GB to 8GB when you have a a Geforce GTX 980 -- a card that has 4GB of its OWN RAM and costs as much as most people's workstations or home PCs.

Anyone who is running a recently purchased system (within the last 2 years) with only 4GB of RAM is very likely using on-board video as well. Who uses these computers? Rank and file office workers and home users who don't know better.

Getting just about any modern, budget video card will offload graphics work, un-share RAM, and reduce the use of virtual memory. It will make the 4GB stretch a lot farther and 8GB will be plenty for most people. But without that video card, there's just never enough RAM.

So, ya, if you want to say that going from 4GB to 8GB doesn't make a big difference, try making that change without your $500 video card.

Comment Re:It's Not About Porn (Score 1) 231

(1) I wish I could mod you up because that's a well argued AC post and I think good AC posts don't get the credit they deserve. Unfortunately, I've already commented in this thread (obviously) and thus cannot use my points.

(2) While porno is everywhere and easily accessible, anyone found with porno, or publicly admitting to watching/reading/etc. porno is going to be shamed. And that's what I mean by it being pervasive in society but still publicly taboo. If it was in no way publicly taboo, then where's the UK porno-lovers group standing up for porno rights?

Comment Re:It's Not About Porn (Score 4, Interesting) 231

I'm going to disagree here. There is no significant revenue that can come from the ISPs locking down porn access and people getting for accessing it in other ways. If the UK government wanted more money, it could spend a lot less to get a lot more.

This is about conservative social values and the political power of "think of the children". Since pornography is pervasive but still taboo in Western society, it's an easy political stranglehold because there simply aren't enough people willing to stand up and say, "It's my right to was two consenting adults go at it online." It's too publicly shameful. "Oh, look at him! He's probably a paedo! I would never look at that filth! Shame him! SHAME HIM!"

Since no one can publicly admit to it without such extreme shaming, no one's going to stand up and protect it. Thus someone supporting said conservative values will get the support of nearly everyone because "If you don't support it, then you likely should be shamed because you, too, are probably a paedo!"

This is completely a social and political tactic. Not financial.

Comment Re:Migh as well get on it (Score 1) 663

You don't even have to put in THAT much effort to see a significant change (depending on starting mass). Try the calorie calculator here. (http://goo.gl/XBPt) I went from 245 to 220lbs without much drama just by making small changes and integrating physical movement better into my life.

If you are eating a 4000-kcal daily diet regularly, cutting your intake in half isn't going to help you lose weight... it's going to help you quit dieting because dropping half your intake is extremely difficult. You can't tell your stretched out stomach, "Hey, so please stop telling me you're hungry."

Cut out one bad thing a week. If you're a total red-meat head and think that no meal is a meal without fried beef, then that may be a problem. Make the switch from red meat to chicken, pork, and fish. If you're a fried-food maniac, cut out fried meats and potatoes. If you're eating fast food for more than 4 meals a week (schedules are a pain, I know), choose a better fast food option. Subway is not a bastion of extreme healthiness, but a footlong turkey on wheat will do significantly less damage than a burger and fries from Five Guys.

And cut out the soda. All of it. Iced tea, water-- almost anything else. But start weening yourself off of it. Still want the fizz? Buy 2-liters of club soda, juice a lime, a lemon, an orange, or a grapefruit at home, throw the juice on ice and top off wit the club soda. BAM-- a non-ultra sweet soda.

If you want to lose weight and stick to a better diet (but not go on "a diet"), you have to make small changes. You have to create a new normal. Do too much at once, and you're dooming yourself to failure.

Comment Good! I want to see if it leads to failure. (Score 1) 361

Hi there. I'm a big-time sustainability nerd. In fact, it's literally part of my job description. I have friends throughout the industry-- energy, transportation, water, land use, etc. I have a couple friends in the food sustainability area and they're vehemently divided on the viability of non-GM crops in the modern world. Me? I can't be bothered to care too much. I don't have the time in the day to figure out how to best grow free-range battery chargers for solar chickens. I need to leave that to someone else. I'm happy that someone has volunteered to be the test bed for this experiment.

Comment Re:Reddit is a Business with Business Needs (Score 1) 581

Your argument works with "fat" people because the courts do not recognize having X lbs. of fat as a suspect class. But when you have sub-forums specifically formed to be a place to discuss racist/sexist/prejudicial/discriminatory/etc. topics, the community leaves itself open to allegations of supporting, facilitating, or giving shelter to hate speech. And, unfortunately, even if you have a rock-solid liability waiver, defending one's self in court will cost money and reputation. Note that I'm not saying that either having such forums or getting rid of such forums is a good or bad thing, but simply that this is the course of evolution of a community. Gather people, get popular, need funding and thus compromise principles, need more people to get more funding and thus further compromise principles. Clubs, online forums, governments, etc. Everything develops away from highly-held ideals towards "the highest held ideals that angers the fewest number of people".

In Nature there are neither rewards nor punishments, there are consequences. -- R.G. Ingersoll