Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: America needs to change as well (Score 0) 222

by WindBourne (#49761703) Attached to: Amazon Decides To Start Paying Tax In the UK
It is time to tax sales all over the states, based on where it goes to.
The easiest way is to have any out-of-state (or out-of-nation) delivery to add 10% to the sale. This is above and beyond the delivery.
Then the delivery entity gets to keep 10% of that (or 1% of the total sales) for handling this.
Then the 9% is delivered to the state, along with the address of where item was delivered to. From there, the state breaks it apart into state, county, locality.

If every state will agree with this, it is actually EASIER AND CHEAPER to the business than trying to calculate the taxes based on the address.

And it is LONG past time for America to tax delivered items.

Comment: Re:WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score 0) 229

by WindBourne (#49756773) Attached to: WSJ Crowdsources Investigation of Hillary Clinton Emails

Read this link..

You MIGHT learn something.

Although your addle-brained Fox Derangement Syndrome doesn't correlate well with intelligence.

How funny. You did not learn. He was actually accurate in saying that. But you accuse him of a personal attack, when in fact, it was not. It might be an attack by association, but that is something totally different. However, the fact is, that WSJ is owned by murdock and has turned from conservative to loony tunes since that time.

Comment: Re:LOL; What a fucking bozo you are (Score 1) 263

Oops on 1. It was roughly 1980 when America started to emit more CO2 than Europe. Prior to that, Europe emitted more.

I stand by #2, based on the above. You can see that starting in 2008, America's emissions started dropping, and has continued since that time. More importantly, it will continue for the next 4 years, if not longer. And here is EIA saying that much more will close. And IER thinks that 72 GW of 321 GW of coal plants are going to shut down before 2020. Note that Coal plants account for about 3/4 of electricities CO2 emissions in America. Shutting down that 72 GW, which are the worst, will take out roughly 1/4 of that CO2 of Electricities CO2 emissions.

This data from Europe, shows that America's data starts in 1992 at 5.0. hits highest point was 2007 (5.9 billion tonnes) drops to 5.3 in 2013. Likewise, Eu28 data start in 1992 at 4.3 and then sits at it until 2007, where it also drops to 3.7.
Sadly, this article does not do justice to the amount of emissions that Europe kicks out, but the map in it shows how much is really coming out of Europe AND CHINA.

And as to 4 above, that stands on its own. Again, OCO2 shows how much China emits, which is far far more than is generally admitted since Chinese leaders are lying.

and you can look up 5 and 6, or even think about it. China's emissions from 1850 on, exceed America's total. And considering that China and Europe have been burning coal for multiple millennium as well as have been the most populated areas of the world for the last milenium, it makes sense that they account for the majority.

Comment: Re:Probably True (Score 2) 156

by Obfuscant (#49754821) Attached to: 'Prisonized' Neighborhoods Make Recidivism More Likely

Provincial inmates are released to the community they came from, while Federal inmates are paroled to a different community.

That seems like common sense. You and your pals take up a life of crime. You get released back into the same neighborhood where all your pals still live/are released to. It's likely you'll fall into the same bad company. Get put into a community where your pals aren't ready to help you re-offend and you're less likely to re-offend.

Comment: Re:Signals, zoning, and subsidizing transit (Score 1) 825

by Obfuscant (#49754779) Attached to: Oregon Testing Pay-Per-Mile Driving Fee To Replace Gas Tax

Even at a red light, the car might want to go right on red, and assumes you're not going to just run through the light, so they pass you.

At a red light, a car turning right on red has the right of way over a bicycle desiring to go straight through on red. It isn't an issue of passing the bike, it's one of turning in front of him. Changing the law so that the red light becomes just a 'yield' for the bike but a stop for the car is a recipe for accidents. And the biker will lose.

I've already talked about the confusion created by existing laws in this regard. Let's not try to make it worse, ok?

I can't believe how many times I've done that to catch a car that thinks "Oh he's going so slow, I'll just sneak ahead of him and turn real quick."

That's an excellent argument against making stop signs and/or red lights into "yield" for bicyclists. That will create the same "I'll just sneak ahead" situation for a bicycle crossing an intersection without stopping.

Comment: LOL; What a fucking bozo you are (Score 1) 263

People like you LOVE to point fingers at America as being the main one here causing this.
1) back in 1992 when we found out about this, Europe's yearly total emissions were actually MORE than America's and had been for a LONG TIME. Europe's gas tax is what brought down Europe's emissions, not the poltics.
2) During the time of W, America did NOT cut back, however, for the last 6 years, we have cut back because of 3 reasons:
a) cheap nat gas here, combined with cheap wind. Both of these are much cheaper to do than coal.
b) W delayed regulations on mercury until 2017. Now it is taking effect and many coal plants have shut down, with more to come.
c) O's regulations are taking hold and is preventing future coal plants, as well as some nat gas plants, and leading towards more AE, along with nukes.
3) America's emission are today BELOW 15%, and dropping. China's emission are estimated at around 33% of global emissions, rising, and that is without data from OCO2.
4) OCO2's emissions PROVE that China's emissions are much higher than anybody elses.
5) Not only is China's yearly emissions double of America's, but as of THIS YEAR, their TOTALED emission from 1850, is greater than America's.
6) And in terms of total emission for the last millennium, China's is greaters than Europes, but both are MUCH MUCH greater's than all of the America's COMBINED.

Yet, idiots like you will focus on 1 nation, rather than focusing on the nation that accounts for more than 40% (OCO2's date is going to prove that China has lied about their real emissions), or the fact that Europe's total emissions is much much higher than America.

Comment: Re:Signals, zoning, and subsidizing transit (Score 1) 825

by Obfuscant (#49751433) Attached to: Oregon Testing Pay-Per-Mile Driving Fee To Replace Gas Tax

Someone else replied already and explained this, though that seems to have attracted a troll of some sort.

And the explanation was dealt with by countering facts. It is an invalid rationalization that "because I am a safe biker all bikers are just like me and therefore the laws of the road that apply to other vehicles should not apply to us."

Basically, the idea is that people on bikes have better awareness of road conditions

That is an assertion born out neither by observation nor by logic, and "road conditions" are not the only consideration. The road can be clean and dry, but if there's an 18 wheeler already in the intersection those road conditions are pretty irrelevant. A bike rider who is huffing and puffing trying to keep up his speed comes to an intersection with a stop sign. He's too busy trying to catch his breath to be fully aware of the conditions or traffic, and he'll be a prime candidate for confirmation bias and selective judgement. "Oh, I can make it between cross-traffic because the other option is to actually stop at the stop sign, and if I do that I'll lose all my current momentum...."

I see it every (work)day. Bike riders who are so amazingly aware of "road conditions" that they happily ride right through a group of pedestrians crossing that road. They can't seem to identify multiple human-sized objects in the roadway that the law says they must stop for and they would have hit had the peds not moved out of the way, but they can identify other "conditions" that they should stop for? I think that stretches credulity a great deal.

Moreover, it can actually be more dangerous for a bike rider to come to a complete stop.

For the most part, that is not true. The bike rider who ignores the law is acting in a manner that other vehicle operators don't expect. He's playing chicken with the cars that are obeying the laws and who know the rules of right of way.

You can come up will all kinds of hypothetical maybes that create all kinds of hypothetical results, but simple observation of what happens on a regular basis is sufficient to show that special rules for people who follow no rules already is not a good solution, and allowing everyone to act in the same dangerous and hazardous way will only make the problem worse. Creating a situation where two vehicle operators approaching the same intersection on the same road at the same time and the traffic control for one of them says "you must stop" while the traffic control for the other says "go for it" is a recipe for confusion and accidents.

Here's an example from Oregon traffic law of something like this that is already an issue. A driver turning right across a bike lane where the bike rider is going straight must yield to the bike rider. I think that's a reasonable law. However, I have found myself so many times waiting for the bike rider to proceed and he's waiting for me to turn. What's especially fun is when I look at the biker, he looks at me, and we both realize that we are waiting for each other. Then we both go. The other really fun result is that he waves me on and then he goes himself.

Your example of insufficient sight lines making oncoming traffic impossible to see is a problem of the intersection design and set-back rules, not of the stop sign at that intersection. If that issue cannot be solved by improving the view, then perhaps making the other street stop and removing the offending stop sign from the limited view street is the right solution. Telling bike riders that they don't have to stop isn't. If they can't see the oncoming traffic when they stop, then they won't see it when they don't stop, either. "Let's hope they don't get hit by something as they speed across the intersection" isn't a good answer, ever.

Next, it's safer on bike riders to take back roads than it is major arteries.

Stop signs occur in both places, and claiming that most riders find it safer to take back roads (which already have fewer stop signs) so it is ok to let them ignore main road stop signs is just ridiculous.

The neighborhood collector has a lot of stop signs, but if they can treat those as yields then they can take it also without stopping much and be safer due to less overall traffic and slower car speeds.

Collectors are not "back roads". Collectors are called that because they collect traffic on the way to the main roads. That means there is ... traffic. And stop signs are there for everyone's safety, not just the cars.

Finally, not every biker is in tip-top shape. Letting them bike without having to restart from a complete stop as often makes it easier on the biker,

This is the "it is more convenient for me if I don't have to obey the law" argument.

For people who don't give a damn about biker safety, but hate sitting in traffic, this benefit is for you.

Why yes, because forcing traffic to come to a screeching halt because a bike rider has blown through a stop sign and forced other drivers to slam on their brakes to keep from hitting him has absolutely nothing to do with "biker safety", it's all about not wanting to sit in traffic. Here's a clue: when traffic stops because a bike rider treats a stop sign as a yield and ignores other traffic that already has the right of way, it's the fault of the biker, not the fault of other cars. When a car driver has to stop unexpectedly, it creates a hazard to those behind him.

Increasing the number of bike riders who blow through stop signs and telling them they are special and don't have to obey the rules of the road everyone else does while sharing that road, isn't how you increase bicycle safety, it's how you create many more opportunities for bicyclists to get hit by cars, for them to hit pedestrians who are just pesky annoyances to the special people on those bikes.

There is no reason to change the laws, and every reason to start enforcing them, and it has everything to do with the safety of everyone involved.

By the way, labeling those who disagree with you in an argument "trolls" when you cannot make a convincing or accurate argument is pretty insulting. It's a sign of a desire not to have an honest discussion.

Comment: Lives up to a lot of the hype (Score 3, Interesting) 378

by MikeRT (#49750021) Attached to: How Java Changed Programming Forever

In the years I've done Java development, the only times I've never had a problem building on Windows or OS X and deploying to Solaris or Linux was when someone used hard-coded paths or didn't make the program's deployment properly configurable for deployment to the target OS. Write once, run anywhere is more or less true with Java.

Comment: Re:Signals, zoning, and subsidizing transit (Score 1) 825

by Obfuscant (#49747751) Attached to: Oregon Testing Pay-Per-Mile Driving Fee To Replace Gas Tax

Actually, the problem as you describe is that bicyclists are treating the signs as though they don't exist.

There is no way to differentiate since the end results are the same. The biker who knows he can make a right hand turn from the adjoining street onto the through street is either ignoring the stop or seeing it as a yield and proceeding without stopping. Yield does not mean "stop", it means "yield the right of way if necessary".

*sigh* That's still nothing compared to being, you know, dead. I'm not much of a physical threat to you.

You keep ignoring the fact that vehicle law is not created just to protect the automobile driver from death by bike accident. It's there to protect YOU, too. And the pedestrians who you are a serious threat to.

... How?

Oh, please. You can't imagine how a bicyclist who runs down a pedestrian could do significant physical harm to them? A twenty MPH piece of steel/carbon fiber/whatever with an attached human mass would just what, bounce off a pedestrian?

I avoid them just like I avoid cars.

You don't get it. What you personally do or don't do is irrelevant. You cannot write laws based on how one person acts, you need to deal with aggregate (that means "as a whole" or "as a group") behavior. You don't get near pedestrians, so obviously any laws that protect pedestrians are not necessary, right?

On the generic tact, I'd think we'd see a lot more injury reports if cyclists were indeed a significant danger to pedestrians.

Or bike/ped accidents have gotten to the newsworthyness of "the sun came up this morning." And more peds don't bother reporting them because by the time the cops could get there the biker is long gone. I've had bikers almost run me over in a crosswalk -- a MARKED crosswalk at a four-way stop intersection, so there is no excuse at all -- and I know that by the time I pull my phone out of my pocket, dial 911, and explain the problem to the dispatcher that bike rider will be one among thousands somewhere in a two mile radius, probably already parking his bike outside the class building.

Well, you'll actually need to prove that the law is effective then, I guess.

You question the fact that when vehicle laws are obeyed the people involved are safer? You don't believe that a bike that stops at a stop sign is both safer to himself and to others? I see this kind of stuff every day. It's common here. I don't know where you live where you don't have pedestrians or crosswalks at stop signs, but that pretty much leaves you without much data to provide concerning the issues.

Having the cops enforce being not stupid for a bit might be more effective than trying to keep pushing 'stop means stop!

You must be kidding. Cops aren't supposed to enforce the actual laws, they're supposed to decide what is stupid and write tickets for that? Wow.

I've already told you I'm not going into the intersection if I'm at risk of you running me over.

And I've told you that there are uncounted numbers of them in this city that will do exactly that, and that what you personally do is irrelevant when writing traffic law. I don't intend on killing anyone today, should there be no laws against murder? You don't intend on entering an intersection even when you have the right of way if there's any risk of being run over, so let's do away with stop signs that, when obeyed, solve the problem.

I'm sorry that you only remember the idiots, but I can't do anything about them.

You can stop arguing that the existing laws shouldn't apply to them. That's a start. I remember the idiots because they are both so common and do memorably stupid things.

Like I said, I'd love it if stop signs didn't apply to me in a car, either. I don't intend on running anyone over, and I don't intend on hitting someone else. Let's get rid of all stop signs, ok?

There's no such thing as a free lunch. -- Milton Friendman