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


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Cameras don't cause collisions... (Score 1) 367 367

by mmzplanet (#36400108) Attached to: Los Angeles To Turn Off Traffic-Light Cameras
Again, I think the debate here is skewed by the range of different types of roads and traffic we experience daily. Rural roads and highways are not much of an issue, as interstates are not either.

I should of said that being in Florida, everyone drives like it is a NASCAR race, feel the need to draft, needlessly swing wide before turns, and letting anyone in in front of them is regarded as "losing". Any use of the horn makes another driver rage at you (swerve at you, get in front of you and brake, etc.), even if you saving them from hitting you.

The law assumes it is always the safest option, but that also assumes everyone around you is following the law. If a car behind you is illegally on your ass, regardless of fault, I'd rather avoid a collision altogether and roll through an amber or "orange" light rather than a jackass in a laughatrice.com special rear-end my car. They were probably trying to tail you in order to run a red as they always do.

I fully agree there is 99.9999999% of the time no reason to run a Red. But one can't deny that there is that rare moment, where it may actually be a safer option.

Comment: Re:Cameras don't cause collisions... (Score 1) 367 367

by mmzplanet (#36399718) Attached to: Los Angeles To Turn Off Traffic-Light Cameras
I am not disagreeing with you. All of this talk assumes that we are on a nice leisurely road. When you start thinking about 8-lane highway with traffic lights every few blocks and dense traffic. You could slow down all you want, but if leave more than one car length of space, someone is getting in in it. Now try changing lanes and keep any sort of appropriate distance. It is impossible to keep any proper following distance (by the book) in front of you for much longer than a few seconds, bad weather or not.

Comment: Re:Cameras don't cause collisions... (Score 1) 367 367

by mmzplanet (#36398998) Attached to: Los Angeles To Turn Off Traffic-Light Cameras
One of the problems is that Amber lights to not lengthen for the conditions either. Even my home irrigation system has a rain sensor, why can't traffic signals? So what happens is that during a light rain and you get oily slick roads. A driver in their newer car that has ABS stops quickly to avoid a ticket. The car behind may or may not have ABS.

If you have ever driven a car without ABS on slick roads, you know stopping short is not an option. Typically rolling through an intersection is an option because you know there is no way to stop. The spacing you would need to allow for safety leaves room for all the other vehicles to get in front of you anyway. Vehicles changing lanes usually do not respect the fact you are trying to keep your distance.

When conditions are bad, I always keep in mind what is behind me, If there is an older car or 18-wheeler, I will move elsewhere. If I cannot, you better believe I will not stop short for a red light.

Comment: Re:Where's the water? (Score 1) 580 580

by mmzplanet (#35516282) Attached to: US Alarmed Over Japan's Nuclear Crisis

It didn't leak out, it evaporated. The spent fuel is a heat source worth around a million watts or so.

A million watts? Why can't this "spent" fuel be used as an energy source?

Not efficiently enough to produce power. Not only do you need to make steam, it needs to done quickly for a turbine to run off of it. Theres a difference in boiling water at sea level pressure 212 degrees vs 700+.

Compared to what most of us consider in everyday life hot... yeah they are hot as can be. In nuclear power generating terms, not hot enough. Using spent fuel in a reactor would be like using a SmartCar engine to power a tractor trailer. It'll move, just not with any sort of useful speed or power.

Spent rods can be recycled to enrich the available remaining fuel into a new fuel rod. That is what Reactor 3 is using and is why it has plutonium in it too.

Comment: Patent != Implementation (Score 1) 381 381

by mmzplanet (#33313588) Attached to: Apple Patents Remotely Disabling Jailbroken Phones
Sometimes even bad ideas need to be patented. Apple patents an awful amount of stuff that really will never exist. I think that this is one of them. If it does, it may not be for a jailbreak situation. File this under... can do, shouldn't do, won't do....... but no else can - or pay up.

Comment: Re:You're not flying cheaper! (Score 1) 432 432

by mmzplanet (#32950036) Attached to: Airlines Get Billions From Unbundled Services
Nice Idea... so now most women will pay less than men in airfare. Just another way the average male will get screwed. Anyone with an eating disorder will now have more reason to continue to do so. (es, such a great idea tell an anorexic girl to get on a scale at an airport. Those people already starve to near death afraid of a private scale at home. Imagine what the thought of getting on one in public next week would do. Next we will want a little person flight crew to save on $$$$. Whats next, a photographer who charges extra depending on a hot or not scale?

Comment: Kill the iPod? (Score 4, Interesting) 291 291

by mmzplanet (#16823754) Attached to: The Zune Cometh
Microsoft is not even challenging the most popular of the iPod lineup. Seeing that the iPod nano is the most popular of the iPod lineup (even without video).... how exactly is the Zune an iPod killer? The Zune is not a killer to anything until MS has a device to challenge the tiny iPod Nano and iPod Shuffle. One device is not going to "kill" iPod, or even hurt it.

Gravity brings me down.