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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Lets see: (Score 3, Insightful) 750

by tomohawk (#34003778) Attached to: Excitement about U.S. mid-term elections:
Let's see:

In a year and a half, Obama/Pelosi/Reid have increased the deficit by more than what Bush/Hastert/Pelosi/Reid were able to do in 8 years. What's phase 2? Increasing taxes to match? No, thanks.

Solution? Don't let one party control everything, especially when both have shown how irresponsible they are.

Better solution? Stop voting incumbents back in.

Even better solution? Term limits. We (voters) have been corrupted by what the politicians supposedly can do for us, and we keep voting the bastards back in, even as they cause problems such as the recent financial crisis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs/).

Comment: Re:eh (Score 1) 618

by tomohawk (#33168278) Attached to: Senate Confirms Elena Kagan's Appointment To SCOTUS
The reason for the increased polarization is obvious: there much more at stake now that it has become OK to create laws and set social policies from the bench. At the same time, it is harder and harder to do this sort of thing in Congress.

So, it is natural for the selection process to not worry about things such as scholarship or judicial experience - the position no longer requires that. A SCOTUS position is now a policy making position from which to enact broad legal and social changes.

These days, when senators are voting for a new supreme, they are essentially voting for a bundle of laws that they could probably not ever get passed in congress.

Comment: Subsidy for Saudis (Score 1) 658

by tomohawk (#31720728) Attached to: What the Top US Companies Pay In Taxes
The oil companies such as Exxon get the huge tax break as a way to subsidize the Saudis. In order to get the oil, the Saudis wanted a larger percentage than the American oil companies could provide, so the US Government engineered a tax break on "foreign taxes" for them. This allows the Saudis to make up the difference through taxes, which the oil companies write off on US taxes.

Comment: Read the 5th amendment (Score 1) 379

by tomohawk (#30612032) Attached to: TSA Subpoenas Bloggers Over New Security Directive

If you read the 5th amendment, you'll see that people in the armed forces do not have due process rights during times of war.

Since when do illegal enemy combatants get more rights under our constitution than our own soldiers?

The constitution further states that only congress has the authority to create courts and decide what their jurisdiction is. Congress passed laws establishing the military tribunals to try these terrorists. Under what authority does the president expand the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try these terrorists?

Comment: Re:Will these kill more people? (Score 1) 484

by tomohawk (#29246529) Attached to: Solar Roadways Get DoT Funding

Logic based on a faulty premise still gets you to the wrong conclusion. At the risk of confusing you with the facts, here's the start of the executive summary of the research paper I linked to. Nothing about pulling things out of asses here. Just hard research based on facts. Worth a read if you care to educate yourself instead of pontificating.

While considerable research has been conducted over the past 50 years quantifying the significant roles motor vehicle design, drunk and drugged driving, speeding and non-use of seatbelts play as factors in the number, severity and economic costs of motor vehicle crashes in the United States, this is the first national study in many years to examine the role and consequences of another major factor in these tragic incidences--the physical condition of U.S. roadways.

The study finds that the cost and severity of crashes where roadway conditions are a factor "greatly exceeds the cost and severity of crashes where alcohol or speeding was involved, or the cost of non-use of seatbelts." Among the study's key findings:

Roadway condition is a contributing factor in more than half--52.7 percent--of the nearly 42,000 American deaths resulting from motor vehicle crashes each year and 38 percent of the non-fatal injuries. In terms of crash outcome severity, it is the single most lethal contributing factor--greater than speeding, alcohol or non-use of seat belts.

Motor vehicle crashes in which roadway condition is a contributing factor cost the U.S. economy more than $217 billion each year. That is more than three-and-one-half times the amount of money government at all levels is investing annually in roadway capital improvements--$59 billion, according to the Federal Highway Ad- ministration. This societal cost includes $20 billion in medical costs; $46 billion in productivity costs; $52 billion in property damage and other resource costs; and $99 billion in monetized quality of life costs.

American businesses are paying an estimated $22 billion of the annual economic cost of motor vehicle crash- es involving their employees in which roadway condition is a contributing factor. This includes almost $10 billion a year in health-related fringe beneft expenses for insurance ($6.0 billion) workers' compensation claims ($1.2 billion), sick leave ($1.7 billion) and Social Security ($920 million). These crashes cost government (taxpay- ers) at all levels $12.3 billion

"Success covers a multitude of blunders." -- George Bernard Shaw