Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:So What? (Score 2) 242

Except nobody has ever died from glyphosate. .

You make claims you cannot POSSIBLY prove, as though you alone are privy to the truth.

I had buddies who were doused with Agent Orange in Viet Nam, and every single one of them died of related cancers.

I'd like to see you disprove that. But even more I'd like to see YOU stricken with terminal cancer. I hope it comes for you soon.

That's nice.

Agent Orange didn't harm people because of the herbicides, which, as black3d has explained, have nothing to do with glyphosate. It was the TCDD dioxin, which was a contaminant resulting from the manufacturing process. The government was in fact warned about this, and they chose to spray it anyway.

Comment Re:It makes sense. (Score 1) 708

The result is that cyclists sometimes effectively take up far more space than a car.

Setting aside the dubious claims there, cyclists aren't even on the road much of the time, and increasingly are using dedicated lane space when they are.

Passenger cars and unladen light pickups do no noticeable damage to the pavement.

Perhaps you live in an area where potholes aren't a real thing. Where i live, once weather has made inroads, passenger cars accelerate road damage rapidly, even on side streets untrafficked by heavy vehicles.

Comment Re:It makes sense. (Score 5, Insightful) 708

What you are overlooking is that the vast majority of cyclists own cars also. This means they're paying those registration fees right along with you. As for the gas taxes, the amount of gas tax not paid because of cycling is very small, because most cycling trips are short. For trips that require significant gas, most cyclists get in those cars they own.

Meanwhile, when they're not in their cars, cyclists are using up far less space on the road, and causing no damage to the road surface.

Comment I like it (Score 5, Informative) 80

Too bad. I have one and i rather like it. It has limitations but for the price it is a nice device. Pros: very good battery life, peppy, nice display, some hardware buttons, can sideload apps, comes with a year of Prime (or extension), integrates well with Fire TV Stick. Cons: Amazon app store is missing many useful apps and lags versions, limited Google integration, could really use a back button (the back gesture ends up doing something else about 25% of the time).

Mind you, i got it for only $159 unlocked, and that includes a year of Prime, so effectively $60 for an unlocked smartphone with a decent processor and display is pretty sweet. For $60, it's a fantastic device, really.

Comment Re:What About Nutrition? (Score 2) 122

The definition for "organic" that I was always familiar with was that something was simply grown without pesticides and "artificial" fertilizer, but I guess if there's no soil, one is forced add minerals (and vitamins? Do plants need vitamins??) somehow.

That is a common misconception. In fact, organic agriculture uses pesticides; it just has a more limited set of pesticides to work with because "synthetic" pesticides are excluded, except when they aren't because they're too practical, cf copper sulfate.

Comment Re:What About Nutrition? (Score 1) 122

Trains are incredibly efficient, and so are the massive container ships: the square-cube law means you're moving more stuff and less vehicle. Local produce carried in the back of a pickup truck can burn as much fuel in 50 miles as a thousand miles in a freighter. There are similar economies of scale on the inputs: dragging fertilizer to a thousand local farms will be less efficient than one tanker full of it.

Indeed, and moreover, a lot of foods simply can't be grown locally for much of the year without deploying supplemental lighting and heating, which eat up lots of energy.

There's a reason oranges are grown in California and shipped to New York, rather than creating vast local enclosed greenhouses upstate and heating them year-round: it's way, way cheaper.

This sort of thing makes sense for produce that don't have a long shelf-life and don't require a lot of space to grow, so that an environment can be maintained for them at reasonable cost.

Comment Re:When you ride at night, (Score 1) 413

At least in my state, you don't have the right of way to cross unless the drivers have time to slow down for you:
http://dps.illinois.edu/universitypolice/pedestrian.html

On a bicycle or running, that's pretty much going to require you to stop and look both ways. A car doesn't have to yield unless you were already in the intersection early enough for the car to then react and slow down. If you aren't in the intersection yet, a car can zoom right by even if you were about to take your first step or pedal - so be careful!

Yes, i think that's commonly true, but it's true for pedestrians, runners, and cyclists, alike. I'm saying cyclists aren't second-class crosswalk users in this regard, which i think was implied, if unintentionally, by your earlier post. For legal purposes, they are pedestrians.

Yes, definitely be careful!

Comment Re:When you ride at night, (Score 1) 413

Where it is legal, cyclists should yield at crosswalks, as they're not pedestrians and should have no expectation that cars should stop for the unexpected high-speed traffic.

Cyclists and pedestrians should use caution at crosswalks. Generally, where cyclists are entitled to use sidewalks, however, they have the same rights as pedestrians on sidewalks and crosswalks, and do not need to yield the right of way any more than pedestrians do, except to actual pedestrians. So, yes, be cautious with speed (runners need to also), but don't accept relegation to second-class status.

Slashdot Top Deals

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Working...