Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Too bad we don't have rules to deal with this (Score 1) 839

those God-awful lights they used to have with lenses situated on them so that you could NOT see what light was on at all

Those traffic lights are called High Visibility Signals.

Regular traffic lights are built like a desk lamp - a regular incandescent bulb in front of a reflector. The high visibility ones are built like a projector. They use a pair of lenses to focus the light coming out of a halogen bulb into a tight beam.

The high visibility signals are more expensive than regular traffic lights, twice as heavy, and require frequent bulb replacement. Their main uses are on curvy roads where through traffic might mistake a turn signal for the through light, and at intersections where a low sun washes out regular traffic lights by shining directly into them and bouncing off their reflectors.

LED traffic lights are basically immune to sun glare, because they don't need a big reflector at the back of their housing. Because of their lower maintenance costs, they've replaced most of the high visibility ones that were being used for that purpose.

Comment Re:Monkey syntax errors aren't so bad (Score 1) 197

It has since been replaced by the homonymous "for all intensive purposes".

The phrase in question is frequently misheard and then used in writing by people who have never seen it written. It hasn't been replaced by a homonym, it's being misused by people who don't read.

Comment Not far enough (Score 1) 543

Until you can get all hannibal lecter on them I see no issue.

These complainers have ZERO legitimacy as they apparently never have a problem with the BBC, NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC, HBO, and the rest showing violence, rape, torture, immoral and offensive behavior. Nope they are the first assholes to call the ACLU the moment someone complains about a fecal messiah, a picture of a prophet, or a work of art involving S&M imagery. The very people the demand TOLERANCE, resorting to violence frequently in the name of tolerance, once again show they are the most hipocritical intolerant SOBs walking Earth.

Comment Language Problems? (Score 1) 141

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." I'm not entirely sure anyone here knows what "endemic" means. "Endemic" is not newsworthy, unless we've been searching and searching for where these vishing attacks come from. "Pandemic" might be newsworthy. Or "epidemic" might be newsworthy. "Endemic" not so much.

Comment Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries? (Score 1) 560

So is every other business

I don't think so. MS had about $40 billion (with a "b") in the bank prior to the recession. Doesn't seem like they're operating on razor thin margins to me.

Maybe they should wisely spend their security budget, and stop wasting money for things/policies that don't actually make anyone safer.

So what do you propose they do instead?

Here's what I imagine part of the problem is: If the airline industry didn't do anything to increase security measures as observed, they'd be damned by the public. They'd be doubly damned if another 9/11-like attack or hijacking occurred. So, they come up with ridiculous policies to make it appear as though they're doing something that's genuinely protecting the public at large.

Ultimately, there really isn't anything that can be done. 9/11 showed that a well-organized, well-planned attack can be performed regardless of the security measures in place. Anyone determined enough could doubtlessly circumvent the draconian policies we have for air travel now. The difference? It looks like they're actually doing something.

I might also remind you that no one was expecting an attack of the magnitude we saw on Sept. 11th.

Comment Re:It does not go too far (Score 1) 584

I understand the "cancel out" argument. I don't understand how anyone would use this as an excuse not to do something to improve safety, such as putting a seat belt on. Just wearing a seat belt won't make me less likely to get in a wreck, but it will protect me significantly if I do. Statistically speaking, IF I do have an accident (regardless if I'm driving faster because I feel safer or not) I will suffer less bodily damage if I'm wearing a seat than if I'm not. Your analysis looks at the probability of an accident happening and correlation to seat belt use, where my analysis looks at the effectiveness when there IS an accident.

Comment Re:AC-130 mission (Score 2, Interesting) 543

That gave me a really cool idea that I hope someone has implemented already. In your scenario, imagine easy/normal mode would have you doing what your post suggested where hard mode would have you mobilize on the ground or get penalized in some way for hitting the civs. It would give people a moral incentive to play the game on a harder difficulty and could make the experience much more rewarding. I haven't played the game so if this seems off then forgive me.

Slashdot Top Deals

The cost of feathers has risen, even down is up!

Working...