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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:This always amazes me... (Score 1) 36

Um, relativity teaches me that it is relative, whatever it is. So, rocketing through space relative to what, us? And the Solar System is also rocketing through space, relative to what?

Relative to the center of the "Cosmic Owl" galaxies, where it likely originated before being "kicked" out.

Comment Re: They are popular in JP because they work (Score 1) 206

People here are acting like bigger vehicles in the U.S. are due to some conspiracy around efficiency standards. They're not.

The shift toward massive trucks and SUVs in the U.S. is not a conspiracy as you stated, but it's not purely consumer preference either. It's a direct, documented, and mathematically verifiable consequence of how the U.S. government rewrote fuel efficiency regulations in 2011.

Prior to 2011, CAFE standards were simple: a car company’s entire fleet of "light trucks" had to average a certain MPG number (e.g., 24 mpg). It didn't matter how big or small the individual trucks were. The Obama administration reformed these rules to close loopholes... but they inadvertently created a new one. They switched to a "footprint-based" standard.

And the curve is very steep. If you build a truck or SUV with a small footprint (like the old Ford Ranger or Chevy S-10), the government mandates an incredibly high MPG target, often close to what a high efficiency sedan would get. As the vehicle gets bigger, the MPG target drops significantly.

This means that if a manufacturer tries to build a small pickup or SUV today (about the size of a 1990s Ranger), the CAFE formula might mandate a target of ~40-50 MPG. Achieving such a high MPG requires expensive hybrid technology and advanced lightweight materials. This adds at least $10k to the cost which makes those vehicles virtually unsellable.

Why the U.S. government didn't fix this issue 10+ years ago is a mystery to me. The result has actually been hugely increased gas consumption and CO2 emissions, rather than the desired effect of lower gas consumption and CO2 emissions.

Signed, someone who would love a small AWD SUV, but they're just not economically justifiable (in the U.S.)

Comment Re:Repeat after me: there is no anonymity (Score 1) 102

That ip address is traceable to you by way of the entity that runs a wire to your house or provisions the sim to your phone so you can send those packets.

No, this is wrong. There are, probably more often than not, multiple people using the same source IP address, from the point of view of the website.

Comment Re:The Romans (Score 3, Insightful) 75

I've read some theorize the fall of the roman empire might have been connected to pollution...

I'd not be surprised in in the future we find Trump voters had the most brain damage from modern pollution.

Don't rural folks, who live in far cleaner and greener areas, typically overwhelming vote conservative?

And it's the pollution-heavy urban areas that typically overwhelmingly vote liberal?

Comment Re:Needs sufficient oversight (Score 1) 80

In Canada the law wasn't supposed to allow MAID for people with only mental health conditions, but an inquiry determined that the system was approving it for practically anyone who asked.

Why discriminate against people with "only" mental health conditions?!

Mental health conditions are often one of the very worst things to live with. Why shouldn't those people be allowed to end their lives?!

How did society get to the point where we don't even own our own lives, and we need permission from government to end them?!

Slashdot Top Deals

If God had a beard, he'd be a UNIX programmer.

Working...