Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:How about something "less tech"? (Score 1) 136

Just because you making getting a license harder doesn't mean fewer will drive. Just because you suspend a license doesn't mean they won't drive.

In my area, people drive around all the time with paper tags so faded you can't read them. Police don't enforce it. Drunks get DUIs and keep driving. The state never (seldom) impounds their cars. That would be step in the right direction. My un-insured coverage is /more/ than my liability insurance!

In the past several years the drunks who've lost their cars get mopeds which don't require any licensing or insurance. Except they are 400cc scooters that go 55mph, not mopeds. So now they crash into people's cars and cause havok. The state has just changed the law to require all mopeds to be licensed, but alas, they probably won't enforce that either.

Maybe they should pass a law which says the police have to enforce the laws???

Comment Re:Colour me skeptical... (Score 1) 298

Man I can't wait for passenger pods to be ejected from an aircraft at 38,000 ft over the middle of the ocean... in the dark.... in a storm. So you'd have to build the pods strong enough to hold the passengers and float with it's own O2 system. The airframe would have to have its own (redundant) structural integrity, and account for the weight of the well built pods (redundant weight) and a parachute system for each pod. Since weight represents fuel for each and every flight for the lifetime of the aircraft, that would be an on going finiancial liability. I think it would be cheaper just to spend a little more time on the ground burning no fuel as the passengers load. Freight is a different thing because you don't need fall survivability built into the containers, they can be really flimsy and light.

Comment Re:Two points (Score 1) 1052

When I was in my late teens / early 20's, I thought it was so evil that people were "trapped" in welfare programs. If they made money, they were instantly off welfare. I thought there should be some sort of transisition sliding scale to allow people to rise out w/o loosing everything on their way into the middle class. Then I realized that some people love being at the bottom and don't want out. And still others want the free money/welfare/food stamps and want some spending cash too.

A few years ago in a Food Lion in Sumter SC I was in line behind a well dressed, tattooed, smart phone wielding young lady with a baby in the cart. She was buying several items and using WIC coupons. The cashier pointed out to her that she could get 4 more gallons of milk, and even though she didn't need them, she wanted them. The bag boy was dispatched to get 4 additional gallons of milk. All the while, she's texting on her smart phone with her pretty long finger nails. I followed her out to her car and while it was not a BWM by any stretch, it was a hell of a lot nicer car than I drove when I was in college. So do we keep helping this type too? The type that /could/ be self sufficient but don't?

Or how about the girl who worked for my sister's pizza restaurant who lived in section 8 housing? Her rent was $300 a month and my sister hired her for min wage at $1200 a month. Her rent went from $300 to $500 because she was making money, afterall. Never mind that it was walking distance... she quit the job because her rent went up! Even though she'd net more money in the end! Shall we help that type too?

Comment Re:Y Combinator experiment (Score 1) 1052

I've often thought about a government program which paid women to be sterilized. Think of the very women we don't want to have children... drug users. They are the most likely to want some fast cash and thus would consider $500 or $1000 to not have to worry about getting pregnant with an unwanted child.

Slashdot Top Deals

BASIC is the Computer Science equivalent of `Scientific Creationism'.