Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:The next line states... (Score 1) 360

Yes, a failure.

Screw that dumb scientific method thing, in which showing correlation is the first step you take when you think "I suspect that A causes B let us see if that is true".

Much better to just go and try and prove that is how it works without checking if it's even plausible in the first place.

Comment Re:Compliance Rates & Hands-Free Use (Score 1) 406

> Right-of-way is an implied system, not a hard set of rules.

If I define a rule as something that carries a punishment when you violate it, then right-of-way is a hard set of rules. Even if your jurisdiction does not define it, your car insurance company most likely does. At least where I live, when a collision occurs, one driver must be at fault. Who's at fault is determined by right-of-way rules.

Some right-of-way rules in the laws are not highlighted as such, so they may be difficult to spot. For example, if a pedestrian gets killed crossing the road where he should not be crossing, provided that the driver is in compliance with the laws, the pedestrian is totally at fault thus the driver can go home-free.

Generally, if you're in compliance to laws in terms of passing, cutting lanes, signalling, turning, and stopping, you're in compliance with right-of-way rules.

> If someone decides to give up their right-of-way to you, then you are entitled to slowly and safely proceed to accept the right-of-way from the other motorist.

Although an intention to give up a right-of-way is easy to see, it is impossible to prove after an accident has happened. What if the other driver changes their mind, and you run into an accident as a result? Good luck proving that they have yielded their right-of-way.

When I decide to give up my right-of-way, I do it in very defined situations (like when 2 lanes must zipper-merge), and in a bounded manner. e.g. I limit myself to allow 1 or 2 cars, but no more, to merge in front of me at a busy parking lot exit to not agitate drivers waiting behind my car.

> If two motorists get in an accident because of right-of-way issues, most officers would at the very least give the driver with the right-of-way a warning to not insist on their right-of-way (as most states laws have a clause to this effect).

This is interesting, please cite some such laws - especially after you've said that right-of-way is an "implied system, not a hard set of rules". As far as I understand, insisting on right-of-way does not break any law.

The law is sharing-the-road codified. I believe one should not break the law, but also not do more than what the laws tell us to. The "above-and-beyond" thing, when applied to traffic laws, is a cause of a lot of accidents, and if people follows the rules as literally as possible and drive as much like robots as possible, I believe there'll be a lot fewer accidents.


Political Affiliation Can Be Differentiated By Appearance Screenshot-sm 262

quaith writes "It's not the way they dress, but the appearance of their face. A study published in PLoS One by Nicholas O. Rule and Nalini Ambady of Tufts University used closely cropped greyscale photos of people's faces, standardized for size. Undergrads were asked to categorize each person as either a Democrat or Republican. In the first study, students were able to differentiate Republican from Democrat senate candidates. In the second, students were able to differentiate the political affiliation of other college students. Accuracy in both studies was about 60% — not perfect, but way better than chance."

Slashdot Top Deals

Consider the postage stamp: its usefulness consists in the ability to stick to one thing till it gets there. -- Josh Billings