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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:It would be... (Score 1) 200

I know, I know. I am just saying that as a kid a long time ago, in a small town and not a city, that is what we were told to do. We didn't have that many pedestrians in residential areas and there were easy to see. It was easier to see cars backing out of their house driveway from the sidewalk than from the road where all the parked cars block your view. Cyclists meant 95% kids, they were not going full speed like modern tour-de-commute racers. There were ZERO bike lanes.

The reasoning to be on sidewalks was because it was indeed safer, in that time and place. Today though - NOWHERE is safe for bikes (unless it's a bike-only trail which are very rare).

Comment Re:It would be... (Score 1) 200

I was in a small town too, everyone know sidewalks were for pedestrians and bikes. And we went slow, we stopped, we started, we stopped again, etc. We did not ride like modern cyclists with full set of expensive gear trying to make a speed record on the way to work weaving into and out of traffic. The road was much less safe. Even in the city now, the roads are murderous, viewing is bad, speed limit for cars too high, bike lanes too small (and when they aren't the cyclists still want to be far left on the white line for some reason).

Comment Re:Oops (Score 1) 215

It's a correlation, not a one-to-one mapping. By "thin people also drink diet sodas" what does that mean, and what does that refute? Do you mean all thin people, or the same proportion of thin people drink diet sodas as fat people, or more or less, or? With out any numbers this does nothing whatsoever to refute the suggestion that the causality may be due to being overweight rather than due to drinking diet sodas.

A correlation could mean that there's only a 5% difference in fat versus thin people in their soda drinking habits. And correlation also means you can't show which is the cause and which is the effect. We can come up with ideas about what the causality might be of course, and it's worth discussing.

Comment Re:who knew (Score 0) 200

Used to have some coworkers pressuring me to join the cycling cult. Never mind that I hadn't been on a bike in twenty years, was 10 miles away, and heavy traffic most of the distance, they would be utterly convinced that it was perfect for a beginner. I also saw one of them on the road riding her bike in the most dangerous way and never stopping at signs. I was getting exercise at the time, it just wasn't cycling so I don't understand the "join us!" attitude of those damned militants.

Comment Re: The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 301

If you look in the FEMA site, they say that they provide gramts to perform repairs not covered by insurance. And no, they don't do a needs test. Now, the typical rich person does not let their insurance lapse just so that they can get a FEMA grant. Because such a grant is no sure thing. They also point out that SBA loans are the main source of assistance following a disaster. You get a break on interest, but you have to pay them back.

Comment Re: The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 301

I understand your point about view land being desirable even though it's a flood risk. I live a mile or so from the Hayward fault. But I have California's risk pool earthquake insurance. The government wouldn't be paying me except from a fund that I've already paid into. I imagine that the government does pay some rich people in similar situations, but as far as I'm aware disaster funds go to the States from the federal government and should not in general become a form of rich people's welfare. Maybe you can find some direct evidence to show me that would make the situation more clear.

Comment Re:The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 301

What you are observing is economics. As a city or town population grows, the best land becomes unavailable and those who arrive later or have less funds available must settle for less desirable land. Thus many cities have been extended using landfill which liquifies as the San Francisco Marina District did in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, or floods. Risks may not be disclosed by developers, or may be discounted by authorities as the risks of global warming are today.

Efforts to protect people who might otherwise buy such land or to mitigate the risks are often labeled as government over-reach or nanny state.

Comment Re:The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 301

Oh, of course they were caused by misguided engineering efforts. Everything from the Army Corps of Engineers to Smoky Bear goes under that heading. The most basic problem is the fact that we locate cities next to resources and transportation, which means water, without realizing where the 400-year flood plane is. Etc. We have learned something since then.

Our problem, today, is fixing these things. Which is blocked by folks who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, or even cause and effect at all. They don't, for the most part, register Democratic.

Comment The problem with your explanation (Score 5, Insightful) 301

The problem with your explanation is that it's fact-based, and stands on good science. This is the post-truth era. Thus, the counter to your argument will be:

  • Evidence for a human cause of erosion is thin and controversial, and is being pushed by loony liberals.
  • We need those oil and shipping jobs, and jobs building and maintaining levees, not more regulation that stifles them!
  • Cause and effect is not a real thing, except for one cause, God is behind everything.
  • This is part of God's plan for us. The end time is coming, and when the Rapture arrives it will not matter that Louisiana's coast has eroded. Cease your pursuit of unholy science and pray to save your soul!

Slashdot Top Deals

We warn the reader in advance that the proof presented here depends on a clever but highly unmotivated trick. -- Howard Anton, "Elementary Linear Algebra"