Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment I like it (Score 5, Informative) 80

Too bad. I have one and i rather like it. It has limitations but for the price it is a nice device. Pros: very good battery life, peppy, nice display, some hardware buttons, can sideload apps, comes with a year of Prime (or extension), integrates well with Fire TV Stick. Cons: Amazon app store is missing many useful apps and lags versions, limited Google integration, could really use a back button (the back gesture ends up doing something else about 25% of the time).

Mind you, i got it for only $159 unlocked, and that includes a year of Prime, so effectively $60 for an unlocked smartphone with a decent processor and display is pretty sweet. For $60, it's a fantastic device, really.

Comment Re:What About Nutrition? (Score 2) 122

The definition for "organic" that I was always familiar with was that something was simply grown without pesticides and "artificial" fertilizer, but I guess if there's no soil, one is forced add minerals (and vitamins? Do plants need vitamins??) somehow.

That is a common misconception. In fact, organic agriculture uses pesticides; it just has a more limited set of pesticides to work with because "synthetic" pesticides are excluded, except when they aren't because they're too practical, cf copper sulfate.

Comment Re:What About Nutrition? (Score 1) 122

Trains are incredibly efficient, and so are the massive container ships: the square-cube law means you're moving more stuff and less vehicle. Local produce carried in the back of a pickup truck can burn as much fuel in 50 miles as a thousand miles in a freighter. There are similar economies of scale on the inputs: dragging fertilizer to a thousand local farms will be less efficient than one tanker full of it.

Indeed, and moreover, a lot of foods simply can't be grown locally for much of the year without deploying supplemental lighting and heating, which eat up lots of energy.

There's a reason oranges are grown in California and shipped to New York, rather than creating vast local enclosed greenhouses upstate and heating them year-round: it's way, way cheaper.

This sort of thing makes sense for produce that don't have a long shelf-life and don't require a lot of space to grow, so that an environment can be maintained for them at reasonable cost.

Comment Re:When you ride at night, (Score 1) 413

At least in my state, you don't have the right of way to cross unless the drivers have time to slow down for you:

On a bicycle or running, that's pretty much going to require you to stop and look both ways. A car doesn't have to yield unless you were already in the intersection early enough for the car to then react and slow down. If you aren't in the intersection yet, a car can zoom right by even if you were about to take your first step or pedal - so be careful!

Yes, i think that's commonly true, but it's true for pedestrians, runners, and cyclists, alike. I'm saying cyclists aren't second-class crosswalk users in this regard, which i think was implied, if unintentionally, by your earlier post. For legal purposes, they are pedestrians.

Yes, definitely be careful!

Comment Re:When you ride at night, (Score 1) 413

Where it is legal, cyclists should yield at crosswalks, as they're not pedestrians and should have no expectation that cars should stop for the unexpected high-speed traffic.

Cyclists and pedestrians should use caution at crosswalks. Generally, where cyclists are entitled to use sidewalks, however, they have the same rights as pedestrians on sidewalks and crosswalks, and do not need to yield the right of way any more than pedestrians do, except to actual pedestrians. So, yes, be cautious with speed (runners need to also), but don't accept relegation to second-class status.

Comment Re:When you ride at night, (Score 1) 413

Yes, there is. Come here and trying riding on some random sidewalk and see if you don't get stopped by the cops.

Random? Sure, stochastically speaking, choosing a random sidewalk in California carries some small probability that one will be in violation of a municipal law, a much smaller probability one will get cited, and an almost infinitesimal probability that some ignorant pipsqueak will try to pick a fight, although, in the last case, cycling will almost certainly be legal on that particular sidewalk, because, as has already been established, the pipsqueak is ignorant.

If you're in the L.A. area, you can review this to figure out what areas you can pick fights in without yourself being arrested for Being So Wrong That the Law Must Intervene:

Comment Re:This is why... (Score 1) 413

In fact, one of the reasons some cyclists blow lights is to take advantage of the relatively car-free segment of the road that lies on the other side of the light.

So I guess it's also okay that I like to follow ambulances because I can zoom through the red lights.

Of course not. Nor is it okay to run red lights in an unsafe manner. But when there's actually no traffic coming in any direction, and it's plain as day to a person on a bicycle that there is no risk, it is, in fact, safe to run a red light. In some places, it's even legal. Idaho is one such place, and Virginia is another, if the cyclist has waited a full cycle of the light.

I would have to strain to understand how in your straw man scenario you could safely follow an ambulance. But it's so absurd and disingenuous, i won't bother.

Because, let's face it--the whole world needs to be set up for my convenience.

Your argument is that you take the risk of going through the stop light for the added safety on the other side. The problem is, when you go through the red light and get hit, well it certainly isn't your fault.

I think the problem is that you are mistaking some sort of distorted rattling in your head for my argument. Just go back and actually read the essay, and stop wasting my time.

Comment Re:When you ride at night, (Score 1) 413

Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is illegal throughout all of California (where I live), unless specifically posted

Learn to read.

Indeed, you should. There is no specific posting requirement. It is generally legal throughout all of California, unless specifically outlawed by a municipality. How that municipality chooses to inform people is up to them. So you're pretty much exactly wrong.

Here's the real problem: you've been starting fights with people for doing something perfectly legal, laboring under the false belief that they were breaking the law and OMG! Now you, understandably, feel like a douche, but instead of saying, "Hey, you know, i really should check, and if i was wrong, well, i wish there were a way to apologize to those people i was hassling for no good reason, but live and learn—I stand corrected," you're doubling down.

This way lies madness. Repent.

Comment Re:When you ride at night, (Score 1) 413

Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is illegal throughout all of California (where I live), unless specifically posted. In all of the circumstance when I've told people to ride in the road, they were areas where bicycles aren't allowed. On a couple of instances, people were actually riding on a very narrow (think one walking person's width) on a freeway overpass.

That is not correct. See, for example:

"Each city in California has its own rules about riding a bicycle on the sidewalk. Some cities allow sidewalk riding, some don’t. Check with your city’s municipal code."

Generally the state code allows it, but allows municipalities to outlaw it. Many have done so in their business districts.

Next time, try not to jump to conclusions.

Next time, try to be right.

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]