Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: You already found the Evoluent mouse. (Score 1) 367

by dotancohen (#48896977) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Where Can You Get a Good 3-Button Mouse Today?

I am an extremely happy Evoluent customer. The mouse is absolutely terrific, very comfortable and actually _more_ intuitive than a flat mouse once you get used to it. With the exception of my graphics designer, every single person in the office fell in love with my vertical mouse when I let them try it for a few days.

However, nobody is willing to pay $100 for the mouse, just like they are not willing to pay $70 for a mechanical keyboard. I think that people see cheap mice and keyboards for $10, so they feel cheated when they spend much more than that on peripheral equipment. The truth is that I'm a sucker as well. Even though I have an Evoluent at work I still use a flat mouse at home as the price of a second Evoluent is hard to justify to myself when I hardly use the mouse at all (Vimperator, Linux).

Damn the price, trust me, you want that mouse though. The discrete middle-mouse button is only the icing on the cake. Almost _everything_ on that mouse is absolutely terrific.

Comment: Re:Nope (Score 1, Funny) 285

by dotancohen (#48894401) Attached to: UHD Spec Stomps on Current Blu-ray Spec, But Will Consumers Notice?

I can't see the hairs on real people 10 feet away (for normal arm hair), if I can see the hairs on someone's arm on TV, why are they zoomed in on someone's arm?

I suspect that the format might fit a certain popular film niche, in which seeing the actor's body hairs is in fact considered a desirable feature.

Comment: Re:That would be a Directed EMP (Score 1) 207

by dotancohen (#48867749) Attached to: US Army Wants Weapon To Destroy Drone Swarms

You make a good point. I can imagine three to five drones attacking, say, Times Square at New Years. I really cannot imagine that happening with mortars.

Even if the Times Squares drones are unarmed, just having them buzzing close to the people might scare the people into a stampede, with tens or even hundreds of casualties. The technology can be legally purchased for a few thousand dollars, today. And the perps would be almost impossible to find.

Comment: Re:Test them in Ukraine today... (Score 1, Interesting) 207

by dotancohen (#48864589) Attached to: US Army Wants Weapon To Destroy Drone Swarms

One fell right outside my house. My building and all the surrounding buildings took damage. Every vehicle on the street was destroyed. Luckily, the alarms sounded and everyone outside was in a shelter at the time (including myself and my family) so there were no human injuries..

Comment: Re:That would be a Directed EMP (Score 1) 207

by dotancohen (#48864571) Attached to: US Army Wants Weapon To Destroy Drone Swarms

I don't know how much they cost, but they don't look much more than oversized M203 shells from what I remember. I'm not referring to 'smart' shells, but rather a skilled operator and probably very fine manufacturing tolerances (which allow the repeatability). They were being aimed by kicking the tube a bit to the left, a small shove to the right :)

Comment: Re:Test them in Ukraine today... (Score 2) 207

by dotancohen (#48863517) Attached to: US Army Wants Weapon To Destroy Drone Swarms

How to do it? I used to think, small rockets could be used. Miniaturized copies of the early SAMs, created by the long declassified designs — current generation of drones aren't really made for evading such a thing...

The problem with fighting $500 drones with $100,000 missiles is that your enemy can drain you financially very quickly. This is the same mistake that the IDF has made with the Iron Dome: the thing is so expensive that, barring loss of life, it would cost less to just repair whatever damage the Hamas missiles do rather than to shoot them down.

Comment: Re:That would be a Directed EMP (Score 1) 207

by dotancohen (#48863501) Attached to: US Army Wants Weapon To Destroy Drone Swarms

These things are going to become a major problem. If you have enough of them, you could outfit them with grapeshot and basically saturate an area. If they're cheap enough you could cover a really, really, really large area. Put lots of plastic explosive on them and you could do some serious damage to buildings and depots.

That is what mortars do, an they do it quite a bit cheaper.

Comment: Re:Handle ODT files reasonably well (Score 2) 70

by dotancohen (#48837773) Attached to: Andy Wolber Explores Online Word Processors' ODF Support

But this should not be a surprise considering MS Word itself is unable to cope with big .doc files and will corrupt them at some time.

Forget about corrupting large .doc files in MS Word. MS Word will display incorrectly even simple .doc and .docx files that were created on machines with _different print drivers installed_. This is due to Word (and Powerpoint, but not Excel) being designed to create documents for printing, even if that is not their primary use case today (Powerpoint animations don't print very well).

If you want a document for others to _read_, use PDF. If you want a document for others to _edit_, use whatever they use.

Comment: Re:questionable experimental design (Score 4, Insightful) 154

by dotancohen (#48809881) Attached to: Human Language May Have Evolved To Help Our Ancestors Make Tools

This is a classic example of Convenience Sampling, a sampling method which chooses samples based on how easy they are to procure. Guess where the researches were located, that all their test subjects were students?

Wikipedia calls it Accidental Sampling:

The herd instinct among economists makes sheep look like independent thinkers.