Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:OR (Score 1) 579

by neonfrog (#47370383) Attached to: Unintended Consequences For Traffic Safety Feature
Yup. Perhaps I should have added "in the lab." Even just a timing firmware rollout in a major city would be non-trivial and the testing needs to be very robust. But weighing the cost of the previous solution (timers) against a new solution that will presumably have a similar roll-out cost, perhaps the development cost of deploying timing firmware is cheaper than deploying stamped sheet metal hoods. Maybe not. I remind you of this salient point: armchair engineer. My off-the-cuff statements are probably either totally refuted or definitively proven by traffic safety data I don't have at my fingertips.

Comment: Re:OR (Score 1) 579

by neonfrog (#47370085) Attached to: Unintended Consequences For Traffic Safety Feature
One more thought - I've been in places (Europe?) where the lights turned Red/Yellow just before turning green. Presumably accidents were reduced by this method. Another method I saw in Germany had very long stop lights, so long that you were prompted by a lighted sign to turn off your engine to reduce pollution. These had countdowns on them so you could restart your engine. Other countries seem to be able to make this work.

Comment: Re:OR (Score 1) 579

by neonfrog (#47370023) Attached to: Unintended Consequences For Traffic Safety Feature
Isn't this trivially solvable (he says as armchair traffic engineer in a rural state) by timers and/or sensors? If you don't turn the other direction's light GREEN the *instant* you turn the previous direction's RED, would that reduce accidents? Or if you had a sensor that detected someone racing at the intersection during a yellow, hold the other direction's green for a moment? Yes, people may learn to game these systems, but they may increase safety for some drivers (especially those that are inattentive enough to enter an intersection on a green light while other traffic is still moving (against the laws of man, but not the laws of physics)). You can argue the legalities all you want, but if your goal is safety, there may be other measures to employ. One of the safest things I've seen is an intersection with a left turn lane and simple inductive sensors. You simply can't know the light's patterns by heart, and you can't see at least 2 other direction's signals, so you are more careful with those kinds of intersections.

Comment: Re:The answer nobody likes... (Score 2) 286

by neonfrog (#47336241) Attached to: What To Do If Police Try To Search Your Phone Without a Warrant
I agree with most of what you suggest, but I thought the conventional wisdom was to *not* go for identification until asked. If you are rummaging around in the glove box, the police officer has no idea if you are going for a gun. Granted they have no idea anyway in that moment, but the correct steps are everything else you suggested - interior light, hands on wheel, etc., then wait. They can see your hands as they approach from the rear and have less cause to suspect you are arming yourself. Then when they ask for your papers, they can track your hands the whole times and are thus less surprised at any moment.
I've worked with police officers several times and have a great deal of respect for what they have to endure, but a reasonable traffic stop attitude works for all parties.

Comment: Re:Let them drink! (Score 1) 532

by neonfrog (#47334093) Attached to: NYC Loses Appeal To Ban Large Sugary Drinks
The summary you linked to makes no such claims about taking *all* economic impacts into consideration. Both studies cited purely compared "health costs" and made no mention of societal economic contribution. Your claim that retired people are a net economic drain on society. Care to cite anything? I didn't find anything compelling in a few minutes searching, and in fact saw lots of references to the opposite story. "If you're taxing people for life-long health care cost, you should be SUBSIDIZING smoking" is an incredibly narrow method of human cost accounting as the only vector you're considering is "life-long health care cost." I understand your defined, but narrow, argument, and looking at the costs is certainly *one* slim avenue to consider. But the last 2 paragraphs in your link tell the story much more completely for me. I'm not attacking you, just voicing my own inability to see past the narrowness of the idea.

Comment: Re:It's correlated! (Score 1) 134

by neonfrog (#46420527) Attached to: College Board To Rethink the SAT, Partner With Khan Academy
Depends who you ask. According to that study: ".. another clear result: High school grades matter — a lot. For both those students who submitted their test results to their colleges and those who did not, high school grades were the best predictor of a student's success in college."

I wonder if this study has the College Board a little worried about their relevance. Does the SAT make them a little money?

Comment: Water and fire don't mix? (Score 0) 388

by neonfrog (#45027359) Attached to: Tesla Model S Catches Fire: Is This Tesla's 'Toyota' Moment?
"The application of water seemed to intensify the fire activity...then applied dry chemical extinguisher.."

and later

"...had to puncture multiple holes into the pack to apply water to the burning material in the battery."

That seems like a questionable decision unless all they had left was water. Did I read the timeline wrong?

+ - $300 Solar Powered Ubuntu Laptop ..->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Working with a computer outdoors can often mean you’re at the mercy of your battery, but not if you have this Sol laptop, which can run for 10 hours on a single solar charge. Designed for use in developing countries where electricity supply is erratic or non-existent, it’s equipped with a fold out panel of solar cells which can soak up rays to power the device. According to Canadian company WeWi Telecommunications, the company behind the computer, the ten hour battery takes just two hours to charge in strong sun. Details on specs are rather limited, but we do know that it packs an Intel processor, WiFi, an HD display, Ubuntu OS and the option of a satellite module for internet access."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Again, it's not 3D. It's stereovision. (Score 1) 120

by neonfrog (#44203333) Attached to: BBC Gives Up On 3-D Television Programming
Actually it is loosely defined in the audioholics link as "potentially hours every day." I quickly Googled it and multiple legitimate sources said that an occasional 3D experience is not harmful.

My favorite is this one: http://www.geteyesmart.org/eyesmart/living/3-d-movies-glasses.cfm

Here's another: http://www.allaboutvision.com/parents/children-computer-vision-syndrome.htm#3dnews

And another: http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2011/05/26/study-parents-think-3d-hurts-kids-eyes.html

Thank you for inspiring me to research a little more than I had. Like you, I parent cautiously, but 3D once in a while doesn't make a blip on my threat radar. Happy parenting!

Comment: Re:Again, it's not 3D. It's stereovision. (Score 2) 120

by neonfrog (#44197805) Attached to: BBC Gives Up On 3-D Television Programming
An occasional 3-D movie will not harm your child, though you are right about the "3d equipment" in your home if they consume a lot:

http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/warning-3d-video-hazardous-to-your-health

"Conclusion: ... Going to a 3D movie each month probably won’t hurt anyone’s vision..."

If you get hung up on "Children under seven are at risk of strabismus – period," then you may be missing the repeated use of the words "prolonged exposure" in the article and linked studies.

All things in moderation. That's my motto. Well, one of them anyway.

"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." -- Hannah Arendt.

Working...