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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Kinesis (Score 2) 452

by neonfrog (#49279527) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Good Keyboard?
I have a 6 year old Kinesis Freestyle (original) that I love. It is the best keyboard I've ever owned, and I've tried many. I have a nice-ish Microsoft ergo style thing at home, but the keys are just yuck compared to the Kinesis. I do technical support, so I type quite a lot and don't need a numeric keypad. Other keyboards made my hands hurt. This one has not. It's logged several hours of WolfET. I like it's smaller footprint. It also fits on my keyboard tray leaving me room for a nice old Logitech G5 on a Razer eXactMat to my right, and a Clearly Superior Technologies trackball to my left (all on my up-n-down GeekDesk - I have name-dropped enough ergonomic brands, yet? I mention them all as someone who has battled the ergo demon for many years and this setup has helped recover my hands and back). I tried the Alphagrips iGrip once - I can't recommend it.

Comment: Re:Fuck Bennett ... (Score 0) 190

by neonfrog (#48605953) Attached to: Why Didn't Sidecar's Flex Pricing Work?
For the young or humor-impaired, the string of epithets simply reminded me of a great Kevin Kline scene in a super funny movie, A Fish Called Wanda.

Otto: You pompous, stuck-up, snot-nosed, English, giant-twerp, scumbag, fuck-face, dickhead asshole!

Archie: How very interesting. You're a true vulgarian, aren't you?

Otto: You're the vulgarian, you fuck!

"Bennett" irks me just as much as the next guy, but this was a late-80's joke set-up, not a troll. It's a good movie. You should see it.

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.

Live free or die.