Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Follow-Up (Score 1) 273

Here's an article from 2 years ago by someone in the same county:

"Over the past few years Iâ(TM)ve noticed a similar trend in the decline of trick-or-treaters going around the neighborhood. At first I thought maybe this was just me, and maybe everyone else had different experiences, but after talking to many residents from Cerritos, Artesia, and other surrounding cities most had similar experiences on Halloween."

Comment Everyone's Too Afraid to Trick or Treat Here (Score 1) 273

I live in one of the safest cities in America. It's extremely clean, too. And no one trick-or-treats. The significant other and I did up our entry way and had candy on hand for 3 years running before we just gave up.

It's the safest city partially because everyone is so afraid of everyone else. We've never known our neighbors and we've lived in this city for 13 years. Neighbors just come and go. It's "nice", but it's weird, too.

So, to answer the question, we're doing nothing special. We'll likely have some wine, watch a movie, and spend some time in Norrath.

Comment Wrong Questions Being Asked (Score 1) 947

This article is very, very typical of someone who knows enough about cycling to ask questions, but not enough to answer them. I work in the transportation industry. I live car-free. I teach bicycle education. I work with regional transportation agencies, police departments, city planners/councils, and universities to facilitate the use of non-driver-only transportation.

The title of the article should be more direct to the reader: "How Likely Am I to be Injured While Riding My Bike?" That's what people want to know, after all. "How likely am *I* to be hurt?" Most people are concerned with the risks associated with bike commuting or running errands on two-wheels, so let's focus on that. So, let's omit all recreational mountain biking and all competitive (and "training") rides from the data for now. Next, we must differentiate between collisions and solo falls. Most importantly, differentiate between those who have received official bicycle education and those who have not.

Make all those controls and you'll find that an educated cyclist riding on a road where the average speed is 40mph or lower with a small variety of visibility tactics will have an injury only very rarely. And it will likely be due to environmental hazards.

A preferred list of questions for every bike injury logged:

Has the injured bicyclist received bicycle-specific education? (League of American Bicyclists Traffic Skills 101, Cycle Savvy, Other)

Why kind of riding prompted the injury?
Recreation Paved (roadways, sidewalks, off-street paths)
Recreation Off-Road (dirt, etc.)
Recreation Mixed Terrain (Bike Touring)
Competitive Paved (including training)
Competitive Off-Road (including training)
Utility Paved (Commuting, Errands)
Utility Off-Road

What caused the injury to the cyclist?
Collision (automobile)
Collision (bicycle)
Collision (pedestrian)
Collision (animal)
Collision (mixed)
Solo-Fall (road condition)
Solo-Fall (other)
Strain/Sprain/Other Condition (torn ligament, seizure, etc.)

Which visibility tactics/items were implemented by the bicyclist?
Central/Left of Center Lane Position
High Visibility Colors
All Legally Required Reflectors
Reflectivity Beyond Requirements
Tail Light
Headlight ("see me")
Headlight ("see you")

Which of the following faults were performed by the cyclist?
Neglect to Yield to Right of Way
Inappropriate Lane Position
Travel Against Traffic

Which of the following faults were performed by others involved?
Neglect to Yield to Right of Way
Inappropriate Lane Position
Travel Against Traffic

Where did the injury take place?
On-Road, in an intersection
On-Road, within 200 feet of an intersection
On-Road, 200 feet or farther from an intersection
On a Sidewalk
On an Off-Street Path

What is the average speed on the road at the point of injury?

Comment I push back because... (Score 1) 111

-- I don't like to be leashed. I don't even like my cell phone. I find calling someone on a phone to be very demanding. When I hear the phone ring, I hear "TALK TO ME, TALK TO ME!" which would be appropriate if it extremely important to do so, but it rarely is. I prefer a text message to which I can respond when the time is appropriate or an email through which I can convey well-thought-out messages.

-- I am not an exhibitionist. I value my privacy and, more accurately, the intimacy of being able to be vulnerable in one-on-one communication. I hold particular disdain for people who feel they must be the frequent/consistent center of attention and envy.

-- I am not a voyeur. I am not particularly interested by the day-to-day happenings of people. I usually don't care about what you ate for lunch unless you've eaten for a week at a restaurant that's new to you and you think that I would personally enjoy eating at the same place. And if that's the case, send me a message-- don't tag me on your Facebook wall so that I have to visit the shrine you've built to your exhibitionist self.

-- I don't like being subject to the constant turn-over and "hard sale". So much of the portable, connected device industry is massive marketing/advertising, and and utterly temporary in lifespan. One cannot expect to buy a smartphone today and be allowed to keep it for 2 years unmolested by the massive disposable device marketing machine. (I currently keep my dumbphone for 2+ years at a time rather comfortably because no one is bothering to sell me a new one.) One cannot expect buy a tablet today with the option of upgrading any component for extend its workable life.

-- I don't like the focus of the smartphone. The smartphone, in my opinion, should be first and foremost a phone. With the billions of dollars put into R&D and infrastructure, one would think that a cell phone call would be at least as clear as talking on an intercom... but that's far from the case. Instead, cellular voice tech has taken back seat to video media quality so that you can watch really high quality Netflix videos in your palm, but you can't talk to someone in the same confidence of communication that could by using a 40-year old telephone.

This list can go on forever. Or I can simply list what I want of a device that would convince me to be a little more connected:
A high quality phone
A customizable MP3/media player
A good camera
A calendar application
Very long battery life
The option to modify the UI (I hate the cartoony feel of iDevices and don't want to waste battery power facilitating it)

Give me all of that and I will consider getting a smartphone. Until then, cons will outweigh the pros.

Comment Re:If it gets common we will adapt (Score 1) 214

People are not confident in the quality and sensitivity of their cell phone receivers/microphones. To compensate, they yell, over-enunciate, repeat themselves, or a combination of the prior to feel more confident in their communications. Moreover, many people have very specific PR-style telephone voices and tones (faux excitement/outrage, etc.) that make it easy to stereotype their speakers as ditzy, shallow, etc.

Each of those actions (and particularly combinations therein) are typically very annoying to hear. The frequent annoyance without a socially acceptable method of addressing such annoyance leads to frustration. Frustration leads to outbursts.

Solution #1 Old-school wired telephone receivers or hands-free headsets with the microphones that extend from the ear to the mouth. These physical additions to phones increase confidence and allow a user to feel more confident that his communication is being received.

Solution #2 Make cell phones better phones. Take a couple million dollars that would otherwise be spent on facilitating the graphics requires for the next implementation of "Angry Bird: Fruit Ninja Attack" and make cell phone communication clearer.

Comment Re:Private Aircraft? It's Their Rules. (Score 1) 166

It is always intriguing when a post with no "troll" characteristics, is intentfully factual, tactful, spawns discussion, and is modded to at least (+3 Insightful) is eventually moderated down to "Troll".

Call me crazy, but I think people just might actually moderate based on agreement of opinion instead of the descriptors "insightful, informative, funny, etc.".

Comment Private Aircraft? It's Their Rules. (Score 0, Troll) 166

So here's the thing: It's their plane.

When you buy the ticket and board the plane, you agree to play by their rules. They have the property rights and have sold you limited rights to your seats with stipulations.

If you can't accept the stipulations and choose to break the rules, don't be surprised if you need to be embarrassed into submission or even thrown off the plane when you get caught breaking the rules.

Your opinion of their rules and the basis of their rules are irrelevant given that you have already agreed to their rules. So sit down, turn off everything they say to turn off, and find solace in the fact that you're following the minimal ethic of peaceful coexistence- honoring a contract.

Comment This is not "Rideshare". It's wrong to say it is. (Score 2) 184

Rideshare is a federally recognized term that encompasses carpool, vanpool, train, bus, and even bike/walk transportation. The creator of Lyft (John Zimmer) knows this very well as he created a fairly-well-adopted ride-matching website called "Zimride".

Zimride doesn't make too much money, though, so he sold it to Enterprise (the car rental company who also is in the carshare and vanpool markets) and created Lyft. Along with other similar decentralized taxi services, he is trying to brand their business models as "rideshare" to equate them with more sustainable practices and receive subsequent leniency in various markets and even public funding.

If you want to see what genuine real-time rideshare is, check out Carma (formerly "Avego"). This is a carpool-facilitating program that makes sure that the driver doesn't make a profit off the shared ride (per State Department mileage reimbursement rates).

Comment Re:eh? (Score 1) 762

If I had mod points, I'd give you a boost, Coward. I, too, am frequently annoyed by the immediate hyperbole of lazy vocabulary usage.

Racism, Sexism - The genuine belief in superiority of one race/sex over another.
Prejudice - This refers to making judgement about something prior to having sufficient genuine experience to make that judgement.
Stereotyping - The oversimplification of characteristics for use in folly and/or prejudice.
Discrimination - Making decisions to include/exclude based on arbitrary traits.
Misogyny - The hatred of women/females.
Objectification - The summary of a person's value by one's body parts.
Insensitivity - Acting without regards to another's likelihood of taking offense.

Now, all of these things are bad. Most people don't like these in our modern society. However, they are not all equal in "badness".

What happened in this presentation was insensitive objectification-- not sexism.

Slashdot Top Deals

To communicate is the beginning of understanding. -- AT&T