Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:In a Self-Driving Future--- (Score 1) 348

by Darinbob (#48446455) Attached to: In a Self-Driving Future, We May Not Even Want To Own Cars

If it works that is. If it can get to your home and to your job, not 4 miles from your home and 5 miles from your job, but door to door service, any time of day or night, and no mileage limit. This must include the uncool places where real people live, suburbs, rural towns. Today we have huge number of people commuting from suburb to suburb, the old hub model is dead and no one wants to go to a crime ridden and grime filled downtown. Nobody puts a technology park in an urban core.

If some people today can use mass transit, then that is great. However it is not the norm and not something you can expect everyone today given the huge limitations it has.

Self driving cars could fix some of this, but I see a lot that it won't fix. For one, it's not 'mass transit' and it's not even 'car pool', it won't reduce the number of cars on the road and it won't encourage mass transit to move away from downtown and out to where people need it.

Comment: Re:Capitalism does not reward morality (Score 1) 195

by Darinbob (#48423489) Attached to: Is a Moral Compass a Hindrance Or a Help For Startups?

Corporations are set up so that you never have to blame yourself. If you do something a bit shady, it's because the boss told you to, and it was likely due to a bout of group-think. If you are the boss, then you're doing it because some executive told you to do it, during a session of group-think. If you're an executive or even the CEO then you did it because the board expects you to do it, and you do whatever it takes to make the quarterly numbers look right. If you're on the board you get excused because you're not actually running the company or doing any management whatsoever, you're just there to make sure the books look correct and keeping the execs from stealing your money.

So who do you blame? It's all group think. It only falls down when a CEO is stupid enough to actually admit an intention to do something unethical, as in the Uber case.

Comment: Re:Insight (Score 1) 535

by Darinbob (#48421445) Attached to: Debian Votes Against Mandating Non-systemd Compatibility

It's a big train wreck. Maybe it's systemd, but maybe it's just lack of good leadership and teamwork. Overall though when you see a trainwreck like that people should stop and figure out what happened.

There are two ways to view this conflict. One view is that the fight is between those who are implementing systemd as a necessary feature and those who are obstructionists. The other view is that the fight is between those who want to keep systemd optional and those who want to make it mandatory. Because those two perspectives see the world in very different ways, people who don't see the same reality will tend to assume the opposition must be irrational. Thus no resolution is possible.

Comment: Re:Beware of Gamers (Score 1) 468

by Darinbob (#48412705) Attached to: Elite: Dangerous Dumps Offline Single-Player

Shouldn't they then take these problems and present them to the funders of the game? Tell the paying customers of the problems and find out if changes are acceptable or not. Maybe find other solutions (ie, some games delay themselves and the customers are actually happy about it, see Project Eternity for example).

So many gamers hate online-only games, the devs can not be ignorant of that, they must know this would go over badly. To remain in the dark seems strange, as if the devs are caught up in their own small world where they've never played any non-PvP games in their lives, don't know any of their close friends who play offline games, or think that those players aren't worth keeping as customers ("care bears" or "not real gamers" or other idiotic stuff).

Where is the layer of management that is supposed to remain objective, keep the dev team on track, keep the investors happy, etc?

Comment: Re:Beware of Gamers (Score 1) 468

by Darinbob (#48412621) Attached to: Elite: Dangerous Dumps Offline Single-Player

Passion for the games is great. But you also need at least some management with reality in mind, who keeps the customer and profits as priorities.

I say this as a developer, because when I develop something I get caught up in my own world and can lose sight of the bigger picture. I may deliver the best product ever but if it is a product that the customer does not want then what's the point?

They promised product X, got a lot of money for it, and are delivering product Y instead. Bait and switch. Somewhere along they line they got caught up in their own world and forgot about the customers who gave them the money. I'm only guessing, but I just have this feeling that some devs are thinking about making the game that they want even if it's not the game that the customers want.

If a product's direction needs to make a major change then it needs to be brought up before the board, and for kickstarter games the board are the funders.

Comment: Re:Apparently "backers" don't understand the term (Score 4, Insightful) 468

by Darinbob (#48409061) Attached to: Elite: Dangerous Dumps Offline Single-Player

Agreed. However if you lose the money that you can afford to lose, you still have the right to complain about it. And that's what people are doing. Telling them to stop complaining is kind of dumb. At the very least there's some moral obligation to warn potential customers to stay away from Frontier and its games.

What the world *really* needs is a good Automatic Bicycle Sharpener.