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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:What they really need (Score 1) 306

That's exactly the problem. I wouldn't say this if it weren't true. Local governments are being starved out by property taxes, and at the same time there's no incentive to build more residential capacity. Argue all you want but SF rent is higher than NYC which is impressive in it's own right. Property taxes being too low also impacts public transit like high speed rail. Right now they're stuck with 1930s era rail technology and it shows. 45 minutes go to from SF to Mountain View? Fucking lol.

Comment Re:What they really need (Score 1) 306

You just buy whatever is for sale, raze it to the ground, and then build as many stories as your'e zoned for. Plead for more vertical height/units if applicable. If you're near downtown it's not difficult to get zoned for 23 stories. Even given $1mm profit, if you throw $100,000 towards the city council you still come out way way ahead.

Comment More elegant computers (Score 0) 28

Not to say that they are more elegant, but they are elegant, and another example thereof. Sorry English is such a shitty language that it routinely introduces serious ambiguity with as few as three words.

In any case, Naval fire control computers were cool as shit back in the 1950s.

Comment Re:What they really need (Score 1) 306

Google offered a private bus service between downtown SF and Mountain View and there was a literal, outright rebellion against it. Protests blocking the busses and lawsuits and everything. They offered a private ferry service as well between SF and Redwood City (closest water port to MV) and that was quietly strangled despite being extremely popular. Citizens are very, VERY against making SF more popular to live because it's helping skyrocket the cost of living there way faster than businesses can adjust. In a sane rational world the city would respond by zoning more housing but they seem absolutely dead set against matching housing vs needs.

Comment Re: Why would anyone be shocked? (Score 1) 204

You think the political philosophy of libertarianism does not favour a particular economic model and vice versa ?

Libertarianism aside, reality favors the capitalistic economic model. It's the only one that works for any group of significant size. And if you start from the Non-Aggression Principle, free markets and capitalism are sure to follow. That does not imply that libertarianism is based on capitalism in general or the Austrian school of economics in particular, which is what you claimed.

As an aside, you should know that personal attacks just make you look bad, and don't help your case.

Comment Re:What they really need (Score 2, Interesting) 306

I've been looking in to this lately. Apparently in the late 70s early 80s they passed a law that says property taxes can only increase at a MAX of 2% per year. Inflation is 4% per year so over 10 years your effective taxes drop by HALF. This means you can't pay for infrastructure improvements as density increases, and there's no incentive for people to sell, which means there's no property to develop in to higher density residential stuff... if you can even get the local city council to approve such a project. Everything between SF and San Jose is basically suburban sprawl that backs up in to the mountains and marshland. There is PLENTY of land to build 35 story condos with 300 units of 2000 sq ft flats. There is no shortage of land to build huge, relatively cheap housing options for workers if you zone for it. But the locals there and local government is just totally broken and has zero incentive to improve housing. So you have a bajillion 22 and 23 year old programmers living in 600 sq ft efficiency over people's garages in the suburbs or five kids sharing a 2 million dollar house because the housing isn't there and local government won't zone to build it. It's nuts. I want to move to Mountain View or Palo Alto (because SF is too expensive so people are renting in the suburbs and commuting via Caltrain) but there is literally no 2 bedroom apartment available for less than $5000 a month(!) In Dallas I pay barely $1000 a month. I don't know how you can realistically survive within 2 hours of SF without making at least $70,000 a year, and even then you'd have to rely on public transit and eat ramen.
If there were a ferry between Oakland and Mountain View that would really open up the real estate market but there's no way I'm taking the ferry from Oakland to SF, and then a 45 minute "baby bullet" train from SF to Mountain view to save $1000 a month.
There's more jobs than housing, and that keeps pushing the rent higher and higher. Eventually either more housing is going to have to be built, or companies are going to have to move out of the area. But right now this is not sustainable with the majority of housing being 1 or 2 story 4 and 5 bedroom suburban houses.

Comment Re: Why would anyone be shocked? (Score 1) 204

Hell not only do they lack evidence they even use their own custom definition of inflation as "increased money supply". The proper definition is "decreased buying power".

That's because "decreased buying power" is a conflation of a huge number of possible factors, which makes any analysis of "inflation" by your definition meaningless. Regardless of whether you call it "inflation" or something else, the only factor that matters is the change in the money supply.

Comment Re:Why would anyone be shocked? (Score 1) 204

But the "Austrian School" denies the fundamental existence of SCIENCE.

Nonsense. The Austrian school doesn't deny the existence of science (obviously), just the applicability of the typical scientific process as a means of deriving economic models which can effectively predict human behavior, particularly when those models are (ab)used in an attempt to change how people behave. People always manage to come up with innovative and unpredictable solutions to get around whatever changes you're trying to force on them.

Effective economic predictions have more to do with the mathematical/logical domain of game theory than anything empirical. Austrian economics recognizes that, where other schools do not. You can, of course, measure the empirical results of specific economic policies and circumstances, but don't expect past performance to be a reliable predictor of future results.

Comment Re: Why would anyone be shocked? (Score 1) 204

including the Austrian model (which libertarianism is based on)

Libertarianism is a political philosophy based on the Non-Aggression Principle, not an economic model. You don't have to agree with Austrian economics, or even think that libertarian policies will be economically beneficial, to be a libertarian. It's a philosophy based on the principle of rights, not pragmatism—which is not to say that it isn't also the pragmatic choice for entirely different reasons.

Comment Re:Were you endangered? (Score 1) 227

New York is where both engines of USAir flight were hit by soft bodied geese weighing less than 20 pounds each and forced the plane to crash land in the Hudson river. The drones have hard metal parts and hard plastic. They would do far more damage to the plane.

As this is an obvious design flaw in the plane with or without drones, perhaps the FAA should consider mandating suitable filters on the engine intakes for commercial planes, instead of trying to ban anything that might cross a plane's path.

Comment Re:Uber supporters (Score 0) 215

I can get an Uber any time of the day or night to take me where I want to go. An Uber shows up within 5 minutes - always. If I call the taxi company for a cab, one may or may not show up between 45 minutes and an hour - if one shows up at all. Uber drivers are held accountable for the condition of their cars, their appearance, their personality. Taxi drivers stink, are rude and their cars are always a mess. I would never use a taxi. I always use uber.
Better yet, for the world traveler, Uber works in pretty much all major cities, tied to the same account. No messing around with local vs foreigner rates, tipping, blah blah blah. Just get in and GO. Then get OUT when you arrive. I HATE arguing with cabbies over fares, rates etc etc. it's absurd. Uber gets rid of all that and gives me a simple interface and one point of billing. If Uber was forced out of my city, I'd go buy a car rather than use Taxis.

Comment Re:will they "cost no more to" buy? (Score 1) 182

Well it's down to 55c/ kWh over an entire year. Over 11 years it's actually cheaper than electricity. Assuming 50% utilization and a 25 year service life (rated, real world is expected to be 30) they are in fact both cheaper than grid electricity and by quite a bit! Especially if you are living on an island. Which about a billion humans are right now.

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