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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Machine learning? (Score 1) 179

by Guy Harris (#49748949) Attached to: DNA On Pizza Crust Leads To Quadruple Murder Suspect

Actually, I found it rather interesting to consider -- given that African Americans are so fond of shouting oppression. Yet they seem to have flourished here rather well, with plenty of opportunity to advance in society, have many elected officials and business leaders and finally, even a President.

So when did we have a US President who was the descendant of slaves brought over to the US?

Comment: Re:somebody is trying too hard. (Score 1) 90

by Guy Harris (#49707233) Attached to: On the Taxonomy of Sci-Fi Spaceships

There is no consistent approach and due to various changes, even the historical usage varies considerably

No kidding. My Corvette is usually only manned by me, and occasionally one other person. It has no armament, and scares the hell out of me when it gets off the ground, let alone leaves the atmosphere. And it might as well be parked, even at top speed, when compared to the slowest space faring vehicles.

James, did you take your stepfather's car again? You'll wreck that thing some day. It's over 250 years old, so it's a real classic, and he'll be pretty upset if you ruin it.

Comment: Re:Uh... (Score 2) 270

by Guy Harris (#49670187) Attached to: Swift Vs. Objective-C: Why the Future Favors Swift

Since when is embedded programming associated with "immersive, responsive, consumer-facing applications"? I don't think Swift is going to replace C anytime soon in that department.

It was not obvious from the summary what the heck was meant by "embedded programming". In TFA, in addition to the quoted paragraph, the word "embedded" is also used in "The ability to defer loading in a mobile app or an embedded app on Apple Watch will improve the perceived performance to the user.", "Swift provides the development community a direct way to influence a language that will be used to create apps, embedded systems (if Apple ever licenses an embedded framework and chip for third parties), and devices like the Apple Watch.", and "Ultimately, Swift is a more approachable full-featured programming language that will allow developers to not only build apps but also target embedded systems like the new lower-power Apple Watch for many years to come."

So if he's referring to the Apple Watch, maybe. If he's not, I'm not sure what the heck he's referring to; "embedded systems (if Apple ever licenses an embedded framework and chip for third parties)" sounds like hand-waving. Is he expecting Apple to be pushing Darwin into the *ahem* Internet of Things or some such?

Comment: Re:No, but your own choices are. (Score 1) 179

by Guy Harris (#49645207) Attached to: Is Facebook Keeping You In a Political Bubble?

Look my American friends: raising minimum wage is the opposite of liberal and also the opposite of conservative. One problem of this world is, that you cannot use the correct name for it, because that word is a criminal in USA the land of the free speak.

OK, this presumably isn't the word you're thinking of, because 1) "the means of production, distribution, and exchange [being] owned or regulated by the community as a whole" doesn't necessarily mean that there will even be a minimum wage, or wages of any sort and 2) you don't have to have "the means of production, distribution, and exchange [being] owned or regulated by the community as a whole" in order to have a minimum wage with a given level.

So, either 1) the word in question doesn't (solely) mean what the OED entry in question says it means or 2) that word isn't the name you had in mind. Which is it?

Comment: Re:No, but your own choices are. (Score 5, Interesting) 179

by Guy Harris (#49643845) Attached to: Is Facebook Keeping You In a Political Bubble?

If you de-friend someone (or large groups of someones), their stories are basically not going to be on your feed in the first place, and liberals have been shown to be more likely to de-friend conservatives over political differences than conservatives de-friend liberals http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/21/liberals-are-more-likely-to-unfriend-you-over-politics-online-and-off/

Perhaps because, as the article you cite says:

However, that doesn't mean liberals necessarily like all of the ideas they see. Consistent liberals were the most likely group to block or unfriend someone because they disagreed with their political postings, with 44 percent saying they had "hidden, blocked, defriended, or stopped following someone" on Facebook due to their political postings. Only roughly one-third (31 percent) of consistent conservatives had done the same -- although this might be attributable to lower levels of ideological diversity in their online ecosystem.

And that conservative echochamber isn't limited to conservatives' online interactions: It's a reflection of the lack of ideological diversity in their real life relationships. Two-thirds of consistent conservatives told Pew that most of their close friends share their views on government and politics, compared to just over half, or 52 percent, of consistent liberals. For mostly conservatives, 42 percent of their close friends have the same views, while just 26 percent of mostly liberals respondents who said the same.

so maybe liberals have more conservative "friends" to de-"friend" than conservatives have liberal "friends" to de-"friend".

Comment: Re:So what? Feel free to move into a cave. (Score 1) 186

by Guy Harris (#49631297) Attached to: The World's Most Wasteful Megacity

As opposed to London, Paris, and Tokyo, which were designed and built during the last 50 years, and thus are more efficient.

Tokyo is still no my to-visit list but have you ever been in London or Paris?

I've been to all three.

Neither London nor Paris were gutted and rebuilt to anything like the extent that Tokyo or Berlin were so I'm not exactly sure what you mean by designed and built during the last 50 years.

I mean "the only way "ZOMG NEW YORK CITY IS 400 YEARS OLD!!!!!111ONE!!!" would be a useful response to "New York City is the world's most wasteful megacity" would be if the other cities were shinier and newer."

I.e., I was being sarcastic.

The best you can argue is that London and Paris incrementally improved the part of their infrastructure relevant to this discussion over the last 50 years while New Yorkers sat idle.

Which may well be the case - but, again, that renders New York's age not a particularly relevant point, as the more efficient cities are older.

Comment: Re:But... (Score 1) 186

by Guy Harris (#49627555) Attached to: The World's Most Wasteful Megacity

As a resident of Suffolk County, about half the land area is pine barrens and farms. It sounds like they're deliberately stretching the definition of "city" to include a lot of territory that most honest people would not consider metropolitan at all. Many of the other counties they're including are in a similar state of relatively sparse population.

What the paper says is

The megacities are essentially common commuter-sheds of more than 10 million people; most are contiguous urban regions, but a contiguous area is not a requirement; for example, the London megacity includes a ring of commuter towns outside the Greater London area. Megacities can spread across political borders. They include large tracts of suburban regions, which can have higher per capita resource flows than central areas.

Comment: Re:But... (Score 4, Informative) 186

by Guy Harris (#49627539) Attached to: The World's Most Wasteful Megacity

So if they're going to compare New York to Tokyo, applying the same logic, they should include the entirety of Japan as part of the "Tokyo Megacity."

They didn't go quite that far - "Tokyo", the megacity, is

Constituent cities: Tokyo, Kanagawa, Chiba and Saitama prefectures

For those who are curious, "London", the megacity, is

Constituent cities: Camden, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham Islington, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Lewisham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth, Westminster, Barking and Dagenham, Barnet, Bexley, Brent, Bromley, Croydon, Ealing, Enfield, Haringey, Harrow, Havering, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Kingston upon Thames, Merton, Newham, Redbridge, Richmond upon Thames, Sutton, Waltham Forest, City of London

and "Paris", the megacity, is

Constituent cities: Paris, Seine-et-Marne, Yvelines, Essonne, Hauts-de-Seine, Seine-Saint-Denis, Val-de-Marne, Val-d'Oise

.

See the paper's supplementary material for a full list.

Comment: Re:So what? Feel free to move into a cave. (Score 1) 186

by Guy Harris (#49627523) Attached to: The World's Most Wasteful Megacity

I didn't say there weren't older cities out there. I'm simply explaining part of why NYC is the way it is.

If you look at Paris, London and Tokyo, they're all wasteful as well.

Maybe not AS wasteful as NYC.

The title of the article is "The World's Most Wasteful Megacity". Saying "ZOMG NEW YORK IS FOUR HUNDRED YEARS OLD!!!!!!111ONE!!" is not an interesting response to the claim that it's the world's most wasteful megacity, given that there are several more efficient megacities older than it. It might be a useful example as a response to claims that megacities are inefficient in general, as it applies to many of the megacities in question, especially the developed-world ones.

But that could simply be a function of something else as well.

Well, given that they're older than New York, yeah, unless age makes cities more efficient, it's a function of something other than age.

In any case, they're actually comparing large metropolitan areas; as I noted in another post, "New York", for the purposes of their study, actually includes a hefty chunk of suburban New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut, much of which was much more recently developed.

Comment: Re:But... (Score 3, Interesting) 186

by Guy Harris (#49627411) Attached to: The World's Most Wasteful Megacity

I didn't think NYC had "detached" homes...

They do, although some of those might be multi-family homes (for what it's worth, Trulia claims that this house at the intersection of 109th Avenue and 164th Place is a single-family home).

But their definition of "New York" is the "megacity", which includes more than New York City; it includes:

Constituent cities: New York City (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island); West Connecticut (Fairfield, Litchfield and New Haven counties); North New Jersey (Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, Union and Warren counties), Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk counties); Mid-Hudson region (Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan, Ulster and Westchester counties)

which, I guess, means that, as a resident of Ocean Township, New Jersey, I grew up in "New York", and there were plenty of detached single-family homes where I grew up ("plenty" as in "all the homes in my neighborhood").

Comment: Re:So what? Feel free to move into a cave. (Score 4, Insightful) 186

by Guy Harris (#49627249) Attached to: The World's Most Wasteful Megacity

Okay, what do you expect? NYC (in one form or another) has been there for FOUR HUNDRED YEARS (the area was first settled in 1624). It's been a massive metropolitan settlement for the better part of the last two hundred.

It's not as if someone went back to 1700 or so and started out with a city planning commission and 2015-level civil engineering technology. So yes, the city's going to be ANYTHING but efficiently run, plumbed, or laid out.

As opposed to London, Paris, and Tokyo, which were designed and built during the last 50 years, and thus are more efficient.

Comment: Re:Los Angeles? (Score 3, Informative) 186

by Guy Harris (#49627123) Attached to: The World's Most Wasteful Megacity

It's hard to take seriously an article claiming New York is the most wasteful megacity when they don't even mention Los Angeles. New York metro is 20 million. Los Angeles metro is 18 million.

The PNAS paper to which the article attempts to refer (with a file: link, so the link is completely worthless) does mention LA, and, if you see Figure 1[1], LA is behind NY for total energy use, water use including line losses, and total solid waste production. The caption says "Values shown are for the megacity populations scaled on a per capita basis from recorded data for the study area population"; I don't know whether that means "we scaled the values based on the population sizes", so that they represent per capita consumption, or whether they represent total consumption.

[1]Yes, you did see what I did there. :-)

This file will self-destruct in five minutes.

Working...