Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Short term (Score 2) 465

by Harlequin80 (#47761447) Attached to: California DMV Told Google Cars Still Need Steering Wheels

I know you said in some places but it really does depend on where you live and the attitude of your parents.

Where I am every kid wants a car or a motorbike as soon as they can. The reason is public transport sucks and the blocks are too large to make walking a viable option.

If I lived somewhere where a car wasn't necessary I would still be pushing my kids HARD to get their license asap. It's the same reason I keep $100 in my wallet even though I always pay with card. You never know when you need it.

Comment: Re:Phones + 1 laptop. (Score 1) 259

by Harlequin80 (#47754287) Attached to: How many devices are connected to your home Wi-Fi?

4 years ago I ran cat6 through the house. Ended up with 22 ports all told pulled back into the garage.

So now my house looks like
Wired
* My Laptop Dock
* Wifes Laptop Dock
* B&W Laser Printer
* Colour Multifunction Printer
* Xbox 360
* XBMC Lounge
* XBMC Deck
* XBMC Bedroom
* FreeNAS
* ClearOS server
* Wifes Desktop (don't ask why she needs two...)
* Over powered gaming rig (in rack - I LOVE STEAM STREAMING!)
* Bluray player combo thingy
* polycom Voip Phones
* this kinda doesn't count but I have a camcorder using the cat 5 to output live signal from our babies room to the tv in our bedroom. Think of it as an HD baby cam

Wireless
2 phones
1 tablet

Comment: This is an effect of the News Corp restructure (Score 3, Interesting) 131

This is neither really news or particularly surprising. The News behemoth went through a restructure recently which pushed all its low performing assets into a different vehicle. Basically Rupert is in love with newspapers and he continues to support them even though the ROI is not there. When he leaves expect the papers to disappear as well.

Comment: Re:Full of it (Score 1) 338

by Harlequin80 (#47734775) Attached to: FCC Warned Not To Take Actions a Republican-Led FCC Would Dislike

The Universal Service Principal is hardly a common concept yet there is the capability of other countries to allow competition both at an infrastructure and access level. I think you will also find that there is absolutely no USP for internet access above an abysmally low level.

I'm not even sure how this is relevant. In other countries, they throw acid in the face of women who do not cover their face and execute gays. What do we learn from this? Other countries do things differently and some things may pass as appropriate but it doesn't mean it will here.

And no, I'm not comparing torturing women or killing gays to giving away the internet, I'm saying that their structures are different, their governments are different, so what they do doesn't always line up with ours.

Are you serious? This is the stupidest most arrogant statement I have read in a long time. If you are too myopic to see that things can be learnt from countries outside of the USA then there is no helping you. There are many many things that I look at in the USA and say "I cannot believe they do that, it's barbaric" it doesn't however mean I decide nothing can be learnt from there.

Comment: Re:Full of it (Score 1) 338

by Harlequin80 (#47726329) Attached to: FCC Warned Not To Take Actions a Republican-Led FCC Would Dislike

The Universal Service Principal is hardly a common concept yet there is the capability of other countries to allow competition both at an infrastructure and access level. I think you will also find that there is absolutely no USP for internet access above an abysmally low level.

More fundamentally though I do not understand why you feel there should be no competition at a municipal level. A township has no requirement, legally or morally, to support a different township through subsidisation. And that is exactly what you are arguing by saying the cash cows need to exist to fund other areas. If a local government feels that its population is being inadequately served then it actually HAS the moral imperative to fix that if it can. Now if it invests in infrastructure which it then operates itself or sells to a private entity and as a result improves the standards for its constituents it has done EXACTLY what it exists to do.

The fact that there is corruption in any organisation, or that the decision on what to build may not have been your choice is a completely different argument all together.

 

Comment: Re:Full of it (Score 1) 338

by Harlequin80 (#47725019) Attached to: FCC Warned Not To Take Actions a Republican-Led FCC Would Dislike

I also don't really understand the thought process as to how it would be a barrier to infrastructure. I kinda thought a major part of a governments role was to build infrastructure the private sector wasn't. If there is a push for a municipal level rollout then the private sector has failed in that case. Surely the logical thing is for the municipal to roll out the fibre and then, once in place, sell it to the private sector. That way you get your infrastructure, you get a ROI, you get competition for services and government stays out of providing random services.

Comment: Re: Infurstuctsure (Score 1) 338

by Harlequin80 (#47724989) Attached to: FCC Warned Not To Take Actions a Republican-Led FCC Would Dislike

In principal there is nothing wrong with a PPP (public, private, partnership) structure to build infrastructure. It is a way for a government to get infrastructure built that it otherwise wouldn't be able to afford. But the devil is in the detail. Why would there be a government guarantee of profitability is a big question. Right to toll is a pretty standard option for a long period of time 20 - 50 years. But if you screw up your traffic forecasts or you go over budget on the build well that is your problem, not the Governments. If you want to see a pretty spectacular example of that in Australia have a look at the North South Bypass Tunnel (Clem 7) which went bankrupt 11 months after the tunnel opened because traffic was only 30% of the projected flow.

Also if they are done well the ownership rights should return to the government after a period of time. At that stage the government can decide if they want to sell that asset for a cash injection or remove the toll. Usually they choose to resell the tolling rights but I have seen them remove tolls as well.

Comment: Re: Uber is quite retarded (Score 1) 341

by Harlequin80 (#47700047) Attached to: Berlin Bans Car Service Uber

Berlin taxis are only available if you call one to pick you up. They will do drive-by pickup but the other public transport is that good in Berlin that the taxi business struggle so they basically don't circle the city anymore.

Japan is another country where taxis are great. I don't know what make of car they are (they seem to be custom) they have a mechanised arm which opens and closes the rear left door for you to get in and out of and all the drivers wear immaculate pressed uniforms. Taxis in Japan are everywhere as well you just flag them down or head to one of the million taxi ranks.

Comment: Re: Uber is quite retarded (Score 1) 341

by Harlequin80 (#47692109) Attached to: Berlin Bans Car Service Uber

But that is exactly what is different between Australia, Europe, and the US. In Berlin most of the taxi's are recent model Mercedes, usually E classes and are in great condition. In Australia they are either Falcons, Commodores or Aurions with Prius being used inside the higher density city circle. These are also (generally speaking) in good condition. This is BECAUSE the market is highly regulated.

Comment: Re:I ban Berlin (Score 1) 341

by Harlequin80 (#47675853) Attached to: Berlin Bans Car Service Uber

However if you read about Berlin taxis there is a really low demand for them because of how good other public transport is. To the point that taxis don't circulate around Berlin to do pickups - they are purely a call and we come service.

Taxis in Berlin are small fry business compared to say LA or New York. The other component is that European governments are more concerned with individual safety that the US government is. From the US side you can argue that that makes them interfering nanny states. From the European perspective the US government is criminally reckless. The German government sees regulating taxi services as a safety issue ergo it is regulated.

Comment: Re: Uber is quite retarded (Score 2) 341

by Harlequin80 (#47675305) Attached to: Berlin Bans Car Service Uber

I think you are wrong in this case, particularly as the case is in Germany. In the US getting into a cab is pretty horrific experience at the best of times, my experience has been several white knuckle drives where I have actually said to the driver I will tip him if he slows down, or taxis that simply aren't clean.

In Germany my experience has been taxis arriving on time, driven well and immaculately clean. Having legislated taxi services can mean that your drivers are vetted to a higher level (ie police checked & driver skills checked) than a decentralised system can ever be.

Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job? A: Four; three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.

Working...