Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:And when it doesn't fit (Score 1) 162

by MachDelta (#46298457) Attached to: Your Next Online Order Could Be Delivered To Your Car's Trunk

There really isn't. It's because special/delivery instructions aren't read by anyone sorting the packages, they're read by the drivers. And by that point, your box is already on a truck and in your neighbourhood. So they will almost always attempt delivery once because it helps keep the driver's delivery rate up.

Source: I worked for UPS (which stands for "Ur Package... Somewhere?") ~10yrs ago.

Comment: Re:Just bought a puppy (Score 0) 279

by MachDelta (#46124419) Attached to: Animal Drug Investigation Reveals Pet Medication Often Doesn't Work

Another reason I'm wary of vets is how so many of them respond when they hear about raw feeding dogs.

Most vets make quite a lot of money pushing sponsored foods (Science Diet, etc), so they balk when you feed them anything else. Food is a good sized reoccurring expense for a pet, so why wouldn't a vet want to take a cut? The reality is, those specialty vet foods are generally worse than almost anything you can find at a dedicated pet food store (yet still above what you'll find at most supermarkets - that shit should just be labeled "Animal Cruelty in a Bag"), and almost certainly worse than raw diets.

Comment: Re:Access games you purchased for free? (Score 1) 144

by MachDelta (#45894049) Attached to: Sony Announces Game Streaming Service

You're missing context. When the PS4 was first announced, one of the questions people had was "backwards compatibility?" to which Sony replied "Not natively, but just wait for our streaming service!" Thus, it was widely speculated that, to both fulfill a fan feature wish AND bootstrap a new service, Sony would support adding previously-purchased games to your streaming account.

Comment: Re: "Class Divide"? (Score 1, Offtopic) 292

by MachDelta (#45832497) Attached to: A Year With Google Glass

Interesting that you used the term "intersection" - look up next time you're at a traffic intersection, and count the number of cameras pointed down at traffic. In a lot of first world nations, chances are pretty good you'll see red light cameras or cctv or both. We all know that it's essentially impossible to go about public places without being caught on some kind of camera these days, so it's interesting to see that placing the camera in an ugly enclosure on someone's face crosses some kind of perceived line. If anything, it tells us not that we dislike being recorded, but that we can't stand to be reminded of it.
If this technology has any kind of future, subtlety will be key.

Comment: Re:If they are SO REALLY CONCERN about religion .. (Score 5, Insightful) 674

by MachDelta (#45657569) Attached to: New Documentary Chronicles Road Tripping Scientists Promoting Reason

I think Dawkins would say the role of religion is not to exist. That he would say that theism works against our interests more than it helps, so he would say no Christians understand the proper role of religion.

I'm not sure he would go that far. Remember that Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and to him, there is always an explanation for why some feature or trait persists in a species. I think Dawkins would more likely qualify your statement with "now that we have science, we no longer need religion." I've read some of his books and there's a sense that you can justify the existence of religion as a socio-evolutionary trait of humans. Our early society demanded something, an idea both simple and powerful, to germinate around. Something that promoted beneficial traits, like a strong sense of community, and not to ask too many questions, all while "explaining" the natural world. This was religion's role. Something which would promote the survival of one tribe over another, so that the most devout tribe was likely one of the strongest. But, now that we have science, logic, and rational thought, we no longer need religion as the very core of our societies. The social nature of humans is both well established and self-sustaining (barring global catastrophe, of course), and I believe his opinion would be that we're long overdue to jettison the booster-rocket of religion, and rely solely on science and logic to be our main engines from here on out. Pardon the rocket metaphor.

That's my take on him, anyways.

Comment: Re:Technology is hard and dangerous (Score 5, Informative) 610

by MachDelta (#45274685) Attached to: Toyota's Killer Firmware

In a "serious accident", I'd wager my old Chrysler New Yorker against your crumple-zones any day of the week.

You'd lose that bet.
And likely only once.

Not only would I experience far lower acceleration forces than you

No, you'd be experiencing far greater acceleration forces, as if no portion of the car gives way and soaks up kinetic energy, a greater portion of it will be transferred to anything not bolted securely to the frame (eg: you).

I won't end up crumpled in my car's own crumple zone.

The cabin is under no circumstances a crumple zone. Engine and trunk compartments make great crumple zones. The cabin should be a vehicle's Waterloo.

Thus spake the master programmer: "When a program is being tested, it is too late to make design changes." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"