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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:"Drama of mental illness" (Score 1) 343

That makes no sense. This is in the UK, where they have socialized healthcare.

Socialized medicine doesn't mean you can just walk in and get free medical care anytime you want.

Of course not - people have to schedule non-emergent procedures everywhere in the world. But my point is that the treatment was available. So why is there an uptick in treatment? It's possible there are more treatment resources, or a variety of factors. But my point still stands that a higher rate of treatment (assuming there is no increase in problems, which is what the GP suggested) *should* result in a decrease in suicide attempts.

Comment: Re:Big Deal (Score 1) 316

by jittles (#49320195) Attached to: Costa Rica Goes 75 Days Powering Itself Using Only Renewable Energy

Have you ever thought about not paying them to not produce energy instead? How do I get in on this, I'd like to be paid to not produce electricity too. I think I'd be quite good at it.

Seriously though, let me guess, public sector contract with penalty clauses? that why? the usual story? Can they really not sell the electricity to anyone instead, like you know, that whopping great City to the South; New York. Or do the Americans not trust immigrant electricity or something?

Our ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents have a hard time screening every single electron that comes across the border. Too few of the electrons are willing to pay for the prescreen pass that allows them to pass freely through border stations with only cursory inspections.

Comment: Re:"Drama of mental illness" (Score 1) 343

That makes no sense. This is in the UK, where they have socialized healthcare. Why would these people not be seeking care historically? It's not like the availability of health insurance has changed. Unless you're suggesting that people suppressed these feelings and just avoided treatment historically? That still doesn't explain the increase in attempted suicides. If it were just more people seeking treatment then you would think the attempted suicide rate should decrease (assuming the treatment is effective).

Comment: Re:Experience (Score 1) 155

by jittles (#49290783) Attached to: Data Research Reveals When Taking a Yellow Cab Is Cheaper Than an Uber
They are protesting Uber and other services because they cannot compete with them. They cannot compete with them because of the licensing and insurance costs. They want the field to be level, as far as I can tell. I'm all for one or the other - either remove the restrictions on the taxi companies or apply them to Uber. You can't have it both ways. But you have to remember that taxis have these restrictions for a reason. They didn't come into existence out of thin air. The requirements are there to protect the citizens of the city, not to protect the interests of the poor schmuck driving a taxi.

Comment: Re:Experience (Score 1) 155

by jittles (#49282787) Attached to: Data Research Reveals When Taking a Yellow Cab Is Cheaper Than an Uber

Dumping waste onto your neighbor's property (even gas, here), without their consent, is criminal.

Offering to give a person a ride at a cheaper rate than the alternative, without misrepresenting your product (and regular Uber users know what the product is perfectly well), with their consent, is not just legal, but beneficial to society as a whole.

When was the last time you went for a ride with an Uber driver who just happened to be going to the same place as you? You didn't. Not once. Ever. Uber isn't a ride sharing service, it's an unlicensed livery service. If you and I are driving from Los Angeles to NYC together and we agree to split gas, then we are ride sharing. If I pay you $40 to take me to the airport after work, then you're providing a taxi service. See the difference? It's perfectly legal for you and I to carpool together. It's legal for me to buy you gas for giving me a ride somewhere. It's not legal (in many jurisdictions) to offer unregulated livery services.

If the problem is regulated rates, minimum road time, and so on... how about we fix that problem, instead of creating new ones?

What you're describing is called protectionism and it's been disproven in economics for hundreds of years. If you're going to cry 'Nothing happens in a vacuum' you can't then proceed to talk about only the taxi cab owners/drivers. You have to talk about all of society.

The people that those regulations listed by the GP are trying to protect are the passengers. Do you think that the taxi drivers want to be out there during unprofitable hours? That they want to charge the same rate at 5pm as they do at 1am? No. So I am not sure how you think those rules are protecting the taxi companies.

Comment: Re:Experience (Score 1) 155

by jittles (#49282725) Attached to: Data Research Reveals When Taking a Yellow Cab Is Cheaper Than an Uber

Well they are insured and they do have a license, so I am not sure your point.

In NYC, they do have proper insurance and licensing, yes. But the GP's statement suggested that these regulations existed strictly to protect the interests of taxi drivers and that there was no actual benefit to society. The GP forgets that these laws were introduced with public safety in mind.

Unless Uber is underwriting all of the insurance on their non-professional drivers, I doubt that Uber's policy offerings are of much value to those who may be harmed in an accident. To my knowledge, no one has made a major claim under Uber's policy, so we will have to wait and see how that turns out.

Comment: Re:Experience (Score 0, Troll) 155

I only respect laws designed to represent the interests of the citizenry as a whole--not the vested interests of one tiny class who bribed some politicians with campaign contributions.

You're right. It's not in the best interest of citizenry as a whole to have properly licensed and insured livery drivers. We're much better off when anyone with a smart phone and a car can provide taxi services.

Comment: Re:Old School Kermit (Score 1) 466

by jittles (#49146093) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Old PC File Transfer Problem

Kermit is a good choice, should be able to do all he needs with no extra cost as long as he can cable 2 computers together.

I specifically dislike those telling him to buy a UBS adapter for the old disk drive or other solutions that require spending money and waiting. I do have such an adapter, and a PCMCIA firewire card that would open other options for me, but they are not needed in this case.

Another option that seems to be ignored is that XP computer he says he also has. At that vintage it likely has USB and Ethernet. I would try swapping the drive into that (if it isn't too thick to fit) and booting the XP computer with a Live Linux CD (the 3.11 Windows disk will likely not boot properly and would not have the needed drivers even if it did). Then from Linux you could easily write the 160 meg drive contents to a USB flash drive or transfer it across ethernet to the destination computer (I would do that with FTP but there are any number of options).

If he doesn't know that a NULL modem cable is a viable means of transfer, what makes you think he has a NULL modem cable at all? I would bet he's going to have to spend money or borrow a cable anyway.

Comment: Re:Why is this so hard to understand? (Score 1) 193

by jittles (#49136297) Attached to: Uber Offers Free Rides To Koreans, Hopes They Won't Report Illegal Drivers

You were trying to claim that people either can be in support of monopolies or that they cannot be in support of any monopoly. That is obviously a black and white situation and entirely untrue. And there are multiple reasons that there are monopolies on running wires through neighborhoods. The number one reason is safety. Do you realize that there used to be almost free reign in running electric wires in the US? Take a look at these photos of NYC. You can see thousands of wires all over the neighborhoods. It was dangerous and an eye sore. Having unlicensed and under insured Uber drivers is potentially harmful to unknowing and unsuspecting customers. This is the reason that taxi licensing exists. Are you proposing that we no longer require any sort of licensing for anyone to drive on the open roads? What is the justification for Uber to be allowed to run an unlicensed taxi service? If its okay for them to operate without licensing, can my 95 year old grandmother drive unlicensed through your neighborhood?

Comment: Re:Why is this so hard to understand? (Score 1) 193

by jittles (#49136047) Attached to: Uber Offers Free Rides To Koreans, Hopes They Won't Report Illegal Drivers
Oh don't be so foolish. The world is NOT black and white, first of all. And I would be willing to bet that 90% of the Slashdotters on here would be HAPPY with a municipal monopoly on fiber lines in their streets. They would love the open competition that such a monopoly would allow. There are advantages to monopolies in some cases. Furthermore, there is no "taxi monopoly". I have yet to see a single city in the US or Europe that has only a single taxi/livery company. The fact that the city/county/state licenses those companies does NOT make it a monopoly.

Comment: Re:The biggest challenge? (Score 1) 186

by jittles (#49118689) Attached to: Google Teams Up With 3 Wireless Carriers To Combat Apple Pay

That's not the biggest challenge. The biggest challenge is that it is no more convenient or reliable to pay a bill with my smartphone than it is with a credit card. My credit card doesn't run out of power. And I don't have to worry about it not getting a good connection inside a store. And I don't have to worry about pulling out a $500 phone and juggling it around every time I want to pay for something.

I actually did find Apple Pay useful once. I went for a quick run to the store with my girlfriend and didn't bring my wallet, but happened to have my phone. Had I brought my wallet, however, I would have just used my card. It was handy to have a backup plan.

Comment: Re:FFS (Score 1) 398

Heroin is certainly addictive but addiction is a response to stress and pain, not a moral failing or a bio-chemical crutch.

Long term use of these drugs do create a change in your biochemical system. Not a permanent change, but there are, in my opinion, two types of addictions: a chemical addiction and an emotional one. You are either trying to escape pain/stress, as you say, or your body stops producing the chemicals provided by the drug. You could have a procedure done to block the pain and would still have a hard time quitting long term opioid use.

Comment: Re:The banned weapons (Score 1) 318

From your own source:

There has been much debate of the allegedly poor performance of the bullet on target, especially the first-shot kill rate when the muzzle velocity of the firearms used and the downrange bullet deceleration do not achieve the minimally required terminal velocity of over 750 m/s (2,500 ft/s) at the target to cause fragmentation.

Not only are you wrong, you are so wrong that the round is actually criticized for not causing enough damage.

From what I was told in the service the round was designed to wound not to kill on purpose. If you wound someone, one of their comrades has to drag them back to cover. You thereby take two enemies out of the fight. But hell, what would the armorer know.

I think "designed to wound" is a reassuring way to say "technically not as lethal". We switched to smaller ammo for logistical reasons, to carry more ammo, and statistically less lethality is not a bad thing for the reason you mentioned, it's just not the real reason we switched to 5.56. Way I look at it is, without increasing the weight or cost, is there any obvious thing you can do to make a 5.56 nato round more lethal? The FMJ is for penetrating body armor, and only increases the chances of having exit wounds. So it was light, cheap, and "lethal enough" - not designed to be less lethal, in my opinion.

I believe that the Geneva Convention (or some addendum to it) prohibits the use of hollow point ammunition in military rounds. That is why we use FMJ.

"One Architecture, One OS" also translates as "One Egg, One Basket".