Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:i haven't bought a car in a while... (Score 1) 252 252

I think the point is price.

Cabs are expensive, but most of the expense is paying the driver. Once you get rid of the worker, it gets a lot cheaper.
Also, with centralized control, routes can be optimized so the taxis are always driving and carying passengers.
It's not slightly cheaper than driving, it can potentially cost an order of magnitude less, and be faster.
Where I live, public transport is easily 5-6 times less expensive than driving, combining bus and cab rides, including the labor cost of drivers.

About keeping it clean, and accountability, we are now used to be identified always. The cars can have cameras, and even require an id for you to ride them (they won't be taking cash, after all). There would be abuse, but it would be close to trivial to punish that kind of thing.

If there's vomit in the car, the car should be able to detect that, and go to a cleaning station. In the event that you do get an unsuitable car, you can just reject it. You could even look at a stream of the inside of the car before it gets to your home.

Also, think about the carpooling possibilities. While people don't like sharing space with strangers, price can change some minds.

Comment Re:I foresee a sudden demand for raises (Score 1) 429 429

You don't need to go as far as requiring equal pay. That can be your goal.
Knowing salaries is faster, and goes a long way.
If you are minority X, face discrimination, and are paid 80k instead of 100k for a white male, it will be hard to get that fixed, but knowing what others make will help you set your goals. Maybe you can get together with others and discover which companies discriminate the most. You might even find out that some company is not discriminating, just pays less to all their employees. Information itself is a very useful tool, and it's actionable right now.

Comment Re:Equitable pay? (Score 1) 429 429

A free market comes with the notion of a price equilibrium. Faster information means faster equilibrium, less room for inefficiencies.

Of course labor market is regulater by government so it's not really a free market. But witholding information from sellers only hurts a free market, as a whole. This makes it effectively a buyers market, which would behave closer to an oligopsony (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopsony). That's inefficient for the market as a whole.

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 272 272

I understand if there were some trademark issue, that they _removed_ yt.com/lush, and replaced it with 301 to yt.com/matthewlush . Replacing the page with something else completely will only harm those who try to access the old link. If the company wants anything, they can get yt.com/lushcosmetics or whatever, but they shouldn't misrepresent their content. Users who have the old link expect the old content, that's what URIs are for.

Breaking links is a bad thing (TM), and google has the knowledge to know that you shouldn't break the web. Not for something this lame, at least.

Comment Re:So, it's credit card fraud (Score 2) 86 86

Fraud is not the main thing here.
Uber is paying cab riders bonuses that make riding without passengers profitable. So, they ride without passengers and collect bonuses. Their using fake ids or other illegal is just incidental. Uber itself is probably operating illegally, and nobody cares about that.

Comment Re:Why the need to detect if you know where stuff (Score 1) 108 108

This is their current situation. Stuff comes in different sized packages, and placement is not perfect.
Of course they could get improvements, even for human workers, if stuff came pre-checked, correctly classified and stuff. The thing is that's not their current status. The idea is to get rid of the picking human, without changing anything other than the human.
Self driving cars would be easy with the strategy you propose, just build intelligent roads, wired roads with wireless navigation, no people. Close to what a train is. It makes it a lot easier, but it just can't replace all driving, unless you change the whole infrastructure at once.

Comment Re:Fuck you dice (Score 1) 443 443

I used it in 2007 (VS 2005) and hated it. I hated it even more than I hated it when I programmed for Visual Basic 6, last century, though.

Severely underfeatured text editor, ugly looking, and subject to random lockups.

Of course, at some point they might even end up releasing something usable, but why keep trying? There are lots of IDEs out there, with a better track record.

Comment Re:I understood some of those words (Score 4, Insightful) 67 67

This is news for nerds.
It's a pattern detection strategy that relies on generating waves with input data, interweaving them physically, and using arrays of antennas to detect patterns.
That's from the first couple of paragraphs.
I don't know a lot of physics, but I am a nerd, and I like this kind of thing, so I can learn about cool stuff.
If you don't care about it, you can look at other stories that talk about tesla and bill gates and whatever else. Posting is not mandatory.

Comment Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management (Score 1) 371 371

I don't want the web to support encryption against users by third parties.
Once that is readily available, and accepted by users (read: today), the freedom of users is endangered.
You can read a deeper analysis of the consequences of such a situation http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/...
When I first read that, it seemed a bit stupid that people would let their freedom go so easily, but now it's closer to real. The implications of DRM are way beyond video, the problem is that once DRM is standard and everywhere, restricting the flow of information becomes a lot more convenient.
The web was, for a few years, like the internet itself, it routed around censorship. Right now, everything is heading the other way. It's just sad, looks like we are going to keep loosing freedom.

Comment Re:Typo: Digital Rights Management (Score 0) 371 371

I can only conclude that the issue is not that you don't want to use that capability, it's that you don't want anyone else to be able to use that capability. The contradiction in wanting "open culture" to deny some users options that they desire never crosses your mind, does it?

The point is that we don't want anyone to _have_ to use DRM. Making it available is one more step in that direction.

DRM is not a capability in the traditional sense. It's not a way for your software to do something. It's a way to prevent the user from using the software as they please, as directed by the content provider. That's a restriction, not a capability.

Comment Re:Start spreadin' the rants... (Score 3, Informative) 186 186

Per capita might not be fair.

Cities are not useful only for their inhabitants, they serve a function for the whole economy. Since resources are concentrated, value can be created more efficiently, economies of scale, and whatnot.

Another way of seeing it, is how much waste for NYC generate per dollar. It has a GDP over 1400 billion dollars.
This means that, if you were to get rid of NYC, because it's too wasteful, you would need around 4 or 5 large cities to replace the value it creates.

Probably, resource-wise, and waste-wise, nyc is not that inefficient, when you take into account, in your efficiency equation, that its value is much larger than hosting several million people.

Comment Re:There's not a good record of public utilities (Score 1) 125 125

You are talking Economy 101. I took that kind of course.

In practice, it's more complicated.
Telecom is not a free market, it naturally tends to a monopoly, or duopoly, because of the large barriers to entry, and government regulation.
There's no real competition, and no monetary incentive to keep offering good service once you are at the top.

Again, there might be competition in some pockets, like high density urban spots, but it's harder to have competition as density is lower.

To try and simulate competition through government intervention (forcing to share infrastructure, things like that) seems a bit backwards. It costs money, and only brings indirect results, if any.

Again, my question was, why do we trust the government to build roads, but not internet infrastructure?

(Of course there's the issue of full government control over the infrastructure, spying, filtering and stuff, but now everybody knows that private companies won't safeguard you from a hostile government, they will even provide APIs for your data )

"And do you think (fop that I am) that I could be the Scarlet Pumpernickel?" -- Looney Tunes, The Scarlet Pumpernickel (1950, Chuck Jones)