Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. (Score 1) 202

by supervillainsf (#48438369) Attached to: The EU Has a Plan To Break Up Google

A monopoly is a direct attack on the free market and therefore upsets true free market believers.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly. If I build a widget that no other company cares to build - I have a monopoly and that is perfectly ok. The problem comes when I abuse my monopoly position in the widget market to either stifle competing widget manufacturers or unfairly benefit my sprocket offerings - which is essentially what the EU Commission is accusing Google of doing. Does Google do this? I don't know and honestly I don't care. But, then again, I don't spend a whole lot of time using Google products so I guess that somewhat speaks to their (lack of) ability to manipulate markets for their non-search related services.

Comment: Re:Just Tack on a Fee (Score 1) 626

by supervillainsf (#47051763) Attached to: Driverless Cars Could Cripple Law Enforcement Budgets
Whenever I have seen them they have been in the #2 or #3 lane (with four lanes total) and generally going with the flow. I have never seen one noticeably impede traffic. I do recall once "needing" to get around one that was pacing traffic to the right with an open lane in front and heavier / faster traffic left, but it wasn't a big deal. I don't recall having ever seen one in heavy freeway commute traffic so I don't know how they operate in that environment. The few times I have seen them when they appear autonomous driving in city traffic. They have been well behaved, but that was light traffic conditions in mostly residential areas. The two times I have seen them in heavy surface street traffic, it appeared that the human was in control and was doing stupid crap (coincidently both events happend at the same intersection).

A slightly tangental note - they have this big spinning LIDAR (? I assume) on the roof of the vehicle. I'm pretty sure that thing is damn expensive and I admit I would be sorely tempted tot liberate one if they were all over the neighborhood. Also, it appears to make the roof rack unusable, so the weekend warrior types would need to find some other way of dragging their bikes / kayaks / foam top surfboards around if that continues to be a part of the sensor array.

Comment: Re:Just Tack on a Fee (Score 1) 626

by supervillainsf (#47049787) Attached to: Driverless Cars Could Cripple Law Enforcement Budgets
I see google cars on a regular basis - On the freeway they are frequently ~10mph over the limit. I read this article last night so today when I encountered one I made a point to check to see if it was being driver operated or not. It appearted, though I am not positive that it was running autononomously. If CHP felt like enforcing the actual speed limit they definately ticket. Also anectodtal, but twice I've been cut off by them when the drivers got impatient while waiting for a left turn arrow and have jumped out of the turn lane into traffic going straight, so while the AI of the car might not make mistakes, the abillity to override the car means the driver can still make all sorts of violations.

Comment: Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today (Score 4, Informative) 692

Except for the fact that there is no city bus that runs from San Francisco or Berekely to Mountain View, so the competition would be with CalTrain which is owned by Amtrak. As for Bus service, anyone who does the SF - South Bay commute will be familiar with Bauer's busses and they are a private company doing exactly what you are saying can't be done. So, the whole "can't compete with gubment" thing is a bit stupid in this context.

Comment: Re:Good to see intelligence rewarded for once. (Score 1) 241

If the GP had children of their own, would they not know what children are like? Thus, if they do not know what children are like, they clearly have none of their own. And, yes, I have intentionally posted something redundant in order to point out your redundancy.

I know quite a few parents who have no idea what children are like. You presume a level of interaction with ones spawn that is not necessarily present.

Comment: Re:Mandatory gun ownership (Score 3, Insightful) 694

I think there's something to this, but I think it should be an annual hunting trip. The kids will actually have to kill something, clean it and eat it. Might even have the side benefit of helping people understand that meat doesn't originate in the grocery store.

Comment: Re:NO, FUCK YOU (Score 1) 134

If you're worried about it, I'd suggest not using g+ to log into sites that don't require it. Also, just stop using any web service that doesn't respect the privacy rights you require. In fact, I see a business opportunity right there - you should build a google/facebook/whatever competitor that is totally private and secure and doesn't track anything - people will flock to it and you'll make money hand over fist, i'm sure.

Hackers of the world, unite!

Working...