Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Unforseen? (Score 1) 108

Really? I see massive possibilities and the only limiting factor is the form factor of the device at the moment. If you could imbed the AR into a set of normal looking glasses it becomes huge.

Ignore for a second the privacy issues and the creep factor and just think on whether these things would be useful or not. Names of people floating over their heads, bread crumb navigation dots, interactive points for information when visiting places, being able to pin reminder points.

Comment Re:The old struggling to fight off the new (Score 1) 260

You come up with "worse than useless" when the regulations make an inherently more dangerous structure have outcomes that are almost identical to the wider population?

Seriously, think that through. Prior to regulations high rise fires killed LOADS of people. There are lists of hotel fires that killed more than 10 people because these are deemed to be historically significant and yet there is only 1 in the last 30 years! And it was a deliberate arson for which the perp is serving multiple life sentences.

I'm not arguing that high rises are as safe fire wise as a standard suburban home, they aren't. But regulation of high rises has resulting in there being only nominal difference in their safety. If that isn't an example of regulation doing what it was meant to I don't know what is.

And I didn't bother looking for airbnb specific fires. Because there is no reason to. Given airbnb doesn't require any additional regulation then best case scenario is that it will have a fire rate the same as the wider building population. You can argue factors each way for higher or lower risk. But the sample size is too small and their duration of operation is too small to have a meaningful comparison.

Comment Re:The old struggling to fight off the new (Score 1) 260

No I don't need to prove that the risk is higher. You need to prove that the risk is the same or lower. You are the one advocating for the change not me.

People have always always always picked the cheapest option. They pick the cheapest option even though it is demonstrably less in their favour. What's more is people will choose an option that is significantly more expensive even if it only appears cheaper at the first glance.

Regulations came in to existence to address a problem. That regulation may have gone to far but that doesn't change the fact that there was a problem and so regulation came into being.

Currently you have a regulated industry which, on face value, the airbnb service needs to compete with. But they aren't competing on a level playing field so the regulated part of the market will collapse. This will inevitably lead to a race to the bottom, in terms of quality and in price. This happens every time in every industry. Without the regulated industry to set a level of service we will move back to the original situation which caused the creation of the regulations in the first place.

Comment Re:The old struggling to fight off the new (Score 2) 260

Impossible to compare AirBNB stats as the information is completely unavailable.

However there were 1.24 million building fires in the US in 2013. Which claimed the lives of 3240 people. Of those fires 7700 were in high rise buildings. Those high rise fires contributed 27 deaths. That gives you a fatality chance per fire of .35% in a high rise and .26% in all fires. So this is a relatively low difference. This low difference comes about because high rise and high density buildings have stricter fire codes even though a single fire in a high rise is a much riskier event.

This is further helped by the fact that 50% of low rise hotels that suffered a fire event between 2007 & 2011 had full wet pipe sprinkler systems. This compares to just 17% of low rise apartments, the sort of thing airbnb will do the most of.

So at the moment airbnb is still a relatively small player in a per stay measurement, however as it increases it is likely to see more people staying in buildings with lower standards of fire prevention. This inevitably will lead to an increase in fire deaths.

Comment Re:The old struggling to fight off the new (Score 1) 260

You know people die from food poisoning right? It's not just a case of getting the shits and puking. This is why you have a food safety board and health inspectors that check restaurants. But I suppose a review after the funeral is ok, right?

Direct from CDC..... CDC estimates that each year roughly 1 in 6 Americans (or 48 million people) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases.

Comment Re:The old struggling to fight off the new (Score 1) 260

There may be a greater potential for death, because you have more people concentrated, but your regulation and fire requirements work to prevent that. For example it doesn't matter how short the sprint is if the only exit is on fire. Lots of people put bars on their home windows that cannot be opened from the inside. This is the sort of thing that wouldn't be allowed in public accommodation.

I'm not in the US so I'm commenting on my own local regulations. But if you are a B&B for example, you are required to have a smoke detector in every room where someone sleeps, in all stair wells, and keep a fire extinguisher & fire blanket in all kitchen spaces. These are not requirements on private dwellings.

And as for rare or infrequent fatalities we clearly have very very different definitions of rare.... Gives 2013 total fires at 1,240,000, fatalities at 3240 and injuries at 15,925.


Comment Re:The old struggling to fight off the new (Score 5, Insightful) 260

It is materially less safe than the existing hotel market. A simple example is hotels are held to a much higher standard for fire safety. Being held to those higher standards imposes a cost on a business. If you can operate in the grey areas without those costs you have a significant commercial advantage at the risk that a fire may kill / injure people that wouldn't have been killed or hurt if your building had been compliant.

Comment Re:Bye bye Erdogan (Score 5, Interesting) 153

One major factor might be that the "Ergenekon" network people were released in April. These are the people that Erdogan imprisoned on charges of conspiring to remove him from power but there was no evidence the plot even existed. The plot may not have existed, but he gave a hell of an incentive to create one.

Comment Re:Popular for the moment (Score 3, Interesting) 174

Not really sure how this is different to trading? I doubt you would be able to ever stand there with a beacon on saying battle me, or trade with me. I had assumed that trading would be restricted to people who knew that each other were playing and the same with PvP. Of course that allows organisations outside of Pokemon Go to organise battles but again no different to trading.

Comment Re:The wave of the future (Score 1, Redundant) 255

You are kidding right? I'd like to know how many people were kicked to death by a parked car. How many people were run over when a parked car freaked out and stampeded.

Horses are dangerous. They are unpredictable and they are flighty. I mean you can seriously seriously mess up an otherwise perfectly fine jumping horse by sticking a rubber ducky in a water jump.

Cars are predictable. If you hit the accelerator they speed up, hit the brakes the slow down, turn the wheel - ahh I'm sure you get it. The fact that the controller is an idiot doesn't change the fact that the risks of randomness are reduced dramatically.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.