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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:It's true (Score 2) 257

Pixar was unique in Silicon Valley companies in that we had deadlines that could not move. The film had to be in theaters before Christmas, etc. I'd see employees families come to Pixar to have dinner with them. I took the technical director training but decided to stay in studio tools, first because Pixar needed better software more than they needed another TD, and second because of the crazy hours.

Comment Re:Driverless (Score 1) 273

Sure public transportation is fine. You said Uber and Lyft.

Dude, I'm not the Emperor of the World. I'm making my predictions of the future. Whether you like it or not, whether I like it or not, I predict that Uber and Lyft and such services are going to become more common in the future (especially if there are self-driving cars). It's too bad you don't approve, I guess, but there it is.

(In principle a city or county could operate a service similar to Uber or Lyft. Perhaps that would make you happier?)

They have at least thought of these things?? Wow, drink the kool-aid some more.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe that Tesla is spending thousands of dollars per car to provide the hardware for self-driving, without having thought of common problems like driving in snow in the winter. They've been testing this stuff for years, but presumably you believe their testing was flawed and/or inadequate. I'd be interested to find out from you what Tesla did wrong, and why they are wrong to think that their hardware is adequate.

Would you say the Tesla hardware is completely useless, or would you say that there are some circumstances under which the Tesla hardware can do a useful job of driving the car? Also, in your opinion, are the various videos of self-driving Teslas all faked? And the videos where a Tesla equipped with "Autopilot" takes action on its own to avoid an accident, are those faked?

Comment Re:Driverless (Score 1) 273

It will be a sad world if people ever have to rely on Uber and Lyft to get from place to place.

I suspect that you are older than a Millenial and do not live in a dense urban area. (Personally, I'm older than a Millenial, I don't live in a dense area, and I very much treasure owning my own car.)

When I was a teen I was just counting the days until I got a permit to be able to drive a car; now Millenials are increasingly not bothering to get driver's license and insurance, and taking bus/Uber/Lyft when they want to go somewhere.

And there are people who live in dense urban areas who would find it a hassle to park a car, and prefer not to own a car there. More, there are cities that are actively trying to reduce the number of cars on their roads.

Tesla has not demonstrated that the sensors they are shipping will be able to handle all cases.

Okay, we get it, you're skeptical of the full self-driving features.

Will they be aimed low enough to stop to allow a rabbit to cross the road safely or are we just running over animals now? Will they scan the contour of the road so they can drive properly through ice ruts or around deep potholes? I didn't think they had that kind of tech yet.

Frankly I don't know the answers to these questions, but if Tesla thinks their current sensor tech is sufficient for full self-driving, my guess is they have at least thought of each of these things.

My guess, and it is just a guess, is that the ultrasonic sensors would be used to watch for ice ruts and potholes; that the testing program has already included people driving the test cars on roads with ice ruts and potholes; and the forward radar would likely do a better job of spotting a rabbit than a tired human at night. I don't think anyone is claiming that the self-driving features would completely eliminate all road kills, but equally I doubt self-driving cars will be worse than humans.

https://www.tesla.com/blog/upgrading-autopilot-seeing-world-radar

https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now-have-full-self-driving-hardware

Comment Re: The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 307

If you look in the FEMA site, they say that they provide gramts to perform repairs not covered by insurance. And no, they don't do a needs test. Now, the typical rich person does not let their insurance lapse just so that they can get a FEMA grant. Because such a grant is no sure thing. They also point out that SBA loans are the main source of assistance following a disaster. You get a break on interest, but you have to pay them back.

Comment Re: The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 307

I understand your point about view land being desirable even though it's a flood risk. I live a mile or so from the Hayward fault. But I have California's risk pool earthquake insurance. The government wouldn't be paying me except from a fund that I've already paid into. I imagine that the government does pay some rich people in similar situations, but as far as I'm aware disaster funds go to the States from the federal government and should not in general become a form of rich people's welfare. Maybe you can find some direct evidence to show me that would make the situation more clear.

Comment Re:Driverless (Score 1) 273

There are a lot of promises that the pro-automated crowd are making over and over. Two of the main ones are, 1) they will make driving safer, and 2) insurance will be cheap because they will be low-incident.

This will only happen if 95% of all people can afford these things.

If true automated cars truly work, then services like Uber and Lyft have the potential to become even cheaper. The cars get more expensive but no human drivers need be paid. It may be that if ride services are ubiquitous and cheap, people will use them more and not want to tie up their own money in a car.

Also, insurance for you may become cheaper if you use self-driving even if nobody else does. If you let the car drive you safely home you aren't getting into an accident due to being sleepy or drunk. From what I have read, insurance on Tesla cars is surprisingly inexpensive since the cars are so safe. (Although I think if you buy a "P" model with the "Ludicrous Speed" crazy acceleration, insurance rates go up.)

I consider it somewhat of a cop-out to just assume that any sensor on a fighter jet can apply when some of those sensors may be worth thousands of dollars.

And I consider it somewhat strange that you are arguing about whether Tesla can ship sensors that Tesla is already shipping as standard equipment on every car. The Tesla web site promises that the full self-driving sensors will be on every Model 3, that's the less-expensive model.

Tesla is making a bet that including all those sensors will pay off eventually. That bet may or may not be a good idea, but we are past the point of arguing over whether Tesla can do it. They are already doing it.

Comment Re:The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 307

What you are observing is economics. As a city or town population grows, the best land becomes unavailable and those who arrive later or have less funds available must settle for less desirable land. Thus many cities have been extended using landfill which liquifies as the San Francisco Marina District did in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, or floods. Risks may not be disclosed by developers, or may be discounted by authorities as the risks of global warming are today.

Efforts to protect people who might otherwise buy such land or to mitigate the risks are often labeled as government over-reach or nanny state.

Comment Re:The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 307

Oh, of course they were caused by misguided engineering efforts. Everything from the Army Corps of Engineers to Smoky Bear goes under that heading. The most basic problem is the fact that we locate cities next to resources and transportation, which means water, without realizing where the 400-year flood plane is. Etc. We have learned something since then.

Our problem, today, is fixing these things. Which is blocked by folks who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, or even cause and effect at all. They don't, for the most part, register Democratic.

Comment The problem with your explanation (Score 5, Insightful) 307

The problem with your explanation is that it's fact-based, and stands on good science. This is the post-truth era. Thus, the counter to your argument will be:

  • Evidence for a human cause of erosion is thin and controversial, and is being pushed by loony liberals.
  • We need those oil and shipping jobs, and jobs building and maintaining levees, not more regulation that stifles them!
  • Cause and effect is not a real thing, except for one cause, God is behind everything.
  • This is part of God's plan for us. The end time is coming, and when the Rapture arrives it will not matter that Louisiana's coast has eroded. Cease your pursuit of unholy science and pray to save your soul!

Comment Re:So... (Score 1) 341

so far hasn't done anything irreversible.

I think the first victims have been farmers who can't bring in their crops. Just the people who voted for him in California's central valley and wherever else we depend on guest workers. I don't see citizens lining up to pick those crops. The small family farmers, what's left of them, will feel this worse, the large corporate ones have the lawyers necessary to help them break the rules and truck people in from South of the border.

The second group of victims will be the ones who need health care that doesn't come from a big company. It's a lot more difficult to start a small business when there is no affordable way to get health care. And that is the case for my own small business - I'd be in bad shape if my wife left the University. I think that's the real goal - to keep people from leaving employment in larger companies and going off on their own.

Comment Re:So... (Score 4, Interesting) 341

Donald Trump, unfortunately, satisfies a common desire among the populance to right things by means that won't actually right them. It's a desire to rid Washington of inaction by cleaning it out of the current folks who don't seem to get anything done: and then you find that the things they were working on are harder than you understood. It's the feeling that you can get things going right by having a manager who lights a fire under the responsible people: just the way that bank managers pressured employees to increase revenue or be fired until those employees started opening accounts fraudulently for customers who hadn't asked for them.

What I am having a hard time with is how our country gets back out of this. I fear Humpty has had such a great fall that there is no peaceful recovery.

Comment Re:If you want juice, don't buy a juicer (Score 1) 358

Sounds like a lot of work.

It really isn't.

I just put some frozen (straw)berries in bowl, put it in the microwave to thaw, add some yogurt, and eat it.

That doesn't sound like it makes strawberry frozen yogurt. I like strawberry frozen yogurt, and the way I make it, it includes a whole lot of strawberries.

Comment If you want juice, don't buy a juicer (Score 1) 358

Having lots of fibre and vitamins in your diet is good. But a juicer is basically a machine for separating the fibre from the juice, and it also separates the skin of the fruit which often contains a lot of vitamins.

Juice by itself is sweet and tasty, but it basically gets all of its calories from carbohydrates, and without any fibre the carbs will hit your system quickly. The glycemic index of carrot juice is very high, while eating carrots will not usually have much effect on your blood sugar. (See the difference between glycemic index and glycemic load: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_load)

If you want to enjoy a tasty beverage that is better for you than juice, I recommend you get a VitaMix. The VitaMix company has been around for decades, and their product is an extremely expensive blender that is IMHO worth the expense. A VitaMix is so much more powerful than a cheap blender that it can do things the cheap blender cannot do.

So a typical fruit smoothie will start with some juice or even water and then throw fruit in, where the 2 horsepower motor at full speed breaks the fibre, skin, and even seeds down to the point where you don't really even know they are there. If you want to add a pleasing orange color to a smoothie, throw in some carrots; the texture will be a bit thicker and the color will be orange but you won't find any carrot chunks.

VitaMix has competitors, and some of the competitors may be as good. BlendTec and Ninja seem to have similar horsepower. I'm only recommending VitaMix since I have had one in my house for like two decades now. We use it so much that, despite the high purchase cost, it has a very low cost per operating minute... our food processor cost less but we hardly use the thing.

My favorite recipe: put a cup of plain yogurt into the blender, and add a spoonful of sugar and a squeeze of lime juice. Then dump a 10-ounce bag of frozen organic strawberries in (still frozen!), and run the blender on "high" while using the "tamper" to push the berries down into the blades. When the texture is smooth, serve. Don't overblend because you don't want to heat up the mixture. It's a tasty sweet dessert, and much healthier than any strawberry frozen yogurt you can buy.

Here's an example of throwing various hunks of vegetables into the thing to make a vegetable smoothie. After that demo the next demo is a sweet fruit smoothie. https://youtu.be/1qemLSu63d0?t=1m36s

P.S. LOL, YouTube appears to have a channel called "Blender Babes" where young females demonstrate blenders. I wonder what would happen if they tried to get a booth at a conference that bans "booth babes"... would they not be allowed at their own booth? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXG65NgmrIM

Slashdot Top Deals

Advertising is a valuable economic factor because it is the cheapest way of selling goods, particularly if the goods are worthless. -- Sinclair Lewis

Working...