Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment The land of "Last one in is a rotten egg" (Score 1) 88

There are no realistic options for families in the Bay Area any more for housing. Salaries aren't rising fast enough for skilled people to accommodate the housing crunch, and employees are expected to take the brunt of this situation.

If you were established before the 2000 bubble, or happened to catch the housing dips in 2002 and 2009 (especially for rent controlled areas like SF), you are probably ok provided you don't have to commute too far from your residence or are lucky enough to live near BART or Caltrain. If you didn't get in, you are either a perpetual renter or taking huge risks between the influx of new rich money and foreign all-cash purchases of homes. This also presumes that you're in a good school district. Sure, everyone wants their kids going to a school like Mission San Jose in south Fremont, but many can only afford to live in Hayward where the schools are hit and miss. Waiting lists for child care are at least a year long virtually everywhere within 60 miles of SF/SJ/Oakland and are horrendously expensive. Prop 13 and the special FHA non-conforming mortgage limit of $729K ($300K above every other state in the country for some unknown reason) have held up the distortion of property values. Any attempt at high-density housing is often met with hostility from environmental NIMBYs and hostile existing property owners unwilling to give any room to these efforts by filing complaints and grievances. The intense culture surrounding perpetual property value increases is baffling in one sense considering the supposed social conscience that is supposed to exist in the Bay Area.

The perpetual renter scenario where schools don't count only really benefits non-family entities like singles and couples. For them and the folks who got in early, the Bay Area is indeed a great and livable place, with tons of great live music, museums, art, outdoor activities, and year-round great weather (except for SF in July...). Especially for younger folks trying to establish themselves professionally, there probably is no better place to work in that regard. For the rest who would get in this late in the game who have or want a family, enormous sacrifices in money, time and compromise of personal relationships are the only way to deal with this. After all, people paying $1000/month to live in a tent in someone's back yard is somehow acceptable and even funny when you got in early. For the low-income and disadvantaged, the burdens are extremely intense, and that's without the snowflakes complaining about the homeless in SF because they think they're entitled to perfection because they chose to live in the Mission for the cultural value.

These aren't realistic choices any more for many of us. These are only exaggerated for low-income individuals who have even fewer choices. There is an enormous elephant in the middle of the room, and the haves demure on this point without realizing that there will be a breaking point sooner or later. The Bay Area is truly the land of "Last one in is a rotten egg" and there's no end in sight.

Comment Re:ENDED is not a verb (Score 1) 189

Both are verbs.

start
Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines!
I often start my car before I put on my seat belt.
I had trouble starting my car this morning, but it started fine yesterday. It usually starts fine.

end:
The exam ends at 3.
Classes ended early today.
I bet she will end the relationship after the trip.
We must end the war on drugs.

Comment Re:Since they determined autopilot wasn't to blame (Score 1) 184

Your opinion does not agree with the conclusions of the HTSA report.

Uh, yeah, it does.

Conclusion is that indeed some periode of inattentiveness exist but rarely bigger than 5 sec. So the 7 seconds in which the driver did not react to the truck crossing his path is very exceptional.

Wow. No it didn't really say that at all. Look at figure 10.

ACC driving -- that's just with adaptive cruise control. people paid attention. 94.59% of the time people looked away from the road it was under 3 seconds. The remain 5.41% was under 5. They never looked away more than 7.

Add "lane assist" (LAADS with no counter measures) and suddenly 8.33% of the time people looked away it was for more than 7 seconds. That's huge... HUGE... like 1 in 12 times you glanced off the road it was for more than 8 seconds.

So Tesla added counter-measures (that's features to alert the driver they aren't paying attention); that's the LAADS column. And that made a big difference, down to 3.72% from 8.33% for glances longer than 7 seconds. But that's still around 1 in 25 glances off the road were *longer* than 7 seconds. 1 in 25 is not "very exceptional"... sure its a lot better than 1 in 12. And 1 in 4 glances off the road are more than 3 seconds. Compared to one in 20 with just adaptive cruise control.

That tells you that yes, I was right, that absolutely, all the data shows that drivers are much less attentive and engaged than they are if they have to steer themselves, even with counter measures.

Secondly they looked at the amount of accidents and collisions of Tesla's before and after the Autopilot was introduced. They fell by 40 percent.

That's not relevant, because what I proposed as an alternative would retain all the collision avoidance benefits.

In my opinion a good attentive driver, even with automatic systems engaged, will still keep his attention where it belongs: on the road.

The study clearly shows a substantial drop off in engagement. Even with counter measures the number of off road glances more than 7 seconds goes from never to 1 in 25. And the number of off road glances exceeding 3 seconds nearly quadruples.

Consider how many off-road glances drivers collectively make -- LAADS systems represent a MASSIVE drop in how much attention is being paid to the road. The LAADS systems may well enable that to be relatively safe, but don't kid yourself for a second that drivers are just as engaged with driving with the systems on as they are without them. The data you cited doesn't bear that out at all.

Comment Re:Since they determined autopilot wasn't to blame (Score 1) 184

Under no circumstances does this technology make you less safe.

I disagree.

it does TOO MUCH, to the point that even a safe driver CANNOT realistically be expected to be continually engaged with the act of driving for extended periods of time, and that makes him less safe.

If I am driving today, even on a highway, the constant micro-corrections in steering help keep me engaged.

Tesla's autopilot takes that engagement away, Musk himself bragged about 'hardly touching the wheel' on a long trip. After hours of not *needing* to pay attention to the road, and not needing to do *anything*, its pretty easy to imagine it would be pretty easy to be much less engaged, and more easily distracted, and therefore less 'safe'.

And again, Its absolutely not a question of choosing "Tesla autopilot as it is today" or "nothing" ... we could compare "Tesla autopilot today" with a version that had the *same* collision avoidance features, and that would, if it engaged to avoid a collision would only automatically drive enough pull the car over safely... so you had ALL the accident avoidance benefits of Tesla autopilot, but couldn't rely on it to drive for you while you watched a movie, because if it had to brake for you, or it had to correct your lane .... and it didn't detect that you were paying attention by making your own adjustments, then it would simply pull over.

Tesla is touting its ability to drive for you and the ability is enabled for it to drive for you with virtually no input from the driver. And that is LESS SAFE then if it only used its abilities to avoid accident and safely pull over.

Comment Re: Positive feedback? (Score 1) 306

Some schools bend over backwards, but not Stanford. (at least that was the case 25 years ago)
All the places I got accepted to offered a financial aid package that made some sort of sense, albeit still difficult for my family.
What Stanford offered was a joke. It expected me to come up with 12K-per year, and my folks for another 12K ish, which the financial aid forms clearly showed we don't have. (the numbers are fuzzy, but it was all ridiculous.) They were telling me to my face "if you're not rich, no need to apply".

So I went elsewhere. They weren't my first choice anyways.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 4, Informative) 794

Your not wrong, but at the same time, not quite right...

You all know a female has an XX chromosome pair, while a male is XY.

Yes! Well ... mostly yes. Some people have XXY and XYY and XXXY, XXYY... and other combinations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Some people have extra chromosomes in only *some* of their cells ('mosaics')
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And wait... there's more...for example, two (or more) separately fertilized zygotes can (egg+sperm) themselves fuse, producing a chimera. (they'd be fraternal twins if they didn't fuse). The result of fusing though is that some of your cells have one set of DNA, some have another... and as should be obvious, some of your cells may not even have the same parents; if the sperm came from different individuals...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And then not even all your plain jane "XX" are female...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And some females only have a single X...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Comment Re:Potential military applications are really scar (Score 1) 76

I hear this a lot, but with the one child policy I don't think they want their one and only child killed.

Sure, most people love their children, but then you have this issue: China's biggest problem? Too many men

30 million more men than women by 2020. Don't you think that's going to cause some problems?

Comment Re:battery life a braindead argument (Score 1) 298

1) How often you do you see people using digital cameras instead of phone cameras? Enough that every computer needs to accommodate them?

No. Not every computer. Just the top of the line pro series.

2) Every camera over $200 will have Wi-Fi, and it's been that way for years now. It's very easy/automatic to use. Every DSLR has WiFi, even the cheap ones.

Yes. But who gives a shit? I don't want to take 2 hours transferring photos via an adhoc wifi network, using a system that ties up my camera while it's happening. Popping out a card, popping in a new one, and carrying on.

3) Low end p&s cameras have sensors barely any larger than a smartphone. Regardless of their merits, though, empirically people have transitioned away.

True. Not sure what your argument here is though.

4) By that reasoning, why did they get rid of the VGA port, or the DVD drive? Having little-used ports be available as a cheap dongle seems like an intelligent compromise.

The DVD drive is quite fragile, has a lot of moving parts, and takes up a lot of space. An external USB drive is a reasonably sensible compromise for those people who still need it. The SD card reader is a tiny slot that a lot of macbook pro owners aren't even aware of. It's ridiculous to compare it to a DVD drive.

As for the VGA port... what is your argument? A laptop is more useful if it has common display ports. Period. There are quite a few of them and it's reasonable to support only the most common, most universal -- so an argument can be made for VGA -- a lot of people would still find that useful. Nevertheless, VGA is a fading fast and in 2017 it should have HDMI. It's reasonable to need an adapter for VGA but its ridiculous to need an adapter for HDMI.

5) Micro-SD cards are sometimes used for phones, and this makes them more popular than SD cards.

The cool think about micro SD is that they work with SD adapter trays. If all need is microsd, you can leave the adapter tray in the slot. If you want to make the argument that it would be handy for a pro series laptop to have a microsd card slot TOO... then sure, I agree.

My wife has the pro and it's awesome. I agree that they should have had a USB 3.0, but really it doesn't get in the way of her work

I have the previous generation pro. And I find the lack of gigabit ethernet idiotic; and I hate carrying around a stupid dongle for it. But otherwise i like it.

I also have the generation before that, and it is getting dated now in terms of performance. But it was basically perfect -- and the only reason my kids are still using it is that with the replacement battery, SSD and RAM upgrade it's still got enough oomph to be useful. But that is all over now with the new unit... your wife certainly won't be breathing any extra life into her new pro with any upgrades down the road.

And what else does the he new one do? Still no ethernet. No HDMI. No magsafe. No SDCard. No escape key. No USB ports. We get USB-C which is cool and will be increasingly useful in the future and every laptop you buy today should have a one or even two, but like most of us I live in the present, where the lack of the other ports is a pretty big deal.

The new macbook pro, as I've said before, is a terrific update to the macbook air line. I'm glad your wife likes hers and I can understand why. It's a fine laptop if you wanted a newer better faster macbook air.

But its a gimped piece of crap with extremely limited options if you wanted a pro laptop.

Comment Re:IT is amazing (Score 1) 99

Laziness and impatience drives obscene profit margins within the coffee industry. It's still fairly easy to still spend pennies on a cup of coffee, if you're willing to get off your ass, grind a few beans, and brew a cup. Most people prefer whistling for a dog named Starbucks or shove a pod into a machine to whip up a coffee-like substance fast enough to not be a burden on a FOMO lifestyle.

Quit being such judgmental snob. I do all three; it depends on the situation I'm in, and nothing to do with FOMO. There are times when I want a coffee and I'm not at home or not at work: Starbucks or Biggby, usually with a triple shot of espresso. When I'm at work, I use my Keurig. I find certain K-cups make great coffee. When we're camping we grind our own and use a percolator over coals. Definitely the roughest cups of coffee I drink, but then again, I'm out in the woods.

Slashdot Top Deals

Programmers used to batch environments may find it hard to live without giant listings; we would find it hard to use them. -- D.M. Ritchie

Working...