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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young (Score 1) 297

Yes...but the point is that it's not just 1000 cars instead of 100 buses. It's 1000 cars instead of 100 buses and some indeterminate number of private cars.

OK, I see. You're counting all the people who now own personal cars and will give them up to use the futuristic self-driving cars instead.

I'll have to think about that. I'm doubtful, given Americans' love affair with their road machines, but maybe the culture could change. I'm afraid it would require creating "autonomous-only" roads though.

a) I'm all for that.

b) America != World

Dan Aris

Comment Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young (Score 1) 297

I am talking about self-driving cars as public transport. So instead of 100 busses, you would have 1000 self-driving cars.

1000 self-driving cars will cost more to buy, more to maintain, and more to operate than 100 buses.

You'll have 4000 tires, instead of 400. You'll have 1000 motors instead of 100. 1000 computers instead of 100.

Also, your ratios depend on cars vs buses. If you have cars vs light rail, the ratio goes up to at least 100:1

Yes...but the point is that it's not just 1000 cars instead of 100 buses. It's 1000 cars instead of 100 buses and some indeterminate number of private cars.

Dan Aris

Comment Re:Duke Nukem Forever Young (Score 1) 297

Maybe you got that backwards? Maybe self-driving cars are what will make public transport affordable and viable?

If you give this a moment's thought, you'll understand why it's a bad idea. Everyone needing their own $50,000 vehicle is the opposite of public transportation.

That's not what he said, though. The clear implication was not "the personal vehicles everyone owns should be replaced with self-driving ones", but "people should use a system of public self-driving vehicles to get around."

I certainly don't need a car for 90% of most days. It would be much more efficient for me to be able to use one for the trip to and from work, and let it go drive other people around, to work, errands, or whatever else, the rest of the time.

Dan Aris

Comment Re:We screw everyone. (Score 1) 181

I'm pretty sure Apples App Store, pun intended, is run by a different company than Apple Inc. aka AAPL so good luck in court with your idiotic standpoint.

I'm pretty sure you're woefully uninformed on this.

To the best of my knowledge, Apple doesn't muck about with subsidiaries for all the different stuff they do. Selling computers, making operating systems, selling music downloads, selling apps, and selling music streaming subscriptions all fall within Apple Inc., whose stock ticker symbol is indeed AAPL.

Dan Aris

Comment Re:A preview of President Trump's upcoming win. (Score 1) 693

the third-worlder isn't all that much better off than before, and may actually be much worse off if they went from an agricultural job they had some control over their destiny to a dismal factory job where they have no control at all

Why did they switch from the former to the latter then? (And if it wasn't their own choice, what forced them to do it? Honest question, not rhetorical).

Because historically, going to work on the factory has allowed workers to send a huge chunk of their paycheck home (like, 80% or more, sometimes) while living in the company dormitories, work there for a few years, and then effectively retire on the savings.

Here in the West, we see factory work as demanding, unrewarding drudgery. For people in developing countries, it's a way out of abject poverty, and provides a chance for something better for their children, even if they personally don't get a significantly better deal than their parents did. Don't make the mistake of looking at their lives, their culture, and their available choices through the lens of our own situation.

Dan Aris

Comment Re:Practicality? (Score 1) 242

As I understand it, from hearing about this type of thing from other sources, creating chimeras isn't just meant to provide a source of transplantable human organs. It enables researchers to study the effects of drugs (and whatever else) on human organs much better than using straight-animal analogs, without the kinds of ethical issues that make it tricky to impossible to do it in human clinical trials.

Dan Aris

Comment Sorry, no exceptions to mathematics. (Score 5, Insightful) 388

"Boo hoo, my emotions are more important than the whole world's privacy."

Sorry, there is literally no way for Apple to build into a phone or an OS a way to unlock it for situations like this that won't also be vulnerable to governments and hackers.

If you never see your son's photos, that will be sad for you.

If Apple actually makes the changes required to make it possible for people like you to get in to phones like these regularly, that will be devastating for all iPhone users everywhere.

Dan Aris

Comment Re:Water is WET! (Score 1) 231

Not really. It would be more akin to Sarah gates saying that. Who's Sarah you ask? She is some distant relative in charge of Bill's fortune generations after he is dead.

That's fair.

However, I doubt that the Gates fortune and dynasty will last in the way that the Rockefeller has.

I would also say, though, that I wouldn't be at all surprised if John D. Rockefeller himself, if he were alive today, would react very similarly.

Dan Aris

Comment Water is WET! (Score 5, Interesting) 231

Well, yeah. We all know that. Hell, it's in the story summary.

The point is, even Rockefeller is divesting from fossil fuels. It would be like Bill Gates saying, "Y'know, Windows really is pretty terrible, and is likely to get you infected and turned into a bot. Everyone should ditch it and use Linux."

And, frankly, about time, too.

Dan Aris

Comment Is prison for punishment? (Score 1) 292

It's no a question of punishment.

Well...it is, actually. It shouldn't be, but it is.

What it all comes down to is a question of the purpose of prison—and, indeed, of any court sentence.

As the excellent Illustrated Guide to Law lays out, any of our court sentences have five related purposes (and which purpose is most prioritized for a given sentence informs what the sentence is going to be like): Punishment, Deterrence, Rehabilitation, Removal and Retribution. At present, at least, America tends to focus heavily on Punishment and Retribution. That's what all the Tough On Crime laws are about: if you do something bad, you will be punished for it so that we feel like you've been hurt as much as the people you hurt. That's also partly about Deterrence.

Prison, specifically (and the death penalty, if you think about it), can usually serve the purpose of Removal—separating the criminal from the general population (aka "their potential victims," in many people's eyes, especially in the case of a registered sex offender). And, indeed, as some other people point out, if your real intention with a sex offender registry is to prevent them from coming into contact with potential victims, then the obvious solution is to just keep them locked up for life. Or kill them.

But I think most people would agree that, for most offenses that can land you on such a registry, that's too extreme. And all of this ignores the most utilitarian purpose of a court sentence for a crime: Rehabilitation. Helping the criminal to change whatever it is about themselves, or their life, that caused them to commit the crime in the first place. With a "classic" sex offender, this would have to include some kind of psychological component. Indeed, it might involve a lifetime of counseling, therapy, and/or drugs...but if we actually wanted to prevent people from committing these kinds of crimes again, rather than just hitting them on the head with the big freakin' hammer of the State from time to time when they reoffend (either in truth or merely by technicality, by breaking some condition of their registration), then we should pay a lot more attention to the mental health aspects of them than just thinking of the chiiiiiildren.

Dan Aris

Facebook

Why Facebook Really Shut Down Parse (medium.com) 39

New submitter isisilik writes: For those working in the 'aaS' business the Parse shutdown was the main topic of conversation this weekend. So why did Facebook decide to shut down their developer platform? The author claims that Facebook never wanted to host apps to begin with, they just wanted developers to use Facebook login. And he builds up a good case.

Slashdot Top Deals

Mater artium necessitas. [Necessity is the mother of invention].

Working...