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

 



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

Comment Re:Car ownership is, in general, a terrible thing (Score 1) 274

That only works in very high-density areas.

Besides, my observation was obviously meant for high-density areas, like pretty much every important city in the US, which is where the majority of the people live, where the engines of the economy run. It is not applicable to small density areas, which as charming as they might be, are not where the bulk of the nation is, and which are more economically unsustainable as time goes by.

So I really don't get what the hell your comment was all about.

Comment Re:Car ownership is, in general, a terrible thing (Score 1) 274

Says that self driving cars will put an end to car ownership.

It could put a dent in it but unless this makes people so broke that they can't own their own car I think personal space will still win out.

I refer to you (as I've done many times in other threads) to Tokyo. You can party, go to work and take your kids anywhere in the whole Kanto region without a car.

That only works in very high-density areas. Those of us who don't live in battery-hen conditions won't be getting good access to public transport anytime soon. You may enjoy living in such a manner that four or five of the six sides that make up your home are shared with someone else. I do not.

The fact that you call it a 'battery-hen condition" shows you have never been in Tokyo... so it is hard to say how objective your description is. And even when you step out of Tokyo, say, go Chiba, you find sizeable homes... and yet, you still have access to excellent public transportation. You barely need a car.

I don't live in Tokyo currently, but I've stayed in Shinawaga (beautiful condos with lots of greenery) and in Yokohama where my in-laws live. Their 2-story house is not large, as it lacks a large patio, but it is very comfortable, not to mention the adjacent amenities, green areas and what not that come with a well-run alpha city.

The fact that large cities in the US do not have good public transportation is simply lack of planning. There is nothing inherently in urban sprawl or large homes that preclude us from having it.

I won't be moving to a high-density area anytime soon as I'm used to my 700sqm house on 4000sqm land with a 80000l pool in the yard.

Which is OK, but that doesn't preclude us from having good transportation. My house is 167 sqm (I wouldn't live in anything over 371 sqm, the cleaning just gets a part-time job) with a good enough patio for fruit trees and stuff. It is in a community of houses that size and big, with plenty of green, among similar communities...

... it is situated in a city ranked the 8th best in the country (Weston), 7 miles away from Southwest Ranches - a ranching community where I might buy a 2-acre/8000 sqm property, double of what you have, when my kids get older - all enclosed within the 8th largest metropolitan area in the US (South Florida) with a 300 billion dollar economy rivaling Singapore.

We have a lot of condo canyons mind you, from the claustrophobic to the incredibly spacious (with the only think lacking being a patio). But we have a large, specious homes and ranches.

There is nothing, ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY NOTHING that preclude us in South Florida (or any well-run megapolis) from having good public transportation other than myopic self-interests, politics and lack of urban planning.

When I lived in LA, I did not need a car at all. I lived in Van Nuy and worked in Burbank and traveled to Downtown, Santa Monica and Hawthorne on a regular basis. LOOK MA, NO CAR!

Buses travel every other artery at a 30-min frequency, and houses weren't small (though like in all urban areas, there are more condos than full-sized homes.) Traffic is terrible obviously, but public transportation is absolutely superior to what we have here in South Florida, and more than sufficient for people to exercise job mobility without having to own a car.

and (literally) park-like front garden.

Good for you. Since we are going to compare properties, why not? I have a very nice lake view on my backyard with plenty of fruit trees and some northfolk pines or weeping willows in the near future. Here is a picture from the front going back all the way to the lake on the backyard. I still have some fixes to do. Not a 700sqm home, but certainly not a box.

http://bit.ly/2cArnM4

And you know what's awesome? Within driving distance I can take my family to dinner or brunch or whatever to a view like this:

http://bit.ly/2ddVOcd

You probably paid the same as I did, except you got tiny cube in the city.

Assumptions are the mother of all things stupid since I own a large home and not a tiny cube in the city (gasp! that fits in your pigeon hole world view???)

Sure I pay more (probably more than double or triple) than if I had bought a similarly sized home somewhere else. But what with what I paid it gets me access to a large economy with lots of employers for me and my wife. For my kids, access to one of the best school districts in the nation, 6 universities and 3 community colleges (one being the largest in the nation) within driving distance, space-grant universities three hours away in Orlando and Melbourne. Within driving distance to some awesome beaches, museums, ballet companies, neighbors from all over the world (Greeks, Eastern European, South Asians, Japanese, Chinese, Hispanics, whatever).

I know that some people won't care for any of this, and I respect that. But it is kind of stupid (actually, it is very stupid) to assume either 1) that you have to live in a tuna can to live in a megapolis (or that shit turns into an scene from "Escape from NY" - you haven't done that, but many do), and 2) that bad public transportation is inevitable.

Stop being parochial with your assumptions.

But, hey, at least you don't need to own a car!

As I said, stop being so parochial, making assumptions like that. Enjoy your home, you deserve it, but do yourself (and the world) a favor. Travel, educate yourself if you haven't. Learn to see the pros and cons of life. Who knows, you might actually enjoy it.

Live your life in peace, and stop making parochial assumptions on others (unless there is some deep need that you need to satiate by doing so.)

Comment Car ownership is, in general, a terrible thing (Score 1) 274

Says that self driving cars will put an end to car ownership.

It could put a dent in it but unless this makes people so broke that they can't own their own car I think personal space will still win out.

We own cars because we have to. Our public transportation systems usually suck, and we cannot go anywhere (jobs, entertainment, whatever) without it. I refer to you (as I've done many times in other threads) to Tokyo. You can party, go to work and take your kids anywhere in the whole Kanto region without a car.

As our car ownership increases, the negative impact in our infrastructure, economy, environment and productivity decreases. Cities around this country are battling with how to deal with this. Out of necessity, car ownership (or at least individual driving within a city) will decrease.

Autonomous cars will be one of the many ways this will be addressed. It will happen. And car manufacturers are betting on it and trying to jump ahead of it instead of being relegated to the losing side of things.

Business-wise, it is the smart move.

Comment Re:So a guy that runs a ride sharing company. (Score 1) 274

Reason #1 it won't happen; families.

Here I have 4 kids, each requiring different car seats size / adjustments. We are bringing and keeping different stuff for the kids (Stroller, diapers, their favorite movies) which stay with us without needing to grab it at our Xth destination. Keeping our previous purchases safe while we go for our next stop, and the items we don't need at that stop (no stroller at the grocery store) is a major win that lyft rides won't provide.

It might definitely help reduce the percentage of ownership, but it certainly can't sign the death certificate.

That's a very particular way of viewing things, very particular of this country. In cities with excellent public infrastructure (say Tokyo or the Kanto Region as a whole), you truly do not need a car, even with kids.

So the fact that it cannot happen here shows how poorly designed our cities are in general, and how costly that is. We own cars not because we are (or like to be) independent, but because we are crucially and almost fatally dependent on them for basic transportation in a way almost unimaginable in a 1st world country.

Comment Re:Where is the funding for the trip? (Score 1) 289

THE REAL issue is where is the cure for cancer? Where is the FUSION POWER? Where is clean energy production? How do we care and feed for 7 billion people? These problems should come before billionaires playing model rockets.

It's their fucking money to use as they please. You do not get to say "should" or "should not" with other's people's fortunes.

Anyone who says "where is the cure for cancer" is an idiot. There is not one cancer, but an enormous class of problems with different biological characteristics, requiring very specific treatments.

Space travel is not just about playing with rockets, but also integrating a variety of technologies and science fields. Chances are advances in rocket propulsion will lead to advances that play right into fusion power (or other technologies.)

Furthermore, we can care for 7 billion people. We have the means, and the technical know-how to produce enough food without depleting the planet for 7 billions and more. What we have is not a technology problem, but a socio-economic problem. You do not solve those by telling billionaires hey, don't use your money that way!.

What a twat.

Comment Re:Wacky? Maybe, but at least he's got vision. (Score 1) 289

Don't you think that having two African-American presidents in a row wouldn't be very good from a diversity perspective?

Dude, the whole reason for Trump being a contender today is because having ONE African-American president was too much diversity for some folks. That's the reality behind all the sophistries these folks pull out of their good'ol' collective bald-eagle say-merry-xmas-or-i-kill-you poop shoots.

Comment Re:yawn (Score 1) 428

Actually the government can (and does) criminalize price gouging on certain items (like gas in case of an emergency or catastrophes.)

The result is simple: Without the extra incentive to get on the road and drive from Brooklyn or Long Island out to Manhattan and into a traffic nightmare with panicked people and possibly even bombs going off around you,...you won't get anyone coming to give you a ride. The Government cannot compel people to go to work. It can only arrange for you not to have any Ubers available, since the drivers are in their socks watching the Mets instead.

That's speculation. We know that people have ventured to do business when there is risk involve or in case of catastrophes (even to the point of providing services for free or for delayed payment.) There are plenty of cases where this has been the case, so it could go either way.

Now, I'm not saying that government must dictate that there cannot be a price increase to meet demand. Actually it shouldn't.

But we are conflating an increase in price to meet demand with price gouging in a disaster. There are not one and the same (even if the line that divides them can be perceived as being subjective.)

Furthermore the government has the power to have a say on that, for better or worse. Sometimes it works well, sometimes it doesn't. And we cannot be assuming how people and business can operate in a disaster purely from a financial incentive POV. History, recent history shows that people and businesses are willing to take TEMPORARY risks or increase costs in the name of altruism.

Comment Re:yawn (Score 1) 428

Exactly.

I don't understand the problem myself. Without Uber you wouldn't have had a ride at all. If you don't like the pricing try waiting for a taxi or use another service.

Repeat after me: Uber is NOT run by the government... that's both what makes it good... AND what leads to scenarios like this. You can't have the good (low fares, clean cars, drivers that give a shit) without allowing them to work with the free market (supply / demand).

Actually the government can (and does) criminalize price gouging on certain items (like gas in case of an emergency or catastrophes.)

In this case, there are no laws that prevent gouging on transportation fares by a private transportation company after an emergency (and a terror attack fits that definition). Whether that can (or should) change, that's another story. But there is nothing preventing the government at the local, state or federal level from imposing sanctions.

Unrestrained free market is like communism, a dogmatic ideology, a religion that when you let it run amok it shows some butt ugly consequences.

With that said, I wouldn't blame Uber since this is not a case of intentionally gouging fares (it was just an algorithm adjustment.) But I'm sure some revisions will take place in the future to halt that optimization case of a disaster (common good PR sense and the need not to bring government hounds to enact laws and sanctions) without incurring loss in competitiveness.

Comment Re:If you can't configure DNS (Score 1) 81

... with the easy-to-use web interface that any major provider will give you, then maybe you shouldn't be running your own domain.

Hire someone competent to run it for you.

While you're at it, have them prevent sql injections, install a valid Hhttps certificate, and set file permissions appropriately.

Spoken like somebody who knows his job can easily be taken over by automated systems.

What a strange comment. Hiring someone who can competently run it implies hiring someone who can automate it.

Comment Re:The only breaking change worth having (Score 2) 148

Using tabs enables the viewer to view the code indentation with as much spacing as they see fit. That means on my X character wide ultra high res terminal, i can ensure that there is a noticable level of identation. People who don't get that tabs can be redefined to make formatting more legible for the person reading your code are assholes.

Or you could say that in projects with a lot of people, it pays to force an indentation standard based on a universal number of spaces, a constant retained from revision to revision. Then when you, the generic you, do a diff in any tool, it will look exactly the same regardless of a user's editor setup.

I'm sure there are people who will disagree and will put valid counter-arguments. I can only say that after doing this for a while and having to deal with disparate formatting of the same file in the same bloody branch (making diffs almost impossible to discern without some serious massage), then a standard spacing becomes a lifesaver.

See, programmers are very talented, but also extremely opinionated. Sorry, most cannot do shit without having someone forcing some rules upon them. The amount of ego is just staggering, and almost everyone, when left to her devices reformats and shuffle shit on a file to fit her own needs without ever thinking "gee, I wonder if the next person who has to maintain this piece of code will be able to effectively discern logical/structural changes from formatting ones without involving file-massaging heroics.".

Comment Re:Apple (Score 1) 170

You are changing the goalposts... That's bullshit no matter how you cut it... The first iPhone being just slightly better than the phones of the time? Utter garbage and disingenuous history revisionism.

Fuck off no-one cares about these tired iPhone arguments anymore. It's just a phone, get over it.

You care enough to argue back, don't you? We are not arguing about iPhones (that's you again moving the goalposts). We are arguing about your technologically inaccurate statements. You don't like being called on inaccurate statements? Then motherfuckingduh don't make inaccurate statements. Or better yet, let it go (since you claim no one cares about these arguments anymore.)

The thread is about whether Elon is a copy of Steve, or a better version altogether.

Yes, then stick to that theme and don't post inaccurate shit like saying the first iPhone was just *slightly* better than the technology available at the time (which is inaccurate and easy to disprove by just pulling up the specs of every single major phone at the time.)

I think he's much better since the stuff he is doing is much cooler.

No one said otherwise. Feel free to hump that strawman, just don't complain when you get blisters.

Comment Re:Apple (Score 1) 170

We've already had this argument a million times in here. The point is do you prefer a slightly better phone or and the fastest car in the world? Or a rocket? I'm no fan of Elon either, but I think most people would think cars and rockets are cooler than phones and laptops

You are changing the goalposts. I'm not talking about comparing cars and rockets or whether the later is way cooler than the former (what a stupid strawman.) I'm talking about (and taking you to task) this which you wrote:

while Steve built a telephone that was slightly better than the existing telephones of the day

That's bullshit no matter how you cut it. Rockets cooler than phones? Of course! The first iPhone being just slightly better than the phones of the time? Utter garbage and disingenuous history revisionism.

Slashdot Top Deals

One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.

Working...