Forgot your password?

+ - One week of OpenSSL cleanup ->

Submitted by CrAlt




Link to Original Source


Submitted by William Robinson


Submitted by DeathByLlama

+ - Americans Wary of Some Futuristic Technology

Submitted by Hugh Pickens DOT Com
Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Doug Gross reports at CNN that Americans are generally excited about the new technology they expect to see in their lifetimes but when confronted with some advances that already appear possible — from skies filled with drones to meat made in a lab — they get nervous. Overall, respondents to a survey by the Pew Research Center were upbeat about how technology will shape the near future. In the report, 59% of Americans think tech developments will make life in the next half-century better, while only 30% said they will make life worse. More than eight out of 10 respondents (81%) said they think that in the next 50 years, people who need transplants will be able to get them with organs grown in labs. More than half (51%) think computers will be able to create art as skillfully as humans do. But Americans are a little less optimistic about some science-fiction staples. Only 39% think it's likely scientists will have figured out how to teleport things (or, presumably, people), 33% say we'll have long-term space colonies by 2064 and a mere 19% expect humans will be able to control the weather.

But some of the advances that may be closest to becoming reality are the ones survey respondents were most worried about (PDF). Nearly two out of three Americans think it would make things worse if U.S. airspace is opened up to personal drones. A similar number dislike the idea of robots being used to care for the sick and elderly, and of parents being able to alter the DNA of their unborn children. Only 37% of respondents think it will be good if wearable devices or implants allow us to be digitally connected all the time. People were split almost evenly (48%-50%) on whether they would ride in a driverless car. But only 26% said they'd get a brain implant to improve their memory or intelligence, and a mere 20% said they'd try eating meat made in a lab. Some 9% said they'd like to be able to time travel. A similar number said they'd like something that would keep them healthy or extend their lives, 6% said they wanted a flying car (or bike), 3% said they'd take a teleportation device and a mere 1% said they want their own jetpack.

Asked to describe in their own words the futuristic inventions they themselves would like to own, the public offered three common themes: 1) travel improvements like flying cars and bikes, or even personal space crafts; 2) time travel; and 3) health improvements that extend human longevity or cure major diseases. "In the long run, Americans are optimistic about the impact that scientific developments will have on their lives and the lives of their children — but they definitely expect to encounter some bumps along the way," says Aaron Smith, a senior researcher at Pew and the author of the report. "They are especially concerned about developments that have the potential to upend long-standing social norms around things like personal privacy, surveillance, and the nature of social relationships.""

Comment: Re:Simple problem, simple solution (Score 1) 356

by Ichijo (#46775065) Attached to: San Francisco's Housing Crisis Explained

Parking meters still impose a cost on the preexisting residents...

Not all pre-existing residents. Just those who choose to use a taxpayer-owned resource to store their personal belongings. As a taxpayer, parking meters make perfect sense to me because they give me a return on my investment.

Even better would be to not waste so much land on streets wide enough for street parking where it isn't needed. There's no reason why the street couldn't be narrowed and the excess land sold to the adjacent property owners. This would also neatly solve the problem of business customers parking in residential neighborhoods without the need for parking meters or enforcement.

Comment: Re:A million is easy (Score 1) 456

by Ichijo (#46773429) Attached to: Survey: 56 Percent of US Developers Expect To Become Millionaires


It's closer to 7%, so you'll be a millionaire in 22 years. You can bring this down to 19 years by contributing the maximum into your 401(k) ($17,500/year), your IRA ($5,500/year), and an HSA ($3,300/year for individuals).

Comment: Re:BS (Score 1) 356

by Ichijo (#46764309) Attached to: San Francisco's Housing Crisis Explained

All property owners pay based on their date of purchase, which is entirely fair.

I pay five times what my neighbor pays in property tax for the same model simply because my neighbor bought in 1977 and I bought in 2010. Prop 13 is good for older people who have been here a while but not so good for people trying to buy their first home.

I can understand the desire to prevent the government from raising property taxes too quickly, but there's really no good reason to set the annual assessment increase limit below the normal rate of inflation.

Comment: Re:Simple problem, simple solution (Score 1) 356

by Ichijo (#46764081) Attached to: San Francisco's Housing Crisis Explained

What would a truly level playing field for transportation look like to you? Would developers be forced, as they usually are today, to build more than the fiscally optimal amount of parking? ("Fiscally optimal" meaning the amount where the marginal cost of building another parking space (MC) equals the marginal revenue from building it (MR).)

Comment: Re:Simple problem, simple solution (Score 4, Informative) 356

by Ichijo (#46762835) Attached to: San Francisco's Housing Crisis Explained

The only way to fix the Bay Area housing crisis is to build more fucking housing.

This map (which shows the allowed building heights in San Francisco, where yellow is 4 stories. And Mountain View has forbidden Google from building more housing.

So as you can see, developers won't build more housing because they aren't being allowed to.
