Slashdot Mirror


'Our Streets Are Made For People': San Francisco Mulls Ban On Delivery Robots (theguardian.com)

Norman Yee, an American elected official in San Francisco, has recently proposed legislation that would prohibit autonomous delivery robots -- which includes those with a remote human operator -- on public streets in the city. In a statement provided to Recode, Yee said, "our streets and our sidewalks are made for people, not robots." He also worries that many delivery jobs would disappear. The proposed legislation is causing a headache for one high-tech startup in particular. The tech company is called Marble, which uses bots fitted with camera and ultrasonic sensors to deliver small packages and food within a one or two mile radius. The delivery robots themselves travel at a walking pace and use cameras and sensors to avoid pedestrians and navigate pavements. The Guardian reports: San Francisco police commander Robert O'Sullivan is in favor of the legislation, fearing the robots could harm children, the elderly, and those with limited mobility. "If hit by a car, they also have the potential of becoming a deadly projectile," he told a local TV station. Marble CEO Matt Delaney says these fears are unfounded. "We care that our robots are good citizens of the sidewalk," he says. "We've taken a lot of care from the ground up to consider their need to sense and intuit how people are going to react."

139 of 219 comments (clear)

  1. buggy whips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We must stop the impending automobile revolution. It worry that many buggy whip manufacturing jobs may disappear. In addition, they startle the horses.

    1. Re:buggy whips by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      If cheap global labor were available at the time that automobiles were invented, you actually think they would have used domestic labor as they did?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re: buggy whips by fermion · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Our roads are made for people, not horses. We can deal with skateboards and unicycles and bicycles, but not your new fangled horse carriages.

      What is truly stupid here is that a self driving car is just a drone with a person in it. Why are they allowing Uber to test self driving cars, but have a problem with drones? Aren't they hey both going to clog the streets?

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    3. Re: buggy whips by PCM2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Our roads are made for people, not horses. We can deal with skateboards and unicycles and bicycles, but not your new fangled horse carriages.

      Actually, in San Francisco our roads are made for cars, trucks, and buses ... AND bicycles, skateboards, unicycles, etc, none of which are allowed on sidewalks where the people are.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    4. Re:buggy whips by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      Ask the Asian and African guys who built the railroads 50 years earlier.

    5. Re:buggy whips by lgw · · Score: 1

      Ford paid something like double the going wage - he wanted his pick of workers.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:buggy whips by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      Not really. Any idiot could do those jobs after being trained. He just found that workers that could afford to eat three meals a day were able to stick around longer, cutting down on the costs of training 5 people to keep 1 around for more than a few months.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    7. Re: buggy whips by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's that way in most of California. I always have to tell people on bicycles to get off of the sidewalk.

      This is what I like best about being a giant mutant. Even on a bicycle, nobody wants to run into me. Come get me fucker, I'll jump down your throat. I'm serious about my share of the sidewalk, and I'll only share it with the disabled.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:buggy whips by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Not an accurate comparison. It was expensive to get those people over, and dangerous. Nothing compared to the quick and easy methods companies have today.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    9. Re:buggy whips by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      By paying a living wage Ford ensured his employees could afford to buy the vehicles they were manufacturing / building / producing.

      Yes, but that's not why he did it. He did it so that he could have his pick of workers. Sure, a monkey could do those jobs, but you need a monkey with a work ethic who wants to do those jobs right. And in order to attract that guy to your business instead of some other business (which would also like to hire him) it's worth it to spend a few more dollars so that you don't have to do things twice... especially when you're building something that can kill people if you get it wrong.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re: buggy whips by MorePower · · Score: 1

      Which makes no goddamn sense. Bicycles are vehicles that typically go about 6 miles per hour (maybe 10 if the rider is in a hurry and willing to "run" on the peddles). They don't belong on the roads where vehicles typically do at least 45 miles per hour.

    11. Re: buggy whips by fermion · · Score: 1

      So you saying one person allowed uber self driving cars on the street, no one else supported it. Wow, SF is a small town run by a dictator, huh.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    12. Re:buggy whips by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      It was not about high quality workers. It was about reducing his ridiculous turnover rates.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    13. Re: buggy whips by MrL0G1C · · Score: 2

      Which is kind of wrong, In UK the average number of people killed by cyclists anywhere including on the roads is between 0 and 1 out of a population of 65 million.

      Meanwhile motor vehicles kill several people per year on the 'sidewalks' (dozens?).

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    14. Re:buggy whips by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It was not about high quality workers. It was about reducing his ridiculous turnover rates.

      Which in turn were the result of hiring people who had skills enough to go somewhere else. If you hire someone with skills and then pay them like they're some kind of asshole they will jump ship for the first person who will pay them a decent wage.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re: buggy whips by ChoosyBeggar · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Bikes typically go faster than 10mph. I typically go ~20mph. And cars aren't usually going 45mph in city areas where cyclists ride. They're usually going ~25-35. Just be cautious with cyclists. They're people too. Sure, some dumb cyclists piss us off, but let's be honest: there's way more dumb motorists out there.

    16. Re:buggy whips by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with skill at all. He was paying what was standard, and then basically doubled that pay. Why is the concept that paying the same workers more can produce better results so difficult for you to grasp?

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  2. I'm surprised by RhettLivingston · · Score: 2

    I would have never picked San Francisco as one of the starting points for laws specifically discriminating against robots. I'd have expected something like their being the leaders in placing the "R" on LGBTQ.

    1. Re:I'm surprised by __aanljs7351 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I was born and have lived in Silicone Valley all my life. I was born quite large and have been trying to lose weight all my life. It's not as much about diet as survival at this point now that I am 47. I don't make enough for fresh or healthy food here - that stuff can get expensive, so I end up eating stuff that's cheap and gets me the 1500 calories per day that I am allowed for the least money. If anything can get food prices down, I am all for it - I am just trying to live at this point. So, in the style of slashdot - I welcome our new Robotic overlords that can get me groceries for less.

    2. Re:I'm surprised by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Then move out of there! I live in Mississippi and fresh/healthy food is dirt cheap here at farmer's markets.

      Food is not expensive in SV. It is about the same as everywhere else. The only thing that is considerably more expensive than elsewhere is housing.

    3. Re:I'm surprised by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Not since the condom legislation. Now all the porno companies have moved out into other counties where such regulations do not exist.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:I'm surprised by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      It's not as much about diet as survival at this point now that I am 47. I don't make enough for fresh or healthy food here - that stuff can get expensive,

      There are plenty of cheap and nutritious foods: lentils, beans, peas, carrots, beans, peanuts, potatoes, rice, noodles, chicken, etc.

      There are plenty of online recipes: https://www.google.com/search?...

      I was born and have lived in Silicone Valley all my life.

      Well, maybe you should consider moving out of "Silicone Valley" to some a place that matches your capacity for earning a living.

    5. Re:I'm surprised by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      If you want to perform unnatural acts with a robot, I am sure SF will be at the vanguard. Using them for a productive purpose, on the other hand, really doesn't fit their model.

    6. Re:I'm surprised by lucm · · Score: 1

      I don't know how old you are, but if your life has gotten to the point where you're bothered by the appearance of barely legal pornstars that are still too young to drink a beer but are old enough to get fucked on camera, maybe you need to take a long walk on the beach and reflect on things.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    7. Re:I'm surprised by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Food is not expensive in SV. It is about the same as everywhere else.

      Not the same as San Francisco, then, where food is hella expensive.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    8. Re:I'm surprised by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Milk is about $1.90 a gallon here in the flyover region.

      How do prices for a gallon of milk in S.V. compare?

    9. Re:I'm surprised by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I was born and have lived in Silicone Valley all my life.

      Okay, but we're talking about San Francisco right now, not Los Angeles.

      Who can turn a wafer into a glue? It's silent E!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:I'm surprised by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Not the same as San Francisco, then, where food is hella expensive.

      Staples cost the same in SF as they do anywhere else, especially if you order them from out of town. If you never cook, then you might get the idea that food is expensive, because SF restaurants are more expensive than restaurants most other places in California, due to overhead. Produce costs a little more, but there are actual logistic issues involved in bringing stuff into SF. You can always drive across a bridge to do your shopping. Or if you have room for a larder and a chest freezer then go shop at Cash and Carry at 170 S Van Ness. Just about every house in SF has a garage with room for same; apartment dwellers are the ones getting screwed here, but hey, go live someplace else, SF is special and there's only so much to go around. Also, cramming it with so many people has ruined what was good about it, like say the Trocadero Transfer Club at 4th and Bryant. Why in shit do people want to life in SF any more anyway?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:I'm surprised by __aanljs7351 · · Score: 1

      I'm on Atkins, but I'm not hitting the carbs low enough for the liver to start doing it's fat burning thing. I eat a granola bar or power bar in the morning simply because I don't have time to eat something else before work starts. I count it to be about 1500 calories, but I literally sit most of the day in a chair. I do hit the gym once in a while, but I'm 47 now. I have pretty hardcore inflamation going on everywhere, and anything that really burns calories involving legs is out. I do back-type stuff, but that's not an aerobic activity, and I can't do a lot of weight or sets. I'll put it this way - when you've been overweight till you're 42 and decide to go on a diet, the damage has been done and it's harder to lose weight. Cut the calories, have no energy to lug around 350lb, sit in a chair all day.

    12. Re:I'm surprised by __aanljs7351 · · Score: 2

      On a diet. Chicken is extremely expensive. I only make 50k a year patching laptops, and have to life in a 400ft studio as it is. Retirement - forget it, ever. But it's very important for me to stay where I grew up, despite the mom who hated me all her life before she died, and the alcoholic dad. beans/nuts/potatoes/noodles/etc - everything but carrots on that list is a high calorie food. What I need to do is eat shiratake noodles from Japan, Chicken breast, turkey breast, etc. This is not cheap, and if I could spend literally half my salary on food, I believe I would in fact get skinny. A diet that's pretty much all protein and dietary fiber would do it, but that is not cheap and I have to choose between rent and food if I do that.

    13. Re:I'm surprised by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      if I could spend literally half my salary on food, I believe I would in fact get skinny. A diet that's pretty much all protein and dietary fiber would do it,

      Not only is the diet you want needlessly expensive, you wouldn't be losing weight on it, and you'd probably be hurting yourself.

      You do not need to spend a lot of money to lose weight. Pick one of the cheap bulk vegetables (cabbage, cauliflower, carrots, lentils, peas, broccoli, etc.), then add some of the other cheap foods for nutrients and variety.

      Oh, and how many miles do you walk/run/bike a day? How often do you go to the gym per week?

      But it's very important for me to stay where I grew up

      Hundreds of millions of people have to pick up and leave their countries (I did). You have it easy: you have the entire US to move to.

      You're 47, obese, and poor. Obviously, whatever you're doing isn't working. Instead of feeling sorry for yourself, do something about it and make changes.

    14. Re:I'm surprised by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      But it's very important for me to stay where I grew up

      Seems like a self-imposed problem. Move 50 miles to the central valley and you can live like a [relative] king on $50K, eat whatever you want, and have plenty of money left to visit Silicon Valley every weekend.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    15. Re:I'm surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You have noticed that this is a new troll account? It's not creimer, it's "creinner".

    16. Re:I'm surprised by Flentil · · Score: 1

      I live in Pennsylvania, dairy country, and milk is about $3.60 a gallon, roughly double what you said. Did you really mean to say a half gallon?

    17. Re:I'm surprised by zephvark · · Score: 1

      It's much easier to lose weight when you have a lot of it. Forget "anything that really burns calories", exercise isn't going to help much unless you want to spend four hours a day biking. Forget Atkins. Do count the calories. Have a carrot, some broccoli, lentils, onions... cheap! You can cook up some eggs in about five minutes, or just boil a bunch in advance. I'm 53 and have lost 70 lbs, putting me the category of "slightly overweight".

    18. Re:I'm surprised by Nethead · · Score: 1

      https://potatohack.com/

      Really. But chicken is cheap, I saw breasts going for $1.74/lb the other day.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    19. Re:I'm surprised by __aanljs7351 · · Score: 1

      That's ridiculous. Have you looked at the calories on a bag of "real oatmeal" - it's not the sugar or the milk. It's the oatmeal. Eating oatmeal is like eating bread and pasta - complex carbs that are meant to store a lot of energy. Learn something before talking about it.

    20. Re:I'm surprised by __aanljs7351 · · Score: 1

      "The Potato Hack was modeled after an 1849 diet plan " I stoppet reading right there. Potatoes are a calorie-dense food and anyone who suggests eating potatoes to diet... Well actually anyone who suggests a diet plan from 1849, before we had "science" - I'm going to assume just like your chicken breas price that it's a joke. Chicken breast in all actual places an IT professional would live is about $6-7/lb.

    21. Re:I'm surprised by __aanljs7351 · · Score: 1

      You should look up calories in 100g of lentils adn calories in 100g of carrots. Hint - one of those is Terrible for losing weight. Eggs are about as bad as you can get for losing weight - look up the amount of fat (especially saturated) in 2 eggs - 2 eggs and you're over your Daily limit. Egg Beaters are all protein egg whites and taste almost as good as full eggs - perfect for losing weight. Guess what - that costs 10x the price of eggs. A man cannot survive on carrots and onions, and what you said - well it's just wrong.

    22. Re:I'm surprised by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      I thought you were about to say you started cycling to lose weight, that works pretty good.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    23. Re:I'm surprised by __aanljs7351 · · Score: 1

      this is 350lb of me: http://www.hostingpics.net/vie...
      when i take off my shirt, i have a red ring on my neck from the neckhole. now picture that on a bycycle with a backpack of groceries.

    24. Re:I'm surprised by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      The more you weigh, the more weight you lose when you cycle, you wouldn't be the 1st overweight person to lose weight cycling.

      Luckily for me I was only BMI 25 when I decided to stop putting on weight and brought my BMI back down to 20 with combination cycling + diet (of over 2000 calories because of how much I was cycling). 1 year is how long you need to adopt a lifestyle for, for it to become easy/2nd nature from what I've heard.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    25. Re:I'm surprised by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      No. Milk at WalMart here is about $1.90 a gallon.

  3. Put delivery robots on equal footing with pets by fibonacci8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If they're as hazardous as pets, give them the same requirements. For example a leash, a license, and being accompanied by a human all have precedent. Put it to a vote and solve the issue rather than lamenting potential lost jobs.

    --
    Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    1. Re:Put delivery robots on equal footing with pets by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If they're as hazardous as pets, give them the same requirements.

      That's probably difficult to measure. On one hand, they won't bite anyone. On the other hand, pets don't burst into flame when run over by a truck.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Put delivery robots on equal footing with pets by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      At least these robots won't poop on the sidewalks. Unlike the human residents of San Francisco.

  4. No by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know who San Francisco streets are designed for, but it's certainly not people. For one thing, street signs are often hidden or non-existent. For another thing, in places where a "walk/don't walk" sign would make perfect sense, they are often absent.....even in areas with high pedestrian accidents. The street is partly optimized for driving, partly optimized for walking, partly optimized for biking, and partly optimized to being as annoying as possible to outsiders.

    The streets of San Francisco are not well designed by any perspective.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:No by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know who San Francisco streets are designed for, but it's certainly not people. For one thing, street signs are often hidden or non-existent. For another thing, in places where a "walk/don't walk" sign would make perfect sense, they are often absent.....even in areas with high pedestrian accidents. The street is partly optimized for driving, partly optimized for walking, partly optimized for biking, and partly optimized to being as annoying as possible to outsiders.

      Man, if you think San Francisco is bad for pedestrians, you don't ever want to visit Houston. Gigantic city, and it's like they exist in a time after the emergence of giant office towers and highrises, but before the invention of sidewalks. Twelve lane superhighways all over the city, with insufficient signage, so drivers always have to cut across five lanes of traffic to make their turn-off. Lines on the highway that you can't see during the day or if it rains. Few trees, so a brutal sun, glaring like an angry god, cooks flora and fauna except for three months out of the year. No state income tax, so the infrastructure is either brand new or falling to pieces. No in-between. Everything made on the cheap, because people just come here to make some money (or used to, before oil went to $50/barrel) and nobody puts roots down here willingly.

      And the best part? Absolutely no zoning laws, so you'll have a lovely quiet little residential neighborhood with ugly faux-brutalist high-rises on the corner and a strip mall smack in the middle of the block.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:No by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Look on the corner of Gough and Grove, a perfect place for a "walk/don't walk" light, no reason to not put it.
      Look at Market street. It's basically an accident waiting to happen for everyone.
      Look at McAllister street. It's a popular biking spot, but it's an accident waiting to happen. It's definitely not the worst biking spot in the city, but it's one I can think of off the top of my head. I've nearly killed a few bikers there myself. I would have if my aim were better.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:No by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know who San Francisco streets are designed for, but it's certainly not people.

      They were clearly designed for one thing only: Enabling Steve McQueen to take his Mustang GT airborne at each and every intersection.

    4. Re:No by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I think all roads in Texas were designed by who gave politicians money. Not the most money, just money. We built a 12 lane super highway 4 years ago! New elections, new donors, new highways!! How about one right next to the one we just built!

      Here in Houston, they do that and then just call the four year-old superhighway a "frontage road" and that's that. Then, they'll do some curb-cutting so you can put a Dollar Store, a Taco Cabana, a dental center and a gun/vape shop off the side of the road, and you've got people entering and exiting and trying to merge into 60 mph traffic every 100 feet or so.

      Add to that the fact that Houstonians, who are some of the nicest people I've ever met, all turn into aggressive monsters as soon as they get behind the wheel of their Silverado Texas Edition or Ford F-450 with the bed liner that doesn't have mark on it.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:No by Khyber · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you're too lazy to look up San Fran streets on Google Earth you simply don't need to even be on the internet.

      The entirety of mankind's knowledge is at your fingertips - if you can't find a fucking citation on your own you don't belong on the internet and should reattach yourself to mommy's teat.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:No by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You forgot the never-ending Houston smog that makes the SoCal atmosphere look pristine.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:No by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You forgot the never-ending Houston smog that makes the SoCal atmosphere look pristine.

      Honestly, I tried very hard to love Houston when we moved here (my wife got an appointment to Rice University, and I was contractually obligated to come along). The food is great and cheap. There's no snow. I live walking distance from Miiller Outdoor Theater so I can see everything from opera to zydeco for free. Top medical center. No state taxes (but they make up for it with high fees for everything) and we never had to turn on the heat all winter.

      Maybe I'm just in a crabby mood because I drove half an hour to the DMV (actually the DPS to renew a license) in Pasadena, TX this morning and was one of the first ones there only to find that the online appointment that I made disappeared into the ether. After three hours, they told me that the employees were going to lunch in shifts, so things would slow down. After five hours they told me the computer system was down statewide. I called Department of Public Safety headquarters and they said they didn't know anything about a statewide computer system outage. After seven hours they told me the office was closing for the day. I drove home on 45N in a total rage.

      I'll hit the taco truck tomorrow and feel better.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:No by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      I've been told that if you try to ride a bicycle on the streets of Houston, passing drivers will throw things at you.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    9. Re:No by Gryle · · Score: 1

      There are lot of things to like about Texas, but DPS is not one of them.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    10. Re:No by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Look, I get it and I agree that Houston has its own unique problems.

      But...

      Population is growing much faster than the national population (15% for houston greater metro vs 3% for the country and vs 10% for california during the same period).

      Houston area population averages a 29 minute commute each way while New York, D.C., and San Francisco average 50 minutes each way. That gives the average houstonion 40 minutes more time 5 days a week to enjoy life.

      Real Estate is less expensive. A *good* house can still be had for under $200,000 (and 5 miles further out for $140,000). Median household price in San Francisco is over a million. It's $300,000 in Houston.

      Houston has a lot more trees than areas like San Diego. The city is verdant but I agree that warming temperatures are killing it slowly over time.

      I have no problem with faux brutalist high rises. My neighborhood (like so many others) has strong deed restrictions. I've visited zoned cities and they feel uncomfortable to me. Nothing seems convenient. I have multiple libraries, banks, grocery stores, even walmarts within 5 miles of my house. We tend to have heavy business development along the freeways and select major roads like Westheimer but miles and miles of subdivisions starting less than a mile off the freeways.

      Houston is hot for 100 days a year. But.. it's not below freezing for over 100 days a year. No black ice. No shoveling snow. And houston is really nice from Oct 1 to May 20th each year (78-82 days and 60's nights common). September is a bit random. And June isn't so bad. And oddly, tho it is hotter on average than it used to be, we've had less days over 100 than we used to for several years (could be random).

      The biggest problem I do see is a weak sense of community. Maybe because it's so spread out. Traveling to the city zoo can be a 50 mile trip. Board gaming groups have a hard time keeping critical mass.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    11. Re:No by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1
    12. Re: No by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      SF is certainly made for movies. And tourists.

      If you think about it, tourism is the major obstacle in many large old cities around the world to creating better urban communities.

      All these futuristic city projects you see, they won't happen until we learn to deal with tourists.

      All these picturesque slums from the past that we call tourist attractions must give space to cities of the future.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    13. Re:No by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Twelve lane superhighways all over the city, with insufficient signage, so drivers always have to cut across five lanes of traffic to make their turn-off.

      My phone came with an app that will tell me which lane I want to be in. All I have to do is tell it where I'm going. And it's free!

      Anyway, Texas is not really suitable for human residence. You should know this by now. It is actually meant to be peopled exclusively by four-door, long-bed, diesel, dually pickups, but they still need humans to move them around.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re: No by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      SF is certainly made for movies. And tourists.

      That's the thing, though. It isn't made for tourists. Sidewalks are broken and heaved, the public transportation system smells like urine, there's no fucking place to park whatsoever... It has tourists in spite of itself, not because of how it was made.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:No by udachny · · Score: 2

      This was the best advertising for moving to Houston that I have ever read. No zoning by laws so everything is more convenient, no state income tax. Thank you, I will go to visit this August.

    16. Re:No by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Houston area population averages a 29 minute commute each way while New York, D.C., and San Francisco average 50 minutes each way. That gives the average houstonion 40 minutes more time 5 days a week to enjoy life.

      I agree with most of what you say, but I'd have to see a citation for this one. It's impossible to go from anywhere to anywhere else in Houston in 29 minutes. Except my wife. She can commute to Rice in about 10 minutes because all she has to do is ride her bike through Hermann Park.

      As I've written elsewhere in this thread, there is a lot to like about Houston. The main thing I'm having trouble with is just how ugly it is. I haven't been out West to the Brazos, but so far, I've seen nothing scenic anywhere in Texas. I mean, in Chicago even if you don't live near the beautiful lakefront or in a tree-lined neighborhood, you can drive an hour and you're seeing rolling hills, lakes, etc. Here in Houston, if I drive an hour in any direction, I'm going to see refineries, industrial parks, shopping malls or sad scrub surrounded by giant highways.

      And then the smog...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:No by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Thank you, I will go to visit this August.

      Yes, by all means visit Houston in August. Everyone in Houston is laughing at the thought of you visiting in August. Bring a sweater.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    18. Re:No by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      My phone came with an app that will tell me which lane I want to be in. All I have to do is tell it where I'm going. And it's free!

      Those apps are near useless in Houston. Trust me, I use them all the time and except for the broad strokes, they will not help you navigate the in-city highways and tollways in Houston.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    19. Re:No by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Trust me, I use them all the time and except for the broad strokes, they will not help you navigate the in-city highways and tollways in Houston.

      To me, Houston is just a ring-shaped freeway. I'm dimly aware that there's some kind of chaos in the center, but I don't go in there. Not that I've been in Texas in twenty years, but I don't see any reason to change my policy now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:No by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Austin has some scenic parts. The Arboretum is kind of nice, the riverwalk area, there's some parks... But you're in the wrong part of Texas for nice.

      I briefly visited all the major cities and a few of the lesser ones in Texas, and Austin is the only place I'd even consider living again, for less than literally a whole truckload of money.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:No by hey! · · Score: 1

      I don't know who San Francisco streets are designed for,

      That's easy: they were designed for a mix of pedestrian traffic and horse-drawn wagons. That's why cities like Boston or San Francisco are laid out differently than, say, Las Vegas, which pretty much came into being after the advent of cars. If you look at Las Vegas its street grid has a superficial resemblance to San Francisco's but there's a subtle but important difference: at any random point in that network you're closer on average to a major traffic artery with capacity to handle high speed, high volume traffic than you would be in San Francisco.

      You can't expect a street network optimized for traffic moving at 10 mph to work for traffic that wants to travel 30-40 mph, especially factoring in that those cars and trucks are driven by human beings frustrated with the inadequacy of the streets to their needs.

      This suggests that actually what San Francisco should be banning isn't delivery robots, but automobiles. Automated vehicles including personal transportation could be software limited to a speed that's compatible with pedestrian traffic. Imagine a San Francisco where the streets are occupied by a mix of delivery vans and small golf cart like personal transports -- all speed limited depending on capacity of the street, and all autonomously driven. Their navigation computers are linked to a traffic monitoring system that also reports expected delays, maintenance, time-consuming deliveries etc. You might travel at a lower top speed, and your route may be circuitous, but you'd get where you wanted to go faster. Now because such a system is complex and nothing is perfect there would be drawbacks, but compare that to trying to squeeze even more cars and trucks onto streets that barely work as it is.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    22. Re:No by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's easy: they were designed for a mix of pedestrian traffic and horse-drawn wagons. That's why cities like Boston or San Francisco are laid out differently than, say, Las Vegas, which pretty much came into being after the advent of cars. If you look at Las Vegas its street grid has a superficial resemblance to San Francisco's but there's a subtle but important difference: at any random point in that network you're closer on average to a major traffic artery with capacity to handle high speed, high volume traffic than you would be in San Francisco. You can't expect a street network optimized for traffic moving at 10 mph

      No, you didn't read my post. That explains some of the layout, but it sure doesn't explain the lousy street signage. Seriously, even Modesto does a much better job posting street signs that are easily visible, and crosswalk signs that are non-existent.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    23. Re:No by corydoras · · Score: 1

      I lived in Fort Worth, TX for a while. I've been to cities in the the Northeast US, California, Canada. It was something of a shock how different it was.

      Everything is just so huge and sprawling for miles and miles... basically homogenous throughout the entire Dallas / Fort Worth area. I seem to recall a large number of very tiny trees, so maybe they're working on that. It is in fact brutal to walk anywhere with the sun and things being so widely spaced though.

      Instead of lines there were these dirty dots that you couldn't see in the day because they were washed out in the sun. Or at night because they weren't especially reflective. The roads themselves are also falling apart everywhere you go.

    24. Re:No by hey! · · Score: 1

      I did read your post. But street signage won't fix the fundamental problem that pedestrians and cars don't mix. Yes, you can make it worse with bad signage, but that won't fix the fundamental problem of an old city trying to mix heavy auto and pedestrian traffic, which is only going to get worse. You can make things better for cars, or better for pedestrians, but not both.

      The only city I've ever been where it comes close to working is Manhattan, but that's because, purely for aesthetic reasons, they laid out the grid similarly to Las Vegas with a high density of high capacity arteries running north south. Adding double or quadruple-wide sidewalks helps.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    25. Re:No by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You can make things better for cars, or better for pedestrians, but not both.

      No, making better signs would be better for everyone.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    26. Re:No by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      To me, Houston is just a ring-shaped freeway. I'm dimly aware that there's some kind of chaos in the center,

      Unfortunately, I live approximately in the middle of that chaos.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    27. Re:No by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      But you're in the wrong part of Texas for nice.

      That sounds like the chorus of a country song.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    28. Re:No by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Study...
      http://interactives.ap.org/201...

      (numbers for specific metros pulled out here)
      http://www.chron.com/news/nati...

      And this was also interesting...
      http://www.thedailybeast.com/5...

      You overstate your point about refineries.

      Refineries are confined to a highly specific area (mostly the ship channel area).

      If you drive an hour north or east, you are in hot muggy forested areas.
      If you drive an hour west, you are in dry but wooded farm and ranch land
      If you drive an hour northwest, you are in hill country with lots of 30' trees and tons of wildflowers in the spring.
      If you drive an hour southwest, you are at the beach. (it's not nearly as pretty as other beaches due to silt from the mississippi and the waves are tepid but it's a beach and even uncrowded (almost desolate) only 15 miles further out.

      Let me try to state your point better.

      The area around houston is flat for 100 miles in all directions. Other than day tripping for antiques there's not a lot of tourist activity. While there are several state parts that are very nice in the spring and fall, they are pretty hot and miserable during the summer. The gulf is silty and not pretty blue and transparent to the bottom (about 1' transparent on average and 2' on a good day) and has small waves. But it has good fishing.

      The areas along almost all the major freeways are unpleasant and fairly ugly with business sprawl and too many billboards.

      The city center and is vibrant, well serviced by public transportation, has a vibrant night life, and expensive. Areas just east of the city center are undeveloped and old 1930's shacks.

      The lack of zoning allows the city to constantly renew itself. There are no empty, unusable buildings "trapped" by zoning. There are no fat cat developers getting zoning exceptions to put up ugly buildings in residential areas (that has to piss people in zoned cities off to coronary levels).

      Houston is unbounded geographically and it has a problem with urban sprawl but that is reflected in lower housing prices. Houston has a problem with flooding. But it has no tornadoes of note and no earthquakes. Roughly every 2 decades it gets wallopped by a hurricane which messes it up for a week( or two for a bad one (longer for a direct hit by a bad one which is about every 50 years)). Smart people get out of the way of hurricanes.

      If there is ONE point I would like to make is that people who bring outdoor concerts to houston in the summer are idiots. They could come here in april/may/early october and it would be very pleasant. Even June wouldn't be ridiculous. But July and August- it's an oven. It's still hot at 11pm at night and the high humidity means swamp coolers/misting water won't work well.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    29. Re:No by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If you drive an hour northwest, you are in hill country with lots of 30' trees and tons of wildflowers in the spring.

      Now you've peaked my interest. We've driven up to San Antonio and Austin and it was pretty nice. I'd love to camp in some hill country, but we'll probably have to wait until October because of the weather. Can you make a recommendation for a weekend trip?

      I kind of like the way East Texas looks. It reminds me of Hap & Leonard country. We've taken a few trips into Louisiana. Love Louisiana. When we moved here, we drove in from the North. It was August and it was not a pleasant trip, except we hit some terrific radio stations. Not just the New Country hits, you know, but the great classic stuff. George and Tammy, Lefty Frizzel, like that, you know?

      And I'll reiterate: Texas has some of the nicest people I've ever met. As long as they're not behind the wheel, they are wonderful folks. That goes a long way to making me happy with a place. We were in Connecticut last year, and I wouldn't give you a nickel for those awful people. Judgmental, cranky, insular. Didn't make a single friend. Here in Houston, when people find out you're from somewhere else, the next thing you know they're putting a cold beer in your hand and treating you like an old friend.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    30. Re:No by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      The personality of drivers also varies by freeway.

      45 north has very aggressive, almost hostile drivers.
      I10 west is fairly pleasant.

      290 despite being a mess under construction has fairly nice people except outbound on the weekends.

      I've only driven 45 to galveston 4 times lately but it is wider and the drivers seem friendly.

      I don't know about 288, 59 south to sugarland, and i10 east.

      People will wave and let you in on the friendly freeways and race ahead to cut you off on the ugly freeways.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    31. Re:No by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      http://www.wideopencountry.com...

      I've heard good things about colorado bend.

      big bend is too far away for my taste unless you are going to stay a long time. and there are way too many suicidal rabbits and *deer* on the highway at night.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    32. Re:No by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I've gotten three (maybe four) really good ideas from that link. Thanks a lot, friend. Colorado Bend, Big Thicket and Padre Island look right up our alley. Even Inks Lake looks like a possibility.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    33. Re:No by jeffreyjakucyk · · Score: 1

      This whole "no zoning in Houston" misunderstanding needs to end. Houston has ALL the same zoning laws as everywhere else, with the ONE exception of land-use. So while there's not technically any restriction on putting a store next to a house or an office next to an apartment, the fact that the city will enforce private deed restrictions and covenants means there's de facto land-use zoning in the sense of a government-enforced HOA. Sounds like the worst of both worlds to me.

      Aside from that, the other aspects of zoning I mentioned, such as lot coverage maximums, floor-area ratios, setbacks, height limits, and parking minimums are all just as present in Houston as everywhere else, not to mention a DOT that thinks no road is a bad road and everything must be navigable by an 80' firetruck at 60mph. So it's not that the rest of the country has 100% zoning restrictions and Houston has 0%. Houston has maybe 85%, which is certainly less, but that's also why it doesn't really look all that much different than the rest of American suburbia.

    34. Re:No by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, Houston.
      Capitalism in its purest form.

  5. Correct by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

    After many, many visits to SF, both walking and biking scores of miles all around the city - I would say the city was actually designed as a kind of massive DARPA challenge to see if someone can design a warbot robust enough to survive the most extreme conditions.

    I would say if a robot could last a week wandering around various parts of SF, I would have no problem sending it into Syria or Afghanistan.

    P.S. - Robot makers, if you value your product at all please for the love of God make it poop proof. You'll see.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Correct by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      The poop thing is no joke, I only occasionally go to SF, intentionally avoiding it for all the obvious reasons, but people (bums) crapping on the street is no small problem. That's what happens when you welcome bums and claim that being out of work and homeless makes you some sort of SJW hero.

  6. Re:Good! by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    But pizza delivery robots will save lives!

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  7. Let's remove the washing machines too by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    We can Make America Great Again by restoring all the labor-intensive, low-productivity, non-thinking jobs.

    1. Re:Let's remove the washing machines too by Daemonik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, we sure can't make America Great by moving all the wealth into the hands of an elite few and then using high level AI robots to replace all the non-specialized workers either.

  8. Displacing jobs? by PCM2 · · Score: 1

    I hate to say it -- because I'm against the idea of robots barreling around our sidewalks -- but has the city government stopped to ask itself just what problem this startup is trying to solve?

    It seems like food delivery is already a well-solved problem ... unless, that is, your city becomes so expensive that no one can afford to live there on the kind of pay you get from a delivery job. Then maybe the robots become necessary.

    If you think about it, nobody is going to commute two hours into San Francisco just to drive around delivering food. Wherever they live, I'm sure people eat there, too.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:Displacing jobs? by jaa101 · · Score: 1

      I hate to say it -- because I'm against the idea of robots barreling around our sidewalks -- but has the city government stopped to ask itself just what problem this startup is trying to solve?

      Do you want a world where every business idea has to be approved by the government? If the robots present some kind of danger or hazard to people then, sure, regulate to ensure safety. If the startup can make a profit in a safe way then the government should get out of the way. Banning new technology to protect jobs is the way of the Luddite.

      It seems like food delivery is already a well-solved problem

      And in the old days weaving to make fabric for clothes was well solved too. I'm not sure being a food delivery person is much more challenging or fun than operating a hand loom and it's probably not as safe. In fact I suspect there's scope for well designed robots on the footpath being all-around safer than the delivery methods they're replacing.

    2. Re:Displacing jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here in the Netherlands, food gets delivered by ~200lb 50cc 30mph mopeds.
      In my city the government subsidized electric mopeds, which improves air and noise pollution.
      Lately I'm also seeing bicycles being used for food delivery.
      But then again, this is bicycle country, and the US is car country (partly due to the distances, but also infrastructure), so I guess it's not practical.

    3. Re:Displacing jobs? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      If you think about it, nobody is going to commute two hours into San Francisco just to drive around delivering food.

      Of course they will. Heck, I would move two hours away, drive in and deliver food if it paid $50,000 an hour. It's just that some people in SF want to avoid paying that kind of money (the others would be on the receiving end of it, and therefore don't want robots).

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:Displacing jobs? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      If the startup can make a profit in a safe way then the government should get out of the way.

      True. Now, who defines the criteria for "safe"?

    5. Re:Displacing jobs? by jaa101 · · Score: 1

      Now, who defines the criteria for "safe"?

      The government does, sometimes via agencies they establish for the purpose. Having published criteria would be great. That way it would be harder to ban robots on safety grounds as a smoke-screen for protecting jobs. If they want to ban them as a protectionist measure then fine, as long as everyone's clear on the reason.

  9. People? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Last time I was in SFO, I thought it was made for homeless people and human shits.

  10. Ruthless killers by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Funny

    San Francisco police commander Robert O'Sullivan is in favor of the legislation, fearing the robots could harm children, the elderly, and those with limited mobility.

    That's obvious. Robots, being machines, have no empathy. Like any successful predator, they are going to first target those vulnerable individuals who get separated from the main herd, regardless of the reason.

  11. Re:Racists by lgw · · Score: 2

    Worried about robots harming the children and elderly? Stop worrying! Just buy Old Glory robot insurance, and you're covered.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  12. Re:Wrong Target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So you want to murder the homeless, eh?

  13. Re:More job-killing regulations by mellon · · Score: 1

    Politics in San Francisco is radioactive. Blaming it on a party is cute.

    Really, if they want to say that "our streets are made for people," they should ban cars and allow robots.

  14. Re: More job-killing regulations by Shompol · · Score: 2

    Isn't that the goal of every business?

  15. Banning is the wrong thing for the elderly by BigSlowTarget · · Score: 1

    Delivery robots would help the elderly and handicapped far more than they would hurt. Delivery services make life much easier when you have trouble leaving your home. I'm sure you can imagine how much easier using Amazon is than trying to travel to a couple of different stores when moving is tough. The same is true for food delivery and restaurants, pharmacies and medicines.

    This reasoning seems to be simply a justification, not a well thought out and realistic concern.

    1. Re:Banning is the wrong thing for the elderly by PCM2 · · Score: 2

      Delivery services make life much easier when you have trouble leaving your home.

      The thing is, it's not like anybody had any trouble getting food delivered before they invented robots. San Francisco is filled with delivery services ... for prepared meals, for groceries, for whatever you want. And when you add the fact that these robots each have a human to guide them around, it's hard to see what value they add.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    2. Re:Banning is the wrong thing for the elderly by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      The thing is, it's not like anybody had any trouble getting food delivered before they invented robots.

      That argument applies to cars just as easily: Nobody had trouble getting from place to place before automobiles were invented. They walked, biked, rode in horse carriages or trains. People got to where they needed to be.

      Cars also don't add value and should've been banned from the beginning. I mean, they're way more dangerous than these robots!

      The reality is, until something has been tried, you don't really know its value. Most new things flop, but a few takes off. If you proactively ban all new things, then you'll never get any of the advances that makes modern life possible.

    3. Re:Banning is the wrong thing for the elderly by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Cars also don't add value and should've been banned from the beginning. I mean, they're way more dangerous than these robots!

      Here's the thing, SF is the fucking poster child for PRT, but we can't have it because the automobile companies spent so much money promoting the car life.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Banning is the wrong thing for the elderly by jaa101 · · Score: 1

      San Francisco is filled with delivery services ... for prepared meals, for groceries, for whatever you want.

      And what does the safety record look life for those services? If they're using motor vehicles they're going to be killing and injuring people at some rate. What's the safety record for the new robots look like in comparison?

      And when you add the fact that these robots each have a human to guide them around, it's hard to see what value they add.

      Whether they add value is not for government to worry about. Some business is apparently betting they can make money this way: if they can, there's value in it; if they can't, they'll make a loss and the robots will go away.

  16. Techno nerd hypocrisy by devloop · · Score: 1

    Not in our backyard, not in our oh-so-precious City. But the designing, coding for the robot AI is being done by companies around the Bay and Silicon Valley.
    Yes to the profits, but let the plebs elsewhere in the country take all the risks during the alpha stage.

    1. Re:Techno nerd hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know, right? It's almost like San Fransisco has a population of of over 850,000 people, each with their own viewpoint and perspective of things, and isn't just a single hivemind.

  17. Try the non-downtown part of Sacramento! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They don't even pretend there. Half of the major thoroughfares don't have complete sidewalks down their entire lengths. All three major bridges across the river don't have proper crosswalks for pedestrians or bicyclists to safely transit rapidly moving (40-60 mph) on/off ramp traffic, many other streets have steep ditches just off the road without even a shoulder deep enough to contain a broken down/parked car.

    San Francisco (having been there!) has a fucking *GLORIOUS* set of streets in comparison. Most of the sidewalks are wider than a lane in Sacramento, there are crosswalks all over the place (even the unsafe ones are safer than many of the sac ones outside of downtown and a few select intesections.)

    If you want to complain about how terrible SF streets are, go visit some other areas of the state and see what *REAL* shitty streets look like. Yours are 1st world in comparison.

  18. Re: More job-killing regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why don't we make a law that nobody can drive their own car. Instead you
    must hire certified driving specialist to drive you. My plan would create millions of jobs.

  19. Fight Progress by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    If one wants to lose then simply fight progress. Just why would one want to protect the jobs of delivery drivers? How about all those jobs that we lost making buggy whips?

  20. Re: More job-killing regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Some jurisdictions in the US have laws like that about pumping your own gas. Supposedly due to safety concerns.

  21. Politicians. by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    How about paraplegics with a cargo-wheelchair?

    But besides joking, the streets were actually built for horses and buggys, not cars, so ban those.

    1. Re:Politicians. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But besides joking, the streets were actually built for horses and buggys, not cars, so ban those.

      You would need a fucking winch to get a horse and buggy up many of the streets in San Francisco. This is not hyperbole; winching was a regular part of some stagecoach trails, including the one into Lake County where I currently live. Indeed, I live a stone's throw from the original stagecoach trail that brought people into Kelseyville from Hopland, and it definitely included some steep sections where at least in the rain, you'd have to break out the block and tackle.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  22. And so it begins by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 1

    We must stop the impending automobile revolution. It worry that many buggy whip manufacturing jobs may disappear. In addition, they startle the horses.

    It's like that, but will be bigger than that. This is the beginning of the long anti-robot prejudice and protectionism that will be a standard political talking point of the next two centuries.

    --
    Real lawyers write in C++
  23. Re: More job-killing regulations by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    Some jurisdictions in the US have laws like that about pumping your own gas. Supposedly due to safety concerns.

    Pumping gas is so archaic, pumping electricity is the much safer future

    Great idea!

    Of course, electricity is very dangerous, too. We need qualified attendants at recharge stations to perform the actual connection-charge-disconnection procedures for safety's sake. Hey! I know! We can employ all those unemployed STEM graduates as "certified automobile recharging engineers"!

    Somebody call the White House!!

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  24. WW3 on our streets by Max_W · · Score: 1

    It is estimated that traffic collisions caused the death of around 60 million people during the 20th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    About million and a half is being killed in traffic accidents each year. Times more are badly wounded. These are the figures of the WW3. This is what going on on our streets.

    At the same time the US bureaucracy, which is under influence of an automobile lobby, de-facto sabotages delivery by airborne drones or by robotized vehicles. And these are the solutions which could really free the streets and reduce the death rate on the streets.

  25. Re:More job-killing regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Politics in San Francisco is radioactive. Blaming it on a party is cute.

    Well, when there haven't been any *other* parties with any real power in charge and responsible for their failed and failing policies, laws, and initiatives for decades, it's rather unavoidable.

    Or are you blaming the minority party for not changing things because they are in the minority? Help me out here, as it's nearly impossible to guess what a Leftist is thinking due to logic not being part of the process.

  26. Re: More job-killing regulations by MightyYar · · Score: 2

    Not explicitly, but "reducing labor costs" certainly is. And a good thing, too, or we'd all be subsistence farmers.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  27. Re: More job-killing regulations by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Yeah, we all make fun of Jersey until it's 10 degrees out and everyone is sitting in their warm car in NJ while the rest of us are standing in the cold.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  28. Re: More job-killing regulations by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    I see that non-discrete logic isn't your thing.

  29. Only the Gueardian by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    I like the way that The Guardian reminds people that San Francisco is in America. More Slashdot submitters should take a clue from them, and remind people what obscure things are, or where they are, right in the summary.

    1. Re:Only the Gueardian by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I like the way that The Guardian reminds people that San Francisco is in America. More Slashdot submitters should take a clue from them, and remind people what obscure things are, or where they are, right in the summary.

      The only problem with that is that San Francisco is one of the best-known cities on the planet. It's right up there with Tokyo or New York or London. By all means, remind people what obscure things are, but reminding people of where San Francisco is goes a bit beyond the call.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Only the Gueardian by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      There are other San Franciscos in Guatemala, Honduras, etc.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  30. Easy fix. Deliver packages to the roof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This should be obvious, but

    A) The Roof is accessible on damn near everything. Not all roofing materials are safe to stand on, but for small packages the obvious thing to do would be to create a QR-code type of "landing pad" on flat roofs. If a building (eg a single family house) doesn't have a flat roof, the next obvious is the patio. A little bit harder to navigate, but again most apartments have patio doors, and even single family homes have patios.

    B) The next most obvious is to use a "spider web" type of target for the drone to deliver the package.

    Eg you drop a net over your patio, window, or whatever, it has a QR code to orient the drone as it arrives, it then clings to the net with the package until you remove the package, and then the drone will release will spin up it's propellers again and release the web net.

    Solution B has the unfortunate problem of people will forget to anchor it, and thus the net, package and the drone goes off the side of the building. A work-around to this is simply create a permanently attached anchor that uses vice-grips.

    Solution A has the unfortunate problem of not all roofs are accessible. A this would require changes to legal code, bylaws and such to permit delivers to rooftops. Another way of making this more interesting is to have the equivalent of a "dumb waiter" built into apartment buildings lobby-to-roof. So a drone can drop a package on the dumb-waiter, and the dumb-waiter will descend when any weight is dropped on it, sliding it into a bin in the mail-room, so people with a mail key can open the "parcel delivery" bin.

    The cheapest, safest, solution however is simply requiring "unit numbers" to be on the patio and let the drone figure out which unit to fly to and leave the package on the patio if nobody comes to the patio door.

     

  31. Most obvious implication.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    ... is that it is illegal to drive a plain old RC car on the street.... even if there is no traffic at the time, such as what you may often find in some streets of a quiet suburban neighborhood.

  32. Re: More job-killing regulations by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    It gets that cold where you live??? How can you live there????

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  33. Del Spooner says... by blindseer · · Score: 1

    "Out of my way, canner!"

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  34. Re: More job-killing regulations by Salgak1 · · Score: 2

    When the minimum wage in San Francisco is $15/hour, many delivery jobs simply don't provide sufficient value to sustain the position.

    A robot is a one-time sunk cost. plus maintenance and charging. But certainly less than wages and mandated benefits and employer contributions. The business can continue delivering food, and make a profit.

    Ban robots. . . and the delivery jobs will not come back, delivery will, for the most part, end. Certainly, high-end "gourmet" delivery will be sustainable, but that's a small fraction of the overall delivery business. Most places will simply shut down, raising unemployment and cutting choice.

    Why this isn't obvious, evades me. . .

  35. robots are for children and elderly by greggman · · Score: 1

    > San Francisco police commander Robert O'Sullivan is in favor of the legislation, fearing the robots could harm children, the elderly, and those with limited mobility.

    What twisted logic. Children, the elderly and those with limited mobility would use robots to make them mobile.

  36. Re: More job-killing regulations by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Context, New Jersey. That's Fahrenheit. I could live in Wisconsin or something where it regularly goes below zero and which scale you use no longer matters - but not many people choose to do that.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  37. Re: More job-killing regulations by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    My main processor is thousands of hand-wire-wrapped transistors on a table-sized circuit board.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  38. Re: More job-killing regulations by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Sounds cold. I remember last winter I worse some sweatshirts a lot.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  39. Re: More job-killing regulations by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    My main processor is thousands of hand-wire-wrapped transistors on a table-sized circuit board.

    Hah!

    In 1975/6 our HS vocational electronics class built a basic computer with a 12-inch amber monitor, mostly using 7400-series 14-pin DIP logic I.C.s in sockets with wire-wrap terminals mounted on perforated board, and connected together with wire-wrap using a special little hand tool to make the turns uniform and with the right amount of tension gripping the terminal post.

    We all had to learn how to use this hand wire-wrapping tool, as at the time, that had been a standard wiring method for electronic digital circuit prototyping. What a PITA!! Never had to touch one in the decades in the electronics industry since that class, as PCBs came into near-universal use just around then, LOL!

    Ah, teenage carpal-tunnel from wire-wrapping!

    Good times, good times!

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  40. Re: More job-killing regulations by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    Ah, teenage carpal-tunnel from wire-wrapping!

    You could say I was among the first "teenage carpal-tunnel ninjas"! :D

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  41. Re: More job-killing regulations by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    If you are anywhere except the west coast in the US, there's no such thing as a perfect climate. And then you have other nasties to deal with like rain for 6 straight months (Portland), block-to-block and hour-to-hour 15-degree weather shifts (SF), filthy air (LA), or climate perfection but total affordability fail (San Diego). And lets not get into wildfires, earthquakes, mudslides, and the like.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  42. Re: More job-killing regulations by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah, keep talking, your jealousy is showing :)

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  43. Re: More job-killing regulations by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    If you can afford a nice place in San Diego, I'm legit jealous.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  44. Re:More job-killing regulations by unixisc · · Score: 1

    The irony is delicious. More often than not, these tech people happen to be infra-Leftists who have a fetish for living/working in places like San Francisco. Then the moonbats of San Francisco have a problem w/ them using robots to deliver goods or services. Had they simply done their thing in other cities, like Phoenix or Atlanta, they'd have been fine. But no, they have to do it in the great city by the Bay.

    Honestly, I'm not remotely sympathetic to companies like Yelp! who set up shop near Market Street, and then have to face moonbats pissed off @ them for using robots. In fact, the sooner they go out of business, the better: that will be a salutary lesson to people to start their dream companies outside the Left Coast

  45. Re:More job-killing regulations by unixisc · · Score: 1

    I somehow thought that San Francisco was evenly split b/w the Dems & the Greens, and that it is a 2 party system out there.

  46. Re:More job-killing regulations by unixisc · · Score: 1

    In case you missed it, the elections for Barbara Boxer's Senate seat last year was b/w 2 Dems: that's how Leftist that state is!

  47. Jobs? What jobs? by iq145 · · Score: 1

    Robots will be seen by employers as the labourer that is even CHEAPER than hauling in Mexicans: https://hardware.slashdot.org/... You buy them once, and never pay them... just like slavery.