So it's basically like the Debian installer, except for the part where you need two reboots (wth, seriously?). Not for nothing they say that a chicken could install Debian, provided there's sufficient grain on the enter key...
Yes, except that once Windows is finished installing, it runs all your existing programs and all the programs you already know.
Debian... doesn't... for the average user...
Linux is a nice OS, but it will always remain in the 1-3% range of desktop OS for a long list of reasons.
Even if Windows is replaced at some point, Linux is not likely to be its replacement. And Windows is frankly not looking like it is going anywhere, since MS is now giving away Windows 10 to all Win 7/8 users.
And you have to keep in mind that even well encrypted data will be easy to decrypt some day later.
Assuming there isn't a back door or other exploit, not really...
Modern encryption should not be crackable via brute force... ever... It would take more time and energy than exists in the Universe, the math is that big.
I try not to whenever I have the choice... About 5 years ago I owned a Twin Comanche so I didn't have to fly commercial unless I was going more than 1,000 miles, give or take...
But then I had a third child and the Twin Comanche only has 4 seats, so I had to sell it.
The price to upgrade to a 6 seat airplane was high enough that I went without... It sucks, but I've only had to fly twice since then, so it isn't the end of the world...
As far as the US being unable to criticize other people, I guess you've never heard of a hypocrite before. Which every government is anyway, so it doesn't matter.
After all, the founders of the USA were terrorists, right up until they won, then they were freedom fighters.
Force was used by the U.S. Government against the Native Americans, who were here before us. Now we control the land and they have little bitty reservations on unwanted land.
So the force used by the U.S. Government clearly worked.
No, that's the whole point: the equipment was not required because there was no air pollution problem to begin with. We were saddled with a lot of superfluous emissions hardware in Oklahoma because it was needed in California.
Air pollution is global, it ends up spread everywhere... The factories in China today producing tons of air pollution will have that slowly over a number of years spread around the world.
If it were just a local issue, then we could put 100 coal power plants in the middle of nowhere and it wouldn't matter. But ultimately they reduce the air quality everywhere over time.
Why can't it be simple? If the car is unacceptable, press the Reject button on your phone, and the car drives itself back to the depot to be cleaned, the person that left it a mess is billed for cleanup, and they send you a new car
Because the replacement car is not likely to be here in 5 minutes, and even if it is, that is 5 minutes of standing around.
You keep missing the point... I do not want to sit in a car that 100 other people have sat in, eaten in, done whatever in....
I want to walk over to MY car, that NO ONE ELSE drives, that is left just the way I left it.
While not everyone feels that way, enough do that it won't go away.
Even if it is a self-driving car, a seat that 100 other people have sat in recently is still gross, and you can't ever clean it properly without replacing the seats often.
Self driving cars don't preclude private ownership by you. Or ownership of a 7 person SUV sized vehicle.
No, but other posters have implied that owning your own vehicle won't be needed once we have self-driving cars.
While that is true for many, I enjoy owning my vehicle, not because I like paying for it, but because I like it kept in the condition that I leave it in and that no one else touches it.
Or if you own the 7 person vehicle to rent a 1 or 2 person vehicle to commute in.
Costs will be lower and likely most insurance and taxes will be mileage based. So you will have incentives to use the lowest cost vehicle from various sources.
People who own 7 person SUVs generally don't want to rent little econo boxes to commute in. If they did, they would own one. If you commute every day, renting makes no sense, you might as well own it.
That is what I drive, same year, same model, same color, right down to the power folding running boards (when you open a door, they lower and extend to make a larger easier to use running board than fixed boards provide).
It is big, it gets terrible gas millage, and I don't care. It also weighs 3 tons which makes my kids safer in any multi-vehicle accident. It has every bit of safety technology generally for sale today. A rental truck isn't likely to have the $1,500 optional adaptive cruise control with auto emergency braking.
I did not buy such a truck to go rent a little econobox.
---
Side note: To anyone who thinks power running boards sound silly, take a look at the up and down pictures...
On the surface of it, I don't see a huge problem with your suggestion...
Frankly, most of the time, I'd rather have the vehicle do the driving anyway...
Perhaps the fees could be set such that driving yourself on the highway during rush hour would be very expensive, but almost nothing on an empty country road without another car for miles...
That strikes me as reasonable.
---
At the end of the day, I want to be sitting in MY seat that a hundred other people haven't sat in, no one has messed with my radio, my seat position, etc. There are no french fries under the seat, no plastic bags left in the back, etc.
Yes, and from time to time, it might be a "nice to have option", but no amount of technology will replace the fact that my car is kept in its present condition by me, 100% of the time.
The car that shows up to pick me up has had a hundred other people and their crap in it.
This isn't a technology issue, it is a lifestyle issue.
I'm reminded of the emissions-control laws of the early 1970s, in that respect. During that time, I grew up in a flyover state in the middle of nowhere. There was widespread resentment -- more like frothing-at-the-mouth fury -- that our vehicles had to have catalytic converters, smog pumps, and endless tangles of seemingly-unnecessary plumbing under the hood, when there was clearly no problem with air pollution within a thousand miles or more. My old man constantly ranted about how the government was destroying the automobile industry out of sheer bureaucratic stupidity. There was an underground cottage industry devoted to bypassing and removing emissions equipment.
Now, 40 years later, I can go down to my local Chevy dealer and buy a 460 HP Corvette that gets 30 MPG. Oops. Guess my old man was wrong.
The same thing's going to happen this time, down to the last chapter and verse. People like you and me will scream bloody murder, and then we will wake up one day and realize we were wrong.
Nice story, but has nothing to do with this...
Even in the 70s, someone who was educated and understood the problem knew that equipment was required... Your father simply didn't care, or didn't know any better.
You won't be putting a subway system into Dallas, it would cost a hundred billion dollars and still be poorly used, the city is too spread out.
As it stands, we already have a multi-billion dollar light rail system that is poorly used and doesn't even run to half the city. The bus system costs just as much and is also poorly used...
Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Orlando, Las Vegas, Denver, etc. are just examples of cities that are too spread out for mass transit to work, because population density is too low...
Will self-driving cars come? Yes of course... Will people stop owning cars? Yes, of course, some will... but lots of people won't...
Then another poster objected that no one will gamble on getting a car that someone has smoked in or left a mess, and my point was that people are *already* taking that gamble with rental cars and car-share cars.
Not quite...
The difference is, at the car rental counter, if I get a car that was smoked in or a mess, I can go back and get another car (and I've had to do that before). If the car self-delivered to my office, it isn't nearly so simple.
I live in one of those 30 metro areas that ZipCar services... it would be a 30 min drive, each way, to get to the closest ZipCar (I did look it up).
I also live in one of those "designated urban areas", but the reality is I can't go anywhere without a car.
Yes, some people can take advantage of such services, and that is fine if they wish, but the poster I was replying to was implying that it was "the" solution, that we'd all stop owning our own cars.
you can choose not to own a car and rent one for the few occasions you need one.
In most of the United States, it is not possible to not have a car almost all the time... our cities just aren't designed for it...
There are a few places where it works, NYC for example...
But where I live? It would be a 20 minute walk, each way, to the nearest store.
A car is simply a requirement... which is why people here who have their driver's licence suspended often have the Judge approve driving to/from home/work/school because there is no other options.
Roads are another source of transit capacity -- single passenger cars (even self driving cars) are not an efficient way to move large numbers of people, so car lanes can be converted to light rail or BRT.
If we were all Vulcan and made only logical decisions, sure...
because it makes too much sense in the vast majority of use cases
And when has THAT logic ever caused society to do what makes sense?:)
Why not? There will be different levels of service, and numerous models of vehicles available at varying prices.
Because no amount of "service" will ever provide me the SAME vehicle that no one ELSE has sat in, put their germs on, etc.
My truck is where I leave it, no one else sits in it, I pay a pretty penny to be the only user and I'm ok with that. I don't rent out my spare room in my house either, even though it is used maybe 20 days out of the year, otherwise being empty.
We are not machines, we're human, and we like our stuff. I like my truck, I like it being in the condition I left it.
However, cars completely destroy urban density, and it doesn't matter how clean you make them, how self-driving you make them, and, how much safety buffer space you strip away.
You say it doesn't matter if they are self-driving...
This is simply not true... Cars need be only a foot apart at highway speed, when all are under computer control... that changes the density issues completely... add to that the lack of traffic jams and it changes again...
Self-driving cars are mass transit. At some point, once you're no longer driving your car, it will occur to you that you don't really care if you own the car. That's when things will get interesting.
For some people, sure...
But not for me... Pride of ownership is a key point, having a nice well maintained vehicle that I worked hard for...
Plus, my vehicle needs don't match most people's, I have a 7 person full sized SUV (Yukon XL) so I can haul the kids + stuff. JohnnyCab can't handle that.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's basically like the Debian installer, except for the part where you need two reboots (wth, seriously?).
Not for nothing they say that a chicken could install Debian, provided there's sufficient grain on the enter key...
Yes, except that once Windows is finished installing, it runs all your existing programs and all the programs you already know.
Debian... doesn't... for the average user...
Linux is a nice OS, but it will always remain in the 1-3% range of desktop OS for a long list of reasons.
Even if Windows is replaced at some point, Linux is not likely to be its replacement. And Windows is frankly not looking like it is going anywhere, since MS is now giving away Windows 10 to all Win 7/8 users.
And you have to keep in mind that even well encrypted data will be easy to decrypt some day later.
Assuming there isn't a back door or other exploit, not really...
Modern encryption should not be crackable via brute force... ever... It would take more time and energy than exists in the Universe, the math is that big.
I try not to whenever I have the choice... About 5 years ago I owned a Twin Comanche so I didn't have to fly commercial unless I was going more than 1,000 miles, give or take...
But then I had a third child and the Twin Comanche only has 4 seats, so I had to sell it.
The price to upgrade to a 6 seat airplane was high enough that I went without... It sucks, but I've only had to fly twice since then, so it isn't the end of the world...
As far as the US being unable to criticize other people, I guess you've never heard of a hypocrite before. Which every government is anyway, so it doesn't matter.
After all, the founders of the USA were terrorists, right up until they won, then they were freedom fighters.
I think you misunderstood.
Force was used by the U.S. Government against the Native Americans, who were here before us. Now we control the land and they have little bitty reservations on unwanted land.
So the force used by the U.S. Government clearly worked.
Force will not help you to solve conflicts in the long run.
Ask the Native Americans how well that worked out for them?
Force solves all kinds of problems. It doesn't solve ALL problems, but it does solve SOME problems.
No, that's the whole point: the equipment was not required because there was no air pollution problem to begin with. We were saddled with a lot of superfluous emissions hardware in Oklahoma because it was needed in California.
Air pollution is global, it ends up spread everywhere... The factories in China today producing tons of air pollution will have that slowly over a number of years spread around the world.
If it were just a local issue, then we could put 100 coal power plants in the middle of nowhere and it wouldn't matter. But ultimately they reduce the air quality everywhere over time.
Why can't it be simple? If the car is unacceptable, press the Reject button on your phone, and the car drives itself back to the depot to be cleaned, the person that left it a mess is billed for cleanup, and they send you a new car
Because the replacement car is not likely to be here in 5 minutes, and even if it is, that is 5 minutes of standing around.
You keep missing the point... I do not want to sit in a car that 100 other people have sat in, eaten in, done whatever in....
I want to walk over to MY car, that NO ONE ELSE drives, that is left just the way I left it.
While not everyone feels that way, enough do that it won't go away.
Even if it is a self-driving car, a seat that 100 other people have sat in recently is still gross, and you can't ever clean it properly without replacing the seats often.
Self driving cars don't preclude private ownership by you. Or ownership of a 7 person SUV sized vehicle.
No, but other posters have implied that owning your own vehicle won't be needed once we have self-driving cars.
While that is true for many, I enjoy owning my vehicle, not because I like paying for it, but because I like it kept in the condition that I leave it in and that no one else touches it.
Or if you own the 7 person vehicle to rent a 1 or 2 person vehicle to commute in.
Costs will be lower and likely most insurance and taxes will be mileage based. So you will have incentives to use the lowest cost vehicle from various sources.
People who own 7 person SUVs generally don't want to rent little econo boxes to commute in. If they did, they would own one. If you commute every day, renting makes no sense, you might as well own it.
http://www.blogcdn.com/slidesh...
That is what I drive, same year, same model, same color, right down to the power folding running boards (when you open a door, they lower and extend to make a larger easier to use running board than fixed boards provide).
It is big, it gets terrible gas millage, and I don't care. It also weighs 3 tons which makes my kids safer in any multi-vehicle accident. It has every bit of safety technology generally for sale today. A rental truck isn't likely to have the $1,500 optional adaptive cruise control with auto emergency braking.
I did not buy such a truck to go rent a little econobox.
---
Side note: To anyone who thinks power running boards sound silly, take a look at the up and down pictures...
Folded up:
http://www.automotiveaddicts.c...
Extended:
http://www.automotiveaddicts.c...
They are lower and wider than fixed boards, they give a cleaner look and less wind noise at speed, they are easier for kids to use, etc.
They are also a $1,600 option, so you won't find them on any rental truck.
On the surface of it, I don't see a huge problem with your suggestion...
Frankly, most of the time, I'd rather have the vehicle do the driving anyway...
Perhaps the fees could be set such that driving yourself on the highway during rush hour would be very expensive, but almost nothing on an empty country road without another car for miles...
That strikes me as reasonable.
---
At the end of the day, I want to be sitting in MY seat that a hundred other people haven't sat in, no one has messed with my radio, my seat position, etc. There are no french fries under the seat, no plastic bags left in the back, etc.
Yes, and from time to time, it might be a "nice to have option", but no amount of technology will replace the fact that my car is kept in its present condition by me, 100% of the time.
The car that shows up to pick me up has had a hundred other people and their crap in it.
This isn't a technology issue, it is a lifestyle issue.
I'm reminded of the emissions-control laws of the early 1970s, in that respect. During that time, I grew up in a flyover state in the middle of nowhere. There was widespread resentment -- more like frothing-at-the-mouth fury -- that our vehicles had to have catalytic converters, smog pumps, and endless tangles of seemingly-unnecessary plumbing under the hood, when there was clearly no problem with air pollution within a thousand miles or more. My old man constantly ranted about how the government was destroying the automobile industry out of sheer bureaucratic stupidity. There was an underground cottage industry devoted to bypassing and removing emissions equipment.
Now, 40 years later, I can go down to my local Chevy dealer and buy a 460 HP Corvette that gets 30 MPG. Oops. Guess my old man was wrong.
The same thing's going to happen this time, down to the last chapter and verse. People like you and me will scream bloody murder, and then we will wake up one day and realize we were wrong.
Nice story, but has nothing to do with this...
Even in the 70s, someone who was educated and understood the problem knew that equipment was required... Your father simply didn't care, or didn't know any better.
You won't be putting a subway system into Dallas, it would cost a hundred billion dollars and still be poorly used, the city is too spread out.
As it stands, we already have a multi-billion dollar light rail system that is poorly used and doesn't even run to half the city. The bus system costs just as much and is also poorly used...
Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Orlando, Las Vegas, Denver, etc. are just examples of cities that are too spread out for mass transit to work, because population density is too low...
Will self-driving cars come? Yes of course... Will people stop owning cars? Yes, of course, some will... but lots of people won't...
Then another poster objected that no one will gamble on getting a car that someone has smoked in or left a mess, and my point was that people are *already* taking that gamble with rental cars and car-share cars.
Not quite...
The difference is, at the car rental counter, if I get a car that was smoked in or a mess, I can go back and get another car (and I've had to do that before). If the car self-delivered to my office, it isn't nearly so simple.
I live in one of those 30 metro areas that ZipCar services... it would be a 30 min drive, each way, to get to the closest ZipCar (I did look it up).
I also live in one of those "designated urban areas", but the reality is I can't go anywhere without a car.
Yes, some people can take advantage of such services, and that is fine if they wish, but the poster I was replying to was implying that it was "the" solution, that we'd all stop owning our own cars.
That is silly.
you can choose not to own a car and rent one for the few occasions you need one.
In most of the United States, it is not possible to not have a car almost all the time... our cities just aren't designed for it...
There are a few places where it works, NYC for example...
But where I live? It would be a 20 minute walk, each way, to the nearest store.
A car is simply a requirement... which is why people here who have their driver's licence suspended often have the Judge approve driving to/from home/work/school because there is no other options.
People are already taking that gamble with rental cars and car-share cars.
I'm not... I haven't rented a car for years...
Car share? Ha! You must be joking...
A lot of people have ideas that might work in 2 or 3 big cities, but for the vast majority of America, have no chance.
Roads are another source of transit capacity -- single passenger cars (even self driving cars) are not an efficient way to move large numbers of people, so car lanes can be converted to light rail or BRT.
If we were all Vulcan and made only logical decisions, sure...
Voters like their cars, good luck with that...
We need MORE roads, not less...
The real answer is to extend the subway under La Guardia and up Long island, and to extend it to JFK.
That sounds really expensive... who pays for it and how many people does it benefit?
If passenger trains are too full to carry people, then mass transit needs to be expanded.
Yea, but I don't WANT to ride mass transit... bleah...
because it makes too much sense in the vast majority of use cases
And when has THAT logic ever caused society to do what makes sense? :)
Why not? There will be different levels of service, and numerous models of vehicles available at varying prices.
Because no amount of "service" will ever provide me the SAME vehicle that no one ELSE has sat in, put their germs on, etc.
My truck is where I leave it, no one else sits in it, I pay a pretty penny to be the only user and I'm ok with that. I don't rent out my spare room in my house either, even though it is used maybe 20 days out of the year, otherwise being empty.
We are not machines, we're human, and we like our stuff. I like my truck, I like it being in the condition I left it.
Oh no, you don't understand me at all...
If I were President of the United States, I'd pardon every non-violent pot smoker in prison tomorrow...
Lets not make a saint out of someone who is a punk...
However, cars completely destroy urban density, and it doesn't matter how clean you make them, how self-driving you make them, and, how much safety buffer space you strip away.
You say it doesn't matter if they are self-driving...
This is simply not true... Cars need be only a foot apart at highway speed, when all are under computer control... that changes the density issues completely... add to that the lack of traffic jams and it changes again...
Self-driving cars are mass transit. At some point, once you're no longer driving your car, it will occur to you that you don't really care if you own the car. That's when things will get interesting.
For some people, sure...
But not for me... Pride of ownership is a key point, having a nice well maintained vehicle that I worked hard for...
Plus, my vehicle needs don't match most people's, I have a 7 person full sized SUV (Yukon XL) so I can haul the kids + stuff. JohnnyCab can't handle that.
...then he deserves his punishment.
I'm sure there will be hundreds of comments here about it, but since none of us were at the trial, well really never know.
Amazon in the past ten years has changed a lot of retail. Prime is ten years old now.
I can get printer ink delivered either the next day, or the day after for less than the cost of Staples, and there is no order min.
So a $15 ink cart shows up just when I need it.