My daughter is currently in an urban design class. She has severe dyslexia so I read the materials to her, which gives me some familiarity with all her classes. The architects featured in this class seem to be most concerned about the usefulness of the perimeter of buildings, wanting us to abandon flat featureless walls for the porches and doors and windows -- permeability, they called it -- that were popular before WWII. Although I disagree with some of their philosophies, (I am violently opposed to brutalism, for instance) I agree with this.
So a horror slideshow from their standpoint would be commercial and private buildings with utterly blank walls that end flatly against the property, isolating the residents inside and making the space outside useless except for traveling away from the hulking building. And sadly, there are many examples of that, both for commercial businesses and for private residences.
It occurs to me that technology like this would make that type of design even more likely. If you could put a "window" anywhere, showing any type of scene, what do you care what's actually outside? [1] I know, you can sit this on top of a real window, but I wonder how often that will be done in real life? In an age where all the up and coming adults have been trained since grade school to live with ear buds inserted and head lowered to a 4" display, what chance do us old fogeys who remember fresh air and open views, have, to convince them that houses should have access to the outdoors?
[1] Except, I suppose, from a security standpoint, although there's hardware and software solutions for that.
"This Thing I saw! How can I describe it? A monstrous tripod, higher than many houses, striding over... no wait... bipod... Staggering over... Aaaand, it just fell down. As a war machine, that doesn't seem very practical."
> because if one of the knock-offs is low quality or problematic, it can end up hurting Apple's brand.
I... don't think so. I suspect that's an argument that could be abused. Like "any phone with a touch screen could be mistaken for an iphone, and if they suck it could hurt Apple, so we have justification to sue all of 'em out of existence." And who knows, maybe someone has made that argument, but it doesn't mean it's reasonable.
...and some people step off the curb before looking both ways. Or look in the wrong direction on a one-way street. The world is generally full of ways to crash land for people not paying attention.
When I lived on a farm, we grew almonds. There were no milking issues.
So for mister smarty-pants up there, I meant "cows" colloquially for "cattle, prominent modern member of the subfamily Bovinae", generally meant, to people who haven't had the questionable pleasure of working a cattle farm, as including both male and female.
Not to mention breeds like the Texas Longhorn, both sexes of whom have horns. I want Texas Longtentacle cows!
If you really want to talk gender ambivalence in cattle, try sitting through this.
Polar bears are per-capita less dangerous than LA traffic.
Some people like isolation. In all seriousness, there is risk in establishing a life anywhere. In one place you have some small but measurable probability of being capped by a gang-banger if you're not careful. In another place you have a small but measurable probability of freezing to death if you're not careful. It balances out.
Speaking as one who moved out of a highly desirable, sunny, (which I miss a bit now) warm area to a place that was less so, my motivation is that I could afford a house here, and I certainly could not afford a house there.
How could I have missed this? Ye Gods, this is an automated phishing machine. I mean, us geeks, we'd do a factor reset and pull the SD card (if anything but an iPhone) but Fred and Ethyl Mertz would just drop the phone in the bin without thinking. Holy Carp! I think we just guaranteed the Russian economy for another decade.
> The E85 manufacturers and the agriculture companies that grow corn have a lot riding on this, and are quite good at influencing Congress. There's a very good chance that they will successfully lobby to extend this subsidy.
Unfortunately, I think you're right. I'll go one further -- I predict that even after we no longer add alcohol to gasoline, the subsidies will continue.
Then, how would they get the federal money they need each year to avoid going broke? I suspect the author got that slightly wrong -- the rest of the country wants California to split off. There, fixed it for you.
Slashdot Mirror
My daughter is currently in an urban design class. She has severe dyslexia so I read the materials to her, which gives me some familiarity with all her classes. The architects featured in this class seem to be most concerned about the usefulness of the perimeter of buildings, wanting us to abandon flat featureless walls for the porches and doors and windows -- permeability, they called it -- that were popular before WWII. Although I disagree with some of their philosophies, (I am violently opposed to brutalism, for instance) I agree with this.
So a horror slideshow from their standpoint would be commercial and private buildings with utterly blank walls that end flatly against the property, isolating the residents inside and making the space outside useless except for traveling away from the hulking building. And sadly, there are many examples of that, both for commercial businesses and for private residences.
It occurs to me that technology like this would make that type of design even more likely. If you could put a "window" anywhere, showing any type of scene, what do you care what's actually outside? [1] I know, you can sit this on top of a real window, but I wonder how often that will be done in real life? In an age where all the up and coming adults have been trained since grade school to live with ear buds inserted and head lowered to a 4" display, what chance do us old fogeys who remember fresh air and open views, have, to convince them that houses should have access to the outdoors?
[1] Except, I suppose, from a security standpoint, although there's hardware and software solutions for that.
Nor are we three stories tall.
> Nope, dipods. Budget cuts.
"This Thing I saw! How can I describe it? A monstrous tripod, higher than many houses, striding over... no wait... bipod... Staggering over... Aaaand, it just fell down. As a war machine, that doesn't seem very practical."
Darned budget cuts.
Lose Tom, keep Dakota.
> I realized that they were quoting something, didn't know it was War of the Worlds but thought it was some new meme thanks.
It wasn't before, but it probably is now.
That's exactly the issue. Not your patent on responding, the other thing.
Ok, someone had to say it.
> because if one of the knock-offs is low quality or problematic, it can end up hurting Apple's brand.
I... don't think so. I suspect that's an argument that could be abused. Like "any phone with a touch screen could be mistaken for an iphone, and if they suck it could hurt Apple, so we have justification to sue all of 'em out of existence." And who knows, maybe someone has made that argument, but it doesn't mean it's reasonable.
All good points, but at very least it would be entertaining.
I haven't eaten meat since the 1970's, but my daughter has intense cravings for bacon, so I'm with you on the pig thing.
So not to post a bunch of photos I also found, clearly not all cows in America have been dehorned.
Yeah, something about putting acid on the horn spots on calves. I remember that.
When I lived on a farm, we grew almonds. There were no milking issues.
So for mister smarty-pants up there, I meant "cows" colloquially for "cattle, prominent modern member of the subfamily Bovinae", generally meant, to people who haven't had the questionable pleasure of working a cattle farm, as including both male and female.
Not to mention breeds like the Texas Longhorn, both sexes of whom have horns. I want Texas Longtentacle cows!
If you really want to talk gender ambivalence in cattle, try sitting through this.
I can't wait. My daughter is getting a ferret in February. *Bang* tentacles. Gills. Webbing. Glow in the dark. Strike that last one, it's silly.
Polar bears are per-capita less dangerous than LA traffic.
Some people like isolation. In all seriousness, there is risk in establishing a life anywhere. In one place you have some small but measurable probability of being capped by a gang-banger if you're not careful. In another place you have a small but measurable probability of freezing to death if you're not careful. It balances out.
Speaking as one who moved out of a highly desirable, sunny, (which I miss a bit now) warm area to a place that was less so, my motivation is that I could afford a house here, and I certainly could not afford a house there.
> When you use a gene gun [...]
Really?? I've got to get me one 'a' those.
> There's a world of difference between selective breeding and playing mix-n-match genomes hands-on via gene-splicing.
In an hundred years, cows will have tentacles instead of horns.
Ah, sorry, wrong thread...
> if you think GMO is freak-food you watched too much Ninja Turtles when you should have studied for the Biology/Science class ...
I want to be Leonardo.
> with all sorts of valuable data on it
How could I have missed this? Ye Gods, this is an automated phishing machine. I mean, us geeks, we'd do a factor reset and pull the SD card (if anything but an iPhone) but Fred and Ethyl Mertz would just drop the phone in the bin without thinking. Holy Carp! I think we just guaranteed the Russian economy for another decade.
Yeah, we have two of those as well.
> The E85 manufacturers and the agriculture companies that grow corn have a lot riding on this, and are quite good at influencing Congress. There's a very good chance that they will successfully lobby to extend this subsidy.
Unfortunately, I think you're right. I'll go one further -- I predict that even after we no longer add alcohol to gasoline, the subsidies will continue.
100 years from now, society will finally give up on flying cars.
Then, how would they get the federal money they need each year to avoid going broke? I suspect the author got that slightly wrong -- the rest of the country wants California to split off. There, fixed it for you.
(A Californica ex-pat)