5 ms·

Poor Man's Teleporter

6 points by mblakele 17y ago

seasoup 17y ago
Why is a keyboard problematic?
- aphyr 17y ago
  You can't trust the last person who used it to wash their hands. Besides, it's probably a different layout/size than yours, and keystroke loggers would be a problem. I think it's a non-issue; people will just use their laptops.
- bradtem 17y ago
  Today, we let any input device (such as a keyboard, or any USB device actually) take full control of our computer. If it's a hacked device (even something just inserted into the USB) it can type anything to our computer, issue commands, make it download stuff, sniff passwords, etc. It takes a lot of work to make a computer secure enough that you can plug a non-trusted keyboard into it. It may not even be truly doable if you consider the habits of computer users.
aphyr 17y ago
I'm not that excited about it. Intelligent Transportation (the Google vans with wifi) is a great way to make the commute more productive for people--but to the extent that this technology encourages urban sprawl, I'm against it. Commuting still carries a high energy cost; much higher than the (amortized) cost of designing livable neighborhoods near jobs in the first place. And children never leaving their cars or garages? What the hell kind of world is this? Whatever happened to just riding your bike down the street to the library or friend's house?
- vl 17y ago
  The problem is that when couple starts to live together even if one of them is close to work, other still has to commute.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  much higher than the (amortized) cost of designing livable neighborhoods near jobs in the first place. Do you expect to change homes as much as you change jobs? If not, the fact that your home is walking distance from your old job just doesn't seem like a bonus. And children never leaving their cars or garages? What the hell kind of world is this? Whatever happened to just riding your bike down the street to the library or friend's house? That's still possible; the world we live in is just one where people are effectively wealthier, so it's no big deal to go to a better library that's 10 miles away, or to be able to stay in touch with friends who've moved across town. It's hard for me to see the expanded possibilities as a bad thing. The kind of world we live in now is better than the world in which kids were limited to whatever was nearby.
  - aphyr 17y ago
    "Do you expect to change homes as much as you change jobs? If not, the fact that your home is walking distance from your old job just doesn't seem like a bonus." Good point, but I don't think it invalidates my argument. Most people relocate to within 50 miles when switching jobs. They also don't need extensive commutes when they live within 4 miles. The only time when a segregated work-home plan is as efficient as a mixed-use plan is when someone switches jobs, is over 4 miles away, less than 50 miles away, and chooses not to relocate locally. I suspect (without evidence) that it is still more efficient to plan for livable distributed cities instead of commuting an hour and a half per day. (I'm making a lot of approximations and estimates here with the absence of quantitative data... hope it sounds reasonable still.) I live in SF, and the number of people who live here because San Jose or Palo Alto suck, but still commute eighty miles per day, is staggering. "That's still possible; the world we live in is just one where people are effectively wealthier, so it's no big deal to go to a better library that's 10 miles away, or to be able to stay in touch with friends who've moved across town. It's hard for me to see the expanded possibilities as a bad thing. The kind of world we live in now is better than the world in which kids were limited to whatever was nearby." Agreed. Expanded possibilities are great! What concerns me is that kids (and adults, perhaps) lead increasingly isolated lives. I view walking around, biking, public spaces, parks, and woodlands as good experiences that cost very little. That's purely a moral stance; nobody has to agree. P.S. How do you do quotes? I'm totally stymied!
- bradtem 17y ago
  Well, one may be against sprawl, but the point is that you can't really stop people from doing what they want to do. You can bend behaviour with the odd law but not that much. Governments have tried to stop sprawl in tons of ways but they don't have much success. However, we can try to examine where it's going and plan what can be done within the context of what's possible to do
  - aphyr 17y ago
    It may not be possible to stop people from doing what they want, but what they want can certainly be influenced by city planning. Fly over Portland, OR and compare to Minneapolis; the difference in layout is staggering. Even when you include population and geography--the urban growth boundary has a significant effect.
noonespecial 17y ago
In the real world, they'd be more like taxis and less like cozy little recliner-bearing offices. Smelly, worn out, and filthy. Not something you'd want to spend a lot of time in. The problem they'd really be solving is parking, allowing downtowns to be more dense without huge expenditures in public transport. I think a more reasonable approach would be to admit we have just about completely failed (in the US) when it comes to public transport, put aside our pork for a year or two and build some.
- bradtem 17y ago
  They would be what you paid for. Cheap ones might be dirty, more expensive ones fancier. Unlike taxis, where your choices are "take the first one you see" or "wait a long time for a called one to come" the rule would be "the closest one to you that meets the standards of the company you asked to send one" comes. Or if you are in a real hurry and did not plan ahead even a few minutes, you take the first one that might be dirty.

6 points by mblakele 17y ago

seasoup 17y ago

Why is a keyboard problematic?

aphyr 17y ago
You can't trust the last person who used it to wash their hands. Besides, it's probably a different layout/size than yours, and keystroke loggers would be a problem. I think it's a non-issue; people will just use their laptops.
bradtem 17y ago
Today, we let any input device (such as a keyboard, or any USB device actually) take full control of our computer. If it's a hacked device (even something just inserted into the USB) it can type anything to our computer, issue commands, make it download stuff, sniff passwords, etc. It takes a lot of work to make a computer secure enough that you can plug a non-trusted keyboard into it. It may not even be truly doable if you consider the habits of computer users.

aphyr 17y ago

I'm not that excited about it. Intelligent Transportation (the Google vans with wifi) is a great way to make the commute more productive for people--but to the extent that this technology encourages urban sprawl, I'm against it. Commuting still carries a high energy cost; much higher than the (amortized) cost of designing livable neighborhoods near jobs in the first place. And children never leaving their cars or garages? What the hell kind of world is this? Whatever happened to just riding your bike down the street to the library or friend's house?

vl 17y ago
The problem is that when couple starts to live together even if one of them is close to work, other still has to commute.
randallsquared 17y ago
much higher than the (amortized) cost of designing livable neighborhoods near jobs in the first place. Do you expect to change homes as much as you change jobs? If not, the fact that your home is walking distance from your old job just doesn't seem like a bonus. And children never leaving their cars or garages? What the hell kind of world is this? Whatever happened to just riding your bike down the street to the library or friend's house? That's still possible; the world we live in is just one where people are effectively wealthier, so it's no big deal to go to a better library that's 10 miles away, or to be able to stay in touch with friends who've moved across town. It's hard for me to see the expanded possibilities as a bad thing. The kind of world we live in now is better than the world in which kids were limited to whatever was nearby.
- aphyr 17y ago
  "Do you expect to change homes as much as you change jobs? If not, the fact that your home is walking distance from your old job just doesn't seem like a bonus." Good point, but I don't think it invalidates my argument. Most people relocate to within 50 miles when switching jobs. They also don't need extensive commutes when they live within 4 miles. The only time when a segregated work-home plan is as efficient as a mixed-use plan is when someone switches jobs, is over 4 miles away, less than 50 miles away, and chooses not to relocate locally. I suspect (without evidence) that it is still more efficient to plan for livable distributed cities instead of commuting an hour and a half per day. (I'm making a lot of approximations and estimates here with the absence of quantitative data... hope it sounds reasonable still.) I live in SF, and the number of people who live here because San Jose or Palo Alto suck, but still commute eighty miles per day, is staggering. "That's still possible; the world we live in is just one where people are effectively wealthier, so it's no big deal to go to a better library that's 10 miles away, or to be able to stay in touch with friends who've moved across town. It's hard for me to see the expanded possibilities as a bad thing. The kind of world we live in now is better than the world in which kids were limited to whatever was nearby." Agreed. Expanded possibilities are great! What concerns me is that kids (and adults, perhaps) lead increasingly isolated lives. I view walking around, biking, public spaces, parks, and woodlands as good experiences that cost very little. That's purely a moral stance; nobody has to agree. P.S. How do you do quotes? I'm totally stymied!
bradtem 17y ago
Well, one may be against sprawl, but the point is that you can't really stop people from doing what they want to do. You can bend behaviour with the odd law but not that much. Governments have tried to stop sprawl in tons of ways but they don't have much success. However, we can try to examine where it's going and plan what can be done within the context of what's possible to do
- aphyr 17y ago
  It may not be possible to stop people from doing what they want, but what they want can certainly be influenced by city planning. Fly over Portland, OR and compare to Minneapolis; the difference in layout is staggering. Even when you include population and geography--the urban growth boundary has a significant effect.

noonespecial 17y ago

In the real world, they'd be more like taxis and less like cozy little recliner-bearing offices. Smelly, worn out, and filthy. Not something you'd want to spend a lot of time in. The problem they'd really be solving is parking, allowing downtowns to be more dense without huge expenditures in public transport. I think a more reasonable approach would be to admit we have just about completely failed (in the US) when it comes to public transport, put aside our pork for a year or two and build some.

bradtem 17y ago
They would be what you paid for. Cheap ones might be dirty, more expensive ones fancier. Unlike taxis, where your choices are "take the first one you see" or "wait a long time for a called one to come" the rule would be "the closest one to you that meets the standards of the company you asked to send one" comes. Or if you are in a real hurry and did not plan ahead even a few minutes, you take the first one that might be dirty.