Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:You no longer own a car (Score 1) 649

by FatdogHaiku (#49517189) Attached to: Automakers To Gearheads: Stop Repairing Cars
That was incentivization, not restrictive action. It's one thing to help someone replace an old car and another to disallow them for daily use... not seeing it coming may indicate a lack of foresight. Once that happens off lease and certified used cars with warranties will be gold...

I would also not be surprised to see a stratification of drivers licensees with known, long term non-aggressive drivers allowed in traffic with autonomous cabs and buses while those who like to use their vehicle's potential to it's fullest or use driving for emotional expression may be limited as to where we can drive.
[Disclaimer: I may be in the latter group at times]

Obviously at that point shade tree mechanics (no matter how fancy a tree they have) and hotrodders will be out of the question.

Comment: Re:You no longer own a car (Score 4, Interesting) 649

by FatdogHaiku (#49514507) Attached to: Automakers To Gearheads: Stop Repairing Cars
Sales is all they understand. Now they would like to force you to use them for service. Next it will be "Remove all cars more than X years old because of pollution ( I know, you think a car manufacturer would not touch that topic, but they will) and safety issues. The only thing you can do is convert an old car to electric (and they will scream about safety for that too) and not buy a car under the new terms.

From a legislative point of view, an automobile conveys more personal freedom than anything other than weapons. Therefor it will be constrained, (you can only drive this or that type of vehicle) then limited (i. e. mass transit or autonomous-cabs for the masses), then restricted (as in "Hey you middle class,go huddle with the masses") until only the elite have actual freedom of movement.

Comment: Re: Varies, I suppose (Score 1) 533

by FatdogHaiku (#49508027) Attached to: Utilities Battle Homeowners Over Solar Power
We pay a flat rate for sewage based on living square feet (i. e. a non-dwelling like retail or a factory has a different calculation than a home or apt.) like bath + bed rooms. The city collects sewage fees but may or may not be the water supplier depending on an exact location... Also, some people may have a septic system, but they have to seal it and connect to city sewer to get any kind of building permit. I'm OK with that as the septic tank size was based on the original (read "very old") floor plan. As for potable water, the rate is not bad up to a certain point, but once you go beyond normal needs the overages are billed at a much higher rate. There is not a thousand square feet of lawn on my whole street combined. I have known people with new swimming pools to hire water trucks to bring in 20,000 gallons from outside city limits because they saved money by initially filling the pool that way.

Digressed a bit there... our sewage bill is on the trash bill if we have city trash service and comes separate if we do not... but not tied to water at all.

Comment: Re:Varies, I suppose (Score 2) 533

by FatdogHaiku (#49505871) Attached to: Utilities Battle Homeowners Over Solar Power

NG has the contract for fixing the lines in the region and is the main energy broker, unfortunately.

This is the ultimate problem: having the power lines and the energy broker/provider be the same entity. The power lines are an obvious natural monopoly. The supply of energy across those power lines is not a natural monopoly. The lines should be owned by one company and the power selling/brokerage should be by a different company.

I fear I would then end up with two bills, one covering the cost of the energy I want and another to allow the delivery of that energy to the location I desire...

And because the lines are not owned by the power seller, when an ice storm takes them down I would probably get a bill for my portion of the repair! Yes, they already pass those costs on, but it is spread amongst many more customers. I don't want to see the bill for my exact share of the repair of the circuit that runs from the power source clear to my meter. I could end up paying for work done on a generation station, sub-stations, etc. that are not even in my state.

Utility companies buy and sell power to each other as demand and supply dictate, and their overhead (including normal line maintenance) is factored into the system. Having a third party control distribution would simply add another entity feeding off the revenue stream... that's OK, they can just pass that on to end users and it will be business as usual!

Comment: Re:Modular design... (Score 1) 74

by FatdogHaiku (#49348429) Attached to: Facebook Sued For Alleged Theft of Data Center Design

Facepalming as an expression of exasperation is a conceptual construct that is my imaginary property and you have to give me money for saying, using, or thinking it. Anywhere in the universe. Forever.

I would never use that expression of exasperation anyway...
I know where my hands have been!

Comment: Re:Kaspersky Lab (Score 1) 129

by FatdogHaiku (#49236461) Attached to: New Evidence Strengthens NSA Ties To Equation Group Malware

So, here is the question: what do they have, right now, that we don't know about?

What do you mean? The known unknowns or the unknown unknowns?

I used to think I knew what I didn't know, now I don't know...
I now know I need a lot more foil!
http://www.amazon.com/Durable-Packaging-92410-Heavy-Aluminum/dp/B00KNM30UM

e-credibility: the non-guaranteeable likelihood that the electronic data you're seeing is genuine rather than somebody's made-up crap. - Karl Lehenbauer

Working...