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


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re: Epix was one reason they were forced to stream (Score 1) 199

You are very lucky. I live in a suburb of Phoenix that is only served by Centurylink (no cable TV available). On a good day I can see 1.2 meg down speed and it's costing me over $60/month. Centurylink has been promising to upgrade soon (within 2 months) for the last five years.

Why would they upgrade? They are your only choice of provider, they have you by the short and curlies.

Time to move...

Comment Re:People limited to 10 GB/mo (Score 1) 158

Same here. Problem is that selling a house with this kind of pre-2000 net connection is not going to be easy.

I never really understood such comments, but perhaps there are situations I don't know about.

I have friends who have had trouble selling their houses in the past, comments like, "ugg, we've been on the market for 5 months, no serious offers..."

Nonsense, what has REALLY happened is, "you've been on the market 5 months OVERPRICED and no one is even asking you to dance, much less make a deal."

If a house is listed for sale for 30 days and it hasn't sold, then generally the price is too high for the existing conditions. Either improve the conditions or lower the price.

Note: The above applies to locations that generally have houses on them already, not to vacant land, which is another beast.

Example house:

That house has been on the market for 811 days. It is a beautiful house, but it is also overpriced and won't sell at that price. It probably won't appraise either, so even if it sold, you couldn't get a mortgage on it without a massive downpayment.

Drop the price to 1.99m and you'll get people to dance, and probably sell at 1.85m to 1.9m. At 2.3m no one is coming to the party.

Comment Re:"...need to be prepared..." (Score 1) 380

And you are?

The comments being offered about this or that solution are equally useless...

So check a mirror, you might find your comments apply to you as well...

At least I'm being realistic about things, most of the people offering up "solutions" are just dreaming fantasy.

Comment Re:People limited to 10 GB/mo (Score 1) 158

Probably because it is even more cost-prohibitive to move somewhere with a higher cost of living.

I live in the DFW Metroplex, the cost of living here is quite low, compared to many other places, and we have gigabit to the home for $105 a month, or 300 meg for $85 a month.

What more do you want?

Comment Re:People limited to 10 GB/mo (Score 1) 158

Because when I bought the house I was promised there would be fiber in the ground by the end of 2012. Yeah, that didn't happen. :-/

That sucks... but their "promise" worked, you bought the house, they have their money, and your lack of fiber is not their problem...

I would only move somewhere that had high speed today, right now, that I can hook up before I even move in. I don't believe the "promises" by anyone, too many plans change.

Comment Re:People limited to 10 GB/mo (Score 1) 158

With respect... if you surf Slashdot, how can you live somewhere that has such poor Internet? That would drive me insane.

When I look for a new house, what type of Internet it gets is high on my list of requirements. My wife wants to move further into the countryside, and I'm ok with this, so long as we can still get some type of reliable high speed Internet (50+ megabit would be the bare min)

Comment Re: pros and cons (Score 2) 422

Yes, all our allies will suck... the problem is Russia and China, who this plane is really aimed at...

Our existing F-16 and F-15s are plenty to fight nations like Iran, what we need the upgrade for is a major conflict with a major power...

The Western media likes to downplay and make fun of Russian and Chinese technology, but there are parts of what they do that are better than we are, and better than the aging F-16/F-15 fleet.

The F-22 Raptor is indeed awesome, but 187 airframes isn't enough to fight a war with and the lead time on production today is so high that you wouldn't likely have time to build more.

If we had 500 F-22s, then the F-35 wouldn't bother me (beyond the cost), because with the F-22 you can make sure you own the skies and have air superiority. The F-35 can't obtain that on its own. Frankly, you're better off with a bunch of F-15s than a bunch of F-35s. F-15Cs to own the skies and F-15Es to bomb the crap out of the bad guys.

You can also buy multiple copies of the F-15 for the cost of each F-35.

Comment Re:pros and cons (Score 1) 422

Jack of all trades, master of none is a great idea in war... if it's cheap and easy to build, and you can just spam it. The F-35 ain't and you can't.

True, which is why I said "if you don't have numbers on your side".

The Russian T-34 and the US M4 Sherman were great examples of, "good enough just spam the crap out of them".

It often took 8 or 9 M4 Shermans to knock out 1 German Tiger tank. But we often had 20 M4 Shermans for each Tiger, so it worked.

The F-22 ironically has the reverse problem. It is the best at what it does, but 187 of them isn't nearly enough to do anything with, other than perhaps a minor regional conflict. It is our "Tiger Tank", superior to everything, but so rare that if we got involved in a major shooting war, it wouldn't be enough.

Comment Re:Expect major BIAS (Score 2) 422

I know if I was a grunt on the ground, I'd damn well rather have an A-10 covering me than an F-35.

Or better yet, FOUR A-10s rather than ONE F-35, since that is at least the running cost difference between them...

The cost of the planes is trivial compared to the 30 year cost to fly and maintain them.

Comment Re:pros and cons (Score 3, Interesting) 422

But it can't do _any_ of the roles well. The tradeoffs made to accommodate all different military branches needs have played havoc with doing _any_ role well. The repair and upkeep costs are astronomical, it's a fuel glutton, it's fragile, and it's clumsy.

^ This... and in war, you don't want "average" if you can avoid it, unless you have a massive numbers advantage...

The F-35 is the perfect example of jack of all trades, master of none. That is normally not a good idea in war.

Comment Re: pros and cons (Score 3, Informative) 422

Your causality is backwards. The cost to build each F-35 isn't all that much. What makes it "expensive" is the total development cost divided by a small number made. Same problem the F-22 had. Cost a fortune to design and progress the technology, but each individual airplane cost less than half what their overall cost is, since they only made 187 combat aircraft.

Most of your post is simply wrong information...

Thousands of F-35 planes will be built, for many nations... It is meant to replace a whole lot of airframes, so it isn't going to be a short production run...

The F35 is a lot like a dual sport motorcycle. It can't keep up with the sport bikes (F-22, F-15, F-16) at track days, and it can't keep up with MX bikes (A-10) at the dirt track, but it is awfully good at the 90% of the rest of the time uses.

Actually, it isn't really good at anything, just average at a number of things. Average is not what you want in wartime, you want to be really good, or you have to overcome not being the best with a huge numbers advantage.

Its second big issue is that the Pentagon canceled the engine that was designed to go in it, which had twice the power of the current engine. That is also why it lost VTOL capability. Then they cut the dual engine dogfigter which was proposed after the more powerful version was cut.

What makes you think it lost VTOL? That is still there, they canceled the second OPTION engine, it sure as heck wasn't going to be TWICE THE POWER...

Most of what you understand about the F-35 appears to simply be incorrect information.

Anything cut to length will be too short.