Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:He's right! (Score 1) 581

by SandwhichMaster (#46728165) Attached to: Michael Bloomberg: You Can't Teach a Coal Miner To Code

Of course not all coal miners will want to be coders, but why can't you teach a coal miner to code? And why do people assume that coal miners are not interested in coding. And why do people assume they don't have the intellectual ability to handle it.

Maybe I'm being arrogant, but I'm guessing coal miners chose that life because they weren't suited for much else. I'd wager that most of these guys are below average intelligence, where as most programmers are above average intelligence.

Of course, (from a quick google search) the pay looks surprisingly decent, so maybe I'm wrong. The pay is probably accounting for a dangerous, unhealthy, and miserable line of work. Still, I have to believe that if you can do something else, you'd already be doing it.

Comment: Re:Peculiarities? (Score 1) 307

by SandwhichMaster (#42936827) Attached to: Tax Peculiarities Mean Facebook Paid No Net Taxes For 2012

Middle income earners get to deduct health care expenses

Not really. Not unless you have some crazy high medical expenses.

According to the IRS (irs.gov): "You may deduct only the amount by which your total medical care expenses for the year exceed 7.5% of your adjusted gross income"

There's too many examples to list that refute your claim that everybody will pay their share eventually. There are many companies that are given a low to 0% taxation rates to lure them into a particular state/city. Just ask Walmart. How is the poor guy going to get that same break?

The Internet

+ - Community owned ISPs offer better service->

Submitted by
Presto Vivace
Presto Vivace writes "U.S. Internet Users Pay More for Slower Service

In 2004, the Lafayette utilities system decided to provide a fiber-to-the-home service. The new network, called LUS Fiber, would give everyone in Lafayette a very fast Internet connection, enabling them to lower their electricity costs by monitoring and adjusting their usage. Push-back from the local telephone company, BellSouth Corp., and the local cable company, Cox Communications Inc., was immediate. They tried to get laws passed to stop the network, sued the city, even forced the town to hold a referendum on the project — in which the people voted 62 percent in favor. Finally, in February 2007, after five civil lawsuits, the Louisiana Supreme Court voted, 7-0, to allow the network.

The service has saved Lafayette citizens millions of dollars."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:One Little Problem with "Increasing" Crime Idea (Score 1) 449

Interesting correlation to that drop in violent crime...

Leaded gas, known to mess with development, was banned in 1978. Roughly 20 years later, about the time it takes for a new born to fully mature, violent crime begins to suddenly drop.

Not saying it's the cause, but it might be a factor.

Comment: Re:Tasing Is An Improvement (Score 1) 936

by SandwhichMaster (#42277837) Attached to: New Hampshire Cops Use Taser On Woman Buying Too Many iPhones

Tasers are anything but a humane alternative. Consult Youtube for about 15 seconds for an example.

The thought behind the taser, is to use the weapon in a situation that would have otherwise necessitated lethal force (i.e. a gun). In practice, however, police just zap anyone that they find annoying. Worse still, because it's not a gun, these idiots don't consider tasers to have lethal consequences. There have been numerous serious injuries and even deaths as a result of the abuse of a weapon.

Consider the folks who have heart conditions, or who have been struck by multiple tasers.

Tasers should be banned.

Comment: Re:Why not reduce emissions? (Score 1) 623

by SandwhichMaster (#42058615) Attached to: Report Says Climate Change Already Evident, Emissions Gap Growing

Wow, lot's of hostility to my comment, and a few good points too.

Boats - I stand corrected, boats have some modest emissions controls. We could definitely stand to see something stronger though:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

Planes - Yes, I understand that the U.S. is large, but we can start with modern trains that connect smaller distances, like Milwaukee to Chicago, L.A. to Vegas, etc. Trains are more efficient than planes, and can actually travel very fast. I'm also speculating that trains suffer from fewer delays, have quicker security checkpoints, and require less maintenance.

Coal power plants: There is no such thing as clean coal plant. Look at the destruction caused just to GET the coal, let alone burn it. It's dangerous for the workers and disastrous for our environment. Search for images before and after mining, it's unsettling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_United_States, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania

Lawn Mowers - Operating a mower for an hour is the pollution equivalent of driving a car 200 miles. Consider how many lawns are in the U.S. alone. That is not insignificant: http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/community/details/yardequip_addl_info.html.

Excessive Water Consumption - Too many people underestimate the value of clean, fresh water. It takes energy and costly equipment to clean and deliver fresh water to your home. Water is also a limited resource. If/when our rapidly draining aquifers run dry, the consequences will be disastrous to our food supply and economy. We can do some simple things to reduce our usage, without much effort. Front load washing machines save ~20 gallons per use. Low flow toilets can save ~2 gallons per flush. I have no regrets switching to either, and I have a lower water bill. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/water-conservation-tips/

Comment: Why not reduce emissions? (Score 4, Insightful) 623

by SandwhichMaster (#42055645) Attached to: Report Says Climate Change Already Evident, Emissions Gap Growing

I understand that there are many arguments as to whether global climate change exists, and/or how sever it is. I also understand that trying to reduce our emissions significantly can come at some economic cost. But there are still many low hanging fruits that we could easily tackle as a compromise, at very little cost.

To name a few:

- Boats - No emissions controls at all currently
- Planes - Trains should be a better option (particularly in the U.S.)
- Coal power plants - Outdated tech
- Lawn mowers - Electric mowers could replace most people's mowing needs
- Excessive water consumption - Top loading washing machines are a colossal waste of fresh water

Additionally, there have been numerous studies linking various forms of pollution to cancer and other serious health effects. So we stand to gain healthier people and lower health care costs by reducing our emissions as well.

Comment: Re:Gas is still affordable so far (Score 3, Insightful) 467

If it (gas) suddenly doubled in price, our economy might collapse.

This is something that doesn't get noticed enough. You can talk about "Drill baby drill", "global warming is a myth", etc. all you want, but at the end of the day, it is wildly unwise to have our entire economy based around one technology. We are much better equipped to handle change if we're diversified.

We've seen oil prices spike too many times not to know better by now.

What is worth doing is worth the trouble of asking somebody to do.