Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Troll them! (Score 1) 141

I wish Lenny had more to say before he starts repeating himself. I bet he could keep most of them on the line a lot longer ;)

The ducks are priceless, I love the diversion strategy. A lot of Lenny's stuff works because it can be interpreted as appropriate answers to a wide variety of questions. Like his "Good, yes yes..." can be seen as responding to a question about how he's doing, agreeing to a yes/no question, or simply being polite.

It seems that usually Lenny fails when people start trying to get numbers out of him ("how much are you willing to spend?", "how much can you donate", "what's your credit card number", "what's your address?", etc) It'd be nice if Lenny had a way to inject some numbers into the conversation (fairly late in the conversation, after he's done his "world finances" speech), without his response only being applicable to questions about numbers. For example, maybe he could have a barely audible conversation with someone family member in the house, wherein Lenny sounds like he's referring to the phone call and trying to gather information, then starts repeating some numbers ("thirty-two.... oh.... oh?... but the... (mumble mumble...)", then goes inaudible again, and ultimately the person leaves the house thus making them conveniently unavailable for followup. Lenny then returns to the conversation on the phone with some meaningless mumbling or platitutdes, leaving the caller to interpret the numbers that he heard as either the start of the numbers he was asking for (or the whole thing), or contrarily (if he wasn't seeking numbers) a side conversation that has nothing to do with him. Lenny's next response should start off with "yes, yes...."

The caller would surely follow up trying to get more information / the rest of the information that they were seeking, so Lenny's next line could operate on that assumption. Maybe have one of his rambling stories at that point, and then after that he forgets what it was he was saying the person on the line... maybe eventually calls up the family member on a cell phone to get the needed information, getting another mumbly conversation, ending with the family member brushing him off and telling him that they don't have time, that he should talk with (other family member). Giving Lenny an opportunity for more delays and brushoff tactics, plus plenty of apologetic "I hope you're not upset with this old man for taking so much time..." type responses... maybe him having trouble with his cell phone (perhaps even trying to get the operator to offer tech support advice? ;) ), ending with him giving up and having to go dig through files (that could take AGES).... I bet they could go from record conversations in the half-hour range to average conversations in the same range. ;)

Comment Re: Are there that many drone in the air in the US (Score 2) 52

The FAA is banned from regulating model aircraft if I recall.

Which is why the Obama administration just instituted their new RC aircraft owner registration system (you have to sign up by the 19th of this month, or face up to $20,000 in fines ... and that includes operating any toy RC machine as small as just under 9 ounces/250g) through the Department Of Transportation instead of through the FAA. It's a sleazy maneuver that directly goes against the spirit of the law congress passed to prevent exactly such things from happening.

Hopefully you're not surprised that an administration that has been found repeatedly by federal courts to have overstepped separation of powers by issuing unconstitutional executive orders would be trying to once again work around the law?

Doesn't matter. Most people who fly RC planes for fun can't afford to fight the administration in court or risk that $20,000 fine. There are a couple of groups trying to take the matter to court, but that will drag out years. In the meantime, we have to play along with the illegal action by the administration.

Comment Re:Are there that many drone in the air in the US? (Score 2) 52

Are there really that many drones kicking around that they are this much of an issue?

The rule (and its change) wasn't about "drones" - it was about any and all RC-controlled flying things. Balsa-wood models that grandpa has been flying around in circles in his back field for 40 years, for example. Hundreds of thousands of people have been flying RC aircraft for many decades. And no, it's never been an issue and still isn't. The FAA's random rule-generating system has nothing to do with reality.

Comment Re:FAA doing it right (Score 2) 52

Other than that, they have no reason to exist and should be shot down, no mater where they are.

So you're thinking that these machines, which people have been flying for decades - an activity enjoyed by millions of people over multiple generations, should all be shot down? Really?

If I find your car annoying or your mobile phone to be an intrusive image-capturing device, can I shoot at them? No? Why not?

Comment Re:Hillary, is that you? (Score 1) 289

They can be exploited now, but there are all sorts of really convoluted tax rules to stop that which you need to spend years studying in order to comprehend - and you need someone who knows all those rules in order to find the loopholes. Your alternative proposal would scrap the rules, which means every business large and small would be finding new ways to barter efficiently. 20% of payroll costs will easily justify hiring a specialist who knows how best to set up a good untaxable benefits system.

Comment Re:Hillary, is that you? (Score 2) 289

Such a simple system becomes exploitable. The exploits demand countermeasures, and that gets complicated.

For example, you tax income. But what is income? Company car? Company house? Company staff discount? You've set up a system where employers and employees agree to non-monetary compensation as a form of tax avoidance, which means you have to add all sorts of rules about calculating equivalent taxable values.

Comment Re:Re-entry aiming (Score 1) 237

It depends on how bad they are. The world's first ICBM had a high, 5km CEP. But still, plot a 5km circle on any major city, you're still going to hit a densely populated area.

That said, it's quite true that NK's nuclear weapons are (comparatively) quite weak, and (probably) heavy.

Slashdot Top Deals

A meeting is an event at which the minutes are kept and the hours are lost.

Working...