Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I can see Vegas wanting to protect their revenu (Score 2) 93

by edawstwin (#48525553) Attached to: A Backhanded Defense of Las Vegas' Taxi Regulation

Sorry I travel 2 sometimes 3 times a month to Vegas and I have to say outside of NYC it's the biggest taxi racket out there. Because of the terminal locations, it's a guaranteed $10 sometimes $15 bucks before you even get to the Strip because of the circuitous routing and roads. One time I had a driver "miss" the airport exit and then had to argue with him over the extra $13 bucks on the meter because of his mistake. So now I rent cars when I go there and again, Vegas leads this category in stupidity. Hike to the Rental Car Shuttle Bus, ride for 10 minutes, more lines, more hassle and oh yeah nice "Franchise" fees on top of "Airport Taxes" to pile onto the car. Still, it's better than a taxi there.

If you go the non-highway route, it's pretty direct. There's not much "circuitous routing" at all. And compare the airport-to-where-most-people-go fares to other cities' fares - it's quite low. I'm not defending anyone trying to make your ride longer and charging for it, I'm just saying Las Vegas is one of the best cities in the country for cabs if everything's honest. Next time you get in a cab in non-peak times, say "Take Tropicana" if you're going to the South side of the strip, and say, "Take Swenson" if you're going anywhere north of City Center/Planet Hollywood. The cabbie will think you know where you're going and won't take you out of the way.

As far as renting a car goes, it takes an extremely long time unless you go to Hertz or Avis, who invariably charge double or more what the discount places charge. I made the mistake of renting from Dollar one time, and I certainly got what I pad for. At least a dozen people in line and one agent. On subsequent rentals, I see the same thing at Dollar/Fox/etc... - hideous lines and one or maybe two agents. I'd rather spend $15-20 each way on cab fare and save an hour, but if your time is worth nothing, then the discount places may be worth it to you.

Comment: Re:Monorail (Score 1) 93

by edawstwin (#48524967) Attached to: A Backhanded Defense of Las Vegas' Taxi Regulation
I've never seen a limo driver hawking is service there - I'm usually already in a cab, but they do like to negotiate, especially if they're idle (An aisde - always call for a limo and negotiate a free ride when taking multiple people to a strip club. The club pays the driver for each person that enters.) I guess in the case of six people it makes sense (plus, saving time). But six is an exception - usually it's two, or maybe four, people arriving at the same time.

Comment: Sometimes the highway is better (Score 3, Interesting) 93

by edawstwin (#48524379) Attached to: A Backhanded Defense of Las Vegas' Taxi Regulation
At certain times (generally Friday after rush hour to midnight and Saturday evenings/nights), it is faster and probably cheaper to take the highway to strip hotels on the west side of the strip (it's easier to get to the east side strip hotels going the back way). Anytime you cross (or God forbid have to travel on) the strip in traffic, it adds quite a bit of time/money to your journey. Some west side hotels are inconvenient from any route, though (Monte Carlo and Mirage, and to a slightly lesser extent, Caesar's, immediately come to mind).

Comment: Re:Monorail (Score 4, Interesting) 93

by edawstwin (#48524313) Attached to: A Backhanded Defense of Las Vegas' Taxi Regulation
I go to Vegas quite a bit, and every taxi driver that I spoke with during the monorail era (when they were talking about or actually extending it) was for it going to the airport. They make more money the more time cabs are occupied, and just going back and forth between the strip and the airport meant waiting in one line or other a great deal of the time. It's much better to take one $50 fare in an hour than two $20 fares. I don't know if the various companies' bottom line would have been affected - probably so, but there would be more cabs available (and thus more revenue) from the strip hotels at peak times (some times it takes quite a while to get a cab) if the monorail extended to the airport.

+ - Federal agents impersonated computer technicians to collect evidence-> 1

Submitted by schwit1
schwit1 (797399) writes "Federal agents turned off Internet access to three luxury villas at a Las Vegas hotel then impersonated repair technicians to surreptitiously get inside and collect evidence in an investigation of online sports betting, according to defense lawyers challenging the practice.

The FBI employed the ruse against the recommendation of an assistant U.S. attorney."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Let me get this right (Score 1) 839

by edawstwin (#48161793) Attached to: Bill Gates: Piketty's Attack on Income Inequality Is Right

Show me an alternative tax structure that doesn't lower the tax burden for corporations or high earners by passing it onto the middle class and I'll support it.

As I said, the poor would benefit.

And corporations do not pay taxes! Consumers already pay corporate taxes. Transferring how it's paid is a side-effect of a consumption tax. I'd argue that it's a beneficial side-effect, as it would be completely transparent, and there would be no more incentives for corporations to hide/shift income.

Comment: Re:Let me get this right (Score 1, Insightful) 839

by edawstwin (#48161037) Attached to: Bill Gates: Piketty's Attack on Income Inequality Is Right

Inequality isn't a problem because rich people MAKE more than poor people. We should encourage people to create as much wealth as possible. This is a semantic misdirection I can't help commenting on when I hear it. Rich people don't "make" more money than poor people. Rich people "get their hands on" more money than poor people.

Talk abut semantics. Everyone gets/receives/makes money in various ways. If you're using "make" as a term for earning money through wages, then most rich people "make" money. They may also make more money by investing money wisely, whether it be stocks, starting businesses, etc... If you think that rich people "get their hands on" money by just stealing it from the poor, you're delusional.

How would you rank these in terms of a) actual creation of value, and b) income? 1. A CEO 2. A lawyer 3. An engineer 4. A scientist Now rank them in terms of income.

That list is in its correct order for value and income in a free market. Can a scientist/engineer/lawyer organize and run a huge company composed of lawyers, engineers, and scientists? There's a reason that top CEOs get paid what they do. Without them, there is no functioning company. Sure, some or even most get paid what we think of as more than they're actually worth, but those companies are in a position to pay them so much because of their CEO. If they're not good enough, they get fired - it happens all of the time. Sure, plenty get exorbitant severance, but usually because they've negotiated that into their employment agreement, which anyone in the U.S., rich or poor, CEO or engineer, is free to do.

Comment: Re:Let me get this right (Score 1) 839

by edawstwin (#48159779) Attached to: Bill Gates: Piketty's Attack on Income Inequality Is Right

The sticking point is the "moving away" part. Can anyone seriously think with as hooked on spending as the government is that any form of tax would actually go away? It's far, far more likely that a consumption tax would be an "also" and not an "instead of".

Just tie any consumption tax legislation to the repeal of the 16th Amendment (in the U.S., of course).

Comment: Re:Let me get this right (Score 5, Informative) 839

by edawstwin (#48159749) Attached to: Bill Gates: Piketty's Attack on Income Inequality Is Right
The Fair Tax solves this by giving everyone a subsidy equal to the amount of taxes that would be paid at a certain income level (directly related to the poverty line, I believe). Everyone essentially pays no taxes on necessary food/housing/etc... So it's actually better for the poor than the middle and upper classes. I'm sure that most consumption tax proposals do something similar.

What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind. -- Thomas Hewitt Key, 1799-1875