Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I'm all for abolishing the IRS (Score 1) 349

by weiserfireman (#49374083) Attached to: Sign Up At irs.gov Before Crooks Do It For You

My problem with the Fair Tax proposal is the rebate checks.

It teaches stupid people that the Government gives them money every month. They can prove it too, waves rebate check

All food bought in stores, not restaurants, not taxed
All clothing items that cost less than $100, not taxed
All health care, not taxed.

Everything else, taxed. Who cares if someone has $20 billion in the bank, if every time they spend any of it, it gets taxed.

Comment: Re:No amount of nuclear energy is safe. (Score 1) 309

by weiserfireman (#49020199) Attached to: The IPCC's Shifting Position On Nuclear Energy

Most of the nuclear waste disposal issues are myths. The problems have been exaggerated and the solutions undersold.

1 example The US does not reprocess fuel rods because leaving the fuel rods intact keeps the waste products permanently entrained in the ceramic fuel pellets. There is no known mechanism where plutonium can leach out of a fuel pellet into ground water.

Proliferation could be solved by changing fuel types. Moving from uranium to thorium, for example.

Comment: Re:Lasers are easy to stop (Score 1) 517

by weiserfireman (#48998997) Attached to: The US Navy Wants More Railguns and Lasers, Less Gunpowder

We have never spent a lot of money on developing them, but anti-torpedo torpedoes are technically feasible.

They don't have to be very big either. Just drop a handful in the water and point them in the direction that the enemy torpedo is coming from. They could use the same sort of homing technology to find the enemy torpedo.

Comment: Re:Lasers are easy to stop (Score 1) 517

by weiserfireman (#48998811) Attached to: The US Navy Wants More Railguns and Lasers, Less Gunpowder

Germans had Karl Gerat guns in WW2. They were technically self-propelled mortars, 24" (60cm) bores. Because they were mortars, they did not have a high muzzle velocity. About a 10 mile range.
Took a crew of 21 and a fleet of support vehicles to support each one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...

Comment: Re:Portland (Score 1) 147

by weiserfireman (#48920921) Attached to: New Google Fiber Cities Announced

I live 1 mile from the Oregon border. I shop and work in Oregon all the time. I am familiar with Oregon.

It isn't speculation to think that an ISP might want to think twice about opening a new operation in Oregon. Comcast fought this new Central Assessment process for business property tax all the way to the Oregon Supreme Court. They lost just last October. http://www.bna.com/oregon-supr... Comcast says that the new assessment rules will cost them big. It increased their Assessment by $701 million in 2009 alone.

Basing the valuation of equipment and property even partly on the name of the owner, instead of the equipment and property alone, seems unfair. Changing the rules to create an exception to get around Measure 50, also seems like dirty pool.

If I owned an ISP, and was considering opening a business in Oregon, I think I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't take a 2nd or 3rd look at how this new assessment scheme was going to impact my business.

This isn't a right wing or a left wing position. This is a business decision. A new, higher property tax system, is going to impact the viability of the budget for the operations.

I had never even heard of this central assessment until today, but it didn't take me 10 minutes to find out that Comcast sure as heck is upset about it. If Comcast is that mad, you can believe that Google and every other ISP in your State is also looking at it.

I do know that the past few years have been financially difficult for Oregon. The recession hit State and Local Government coffers very hard. I haven't heard any of my friends in local Government complaining about tax shortfalls for a few years, so I have to assume that things have started to bounce back. But in 2008/2009 when this change was made, things were really dark for Oregon, tax wise that is.

Comment: I am not sure it is the Cable Companies Fault (Score 5, Insightful) 448

by weiserfireman (#48759177) Attached to: Unbundling Cable TV: Be Careful What You Wish For

I have a couple friends who are senior people at Cable companies I am not sure it is always the Cable companies fault.

1. Cable companies have to pay distributors to license feeds
2. Those distributors bundle their channels. One or two popular channels, 8 - 10 undesirable ones. Cable company has to buy the whole block, it is priced as a monthly charge per subscriber to the tier that includes the block.
3. Distributors are always trying to raise the rates. Thats when you get the websites about "Tell Comcast you want to keep your channels", because the cable company is trying to hold the line on price increases
4. ESPN is the most expensive part of the cable bill. Last I saw the numbers, it cost the Cable company $5 per subscriber per month. It is probably higher now. That is why there has been an explosion of Sports Networks on cable. They are all trying to get that sweet sweet cash flow that ESPN gets.
5. The content providers have been fighting al a carte pricing. It will signal the death of a lot of channels that get few viewers. In the end, it may lead to less choice

My Cable company was very slow to get a lot of HD channels. My friend told me it was part of their strategy to hold the line on prices. They refused to pay extra to include HD feeds. Their belief was, the production company already had sunk the costs into producing the show in HD. It cost them extra to produce a non-HD feed. A customer who was watching the HD channel, was not benefiting from having the non-HD channel available too.

Maybe if I ever had Comcast, my attitude would be different, but I feel like my Cable company is doing what they can to control costs.

Comment: Egyptian President (Score 4, Informative) 1350

by weiserfireman (#48756371) Attached to: Gunmen Kill 12, Wound 7 At French Magazine HQ

A couple days ago, I learned about the New Year's Day Speech by the Egyptian President. ..http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/01/egypts-president-sisi-calls-for-islamic-religious-revolution/

He called for a deep revolution in thought about the tenets of Islam. He believes that Muslims are destroying themselves and their credibility with the world with the violence being done in the name of Islam.

After I heard about the events in Paris, I really wanted to hear what he has to say. I think he would be dismayed, and point to it as an example of what he was saying.

Comment: Re:Interesting (Score 1) 293

by weiserfireman (#48667921) Attached to: Hotel Group Asks FCC For Permission To Block Some Outside Wi-Fi

I live in a very rural area. I am a Captain in a volunteer fire department. I have been doing this for 10 years. I have also been an EMT as well.

There is a reason cell phones are not relied on in emergency situations. An Incident Commander may use one when he is talking to the Mayor, or maybe a Hazmat specialist in another State, but he never uses a cell phone when trying to talk to someone inside the building.

Why? So everyone can hear what is being discussed. I may not be part of the conversation, but I may need to know the conditions on the other side of the building that the IC is talking about.

Dispatch also monitors the fire ground radio traffic so that they can anticipate requests for additional support. '

In the event of a major disaster at hotel property, where we might bring in specialized search and rescue teams, that we don't normally train with, such as a building collapse, Jamming of wireless signals by the hotels network is not going to be an issue. If the collapse didn't shut down the network, it will be down shortly after we shut off all power and utilities to the building.

But again, the hotels are not asking for permission to block Cell Signals. They are asking for permission to treat mobile hotspots like rogue APs, as if they are a potential threat to their wireless network. The technology to interfere with these hot spots, isn't random jamming that will interfere with Cell phone usage, or emergency radios. It is deauthentication packets aimed at the hotspots and the clients of the hotspots. It doesn't interfere with the radio environment per se, it is interferes at the layer 2 or 3 level.

It won't affect emergency communications in any way shape or form. That is a red herring.

There are lots of real reasons to dislike this proposal without inventing problems that don't exist.

The greatest productive force is human selfishness. -- Robert Heinlein

Working...