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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms (Score 1) 259

I'm sorry, but few if any of the things on your list are things made more affordable by the government. For example, flood insurance only exists because the government created it. Ditto for GPS. I am not sure how you think the government made phone service more affordable (there are two possibilities, places where there would not be phone service if not for the government...or at least not until long after it was made available there, or the break up of AT&T's monopoly, which only existed because the government created it in the first place). As for food, my food is MORE expensive because the government decided it was a good idea to use food for fuel. I am hard pressed as to how you think that postal service has been made more affordable by the government.
So, care to try again?

Comment Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms (Score 1) 259

I am sorry, but I am unaware of any successful efforts by the government to make ANY of those more affordable.
Certainly the government is responsible for the existence of vaccines and flood insurance. I will not argue about the government involvement in vaccines because I have never looked at the role government plays there. Flood insurance is an example of an idea that seems good that may not be so good after all. Basically, at this point government guaranteed flood insurance is a subsidy by the middle class for well-to-do vacation homes.
As to fire protection, in my life I have only lived one year in an area where the fire protection was provided by the government. The rest of the time I lived in areas covered by volunteer fire companies who conducted fundraisers to cover their expenses (from time to time one or more of them received grants from the government for equipment, but most of them would have managed without that).

Comment Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms (Score 1) 259

While they certainly should not be getting "affordable housing" tax breaks if they are renting them out on Airbnb, I am not sure why it is anybody's business that the property owners are making more money by renting them out short-term rather than long term. My observations are that the more the government gets involved in making things "affordable" the less affordable those things are.

Comment Re:"Times Less" Makes No Sense (Score 1) 524

No, the reason they say "3 times less than X" rather than "1/3 less than X" is because the former sounds like a bigger difference than the latter. With the former we subconsciously think 3 times X. It is similar to why you sell almost the same number at $0.99 as at $0.98, but see a marked drop off at $1.00.

Comment Re:Print it out ahead of time (Score 1) 310

In other words, you taught the better routes to Waze and now it lets everyone know. I have discovered that in areas where few people drive with Waze it chooses main roads over back roads. It is only after I have driven to a destination over back roads a few times that it starts using those particular back roads.

Comment Re:This suprises me not at all (Score 3, Informative) 34

In some ways it is worse than that. Many IT professionals are aware that they do not know exactly how to meet the government regulations (and criteria for certain quality certifications). In addition, they know that they can be held accountable for doing so (even though they are not even aware of all of the regulations they are accountable for). However, most of those regulations (and certification standards) offer them an out if they have purchased a service from someone else who promises to make them compliant. Theoretically, that someone else will be held accountable if they are discovered to not be compliant. In practice that does not happen. AND the IT professional who fobbed the responsibility off on them is no longer responsible (as long as they have done their due diligence by hiring a company that is big enough to not be held accountable).

Comment Re:Cable Packages, Duh (Score 1) 198

Actually, ESPN costs something like $2 a month PER SUBSCRIBER to the cable company. In other words, in order for ANY of a cable company's subscribers to be able to watch ESPN, the cable company must pay ESPN for ALL of their subscribers. ESPN does the same thing with their premium website..it's "Free", but only if your ISP pays ESPN some amount for each and everyone of their subscribers.
Or to put it another way, if you have cable TV, you are paying for ESPN, whether you have any interest in sports or not.

Slashdot Top Deals

I came, I saw, I deleted all your files.