Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Now it's like telco selling me to advertisers (Score 1) 106

Have you been Enroned lately, well, apparently not. How about the bank bail out. How about the credit union crush. How about the dot bomb. Oh look, Wells Fargo. That not enough for you how about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

Typical business plan. Good company, buy it out for more than it is worth, reduce expenditures no matter how destructive that reduction, cheat customers upon a mass scale, repackage with the aid of a corrupt financial institution, who sells it prior to the collapse, run off with profits in offshore tax haven, that financial institution now bets the company will collapse, company collapse, workers and customers screwed as well as the musical chair investors, those idiots who never get a seat at the profit party. Vulture capitalism at it's most typical.

Comment Re:Rear-view mirror. (Score 1) 227

Eliminating the need for an engine or to control it are the benefit and of course you are sharing tracks, so more individual drivers becomes extremely dangerous. Keep in mind you would most likely get at least a daily schedule and the relocation is not that frequent, just really easy. You don't even have to leave you home. Towing stresses is not that bad, keeping in mind the weight will be considerably lower and number of carriages will never really be that high. The whole idea to make much better economic use of the tracks, substantially less idle times.

The work commute would be obvious, with you home in a tracked camper yard adjacent to a station, catching the train into work is a no brainer. Would also be an interesting retirement option, no driving stress, no loading hassles, no leaving your home. Just book, shunt and away you go, to be dropped off at destination and shunted to your site, one hook up and done. Always keep in simple, the KISS principle.

Big investment in the camper train wagon parks, the development would be owned by railroad company but they could sell camper sites, rather than just rent, to gain higher earlier returns and owner occupiers are on average far more stable. They are in a position to create new tourist destinations, where train track abuts quality leisure locations. Across the board development, working life, tourism and retirement.

Comment Re:Thanks, I'll pass on all of them (Score 1) 244

What people are willing to put up with, makes no sense. Forget those silly measures. I want to be able to buy a home (salary sufficient to make comfortable payments), in close proximity to the place of employment, with some surety of long term employment and a carpark provide, with charge point. I want good grocery shopping within walking distance of the home and entertainment a short drive, again with parking. Infrastructure must be top notch, in good repair and of high quality. The police must be professional, not trigger happy freaks or corrupt as fuck. A clear safe environment, low in pollutants. Proper storm water and sewer services, with reliable energy supply and a fibre optic connection (now also a new requirement, a connection that guarantees privacy)

Fail in any of those and quite simply, fuck off, no job is worth it. Fine when you a really young and don't really know what is going one but once you mature (and not driven by nothing but greed and lust), you want overall quality of life, a proper balance, between work, live and play. Some more personal things, a nice clean public beach close by, parks and gardens for strolls at work and at home. The only give away, a lower salary is fine but it still must be able to make house payments.

Comment Re:Head count! (Score 1) 82

What the fuck is the article even about. M$ is inside every single mug punter, nothing voluntary about it what so ever http://www.zdnet.com/article/w.... Yep, uh huh, people volunteer for the M$ probe, stick it in deeper, oh yeah, twist it about, on yeah, pump it harder. Volunteer to stick windows 10 on a box and M$ gives you no choice, routinely fucking over the semi, somewhat, sometimes pretend privacy settings.

Those insiders and inside nothing, M$ is inside them, schmucks. Insider http://www.dictionary.com/brow..., so what special inside information do they get, none what so ever, so M$ double speak, when they say you are an insider, they actually mean they are the insider "a person belonging to a limited circle of persons who understand the actual facts in a situation or share private knowledge", that's you private knowledge they are digging into.

Comment Re:Blank check? (Score 5, Interesting) 427

Face it the entire US election system was pretty fucked up. In action, you could not tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats, sure they made different noises and ran different PR campaigns to scam the electors but there was no real difference in their profession, as corporate whores and every is for sale.

This of course can be challenged in the court, as it breaks the constitution, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.", just to be clear for idiots, no where in that paragraph is that regulatory constraint limited to action by government. No fucking line in there about by the government, it is across the board. So the law infringes as passed by government as it denies the right of a person to be secure in the papers, papers being communications, that is the law and it is not limited to government ie government can not pass that law to allow some individuals to attack the security of other citizens and their communications.

Comment Re:Nervous testing department (Score 1, Insightful) 79

Tester: Phone doesn't work
Boss:Take out the battery and put it back in.
Tester:Can't do that
Boss:Fuck.

My favourite way of silencing a noisy phone, rip of the back and flick out the battery, it is faster than holding the stupid switch which refuses to function when the phone is ringing. Can be a few days before the battery goes in, meh, that's what messaging banks are for (if I need to use it, well, the battery goes back it).

Comment Re:Flight Simulators and Computerized Calculation (Score 1) 315

Well, I certainly hope you [Fast Ben] are a better pilot than I was (which wouldn't be difficult), but you didn't consider the width. If the runway is reasonably wide and you control your approach properly, then you would be landing straight and slowing down to a safe taxi speed well before you need to start following the curve.

If your approach is bad, then you're supposed to go around anyway. From that perspective it might actually increase the safety if there is a clear buffer zone around the airport. I still remember the time I was on final and a sudden crosswind lined me up over the parked planes... However, the "sudden crosswind" is a case that this design would still be vulnerable to, so you still need planes and pilots that can handle such situations. (No mention of "sudden" in the comments, but that doesn't much surprise me on Slashdot these days. Maybe I should be surprised to see another pilot here at all? A lot of today's comments are from people who know little whereof they speak... (Though I still miss the "funny" more.))

I think the instrument landing part is where you earned the "insightful" mod, though I doubt the moderator knows why. However, I think it is basically a software problem. Yes, you'd need more beacons, but mostly you'd need to be able to interpret their data from more orientations. I think you'd have to calculate every instrument approach for the current conditions, and probably for the individual plane.

Comment Re:More =/= better (Score 1) 315

Again, I have to wonder about the moderation as "insightful". At least you [MrLogic17] posed your comment in the form of a question.

The obvious answer, though it doesn't appear in any of the visible replies (and I basically don't read ACs) is that you don't have to keep all of it clear, but only the parts that are actually in use under the current wind conditions, as well as selected taxiways.

This part is more speculative, but I think it would actually be easier to keep the "active" runways clear since the wind would always be blowing directly down the runway. From a mathematical perspective, the "entry point" of fresh snow would only be at one small point at the end of each active runway.

As regards the last part of your comment, pretty sure you've never flown a plane. I was a lousy pilot, but I'm pretty sure the wording refers to two landing and two taking off, but they aren't counting one of the taking off planes because it is waiting for the turbulence to settle down. Another possibility is that one side is being used for landings and they are counting the takeoff as one plane because that takes roughly twice as long per plane.

Comment Re:Conflict? (Score 1) 315

...they wouldn't have to fight against crosswinds. And three planes would be able to take off or land at the same time...

If three are landing at the same time, I'd say that at least one is fighting cross-winds.

Rather than blaming the author, I'd rather say that whoever moderated that comment as insightful doesn't read too well. As regards the author, it's merely obvious that he or she has no experience actually flying planes.

Oh well. Moot insofar as the article is on the edge of Slashdot death (at the bottom of the page). The largest disappointment is the lack of funny comments on such a rich target.

Comment Re:Dilemma Solution (Score 1) 351

I think there's an argument to be made that corporate interests saying "We shouldn't pay any taxes" is sufficiently self-serving that if it were to be carried out, there should be replacement of government revenue. I'd happily tax any executive on all remunerations at a massive rate of tax, if not at $500,000, then I'd say any remuneration as well as capital gains and the like. Quite frankly, the idea that a corporate "person" somehow gets to evade the taxes that a real "person" has to pay to me suggests that the notion of corporate personhood should be completely eliminated should corporations no longer have to pay taxes, and that shareholders should now be witness to fiduciary risks as parties to criminal acts.

Either that or corporations pay their fucking taxes and quit having their proxies go around trying to argue away their obligations to the wider society. That's exactly how I'd frame it, "Don't want to pay taxes, your shareholders will no longer have the protections of limited liability", because what's really being argued here is a "having their cake and eating it too" proposition.

Comment Re:Dilemma Solution (Score 1) 351

Fine, a massive capital gains tax on dividends, on resource extraction licenses, and a massive tax on any income over $500,000, including any "interest-free loans", shares, and any other financial instrument. If you think taxing corporations is bad, then tax the living fuck out of those that are making the money. Oh, and repeal all corporate personhood. All shareholders will be liable for the misdeeds of the corporation, up to and including imprisonment for death and injury a corporation causes, and seizure of shareholders' assets in the case of insolvency or financial penalty beyond current cash and asset reserves.

Is that what you meant?

Slashdot Top Deals

"In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current." -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...