Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:Laying cable (Score 4, Informative) 188

Great! Can you please elaborate? Particularly about equipment costs and stuff?

Cost is a complicated and depends on the situation but a very simple case probably would be somewhere between $5000-20000 per user for data cable for a simple run presuming there were multiple users along the route. High power lines can be far more expensive. Underground cable is somewhere between 4-8X as expensive to lay as overhead cable. The biggest costs are typically the civil engineering involved. Especially if you have to dig up or work around any existing infrastructure.

Equipment? Depends on what you are doing and where you are doing it. Ignoring the equipment to hook into existing infrastructure you're looking at trenching equipment, cable feeding equipment, and a variety of other goodies. You also have to watch for buried power, data, gas, water, and sewer lines which aren't always well documented. Dig by hand? Don't make me laugh. To do it right you have to lay the cable below the frost line in most cases which can be several feet deep in many places. I know code near me for a simple drop requires a minimum depth for cable TV cable of 18 inches.

Comment Laying cable (Score 4, Insightful) 188

Dammit! How hard is it to dig a trench and lay a cable in it?

It's challenging. Not in the sense that they don't know how to do it but rather that it's expensive and unless you already have customers it's financially risky. To build a whole network is enormously expensive.

I know the trench-digging part at least is easy, because where I live they manage to knock out at least one vital utility a year digging around at random.

Umm, that would be evidence that it is NOT easy.

Do I have to do it myself? Because me and at least 20 people I know would gladly volunteer to buy a spool of fiber and dig a mile of trench each with hand shovels if we knew for sure they wouldn't arrest us for it.

I don't think you have the foggiest idea what you are proposing. I have immediate family that has been in the business of laying underground cable. There is a lot more to it than digging a trench and dropping a cable to the bottom of it.

Comment Least worst (Score 1) 863

If you want your voice heard, you should probably vote for the person who you align with best.

I think people should vote for the person who most closely fits their worldview who actually has a prayer of getting into office. Voting for a third party candidate who might get 2% of the vote is a waste of time. It just is. If it makes you feel good I won't quibble as long as you understand that it will accomplish nothing of value. If you actually want your voice heard then you should actually get involved in politics directly. There are far better ways to make yourself heard than through a protest vote for a fringe candidate.

The two-party lock-in is pure rhetorical garbage. I can't in good conscience vote for a completely unqualified demagogue or someone who is the closest thing to a living embodiment of the establishment.

I'll agree that the two party thing is annoying but it definitely is not "rhetorical" in nature. It's an inevitable function of how our voting system is set up.

I take a more realpolitik view of who I vote for. I rarely have warm feelings for either of the major party candidates and this election is no exception. I basically am trying to pick what I think is the least worst option among the available candidates that have a real shot at office. In this election Hillary is clearly the least worst option when the alternative is Trump so that is how I'm voting. It's not that I think she's amazing but she fits my worldview far better than Trump and I she is clearly far more competent to hold public office. Donald Trump is easily the worst presidential candidate I've seen in my lifetime.

Comment Nothing to gain (Score 1) 863

Actually, my question is, what do any of these three nations have to gain by invading any of one another?

Nothing. Which is why it hasn't happened. The advantages of working together actually hugely outweigh any conceivable benefits of going to war. The only reason countries like Germany ever invaded Russia is that they elected a psychotic person with aspirations of conquering an empire.

Comment Paranoid Russia (Score 1) 863

They are justifiably paranoid.

Paranoid yes. Justifiably no.

That's what Westerners do not get about the Russian national psyche. They trust no one, especially the US.

True but a bizarre stance since the US is actually not a threat to Russia unless Russia gets really out of pocket. Why? The US is halfway around the world. China is a FAR bigger threat to Russia than the US could ever hope to be outside of a nuclear missile exchange. There is zero chance of the US ever invading Russia. Even if the US wanted to there aren't enough people and resources to make it happen. China on the other hand has 8X the population of Russia and a physical border with them and is an emerging super power. Russia worrying about the US makes almost zero practical sense.

Comment Two candidates (Score 1) 863

We have 4 candidates.

Not in any meaningful sense. Two of them have an actual chance at being elected with one of those doing everything in his power to lose the election. The other two have as much chance of being president as I do. So really we have at most two candidates just like always. Only way that will change is if we change the voting system and get rid of gerrymandering.

Comment Feeding the trolls (Score 5, Insightful) 863

Nearly everything the mainstream news has been feeding you about Trump is either taken out of context, twisted, or just an outright lie.

Nice troll. There's almost nothing about Trump that is out of context. He's the one putting it all out there like a monkey flinging poo. You have to be either a troll or a completely moronic fanboi to actually believe that statement.

I'm amazed at how otherwise intelligent people can be so easily manipulated by lies that come from so-called experts that the media routinely trots out on stage.

You support Trump and you're complaining about people easily manipulated by lies? Hahahahaha.... I haven't laughed that hard in quite a while. That's one of the more astonishingly stupid things I've read in quite a while. Let me guess, you think folks like Hannity and Coulter are telling you the gospel truth too, right?

Comment Delusions (Score 3, Insightful) 69

Except that I know a guy (well.. have talked to him a few times in the past) that swears his skin starts crawling if someone has a phone in their pocket when they come talk to him. Of course, the last time I talked to him was before cellphones were common...

I just see it as another manifestation of whatever causes people to have delusional parasitosis. It's probably the same class of mental illness we find in people who (wrongly) think they have MSG or gluten sensitivities too.

I figure who am I to say what bothers a person.

I don't doubt that their brain is doing evil things to them. I worry about the ones that can't wrap their heads around the fact that it's almost certainly all in their head. I think they have a real illness and need real help, just not the with the disease they think they need help with.

Comment Not about reliability (Score 1) 132

Actually, a Tesla should be in the same boat as a Toyota: it is a daily driver.

Doesn't matter. It isn't. That's not how people perceive it currently and it isn't how Tesla market's their cars. People don't worry about Tesla reliability either positively or negatively currently.

Now, it you tell me you bought a Tesla for the badge and to boast to your friends that you have a Tesla in your garage or to bring it to a track on the weekend*, that maybe a viable reason for you, but I don't think that's how Tesla positions themselves. Don't they want to bring EV to the masses?

I didn't say people bought the Tesla for the badge though I'm sure some do. I just said they didn't buy it for the reliability. In no particular order people buy Tesla's for battery power (no gas), appearance, performance (fast as hell in a straight line and not bad in the curves), luxury (very nice interior), geekiness, and fanboi-ism. Which of those matter most depends on the buyer. Reliability isn't really much of a consideration for the vast majority of buyers.

* not the best idea, I'd rather drive the Ferrari

I've driven both a Ferrari and a Tesla in years gone by. Both have their charms. Tesla is FAR more pleasant to drive under normal conditions and faster than most Ferrari's in a straight line. But Ferarri's have their good points too depending on which model you are talking about. I really can't imagine myself buying a Ferrari but I could imagine myself owning a Tesla.

Comment No justification of stock price (Score 1) 132

Like you say the short term growth potential doesn't support their stock price.

Neither does the long term potential unless you have a time horizon of decades.

The high price of Tesla stock reflects that a lot of fund managers think they have a decent chance of huge long term growth.

Not true. Tesla is being held by fund managers because it is a stock people want to own. A realistic appraisal of Tesla's growth prospects doesn't even come close to justifying a $30Billion valuation. A super profitable car company makes something like a 10% margin. Even if Tesla magically sold 1/10th the cars that GM does tomorrow (GM sold 9.8 million vehicles in 2015) and we double their margin to 20% which is far beyond any car company that has ever existed they would take decades to generate enough free cash flow to justify that valuation. No, the ONLY reason Tesla's stock remains high is because people are playing a game of "who's the greater fool" buying high in the hopes it will go higher.

Tesla stock is an expensive gamble but it still has a clearer path to long term growth and profitability than companies like Twitter and Facebook.

Twitter maybe but Facebook is already hugely profitable. You might try actually looking at their financials before posting next time.

Comment Depends on what you do (Score 2) 238

No. You don't. Because that isn't possible to do.

That depends entirely on what you plan to do with it. There absolutely are some people who can replace a PC with a smartphone or a tablet because the smartphone/tablet competently does everything they did with the PC. While it isn't true for me personally I have family members that have ditched the PC completely because their tablet does everything they needed from a PC and it's easier to use for them. Even for me a smartphone has replaced a lot of what I used to do primarily on a PC.

The fact that this guy even said that means he is clueless about mobile. He needs to be replaced.

"Clueless"? Ummm... no. Far be it from me to defend Microsoft or their CEO but clueless is not a word I'd use in regards to them. I'm pretty sure he has more of a clue about the mobile market than you do.

Slashdot Top Deals

Despite all appearances, your boss is a thinking, feeling, human being.