Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:An idea for Apple (Score 1) 77

You also have to be careful to use the correct drill bit - titanium nitrite is recommended as it improves the signal quality once the headphone jack has been exposed.

Any drill bit you use will leave trace material on the surface of the hole and this of course effects the quality of the signal (the residue acts as an unpredictable unbalanced shield -- obviously bad news).

Although titanium nitrite bits result in much higher sound quality than HSS bits, some experts suggest using Monster drill bits to be sure to get the best quality sound, Although my experiments indicate this only yields a minor improvement over titanium nitrite bits, the true audiophile may want to make the investment in spite of the cost of the Monster bits. One reason they work better is that Monster bits have a more even proprietary coating on them so it rubs off more evenly and Monster tests each bit using scientific quality assurance methods to insure each bit meets their standards.

Comment Re:Freedom Not Allowed ! (Score 1) 160

I was simply responding to the whining "my neighborhood is great and I like it and I don't want it to change but I didn't buy into a HOA community that could change the rules as needed for my little enclave because I'm too cheap to pay for that". If you hope to prosper by the tyranny of the majority (via bought politicians), understand you may die by the tyranny of the majority as well.

Much of Airbnb is selling inferior goods (excess capacity) - only a few buyers (10%?) would choose the inconsistency of Airbnb over a Four Seasons property AT THE SAME PRICE.

I suspect we are mostly in violent agreement. However, if there is going to be a Four Seasons' property in your city, it has an extremely high fixed overhead that it must cover even if they only have one of 120 rooms occupied. That is quite a different situation than Airbnb - where most property owners are trying to gain revenue from that which previously generated zero revenue.

Over they the years when traveling overseas, I've been in situations where we were the only guest in a twenty or thirty room establishment - but, because it was a place that strove to be pleasant and wanted to maintain their reputation and their Michelin ratings, they lost money every day we were there (if we hadn't been there, they would have just told almost all the staff to stay home and would not have paid them). Admittedly, it has been kind of strange sitting in a big dining room with many tens of tables and we were the only table with people at it and the entire staff was catering to us and using their best silver on our place settings.

Comment Re:Easy Work-Around (Score 1) 160

But, if you offer the property (and accept renters) for every week with a 60 day overlapping term, the first time someone accepted your offer and discovered they couldn't stay because the prior renter decided not to exercise their "early out" option and stayed for their full 60 days, they will (rightfully) excoriate you on Airbnb and when 2/3 of the people who were stiffed raise hell (in ratings, comments, and w/Airbnb), your gig is over.

Maybe some Airbnb renters plan only two or three days ahead, but I'll bet the majority book two or three weeks ahead.

Comment Re:Easy Work-Around (Score 4, Insightful) 160

Of course, that would make it difficult to keep the place rented full time. One guest would decide to stay the full 60 days. The next renter would pay the "cancellation fee" after a week -- and you now have no renters lined up because you couldn't put it on the market until the one-week guy gave you your $20 cancellation fee and left (because you had made a commitment to the full 60 day term).

Comment Re:Freedom Not Allowed ! (Score 1) 160

That's the risk of not living in a planned covenanted community w/a strong HOA and restrictive CC&Rs. That's a decision you willingly made. In exchange, you have more freedom to paint your house whatever color you want, hang your laundry out to dry, park your RV in your driveway etc.

In most cases, Airbnb guests are not that obnoxious and those few that are, like all Airbnb guests, move on quickly. You've obviously never had the "neighbor from hell" who was a permanent neighbor (or long term renter) and there was nothing you could do about it except move and try to sell your now devalued house (perhaps because the neighbor is exercising their free speech rights and have posted racist or otherwise offensive materials on/around their house -- such as a prominent swastika that doubles as a wind vane and lightning arrester high above their house).

Comment Re:Freedom Not Allowed ! (Score 2) 160

But, it's much better than when those same asshats buy the place next to you and then live there for ten years. At least Airbnb asshats move on quickly. Many of those asshats (excluding foreign visitors) live somewhere when they are not staying at Airbnb -- and their neighbors are probably happy to get a break for a week or two when they are staying at an Airbnb rental. Kind of a zero sum game.

Why don't you get your condo association to ban short term rentals? Or, get them to assess fines on the condo owner if there are neighbor complaints about noise when there's a short term renter occupying the space? Why does the government have to get involved when you have a governing body that is much closer to the problem and challenges of your building rather than a "one size fits all" solution.

Comment Re:Holy flamebait batman! (Score 1) 909

Since ballots are secret, I can't of course prove this. However, this strategy was proposed and encouraged by those posting on various progressive/left web sites -- including the site known, ironically, for its orange plumage. I would assume people advocating such a strategy took their own advice.

However, I never said that I thought cross-over voting was instrumental in Trump being the nominee. Most of his success comes from being the most well known, to the masses, national candidate in my lifetime. Most voters are swayed by things that are irrelevant while ignoring the important issues.

Comment Re:Someone missed the Spirit of the Law (Score 1) 86

You are confusing "fairness" with "law" and the "Constitution".

The BoR is, legally, simply the first ten amendments to the constitution. The Federalists felt them unnecessary as the Federal government wasn't granted the right to restrict speech, arms, or to quarter soldiers etc. so they couldn't do it. The Anti-Federalists, in a last stand, demanded a BoR which the Federalists agreed to. The Federalists though were wary that the rights enumerated in a BoR might be construed to be the only rights to be retained by the people or states respectively - hence the inclusion of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments which, theoretically, are completely unnecessary (as the body of the Constitution doesn't give Congress the right to pass laws limiting freedom of the press, free speech, right of assembly, keeping and bearing arm etc).

If you are making the argument (poorly) that the Federal Government has far overstepped what the People ceded to them in the Constitution (as amended), you are correct. However NONE of that argument as to do with "fairness", it simply has to do with Congress et al exercising powers they were never granted by the people in the Constitution (as amended). There is not a single notion of "fairness" in the Constitution except that which is explicitly captured in it. Nowhere is Congress limited to passing "fair" laws nor are the Federal courts allowed to reject laws based on them being "unfair".

The Constitution, as amended as of October 18, 2016, is the supreme law of the land. Until an amendment is ratified (note that not all that were proposed for the what we now call the "Bill of Rights" were ever ratified), it has NO impact. Those of the original "Bill of Rights" that were not ratified, have no force - and if NONE had been ratified, they would have no force. Again, though, the entire BoR is superfluous. Exactly what some of the Federalists were concerned about has happened - pretty much the Federal Government is now allowed by the courts to intrude on most any right that isn't an enumerated right (or, one found to be in the penumbras by a creative court).

However, the Constitution clearly gives, in its body, a broad right to Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

Comment Re:Someone missed the Spirit of the Law (Score 1) 86

It's still an unfortunate use of the term -- it's not "wrong", it creates confusion for many who don't understand the law and confuse the term with the more abstract and flexible and moralistic term "fair" rather than a relatively precise and narrow meaning in the US copyright law. It isn't a problem for those in the publishing business or in the legal profession of course.

Comment Re:Holy flamebait batman! (Score 1) 909

You conveniently omitted mention of Kasich. I'm convinced that Clinton would not have had a chance against him (given that Trump who is a ignorant, unlikable, uncouth, buffoon has actually gotten close enough in the polls at times to make Clinton sweat a bit) and, although one may not agree with him, he is not "unreasonable" by any overall objective sense. Christie actually didn't, in my opinion, look "reasonable" compared to Kasich.

Comment Re:Holy flamebait batman! (Score 1) 909

It's interesting that you treat "natural-born" citizens quite differently from "naturalized" citizens in your proposal.

Nice try, but that won't fly. There are VERY few places in the law this is done today (eligibility to become POTUS comes to mind and most intelligent people I know think this restriction should be eliminated as it makes little sense in this day and age) and adding more will not pass the muster of voters. Remember that the vast majority of voters have at least one naturalized citizen in their family tree above them or are, themselves, naturalized citizens.

I stopped reading there (much as I would stop reading any business plan that proposed development of a perpetual motion machine that required no input of energy but output energy in the form of heat).

Comment Re:Someone missed the Spirit of the Law (Score 1) 86

I didn't mention that the shoe-size law had a "fairness" clause. Most laws don't so it's disingenuous to assume that a random hypothetical law would when no mention has been made of such a clause.

The "fair use" section of copyright law is more the exception than the rule.The "fair use" section is an essential part of copyright law as, otherwise, the law would stifle the press et al from even quoting material from copyrighted sources and thus would interfere with the intent of portions of the First Amendment, and would also interfere with academic research etc. It's also not a general "fairness" clause ("fair use" was an unfortunate term to use in the law as it's easily confused by laypeople with some abstract notion of "fairness" that many primates, including humans, seem to posses). "Fair use" is a specific piece of the machinery of the law and quite specific -- the decisions left to the courts are the relative weights and impacts of four specific factors listed in Section 107 (coupled with higher court precedents on such matters). Congress recognized that it would be impossible to come up with crisp criteria for every case so left that up to courts and government agencies to determine.

HOWEVER... Suppose I create a work entirely based on the life of some destitute homeless guy that I notice every day. Assume I carefully avoiding violating copyright interests he may have (for example, perhaps by quoting, in their entirety, every one of his cleverly worded signs begging for money over the years). Suppose I make hundreds of millions of dollars off that work. Suppose the homeless guy notices this and makes photocopies of my work without permission and sells them to those passing by. Although many people may "feel" that would be "fair" (after all, "The entire work exists only because of actions and behaviors of this homeless guy, shouldn't he benefit?"), the courts would find in my favor if I sued him for copyright violation because his use was not "fair use" under Section 107 and the courts are not authorized to create a new exception for this case based just on some abstract notion of "fairness".

Comment Re:Holy flamebait batman! (Score 1) 909

To gain support, the phase out would have to leave everyone whole. I doubt a "deduction" for UBI would cut it as people wouldn't like having worked and paying payroll taxes for their entire adult life only to be told that they needn't have bothered as people who never worked a day in their life are now eligible for the same benefits. Humans (actually, probably most primates) have an inherent sense of "fairness" and it's not something that it's wise to mess with (in fact, the Revolution was mostly about a sense of "fairness").

The payroll tax could be immediately eliminated and everyone's "earning record" frozen and as long as they or covered dependents/spouses live, they would enjoy full benefits on that truncated earning record -- although probably those with recent work history but less than the required (simplistically) 40 quarters of work history would need to be made eligible. Most people with, say, 39 quarters were willing to contribute to SS because they knew that once they hit their 40th quarter, they would get full credit for the first 39 quarters and terminating the program in their 39th quarter of work would be quite unfair. The hundreds of billions/trillions of dollars to fund this transition would come from the general fund but this should not be a problem as ultimately, once UBI is fully in place, there have to be money trees somewhere so just plant a few extras when initiating the soft shutdown of SS.

Slashdot Top Deals

So... did you ever wonder, do garbagemen take showers before they go to work?