Slashdot Mirror


Long Island Town Enacts Tough Cell Tower Limits

crimeandpunishment writes "They're getting tougher on towers on Long Island. The town of Hempstead, NY has imposed some of the toughest cell phone tower restrictions in the country. The ordinance prohibits wireless equipment within 1,500 feet of homes, schools, day care centers, and houses of worship, unless the company can prove absolute need. A spokesman for Verizon says, 'It's not unheard of for towns to have issues, but this is extreme,' and says this makes 95 percent of the town off limits to future antenna construction." With internet access by 3G, 4G and WiMax getting ever more common, I suspect that not everyone in the town will appreciate blocking out the companies that provide it.

310 comments

  1. Can you hear me now? Nope... by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Hempstead, New York, future home of "all circuits are busy."

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  2. Hempstead by captain_dope_pants · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm moving there - it'll save me a fortune in tin foil hats. Plus "hemp" + "stead" = a town that grows dope ? Great ! :-)

    --
    while (true != false) process_more_stupid_code();
    1. Re:Hempstead by binarylarry · · Score: 5, Funny

      I for one welcome our new hemp growing Amish cell tower overlords.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:Hempstead by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1

      No, you don't understand. They got this ban passed because cell phone signals were interfering with the government mind-control rays. They just want you to _think_ it's safe to take off your tinfoil hat, but reality you need to double up on it.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    3. Re:Hempstead by my+$anity++0 · · Score: 1

      We've also got a Hicksville out here on the island. Seriously, who named these towns?

    4. Re:Hempstead by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      I was wondering about that last time I was on Long Island... Hicksville is named after a guy named Elias Hicks. I didn't find Hempstead that humorous, but Hempstead is an English place name. I thought of the Donovan song "Hampstead Incident" when I saw the name - Hampstead is in London, but there are a couple of Hempsteads elsewhere in England.

      That said, I do find Long Island place names pretty ridiculous overall, but if you look them up there's never really anything particularly interesting about the names. Ronkonkoma, for example, where I stayed with a friend who lives there, comes from a Native American word.

    5. Re:Hempstead by ramana8 · · Score: 1

      Welcome. We love tin foil hats

  3. Cheaper tin-foil hats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to mention the negative effect on the economy this will have once people figure out that thinner and cheaper materials now suffice for the tin-foil hat.

  4. Take a look at the map..... by echucker · · Score: 1

    If we impose the 1,500 foot blackout around homes, day care centers, schools and houses of worship, there is what, maybe ONE place to put a tower in Hempstead? Then everyone will complain about crap for signal and bandwidth. More NIMBY at work.

    http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Hempstead,+NY&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.313287,86.572266&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Hempstead,+Nassau,+New+York&ll=40.706214,-73.618698&spn=0.032077,0.084543&t=h&z=14

    1. Re:Take a look at the map..... by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >>>If we impose the 1,500 foot blackout... there is what, maybe ONE place to put a tower?

      This reminds me of a conversation I had with my art teacher. I said the US Congress has banned incandescent bulbs effective 2012. He immediately pointed out that the law doesn't directly ban incandescents. It requires a 50% reduction in energy usage. I replied that's the same effect as a direct ban because no incandescent can meet that standard, so what's the difference? None.

      Same with this celltower law. It doesn't directly ban the towers, but the 1500 foot limit has the same effect, which I bet was the politicians' plan all along. "We did not ban celltowers in Hempstead." Yeah. Accept that you did because now no towers can be built.

      Aside -

      I consider Edison's incandescent bulbs to be a superior technology to CFLs. Fast turnon, can be used in cold/hot areas (or enclosed fixtures), cost consumers 1/10th to buy, use fewer materials, easy to recycle, and no mercury vapor.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:Take a look at the map..... by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not a dictatorship, people voted in place the officials that made this happen, it's what most of them want.

      1. Don't local elections tend to have really lousy turnout? It's hard to say "most" people want this, if most people don't bother to vote.

      2. If people do think they want this, do they understand the (obvious) implications of what they agreed to?

    3. Re:Take a look at the map..... by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who cares? The people affected by this are the very people who voted for it. If their desire for better cellphone reception outweighs their dislike of ugly cell towers in a couple years, then they can vote differently next time. The decision to NOT build the towers is much more easily reversible than the decision to allow them.

    4. Re:Take a look at the map..... by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, raw materials aren't the bottleneck, where the incandescent would be superior. The energy is the issue, which is why the law addreses efficiency rather than type.

    5. Re:Take a look at the map..... by Phoobarnvaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Same with this celltower law. It doesn't directly ban the towers, but the 1500 foot limit has the same effect, which I bet was the politicians' plan all along. "We did not ban celltowers in Hempstead." Yeah. Accept that you did because now no towers can be built.

      Had the same issue with power plants in Arizona. During the summer...they can't produce enough power to run the AC...but heaven forbid you want to build more plants or ship in more expensive power from out of state. When you get outages and brownouts...these same people bitch/moan that more power is needed without the plants or raising their electric bills. When the solutions are there in plain view...not in my backyard and you better not obstruct my views either.

      The funniest part of this is the ones crying the loudest about the lack of service are the ones who don't want the plants/towers where they can be seen...even from Pluto.

      --
      Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
    6. Re:Take a look at the map..... by vadim_t · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This reminds me of a conversation I had with my art teacher. I said the US Congress has banned incandescent bulbs effective 2012. He immediately pointed out that the law doesn't directly ban incandescents. It requires a 50% reduction in energy usage. I replied that's the same effect as a direct ban because no incandescent can meet that standard, so what's the difference? None.

      There's a big difference.

      The reason why the law makes an efficiency requirement is because it's not the bulbs themselves that are the concern, but the energy they use. Banning incandescent light bulbs specifically would allow them to be replaced with something even less efficient, if there's an alternative that's cheap and isn't technically an "incandescent light bulb". If that happened, the law would have had the opposite of the desired effect.

      By writing the law that way you don't mandate or exclude any technology. If an incandescent light bulb can be made to be efficient enough, that's just fine.

    7. Re:Take a look at the map..... by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      It's not a dictatorship, people voted in place the officials that made this happen, it's what most of them want.

      1. Don't local elections tend to have really lousy turnout? It's hard to say "most" people want this, if most people don't bother to vote.

      If you don't vote, you literally don't count.

      Voting is your responsibility as a citizen. It is your civic duty. It should not be voluntary.

      If somebody didn't show up to vote, and gets screwed over by this, it's their own damn fault. Maybe next time they'll show up to vote.

      2. If people do think they want this, do they understand the (obvious) implications of what they agreed to?

      Probably not.

      That's the big problem with the democratic process... It relies on informed voters. Too many people today base their voting decisions on fearmongering and emotional responses. Folks don't do any research, don't actually think about what they're doing. They just vote for the guy they want to hang out with. Or they vote against the guy who looks scariest in the commercials.

      Same thing here.

      Somebody made an impassioned argument that cell phone towers have to be all-but banned. Maybe to keep those scary radio waves from mutating your children... Maybe to preserve property values... Maybe to prop up the local phone companies... Who knows. Folks liked what they heard.

      Maybe some of them really contemplated the outcome of the vote... But I doubt if many of them did.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    8. Re:Take a look at the map..... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Good. Maybe this will be a lesson to the town about the importance of voting in elections. Maybe turnout will be better at the next election.

    9. Re:Take a look at the map..... by David+Jensen · · Score: 1

      Does the lighting law include the energy used to make and dispose of the product?

    10. Re:Take a look at the map..... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No that is included in the cost of the product. And since you save money with CFLs the tradeoff is pretty clear. You really should try the new ones, they have them working outdoors and in enclosed fixtures now.

    11. Re:Take a look at the map..... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Does the lighting law include the energy used to make and dispose of the product?

      As a matter of curiosity, it would be interesting to know how many Slashdotters actually take the trouble to dispose of their defunct lightbulbs and other electrical or electronic goods "responsibly". In my case, I do make an attempt, but am not under any illusion that other agencies "downstream" necessarily do anything more than accept the goods and chuck them into landfill along with other rubbish.

    12. Re:Take a look at the map..... by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      I for one dispose of them at the local home depot. It's not like they die all that often, so I just put the junkers in a box in the garage and drop them off whenever I remember, which seems like once a year or so.

    13. Re:Take a look at the map..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There's a big difference."

      No, there isn't. You're arguing logical language as a means to produce the same EFFECTIVE result. It bans incandescents. While I do agree intent is important, the law is written to be exclusionary from the get go; you're allow a known tactic of saying you're doing something for one reason, while really doing it for another. See Iraq (use of UN resolutions to excuse a faulty tie to 9/11 for military-industrial/energy/reshape the region/domestic politics reasons).

      If energy use was really important, the argument should be given for not an absolute cutoff but a percentage improvement year over year.

      You're argument is similar to bans against the homeless. Going against them directly is politically a problem, so you instead ban sleeping under the bridge. By your argument, you aren't targeting the homeless, but when virtually the only people who day in and day out sleep under a bridge to get the protection from the elements are homeless, guess what you are really effectively doing?

      When you ban on race or are against interracial marriage, you aren't banning humanity or racist then, right?

      Besides, if energy is important, you don't go after LIGHT BULBS. You go after heating and cooling systems, transportation, etc. If energy is truly the problem, you'd force 20 SEER systems. But by ignoring the big problems, this also backs up that you aren't targetting energy really but the incandescent light bulb industry.

      And China thanks you for it.

    14. Re:Take a look at the map..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cant they just install a 2000 foot tower or float a tethered balloon with gear on it???

    15. Re:Take a look at the map..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Had the same issue with power plants in Arizona. During the summer...they can't produce enough power to run the AC...but heaven forbid you want to build more plants or ship in more expensive power from out of state. When you get outages and brownouts...these same people bitch/moan that more power is needed without the plants or raising their electric bills. When the solutions are there in plain view...not in my backyard and you better not obstruct my views either.

      The funniest part of this is the ones crying the loudest about the lack of service are the ones who don't want the plants/towers where they can be seen...even from Pluto.

      The same crap keeps happening in my town. Nobody wants to be able to see a cell tower on the horizon but then bitches about poor coverage. They also complain about needing more local businesses yet they tax the bejeezus out of anyone who dares to set up shop inside the town.

    16. Re:Take a look at the map..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know screw-in Halogen lights have all of those advantages and a reduction in power, right?

    17. Re:Take a look at the map..... by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>The energy is the issue

      Yeah but how much energy is saved when I have to make a special trip in my Car to carry the Burned-Out CFL to a special recycling center (due to mercury content). Benjamin Franklin has a saying: "Penny wise and pound foolish." This is the same deal where you're saving a few watts of power and then burning-up kilowatts on disposal costs.

      The incandescent would save more energy overall, because it can just be tossed with all the other garbage and doesnt need special (read: energy expensive) handling.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    18. Re:Take a look at the map..... by theaveng · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Say what??? CFLs cost about ten times more than the Edison incadescent bulb. Also in my experience, almost none of them have lasted longer than the incandescents. They keep dying within 1-2 times the span of a regular bulb, thereby actually costing me MORE money to use, not less.

      Of course I know why they die so fast. I have enclosed fixtures.

      Am I supposed to go out and spend hundreds of dollars changing my home's fixtures from closed to open, just so I can save a few pennies with CFLs? That's bass-backwards. I have a better idea: Let's keep the incandescents because they aren't so damn fragile.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    19. Re:Take a look at the map..... by theaveng · · Score: 1

      But CFLs end up using MORE energy, not less, because they need special handling.

      As some other guy said above: You save watt-hrs on use, but waste kilowatt-hrs on driving your dead bulbs to a special recycling center. "Penny wise; dollar foolish." Saving pennies on your bill; wasting dollars on special disposal.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    20. Re:Take a look at the map..... by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      You're saving 75% of the wattage over the life of the bulb, which turns out to be many, many kilowatts. A 75w bulb burns out after 4000 hours used, you have used 300,000 kWh over the life of the bulb. Assuming the same lifespan (which CF are actually much longer lived), you're talking 56,000 kWh for the 14W CF replacement. That's a difference of about 250,000 kWh.

      Considering a house may have 20-30 regularly used bulbs, you take a load of 10 at once to the recycling center, which is most likely going to be in your town anyway, not more than a few miles away. I don't see how your logic adds up once numbers are really examined, since your assumption is that you're using millions of kWh to dispose of the bulb.

    21. Re:Take a look at the map..... by a_ghostwheel · · Score: 1

      Check your math. You quietly replaced Wh with kWh and increased difference by 1000x.

    22. Re:Take a look at the map..... by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Your calculations only work if CFLs last as long as advertised. They typically don't. My CFLs have been burning out at the same frequency as my regular bulbs.

      So assuming 1000 hours (typical life of normal 60 watt bulb) that's 45 watts * hours == 45000 watt hours saved.

      Now I have to drive the damn Mercury-laced CFL to the recycling center (versus my regular bulbs which I just bury in the backyard with other biodegradable crap). It's 50 miles away or about 4 gallons burned round-trip. 4 gallons of gasoline == 460,000 watt hours burned (estimated).

      -45,000 Whrs saved
      +460,000 wasted driving to recycle center
      ======
      415,000 MORE watt-hours used. See? Just as I said. CFLs use MORE energy not less. PLUS you have to add in the cost of the recycling center itself (which also burns energy capturing the mercury in a safe manner). C'mon. Are Congressmen so dumb they can't figure this out by themselves PRIOR to passing bad laws that outlaw incandescents? Incandescents are better for the environment.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    23. Re:Take a look at the map..... by theaveng · · Score: 1

      oops. FIX:

      "So assuming 1000 hours [typical life of my short-lived CFLs] that's 45 watts * hours == 45000 watt hours saved." - BTW the best way to save energy? Turn your Heat off during the day and night. You'll save MILLIONS of watthours per year, not just a few.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    24. Re:Take a look at the map..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Merrick. South of Merrick Rd you are lucky if you get 3 bars outside. In your house? Forget about it. AT&T and Verizon tried to get a joint deal to put a low power cell tower on top of the land fill that is radiating 10x more harmful emissions by itself then the cell tower would and they still said no.

    25. Re:Take a look at the map..... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      special trip in my Car to carry the Burned-Out CFL to a special recycling center (due to mercury content).

      Don't you have CFL bins at the local supermarket in the US? My experience in Hungary, Austria, Germany and a couple of other countries is that I simply take the burned out CFLs to the supermarket when I do my regular shopping. I've done that about 3-4 times since I replaced all my old incandescent lights in the house with CFLs about 3 years ago (20+ sockets).

      The mercury worries are overblown anyway. A CFL contains about 3-4mg of mercury, some are marketed for low mercury content of 1-2mg. According to the EPA, in the US there is 0.012mg of mercury emitted for every kWh of electricity generated on average. Assuming a 3 year lifetime for a CFL, using it for 6 hours per day, that's 6570 hours (CFLs are rated between 6-15k hours of lifetime). With a regular 100W incandescent, that's 0.1*6570*0.012 = 7.884 mg mercury.

      For the equivalent 23W CFL, it's 0.023*6570*0.012 = 1.81332mg for the used energy and 1-4mg depending on the bulb. The big difference is that the 7.8mg is directly released into the air by the coal power plants and the 1-4mg in the worst case gets buried in a landfill which of course isn't ideal, but not nearly as bad as being in the air.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    26. Re:Take a look at the map..... by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Maybe in America, where everything seems to be about an hour away. Here the recycling center is at about 5 minutes away by car, and right along the way for driving out of the city anyway. Also the local hardware shop (which is along the way to the underground) will take them for recycling, so no need to drive anywhere even.

    27. Re:Take a look at the map..... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      And then they're shipped to China for processing, because US regulations make it cost-prohibitive to dismantle toxics.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    28. Re:Take a look at the map..... by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      It's somewhat irritating to try to get a map of the area in question, since the area in question is the TOWN of Hempstead (basically the southern half of Nassau County, minus the stuff that borders Suffolk like Massapequa), whereas the map you've linked to focuses on the VILLAGE of Hempstead, which is a teeny little piece of the town.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    29. Re:Take a look at the map..... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>CFLs are rated between 6-15k hours of lifetime

      Bullshit. If CFLs actually lasted that long, mine would not have died in less then 12 months (about 3 hours per day usage). That's between 1-2 times as long as a regular bulb lasts, so the CFL just wasted my money ($3.00 versus 25 cents for a normal bulb).

      H.R. 6144, the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act. - it repeals Subtitle B of Title III of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that made incandescent bulbs illegal. It also saves American factories from being closed and workers put out of work, due to this banning. The ALF-CIO website goes into further detail: http://screwthatbulb.org/

      Of course my main motive is that I simply hate CFLs.
      They are as unreliable as eMachines.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    30. Re:Take a look at the map..... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately my observation is that the opposite tends to occur... when an election had shit results, even fewer people vote next time, citing how lousy the results were and that their votes don't count anyway.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    31. Re:Take a look at the map..... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. If CFLs actually lasted that long, mine would not have died in less then 12 months (about 3 hours per day usage). That's between 1-2 times as long as a regular bulb lasts, so the CFL just wasted my money ($3.00 versus 25 cents for a normal bulb).

      You've said yourself that you're using them inappropriately in closed enclosures. There is also the bathtub curve to consider. Statistically it's unlikely that every bulb survives for 3 years, but it's also equally unlikely that no bulb lasts for more than 3 years.

      Btw, if I assume an 8 cent / kwh electricity price and a 100w/23w incandescent/CFL comparison, you saved about 365*3*0.077*0.08 - 2.75 = 3.9952 USD with your CFL.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    32. Re:Take a look at the map..... by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you're buying shitty bulbs or whatnot, but mine last longer than regular bulbs by far. The big issue is that lots of on-off cycles lessen the life of the bulbs a huge amount, which hurts their lifespan. So, don't use them in the fridge or any other place that has short, possibly frequent cycles, like a hallway light. I use them for lights that stay on for long periods, like my work light, and they last extremely long. That's a 10 hour day, with a single on and off cycle per day.

      So assuming 1000 hours (typical life of normal 60 watt bulb) that's 45 watts * hours == 45000 watt hours saved. Now I have to drive the damn Mercury-laced CFL to the recycling center (versus my regular bulbs which I just bury in the backyard with other biodegradable crap). It's 50 miles away or about 4 gallons burned round-trip. 4 gallons of gasoline == 460,000 watt hours burned (estimated).

      You used 460,000 watt hours under the assumption that it takes everyone 4 gallons of gas to drive to the recycling center, and that there's no other pickup points.

      The real weird thing you did with your math was the assumption you would drive the 50 miles, expending 4 gallons of gas and two hours, to drop off a single bulb. Drop off 20 bulbs at a time instead, and you end up 460000 watt-hours ahead.

    33. Re:Take a look at the map..... by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Yep, I totally botched that one.

    34. Re:Take a look at the map..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real reason they did this is that those making the law went and figured out where the cell towers could be built with the new restrictions and locked up contracts to put cell towers at those locations. Now to put up cell towers you have to deal with fewer options on where to locate them. Nice business model if you can get it.

    35. Re:Take a look at the map..... by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Let me get this straight: You drive 50 miles to the recycling-center in your gaz-guzzler: bringins along a SINGLE worn out lightbulb ?

      You're doing it wrong.

    36. Re:Take a look at the map..... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>The big issue is that lots of on-off cycles lessen the life of the CFL bulbs a huge amount

      So what are we supposed to use in these "frequent on/off" locations (like the bathroom) after the EU and US ban incandescents??? See - this is a perfect example of a short-sighted law that HURTS the average citizen more than it helps them.
      .

      >>>under the assumption that it takes everyone 4 gallons of gas

      Strawman argument. No. He. Did. Not.

      In fact theaveng said, "I have to drive". Notice the I in that sentence? Jackass. Trying to ram your damn CFLs into people's homes and costing them MORE money, not less. Typical Tyrant (or should I call you Lord?) who treats everyone like serfs too dumb to run their own lives.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    37. Re:Take a look at the map..... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      No what's "wrong" here is that you are telling people how to live their lives ("you're doing it wrong"). You remind me of a bible-thumper.
      Same arrogant attitude of telling everybody else how they should live their lives (or else punish them).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    38. Re:Take a look at the map..... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>You've said yourself that you're using them inappropriately in closed enclosures

      And what am I supposed to do? Spend thousands of dollars ripping out the existing ceiling lights, change over to "open" enclosures, just so I can save a few pennies each month with my CFL? (And yes it is pennies because I use 40 watt bulbs, not 100 watts.)

      Bullshit (again). It makes more sense for me to stay with the incandescents..... of course with Congress outlawing them, that will be impossible to do.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    39. Re:Take a look at the map..... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Wow.... that's really saving energy isn't it? Instead of building/burying incandescents in our own backyard, we're switching to CFLs so we can save a few pennies each month, and then spend millions of dollars (1) shipping them 10,000 miles from Chinese or Indian factories followed by (2) shipping the dead ones back.

      Yeah. Great job Greens. You INCREASED energy usage instead of decreasing it.

      Short-sighted thinking sucks.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    40. Re:Take a look at the map..... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I have yet to see a "green" energy *anything* that didn't suffer from this problem. It's all about ideology (and short-term profits), not about what really works over the long haul.

      Kinda like that wonderful ethanol fuel... that last I heard takes 5 gallons of diesel to produce 4 gallons of corn ethanol. Yep, that's real green too!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    41. Re:Take a look at the map..... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Home Depot, Ace Hardware, and many other places take CFLs for free. You never, in any period of (for instance) 5 years, pass such a store?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    42. Re:Take a look at the map..... by DaleSwanson · · Score: 1

      Voting is your responsibility as a citizen. It is your civic duty. It should not be voluntary.

      I think it certainly should remain voluntary. If someone can't be bothered to go out and vote there is no way they will be bothered to do some basic research on who is running before hand. Particularly in local elections where there will be little to no advertising what then are these people being forced to vote going to base their vote on? Whatever they base the decision on it will be arbitrary. In the end their votes likely won't reflect their actual wishes, and will do more harm than good.

    43. Re:Take a look at the map..... by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      So what are we supposed to use in these "frequent on/off" locations (like the bathroom) after the EU and US ban incandescents??? See - this is a perfect example of a short-sighted law that HURTS the average citizen more than it helps them.

      What, you think CF is the only lighting technology currently available that can be used in a normal light socket?

      LED exists too, and in those low-use, short cycle areas, they will last absolutely forever. Think about changing bulbs every decade or more, and how nice that will be.

      In fact theaveng said, "I have to drive". Notice the I in that sentence? Jackass. Trying to ram your damn CFLs into people's homes and costing them MORE money, not less. Typical Tyrant (or should I call you Lord?) who treats everyone like serfs too dumb to run their own lives.

      Wow. I guess you are too dumb to run your own life if you're going to drive for 2 hours and use 4 gallons of gas to drop off a single fucking lightbulb at the recycling center, the real point of my argument against his nonsensical accounting of how people will recycle these things.

  5. Other progressive ideas they should adopt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    • D&D players must be kept at least 100 meters from jocks at all times to prevent Satanic jinxes from affecting the football team.
    • 6-year-old girls must be kept 10 meters away from 6-year-old boys while in school to prevent transmission of cooties.
    • Doctors administering placebos must pinky-swear that they really work in order to enhance the placebo strength.
    • Fire trucks are prohibited from operating their ladders at more than an 10-degree angle from vertical, to avoid bad luck caused by walking under them.
    • Black cats to be tied up in a sack and thrown into Long Island Sound.
    1. Re:Other progressive ideas they should adopt by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      "Black cats to be tied up in a sack and thrown into Long Island Sound."

      I think that's standard procedure when Cablevision comes out to fix problems with your service, innit?

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    2. Re:Other progressive ideas they should adopt by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I've had better luck with nailing a black rooster to my TV.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  6. Re:Can you hear me now? Nope... by davidwr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dang, did I just get first post? The frosty-drink troll guy must be trying to use his Android from Hempstead.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  7. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Um, they have to spread them out so that the coverage is as close to 100% as possible. Limiting the land they can build in means the optimum coverage is likely far less...

  8. Places of worship? by sea4ever · · Score: 1

    I don't understand the purpose of these regulations at all. What difference does it make how close a tower is to a day care center or place of worship?
    Within 1,500 feet of homes? How do they expect to get cellular service at home, then? Hm.

    1. Re:Places of worship? by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't understand the purpose of these regulations at all. What difference does it make how close a tower is to a day care center or place of worship? Within 1,500 feet of homes? How do they expect to get cellular service at home, then? Hm.

      I have two guesses which aren't mutually exclusive. The first is that someone has bought into the hysteria that cell phones cause radiation damage and hence wants them far away from places where people gather or live. Second, that this is a sly attempt to create a monopoly for a provider. It'd be interesting to see if someone already satisfies these regulations. If we start seeing more extremely restrictive regulations like this, that would be an indication that someone is organizing local monopolies.

    2. Re:Places of worship? by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1

      Now define "places of worship". Turn your house into a Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and you don't get a tower within 1500ft. And if they still do it, take them to the Supreme Court on the grounds of religious bias. Actually, that's what any geek in the town should do and pretty quickly, you'll have no cell towers, rendering the regulations completely unworkable.

    3. Re:Places of worship? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Your house is covered by the 'homes' part of the ban already. Places of worship are presumably there because they are places where people congregate. They don't want to include all buildings, because that would include all sorts of uninhabited structures.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Places of worship? by Kristopeit,+Mike+Dav · · Score: 1
      how about unobstructed views of ornate places of worship that generally include towering structures of their own?

      it's a good thing your understanding is irrelevant.

    5. Re:Places of worship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could also be something like how the town runs tax code. This is because cell tower services usually pay rent to the property which they are built on. So if there were something like particular exemptions made for non-commercial property, this would be a way to keep people from profiting with them. Thus they restrict the cell towers to commercial districts which may be more easily taxed.

    6. Re:Places of worship? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Maybe instead start a religion whose god demands cell towers on all their places of worship, and then complain that the regulations discriminate your religion because it doesn't allow you to fulfill the will of your god. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    7. Re:Places of worship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What difference does it make how close a tower is to a day care center or place of worship?

      I don't know about daycare centers, but places of worship are obvious. Interference. Think about how YOU'D feel if the unnatural radiations were preventing God from hearing YOUR prayers properly.

    8. Re:Places of worship? by kbdd · · Score: 1
      places of worship? wtf? How many hours a week is one supposed to stay in a place of worship?

      So it's OK to work 8-10 hours a day near a cell tower, but not to worship a couple hours a week near a tower?

      Maybe they are concerned the emissions from the tower will interfere with the mind control devices installed there...

      It seems to me the place of worship should be the least affected, as the power of prayer can certainly defeat the negative effects of electromagnetic radiations, otherwise, what's the point?

    9. Re:Places of worship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cui bono?

    10. Re:Places of worship? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Additionally, I'd check land ownership of the 5% of the land that *is* allowed to have cell towers. Someone may just be raising their own property values at everybody else's expense.

  9. Transmissions from phone by gnasher719 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Fact is that your mobile phone will send a stronger signal if it notices that the cell tower is far away, so that the signal can be received there. So if you vary the distance from the cell tower, radiation from the tower will get less when you move further away, but radiation from your phone will get more. There is an optimal spot in between where the total radiation hitting you is minimised.

    I would assume that this optimal point is less than 1500 feet from the tower. If that is the case, then anyone using their phone in these "protected" places will receive more radiation.

    1. Re:Transmissions from phone by Quantumstate · · Score: 1

      Your point ignores the fact that your phone is in use for a small fraction of the day but the tower is in constant use. You need to apply a large adjustment on the optimal range for this.

    2. Re:Transmissions from phone by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mom? Is that you? Because everyone else I know leaves their cell phone on all the time.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    3. Re:Transmissions from phone by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your phone does a periodic handshake with the tower, so that the operator knows which cell to route your calls to. If the cell is far away, this handshake has to be much stronger. You can test this quite easily by watching how much battery life suffers on a phone in standby mode when the signal strength is low.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Transmissions from phone by regularstranger · · Score: 1

      I can also hear the interference if there are nearby speakers. With my t-mobile service, I can determine if my phone is checking in, about to receive a text message, or start ringing, based on the pattern of sound I hear over the speakers. Especially in my car, if I don't have the music up too much. Comes off my computer desktop speakers too.

    5. Re:Transmissions from phone by Quantumstate · · Score: 1

      Of course people do. But when your phone is on it sends occasional handshake messages to the tower. The tower will be contacting many phones which are making calls so it has a much higher average (mean average) signal strength.

    6. Re:Transmissions from phone by Quantumstate · · Score: 1

      I know this happens but the total radiation from the occasional handshake is far less than a phone call and the tower will be handling calls all of the time.

    7. Re:Transmissions from phone by kju · · Score: 1

      Your phone does a periodic handshake with the tower, so that the operator knows which cell to route your calls to.

      There is no general need for a periodic handshake in order to achieve this. In a properly designed system it would suffice if the phone contacts the network only when it switches to another tower. As long as there is no new update, the network can assume that you are still reachable through the same tower. So if periodic updates are needed, its actually a shortcoming of the specific mobile phone standard.

      In GSM networks this is even more optimized. GSM allows to combine multiple towers into a so called Location Area. When the network needs to contacts the phone, it will try the limited number of towers in that LA. So as long as you stay in that LA, your phone does not need to contact the network - even if the phone switches to another tower. GSM operators can instruct your phone to send a periodic update anyway, but this is usually configured to happen only every few hours at most (e.g. every 6 hours, some operators use 24 hours).

    8. Re:Transmissions from phone by thegarbz · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes but the tower which is a great distance away produces absolutely minuscule power in your head compared to having a 1 watt transmitter next to your ear. There needs to be an adjustment yes, but the adjustment is much smaller than you imagine for a large number of operating conditions. The problem here is the changes in power are proportional and the doubling of power from say half a watt to 1 watt for say 30min is significant compared to the reduction in power from a few tens of mW by half for the rest of the day.

      Well there's that and the fact that to meet cell coverage the operator is likely to increase power output of the antenna if they legally can.

    9. Re:Transmissions from phone by conureman · · Score: 1

      I am currently living in a "black hole" without any bars on my phone. If I don't switch off my phone, it uses up the battery in about six hours, versus about three days in a covered area. I assume it to be cranking out the max wattage whilst frantically calling out for mommy, and remember to shut it off. If there is any harmful effect to be had from the EMR, then this ban is the way to maximise it. Good thinking.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  10. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by vadim_t · · Score: 1, Informative

    I don't think you get it.

    Radio signal strength decays exponentially. To give a city good coverage you have to place towers at more or less regular intervals. You cover the area with towers whose coverage overlaps like this.

    If the laws are such that most of the city is out of limits for tower placement, it means that a lot of people are going to get really crappy reception. You could place the Mother of All Towers in the allowed bit, but a tower has a limit to the amount of calls it can handle, so it's not going to work very well.

  11. Phones with no antennas? by pmontra · · Score: 1

    Administrators don't want antennas close to homes but they probably want their citizens to be able to use mobile phones inside their homes. One would think about upping the power but you can't have too high levels close to the antennas. Furthermore the higher bandwidth you want, the smaller you have to keep the cell radius. I wonder if they'll be able to use anything more than 2G there but I'm sure people will be blaming the operators.

  12. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by davidwr · · Score: 1

    You forget to factor in that the 5% of the town that can have towers may be owned by people who don't want towers on them.

    It's like the towns that only allow adult businesses 2000 feet away from homes, schools, parks, and churches, leaving 5% of the town open to such businesses, but it turns out that all but a small part of that 5% is owned by landlords who refuse to lease to adult businesses.

    For adult businesses and other non-necessary services, this might be a good public policy statement. For items which are necessary in modern times, it's shooting yourself in the foot.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  13. Houses of worship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... houses of worship? Seriously?
    Do microwaves interfere with prayers or something?

    This passage from Neil Gaiman's Color Colours comes to mind:

    The old priest pockets the coin, gives me
    a bag of crumbs as a bonus,
    sits on his steps, hugging himself

    I feel the need to say something before I leave.
    Look, I tell him, it's not your fault.
    It's just a multi-user system.
    You weren't to know.
    If prayers could be networked,
    if saintware were up and running,
    if you could make your side as reliable as they've made theirs...
    "What You See," he mutters desolately
    "What You See Is What You Get." He crumbles a communion wafer
    throws it down for the pigeons,
    makes no attempt to catch even the slowest bird.

    Cold wars produce bad losers.
    I go home.

    1. Re:Houses of worship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That should of course be Cold Colours. Silly typo.

  14. places of worship by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 1

    so, maybe they can form a religion around these towers and hold services?

  15. Reality called ... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    And it would like to point out that the article starts by pointing out that this applies to new tower construction. It does not mean that existing towers must come down.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Reality called ... by spottedkangaroo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So then did the companies with existing towers lobby heavily for this so they can leverage their newly-created prime real estate?

      --
      Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
    2. Re:Reality called ... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      I thought there were already laws forcing cell companies to share towers, so there aren't multiple sets of towers in place wasting space and trashing the skyline? If there aren't, there certainly should be.

  16. They should be doing exactly the reverse by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Assuming signal strength is somehow harmful, they're doing the exactly wrong thing to deal with it.

    By imposing those limits, they force towers to be further apart. To cover the area anyway they'll have to bring the power way up. The schools, daycare centers and so on will probably get about the same amount of RF as before, but whatever is near that tower will get cooked. And for those who protest the aesthetics, it's going to be a big ugly one as well.

    What they should be doing instead is peppering the area with a weak tower on every roof. Then they can have coverage without strong emitters anywhere.

    1. Re:They should be doing exactly the reverse by ortholattice · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, in order to communicate with the distant tower, the actual cell phone (the thing that delivers the most radiation to your head) must boost its power.

    2. Re:They should be doing exactly the reverse by Kilrah_il · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, you are going at it all wrong. What you propose is based on the premises of logic, whilst the rules are based on politics (AKA votes-whoring and popularity). Since anyone with any reasonable amount of logic is not trying to be involved in the cesspool called politics, then it is obvious that the two domains are mutually exclusive and thus your post has no bearing on the issue whatsoever.

      And on a serious note: Too bad you are 100% correct. Not only is there no proof to the dangers of cellphone radiation, but also if there was any danger, then the correct course of action would be to put as many low-power towers as possible, as per your post. Sadly enough, the ones passing the rules don't deem it important enough to consult anyone who actually understand something in this issue.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    3. Re:They should be doing exactly the reverse by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      totally, but when was the last time you heard of a competent politician/political decision/gov't law etc.? It's rare, but grandstanding is cheap.

    4. Re:They should be doing exactly the reverse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should just exit that market because they're clearly not welcome there. Later the ones who set those limits might lose their jobs.

    5. Re:They should be doing exactly the reverse by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      Please don't tell these people that they are receiving large amounts of electromagnetic radiation every day, just by opening their fucking eyes.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    6. Re:They should be doing exactly the reverse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a decentralized, credit-based (GNUnet) wireless (see upcoming wireless tech talked about in the H) communication system (see mesh networking) is in order.
      --paxcoder via rss reader

  17. Counterpoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If aesthetics are the issue they're legislating against, here is the alternative:
    http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/04/03/gallery-cell-phone-towers-pretending-to-be-trees/

    1. Re:Counterpoint by robot256 · · Score: 1

      Make like a tree and gimme 3G!

  18. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kristopeit,+Mike+D. · · Score: 0
    you forget to factor in that the town HAS THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.

    go be a communist somewhere else.

  19. Re:Can you hear me now? Nope... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1, Troll

    Probably the whacky politicians read a report about "dangerous EM emissions causing cancer and headaches and other scary things" so they decided to ban transmitters. (Not directly of course, but this law has the same effect.)

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  20. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by icepick72 · · Score: 1

    Wow, you just unsuccessfully discarded much objective and insightful analysis with a single inconclusive post. Not to mention, ironically, you're effectively whining about Slashdot users. Did you intend to include yourself in that final statement? really really REALLY include?

  21. Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    News flash. We don't need to be always connected, have Internet access in every nook and cranny, or engulf our homes in a mesh of (more) RF. I make my living in IT, but honestly sometimes (more and more lately) I wish it would all go away. Well, most of it anyway.

    1. Re:Good! by Risha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are often times when I wish to be less connected. However, nice of you to make the decision as to where and when for everyone around you, too.

    2. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know all these fancy gadgets you have that let you be connected all the time; well, they have off switches. So any time you want to be less connected, then you turn your shit off and you're done. And the RF radiation, it doesn't affect people, so if your shit is off, then you won't notice it.

  22. That church steeple may be a cell phone tower by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Hey, they do it with trees.

    Oh wait, it's actually happening already.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  23. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kristopeit,+Mike+D. · · Score: 0, Insightful
    um... democratic freedom voted in the council members that voted on behalf of their constituents who wanted to keep the corporations out, and you're arguing that the free market capitalist corporation has the right to move in on land against the land owners' wishes?

    go be a communist somewhere else.

  24. That reminds me... by Liambp · · Score: 3, Funny

    About 15 years ago my rural dwelling brother law was a leading light in a somewhat successful local campaign against the "radiation masts" that were sprouting up around the country side. As a city dweller who lived even then in a veritable sea of electromagnetic waves I was pretty sceptical of their protests and today , 15 years later, I am amused at his constant complaints that he cannot get a decent phone or internet signal.

  25. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Mike+D.+Kristopeit · · Score: 0

    so you agree with me.

  26. Re:Can you hear me now? Nope... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

    If I were running the cell companies I wouldn't be worried - it's one town (not enough market to really hurt if it's lost) and people will realise within a month or two that they actually quite enjoyed being able to use their phones. Just let the administrators steam in their own stupidity once the population gets pissed off, making sure to politely point out exactly why nobody has phone coverage.

  27. actually, towns aren't all-powerful by davidwr · · Score: 1

    The town's ability to make rules is limited by its charter and bylaws, state law, the state Constitution, the federal constitution, and where the feds have jurisdiction e.g. interstate commerce, federal law.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:actually, towns aren't all-powerful by Mike+D.+Kristopeit · · Score: 0

      the town's citizen's ability to topple such towers is self evident.

    2. Re:actually, towns aren't all-powerful by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      The guy your talking to is a nutcase, you might want to avoid him in the future.

    3. Re:actually, towns aren't all-powerful by pgmrdlm · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Move back into your cave. Get that rotary phone out because that is all they will have for communication after these types of votes. Better yet, everyone buy a radio for their car because nobody will be able to call 9/11 when they have accidents.

      Thank you fucking asshole mike for making it much more possible for people to die. Fucking cunt.

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    4. Re:actually, towns aren't all-powerful by meerling · · Score: 1

      You don't get it, but you'd best be careful about statements like "...for me to kill you.". That can be taken as a death threat, and since you posted on the internet, it would get the feds involved. Please do everyone a favor and go take some basic civics and law classes from your local college (or high school), until then, just shut up before you do any more damage to yourself.

    5. Re:actually, towns aren't all-powerful by Mike+Dav.+Kristopeit · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      ur mum's face don't get it.

    6. Re:actually, towns aren't all-powerful by meerling · · Score: 1

      You're right.
      I'm getting defensive about this for some reason.
      I know defending the common good and educating the ignorant are both usually a good idea, but some people revel in their dementia and don't want it disturbed. Sometimes I don't recognize this quickly enough and need to be reminded that I'm talking to a bakatare.

    7. Re:actually, towns aren't all-powerful by Kymermosst · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Taking your comment another way...

      So what if the cell phone company chooses not to set up shop in your town because it's not profitable?

      Are you going to be adolescent and call them names too for not making it less possible for people to die?

      Oh... what about my right to not have electromagnetic radiation involuntarily pulsed through my body for your convenience?

      (For the record, I don't have a problem with being subject to radio tower emissions, but some people do).

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    8. Re:actually, towns aren't all-powerful by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1
      What was once available has now been removed. I would sue the city because they had willfully degraded a service previously provided.

      If the cell phone companies never provided service, nothing would have been lost.

      You have no argument.

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    9. Re:actually, towns aren't all-powerful by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      You never addressed any personal right to not be bombarded by unnatural radio emissions.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    10. Re:actually, towns aren't all-powerful by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

      1). No harm has been proved by those radio emissions. There is not a credible report anywhere stating otherwise.

      2). If they felt there was an issue(the city), they should have never allowed cell service allowed in the city. Please see other individual posts regrading the placement requirement of cell towers.

      3). How many of the individuals that supported this ordinance own cell phones and place said devices right next to their heads. They have by these actions removed all credibility in their arguments about the cell phone towers. If you can show me that every individual of the town counsel and the parents that proposed this ordinance do not use cell phones. Than I wouldn't consider them hypocritical in their position.

      Look, if I thought people were becoming sick from cell towers and or the cell phones that use them. I would not arguing the points. I don't want anyone to become sick. Hell, I wouldn't continue owning a cell phone or using one.

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    11. Re:actually, towns aren't all-powerful by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      If you do not want to be bombarded with 'unnatural' radio emissions, you need to live somewhere besides the earth. The other side of the moon would be the closest place.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    12. Re:actually, towns aren't all-powerful by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      Hey, I don't think they do either - at least not enough to cause even minor physiological problems. I carry two cell phones and have a ham license.

      With apologies to Douglas Adams, I would characterize sane radio transmissions as "mostly harmless".

      I *do* like to have an understanding of what the each side thinks, including the people that don't like the idea of my transmissions going through their bodies. I make a conscious decision to subject them to my activities based on my belief that it is mostly harmless. I feel it is important to recognize that we do this to people against their will, harmless or not.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    13. Re:actually, towns aren't all-powerful by Mike+Dav.+Kristopeit · · Score: 0
      denying the possibility of me killing you is ignorant considering existing laws to deal with that very possibility, and the thousands and thousands of convicted offenders in jail or perpetrators of unsolved cases who were never brought to justice.

      meerling (1487879)... how appropriate.

      merely NOTHING.

  28. Cancel their ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So if carriers still provide service there, it will be spotty, customers will complain, reputation suffers. Sounds like a place to *not* do business.

    The carriers should just pull out, and blackhole it. Add a new color to their coverage map for "we could work here, but the city government has its head up its ass"

    The cell carriers should cancel the accounts of the bozo city officials who supported this.

    Then the city can be a haven to the "get off of my yard" geezers.

    1. Re:Cancel their ass by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      I don't care if this is anonymous coward. MOD PARENT UP! I'd love nothing more than to see this happen.

  29. That American Cancer Society... by hockeyc · · Score: 2, Insightful
    From TFA:

    'Our position is we want to be more proactive.' said Jody Turk-Goldberg, co-founder of a civic group called 'Moms of Merrick,' which discounts pronouncements by groups like the American Cancer Society that conclude there is scant evidence that cell towers are a health hazard. 'We saw what the tobacco companies did years ago; everybody said smoking was safe,' she added

    You know those blasted scientists and the American Cancer Society, definitely in the pocket of "Big Cell Phone"

    1. Re:That American Cancer Society... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely they have a big cell phone in their pocket.

    2. Re:That American Cancer Society... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Cellphones are a much bigger source of radiation to your body than a celltower. Now, if you move the celltower further away, what does the cellphone need to do to reach it? Pump the power, radiating even more, at a geometrical increase depending on the distance.

  30. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by icepick72 · · Score: 1

    I don't think communism is a logical step in this thread of conversation; however good on you for railing against the OP's foolish post :)

  31. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Mike+Kristopeit · · Score: 0
    the right of a non-state capitalist, for profit corporation to build structures on land where the land owners and local government have decreed they want no such structures?

    that is COMMUNIST.

    you're an idiot.

  32. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1

    you forget to factor in that the town HAS THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.

    No, that's irrelevant because it does nothing to reduce the stupidity and deservingness-of-ridicule of what they decided to do.

  33. Geometrical, not exponential by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Radio signal strength decays exponentially. "

    No, it decays geometrically.

    Exponential decay would be of the form P=An^d, where "d" is the distance, and A and n are constants.

    The formula for free space losses is of the form P=Ad^2 - a geometrical loss.

    1. Re:Geometrical, not exponential by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Whoops. Thanks for the correction.

    2. Re:Geometrical, not exponential by drewhk · · Score: 2, Informative

      In practice that could be way higher than 2 (or sometimes less). From Wikipedia:

      "In the study of wireless communications, path loss can be represented by the path loss exponent, whose value is normally in the range of 2 to 4 (where 2 is for propagation in free space, 4 is for relatively lossy environments and for the case of full specular reflection from the earth surface—the so-called flat-earth model). In some environments, such as buildings, stadiums and other indoor environments, the path loss exponent can reach values in the range of 4 to 6. On the other hand, a tunnel may act as a waveguide, resulting in a path loss exponent less than 2."

    3. Re:Geometrical, not exponential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The formula for free space losses is of the form P=Ad^2 - a geometrical loss.

      Except a city is far from beeing 'free space'. If it was, we would need much fewer antennas, but we would have much greater concerns, like lack of oxygen. In a modern city we can basically assume It's basically a bunch of obstacles.

      Radio signal strength decays exponentially in obstacles, not geometrically.

    4. Re:Geometrical, not exponential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The free space loss exponent is 2. There are two different effects which cause lower signal strength: The one which is accounted for by the free space exponent is beam divergence. It's like lighting an area with a flash light. At twice the distance, you light four times the area with the same total amount of light, resulting in a quarter of the light intensity. The other effect is absorption. Absorption is an exponential effect.

    5. Re:Geometrical, not exponential by drewhk · · Score: 1

      "The free space loss exponent is 2"

      Of course it is, I haven't denied that :)

      I just added a comment in a geeky "hey I'm important, too" style, to show that in practice the signal attenuation can be much faster than the simple theoretical model. That shows the 1500m limit in a different light.

    6. Re:Geometrical, not exponential by MoeDrippins · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia lists them as the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

      "Exponential growth (including exponential decay) occurs when the growth rate of a mathematical function is proportional to the function's current value. In the case of a discrete domain of definition with equal intervals it is also called geometric growth or geometric decay (the function values form a geometric progression)."

      Or is this not a discrete domain of definition with equal intervals?

      --
      Before you design for reuse, make sure to design it for use.
    7. Re:Geometrical, not exponential by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      The free space loss exponent is 2.
      Assuming both antennas are in a free space with no reflections that is correct.

      If instead we assume a single perfect inverting reflection off the ground we end up with a loss exponent of 4.

      Afaict practical situations for terrestrial communication with line of sight are usually somewhere between these two.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    8. Re:Geometrical, not exponential by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Generally, this is less of an issue in cities then the number of users a tower can service.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  34. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by vadim_t · · Score: 1

    True, it's within their rights to do it. And it's within my rights to explain why it's a stupid thing to do.

    Nevertheless, I hope they go ahead with it. I don't live there, so I don't care that much about what they do. I think they'll either get the worst coverage in the country, or the phone companies will get fed up and leave, leaving them with no phone service. I look forward to reading what will happen then.

  35. And the tinfoil hat crowd screws us all again... by wowbagger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This sort of legislation is due to the "OMFG I KIN FEEL IT IN MY BWAIN!!!" tinfoil hat crowd, saying "RADIASION IZ KILLIN DE BEEZ!"

    And since the vast majority of people don't see fit to have an opinion on this, the vocal moronity - err, minority - are all that is heard, and the politicians will bow to the herd to get votes.

    The right answer IMHO would be for all the carriers to say "OK, fine - since you are too sensitive for our signals, we will remove them." Let us see what happens when Joe Ranknfile finds his precccisouuuussss cellphone doesn't work, and it is due to the tinfoil hat brigade and the spineless political hacks who covet their votes. Suddenly it won't be JUST the tinfoilers who are making themselves heard.

  36. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pot. porcelain. black.

  37. And here's the other half of the issue... by wowbagger · · Score: 1

    And here's the other half of the issue:

    "... unless the company can prove absolute need."

    Such proof being provided on the memo line of a check with a lot of zeros, made out to the politico's reelection fund.

    Somehow, I would guess that if Verizon wanted a cell site at some location, there are, $hall we $say, way$ to $ee $omething like that happen$.

  38. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Mike+Kristopeit · · Score: 0
    that's = that is => that = something exists. if that something exists, it's relevant.

    they most certainly have the right to do whatever they want.

    are you going to stop them?

    you are NOTHING

  39. Re:Can you hear me now? Nope... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If I were running a phone company, I would cut service completely to the town and issue a press release saying something like this:

    We at Evil Co. sympathise with the town's wish not to be bombarded with EM radiation. A it is clearly the will of the people that they not have these signals directed in their vicinity, we wish to respect their wishes, even at the cost of some profit. Unfortunately, complying with these new laws would require significantly increasing the power output of other towers to compensate, and so we are unable to continue to offer service without violating the intent and spirit, if not the letter, of this law. As we can not provide a service in this town, we are willing to waive early termination fees for any customers in the affected area, as a gesture of good will. We hope that they will enjoy their relaxed lifestyle, free from the burdens of modern technology.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  40. Leave it to the "Ban Everything" Coasts... by rally2xs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah, well, if they're that upset about radiation, maybe we don't give them television, radio, ban the 2-ways in the police, fire, and ambulance, nobody can own a cell phone or any other 2-way communications, no more wireless computer networks, wi-fi, etc. Landline phones only, no remote car door unlockers or garage door raisers... its fun to take it to an extreme... but this is already an extreme...

    Its dumb as a box of rocks. All they're saying is, "We don't want ANYTHING to change, anywhere, anytime, for any reason."

    People I love to hate...

  41. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    For someone unable to work out where capital letters go in a sentence, you are very free to call other people idiots. Especially when you are completely wrong. In a communist society, there is no such thing as a 'non-state capitalist, for profit corporation'. All of the corporations are owned by the people (managed either by the central government, or via local soviets). Maybe you should actually try reading Marx, instead of using 'communist' to mean 'stuff I think is a bad idea'.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  42. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1

    the right of a non-state capitalist, for profit corporation to build structures on land where the land owners and local government have decreed they want no such structures?

    that is COMMUNIST.

    No, I think it's actually closer to fascist. Communists don't have "non-state capitalist, for profit corporations", remember?

  43. Shut 'em all down by russotto · · Score: 1

    Verizon (and other cell companies) should not only no longer place cell sites in Hempstead. They should disconnect all the sectors of out of town antennas which point into Hempstead, and make the whole thing a dead zone. Then there's a few things that could happen.

    1) Much of Hempstead's population will get sick of being in a dead zone and will tell the tinfoil hatter's to STFU and repeal the law.
    2) Hempstead will become a destination for tinfoil hatters and cranky old cellphone haters, and everyone's happy.
    3) (most likely) Much of Hempstead's population will want their cell phone reception, but they'll fail to see any connection between lack of reception and anti-tower laws. They'll then complain that they're somehow being mistreated and/or discriminated against by the carriers. Maybe they'll even try a lawsuit. The rest of us will all have a good laugh at their expense.

  44. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

    He's a late entrant into the 'most stupid Slashdot poster of 2010' but he seems to be closing in on commodore64_love's early lead.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  45. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by tverbeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Homes, schools, day care centers, and houses of worship"? This sounds like they've confused cell towers with liquor stores.

    These kinds of distance-based restrictions are usually used as a way of banning something de facto when a higher law doesn't allow banning it de jure. Like a local law which bans past sex offenders from residing within 1000 feet of a school. Which has the (unintended?) side effect of preventing them from using the city's homeless shelters, all of which fall within that range.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  46. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1

    are you going to stop them?

    No, I'm going to laugh at them. I thought that was the whole point of it being posted here, actually.

    you are NOTHING

    Well yeah, but the (lack of) meaning of life is a bit oversized of a topic for here.

  47. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Mike+Kristopeit · · Score: 0
    you're so stupid.

    my point is that if such corporations existed that WERE granted such rights THEN THE CONTROLLING ORGANIZATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL BODY WOULD BE COMMUNIST.

    i can't believe how dumb you idiots are.

  48. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kristopeit,+Mike · · Score: 0

    coward.

  49. Not uncommon by PNutts · · Score: 2, Interesting

    TFA mentions another city that tried similar restrictions and was overturned by a federal court. There is a proposed Wi-Max tower half a block from my house and the neighborhood is doing everything they can to stop it. The city has made it clear they have no say in the matter as tower placement is governed by the state and feds. So... IMHO Hempstead will be in court the next time a carrier proposes a new tower, and while it may delay the tower being built Hempstead spend a lot of money and lose. Also, cell towers are a source of revenue and in my part of town they are primarily on school buildings (the building itself or their chimneys), churches, watertowers, one in a graveyard, etc. We have very few stand-alone towers which may be part of the NIMBY here.

    1. Re:Not uncommon by pgrady7 · · Score: 1

      Actually the state has a very limited say as well. In the U.S., once the cell phone companies, or the WiMAX companies, or just about anyone else has their federal license to use the airwaves, every other government level must reasonably accommodate the licensee. This attempt at NIMBY will fail miserably as soon as it hits federal court. The losers here are the whiny taxpayers who enrich lawyers to argue cases they cannot win.

  50. Scary towers! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    five children who attended school 50 feet from cell antennas on a water tower have been diagnosed with cancer or leukemia and three have died

    So ... instead of looking for the actual cause of the cancers you decided the tower was a good enough scapegoat?

    Darwin in action.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Scary towers! by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Sadly, they're likely to find the school's water supply is contaminated by chemical waste from some industrial source.

    2. Re:Scary towers! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      You mean 'unlikely' - they never looked for the real cause.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Scary towers! by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      Which will probably be considered OK because the industry in question provided a few minimum wage jobs and considerable political contributions.

    4. Re:Scary towers! by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      five children who attended school 50 feet from cell antennas on a water tower have been diagnosed with cancer or leukemia and three have died

      So ... instead of looking for the actual cause of the cancers you decided the tower was a good enough scapegoat?

      Darwin in action.

      The pundits are the best. There's one who recently posted on her website about a study that found that cell and wifi radiation frequencies were the deadliest. When you read the study linked to, it mentions that the tests were all done at doses thousands of times higher than what humans can legally take. The study basically proved that if you stick rats in a microwave, they die, but they'll die faster at certain frequencies.

      And therefore your router, your iPod, your cell phone, and your dimmer switches are giving your babies cancer.

    5. Re:Scary towers! by confused+one · · Score: 1

      valid point. Still, in every one of these cases where someone has tried to link RF to unusual cancer clusters, authorities have ultimately found contaminated soil and/or water.

  51. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kristopeit,+Mike+Da. · · Score: 1
    WHO SAYS where capital letters go? it seems I SAY, as I HAVE DEMONSTRATED MY ABILITY TO DO SO.

    i am not using 'communist' to mean 'stuff i think is a bad idea' (although it's telling that you might think i was)... i'm pointing out that 'allowing a service provider to impose themselves on lands owned and controlled by people who do not want such imposition, and the imposition is brought under the pretense that THE SERVICE IS GUARANTEED TO THE PEOPLE, AND THAT SERVICE ITSELF HAS THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE' is """COMMUNIST""". i'm saying that, BECAUSE IT IS.

    you're an idiot.

  52. Placebo effect is real... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    If they want to vote themselves shitty cellphone coverage in their nurseries and schools then let them. Hope they can get a signal when snowflake is choking on something...

    --
    No sig today...
  53. I don't see the problem, by zrbyte · · Score: 1
    since there are companies which specialize in "neutralizing interference waves which are harmful to humans".

    In fact I'm thinking of founding a company myself. I could easily disperse the harmful magnetic flux components by switching the polarity in the tachion inverter matrix and rerouting the resulting neutrino flux through the phase coils in the flux capacitor. Now, if only I could find my field remodulator!

  54. Re:And the tinfoil hat crowd screws us all again.. by hjf · · Score: 1

    Yes. They're also putting COLORS in the water now!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c6HsiixFS8

  55. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kristopeit,+Mike+Da. · · Score: 1
    you admit yourself as irrelevant.

    you are NOTHING

  56. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by icebraining · · Score: 1

    You're the idiot. They can build all the antennas they want. They can't turn them one and fill the PUBLIC airwaves with radiation. They don't own the airwaves across others' houses and streets.

  57. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is the stupidest fucking thing I have heard all day.

    therefore, your mum is NOTHING!!!!

  58. Re:Can you hear me now? Nope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Town of Hempstead is right in the center of Nassau County. County population 1.4 million. Median household income $95K. Several major highways pass through it. (Puts on tin-foil hat) I suspect that it's Cablevision behind it. Trying to hinder competition.

  59. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kristopeit,+Mike+Da. · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    "turn them one", huh? how is the ownership of airwaves relevant in an eminent domain case?

    you are NOTHING

  60. Good, next up, electricity by gelfling · · Score: 1

    I hope Hempstead bans telephone polls and electrical wires too. And streetlights, and traffic signals.

    1. Re:Good, next up, electricity by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Everything that emits electromagnetic radiation has to go.

    2. Re:Good, next up, electricity by Grayraven · · Score: 1

      Well, the goes the sun then.

      --
      "Source... The Final Frontier" -- keepersoflists.org
    3. Re:Good, next up, electricity by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      And humans, too. Or what did you think is the infrared radiation you emit due to being warm?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:Good, next up, electricity by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      And humans, too. Or what did you think is the infrared radiation you emit due to being warm?

      There's this nice fellow, Judge Death I think his name is, who's found an interesting solution to the issue of living humans being a danger. Perhaps we should consult him on this issue.

  61. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kristopeit,+Mike+Dav · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    coward.

    reveal yourself to me, admit what you've done, and i will kill you.

  62. Give them a taste of what they want by Peeteriz · · Score: 1

    On the day when the law comes into force, the companies should just turn off the towers within the limited areas for 30 minutes during a peak time, along with appropriate publication in local media before that.

    Then the citizens can decide if their representatives are representing well, and the (currently) silent majority is welcome to lynch the activist group that achieved this.

  63. Re:And the tinfoil hat crowd screws us all again.. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    Let's make a list of related lunatic fringe causes:

    Artificial Sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose)
    Vaccines particularly MMR
    Chlorination / Fluoridation of drinking water
    HFCS
    Glyphosate
    GMOs

    Any more?

  64. non-issue by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    "Despite a 1996 federal law prohibiting municipalities from considering health issues in approving locations for cell antennas, a group of mothers concerned about what they consider risky cell towers outside their children's schools successfully lobbied the town of Hempstead. While the town board adhered to FCC regulations to not consider possible health effects, officials instead described the vote as a quality of life issue. The ordinance provides real protection against the siting of cell towers and antennae in locations that would adversely impact home values or the character of local neighborhoods,"

    They town board thinks they're being creative and sneaking around the law, but their about to have the full weight of the multi-billion dollar cellular industry descend on them in the form of a tornado of lawyers that are going to ass-rape their board members until no other municipality ever thinks of trying something this stupid again.

  65. So is this the result of:

    1. Fraudulent and false claims of injury due to radio wave emission?

    2. Scams by local governments preferring to force people to have to use their police tower, at rates 3-4x the going rate for private towers?

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  66. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    First car accident where they person can't call for help on their cell phone because there is no coverage, and they die. Let me post YOUR FUCKING comment to the news paper.

    Asshole

  67. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    You are LESS THAN NOTHING, YOU ARE POOP!

    Just emulating your style of debate.

  68. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

    I'll take you up on that. Give me your email, and I will email you both my name and address. Bring a gun, because I will be waiting with one.

    --
    Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
  69. Hooray for artificially holding back technology! by MoldySpore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Honestly, this all comes down to how dumb people are. I'll give an example from where I grew up

    It was a relatively small town, but within 10-20 minutes of large cities here in New York. There is literally NO cell phone reception around the entire radius of the town. You have to drive at least 10-15 minutes to get cell reception. So Verizon (and at that time, CellularOne who was recently bought out by AT&T) wanted to put up a tower right in the middle of the town behind some barns and silos. Not visible from the road but if you tried hard enough you could see it.

    The town, who I knew from experience hated not having cell service, was concerned about property values dropping and how "bad the tower would look" when driving by...so Verizon proposed using one of the "camouflage" towers that looks like a pine tree. The town reviewed it, and STILL said no because it "didn't look enough like a tree". So Verizon came back and said "ok we will build the tower inside a silo. You won't be able to see it AT ALL. The reception will be reduced slightly because of it being enclosed, but you will still have service". Instead of approving it, they put it up for a vote, and the tower STILL voted it down over concerns of "radiation".

    Weeks later I remember hanging out with friends, whose fathers and mothers were on the town board, and others who had voted no, and hearing them and their kids bitch about the fact that there still wasn't cell reception, and blaming the cell companies for NOT PROVIDING A FEASIBLE SOLUTION!

    I think this happens more often than not around the country, where stupid backwards people who don't really know what they are talking about, wind up shooting town technological advances in favor of "oh that looks bad" or "oh i heard it does _______ which is bad" without knowing the facts, or understanding how important technology can be, especially in rural areas that have been without it. In this case, lack of cell phone reception and broadband internet kept many businesses and other things important for growth of a town or city out of the area because of the lack of available technology.

    It really amazes me at how resistant people are. I'd rather have my property value go down a little than be without cell reception or internet service in this day in age. It hurts more not to have it than it would to just grin and bear it for the good of advancement.

    --

    "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."

  70. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    Mike, how many times did you register here using variations of your name?

    Are you a troll?

    Or maybe you're on their city council?

    Go be an asshole somewhere else. :p

  71. Nevertheless... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

    This gives us something to think about, however. It's one thing for (hundreds of) thousands of people to fill the aether in each cell with their mindless yabbering at each other over their phones, but as mobile phone usage approaches 100% of the population, with the added load of data traffic from smartphones, iPads and other devices, it is easy to visualise a scenario where metropolitan phone users find it difficult to jam so much as a metaphorical toe into the flood of traffic.

    I can imagine an iPhone user grinding his teeth waiting for a typical media-intensive webpage to load at 9600 baud. In a way it would be funny, if only we hadn't allowed ourselves to become so dependent on this technology.

    1. Re:Nevertheless... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Funny

      is easy to visualise [sic] a scenario where metropolitan phone users find it difficult to jam so much as a metaphorical toe into the flood of traffic.

      And nothing of value will be lost.

      Maybe, just maybe, the city fathers are crazy like a fox. Eventually, Hempstead (? home of marijuana) will become a bastion of civility and quiet. Drivers will actually pay attention to the road. Teenagers won't have their thumbs in splints.

      And maybe they're just batshit insane. My money is on the latter.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Nevertheless... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...to visualise [sic]...

      FYI: in the English (as opposed to American)-speaking world, it is typical (though no longer obligatory) to use "s" rather than "z" in such a case.

    3. Re:Nevertheless... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>I can imagine an iPhone user grinding his teeth waiting for a typical media-intensive webpage to load at 9600 baud

      Wow that's damn slow. Even an old-fashioned phone connection is faster (53,000 bits per second)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:Nevertheless... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      It's Apple's fault. I suppose they can't help it if California is in the US.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Nevertheless... by deprecated · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. Back in the late '90s, that was premium service.

    6. Re:Nevertheless... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Back in the late [80s], that was premium service.

      Fixed that for you. 9600 bit/second speed was available on BBSes if you were willing to pay 5-10 extra/month. That's why I corrected your sentence. - By the late 90s 33,600 was standard with 56,000 just released (1998).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    7. Re:Nevertheless... by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      What, you mean Americans use "[zic]"?

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  72. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You man who responds to someone making fun of his mother by hurling deaththreats. You are the one that is unable to participate in normal society in a responsible manner. You are so scared of what other people have to say, that you attempt to silence them telling them you'll kill them.

    You (Michael David Kristopeit) are the coward.

  73. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you are BORING

  74. In any case... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

    Although this might be (correctly, I suppose) regarded as being deliberately flamebaity, it might be worth pointing out that from an evolutionary point of view, blocking construction of cell towers around places of worship would be otiose. ;-)

  75. In Canada... by dogsbreath · · Score: 1

    Radio towers are a Federal issue and the only standing that provinces and municipalities have is what the feds care to give them. This federal perogative has been widely accepted by the provinces. Industry Canada is the regulating ministry.

    This is not to say that the municipalities are ignored... just that if the feds say you can build a tower and approve the design then the local municipality can complain but they have no legal grounds to block the construction.

    see http://www.cwta.ca/CWTASite/english/towers.html

    especially:

    "Local Land-Use Authorities

    As a result of the federal jurisdiction of telecommunications operations, traditional municipal land-use planning controls such as zoning by-laws, site-plan control, development approvals, and Building Code requirements are rendered inoperative to the extent that they affect or interfere with the siting, physical location, design, construction and operation of federal undertakings such as cellular/PCS carriers. In other words, the prohibition, restriction or regulation of land for its use as a wireless telecommunications facility would not be the authority of the Land-Use Authority.

    Nonetheless, Industry Canada requires anyone who is planning to install or modify an antenna system that doesn’t meet certain criteria to consult with the local land-use authority and/or local public where appropriate. Industry Canada generally considers that once a participating land-use authority is contacted, the consultation process should be concluded within 120 days."

    1. Re:In Canada... by NNKK · · Score: 1

      Pretty much the same in the US. Antenna placement is governed by the FCC, and any local or state laws and regulations that have a significant impact on the ability of anyone to put up an otherwise-legal antenna are void.

      Lots of cities try to pull this crap. Some of them back off once a few lawyers get involved, others waste millions of tax dollars in court only to be smacked around by an unamused US District Court judge.

  76. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by vtcodger · · Score: 1

    ***you forget to factor in that the town HAS THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.
      go be a communist somewhere else.***

    Well, no. Actually the town does not have the right to do whatever they want. Federal law says that they can not establish restrictions that would make it impossible to provide cell phone service in the town. See http://hosted-exchange.tmcnet.com/topics/mobility/articles/104066-long-island-town-passes-restrictive-cell-tower-law.htm

    If the town hasn't given some serious thought to crafting their law such that cell service is possible, they are probably headed for court.

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  77. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kristopeit,+Mike · · Score: 0

    you are failing.

  78. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kristopeit,+Mike+Dav · · Score: 1
    REVEAL YOURSELF TO ME. ADMIT WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. i will not take action until you do both.

    you are a COWARD.

  79. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Mike+D.+Kristopeit · · Score: 0

    so put up your tower... first car accident will probably be a garbage truck into the support cable bases.

  80. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Mike+Da.+Kristopeit · · Score: 0

    by Anonymous Coward

    nope. still you.

    i am not attempting anything by stating a fact. i am simply stating a fact.

    you're an idiot.

  81. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Mike+Dav.+Kristopeit · · Score: 1

    ur mum's face are BORING

  82. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you even read his post? He's offering to do both once you have provided your email address.

    What's the matter, are you afraid to do so? you are a COWARD.

  83. How about removing all the towers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To teach the town a lesson, maybe all of the cellular carriers should just pull out of the area. Then the townsfolk will have no cell service at all! Then they might rethink their decision making while voting.

  84. May also be aethetics. by radarsat1 · · Score: 1

    All the comments here seem to focus on fears of health issues. That may be true, but I remember that when I was younger, a cell company put up a tower overnight in the middle of my community. There was a lot of protest, people complained. Not because of health issues, but because it was ugly--a giant ugly tower right up in the middle of the neighbourhood. So, just to say, it may not only be that people are 'nuts', but just that they want to preserve the aesthetics of their town. I think they were also quite insulted that this huge thing went up overnight without any consideration or permission of the residents. (Yes, this cell tower is still there.. they've gotten used to it I guess, but it's still ugly.)

  85. Is the local cable or phone company behind this? by dustman81 · · Score: 1

    Did the local cable or phone company propose this bill? "When you have no other choice in broadband or telephone service, you'll pay what we say."

  86. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Mike+Dav.+Kristopeit · · Score: 1
    he is offering nothing. he is demanding i take action.

    you're an idiot.

  87. CFL vs Incandescent by sjbe · · Score: 2, Informative

    I consider Edison's incandescent bulbs to be a superior technology to CFLs. Fast turnon, can be used in cold/hot areas (or enclosed fixtures), cost consumers 1/10th to buy, use fewer materials, easy to recycle, and no mercury vapor.

    .

    Somewhat off topic I know but I can't resist.

    Let's examine those points you made:

    • You're quite correct that incandescent bulbs turn on faster than CFLs. However CFLs are available that achieve near full brightness nearly instantly and have little/no noticeable warm up period. While there are cases where the difference will matter, most of the time it doesn't. Any fluorescent lighting will work best in environments where they aren't switched on/off frequently.
    • CFLs can be used in both hot and cold areas - just not to the extremes that incandescents can. CFLs can operate with a cold weather ballast as low as -23C (-10F). Incandescents do win on temperature in most cases however.
    • Incandescents do cost less (not usually 1/10th however) to buy initially but they also cost 3-4X as much to operate and CFLs last 6000-15000 hours versus 750-1000 hours for incandescents. Best case you'll buy 6 incandescents for every CFL. There really is no debate that over the full lifespan, CFLs are cheaper.
    • Yes incandescents use fewer materials per bulb but when you have to buy 6+ incandescents for every CFL this advantage disappears rapidly.
    • It is easier to recycle incandescent bulbs, however I've NEVER seen anyone recycle an incandescent bulb ever. It simply does not happen for the vast majority of lightbulbs.
    • The bit about no mercury vapor is nonsense in areas with coal fired power plants. A CFL will pollute less mercury and coal plants emit other toxins besides.

    A few indisputable advantages of incandescents:

    • Work better with dimmers. There are dimmable CFLs but they work poorly at best.
    • Size - incandescents are available in more compact sizes for the same light output.
    • UV emmissions are lower from incandescents which can be an issue with some paintings and textiles.
    • Most incandescents have better color rendering than most CFLs, though there are CFLs (pricey ones) which can do just about as well as incandescents.

    A few indisputable disadvantages of incandescents:

    • Much higher frequency of replacement
    • Much more waste heat
    • 3-4X higher energy consumption per lumen
    • Much higher lifetime operation costs.

    In short, your assertion that incandescents are "a superior technology" is only true for specific applications. For most commercial buildings and residences, CFLs are a better choice much of the time for many many applications.

    1. Re:CFL vs Incandescent by darrylo · · Score: 1

      Incandescents do cost less (not usually 1/10th however) to buy initially but they also cost 3-4X as much to operate and CFLs last 6000-15000 hours versus 750-1000 hours for incandescents. Best case you'll buy 6 incandescents for every CFL. There really is no debate that over the full lifespan, CFLs are cheaper.

      Everyone keeps on saying this, and I'm sure that this is probably true for some people. However, around here, there seems to be only one cr*ppy *ss brand of CFLs being sold, and those seem to have a lifetime LESS THAN ONE-THIRD OF INCANDESCENTS. It's not just a bad lot, either -- I have CFL globe bulbs in bathrooms (bulbs are in free-air, not enclosed in anything), CFL flood-light-style bulbs in (open) recessed lighting, and (exterior-allowed) CFL bulbs in some outside lights. I'm sooo farking tired of replacing these bulbs. So, here's a question for everyone: what's a good brand that lasts as long as the claims???

      As much as the slow turn-on annoys me, the decreased light output over time bothers me more.

    2. Re:CFL vs Incandescent by theaveng · · Score: 1

      (1) Where are these "instant on" bulbs? I've tried Lights of America, GE, and Philips, and they ALL take 3-4 minutes to slowly rise from a dim brownish light to a bright white. All of them.

      (2) CFLs can NOT be used in enclosed or upside-down fixtures. The trapped heat turns the capacitors into goop, and then they die.

      (3) CFLs last 6000-15000 hours? HA! None of mine have. They don't live any longer than a regular bulb. See point 2.

      (4) We're not living in the 1960s. Modern coal plants are required by US EPA to scrub their exhaust until there's nothing dangerous, so the argument "incadescents make more mercury" is null and void. Coal factories are not emitting any measurable amount of mercury. And just-built coal plants are 90% efficient so they too emit nothing dangerous.

      .

      (DON YOUR FLAME SHIELD). Ya know I'm tired of rude, inconsiderate people (not you specifically but in general) who claim "You're full of shit" and "CFLs are the next best thing to a Pentium 20," and ignore REAL WORLD RESULTS from people who have experienced nothing but headaches and trouble with these fancy new lightbulbs. IT'S RUDE to me and other, as if you think we are rednecks with no brains.

      Rude!

      I've had bulb after bulb die on me, and not live any longer than a regular bulb. They have SERIOUS flaws. Like the government of China has serious flaws. To sit there and say "there is nothing wrong with CFLs" sounds as stupid as when China proclaims everybody is happy. It's a LIE. I'm not happy; not one bit.

      In MY experience (the only experience that matters to me) CFLs work about as well as a Yugo car. i.e. Unreliable junk that dies after only 20,000 miles instead of the advertised 100,000 miles on the back of the brochure.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    3. Re:CFL vs Incandescent by theaveng · · Score: 1

      1/3rd a regular bulb's life? Wow that's bad!

      Mine usually last 1 or 2 times..... still nowhere near the 15-20 times advertised by lying manufacturers (or greens). Try Walmart. They have Philips' CFLs which is probably the best brand you can get (it's German-made) but still die very early.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    4. Re:CFL vs Incandescent by MadShark · · Score: 1

      People keep saying that there are CFLs that reach full brightness almost immediately. Someone please tell me where I can get these mythical beasts. They absolutely are not available locally(city of 200,000 people). I've bought one of every brand that I could find locally, and ALL of them have noticeable output differences over the first 10-30 seconds. I still use them and they are better than the ones from a few years ago. I haven't gone so far to try and order them off the internet, but lets face it, 95% of people get what is cheap at their local retail store. If they aren't there, they don't get used, and the locally available ones are not that great.

      CFLs definitely do last longer than incandescent bulbs in most cases. My experience is maybe three times longer in my best case. Maybe I have crappy power or something. The ones in the bathroom last about half as long as the incandescent bulbs, so I quit using them there.

      The mercury thing doesn't really worry me that much, but the big difference is that the power plant isn't dropping the mercury on my floor when I drop a bulb.

    5. Re:CFL vs Incandescent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder why there's so much variability in people's experiences with CFL's. My experience has generally been very positive. Some in daily use here are 3-4 years old and still going strong. Brand may have something to do with it: someone in another sub-thread had mentioned Phillips bulbs; but I had found those to not be as reliable, at least in my limited experience with them. Twice I've had to return a Phillips bulb that just quit working after a few weeks for no apparent reason.

      I have found that the "eco-smart" brand works pretty good (I get them from Home Depot). They carry a "120 watt equivalent" - in the red package, color temperature 3500K - that uses 30W and puts out an amazing amount (2100 lumens) of nicely-balanced white light. They are somewhat pricey (I think around $6 or 7) but very well worth the money in light output, color, longevity, and efficiency. There's also lower-powered versions if you don't want so much light, and they are also available in the "soft white" 2700 K (green package) as well as the "daylight" 6500K (blue package). Stick with the 3500 K ones unless you prefer soft-white. The "daylight" ones are too harse in my opinion.

      If you want a fuller spectrum. "Dura-bright", (also at home depot and probably other places), makes a "true color" 100W equivalent. These put out a rich spectrum. I took a diffraction grating to one and found red, orange, yellow, green, cyan, blue, and violet are all represented in a nice bright very "white" 5500K light. Pricey ($9-10 I think) but a very pleasant light for reading or working detailed crafts under. Highly recommended.

      Next to those, my experience is that incandescents simply can't compare. Their short lifetimes is particularly annoying: how many times I had entered a room, turned on the light, and 'plink!" out it went. It is nice not having to change lightbulbs every couple of weeks.

      I also dislike the incandescent's pale yellowish tint. There's whiter ones that run hotter but those have even shorter lifetimes. And there's ones with a blue-tinted filter on them to whiten them up some which are even less efficient.

      So it is curious to read that many people have troubles with CFLs. I'd recommend give them another try. Preferably from a store with a good return policy, and if you don't like them, take em back. That's the only way bad brands can get the message to improve quality.

    6. Re:CFL vs Incandescent by Reziac · · Score: 1

      And when they start dimming with age, check the ballast, as they can get hot enough to become a fire hazard.

      I hate the damned things (and the fuzzy-edged off-colour light hurts my eyes) but use 'em where I can because it cuts down my power bill, which in SoCal works out to around $30/month for a 60W bulb that's in use 8 hours a day.

      I've found their lifespan is random. The first one I bought lasted 6 or 7 years, that was the old big-coil type that only fit in one lamp. The newer ones... some last a long time, some don't, but it's certainly no better than the average for incandescents.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:CFL vs Incandescent by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "CFLs can be used in both hot and cold areas - just not to the extremes that incandescents can. CFLs can operate with a cold weather ballast as low as -23C (-10F)."

      I've lived where winter temperatures didn't get that WARM for weeks on end.

      So, now everyone who lives where there's real winter, and has an outdoor lighting need like livestock pens or barns, gets to have dark barns all winter.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    8. Re:CFL vs Incandescent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few indisputable advantages of incandescents:

      You forgot, "they cost less". When you're building a house for sale, or simply rennovating, you don't know what type of light the new owner will want or if their usage pattern will justify CFLBs. I had hallway lights that like NEVER were turned on or - at best - for several seconds once a blue moon. Why spend money on something that you need to work only very occasionally and will last YEARS? There is not a single god-damn study that could ever justify a CFLB that is on only 10 hours per year (which is $0.10 if a 100 watt bulb at $0.10/kwh).

    9. Re:CFL vs Incandescent by darrylo · · Score: 1

      And when they start dimming with age, check the ballast, as they can get hot enough to become a fire hazard.

      Thanks for the info. Is there a good way besides turning one on for a while and burning your finger? :-) Hmm, maybe I'll try the IR thermometer w/laser pointer approach ...

    10. Re:CFL vs Incandescent by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I just check 'em once in a while, after they start dimming with age -- getting overly hot and burning out seem to come close together, so no big loss to pitch out one that's on its way out.

      Not sure how hot they can get but it can make my table lamp's socket smell scorched (that's my threshold for considering something a fire hazard), and the bulb base gets hot enough that it's a fair while before it can be touched. It does make one wonder about enclosed fixtures, like most modern home lighting.

      What's this IR thermometer w/laser pointer gadget??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    11. Re:CFL vs Incandescent by darrylo · · Score: 1

      What's this IR thermometer w/laser pointer gadget??

      It's a thermometer that measures temperature via IR (from a distance). It has a laser pointer so that you know the approximate location of where you are taking the temperature. I first learned about them from cooking shows, but they have automotive and other applications. (I'm just wondering if I can point mine at a set of CFL lightbulbs and detect issues by noticing that a particular lightbulb has a higher temp than the rest.)

      Here's one example (I just picked a random one): http://www.amazon.com/IRT0421-Non-Contact-Infrared-Thermometer-Targeting/dp/B0017L9Q9C/ref=sr_1_2?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1285477019&sr=8-2

    12. Re:CFL vs Incandescent by darrylo · · Score: 1

      OK, stupid idea. Heat from the bulb > heat from the base. :)

    13. Re:CFL vs Incandescent by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Ah, but in my experience, when they're overheating, the base is WAY hotter than the bulb (I've had one get so hot it expansion-locked itself into the socket; had to let it cool a while before it came loose). So once they get to that point, it should work.

      Looks like a nifty gadget regardless... will keep it in mind. I like your random pick for taking cheap batteries that I already buy in bulk for the camera and other stuff. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    14. Re:CFL vs Incandescent by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      I use incandescent light bulbs in a cabinet in my garage to keep my aerosols from freezing (a 50W and a 60W bulb - redundant and thermostatically controlled).

      What the heck am I supposed to do when I can't buy incandescent bulbs anymore? I have yet to find any kind of heater that is safe to use in such an enclosed space, but the main room heat costs a fortune to run (2800W with a 50/50 duty cycle all winter long for a room I use 2 hours a week is not sane).

      I also have a separately-switched incandescent lamp in that room for days when the fluorescent tubes just won't fire up because it's so damn cold. Any what about my security lights? They are supposed to come on instantly, but I have yet to see an instant-on outdoor CFL that works at -25.

      I use CFLs and FL tubes everywhere they are appropriate, but frankly, taking away the incandescents that I need is just plain stupid.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    15. Re:CFL vs Incandescent by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>fire hazard

      Yeah these CFLs are sooooo much better than incandescents. ot only do they save you pennies, but also might burn down your house! Yippee!
      .

      >>>$30/month for a 60W bulb that's in use 8 hours a day.

      So you're paying $30 divided by 14.4 kWh == $2.08 per kilowatthour??? Hmmm. I doubt the veracity of your story. My cost would be only 0.09 per kWh times 14.4 == $1.30. And in order to reduce cost, rather than switch to CFL, I'd just turn off the damn light. Or if you really think you "need" a light eight hours per day, switch to a 15 or 25 watt bulb... still 20 times brighter than the candlelight our ancestors used.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    16. Re:CFL vs Incandescent by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>outdoor lighting need like livestock pens or barns, gets to have dark barns all winter.
      and
      >>>...to keep my aerosols from freezing... What the heck am I supposed to do when I can't buy incandescent bulbs anymore?

      The Democrat Congress doesn't give a fuck about farmers and do-it-yourselfers (i.e. independent persons). They think you should quit and become factory or office workers like everyone else, while the government takes care of you like a little child. (Yes the Dems really are that stupid - which is why they passed a law banning incandescents.)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    17. Re:CFL vs Incandescent by Reziac · · Score: 1

      It's about 28 cents per KWH after everything is figured (SoCalEdison's convoluted rate tiering is a thing of beauty, if you're a corporate accountant, or possibly a contortionist). BUT... I found that the difference on my bill, having done nothing different but changed out the single lightbulb that ran 8 hours a day, was an astounding $30. Left me scratching my head too.

      I haven't figured out how PG&E can charge $40 for a month of NO usage other than one VERY energy-efficient fridge, either.

      BTW this was in my workroom, so while I do use a 15W for a reading lamp, it wasn't practical there.

      And I've lived with nothing but candlelight and gas lamps (had no electricity at the one place), so I'm quite aware of the light our ancestors used.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    18. Re:CFL vs Incandescent by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "The Democrat Congress doesn't give a fuck about farmers and do-it-yourselfers (i.e. independent persons). They think you should quit and become factory or office workers like everyone else, while the government takes care of you like a little child. (Yes the Dems really are that stupid - which is why they passed a law banning incandescents.)"

      Couldn't agree more. And there you have the essence of today's "liberal" (socialist) thinking. I do wonder what they think they're going to eat once they've shut down all the farmers... oh, food from China? paid for with what money, since we're in debt up to our eyebrows for generations to come?? And this has worked so well in the past, eh??

      As I've put it elsewhere, today's liberal wackoism isn't a political philosophy, it's a learning disability. (And no, I'm NOT being facetious -- it's exactly how a 12-year-old idealizes the world into working HIS way.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    19. Re:CFL vs Incandescent by sjbe · · Score: 1

      I've lived where winter temperatures didn't get that WARM for weeks on end.

      So, now everyone who lives where there's real winter,

      Ohh, a manly man. Can we bask in your tough guy attitude?

      Yes, there are very cold places but that does not describe the locations where the vast majority of the worlds population lives. If you live in a place cold enough to need an incinerator toilet, your technological needs are going to be different. Most of us are smart enough to live in more temperate climates. I'm in one of the states bordering Canada and the coldest it has gotten in the last 15 years has been about -15F. (and yes I had an outdoor CFL that survived the experience just fine)

  88. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by meerling · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wow, where do I start... Let's keep it short.
    First, this country is not a democracy, even though we espouse the democratic concepts. It's something called a representative republic. If your school failed to teach you that, or you failed high school civics, then go look it up, I'm sure wikipedia has an article on it.

    Second, no town or person can do "whatever they want". If they could, it would be an anarchy and there would be no town ordinances in the first place. Don't forget that they have to follow rules as well (state & federal), and if you let people do whatever they want, they will eventually do stupid or unfair things that just hurt themselves or other people. (Remember slavery? It's an extreme example, but totally valid to represent what happens when you let the 'majority' do what they want.)

    Third is the communist thing. We'll ignore the original utopian concept that communism was meant to be and go with the more modern variant based on the old Soviet Union and the current China. Hmmm, a government setting a restrictive rule that limits both corporate endeavors and public access to communication utilities/resources. Yep, that qualifies as modern communism. But that's the opposite of your declaration... Yeah, speaking of failing high school civics, I think we've got your number.

    Just a small note on utopias. There are many different utopian theories, and they are all interesting but fatally flawed. I don't believe in the possiblity of any form of utopia existing until after all of humanities basic psyche has been severely altered, and that isn't happening any time soon, if ever.

  89. Not banning, just regulating by Digicrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The ordinance prohibits wireless equipment within 1,500 feet of homes, schools, day care centers, and houses of worship, unless the company can prove absolute need."

    Note the last part of that sentence from the summary. In essence, it seems to imply that their just requiring special building permits approved on a case-by-case basis for any new cell tower built in a potentially concerning place. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

    At the very least, if the process for requesting permits for new towers becomes more cumbersome, perhaps the providers will look more closely at re-using/sharing existing towers in more elaborate ways. If not, we'll have cell towers on every block sooner or later (which isn't good for anybody).

    1. Re:Not banning, just regulating by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Note the last part of that sentence from the summary. In essence, it seems to imply that their just requiring special building permits approved on a case-by-case basis for any new cell tower built in a potentially concerning place. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

      That means that only the politically-connected companies will now be able to put up new towers.

  90. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Mike+Dav.+Kristopeit · · Score: 1
    if they don't want a tower built, they don't have to allow a tower to be built.

    if an unwanted tower is built, it is within the same voting citizens' abilities to bring the tower down.

  91. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so do so.

    that is, unless you are a COWARD.

    your bluff has been called and all you can do is offer excuses. you are incapable of action because you are too afraid of being proved wrong.

    ironically, in doing so you prove yourself NOTHING.

    let me guess though: my mum's face is nothing, im an idiot, reveal myself, etc. don't bother responding unless you are willing to reveal your email address to us. we've heard it all before.

  92. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "speaking of failing high school civics"

    Huh. All I remember from that is propaganda and "capitalism is best!"

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  93. Who owns existing towers? by CaroKann · · Score: 1

    This only bans new towers. This means existing towers will now be worth much more. Who owns those?

  94. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize that what you are saying counts as a death threat? And considering your posting history you sound pretty unstable. I think we should also consider "so i lied and said it was my wedding too and blew an air horn in her face." which could be considered as an assault.

  95. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Mike+D.+Kristopeit · · Score: 0
    NO ONE has revealed themselves TO ME. i am a PERSON. a POST on this message board BY A COWARDLY USER does not fill ANY of my preconditions

    you're an idiot.

  96. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please refrain from insulting commodore64_love's working brain cells by placing this kook in the same league. Or what else would you call someone who has at least 7 different slashdot accounts (I stopped counting), all of them carrying his real name, and all of them loaded with the same puerile insults ("you are NOTHING", "ur mum's face is ...", "you're an idiot").
    http://slashdot.org/~Michael+D+Kristopeit/
    http://slashdot.org/~Kristopeit%2C+M.+D./
    http://slashdot.org/~Mike+Kristopeit/
    http://slashdot.org/~Mike+D.+Kristopeit/
    http://slashdot.org/~Kristopeit%2C+Mike+D./
    http://slashdot.org/~MichaelDavKristopeit/
    http://slashdot.org/~Kristopeit%2C+Mike+Dav/

    I was curious: does /. have a mechanism for getting pathological cases like this banned, are they simply allowed to sink to level -1 hell?

    Oh yeah, Mike, it you're reading this, be happy this isn't 4chan, else your life would be over...
    http://www.kristopeit.com/person.php?person_id=1
    Just a friendly warning - there are nasty people out there and if you piss them off badly enough, they might start harassing you and your family. They're just an nslookup away from your current home address and telephone number. Do you really want the people who know you IRL to know how badly you're behaving on internet? If not, it would be wise to pipe down a bit.

  97. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    Oh, and: "Just a small note on utopias"

    Yeah, I'm pretty sure no one considers communism or any other system perfect. Just because it sounds better that doesn't mean it's perfect or impossible (many versions of it haven't even been tried yet, so there's no way to know). Personally, I'm a supporter of The Venus Project, and it's very tiring for people to assume that it is instantly impossible because 'humans are flawed and born evil'. Is such a system perfect? No. It is likely that nothing is. Is it instantly impossible? I should say not.

    Unless you weren't doing that, in which case I apologize.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  98. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kristopeit,+Mike · · Score: 0
    ...or it could be considered not as an assault... an implicit possibility of your assertion. perhaps it was fiction. perhaps you couldn't prove if it was.

    you can't kill a USER of a MESSAGE BOARD. if a PERSON presents themselves to me and admits to continue to disrespect my family on my property, i will kill them. justifiably.

    no one has been threatened. facts have been stipulated.

    you are NOTHING

  99. Just build tall "Freedom Towers" by greggman · · Score: 1

    They can just build 1600ft tall "Freedom Towers" and then happen to place a cell antenna on top. The "cell equipment" will equipment will be at least 1500 ft away from all buildings and no politician will be able to argue against "Freedom Towers" :-p

  100. Kick your Bro in Law in the nuts for all of us! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Kick him really hard.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  101. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

    Look out, someone let a 10-year old on Slashdot!

    --
    "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  102. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

    Wow. The website's language confirms it is the same person.

    It claims he is married. Wonder what the wife must be like...

    --
    "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  103. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kristopeit,+Mike · · Score: 0

    ur mum's face let a 10-year old on Slashdot!

  104. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Post your email so that he can contact you with the details you have requested.

    You are a HYPOCRITICAL COWARD unless you do this.

    If you are incapable or unwilling to take action, then you are NOTHING.

  105. Re:And the tinfoil hat crowd screws us all again.. by j_sp_r · · Score: 1

    Aspartame really makes my sister sick. Two glasses of diet products -> Puking. Chlorination is bad because it tastes like shit an people have to buy bottled water(and throw away the containers). The rest, that is for nut jobs.

  106. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kristopeit,+Mike+Dav · · Score: 0, Troll
    i will not be ordered around. my terms have been stipulated.

    you are NOTHING

  107. It won't work. and won't be done. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This law is about NEW towers. The old ones can stay.

  108. Some people want their cake and to eat it too.. by TavisJohn · · Score: 1

    There are people that do not want a cell tower within 5 miles of their home... But they want perfect cell coverage in their home including their basement. They complain about how WiFi makes you sick, while surfing the internet on their laptop/netbook/PDA via WiFi at the coffee shop or in their home.

    1. Re:Some people want their cake and to eat it too.. by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      There are people that do not want a cell tower within 5 miles of their home... But they want perfect cell coverage in their home including their basement. They complain about how WiFi makes you sick, while surfing the internet on their laptop/netbook/PDA via WiFi at the coffee shop or in their home.

      Or complain about their neighbor's electronics making them so sick they have to sleep in their car. Three feet from an assload of electronics and a lead acid battery.

    2. Re:Some people want their cake and to eat it too.. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      My personal fave was an incident someone cited last time this topic went around, where some bunch of tinfoil hats took the cell provider to court for making them sick... and it turned out the towers *hadn't yet been powered on*, making the plaintiffs look more than a little ridiculous.

      And now I'm going to go fry my brain in some unregulated solar radiation. ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    3. Re:Some people want their cake and to eat it too.. by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      And now I'm going to go fry my brain in some unregulated solar radiation. ;)

      WE MUST SUE THE SUN!

    4. Re:Some people want their cake and to eat it too.. by TavisJohn · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine had a neighbor that bitched about My friend's WiFi making him sick... The funny thing is that my friend went on vacation for 2 months, and had everything in his home unplugged... He had been back for 2 days when the neighbor knocked on his door and bitched about the WiFi making him sick. My friend looked at him and asked him how long he had been sick. The neighbor said "It started about 6 weeks ago".
      My friend cut him off and informed him that he was in asia for the past 8 weeks so 6 weeks ago I was not home, and my router had been unplugged for 2 weeks already. So you can either apologize or just leave. And if WiFi is really making you sick, good luck figuring out WHO's WiFi it is, there are 30 active WiFi signals within range at this moment. So you can either move, or line your house with copper mesh."

      I personally think that people who want their neighbors to turn their WiFi off because it makes them sick is inappropriate. If WiFi makes them sick, then they should modify their house to protect themselves.

    5. Re:Some people want their cake and to eat it too.. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Haha! I expect there are numerous similar stories out there...

      And I agree, it's not the normal folks' job to make life easier for the batshit insane.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    6. Re:Some people want their cake and to eat it too.. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Now that you mention it.... next thing we'll hear is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, municipalities shall be forced to provide shade and EM coverings over all public sidewalks, for the protection of people with sun allergy and/or other radition reactions.

      Once you start down this road, there's no logical stopping point.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:Some people want their cake and to eat it too.. by TavisJohn · · Score: 1

      Even if WiFi was making him sick, he should not expect his neighbour to fix his problem. He should have to fix it himself.

    8. Re:Some people want their cake and to eat it too.. by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Someone needs to pull a James Randi and offer a million dollars to anyone who can detect wifi radiation.

      First, build two rooms, about a foot apart. Out of normal sheetrock and plastic siding, and have that witnesses that's all that's in the walls. Put the doors on the side of the buildings that face away.

      In their room, put three things. An incandescent light fixture, a window AC or heater, and a water pump that puts water in a water tower in attic. The later two get turned off during the test. In fact, all power to their building will be turned off. If they want the light, it will be run off a battery. (Notice I'm trying to be as accommodating as possible here so no one can claim any funny business. If the light interferes, they can use glowsticks or whatever.)

      The water in the tower is to run down a little noisy waterfall inside, which is there to hide any actual noise hints. No cheating and hearing things turn on. Totally mechanical waterfall. (Be sure to use the restroom beforehand.) There's also a mechanical clock, and paper and pencil.

      In the other building, have a dozen wifi routers, and cell phones plugged into chargers with no batteries (So you can flip a switch and have them come on.) And, hell, they can pick out anything they want, as long as it doesn't make too much noise and will be turned on with the power coming on. If it does make too much noise, we will install soundproofing.

      And power to this building can be entirely turned off, and in fact starts off turned off. Entirely off, except when turned on, so there's no 'background' noise at all. In fact, let's put the switches 200 feet away for both rooms.

      They get ten minutes to sit there and have nothing happen. After that, they sit there an hour, wait another ten minutes, and come out and take a break. There will be four tests. Power will be turned on for ten minutes of two of them, on the entire time for one, and off the entire time for another.

      And we'll even let write down their observations and turn it in at the end, so in case they think 'The wifi came on now', and then later go 'No, I was wrong before, this is it', it's okay. And we know it might take a minute or two for all the devices to come up, so anywhere in the ten minutes is okay.

      Please point them out, and win a million dollars. Or Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  109. Small detail of which you may be unaware. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some people can actually feel it. Me, for example. I get headaches if I hold a celphone to my ear.

    In fact, if my wife is next to me in the car and talking on the phone, I get her to hold it on the other side of her head.

    AHA! You caught me out! It's all psychosomatic!

    OK, mister genius, explain how I have successfully predicted incoming calls for people based precisely on the sudden headache I get when I'm sitting by where their celphones are on desks or tables. Unless your version of psychosomatic effects includes time travel, in which case you might want to prepare your Nobel prize acceptance speech.

    And, yeah, actually, I'd be delighted if celphones were banned. I hate the damn things. Gee, wonder why... not that I think nobody should have them, but I'd be happier if they didn't hurt me. As in pain. With the ouch. Pain bad.

    So, yeah. It may or may not be harmful, but to at least some percentage of the population it is genuinely, provably perceptible, and if people think that things which give them headaches are likely to be harmful, well, go figure.

  110. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hear the cunt likes big donkey dicks.

  111. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by andymadigan · · Score: 1

    Look up the definition of democracy, moron.

    Why do Americans always think they have a democracy? It's a republic virtually everywhere. If it's anything like the rest of this country, the council probably represents far less than a majority of the town.

    Besides that, there's the concept of tyrrany of the majority. Even if a majority of the town doesn't want towers, does that give them a right to deny them to those (who live in the town) that do? There's absolutely no good reason for this regulation, and yet they impose it. Good government should do what's best for its residents - and it should not deny the wishes of one group because of the irrational fears of another. That's why we have a republic, and not a democracy.

    --
    The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
  112. Phone transmitting power? by TodLiebeck · · Score: 1

    First, please beware that I barely qualify as a layman when it comes to knowledge of cellular networks and/or RF transmission.

    If I recall correctly though, the transmitting power used by a cellular phone is inversely proportionate to the proximity of a tower. That is, if the tower is far away and more difficult to reach, the phone will use more transmitting power.

    So from a radiation perspective, is it safer to have towers located far away at the expense of having our cell phones constantly running at maximum power mere inches from our reproductive organs or brains?

  113. Re:Can you hear me now? Nope... by DCFusor · · Score: 1
    And as we say here nothingofvaluewaslost. I see far to much time-wasting dangerous and plain impoliteness around users of wireless devices for my taste....From the drivers talking and texting putting me in danger, to the impolite jerks who hold up the lines in stores because they just can't avoid being on the phone while the clerk is asking them something.

    I'm as pro tech as they come, but gheesh, people -- a heck of a lot of plain old misuse goes on too, like most tools it's a double edged thing. It's like, get a life that doesn't require mindless continuous babble with any and everyone to make you think you're OK. Does turning the thing off now and then really inconvenience anyone much?

    As with the recent facebook downtime, maybe you're better off without some of this.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  114. Property values? by Rayonic · · Score: 1

    I absolutely wouldn't buy a house in an area with no cell reception. If others feel the same wouldn't that lower property values?

  115. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kristopeit,+Mike · · Score: 0
    land and air rights belong to the people that defend the land.

    why do you think any different? you are NOTHING.

  116. perhaps you'll reconsider what's of value by alizard · · Score: 1

    some time when your car is stuck in the middle of nowhere and there isn't a pay phone you can use within 100 miles.

    Or, assuming you've got a mobile phone regardless of your public opinion about cell phones, when you've got an emergency and zero bars.

    Or no emergency at all, but a member of your family wanted to add something to your shopping list, a fact you did not discover until you got home and found out that said family member couldn't get through and as a result, you've got to hit the road yet again.

    Or when you're lost and you can't connect to the Net to access Google Maps.

    1. Re:perhaps you'll reconsider what's of value by deprecated · · Score: 1

      You'll be fine, Chicken Little.

  117. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by andymadigan · · Score: 1

    (Sorry to feed the trolls)

    What are you, 12? Get off your mommy's computer and go take your meds.

    --
    The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
  118. I fully support this town's efforts by alizard · · Score: 1

    to exclude modern technology from their community.

    Mainly because when the residents discover that their real estate values are dropping faster than everyone else's due to "zero bars" practically everywhere in town, I'm looking forward to hearing their screams of anger.

    "People always get the kind of local government they deserve." E.E. "Doc" Smith

    NIMBYs who demand services and band together to exclude what is needed to make them available from their community should get big middle fingers from their service providers.

  119. Actually the Amish are ok with cell phones by billstewart · · Score: 1

    There was an article on the internet a few years back, so I'm sure you could find it if you wanted, but it said that while the Amish don't like having phones in their houses, they're fine with cell phones, which they can use to call their men in from out in the fields if there's something going on. A metal triangle hanging by the back door will do fine if they're just out in the barn, but if they're plowing 100 acres by mules, they could be far away.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  120. Re:Hooray for artificially holding back technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amateur Radio operators have had to fight the same BS for years because neighbors consider towers ugly and/or are afraid of interference. Yet someone can paint their home/garage/etc... a gastly color, or erect ugly structures and nothing is said. The facts are that most people seldome look up, so most towers are not noticed. Most interference is caused by a combination of cheaply made home electronics, and CBers running illegally high (for them) power levels.

    This is a classic case of "have your cake and eat it too" thinking. They want cell service, but don't want the towers.

  121. Several Reasons Places of worship get singled out by billstewart · · Score: 1
    • Unconstitutional establishment of religion? What's the problem? (As some people point out, they do that with liquor stores, which is wrong, too.)
    • Church steeples are popular locations for cellular antennas, and cell phone companies market to churches that can rent them tower space, even providing fiberglass steeples for churches that don't already have them.
    • Churches aren't usually right in the middle of residential areas, so it gives them a way to ban cellular antennas in town as well as near homes.
    • Most churchgoers only spend an hour or two a week there, so the risk of Evil Cellphone Rays would be only 1% as high as having Evil Cellphone Rays near homes. On the other hand, the risk is a lot higher, because if the antenna is in the church steeple, people are much much closer than average.
    • Some churches are from the time period that tin ceilings were popular, and that lets you economize by not buying tinfoil hats for everybody, which is really how the town should have handled it.
    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  122. Follow the money and ... by Jerry · · Score: 1

    it wouldn't surprise me that the local cable company had something to do with the passage of the restrictive ordinance.

    When you can't get 3G/cellphone internet connection that leaves only dialup (who wants that?) and cable.

    The only question remaining is how much did it cost the cable company to insure their market monopoly?

    --

    Running with Linux for over 20 years!

  123. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

    First, this country is not a democracy, even though we espouse the democratic concepts. It's something called a representative republic. If your school failed to teach you that, or you failed high school civics, then go look it up, I'm sure wikipedia has an article on it.

    While the GP is a troll, you might want to be careful with asserting the "US is not a democracy" meme lest your own civics studies seem incomplete.

    The United States is a republic and a liberal democracy. The two terms refer to two different properties. "Republic" means that the ultimate power rests with the people, as opposed to with a monarch. The term "liberal democracy" covers various preconditions like fair and free elections, separation of branches of government, etc. that we commonly understand to constitute a "democracy".

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  124. Re:And the tinfoil hat crowd screws us all again.. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    I am sure that it makes your sister sick. There are a lot of people who have responses like this to all kinds of foods. Personally I can't stand cooked cabbage and have had some similar responses to it. That doesn't mean cooked cabbage is bad for me.

    Similarly with chlorination - just because you don't like the taste doesn't make it bad for you. As far as the disposable bottles, there is no reason you can't use filtered water and a non-disposable bottle.

  125. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by OneAhead · · Score: 1

    That's disturbing.

    OTOH, poor lass... must be really hard having to put up with a deranged idiot (or perhaps, an alcoholic?) for a husband.

  126. Re:Hooray for artificially holding back technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me guess, the town was predominantly conservatives?

  127. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    Hey, moron, no land owners have decided they don't want such towers, and no law is needed to stop people who don't want one on their property from not having one on their property.

    You're the 'communist' saying that the state can determine what land is used for what, against the wishes of the property owner.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  128. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    No, they don't 'own' the airwaves, you idiot. They leased the airwaves from the Federal government.

    The United States of America recognizes that the electromagnetic frequency is a public resource and that it makes no sense to assert that everyone owns all frequencies stopping exactly at their property line, which would render the entire spectrum useless for anything.

    Hence, the US distributes frequencies over larger areas, in accordance with what benefits the public most. Some are for public use, like ham and CB radio and the unlicensed frequencies of wifi and cordless phones, some are for government use, and some get leased by private corporations, like television frequencies and cell phone.

    The people of the United States of America own the airwaves in common. Transmitters who have received permission can, indeed, fill the airwaves in other people's houses.

    And all this is a goddamn moot point, because it isn't property owners saying 'We don't want people transmitting through us'...it's a city government restricting the placement of cell towers even if the nearby property owners want a tower there. So your point is even stupider.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  129. Australian Legislation by dingram17 · · Score: 1
    When I read cases like this I appreciate even more the Telecommunications Act 1997. This overrides council and state rules and lets communications put towers where they need to. There are some requirements to meet, and there are protests where the court of public opinion is used to change locations etc. The law also prevents telecommunications facilities from being resumed by local or state government, and allows carriers to install equipment in 'common areas' in commercial buildings.

    If places like Hempstead make it too hard then the wireless companies should just pull out, and as soon as the council's CEO or Mayor finds their blackberry doesn't work anymore things might return to normality.

    There was a case in Christchurch NZ (yep, shaky town) where the council ruling on a cell site on an old movie theatre was that there was 'no detectable emission' at ground level -- which made the installation completely pointless.

  130. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kristopeit,+Mike+D. · · Score: 0

    ur mum's face is 12.

  131. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kristopeit,+Mike+Da. · · Score: 0
    ur mum's face is a moron.

    everything i said is completely true. perhaps you couldn't find supporting evidence to support your lies... or perhaps you're just a liar.

  132. Re:And the tinfoil hat crowd screws us all again.. by conureman · · Score: 1

    HFCS just ruins the taste of any "food" that is tainted with it. Ditto the artificial sweeteners, (and the physical effect in my body is disconcerting as well). Free Cl is pretty scary stuff, and many of its compounds are best avoided, IMO. I dislike and distrust Glyphosate, but mainly I see profit in charging boutique prices for produce grown without it (Mwa-ha-ha). You missed the endocrine disrupting features of some of our new plastic and pharmaceutical products, some real scientists actually believe there may be real problems with that stuff; Others assure us there is nothing to fear. My neighbor, Jeff Rense, seems to be a nut, and his website is pretty ludicrous, (and apparently VERY profitable) but just because something is posted there does not absolutely mean it is always total nonsense. Jeff Rense, -1 skepticism mod; Monsanto spokesman, -1 who's paying mod. My point is that I see more real hazards coming from your Fearless Leaders than your Lunatic Fringe.

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  133. NIMBYs need to be shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you know the first people bitching about how bad their phone coverage now is will be all those idiots who supported these restrictions.

    There are places in Silicon Valley (!) that have crappy cell coverage (e.g. San Jose, Evergreen) simply because of a lack of cell towers caused by NIMBYism. Talked to a city council person one time and she complained about the poor cell coverage and how the cell companies were so unresponsive. Of course the area she was talking about had cell tower restrictions and none of the cell companies (they don't generally share towers btw) had installed any cell sites in nearly a decade because of the cost of regulation and application - it would cost nearly 10x more than the physical capital costs and installation costs combined. This was why the cell site I'd always connect to (when I had cell coverage at all) was a tower at the corner of 280 and 17 nearly 10 miles away.

  134. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe we should ask her... http://www.facebook.com/people/Rachel-Kristopeit/1231966914#!/profile.php?id=1231966914

    The whois records on kristopeit.com look non-anonymized.

  135. Need Towers by hidave · · Score: 1

    Put up towers here! Please! Duck River, Tennessee.

    --
    Synchronizing stop lights across the US = one less nuclear power plant
  136. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lololol +1 informative!

  137. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kristopeit,+Mike · · Score: 1
    who do you believe cares about your cowardly ramblings?

    you are NOTHING

  138. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    I just have to ask though, how big is this town? A cell tower configured for max range gets 40km (23 mi), how could this not cover the town from 5 miles outside the town? But personally, if I was a cell provider, I would intentionally make the town have no signal and then point to this law.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  139. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who reads the ramblings of an anonymous coward?

    mickey dicky david kristopeity, that's who!

    you are NOTHING

  140. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kristopeit,+Mike+D. · · Score: 0
    you can't even comprehend a simple question, IDIOT.

    ur mum's face reads the ramblings of an anonymous coward... AND EVEN SHE DOESN'T CARE.

    you are NOTHING

  141. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    keep reading, keep replying, keep being NOTHING.

  142. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kristopeit,+Mike+D. · · Score: 0
    something that reads and replies and has a given name can NEVER be nothing.

    you're an idiot.

  143. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://whois.domaintools.com/kristopeit.com

    It's also listed on the website itself, kristopeit.com (but I personally wouldn't visit it unless I was behind nine proxies), along with all of his relatives e-mail addresses IIRC.

    Keep in mind, though, that if you do send him any of your own personal information he'll probably post it here for the entire world to see.

    Registrant:
          Michael Kristopeit
          14605 34th Ave N
          Apt 108
          Plymouth, MN 55447
          US

          Registrar: NAMESDIRECT
          Domain Name: KRISTOPEIT.COM
                Created on: 11-SEP-00
                Expires on: 11-SEP-11
                Last Updated on: 28-JUL-09

          Administrative, Technical Contact:
                Kristopeit, Michael <mike@kristopeit.com>
                14605 34th Ave N
                Apt 108
                Plymouth, MN 55447
                US
                408-307-9811

          Domain servers in listed order:
                NS4.MYDOMAIN.COM
                NS3.MYDOMAIN.COM
                NS1.MYDOMAIN.COM
                NS2.MYDOMAIN.COM

  144. Re:And the tinfoil hat crowd screws us all again.. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    Sweetener taste is a subjective thing. What I object to is the the idea that despite all scientific evidence there are thousands of web sites that will cheerfully make up all sorts of claims that anything except natural products like agave nectar and stevia syrup are bad for you when in fact opposite is true.

    Free chlorine can be deleterious in high concentrations, however the fact of the matter is that if you stop using it you are in for a nasty cholera or other water borne epidemic. Peru tried that a few years ago and 19,000 people died of cholera. Even today deaths due to water borne diseases are killing thousands of people per day. So go ahead, stop adding chlorine to drinking water.

    http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/warmup/cholera/cholera.html
    http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2005-03-17-voa34-67381152.html

    Distrust glyphosate all you want, however the facts are in. Any such fears are irrational. Perhaps it's good marketing to get people juiced up over something that isn't metabolized by mammals, I'll give you that.

    As far as endocrine disrupters, there are some materials to be concerned about. You didn't see it my list of false bogeymen, did you?

    My point is that I see more real hazards coming from your Fearless Leaders than your Lunatic Fringe.

    Fringers like the anti-vax crowd and the ban chlorine types would throw away the two primary disease prevention mechanisms known to man. Combined they are the dominant reasons life expectancy has gone up to 74 from the 45 it was in 1900.

    If you want to live on a cholera island infested with smallpox and polio and watch your children die of measles and whooping cough go right ahead. Personally I'll take my chances with sucralose.

  145. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Wayback Machine has archives of his site dating back to 2003, which included home and work phone numbers, for the curious.

    http://web.archive.org/web/*/kristopeit.com

  146. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    something that reads and replies and has a given name can NEVER be nothing.

    Obviously not, you proved it yourself - numerous times, in fact, right in this very thread, here...

    andymadigan is nothing...

    Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (Score:2)
    by andymadigan (792996)

    Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (Score:0)
    by Kristopeit, Mike (1905452)

    you are NOTHING.

    icebraining is nothing...

    Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (Score:2)
    by icebraining (1313345)

    Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (Score:0, Flamebait)
    by Kristopeit, Mike Da. (1905342)

    you are NOTHING

    Timothy Brownawell is nothing...

    Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (Score:2)
    by Timothy Brownawell (627747)

    Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh (Score:0)
    by Mike Kristopeit (1900306)

    you are NOTHING

    michael david kristopeit, you are NOTHING.

  147. Re:Hooray for artificially holding back technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see how being able to see a tower devalues a property more than not being able to use your cell phone.

    So, this is an argument against allowing everyone people to vote equally?

  148. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kristopeit,+Mike+Da. · · Score: 0
    you're an idiot.

    a coward can never be anything more than a cowardly NOTHING.

  149. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kristopeit,+Mike+Da. · · Score: 0

    and a retard who spews lies is ALWAYS nothing. a completely worthless idiot... NOTHING relative to anyone who COULD care.

  150. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a coward can never be anything more than a cowardly NOTHING.

    And Michael David Kristopeit can never be anything more than a flaming asshole troll NOTHING.

    and a retard who spews lies is ALWAYS nothing.

    And a retard who spews lies is YOU... NOTHING relative to anyone who COULD care indeed. Is this Soviet Russia?

    Michael Kristopeit (1751814) writes on 01.09.2010 19:24 (#33443952) i have 20 accounts with mod points

    Mike Kristopeit (1900306) writes on 16.09.2010 22:40 (#33607202) i have never received moderation points

    Get your troll on, son, you’re slipping...

  151. Re:waaaaaah waaaaaahhhhh by Kristopeit,+Mike+D. · · Score: 0
    what drove you to resorting to cowardliness?

    fear?

    you are NOTHING

  152. The plural of anecdote is not data by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Where are these "instant on" bulbs?

    All CFLs have a warm up period but some get 90% of the way there. Most of the ones in my house do not have a discernible delay to getting light after hitting the switch and achieve what seems to be full brightness after 40-60 seconds.

    I've tried Lights of America, GE, and Philips, and they ALL take 3-4 minutes to slowly rise from a dim brownish light to a bright white. All of them.

    I have about 30 CFLs in my house and none of them have either a "dim brownish light" nor do they take that long to warm up. Most of the bulbs I presently use are from Sylvania but I'd had good luck with the house brand from Home Depot too (which is the highest rated by Consumer Reports). There is definitely variability in quality of manufacture and design so sadly, some experimentation is often necessary.

    CFLs can NOT be used in enclosed or upside-down fixtures. The trapped heat turns the capacitors into goop, and then they die.

    Actually they can be and I've used them quite successfully in that capacity. You just have to get bulbs designed for that particular application. Not all CFLs are designed for use in enclosed fixtures and some fixtures are designed specifically for CFLs. "Current recommendations for fully enclosed, unventilated light fixtures (such as those recessed into insulated ceilings), are either to use 'reflector CFLs', cold cathode CFLs or to replace such fixtures with those designed for CFLs."

    (DON YOUR FLAME SHIELD). Ya know I'm tired of rude, inconsiderate people (not you specifically but in general) who claim "You're full of shit" and "CFLs are the next best thing to a Pentium 20,

    Buddy, you are debating on the internet. If you are expecting a warm and friendly environment I suggest you look elsewhere. If you say something on slashdot that people think is stupid or wrong, be ready to defend. No one is going to coddle you here.

    and ignore REAL WORLD RESULTS from people who have experienced nothing but headaches and trouble with these fancy new lightbulbs.

    The plural of anecdote is not data. Your personal experiences, while significant to you, are not backed up by the available data on the general performance of CFLs. Furthermore, your personal experiences are directly contradicted by my personal experiences so even if we ignore the performance data, you haven't remotely begun to convince me of your position.

    IT'S RUDE to me and other, as if you think we are rednecks with no brains.

    You said something that is not backed up by the available data beyond your personal opinion. If pointing that out hurts your feelings then, well... grow up. Have the confidence to back up your conviction because you're going to run into rude people the rest of your life. Waste of your time to spend it feeling hurt by people you'll never meet.

    I've worked as an engineer and was trained as a scientist. Expecting me to be sympathetic to you claiming your anecdotal experience as some sort of universal truth is simply laughable. There are plenty of perfectly valid criticisms to be made of CFLs but you neglected to make any of them or back up any of your assertions.