Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:In other words (Score 1) 312

Must be nice being a multinational corporation, getting to chose how much taxes you pay and where you pay them...

On a related note:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...

Seriously, in my opinion if an entity can declare in the USA (for example) earnings and other stuff as its own, borrow money using it as collateral, and decide how that $$$$ or stuff is used, then that entity actually owns the stuff and should pay the relevant taxes.

So many corporations are saying to shareholders and everyone else that the huge profits are theirs and yet turn to the tax dept and say no they didn't make any profit - the profits belong to some company in Ireland or wherever else. In my opinion that's fraudulent from an ethical point of view.

Say you tried to do the same thing - declare some $$$$$$ income in official public announcements/filings to everyone, borrow money using that income, order "unrelated people (who somehow have similar names as yours)" to use that income to buy stuff. Do you think you'd get away with telling the Tax Dept that the income isn't yours and you don't have to pay taxes on it?

Maybe this would cause some companies to fully move out from the USA to other countries. But at least they would no longer benefit from what the USA provides without paying their fair share.

Comment Re:But But But It's the Handouts That Are Bankrupt (Score 4, Interesting) 370

Actually, there was a real welfare queen that fits the details of the urban legend.

Her name was Linda Taylor. And welfare fraud was probably among the least of her crimes. It's a fascinating story.

Now obviously, she's the exception, rather than the rule. Most people on welfare aren't creating multiple fake identities in order to bilk the system. And most sure aren't involved in possible kidnappings and suspicious deaths.

User Journal

Journal Journal: nettin_pure: Gone?

nettin_pure seems to have stopped updating his journal. Sad; it was a constant in a changing Slashdot. It will be missed.

Comment Re:Which is it? Very different cases. (Score 2) 143

Anyway, once a place is burned out, harvested, and so on we plant new trees there anyway. The forestry industry here is amazingly good at creating an entire harvest, burn, plant cycle.

I've walked through tree farms. They are about as close to a natural forest as a field of wheat is to a prairie.

Comment Re:Don't worry actors (Score 2) 360

Uh the pixar lamps have more emotion than the actors in the phantom menace.

That movie was so bad - it seemed to me like most of the actors were just reading their lines for the first time, and then George Lucas goes "CUT! OK that's good, let's go make more dresses for Amidala".

It's like someone doing a presentation for the first time and reading what's written on it line by line vs someone doing it for the 100th time and going "fuck the slide, now let me tell you a story". It takes a while for actors to figure out who their character should be and how the character would and should act.

And that sort of thing results in Han Solo's famous in-character "I know" to Leia's "I love you" instead of the boring forgettable "I love you, too" that was apparently in the script.

That's why you hire actors - for their input - they'll tell you that their character shouldn't do X and should and would do Y instead. They might not always be right, but the good ones often are since they're focusing on that one character whereas you as the director are doing a lot of other things. The original writer might write a lot of stuff that works in a book, but doesn't work in a movie.

Someone earlier said acting was lying. But it's a higher form of lying where you are true to the character. Just like the Joker hospital explosion scene when not all the explosions went off as planned, and Heath Ledger improvised and turned the fault into a cool feature.

A nonactor like me could "tell the same lies" but not be believable as that character at all.

Comment Re:Don't ask, don't tell (Score 1) 114

This ruling doesn't even have anything to do with planting a tracking device. It is in regards to an individual who has been convicted of multiple sexual offences who has served his time and is being required by the State of North Carolina to wear a GPS anklet for the rest of his life. He challenged that on 4th amendment grounds. NC argued successfully (at the state level) that this requirement is not a search. The SCOTUS disagreed and sent the case back to NC.

Jeez, RTFA.

Combative much? Let me rearrange your words so you can see how it relates to my original point, and you tell me how I did it wrong, and then I'll let you deal with the fact that you're chasing your own tail while barking at me...

NC argued [that] wear[ing] a GPS anklet ... is not a search

The SCOTUS disagreed

First line of the article:

If the government puts a GPS tracker on you, your car, or any of your personal effects, it counts as a search—and is therefore protected by the Fourth Amendment.

Jeez, what as that about reading the article again?

Slashdot Top Deals

A quarrel is quickly settled when deserted by one party; there is no battle unless there be two. -- Seneca

Working...