Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Not moving assets, keeping them remote. (Score 1) 246

That rate is the highest possible rate, not what corporations actually pay.

You seem to be justifying having the highest corporate tax rates in the world because some corporations do not pay that much, and go so far as to make a long post that not once considers those corporations that do actually pay that much.

The reality is that these tax breaks and incentives are essential precisely because otherwise American corporations are completely fucked

The real downside of the high base with an incentive system is that it allows the government to pick winners and losers. Microsoft gets the incentive but that startup that wants to compete with Microsoft does not. That startup thus never happens in a country with the highest corporate tax rate. Thats the system we have and the solution is not to make Microsoft pay the highest corporate tax rate in the world. The solution is to have tax rates that are competitive with the rest of the world.

Having the highest rate in the world is such a bad thing that we sometimes give entire industries massive breaks, because its obvious that forcing (for example) our automotive or airplane industries to go under is a bad fucking idea. In many cases the breaks they get aren't even enough, so they also need to get highly lucrative government contracts just to stay afloat.

By defending the highest rate, as you just did, while simultaneously wishing the incentives to end.. what you are asking for is the complete destruction of America. What you should want is a much lower tax rates to begin with, but that wont get past your shallowly-justified dislike for corporate incentives.

Comment Re:Misleading Headline (Score 1) 246

AT&T immediately saw the value of this device and started to work to put this highly profitable device in everyone's homes! Err... not. AT&T killed it because they saw no profit in the device.

it appears that you think that if something is profitable at time T, then it must also have been profitable at time T - X.

What a simplistic idiot you are.

There is no chance in hell that when the technology was first developed to do it that it could have been profitable product. Just like when the technology for smart phones was developed it wasnt profitable. It took *decades* for all the technologies involved to mature enough to make multi-touch pocket computers profitable. Nobody was going to buy a damned $50000 answering machine.

Comment Re:Straight to the pointless debate (Score 1) 136

Science is the discipline of publicly testing ideas by systematic observation, controlled experiment, and Bayesian inference.

Changing the data that you observed decades after you observed it is not "systematic observation."

It is "doing stuff so that the systematic observations arent used"

Comment Re:Straight to the pointless debate (Score 0) 136

Aren't adjustments, done with scientific reasoning, just a form of processing?

I dont know about the satellite data, but in the case of the surface record, there can be no scientific reason to adjust temperature measurements. Such measurements are the core of the science .. things are measured and the values are what they are. It is never scientific to process past measurements and then call them "corrected" (which is what the climate folks are doing with the surface record.)

I also dont know if all of these "corrections" are biased one way or the other, but surely if these "corrections" do not follow a normal distribution then that sheds a very ugly light on the whole process of "correction."

Comment Re:But hey... (Score 1) 789

You can't fault a guy for being an optimist.

A child is dangling precariously on a 10th story ledge of a hi-rise building. A man is at the window where the child is dangling but decides not to do anything to help because he figures a giant eagle will catch the child when they fall.

You can't fault a guy for being an optimist.

Comment Re:Competition is good. (Score 2, Insightful) 211

It took two world wars and one cold war to get us to where we are today.

Let me translate this for everyone:

"Yes, the government really did outlaw private space flight, and when the ban was lifted it still used its influence in order to raise barriers to entry to prevent competition with the oligarchy, but I think that it had a good reason to."

..and this true statement without the fucking spin is a far cry from negating any argument about how government held us all back yet again. The government did in fact hold us back.

The facts are that a private company can come along and get things done better and cheaper. If we were to believe the argument that the government does it better, then the government would have already done what SpaceX is doing. It didn't, therefore the government did not do it better. It had MANY decades to do so. Instead it prevented better from happening.

Comment Re:Haply so, but exec orders and agencies (Score 1) 180

Article 2, Section 1 of the watergate articles of impeachment:

1. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

Now STFU you ignorant fuck. Stop acting like an informed person when you arent fucking informed. It took me all of 5 seconds to get this information verbatim so that I could quote it. All of 5 fucking seconds. Thats how fucking uninformed you are. Not even 5 seconds informed.

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Working...