Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Solution (Score 1) 274

Those making $24,000/yr will finally understand that government money is not free.

Finally! Because you know your income level obviously proves that you're horribly ignorant! You tell 'em, bub!

Then you won't have the problem of people who don't pay taxes voting to raise the tax rate on those that do.

Because that's what's happening, right. The greedy, selfish... how have I heard it put... "parasite" poor bastards! You gotta make 'em SUFFER what it means to be poor!

A sales tax is still going to a progressive tax since things like food, school supplies, and other absolute necessities won't be taxed at all.

It's still regressive. It just means someone making millions will continue to pay a relatively trivial amount, while the poor take it in the shorts.

Sure, a billionaire might spend $5 million on a house, but his grocery budget is not going to be 50x more than the guy who spent $100K on a house.

Indeed, so in the end the billionaire will make out like a bandit (no longer having to pay out on his income) and the guy making 100k will happily save a few k$ per year, and the poor likely won't benefit at all.

So low income people will spend a larger percentage of their income on non-taxed products, meaning they will pay a lower tax rate than the guy who eats out twice a day.

Or they'll probably continue paying that tax, because they don't have the time or energy to visit the store and prepare the untaxed food because they're still struggling to keep their head above water.

Comment: Re:Corporate taxes (Score 1) 274

Everyone pays, including corporations

Except when they engineer their taxes so that all the profits are outside the country, and their taxes report only losses. GE did that to the tune of a billion dollars back from the government, even though it was a complete fraud.

Comment: Re:Trustworthy Computing was a sham (Score 1) 99

by Microlith (#47951719) Attached to: Microsoft Kills Off Its Trustworthy Computing Group

No, all consumer x86 should have that ability.

Yes, as specified by Microsoft themselves. They shouldn't have to say it, but you know the OEMs are lazy as shit and wouldn't offer the option if they could get away with it.

Not that they all actually work properly to the UEFI specs once you do.

Meaning what?

But on an unlocked platform you should be able to add custom keys.

And you can, I have.

Anyways, some embeded x86 systems can be locked (beside intel allows it only on chips designed to go into DVR's and other embeded devices)

And locked down embedded systems are always a problem, but they don't require secure boot or UEFI to do so.

Comment: Re:Trustworthy Computing was a sham (Score 2) 99

by Microlith (#47951527) Attached to: Microsoft Kills Off Its Trustworthy Computing Group

secured the system against user violations such as overwriting the bootloader with one that isn't signed (like for instance, replacing or enhancing the BIOS with a signed EFI that prevents the user from installing alternative OSes such as OSX onto a commodity x64 or GNU/Linux onto a MS-subsidised laptop

Which has not happened. Seriously. All x86 systems have the ability to turn off secure boot.

Comment: Re:When will it work in Seamonkey and Firefox (Score 1) 178

by Microlith (#47947963) Attached to: Native Netflix Support Is Coming To Linux

It might seem dumb, but if Firefox hung back it'd be a point people would criticize them over. So in the end Mozilla can't win, if they stay behind they get criticized - if they move forward they get criticized.

The advantage is the flexibility is enough that even now my Firefox looks like it did in v3.5, at least on my desktop and laptop. The important thing is that it's a 3rd party browser that is extremely advanced, and can compete with the 800lb gorillas. It's better than using inflexible browsers like Chrome.

Comment: Re:Who profits from West slowing down? (Score 1) 770

by Microlith (#47858965) Attached to: How Scientific Consensus Has Gotten a Bad Reputation

what is far from settled, is whether the humanity's impact is anything to speak of

The only way it's "far from settled" is to play willfully ignorant and deny the fact that humanity is not a trivial force on this planet.

Arctic ice should've disappeared this summer — instead, it has grown.

Don't go citing the Daily Fail as if they had credibility.

The profits of fossil fuel corporations are not endangered by the "green" moves at all

I see you don't think long term.

But for the government folks — those, who are sincerely convinced, they know better than their subjects — this is a perfect way to expand their control.

Oh the paranoia! Please, cite some more credibility-free sources, would you?

Comment: Re:Who profits from West slowing down? (Score 5, Insightful) 770

by Microlith (#47852965) Attached to: How Scientific Consensus Has Gotten a Bad Reputation

though there are still perfectly valid debates in almost any other branch of science (dieting, economics, pedagogy, biology, and even computers — you name it — it is all in flux),

Sure, sure...

the science of climate is "settled" and anybody doubting the line pushed by the governments must also believe, the Earth is flat.

Utter nonsense. What's settled is that the climate is changing at the hands of man, what's open to debate is what the impact on us will be in the short and long term. The "consensus" is the same as the "consensus" that supports the modern understanding of evolution - it is a refinement and agreement across the field on the gross mechanism for something, and all the arguments lie in the details.

Kudos for tossing in the pinch of anti-government paranoia, it has to be that and not the desire for massively profitable fossil fuel corporations to defend said profits.

Comment: Re:Slashdot comments indicative of the problem (Score 0) 1262

Such a shitty troll.

She riles people up by creating the most offensive and inflammtry, and MISLEADING videos then cries to the press "help, people are being mean to me". She asked for it and she got it.

No, if you disagree with what she posts then you create your own counterpoints and deconstruct her arguments in a sane and rational manner.

What she's getting now is beastly bullshit, and you're basically saying "she shouldn't have dressed that way, it's her fault for getting raped."

Do your homework on her before being a SJW (ending your 'people be being mean to her because she woman' )

So it's being an "SJW" to suggest people shouldn't be right pieces of vile shit towards others when they disagree with someone's opinions?

and you will quickly understand the hatred for her.

I could understand disagreeing with her. The hatred is vile and baseless.

Comment: Re:Okay... and? (Score 5, Insightful) 316

by Microlith (#47739973) Attached to: For Microsoft, $93B Abroad Means Avoiding $30B Tax Hit

And paying salaries to U.S. employees who pay income tax on it and spend their money in the US, thereby also paying US sales taxes.

The 1% pushing the tax burden off on the 99%, who can't play international games with their finances.

Which only makes sense, since the US is one of the few countries in the world to tax people's oversea earnings.

No, that's not relevant. They play a shell game to make sure that all earned profits are earned in areas with little to no tax, then claim they made no profits. Or, if you're GE, you claim you made a $1B loss while reporting billions in profits to your shareholders.

If tax policies in the US were more reasonable, Microsoft wouldn't have to do that.

Like what, pledging fealty to corporations and letting the people of the country subsidize their existence?

On which those Americans pay sales tax.

Which helps local municipalities only - ignoring that sales taxes are regressive.

But as you said in your first part: the tax credits are for R&D, not for making profits!

Indeed, they claim the tax credits and losses in the US, but the profits outside. It's a massive scam, really.

Comment: Re:GPL is about User/Owner Freedoms (Score 1) 117

by Microlith (#47718241) Attached to: Qt Upgrades From LGPLv2.1 to LGPLv3

What about libraries?

What about them? The rule is the same, so either you attempt to get a specially licensed version not under the GPL, you comply with the license. The LGPL wasn't made so you could use things in tivoized systems, it was so you could use a library with a closed source program.

You can still do that, but not also include that library in a tivoized system.

All Tivoization did was teach commercial developers that FSF is an ornery as ever and to avoid GPL software (or any open source) and buy a proprietary package instead.

People who push tivoized systems are not your friend, and having them use Free Software makes a mockery of the entire concept.

Tivo did everything right according to the letter of the license, and everything right according to the spirit of many open source developers

Hardly. They complied with the letter of the license, but particularly in the case of the GPL, which seeks to protect the recipients of binaries generated from GPL sources, they took a huge shit on the spirit.

they did nothing sneaky or underhanded.

Tivoization is underhanded.

If they had used a closed proprietary operating system no one would have cared at all, they were only punished for using open source.

They weren't punished. They were criticized and their lock down was recognized for what it was. But yes, had they used a closed, proprietary platform no one would have cared and they wouldn't have gotten the "omg these guys run Linux" attention that they didn't really deserve.

Most public domain software is free, at least at first glance.

Working...