Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:So What (Score 1) 283

by Marxist Hacker 42 (#49379219) Attached to: Poverty May Affect the Growth of Children's Brains

In feudalism, and in certain forms of tribalism, the chief/King and his family eat first, and then everybody else eats what is left over from their table. (in Calapuya Chinook, the title of the chief was the Hias Mucktymuck- quite literally "the dude sitting at the head of the table", from which we get the saying "Lord High MucktyMuck"). I'd call that a very powerful selection mechanism.

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 291

by ScentCone (#49379191) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail

Otherwise, it appears you are making up rules out of your tail end.

What? Clinton herself signed a memo to her staff reminding them that they had to use state.gov mailboxes for their official correspondence. The woman you're trying to let off the hook certainly supported the common practice of each department (which have to handle their own FOIA requests) maintaining their own records. Do you really think that when someone at, say, the FAA gets a FOIA request, that it's the intention or the practice for their own records people to then contact hundreds of other agencies and departments to scour THEIR records for FAA-related correspondence? I guess you might think that if it allows you to ignore the hypocrisy of Clinton's own words.

Otherwise, please don't speculate based on your impressions and personal notions about how the guts of gov't work or don't work.

What are you talking about? You're essentially saying that absolutely no career archivists and investigators can be trusted to know if they've looked through stored email records, but we can trust Hillary Clinton to be 100% upright when she tells us that we have to trust her when she says that the tens of thousands of records she destroyed were without relevance to the multiple inquiries that she's stonewalled for the past few years. You operate on a really bad case of mixed premises.

Please stop wasting my time with so much idle speculation.

Who's speculating? She's the one who says she destroyed the records without allowing State archivists to do what they're required to do with all of the staff under her (review mixed private/official communications to make judgement calls about what's a public record). She's the one who deliberately transformed convenient, searchable electronic records with context-providing header info into clumsy, labor-requiring hardcopies ... and only after they were demanded of her long after leaving office. Her own description of her actions shows that she didn't provide State with any magical CCs of her communications with external third parties or other agencies, but YOU'RE the one saying not to worry, she probably CC'd somebody, somewhere, somehow, in order to be in compliance with the 2009 NARA requirement. Since you're so tired of speculating, how about being specific on why you think the thing that she's carefully avoided saying she did was none the less actually done, even though it left no trace whatsoever for multiple investigators to find at State? Please, be specific.

Which specific item of mail are you talking about here? Please be clear about timelines, and who, what, when, and where.

That's the point. There ARE NONE. The only way your lame, blithe dismissal of that can be anything other than shameless spin is if you are asserting that she never exchanged a single piece of official email with anyone in another agency, branch of government, or third party/nation. How about answering one single question: do you really think that's true, that she neither sent nor received a single email from anyone in the Senate, at the CIA, at DoJ, in Germany/Japan/UK/Arkansas/NY, or with any long-time fixer like Blumenthal during her entire tenure? Not a single email? Yes or no.

If you say no, then please just stop the hand-waving "she did nothing wrong" nonsense, since it's BS. If you say yes, then please just stop everything, including voting, because you're either toxically naive or being completely disingenuous.

So, yes or no? One single email with any one single contact outside of subordinates at State?

Comment: Video and audio are time-rate fixed (Score 1) 63

by Solandri (#49379085) Attached to: No Film At 11: the Case For the Less-Video-Is-More MOOC
When you try to absorb information via video or audio, you're pretty much limited to the speed at which the video or audio was recorded. If you find the pace too slow, players like VLC can speed it up a bit, but I find that beyond about 1.5x the audio compression and frequency shift correction ends up distorting it enough that the speech processing centers of my brain can no longer clearly identify the words being spoken. If the pace is too fast, your only choice is pause and rewind.

When you absorb information visually, either by reading or looking at pictures, you can go as quickly or slowly as you like. It's like the audio machines I used when translating - glorified tape recorders with frequency correction based on tape playback speed, with foot pedals so you could go faster, slower, or rewind. Except you don't need any of that equipment with text or pictures.

This is why video and audio will always be an inferior method of transferring knowledge than reading and diagrams/pictures. You can use video and audio samples to demonstrate things which are best seen/heard in real-time, and live presentations are superior if they allow interaction between instructor and student. But for a general information dump, text and pictures allow the highest bandwidth, with the bandwidth controlled by the reader's mind. Video is like presenting a textbook as a flash animation with a fixed scroll speed, where you need to mess with clumsy fast-forward and rewind buttons to control bandwidth.

Comment: Re: I'm all for abolishing the IRS (Score 1) 290

by AK Marc (#49377399) Attached to: Sign Up At irs.gov Before Crooks Do It For You
But if I make $100k at 10% tax, and I save 10%, I'm left with $9k. If I'm taxed on spending, not income, then I have $1000 more at the end of the year.

The temporarily embarrassed Millionaires like to think that they'll have millions in savings return income, and so long as they don't spend it, they will make more money.

Comment: Re:I'm all for abolishing the IRS (Score 1) 290

by AK Marc (#49377355) Attached to: Sign Up At irs.gov Before Crooks Do It For You
If income tax was abolished, then the IRS should go with it. The IRS exists solely to administer Income tax. So abolish that, and the IRS is dead. Though the organization that replaces it may share the same name, it won't be the same.

Even if the income tax changes to PAYE, that would eliminate more than half the work of the IRS, even if an income tax still remained. The enforcement arm could be 1/100th of today with PAYE. That changes the IRS fundamentally.

The IRS doesn't need to change. The laws that generate income for the US should be changed. Of course, that would necessarily change the IRS as well.

Comment: Re:Tax something that correlates strongly (Score 1) 290

by AK Marc (#49377265) Attached to: Sign Up At irs.gov Before Crooks Do It For You
Fuel tax is so low it doesn't pay for roads, but maybe 1/10th of roads. The most common fuel tax is an excise tax, pennies per gallon, not too bad when it started, but not linked to inflation or fuel cost. So the percent of fuel that went to taxes has steadily dropped to where it might as well be zero.

Comment: Re:I'm all for abolishing the IRS (Score 1) 290

by AK Marc (#49377203) Attached to: Sign Up At irs.gov Before Crooks Do It For You
The miser is hoarding cash. Not competing to buy the goods you want doesn't make much difference. But taxing spending of the person borrowing a million to spend it, you are taxing money that isn't there from someone who can't afford it. Taxing the production is more "fair" for the average person. Taxing the spending is considered better by those who assert that they live within their means. Tax becomes optional at that point.

Comment: Re:Not terrorism ? (Score 1) 286

by ScentCone (#49376987) Attached to: Attempted Breach of NSA HQ Checkpoint; One Shot Dead

Who said they were using violence?

Failing to stop your multi-thousand-pound vehicle as you drive at a military checkpoint is telegraphing violent intent. At least, that's how the guards have to treat it. Driving a suicide car bomb at/through checkpoints is a well established tactic, and has produced a no-compromises protocol in response. When you give off all the signs of violent intent, there's really no way to just let them carry on and decide later if they were a threat. It's not video game with a retry button the guards can push after they've been blown to pieces.

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Working...