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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:She is better then jeb bush (Score 1) 571 571

It is up for debate whether Ayn Rand could have taken the money that she'd have gotten back in her SS checks and have done better with investing that money or not.

She certainly didn't do better with the money that wasn't taxed (or she wouldn't have needed social security in the first place). So why would we expect her to have done better with the money that was taxed?

Furthermore, she, who was supposed to be the pinnacle of personal responsibility, failed to be responsible for her own life. How can we expect those who have fewer opportunities that her, to be more responsible than her?

That's like saying that someone who opposed Communism that waited in a food line in the Soviet Union was hypocritical for taking food from the government while opposing it.

The difference is that Ayn Rand railed against the program for years, and in the end she needed it. It's not hypocrisy that she took the money that undermines her entire credo. It's the hypocrisy that she claimed no one truly needed the safety nets of society, that only parasites would use them, that it was easy to live your life without ever needing to use them. The hypocrisy is that after spending years claiming no one should need them and having been given every opportunity to ensure that she did not need them, she failed to live up to her own minimum standards. She failed to do what she had declared was not only simple, but the duty of every American. She failed to stand on their own two feet. She, who had so much more opportunity for success than so many of her fellows, was not able to do what she claimed everyone should be able to do. So, in the end, everything she claimed and stood for was exposed as arrogance and wishful thinking.

Safety nets exist because even good people can stumble and fall, and it's a shame that Ayn Rand was never able to understand and admit that. She was so wrapped up in her bolsephobia that she was never able to see the government in a rational light. It is a bigger shame that she has a legion of parrots who look only to her ideas and ignore her reality because it suits their wishful thinking to do so.

Comment Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money (Score 1) 571 571

I would love to see a "Left Wing Mutual Fund" that is fully divested of all the "bad" things that left wing protests about, and follows all the left wing bullshit they want others to follow. My guess is, that without substantial government "investments" it would simply be a big fail, which is why you don't actually ever see one.

Maybe you don't see them because you aren't looking?

Your comment caught my attention because it displayed staggeringly colossal ignorance, it took me a few seconds to find those.

Comment Re: Or let us keep our hard-earned money (Score 1) 571 571

An open and free market for technological innovation will save the environment, not mimicking failed God damned central planning from last century.

No, it won't. Most corporations aren't in the business of protecting the environment, so they won't. And that is really all there is to it: bottom line, if the people running a corporation don't think protecting the environment will improve the quarterly earnings, they won't do it. If you want to protect the environment you are going to need checks and balances, and in this world, that means government intervention.

It seems that, to mangle an aphorism, absolute power corrupts the environment absolutely.

Comment Arrest Warrant (Score 1) 298 298

In case anyone was wondering what this rapper, Chief Keef, is wanted for? He failed to show up for a pretrial hearing for a DUI charge (because he was working in California?).

While a DUI charge is serious and failing to show up for a court date is too, this does seem like an overreaction from the city and the police.

Comment Re:Interesting choice of questions to address (Score 1) 557 557

I think the editors need to expand the Q&A FAQ. They usually say they will pick 10 of the highest rated questions to send along, so I don't think Brianna Wu actually picked the questions. The editors would probably filter out any questions they thought would be offensive to the interviewee, so likely the "hard" questions wouldn't have been sent along.

Also, I'd note that many of the so-called "hard" questions could easily be categorized as "bullshit" or "harassment" questions.

User Journal

Journal Journal: Google, my Hero! 6 6

Yeah, I said that.

Many, many moons ago, anyone that knows me that long might remember me asking about where to find a two-page advertisement that Sun Microsystems had put out some time around 1998. It had a picture of Sally Struthers and a caption that said something like "Thinking of running your critical apps on NT? Isn't there enough world suffering?"

Comment Re:Economic factors are my priority (Score 1) 188 188

It's not the 1970s any more. America is close to being a net exporter of oil now, and is a net exporter of energy overall.

Not according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. energy exports are only 43% of your imports. Crude exports are a mere 5% of your imports. The total amount of exports is also overstated because the U.S. imports crude oil from Canada, refines it and then exports it to other countries, thus inflating your export total as a percentage. So, America has a 5 million barrel a day deficit between imports and exports. Total U.S. production is about 8.7 million barrels a day, so you'd need to increase U.S. production by about 60% before you could become a net exporter of energy, which would put your production target at about 4 million barrels a day more than the U.S produced at it's previous peak production.

Comment Re: I see theyre using the Step 2 profit model (Score 2) 188 188

It also has tons of advantages Which is why in any country that isn't taxed the hell out of, it's the preferred power source.

It has one advantage, it's cheap, and it's the preferred power source when coal isn't taxed (or more commonly where it's actually subsidized), because it's cheap. Additionaly, since most of the disadvantages are either invisible (for example, cancers caused by radioactive coal soot) or are somebody else's problem (like coal sludge dumped in someone else's water supply), those costs are not factored into the average user's decisions.

Comment Re:Blame the far right and left for this. (Score 1) 385 385

Actually, no.

Actually, yes. Your solution may or may not be ideal, unfortunately, it has no relevance at all to what I was talking about. If you would like to comment on why your plan would be better for the poor than a tax refund, please do so. However, you neglected to provide any reasons why your solution would be actually be better for anyone, and since I was merely explaining how a carbon tax could actually be beneficial rather than detrimental to the poor people of America, your comment seems a little lost.

would drop our use of fuel oil (which mostly comes from venezuela)

Assuming you're American, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, that doesn't seem to have been true since the early 90s, it seems to mostly come from Canada recently (6.5 million barrels per month out of total imports of 7 million barrels).

Comment Re:Blame the far right and left for this. (Score 1) 385 385

Anybody with a 3rd grade math education can still see that the result is that everybody is going to be pushed to products that cost more - and thus it will hurt the poor and elderly the most even if they do return 100% of the money to the people.

That depends entirely on how you return the money. If you return the money as an income tax rate reduction, then yes, it will hurt the poor the most because they will spend the largest percentage of their income on the tax and receive virtually no tax relief (since they don't pay much income tax) and the vast majority of the benefit would go to the wealthiest eligible recipients (who pay the most the income tax and thus benefit the most from a rate reduction). On the other hand, if the money is divided equally and provided as a flat refund to each person, the poor will tend to get the most benefit from the refund because it will provide the largest percentage increase in their income/spending power. You should be able to agree that a $100 dollar refund is more meaningful to someone on a low fixed income than to someone with a million-dollar-a-year income.

"Is it really you, Fuzz, or is it Memorex, or is it radiation sickness?" -- Sonic Disruptors comics