Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Gridlock (Score 1) 185

From 2003 (the full implementation of the Bush tax cuts) to 2007 (when Dems took over congress) federal revenue increased every single year. The deficits also decreased every year after 2004.

Revenues didn't start decreasing until 2008 (mid bubble burst) but deficits skyrocketed to previously unheard of trillion dollar levels. Revenues have only recently gotten back to 2007 levels and beyond but deficits are still historically high, though slightly better.

The US, in general, doesn't have a revenue problem, tax breaks or no tax breaks, it has an enormous spending problem because the Federal government tries to be all things to all people instead of leaving well enough alone and letting the States deal with their own stuff the way the system was meant to work.

For every level of government added to 'solving' a problem you add untold additional millions to pay for the myriad of unaccountable bureaucrats and you're just as likely to cause more trouble in the solution than the original problem because those bureaucrats are just too far removed. As everyone has seen, if you add a new dept at the federal level to deal with an issue it's almost impossible to get rid of that dept later on when either the original issue has been resolved or it's been shown the dept itself is either ineffective or redundant.

Comment Re:And never mind... (Score 2) 185

Obama should scare you more because his abuse of EO's and Presidential Memorandum actually were put into action. Trump is so egotistical and crazy that it could actually be a good thing if, heaven help the world, he ever was elected because the legislative branch would finally step in and put and end to blatantly unconstitutional use of EO's and PM's. The one thing that could possibly unite both Reps and Dems would be passing legislation to limit the President Trumps (shiver) executive overreach.

The US might finally get back to the way the government was suppose to operate with the legislative making the laws and the executive faithfully enforcing them.

I'm also pretty sure a President Trump would do something to get himself impeached within the first 2 years anyway.

Comment Re:And never mind... (Score 2) 185

When the Dems were in control of the Senate they rarely even bothered to pass a budget (one of their primary functions), let alone listen to the executive proposals. When Reid did decide to actually propose a budget (apparently he scheduled "Plan next years budget" for Feb 29th one year so a reminder only popped up every 4) it wasn't based off of Obama's proposals because Obama's budget proposals (when submitted) we so ridiculous they couldn't even garner Democrat support.

Comment Re:And never mind... (Score 1) 185

Obama can't even get Democrats to take his budget proposals seriously. When Reid did bother with a budget he ignored almost anything proposed fro the White House and went his own way. It was the Republicans that would force Reid to table Obama's budgets for a vote and when they were brought up they generally couldn't get enough support for the yeas to play a game of Solitaire.

2011: 97-0
2012: 99-0
and his most successful,
2016: 98-1

Comment Re:Mod parent down (Score 1) 346

Weight restrictions on take-off and landings has little to do with power requirements, just the load capacity of the suspension and frame of the plane.

Having a lighter plane during take-off is an obvious advantage as the gp stated, but also as the gp even states, the fact li-air batteries gain weight while discharging is a problem.

Comment Re: Batteries just don't store enough energy... (Score 1) 346

The top 3 'tax credits' the oil companies get are (in roughly dollar value order but order changes from year to year):

1) The national oil reserve
2) farmers fuel exemption
3) Home heating oil credit

So of those 3 'tax credits', none is actually paid to the oil companies.

#1 is simply money spent to buy oil to have a strategic reserve.
#2 is a subsidy to low income homeowners to help NOT DIE during winters
#3 is just an exclusion from certain taxes for fuel spent for farm equipment since those taxes are meant for road maintenance and those pieces of equipment are not road going vehicles.

The other 30-40% of tax credits oil companies get are the same as any other company (R&D, amortization, losses) with the exception that some of their expenses are actually capped at a much lower rate than other industries so they can actually claim less than companies like Apple.

Comment Re:She lives in pretend land (Score 1) 572

While some info may have been retroactively classified most of the reported emails were either born classified (certain topics/sources are classified immediately and require steps to declassify) or were classified immediately by the originating organization. The State department in full cover mode has been attempting, and failing miserably, to get all the originating departments to agree to declassify their materials.

Some of the emails were so highly classified that the investigators themselves were not authorized to read them and had to get people from the originating departments to review the information.

The ONLY people trying to stick to the 'retroactive' lie are Hillary's team and the State department which may also face some major revamping once this is all done with.

Comment Re: What a load of BS (Score 1) 572

According to the law both the sender and receiver should be charged unless the receiver immediately reports the violation to the proper authorities.
In Clinton's case she never reported it, in at least one case actually encouraged it, allowed the classified information to be stored off site in a non-secured location (her ISP) and then gave it to another person without security clearance (her lawyer). Even the process where she claimed to have removed her personal emails by having assistants go through ever email probably violated the law several times since some of this information was code word classified and would not be legally viewable by anyone not read in and in a secure room.

All of those are direct violations of several laws.

Comment Re:Sane people want safer, more reliable products (Score 1) 464

If done right, a smart gun can be actually more reliable and accurate while simultaneously reducing accidents. For example, it can have a screen that shows me where a bullet will hit ...

Amazingly that technology already exists, it's called a scope and unless you did it horribly wrong adding one to your existing gun doesn't make it any less reliable; the same cannot be said for current smart gun tech.

Comment GIGO (Score 1) 464

This survey was designed for the sole purpose of getting the exact headline this post uses.

By their own admission the group most likely to answer "yes" to the smart gun question were self identifying liberals and non-gun owners. Gun owners and those with actual gun knowledge were more likely to respond "no". It was basically like surveying mostly cyclist about commuting patterns and acting surprised when they say the solution is more bike lanes.

They also boosted numbers by being very vague on the use of the term "smart gun" and instead used words like "child proof" so people unfamiliar with the current debates would most likely answer the way they wanted.

Comment Re:Trump just says stuff (Score 1) 875

While he does get a significant number of the rank and file, polls done on his supporters (check out NYT for one) found that the largest group (by percentage) are actually registered Democrat followed by unregistered (of course this should be higher since several states don't count party registration) and then independents and finally registered Republicans.

They also found that a large portion of self identifying Trump supporters are very unlikely to actually vote in the general, let alone a state primary.

He generally does well with the least politically informed or politically active people and I sure hope they stay politically inactive for everyone's sake.

Comment Re:Trump just says stuff (Score 3, Insightful) 875

Obama has passed less EO's than most other Presidents because he simply prefers to write Presidential Memorandum instead. Legally speaking they are the same, with the one exception that Memorandum don't have to be published to the Federal Register (they can be but they are not legally required to be except when the current Administration deems it necessary).

As of last year (and he's written several EOs and PMs since then) he had written more EOs and PMs combined than any President since Carter and more PMs than any President in history.

Of course, none of this takes away from the fact that Trump is just a blowhard and if given the chance would probably blow FDR's EO record away.

Comment Re:Most gun owners already weighed in on this (Score 1) 555

A, B and C are obvious since you are taking an existing device and adding a new feature on top of it. This isn't a debate about projectile weapons vs lasers where differences in tech can mean all kinds of things in terms of costs and dependability, it's a discussion about the differences between the same product with or without additional options. The underlying gun still has to function like any other gun with or without the smart tech so it's costs are set. On top of that you are then adding at least some level of electronics to create a 'smart' weapon which means additional cost.

A is a given since you are adding a new level of failure. The percentages may vary based on the tech used but nothing operates at 100% success rate so at least some additional level of failure will be introduced.

B is a given since you are adding a new device on top of an existing device (this cost may be eaten by manufacturers but not likely). Any cost savings from new weapon designs a smart weapon designer comes up with could also be used for non-smart weapons (minus the costs of the smart tech) so there is really no way to get around this.

C is a given for the same reason B is; the base product (the gun) still has a set maintenance cost (in money and time) and adding a new feature can only add to that. Depending on the method used, you'll either have to ensure the batteries are charged, the contacts are cleaned or the ring is properly synced, or whatever method for making the weapon smart is in working order. That's all in addition to proper gun maintenance.

Comment Re:Law Enforcement Doesn't want the Technology (Score 0) 555

Well since the smart tech increases the chance the gun will fail when she attempts to use it to defend herself anyway, and he's within arms length to grab it from her when she fails to fire, if he takes it and can't use it to shoot he'll probably just bludgeon her with it.

People have been killing each other for a long time before guns were around and if the abusive husband is intent on killing his wife the inability to shoot her probably won't stop him.

Comment Re:Smart guns are a dumb idea (Score 2) 555

The only reason anyone from the NRA to the GOP disagree with smart gun technology is that there are States like NJ who already have laws on the books mandating all guns sold in the state must use smart tech once it becomes widely available.

If it was just a matter of having the choice between a 'smart' or regular gun no one would care; your purchase, your choice. But once you mandate that you must choose the 'smart' option if it's available you are going to force a lot of people to try and prevent it from coming to market.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Though a program be but three lines long, someday it will have to be maintained." -- The Tao of Programming

Working...