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

 



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:A dollar in design... (Score 1) 145

by arth1 (#49498483) Attached to: Incorrectly Built SLS Welding Machine To Be Rebuilt

There is nothing wrong with outsourcing it. You just need to make sure you have good quality control.

Which drives costs up, often quite radically.

When you build something for your own company, the goal is to get as good quality as feasible within time and budget constraints. Next year's salary depends on it.

When you build something as a bidding contractor for the government, the goal is to reduce your costs by as much as you can get away with and exceeding the budget with as much as you can get away with.
It doesn't matter if what you deliver is utter crud as long as you can get away with it. Politicians ensure that next year, you will be able to bid again, and if your bid is the lowest, get the contract. At which point you hire the cheapest unskilled labor and subcontractors that can do the job and no more. Quality, shmality.

Comment: Re:Fuck ups require more work (Score 2) 145

by arth1 (#49498435) Attached to: Incorrectly Built SLS Welding Machine To Be Rebuilt

Rather the opposite. WIth the "libtards" truly in charge, there would be no outsourcing and subcontracting, and NASA would hire people to build things themselves.

The republicans are the ones that demand outsourcing and paperwork that often equals half the total costs. Because heavens forbid if a government agency did something that private companies could do. That is considered anticompetitive theft by the right. Which is why NASA can't do much themselves anymore, and get less bang for the buck.

Comment: Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score 1) 698

by arth1 (#49484501) Attached to: 'We the People' Petition To Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

"Self-evident" laws presuppose a spark of divinity in mankind.

No, it doesn't. Only that we have evolved into a species that has increased the survival rates by co-existing. Those who don't do what's detrimental to society get rewarded by a higher rate of surviving offspring. No divinity needed.

"Thou shalt not bring crocodiles to a pool party" is a self-evident law.
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" is not.

It also means that what's self-evident changes over time, and that supposedly "eternal" laws are doomed or detrimental in the long run.
This might be a win for civil law, where laws are re-interpreted based on the context and circumstances, and a bane for common law, where rulings encase the law interpretation.
Perhaps one day, tame crocodiles provide swimming support for children, and the self-evident law is no longer self-evident.
The "thou shalt not commit adultery" needs revision as we progress into an age where sex has no higher risk of propagating diseases and producing children than we want it to have.

Comment: Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score 1) 698

by arth1 (#49482453) Attached to: 'We the People' Petition To Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

The question is how do we legislate the difference between what the Church of Scientology is and what we think a church should be. How do we write a definition of "church" in the law that will exclude people like the Scientologists without allowing that law to then be leveraged against legitimate belief organizations that are merely unpopular?

Why is that the question?
Can't we just drop tax heaven for religious reasons across the board?
If religious organizations do charity work, they'd still be eligible for those branches being exempt under current laws.

I'm just waiting for a church to re-launch the old religious custom of temple prostitution. Can't be taxed, because it's religious... Right?

Comment: Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score 1) 698

by arth1 (#49479675) Attached to: 'We the People' Petition To Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

They are not tax free because they are religious, they are tax free because they are non-profit.

You are mistaken. To quote IRS:

"The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.
The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."

Comment: Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score 2) 698

by arth1 (#49479539) Attached to: 'We the People' Petition To Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

Our government does not get to define a religion.

They most certainly do define it from a tax perspective - you have to fit criteria set by our government.
See what IRS says about it.

It is not allowed to say one persons beliefs are more correct then another.

No, that would be like saying '"two plus two equals five" is more correct than "two plus two equals three"'. I certainly don't want them to utter such stupidity either.

Comment: Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score 1) 698

by arth1 (#49479419) Attached to: 'We the People' Petition To Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

False dichotomy. Why can't it be both? All belief organizations are financial scams, at least to unbelievers. All financial scams require some degree of faith from their victims.

Not all belief organizations have a cash flow. There are a few - admittedly very few - that do not accept money from its members, do not pay, house or feed its clergy, and congregate in privately owned facilities.
Of course, the members may still be victims of a scam, but not a financial one. And they aren't scamming the government by paying their leaders tax-free dollars.

Comment: Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score 1) 698

by arth1 (#49479257) Attached to: 'We the People' Petition To Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

I'm not saying you're wrong but that's probably the weakest possible argument for religious tax exemption: Minus the clever wording, Jesus in that scene is explicitly telling the Jewish religious leaders that they should pay taxes.

Indeed. If they had god-coin without the picture of (and support of) the emperor on it, it would be different.
But as long as someone wants to use coin backed by a government, they should have the same obligations to the government as anyone else using that coin.

I think a good solution would be to end all tax exemptions, including churches and charities, and instead increase the spending on causes that reduces the need for churches and charities.

I've got all the money I'll ever need if I die by 4 o'clock. -- Henny Youngman

Working...