Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Two things (Score 1) 479

by ScentCone (#48953649) Attached to: Obama Proposes One-Time Tax On $2 Trillion US Companies Hold Overseas

Obama has no expectation that this will ever pass.

Of course he has no expectation that it will pass. In fact, he'd be horrified if it did! He absolutely does NOT want it to pass, because it's pure theater, designed to allow lefty politicians to say in advertisements that their opponents hate education spending, etc. It's 100% empty, completely disingenuous rhetoric, and should have the bright light of day on it from the beginning.

Comment: Re:So what's the real story here? (Score 1) 121

Disclaimer: That only works if you are white.

Maybe you should use a meme generator for that one?

Or, consider the reality of it. Cops who pull people over while driving unmarked cars are completely used to not being trusted - by anyone, of any color. I have a great relationship with the cops I know, and have never had a bad moment with any I don't. My wife and I are lily white, but I'd never encourage her to pull over for an unmarked car anywhere but in a very populated spot, and ideally in front of the local police station. I do not trust unmarked cars, and there's good reason for that. Great news bit just this morning, where a cop-impersonating douche in a white Crown Vic pulled over (wait for it!) an off duty cop. Good one. He got to flash his badge, and was packing (guy drove off, but was promptly caught and arrested). What do the rest of us get to do?

Meanwhile, back in your race-card-playing department: there's a reason that cops in rougher neighborhoods don't EVER do normal traffic stops in unmarked cars. Cops in marked cruisers get attacked, run over, shot at and otherwise put in peril all the time. And those are guys rolling in plainly marked cars, wearing uniforms. I'll have to look around to see if there are any stats on basic traffic stops in marked vs. unmarked cars in high crime areas. My sense, from talking to people in that line of work, is that it's very rare. Unmarked cars in those areas aren't about traffic citations - they're usually working warrants, drug mules, trafficking, that sort of thing.

In the mean time, if you get the lights on you from an unmarked car, and it doesn't matter what color you are, proceed at the speed limit to the nearest station, or look for a marked car and honk to get their attention (if the unmarked is real, the officer in the marked car will already know what's going on, and will usually join in the stop to help protect the unmarked guy and to make sure anyone seeing the scene understands it's legit).

Comment: Re:What the Hell? (Score 1) 241

by Grishnakh (#48952841) Attached to: Comcast Employees Change Customer Names To 'Dummy' and Other Insults

The phone company isn't selling DSL, they're selling FiOS in many areas. So the cablecos are in competition with the phone companies.

At my last residence, I had two choices for high-speed data: Comcrap cable and Verizon FiOS. I chose Comcrap, because the monthly cost was lower. My neighbor had Verizon, and had constant problems with it: he had to constantly reset the outside box to get it to work; he moved out and a new guy moved in, got Verizon service too, and again had no end of trouble with his internet service being out for days at a time, and Verizon techs having to make personal visits. At least my Comcrap service was actually quite reliable.

The problem with Comcrap, it seems, is the customer service, not the technical part, at least not in my experience, and all the horror stories I read are about customer service and billing, such as them not canceling peoples' service when asked and continuing to bill them. So to avoid this, when I had to move out, I called and canceled the service (which took forever, most of it on hold), and then I went to my bank which issued the debit card which Comcrap was billing every month, and had them cancel that card and give me a new one (which cost me nothing luckily). So if Comcrap had tried to continue billing me, it was have been unsuccessful. However, I had no sign of that happening: I got a final bill a bit later which I paid (it was for the service at the end of my term), and then another bill for $0.00 after that, and that was the end.

I will say though, I did have a lot of problems with Comcrap service for a while when I was trying to watch Netflix on it. After that highly publicized peering agreement, the issues went away.

Comment: Re:Hyperbole Sunday (Score 1) 178

by Grishnakh (#48952707) Attached to: The NFL Wants You To Think These Things Are Illegal

TV these days is pretty bad. I can't remember the last time a show caught my interest.

I can: Firefly was excellent.

Actually, there's a few more that are more recent that I've found interesting as well:
- (Star Trek) Enterprise: this was surprisingly good (I only watched it last year, after it was already 10 years old), except for the 3rd season Xindi plot arc which I found rather annoying. The first two seasons were very good though.
- Big Bang Theory: I've only watched the first two seasons so far, but it's actually very funny, something I've never really found in a sitcom before. I guess it being about physicists instead of typical average morons helps a lot this way.
- Game of Thrones: this one really shouldn't require an explanation.

Comment: Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for (Score 1) 420

by sumdumass (#48952595) Attached to: Most Americans Support Government Action On Climate Change

Let's talk income tax, because the vast majority of people are employees, not small business owners (when you compare the amount of actual business owners to the amount of pandering that goes towards them, it's hilarious.)

We can, but then we are not talking about the rich or 1% now. Well, unless they become employees of their own investments in which case they still pass the buck down to the consumers.

When you make a certain amount, as I do, small changes to my tax rates don't really bother me. I make a shitload of money, so another couple of % of my earnings isn't really anything I'm prepared to uproot my life for, pick up and move for.

I doubt you make as much money as you want us to think you do. Your reading comprehension is too lacking for that to be believable. We are talking about "how a taxes that only targets the top 1%, 0.1% and 0.01% would be "regressive"."

Go ahead and hit the parent button a couple of times if you missed that. Of course this makes you seem like you are arguing apples while holding oranges. I guess the big problem for you is that we aren't even talking about fruit. Stupid sauce indeed, but if I was you, I would stop throwing crap around before you know what is going on. It may be that you are the only one catching it.

Comment: Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for (Score 1) 420

by sumdumass (#48952563) Attached to: Most Americans Support Government Action On Climate Change

Taxes are paid by those against whom they are levied.

Those entities may try and recover that cost elsewhere. They may or may not be successful in doing so.

No, when you are above the level of a salaried employee, all taxes are paid by the product and services sold or returns on investments which most likely will be products and services sold by someone else.

So you don't think anyone will step in and provide equivalent products and services at a lower cost than established players because they're prepared to accept a smaller profit margin ?

Ie: markets don't work ?

Why would they? The barriers to entry are so high that anyone overcoming them would simply price their products and services at the same rates and pocket the extra cash. We do not have a free market in most places due to regulations and laws in place.

There are plenty of rich people who don't own and run businesses, or have substantial income and wealth outside of their business interests.

The majority of rich people don't even run their businesses if they have them. They set them up as corporations and become an employee of those corporations or pay someone else to run them. This however does not preclude them from influencing those businesses or demanding rates of returns. You hear it all the time, a company lets 1/3 of their staff go and forces the remaining 2/3rds to pick up the difference all to satisfy investor profits demands.

Firstly, the world is not America.

I'm not sure what you think you mean by this. I was talking about America only. Congress does not have any power to prevent any company, person, or otherwise legal entity from making money in the US. You cannot legislate away anyone's ability to do so.

Secondly, even in the US, between local, state and federal Governments, they can legislate nearly anything they want to. If, of course, they want to.

No they cannot. Laws are rules unconstitutional, overly broad, and outside the reach of government near daily in the US. If they could just do anything they wanted to do, this would not be happening. So until something severely changes, there are limits to the powers of government and these limits are why we consider ourselves a free nation.

But there's been little interest in trying to build a better society since the neoliberal right took over the western world in the '70s and started pursuing the greatest wealth transfer from the

I'm not sure where you are going here but I think I might somewhat agree outside of the aspect of taxing and making arbitrary laws to satisfy some ideology.

Comment: Re:Double Irish (Score 2) 479

by sumdumass (#48952111) Attached to: Obama Proposes One-Time Tax On $2 Trillion US Companies Hold Overseas

All it will do is cause US companies to become foreign companies incorporated in other jurisdictions. And then there will be less taxes collected. There are reasons why these things have not been addressed already and contrary to what some may think, they have little to do with politicians being paid off.

This is little more than posturing for the 2016 elections. No one expects anything to be done about it, just a lot of hype to define sides and make up short comings noticed in the last election.

Comment: Re:And the game continues (Score 1) 147

by Znork (#48951357) Attached to: The Pirate Bay Is Back Online, Properly

While I would like to agree with you, and while you're responding to an argument that makes no sense, I think you need to work on those arguments a bit.

First, comparing artificially scarce goods to any kind of real scarce goods is something you should avoid doing at all. Arguments like spoilage aren't particularly relevant, and spoilage is usually (throughout the history of mankind) fought as much as possible. With the advent of preserves and freezing we can do a lot, but you still don't see the world overflowing with century old preserves; instead, variety increases and everyone can afford more fruit. Preventing spoilage means scarcity decreases.

With media it's the other way around. The more you prevent 'spoilage' in the form of piracy, the more scarcity you get. Fewer people can afford what they wish, and artificially scarce goods aren't as fungible as apples.

A more valid comparison would be to compare it to a non-scarce physical commodity like air; theoretically an industry could be constructed by forbidding everyone to breathe without a measuring mask. We could hand money paid for every breath to owners of oxygen producing woodland or other means of production. That would create a huge industry wherein people would feel the right to get paid, yet it's quite obvious that such an artificial scarcity would probably be harmful to humanity as a whole. Much like copyright can be considered harmful and arguments can be made that incremental improvements of art would be as productive even in its absence, although focus might be somewhat different.

And yes, economically piracy is a good thing, but not because of the somewhat flawed broken window fallacy, but because it is responsible for a large pareto improvement (the economic value of the gain made by those who obtain the product who would otherwise not have bought the product (ie, zero-loss for the producer)). Basically it reduces the deadweight loss damage caused by monopoly pricing and restores a modicum of competition when competition is illegal.

About the ethics; I consider monopoly rights inherently unethical and any upstanding citizen should ignore them if they can. There are a multitude of ways that we could promote work in the production of arts that would result in higher rates of production, better pay to (most, and in particularly to the specifically deserving, ie, artists and creators rather than lawyers or financiers) involved parties and without the damaging artificial scarcity.

Matter will be damaged in direct proportion to its value.