Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Any Memory?? what judge will go on just that? (Score 1) 415

by bhiestand (#47410201) Attached to: Police Using Dogs To Sniff Out Computer Memory

Yeah, it's kind of sad how very few places will tolerate anyone who truly cares (rather than pretends to care while supporting policies infringe upon free speech rights) about free speech.

Freedom? You want the "free speech right" of a rapist to trump a rape victim's freedom to decide whether or not to be be in an adult video.

It's possible you're not trolling, but it's absolutely ridiculous that anyone would mod you up. So much for #NotAllMen and all those "slashdot isn't misogynist!" comments...

Comment: Re:You think? (Score 1) 369

No, that would be a subsidy, if it wasn't applied to all businesses equally. My point was that some people claim a tax cut, usually in the form of a rate cut, is "the same thing as spending." E.g., if a tax cut is expected to reduce revenues by $100 million, they will say it's the same as the government spending $100 million. It's not, for various reasons too off-topic to go into.

I am glad we agree on the first point. I may have missed some of the context of your post, and I often get the impression that some on slashdot would not agree that targeted rate cuts are a subsidy.

On the latter, I suspect we disagree somewhat. But we don't have to argue that point. Over the last 14 years, I have seen an ugly cycle of: 1) cut taxes disproportionately for the wealthy and corporations; 2) increase defense spending; 3) cite new deficits as justification for cutting entitlements by an amount dwarfed by 1 and 2; 4) propose new tax cuts. The claim that "tax cuts [always] pay for themselves" concerns me greatly.

Comment: Re:You think? (Score 1) 369

Today on /. we find out who doesn't know the difference between subsidies, tax deductions, tax breaks, and taxes.

You'd have a mod point if I had one right now. You could have added "spending," because I've seen people argue that tax cuts (i.e. taking less of someone's money) is the same thing as more government spending.

So, to be clear, if Obama got on TV and announced that no taxes would need to be paid on corporate or personal income from renewable energy sales, you would NOT consider that a form of subsidy? And he would get no resistance from the right, because it would just be "taking less of someone's money"?

Comment: Re:This is dumb (Score 1) 191

by bhiestand (#47364073) Attached to: An Army Medal For Coding In Perl

I know it's broad, as are the definitions of combat zones. However, I think that's more reflective of America's extreme involvement across the globe, and doesn't necessarily diminish the value of a legitimate medal.

Now, the paperpushers who get bronze stars for their heroic hiring of contractors and writing of contracts...

Comment: Re:This is dumb (Score 1) 191

by bhiestand (#47342519) Attached to: An Army Medal For Coding In Perl

The National Defense Service Medal [] is automatically handed out to everyone that enlists.

I'd expect you to at least know the meaning of the first medal you got. Everyone currently in the military has it, yes, but that's not automatic or even upon enlisting. It's only during a time of war. I think that should be recognized.

Comment: Re:People pay for music? (Score 1) 364

by bhiestand (#47274957) Attached to: Google: Indie Musicians Must Join Streaming Service Or Be Removed

We don't know how many times the driver in the cars have had to intervene to prevent an accident, do we?

No, but do you know how many (minor, major, and fatal) collisions there are per mile driven?

I know there are around 2 fatalities per 100m miles driven, but I can't find rates for minor and major accidents. I suspect the vast majority of collisions are non-fatal, so a human driver probably has good odds of being in a collision by 700k.

Do you have any evidence that self-driving cars are unsafe, or that human intervention has been necessary?

Comment: Re:People pay for music? (Score 1) 364

by bhiestand (#47263771) Attached to: Google: Indie Musicians Must Join Streaming Service Or Be Removed

And... so? None of this will happen until self-driving cars are in fact the safer alternative. At which point, great. Since when do you get to endanger others because you think it's fun?

Afraid I'll get a woosh for this, but I'll respond...

As I understand it, they already are safer. Thus far, no moving violations and no accidents (to my knowledge). Google's car was in an accident while it was being manually driven. Google is touting 700,000+ accident-free miles now.

Comment: Re:Because... (Score 1) 325

by bhiestand (#47196841) Attached to: Fixing the Humanities Ph.D.

That may be true for philosophy and ethics, but not as much for political science. There's a decent-sized job market in campaign work, government (esp. urban planning), and security. Security isn't academia per se, but it is borderline since a lot of the work is at think tanks and similar institutions. I'd also argue it's a useful background for business, and multinationals seem to recognize that value.

I believe these are the main reasons Political Science tends to be at the top of the salary rankings for social sciences, along with Urban Planning and International Relations, which often fall under the P.S. department or major.

Comment: Re:I must really be a freak (Score 1) 1198

by bhiestand (#47128855) Attached to: Misogyny, Entitlement, and Nerds

We're not the ones where one out of six of us will have someone violently attempt to take control of our bodies in our lifetimes.

So, nerds never get beaten up in school, then.

Back to figuring out What Is Wrong With Me ...

I know this is Slashdot and all, but the OP was talking about rape. Are you really equating the two?

Comment: Re:Corporate speak (Score 1) 373

by bhiestand (#47057907) Attached to: The 69 Words GM Employees Can Never Say

True in theory, but... honestly, how often are directors held accountable? At best, it's usually just a company-paid settlement with no admission of guilt.

I'm willing to bet some money that no CxO or board member will serve jail time or be fined more than 50% of their net worth, despite direct knowledge that their negligence caused deaths.

Comment: Re:Pretty much (Score 1) 192

Ok look at what you just told me here. First you essentially deny that campaign contributors aren't getting a return on investment, and then you essentially say that ~1B of money towards negative adds was effectively wasted since there was no chance in him winning.

So clearly we need to revise the first amendment.

There is no contradiction, just nuance that I perhaps did not effectively convey. To get to 51%, you can either boost support for a candidate or reduce support for their rival.

Romney's campaign likely knew all of the following to be true:
- With 100% turnout, Romney would never be able to achieve 51%
- Effective negative ads increase turnout among the GOP base ("more important to vote so we can get that evil commie out of there!")
- Effective negative ads may decrease overall turnout ("they both suck, why vote?")
- Effective negative ads against an incumbent leader of a political party trickle down the ballot (you can turn Congressional elections by running against the President)
- Romney had a non-zero chance of winning (despite my hyperbole)

Sure, Romney could have won. Possibly. But his loss does not mean those who donated to the cause got nothing out of donating. They improved their relationship with the GOP, gained key Congressional seats, reduced support for Obama, reduced Obama's success rate in implementing his policies, probably moved Obama to the right, and so forth.

As for ~$1B, sure, it's a WAG. But I was talking about total negative ad spending on that election from the right, not just the Romney campaign. I haven't seen a good source on the data, and it is a reasonable estimate.

And yes, Democrats use negative ads for most of the same reasons. Though Democrats tend to benefit from increased turnout and suffer from decreased confidence in government, so their calculus is slightly different.

"Catch a wave and you're sitting on top of the world." - The Beach Boys