Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Church of England (Score 1) 289

I guess I should have used the sarcasm tag, though sadly there are a lot of Christian sects, with a lot of power, who honestly do believe that God rewards the faithful and punishes the wicked by using wealth.
I believe that Gandhi said something like "I really like your Christ and his teachings, not so much his followers"

Comment Re:It's a Criminal Organisation (Score 1) 127

If your deductions mean that you owe negative taxes, it means that you owe zero taxes. I wouldn't be surprised if Bill Gates income taxes are close to zero as I doubt that he has any earnings, just capital gains with a lot of write-offs. Shit, I've ran a small business where the tax burden was basically negative (from investing savings and having very little profit) at first. Of course I didn't get the negative back but at least where I am there is income averaging, though not for wage earners.
If you're a business or a foundation, generally the tax system works in your favour compared to just a wage earner and the parent was talking about wage earners, "When you grow up and get a job and pay tax you will realise that you don't get taxed on what you own, you get taxed on what you earn" were the ACs words

Comment Re:he should know better (Score 1) 289

On a practical basis, get real. Passing nuclear secrets is attempted murder and an act of war.

Of course it is, which is why most countries have limits on free speech such as no giving out secrets to do with national security. Only America has no limits written into their constitution and then has unwritten limits which just encourages the fucking politicians to ignore their constitution. Once they're used to ignoring the highest law in the land it comes easy to ignore the other laws. And the American people just go along with it and keep voting the same arseholes in over and over.
Free speech is really important and should have the minimum limits possible but it turns out there are necessary limits like the old "loose lips sink ships"

Comment Re:he should know better (Score 1) 289

and the DJ was talking about the problems he had due to his show also being broadcast in America where there were these restrictions on speech

Those are not restrictions on speech, they are restrictions that are part of the licensing of spectrum for broadcast. He can talk about the "Fuckups" on cable or the Internet all he wants.

It is still restrictions on speech passed by congress, who had no right to do it according to your point below this.
Would you be OK with the government restricting speech in public parks, under the name of licensing? You can still practice free speech in your private yard so your speech isn't really restricted.

When you look at certain countries, rights are well defined but ignored. I think the Soviets took this to the extreme with a very good but ignored constitution.

Correct. So do most European constitutions. The US Constitution, however, does not define any rights for the people at all, it does something much better: it defines powers of the government (thirty enumerated powers).

Actually originally it only defined the powers of the Federal government, in a time when the States were much more sovereign.
As any fool can see, the American Federal Government barely pays lip service to those 30 enumerated powers and Americans seem very good at rationalizing away the expansions of power outside the 30 enumerated powers.

Comment Re:he should know better (Score 1) 289

One famous case was the Rosenbergs or whatever their name was.

The US Constitution authorizes the federal government to do certain things; adjudicating treason is one of those. Whether you consider that an infringement on "free speech" is immaterial.

Actually amendments actually amend (change) the Constitution and just because everyone thinks free speech shouldn't apply in certain cases doesn't mean that free speech no longer exists in those cases.

Comment Re: he should know better (Score 1) 289

BUT ... it does not matter. In the end it is up to the business whether it will run X or not.

By way of example: if I paid you $10 to put a sign on your lawn saying X would it be wrong for you to refuse to put a sign saying Y on your lawn for $10?

A business is not a person in the UK. In NI a bakery was sued for not wanting to supply a cake with a gay marriage message on it so maybe if the church pursues legal means they might have to. I'm not a lawyer but the law in this area seems quite different in the UK to the USA.

I'm sure that if the bakery had a policy of not putting messages on cakes, they would have won. Same with a policy of not doing wedding cakes. Same with the theatres, their policy is no religion or politics rather then only ads from certain churches and certain political parties.

Comment Re:he should know better (Score 1) 289

So the Germans are honest about their restrictions on speech unlike some other countries that have noble constitutions that are routinely ignored.
Not long ago, I was listening to the radio and they were talking about a band called the Fuckups (or was it the Fuckheads?) and the DJ was talking about the problems he had due to his show also being broadcast in America where there were these restrictions on speech, to protect the youth,which meant that speech such as shit and even fuck that was legal in my country had to be censored due to the Americans prudish laws about speech designed to "protect youth" and protect the dignity of certain religions.
When you look at certain countries, rights are well defined but ignored. I think the Soviets took this to the extreme with a very good but ignored constitution.

Comment Re:he should know better (Score 1) 289

America, isn't that the country that has as part of its Constitution that Congress shall make no law restricting speech and yet has executed people for speech? Oh right, it is only some speech that is protected and there are tons of exceptions such as publishing the blue prints for nuclear weapons and giving them to the enemy.
Which is better, a country with a noble Constitution that is ignored whenever expedient or a country that is honest about things like national security being a good reason to limit speech?

Comment Re:Church of England (Score 1) 289

I thought it was that he wanted to divorce instead of having one of his wives executed. Of course one of the main motivations was the traditionally Christian one of acquiring wealth and power to prove that you're worthy of entering the Kingdom of Heaven as obviously God rewards the faithful with riches and a variety of wives and punishes the unfaithful with poverty and a nagging shrew for a wife.

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 463

The AC makes a good point. Note that the evil countries, excepting N. Korea, are all oil producing countries that have tried to use other currencies then the US$ to sell oil. Saddam it was Euros, Gaddafi, it was a gold based currency. Iran also has been using Euros.
America gets a lot of benefits from the Petrol Dollar including printing money like crazy and running a huge debt while having a stable currency and being able to afford a huge military to prop up the Petrol Dollar.

Comment Re:The judge issued a verdict ahead of trial? (Score 1) 222

My understanding is that a clerk changed a "less" to a "more" which kind of ruined the intent. Still as written I believe the math can come out to close to 6000 representatives for the current population. The minimum back in the days of 18 million population was 200.
The main point is that Congress has already OKed it so it can still pass.
BTW, I'm in Canada where with 1/10th the population we have about 3/5ths the representatives and as recently as last month that number increased by close to 10%

Comment Re:The judge issued a verdict ahead of trial? (Score 1) 222

There is a proposed amendment to keep the House of Representatives more representative, something that was considered important enough that it was the 1st proposed amendment and should have caused a representative for every 50,000 people. Needs another 27 States to ratify. Just as possible as the original 2nd which finally passed in 1992 as the 27th.
Wikipedia had a good article under "Article the First" which unluckily seems to have been dumbed down and redirected to make it hard to find the history.

Comment Re:This is only true (Score 1) 364

Well when the person only exists due to the State creating them and the person makes insane profits due to special laws the State passes for their benefit and then they make even more insane profits due to the treaties the State forces other countries to sign, perhaps the State should own all that income. Of course the company does have the option of not accepting the person-hood offer from the State along with all the perks and fall back to being a collection of natural people with the same tax structure as the average person and the same responsibilities as the average person including being liable for their decisions.

Comment Re:Good! (Score 1) 364

Have you seen the treaties that Pfizer and the other drug companies have written and are having America push on us (us being various other countries). How much extra profits will these various free trade deals give to Pfizer? I know here in Canada drug prices are supposed to go way up due to the TPP while our freedoms will once again go down.
America has many aircraft carriers with which it practices gunboat diplomacy for the benefit of these companies.

Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome. -- Dr. Johnson