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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:$70000 is poorest? (Score 1) 250

by Duhavid (#49791291) Attached to: California Is Giving Away Free Solar Panels To Its Poorest Residents

"According to your logic, the people who do the most for the poor are the poor, which is a paradox since they have little to no resources to begin with."

But that is what happens. Because they know what it is like to be poor, they know how hard it is, so they help each other.

"And I'm not sure how we expect the most wealthy to give a greater percentage of their income when we're already taking a greater percentage of it through progressive taxation."

I would be most happy to trade places with them. Take that severe burden from their shoulders..... :-)
And the rates for the wealthy have been coming down. I dont think going to a socialist 90 percent tax for the wealthy is called for, but the current crying and whining coming from the wealthy is... Well, I am having trouble with a word. Pathetic, callous, stupid.

"But let's go to the numbers. According to the IRS's 2011 numbers, charitable giving is on a bell curve. Apparently, the most charitable are on the income extremes []."

Did you mean "...isn't on a bell curve..."

On the lottery, 1111% agreement. Teenage me, when I saw that announced, said "this will end badly...".
So, they have people thinking more about some random bit of luck to lift them out of poverty.
They sold it on the notion that the funds would be used to supplement the pathetic amounts going to some schools. ( has it gone to schools, and has the general fund amounts been kept where they were, or were they lowered? )
So, preying on people's hopes and dreams to lower taxes is what it looks like from where I sit.

Comment: Re:$70000 is poorest? (Score 1) 250

by Duhavid (#49791155) Attached to: California Is Giving Away Free Solar Panels To Its Poorest Residents

"I take issue with the notion that I should have to support those that are unwilling to work for an income,"

For those truly not willing to work, fine. In my experience, most are willing, eager even, to work.
It is much more difficult to get a job than you know.

"especially those who sit on unemployment because they refuse to take work they consider beneath them"

Beneath them?
Or not sufficient in pay to get the bills paid. ( got a job, now, loose the house.. )
Or damaging to your C.V. ( yes, I am working in a 7-11/bowling alley/etc, but I am a really great coder, hire me! Does that fly?
I recall my last out of work experience ( thank God, a long time ago... ), having recently before been working as a programmer, contract ended, it was *hard* to convince the hiring manager I was worth a shot. And that was *before* the "send everything to India, pay less!" spree...

And it is much harder to get unemployment benefits than you know, having watched some friends go through it.

Comment: Re:Snooping Programs a help (Score 4, Insightful) 367

by brxndxn (#49783967) Attached to: Obama Asks Congress To Renew 'Patriot Act' Snooping
The problem with your assessment is that you are actually taking the FBI for their word. They are saying they need this and the only problems are possibly too much data. Of course they are saying they need this.. but the real purpose isn't for terrorism or even crime-fighting. The purpose of bulk record storage on American citizens is to have a dossier on anyone that may end up being a threat to the existing internal power structure of the US. That is why they are willing to spend so much money on a program that has so far proven to have very little use. I do not believe there has been any point in history where so many resources were spent with such few results.

Comment: Re:It has always been that way (Score 1) 392

by medv4380 (#49774911) Attached to: Can Bad Scientific Practice Be Fixed?
Hard? Here's an easy way to identify the clear crap. If the N is less than 30 the result, and conclusions should be ignored as more likely a random effect due to small sample size. Sure the actual number is usually much larger depending on what the magic formulas pop out, but the number of studies that I come across that make claims, and draw conclusions when there same size is less than 30 is absurd. That might be ok for a college paper that's not being scored on the result, but whether or not they can actually run a study, and if they had the half a million to do a properly sized study will they do quality work. It's not good for anything other than the pitch for a legitimately sized study.

Comment: Re:Or.... (Score 5, Interesting) 252

by JanneM (#49772627) Attached to: Leaked Document Shows Europe Would Fight UK Plans To Block Porn

You follow the local accepted customs, whether you think they are ridiculous or not.

Let's take a parallel situation: In some countries, such as Australia I believe, you wear your shoes indoor. In some countries, such as Japan or my native Sweden, you always take them off.

If you come to either country, would you find it acceptable to basically say "In Australia we always wear our shoes indoor. If you want to take them off, no issue. Why should I be forced to take them off?". Then proceed to try to walk in wearing your outdoor shoes? Would you be surprised if you were (politely in Japan, not so politely in Sweden) thrown out as a result?

Comment: Re:just what we all love (Score 4, Insightful) 241

by orzetto (#49764007) Attached to: Amazon Decides To Start Paying Tax In the UK

I am pretty sure that Amazon did not originate in Luxembourg, that they do not have any significant infrastructure in Luxembourg, and certainly most of the products they ship are not made in Luxembourg.

I would not have any problem if their actual warehouses were all in Luxembourg and all shipments departed from there; however, they most certainly do not. It's a good thing to pay taxes from a single country when selling to several, but one must pay taxes where the value is generated, not going around shopping for the lowest rates.

The single market was intended to be used for simplification, not for tax avoidance.

Comment: Re:Extended battery (Score 3, Interesting) 313

by An Ominous Cow Erred (#49753877) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What's the Best Dumb Phone?

In my experience, Mugen makes the best extended batteries (both in size and performance).

Of course this is not useful if your phone does not have a replaceable battery (e.g. iPhones). But in general any popular phone with a replaceable battery will have extended batteries made for it. You just put the extended fat battery in then use the provided replacement back panel that includes an enlarged area to hold the new fat battery.

I *always* get this for my phones because I get sick of having to remember to charge them.


Comment: Re:Entitled much? (Score 1) 826

by srmalloy (#49741249) Attached to: Oregon Testing Pay-Per-Mile Driving Fee To Replace Gas Tax

'Fair share' -- if you have a 2.5-ton vehicle driving 12,000 miles per year on public roads, you should be paying the same overall amount in taxes and fees for road maintenance as any other 2.5-ton vehicle driven 12,000 miles per year on public roads; it doesn't matter whether it runs on gasoline, propane, hydrogen, electricity, methane clathrates, a hundred squirrels running in exercise wheels, or pure thoughts. A gasoline tax was a fair assessment against drivers when virtually all private automobiles ran on gasoline, were around the same weight, and got similar mileage. That's no longer the case. If one person has a car that gets 25mpg, and another a carefully-designed fuel efficient car that gets 50mph, and another an electric car that gets its energy from the power grid and doesn't burn gasoline, but all have cars that are roughly the same size and weight and are driven the same distance in a year, the first person pays twice the gas tax that the second one does, but receives no increased benefit for his taxes, and the third person, despite operating a vehicle that has the same physical impact on the road surface, pays no gas tax at all, reaping the benefit of the road maintenance paid for by the other two people's gas tax payments without contributing to the cost of that maintenance.

Here is an idea, why not simply tax Electric/hybrid vehicles a use tax based on miliage and leave the gas tax alone?

As has been pointed out repeatedly in the comments here, simply doing an odometer check can't tell how much of that mileage was driven inside Oregon's borders. But given the experience with the "your phone data is private unless you once, fifteen years ago, called someone whose brother's barber is a cousin five times removed to someone who, twenty years ago, was a known associate of someone we might, based on a pattern of legal but 'suspicious' activity, might be someone that we would conduct an investigation into in connection with an act of terrorism that they witnessed by happening to be looking the right way with a coin-fed scenic binocular at a national park, in which case we get FISA to rubberstamp our request, allowing us to grab every bit of data about every phone call you ever made or will make, even after we decide not to conduct the aforementioned investigation" attitude of the NSA and CIA, expecting people to believe "The GPS unit will only record your mileage as being inside or outside of Oregon, can't be used to track your driving habits, and we'll never give that data to anyone" is probably a lost cause.

Mr. Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant; the population is growing.