Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

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: The previous Slashdot story? (Score 3, Informative) 319

by galabar (#49487973) Attached to: LA Schools Seeking Refund Over Botched iPad Plan
Can we pull up the previous Slashdot story on this (when they were just starting)? While most folks agreeded that it would fail, it may be useful to recognize those folks that were vehement supporters for this and ridicule them mercilessly. Here's the original article: Looking through that link, I'm challenged to find even a single supporter.

Comment: Re:That's not how it works (Score 1) 379

Yes, I can't see any reason why the source of the evidence wouldn't be available.

Judge: Mr. Prosecutor, can you please tell me where you obtained this evidence?

Mr. Prosecutor: .... well ... uh ... no.

Judge: Mr. Prosecutor, you will be cooling your heels in a cell until you can provide me with that information.

Comment: Re:Over to you, SCOTUS (Score 1) 379

President Obama can veto this bill. It would then go back to Congress for a re-vote: With the issue now out in the open, it is less likely that congress would override the veto. So, the ball is most definitely in Barak Obama's court. It will become law (or not) based on his decision.

Comment: Re:The "old boys' club" (Score 1) 335

by galabar (#48011655) Attached to: State of Iowa Tells Tesla To Cancel Its Scheduled Test Drives
The restriction of not allowing Tesla to enter Iowa and sell its product is the issue. Taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion, any product that entered Iowa wouldn't represent interstate commerce because it then needs to be sold in Iowa. So, the federal government says that I can drive my bananas over the border. However, when I get there, I can't sell them. That would defeat the purpose of the commerce clause.

Comment: Re: Most taxes are legalized theft (Score 1) 324

by galabar (#47924191) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance
I think perception is much more important politically here. If I'm a politician trying to "stick it to the rich," I want a marginal tax rate as high as possible. I don't really care about how much the rich are paying -- only that my constituents are convinced of my progressivity. Many of my friends on the left mention the "90%" tax rates of the 1950s. However, they don't realize that with the then tax breaks, this was actually much lower (and it was the rich that could utilize those tax breaks). They want high taxes on corporations, but don't realize that they are the ones paying those taxes. Indeed, for those who have been the most honest with me, they believe that the less the public knows the more the government can take, and that, to them, is a good thing.

Comment: Re:Why not patent compression algorithm? (Score 3, Informative) 263

by galabar (#47285507) Attached to: The Supreme Court Doesn't Understand Software
Patents are not granted for the benefit of a few. They are granted because: The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; Having said that, I agree that the question should be "why should they be able to patent it."

Behind every great computer sits a skinny little geek.