Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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: Re: Invisible hand (Score 1) 535

by hjf (#49343805) Attached to: Comcast's Incompetence, Lack of Broadband May Force Developer To Sell Home

Where I live the telephone company contracts another company to do the "shitty job" of hooking new customers: laying (or hanging) wires, drilling walls, etc. They also have access to junction boxes.
Guess what? It's a mess. Installs are crap. They don't even bother putting junction boxes lids back on (gotta love the sound of rain in your phone line).
So they have to send out their crew of actually trained phone company employees to fix the mess left by the hired installers.
Very fucking efficient.

Comment: Re:The Cost of Monoculture (Score 1) 95

by hjf (#49308401) Attached to: South Korea Begins To Deprecate ActiveX

Yes. We do some warranty stuff for LG. Their website is IE6-only (older versions on compatibility mode). It uses a SHITLOAD of ActiveX components for really, really dumb things. Like: Grid Views, Drop Down Views, etc. It's the typical "I'm used to a desktop app so I expect a web app to behave exactly like a desktop app, with pop-up windows and all other controls". This is endemic with MS developers.

Comment: Re:Well no shit! (Score 4, Interesting) 232

by hjf (#49302881) Attached to: FTC: Google Altered Search Results For Profit

Have we forgotten the whole MS Antitrust fiasco? You remember that Microsoft WAS FINED because they bundled a fucking WEB BROWSER with their OS and made it the default, right? MS didn't force anyone to use it.

And yet, on iOS you can only use the bundled one and nothing else.

LOL. And Microsoft is still evil.

Comment: Re:meanwhile (Score 1) 342

by hjf (#49288633) Attached to: UK Chancellor Confirms Introduction of 'Google Tax'

Does Mr. Rich CEO NOT invest if he's taxed? Don't be ridiculous. Mr Rich WILL be taxed, and millions of Average Joes WILL be able to afford MORE. Probably even making up for the difference.

And if debt is such a good thing as an asset, then why the fuck do banks need "bailouts"? Oh yes, because DEBT is DEBT and not REAL MONEY.

Comment: Re:meanwhile (Score 1) 342

by hjf (#49288409) Attached to: UK Chancellor Confirms Introduction of 'Google Tax'

So if we tax Mr Rich he won't invest? Is that really what you're saying? You're implying the government should confiscate *everything* Mr Rich makes and make him get the same salary as Average Joe?
NO, I DID NOT SAY THAT.

And Mr Rich *WILL* invest anywhere that will make him money. The USA has, actually, very high taxes compared to many other countries. But their market is HUGE, and their population wealthy.

Or you could invest in, say, 0% tax Fantasyland, population 300. 3000. 3 million, even. Where will Mr. Rich make more money? in 400M USA or in 3M Fantasyland?

Comment: Re:meanwhile (Score 3, Insightful) 342

by hjf (#49286831) Attached to: UK Chancellor Confirms Introduction of 'Google Tax'

For a more graphic example: What makes the economy "move" more?

1 million Average Joes buying a six pack?
or
1 Rich CEO buying a $50K Rolex?

Consider how many people you need to produce 6 million cans of beer, distribute them across the country, put them in shelves, sell them, etc.
And how many people are involved in IMPORTING one watch from England and putting it in a shelve, and selling it?
Are there more walmarts, or boutique stores that sell Rolexes?

Again, as I said, Mr. Rich CEO will, most likely, invest his money. The bulk of that money just goes into the ridiculous "full circle" financial system that allows DEBT to be considered an ASSET.

Comment: Re:meanwhile (Score 4, Insightful) 342

by hjf (#49286799) Attached to: UK Chancellor Confirms Introduction of 'Google Tax'

Again, the point of my original comment still stands: Slashdot Libertarians are defending the ultra-rich, as if they have any remote chance of becoming that rich.

It's just amazing.

Hey dude, wake up... the day you'll be as rich as Buffet you'll be able to skew laws in your favor anyway. Don't worry about that.

I don't know what's up with people defending the likes of Warren Buffet or any other guy who got rich by pure financial speculation. I'm not a marxist, and I have some money in investment funds. I just don't believe people who are that disgustingly rich should be given any mercy when it comes to taxing. They have all sorts of schemes NOT to pay taxes (like, precisely what this article says: sending their money abroad).

Comment: Re:meanwhile (Score 4, Informative) 342

by hjf (#49286699) Attached to: UK Chancellor Confirms Introduction of 'Google Tax'

Simple:
there are MILLIONS of each Average Joe for every Mr. Rich CEO out there. And, combined, they will SPEND more money.

Is that a difficult concept to grasp? Give Average Joe more money to spend, and HE WILL SPEND IT. And look! It will end up in Mr. Rich CEO's bank account anyway! Because he'll be selling more.

The rest of your comment is just stupid rambling I won't bother addressing, because you're so incredibly dense, obtuse and unwilling to accept any idea other than your own.

"You're a creature of the night, Michael. Wait'll Mom hears about this." -- from the movie "The Lost Boys"

Working...