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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

+ - Netflix is "Arrogant" for expecting net neutrality->

jayp00001 writes: Mr. Hastings’ arrogant proposition is that everyone else should pay but Netflix. That may be a nice deal if he can get it. But it’s not how the Internet, or telecommunication for that matter, has ever worked." — Cicconi (AT&T Senior Executive Vice President of External and Legislative Affairs.)

Translation: SIlly netflix, haven't you figured out that both the subscriber AND the content provider should pay for the same bandwidth!

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Nothing to surprising (Score 1) 1271 1271

>"True Communism" absolutely does NOT require an elite ruling class. Hell, it expressly forbids an elite ruling class
"true communism" implicitly demands a ruling class to arbitrate the "equality" of everyone

I think you do have one thing right:

>Tell me, seriously, which system would you prefer? One where everone wins, or one where 1% of the population wins?

the 1% solution every time. I want a society where everyone strives to be best they can be, not where everyone only works as well as the lowest common denominator so everyone can be equal. I look forward to the day when we can seek to better ourselves rather than work for a living. The only way I see that happening is to keep floating that 1% to the top

Comment: Re:Nothing to surprising (Score 1) 1271 1271

However you can (IMHO) make a very good argument that the "excessive rewards for doing damage to the economy" are directly a result of goverment enacting socialist regulations on the markets. As an example the subprie mortage crisis is a direct result of the goverment not allowing banks to lend in their own self interest (as well as removing the distinction between commercial and investment banks) . To "fix" that problem the market created mortgage backed securities, which meant that the quality of loans wasn't nearly as important as the quantity. Of course it's not that cut and dried, and there were more contributors but you see where this is heading.

One can certainly take the position that capitlism sucks, however the alternatives all suck a whole lot more.

The Internet

+ - Internet replaces girl's stolen Tardis bus shelter-> 1 1

An anonymous reader writes: Here's an odd story with a happy ending that could only happen with the help of the Internet.

A young girl gets a new cell phone, but her number used to belong to a pro basketball player. The family is featured by the local news, and when the return home, they find their hand-made, 300 lb. Tardis school bus shelter stolen from their yard. Several Redditors stepped up and built her a new one, all with donations from strangers looking to help.

The Internet can be a wonderful place sometimes.

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Changing their principal rationale to political (Score 1) 1040 1040

The tax cuts were for everyone that pays taxes- not just "the rich". You are certainly correct in that folks with trust funds don't pay tax on them - nor should they as the tax was already paid on that money(thus an income tax not a savings tax). Estate taxes are when wealth is transfered via death (and the estate tax is what generated a whole generation of "trust fund" babies since trusts don't change hands they are not subject to estate taxes). The poor (since they are already not paying anything in federal taxes) did not get a reduction from 0

Comment: Re:Changing their principal rationale to political (Score 1) 1040 1040

We don't have a wealth tax in america, we have a bracketed income tax. The "tax cuts for the rich" mantra is pure feldercarb. You have exactly the same loopholes and tax strategies available to you that the "wealthy" do. There is no "escape" from taxation. Corporations however do have a whole bunch of tax advantages that regualar citizens do not since (theoretically) the result of letting a corporation fail (or even make less profit) would be a reduction in job force and overall competitiveness resulting in a net loss of tax income due to the loss of employee income tax and additional unemployment benefit burden. Now that effectiveness (particularly in a global economy) is debatable (and complex). You can see by this paper (and the included chart) http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001547-Why-No-Income-Tax.pdf that very few of the "rich" are "escaping" taxes, and fully half of the population is paying no federal taxes at all (and they aren't the rich).

Comment: Re:But the political one is the correct one. (Score 1) 1040 1040

Of course using revenue to decrease the deficit is a good idea - that's what the tea party has been advocating all along. America takes in something on the order of 100 billion a month. What the democrats refuse to do is accept the fact that we cannot keep spending money faster than we recieve it. Something has to give, and the republicans (correctly in my opinion) said that it shouldn't be the people that have to pay more taxes, but the goverment needs to spend less (of the already large revenue) on things other than the debt.

One person's error is another person's data.

Working...