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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Maybe, Just maybe... (Score 1) 77

FICA is not an income tax, nor is it a regular tax used to fund the government. It is instead a tax used for one specific purpose: to fund one's *own* retirement. The more you pay in FICA withholdings, the more you get back per month in your retirement. Once you reach $176,000 in income (not $100,000), your FICA withholding stops. Also, the amount of the amount of Social Security payments you will receive in retirement, stops increasing. So essentially the tax stops when you reach the maximum benefit the government allows.

Well, that was the philosophy anyway. As with all taxation, the original concept and premise has been distorted and changed over time, the tax takers will always find ways to get their snouts into whatever stream of money they can, kind of like how tolls don't stop once a toll road is paid for.

Comment Re:Why not try taking cyanide then? (Score 1) 134

Cyanide begins to be "potentially harmful" at a level of 500 ppm, or 0.05%. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b...:
CO2 begins to have harmful health effects at 40,000 ppm, or 4%. https://www.co2meter.com/blogs...:

So first of all, CO2 is far less toxic than cyanide, while your comparison implies that the CO2 is just as toxic as cyanide. It's not, cyanide is at least 80 times more toxic than cyanide.
Second, the level of cyanide you propose, 0.04%, is actually not generally problematic.

Toxicity is all about concentration, every substance has a concentration level that is toxic, even water and oxygen.

I'm not suggesting that the CO2 in the atmosphere is not problematic, only that it's not toxic.

Comment Re:Maybe, Just maybe... (Score 1) 77

I believe that it's important to discuss issues with people who disagree with you, because I believe we can learn from people with other viewpoints. However, you have repeatedly made false statements, such as:

wages over about $100,000 are taxed at a fixed minimum of 13%. Wages over that amount aren't subject to those taxes at all.

Income tax for this income bracket start at 24% and increase to 37% for any income over $609,000. https://www.irs.gov/filing/fed...

When you make statements that are *that* wrong, I no longer find it useful to continue the discussion.

You have also repeatedly misquoted me and twisted what I said. I've already pointed out these instances, and won't do so again.

Comment Re:Fine by me (Score 1) 81

Expert witnesses aren't qualified to authenticate a video. And yes, I have actually served as an expert witness in a court case, so I have some knowledge of how that works. The expert witness can discuss the processes and methods used by the system, but they can't confirm that the specific video in question, shows what it purports to show.

Amazon and Flock can testify regarding the equipment and the legal chain of custody, but they can't confirm what the video seems to show, rubber stamp or not.

What makes you say I'm pretending? If the video has nothing to do with evidence for a crime, then why is it being presented in court? Defense can simply object on grounds that the video is not relevant.

Comment Re:Fine by me (Score 1) 81

Estimates of wrongful conviction range from 1% to 2.5%. The Innocence Project says that the overwhelming majority of wrongful convictions are caused by eyewitness misidentification. https://innocenceproject.org/e... Misapplied forensic analysis, which would include video evidence, isn't even on their list of problems they find. https://innocenceproject.org/m... If video evidence were a common source of problematic arrests and convictions, you can bet it would be on their list of top causes.

Comment Also, don't trust human Reddit answers (Score 2) 66

Many times, while looking for answers on Google, I've encountered sloppy or just plain wrong answers from Reddit. I haven't gone there for answers for years, because the quality of responses has always been so low. It seems natural that AI answers that summarize human responses, would be equally inaccurate.

Comment Re: Fine by me (Score 1) 81

Warrants can indeed be based on unauthenticated video evidence. The standard for arrest is lower, requiring probable cause, but must be approved by a judge.It's not like an officer can just randomly decide to arrest you because he saw a video. He has to convince at least one judge that you are likely to have committed a crime based on that evidence.

Though hard data is hard to come by, I would suggest that video doorbells are more likely to increase the accuracy of arrests, not decrease. In any kind of problem-solving, more data is usually better than less data.

Comment Also, human-generated lesson plans (Score 1) 41

Fall Short On Inspiring Students, Promoting Critical Thinking.

This is not meant as a put-down of teachers. Our teachers are doing good work in an often difficult environment. Some teachers do genuinely inspire their students.

My point is, is the expectation that AI should inspire students and promote critical thinking, a valid expectation?

Comment Re:Fine by me (Score 0) 81

For a video to be used in court, it has to be authenticated under oath. For example:
- A person must swear in court that the person depicted in a video, is the defendant.
- Someone familiar with the recording equipment must swear that the video is authentic and was not doctored in any way.
- Corroborating evidence must agree with the conclusions drawn from the video recording.

It's not X we're talking about here, where somebody can post a random video, and it goes viral because everybody "knows" it's true. In court, the evidence has to hold up under scrutiny and be supported by sworn statements.

Comment Re:Maybe, Just maybe... (Score 1) 77

Thank you, now you're starting to explain your position clearly.

You are defining those who pay the most income taxes as "the rich". Its not surprising you find "the rich" pay the most income taxes.

We also defined "the rich" as those who have a lot of assets, and we established that only the rich (by that definition) pay taxes on assets. So pick whatever definition of wealth you like: the most income, or the most assets--by either definition, the rich pay the vast majority of taxes.

Remember your claim that Donald Trump isn't rich when he isn't paying a lot of income taxes?

No, I don't remember that, because I never said that.

I think the wealthy should be paying at least as big a percentage for public services as the percentage of national wealth they have accumulated with the support and help of those public services.

That qualifies as an actual position. But what is national wealth? How does it apply to a rich person? How would one measure it?

Slashdot Top Deals

Why don't you fix your little problem... and light this candle? -- Alan Shepherd, the first man into space, Gemini program

Working...