Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Why not have mechanical security too? (Score 1) 147 147

Your objections are just a matter of software for an ATM customized for this application. Except the one about ATMs not able to count money. Huh? You can put a stack of cash in the thing and it will count the money including identifying the denominations.

Comment Re:There's no reason to go to the moon again (Score 1) 248 248

Unless billionaires want to pony up the cost, and then some. Otherwise, no, huge waste of taxpayer money.

Medicare fraud alone makes $10 billion look like chump change. Complaining about waste of taxpayer money in the context of a lunar base for only $10B is the wrong argument against.

Comment Re:They're worthless. (Score 2) 213 213

Other comments have already taken you to task for your somewhat pedantic objection to keyboards as output. If the motherboard is functioning but merely locked up by software, sending input by pressing caps lock provides output from the computer in the form of the little light going on and off. Yes, that qualifies as output. Especially in the context of what an A+ hardware tech certification ought to be testing. Furthermore, output on the monitor is the state of bits in RAM or registers. Output on the keyboard is the state of bits in the register in the keyboard controller. By any reasonable definition, these are both data and both output.

Comment Re:They're worthless. (Score 2) 213 213

You are quite correct. Many years ago I saw a practice "A+" test this as the very first question:
Which one or more of the following are both input and output devices:
A: Floppy drive
B: Keyboard
C: Mouse
D: Monitor
It told me I was wrong for picking A and B because keyboards are input only. It seems they didn't think someone doing helpdesk should know the three little lights on the keyboard are important diagnostic output.

Comment Re:Good point, but Uber is a bad example (Score 4, Insightful) 432 432

What makes it intrinsically illegal? Just because there is a law?

Well, yes, that is the definition of illegal; because a law says so. Perhaps you are confusing morality/immorality with legality/illegality?

So you believe that business models deserve protection from competition by creating legal loops that do not do anything except protect economic interests? Strange world view.

Where have you been since the 1890's? Millions of people in employee unions believe this quite firmly, to the point of violence and beyond.

Comment Re:Sunk cost fallacy (Score 2) 485 485

Not the same at all. Debtor's prison threw debtors in jail where they couldn't work off their debts. Greece is not being thrown in jail. If they have the political will to radically overhaul their pension system and general government debt spending then they could pay it off. The only restructing needed is drastically renegotiated interest rates because compounding interest makes paying the principle amount nearly impossible. To insist the principle be repaid is not "punishment" by itself. Compounding interest at these levels can be "punishing" so the lesson needs to be learned in a way that is doable.

Comment Re:It most certainly is a tax dodge. (Score 1) 161 161

I think the source of confusion is that you should realize you have two distinct roles in the economy: 1. You are a seller of labor who effectively charges your employer for your expenses including tax and 2. you are an end consumer who buys things that have corporate tax built into the prices which you cannot pass on.
 
Consider extreme hypethetical case: Joe has inherited a huge pile of cash, literally, and is otherwise unemployed. He has no income, not even interest because it's cash, and just spends as needed. Joe pays corporate income tax as built into prices. He cannot pass it on to anyone.
 
The opposite extreme example is Mary, who has a job and calculated what take home she needed after taxes and demands salary accordingly. She is such an amazing mooch that she never buys anything. Mary effectively pays no taxes because she's baked that cost into her salary demand (although of course she fills out irs paperwork and whatnot) .
 
The point is that only the end consumer (when acting in an end consumer role) really pays all the accumulated income taxes.
 
Some people fool themselves as if there was no such thing as income tax they've ever heard about and think that a salary of X means X is what is "theirs" and then they act surprised that the irs is "taking my money". This was true the first year the first income tax law was passed. To any modern person, you should know tax is an expense that is coming, like it or not, and treat it accordingly by baking it into your salary expectation.

Comment Re:It most certainly is a tax dodge. (Score 1) 161 161

I could just as easily argue that I pay my taxes with my employer's money because I've "baked that into the price I charge them for my labor" (aka my salary).

This is exactly what happens. Unless you mean when you negotiated your salary it didn't occur to you that income tax would need to be paid on it. You didn't realise that "we pay X for this job" was going to translate to X-n (n=deductions including income tax) take-home pay? And then you think, hmm, will that take-home amount be enough to pay my bills or did you think will X be enough to pay my bills and got a huge shock when you saw the deductions?

"I'm not afraid of dying, I just don't want to be there when it happens." -- Woody Allen

Working...