Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Should the US government censor political blogs (Score 2) 308

by roccomaglio (#47299571) Attached to: Interviews: Ask Lawrence Lessig About His Mayday PAC
Proportional influence is an interesting idea. So we should ban unions since their large membership will give their leaders disproportionate influence with politics? How about newspaper editors they have a large readership and their recommendations in elections can be very helpful? How about political bloggers if they write about one candidates negatives and the others positives? These people become disproportionately important to politician election chances and therefore they are given greater access and influence.

Comment: Re:Nothing new to see here. (Score 1) 209

by roccomaglio (#47283459) Attached to: Steve Wozniak Endorses Lessig's Mayday Super PAC
This is to say nothing of the large number of sub $100 donations that required just a name and address. There is no verification of this micro donations. If you want to give a candidate a million dollars that does not seem to be a problem as long as you donate under $100 at a time. Rocco

Comment: The bad guy here is the meter maid (Score 1) 286

The person writing the tickets saw the obviously incorrect DOT marking and did nothing. The like that people were being trapped. They probably found it easier to meet quotas. Ignoring this obvious issue is egregious and this person/people should be punished.

Comment: Re:BOO FUCKING HOO! (Score 1) 338

by roccomaglio (#46877155) Attached to: How the USPS Killed Digital Mail

I will gladly pay you tomorrow for something you give me today. Do you understand why they are paying healthcare and benefits 70 years out? What is required is that you actually pay for benefits you provide in the budget that corresponds to when you promise the benefit. If you promise someone pension and healthcare benefits you need to pay for them in that 2014 years budget, not in 2094 years budget when the person is retired and drawing the benefit. You are providing compensation and it needs to be out of this years budget. Otherwise you are saying I will pay you 60k today and in 70 years I will pay you another 200k. The great thing about that 200k is you will not be around to have to pay it.

If I am a politician or executive with a short term focus, I will happily provide benefits that will be paid when I am long gone. I can talk about how there where huge surpluses under my watch and everyone was happy with their compensation.

Comment: Re:Or it could be (Score 1) 158

by roccomaglio (#46767387) Attached to: Pollution In China Could Be Driving Freak Weather In US
If the Kock brothers truly want to have influence, they would buy a major network. Look how that worked for Comcast. Their is very little opposition to their merge in part because who wants negative coverage from a major network. With a major network you can exert tremendous influence on elections without having to worry about election laws. Do the Kock brothers spend more on elections than other billionaires? I suggest you educate yourself.

Comment: Re:Discrimination of girls is bad and unethical (Score 1) 673

by roccomaglio (#46714029) Attached to: Google: Teach Girls Coding, Get $2,500; Teach Boys, Get $0

Where are the programs to incentivizing men to graduate from college. Currently women graduate from college at significantly higher rates then men. When men graduated more often them women there were programs and incentives set up get more women to graduate from college. Now that that has been reversed and the gap continues to grow, the solution is to offer programs to get women to college in the few areas where more men graduate.

According to "From 1999–2000 to 2009–10, the percentage of degrees earned by females remained between approximately 60 and 62 percent for associate's degrees and between 57 and 58 percent for bachelor's degrees. In contrast, the percentages of both master's and doctor's degrees earned by females increased from 1999–2000 to 2009–10 (from 58 to 60 percent and from 45 to 52 percent, respectively). "

So when will the trend of offering more women incentives then men to attend college stop when woman graduate from college 2 to 1 to men. Or 3 to 1.

Comment: Re:Don't bother. (Score 1) 509

by roccomaglio (#46659743) Attached to: The Problem With Congress's Scientific Illiterates
You are calling other people ignorant of the way things work and then you say "Now with the recent Supreme Court folly the Tea Party and other scientific denier whackos will have even more Super PAC money to continue their dirty work in the name of the 1%". The amount of money that could be given to a super pac is already unlimited. The supreme court struck down the limit on total cumulative contributions to candidates and parties. The amount you can individually give to a candidate is still limit. The decision means that if you want to give a little money to every politician you can. The real issue to me is bundlers. The whole contribution limit is to prevent quid pro quo corruption. That is why the limit to an individual politician is just a few thousand. If someone can go to a bunch of people and get them to donate money they are a bundler. To the politician it is almost as if they are getting hundreds of thousands from the bundler. President Obama has named several of these bundlers as ambassadors and they had never visited the county and could not even answer simple questions about the country where they were going to represent the US. President Obama is not the only one to do this, President Bush named bundlers as ambassadors too. You try to make this a right wing issue, but the Democrats routinely out raise the Republicans. Obama out raised his opponent in both presidential elections. If you took all money out of politics then the only exposure on the candidates would be through the news, volunteers, and endorsements. How much influence would the New York Times endorsement be worth? How much would a labor union whose members go door to door be worth? How much would the endorsement of another popular politician be worth?

Comment: Re:majority of Americans ... have seen their premi (Score 0) 219

by roccomaglio (#46631591) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Experiences With Free To Air Satellite TV?
So you believe in censorship when you do not like what people say. It is defacto censorship to ignore everything said by conservative outlets. You will claim that their news is not true and should be ignored. I want to see your examples of fox and breitbart inaccurate stories. I will then point you to equally inaccurate stories on the other news sources. ABC had the edited video segment to have George Zimmerman imply that he was racist. They also purchased the DC Madam list of clients and only released the names of republicans (rational was republicans have a stance on morality, so they are hypocrites. Democrats never mention woman issues). CBS had the anchor Dan Rather report and vouch for a made up story about George W Bush serving dishonorably in the National Guard.

Comment: Re:Bailouts for them, crumbs for us (Score 1) 246

If debt and deficits don't matter, then the government should send out a million dollars to every citizen. This would ensure there reelection. Why would they not do this since debt does not matter? If the government did this it would cause massive inflation and all saving would be wiped out. Debt and deficits matter quite significantly, but the real question is how much debt is sustainable. At some point your currency is devalued and you wind up speeding a billion dollars to buy a loaf of bread (a la Zimbabwe).

Comment: Re:Ahh yes, the progressive tax crowd again. (Score 1) 712

by roccomaglio (#46395767) Attached to: Are Bankers Paid Too Much? Are Technology CEOs?
You are conflating the rich with the high income earners. We only tax income. We do not tax assets. If you are rich you make money off the increase of your assets (companies, properties, etc.), but you do not have to pay taxes for their increase in value until you sell the assets. For example, Warren Buffett is only taxed on the money he is paid in salary and stocks he sells, but the great majority of his asset increase is the value of his company increasing. His total effect tax on is asset increase is basically zero. His income is also effectively zero when compared to his asset increase. If he wants to buy something, he can borrow money against his assets and pay no tax for this. He does not care if the income tax is a 100% because it would barely affect the amount of money he is earning. However, those of us that earn a salary will wind up paying even more in taxes. When people talk about the 1% they are talking about the people who have large salaries, not necessarily the rich that control most of the assets in this country. This is a very important distinction.

Comment: Re: Sounds like he was enjoying himself! (Score 1) 253

by roccomaglio (#46209909) Attached to: A Corporate War Against a Scientist, and How He Fought Back
This looks like this bill was was bipartisan legislation. "The bill passed by large margins, 302-126 in the House[14] and 74-25 in the Senate,[15] and was signed into law by President Bush.[16][17]". You can read more at wikipedia

The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group.