Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Or it could be (Score 1) 156

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 ed.gov "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). " http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/d...

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B....

Comment: Look at the History (Score 3, Insightful) 535

by roccomaglio (#46153439) Attached to: US Democrats Introduce Bill To Restore Net Neutrality
If this is purely a Republicans versus Democrats issue as it presented here, then how come the Democrats did not pass it from 2008-2010 when they controlled the presidency, house of representatives, and the senate (by filibuster proof majority). They could have passed it without a Republican vote.

Comment: Re:Do the new GOP believe in evolution yet? (Score 1) 523

by roccomaglio (#46069551) Attached to: RNC Calls For Halt To Unconstitutional Surveillance
Ok, I will bite on this one. Can you name the Successful republican candidates that believe it is necessary to mention that Hitler believed in evolution? I have never heard Mitt Romney or John McCain say this. They were the last two republican candidates for president.

Comment: Re:Business as usual (Score 2) 192

by roccomaglio (#45661489) Attached to: Pirate Bay Founder Warg Being Held in Solitary Confinement
How about knowing how to change the phone tables so it looked like the call that was doing this was coming from someone else's house. They would know that someone was hacking, they could trace it back, but the trace would lead to the wrong house. Probably one of the reason he was so well known. If you can hack and no one knows it, you might not get famous.

Comment: Re:Contrarians against contrarians (Score 1) 730

by roccomaglio (#45514155) Attached to: Geeks For Monarchy: The Rise of the Neoreactionaries

This is just another teenage rebellion movement like Libertarianism. "Don't trust the old people. They're just trying to oppress you!" Yes, Libertarians, you are now the old guys who can't be trusted. :) As such you and your philosophies must be rebelled against much like you tore at the chains of your oppressor parents in the two party system.

Yes, the baby boomers are now all over thirty, but they would probably be considered liberals not libertarians. The movement that spoke of don't trust anyone over thirty was the hippies. The phrase is credited to Jack Weinberg.

Comment: Re:the future of car insurance (Score 1) 567

It is nice that Fred Phelps Jr. decided to follow a different path than his father by affiliating with a different political party. Fred Phelps ran for office in Kansas several times as a Democrat. From wikipedia "He has occasionally run for political office as a Democrat. In the election for United States Senator for Kansas in 1992, he received 49,416 votes (30.8%) in the Democratic primary, coming in second after Gloria O'Dell (who subsequently lost to later presidential candidate Bob Dole)." It is disingenuous to just assign people who you disapprove of to the other party. Fred Phelps is often referred to as right wing, but his political party choice was the Democrats.

Ma Bell is a mean mother!

Working...