Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 1) 533

The problem is Google and Apple are subject to the 35% rate and there is little they can do about it, other than keeping their profits off-shore. Only lowering the rate to 20% (or maybe 15%, the exact amount is debatable) will motivate them to bring it back here.

Actually, it won't. Canada's corporate tax rate is 15% and it has had no significant effect. Lower the rate to 0% and maybe they will be motivated to bring it back. It's a simple fact that the money goes where it will be taxed the least, end of story. They pay people to make sure their tax rates as low as legally allowed, and the last time I checked, there were already 0% corporate tax jurisdictions, so the only way to guarantee they bring the money back is to offer a negative tax rate.

Comment Re:Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 1) 533

Hadrian's Wall. Two and a half centuries of use suggests it was working pretty well.

I'm not sure if that was sarcasm because the building of Hadrian's wall marks the beginning of the end of the Roman empire. It was a spiritual turning point for the Romans. When they built the wall they admitted that they could not conquer the world and that they were no longer strong enough to dominate technologically inferior opponents. So they built a wall across an island because they no longer had the will nor the capacity to conquer the rest of the island. It was an admission of what they could no longer do, and it marks the end of the expansion of the empire and the beginning of the fall.

Comment Re:Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 1) 533

That's just not true. People are uniformly better off today than they were 35 years ago. What has happened is that tax burdens have shifted somewhat. And if you look at government taxation and spending, you'll find that the only income group that pays substantially more than they receive in government benefits is the top 20% [].

I suppose that depends on whether maintaining the society that allows the top 20% to earn their massive incomes should count as a benefit. Studies like this (especially from organizations called "The Tax Foundation" or something similar) are generally run with the intention of showing how the rich are taxed way too much for the benefit of "those lazy poor people" while ignoring the fact that the very same people they spit on the ones who generate all of the wealth that the rich are accumulating. The change that's being going on since the 70s is that corporations have been systematically underpaying their employees for the work they do and transferring that wealth to the owners. I think that in general, Americans overvalue ownership and undervalue productive work and I suspect it's the inevitable end result of the worship of capitalism. It's a pretty good system, but y'all need to stop dry-humping it's leg.

Comment Re:Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 1) 533

From that I know why I don't support minimum wage increases (it causes unemployment increases and reduces incentive to learn the skills required for just-above-minimum-wage positions, while unfairly targeting low-skill labor markets).

I used to believe the same thing, but apparently it's not as simple as that. For instance, according to the department of labour it's actually myth that increases to the minimum wage cause unemployment. They cite a letter signed by 600 economists (including 7 Nobel Prize winners) that claims that recent research shows that raising the minimum wage doesn't lead to job losses and furthermore it actually tends to reduce unemployment by mildly stimulating the economy.

Comment Re:Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 1) 459

It was inappropriate and I would never had heard about the "shirt" if it wasn't for MRAs spending so much of their time complaining that they were offended that someone else somewhere else was offended by the shirt.

Too bad it wasn't the MRA's complaining about how they were offended that started it right? It was the rabid feminists, and the rabid feminists in the press that did.

Oh no. Someone on the internet said something you didn't like. That's clearly a good reason to spend years obsessing over that.

Ah so you've go the inside track as to why they fired him? That should be easy for you to provide sources. Oh and a company wouldn't fire someone over something like that? Or did you forget that most places in the US it's "at will employment." Meaning being fired for something that trivial and even less trivial happens a lot more then you'd think.

I don't know anything about his particulars, but his infraction is minor enough that they could have handled it differently, but they clearly didn't want to. It's practically guaranteed that they had other reasons for wanting him gone, and this was the last straw.

Oh, but no mention on the no-platform stuff? Or student unions going after students for refusing to follow the group think? Or the press in general spouting off at the hip with the same garbage. Like why air conditioning is sexist, or why if you don't vote for hillary you're a misogynist. Seems to me, you're right on the cusp of figuring out that there's a serious problem with a segment of the left, but you're hoping it'll go away before you have to call it out for being batshit insane.

There are "batshit insane" people in just about every group, but there are a hell of a lot of them on the right, at the moment. The problem is your examples of "batshit insane" are more dull, boring and petty than "insane", they're like the "Extreme" rice cakes of grievances. Call it what you want but it's still dry, stale and tasteless.

Comment Re:Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 1) 459

Land a probe on a comet? Fuck no, your shirt is sexist.

It was inappropriate and I would never had heard about the "shirt" if it wasn't for MRAs spending so much of their time complaining that they were offended that someone else somewhere else was offended by the shirt.

Two dudes joking over dongles? That's rape culture.

That was a (maybe not-so) tragic lesson for both the guy and the woman who got fired. She made a big deal over nothing, the company fired the one developer because he embarrassed the company and they already wanted to fire him (a sane employer wouldn't fire a good employee over a single minor incident), and the woman got fired for the backlash her actions caused (and rightly so, she deliberately and publicly made a fuss over a private conversation).

So I guess what I'm saying is if these are your biggest grievances, you should spend more time thinking about how good things must be for you, because if these pathetic examples of injustice are the biggest problems facing you, you don't have any problems at all.

Comment Re: Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 1) 459

Once the child is born, both parents are "forced" into "servitude for years" regardless of gender. However, since the woman has to spend 9 months as an incubator she gets final say on whether the child is born.

That is, of course, until we have early term fetus life support systems, in which case the man should be able to opt to become the sole parent if the woman chooses to terminate the pregnancy. Presumably, if that were possible, then a court could order that the woman pay parental support to the man.

Hurray for equality!

Comment Re:Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 1) 459

Abortion is indeed a deep question, and I would be all for making it illegal if the state incubated the fetus from conception and paid all costs involved in the raising of the resulting child.

That's not very Libertarian. In fact, it's downright Brave New World.

Actually it's not, because there would still be choice. The important thing here is that people aren't "forced" to be incubators and subjugated to a lifetime of servitude.

Uh, what? If you outlaw abortion under ANY terms, women ARE forced to be incubators. Your comment no logic.

Drinky, you need to read closely, the claim is that abortion should be outlawed if and only if, the state outlawing abortion can (without risking the life of the pregnant woman), remove the fetus. Once the fetus is removed, it is then becomes the duty of the state to maintain and grow the fetus using whatever incubator technology they have available.

The second poster claims that position is not libertarian, presumably because he assumes the first poster was talking about forcing all women to give up their pregnancies. I believe the original poster was saying that if the state wishes to pass a law that someone (or something) must be kept alive, then the state also has to be prepared to pay all of the costs (and I'm not just talking about monetary costs) associated with such a law.

The real point was that a Libertarian government should only outlaw abortion when the fetus can be safely removed and raised. Because if the fetus can't be raised external to the woman, then it's tantamount to abortion and if the fetus can't be removed then it's tantamount to a legal form of slavery for women. However, when the fetus can be removed from the woman in a non-abortive procedure, the fetus would become a ward of the state and the woman would no longer has any say in the life (or lack thereof) of the fetus because it is no longer a part of her body (and had been removed at her request). The prohibition on abortion then becomes a prohibition that prevents the attending physician from destroying the fetus after removal, which would actually be consistent with standard libertarian values.

Only a related note, if we outlawed abortion except for rape victims, you and I both know that virtually every rape victim would be challenged in court to make sure it was really rape. I mean, it was just a year or two ago that we had an American congressman opine that there weren't really any children born from rape because a woman couldn't actually get pregnant from "real" rape.

In the end, we can't have nice things because too much money is being spent on harassing and haranguing the victims of tragedy and not enough on developing the technology we actually need to make things better.

Comment Re:Butterfly Ballot not Supreme Court decided 2000 (Score 1) 634

The state-wide recounts are a fiction.

No, they are a fact. The don't become fiction because you don't like the results.

Gore never requested one.

I didn't say they did. However, at least one of Gore's lawyers said they were in the process of requesting one, when the Florida Supreme court ordered it be done anyway.

The Florida courts only ordered a partial recount of undervotes.

False, the U.S. Supreme court stopped a state-wide recount where the judge had ordered that over-votes also be counted.

The media never had all ballots to do an actual complete statewide recount, thousands of troublesome ballots were never delivered to the media.

I doubt the veracity of that statement, and a quick bit of research turned up nothing to corroborate the claim. It is likely to be false.

Comment Re:should be interesting (Score 1, Insightful) 327

But it is somewhat amusing to watch the racists and the feminists fight over it,

If it turns out the "racists" are correct in some fashion [], does that make them "racists"?

Fortunately for everyone but the racists, their claims are not even close to true. For example, the very prominent claim of a 300% increase in violent crime since 1975, does not seem to be born out by actual data, which seems to show a modest decrease in crime over that time period.

Comment Re:This guy gets it (Score 4, Funny) 668

Remember those little toys that babies are given to help them master spatial ideas? There might be a triangular piece, a circular piece, and a hexagonal piece, and a base with holes of the same shapes. A smart kid (whoops, off I go to PC jail) quickly sees that the circular piece will only fit into the circular hole, and so on.

Actually, the smart kid figures out that all the pieces go in very quickly if you take the top off...

Comment Re:Butterfly Ballot not Supreme Court decided 2000 (Score 1) 634

You missed the words "state-wide" in that sentence. The state-wide recounts showed Gore winning under all of the state-wide recount scenarios (there were other recount scenarios that weren't state-wide that Gore would have lost). Now Gore hadn't (yet) requested state wide recounts, although I remember reading an article where one of Gore's campaign lawyers said they were in the process of requesting a state-wide recount when the case was appealed to the supreme court. Apparently, you need to request a recount in each county individually in Florida, there is no way to request a state-wide recount directly.

Comment Re:Oh you mean just like when (Score 1) 634

Bush won the original count and each recount; the US Supreme Court prevented a fraud wherein Democrats would have forced recounts that continued until the Democrat won, at which point the recounts would have stopped.

I'm not even American, and I know that's not what the actual investigations showed. They showed that Gore would have won under a state-wide recount, but that a recount of just the precincts that had obvious problems would have still left Bush with a very narrow lead.

Other, some would say civilised, countries have rules that say when the result is that close it is mandatory to do a recount by hand with scrutineers from all interested parties present to verify the count, so that there is not even the appearance of corruption in their elections.

Comment Re:I'd love to see "None of the Above" (Score 1) 171

So basically, you're saying you expect there to be no acceptable candidates for any party ever (or any acceptable independents), and that the victor will always be the person acclaimed when the people are too tired of election campaigns to vote "none of the above" any more?

You would think that in subsequent rounds new candidates that aren't terribly might decide, hey, that position is up for grabs, maybe say to themselves "Hey, maybe I can get elected by not being completely terrible". I know, it's a long shot that anyone running for any political office for any reasons, in any time, or any place, could actually not be terrible, but for just a moment, let us live the dream...

Slashdot Top Deals

We all like praise, but a hike in our pay is the best kind of ways.