Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Still my money so yeah I can bitch (Score 1) 903

I could give 2 shits what other countries tax rates are, it's my money that i worked my ass off for, not the government to waste. We literally fought a revolution over this shit so stop trying to downplay it.

Understandable, but sometimes looking at how other people do things can be instructive. Maybe even worth one or two shits.

Comment Re:Yeah, well... (Score 1) 903

Healthcare is expensive at this scale. Canada's system is hybrid, with employers required to provide healthcare, and anyone not covered by that given single-payer coverage, meaning 73% of Canadian healthcare is private;

I'm only personally familiar with the systems in BC, Ontario, and Quebec in any detail, but I don't think that is at all accurate - you may be misreading or misinterpreting something. The provinical systems are publicly funded, with no requirement for employers to provide any coverage of any sort. The public system in most provinces does not cover out-of-hospital drug costs, dentistry, or optometric stuff. Funding for the public system comes out of general tax revenue, specific income taxes and/or individual required premiums collected by the province (BC charges $75/month, reduced for those with an income lower than about $42,000 I believe).

According to Wikipedia, "an estimated 75 percent of Canadian health care services are delivered privately, but funded publicly". Also, the non-covered items (drugs, eyes, teeth) and other non-covered stuff makes up about 27.6% of healthcare spending, but most Canadians (75%) are covered by "supplimental" medical insurance for these types of expenses - often provided by employers, but this is not required by law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Comment Re:Reminder: "Hacking" was mere illumination (Score 1) 312

In the same vein every major newspaper was trying for a year or so to "hack" the election with negative stories about Trump, most of which turned out to be false... so that was actually a lot worse than the Russians simply illuminating the truth.

This is probably my selective memory acting up. What were the negative stories about Trump which turned out to be false? Were there vastly different numbers of negative stories about Clinton? Were they substantively more or substantively less often false? Were these false stores products of the press either through outright fabrication or through poor reporting?

Comment Re: Working as intended: Exposing stupidity of soc (Score 1) 307

I'm not familiar with the details, but I know having an unrented apartment can have a positive impact on your taxes. Depending on what exactly you want, that might be enough to keep your apartment unrented until a suitable candidate comes along. Remember... In the "you have more than 15 apartments" scenario. The little landlord obviously can't afford this.

I think you overstate "can have a positive impact on your taxes". Your taxes will be lower if you have an unrented apartment because your income is lower when you have an unreneted apartment - lower income generally results in lower income tax.

So, yes, if you have a very high income, having a decrease in your income might be less of a problem than if you did not have a very high income to begin with, but it really isn't because "you can deduct unrented property as a loss".

Comment Re: Working as intended: Exposing stupidity of soc (Score 1) 307

Also, keep in mind you can deduce unrented property as a loss for tax purposes. (At least here you can)

I doubt it. You can certainly deduct the expenses (mortgage, tax, upkeep, depreciation, etc.) associated with those unreneted properties, but the not the value or purchase price.

Deducting expenses from your income, but they are still expenses, but not having expenses is better than havig expenses that are deductable, even though one's tax burden is higher.

Comment Re:Don't really understand constitutional law? (Score 1) 247

You don't really need the 5th unless you have commited a crime. While you might need to protect yourself from government overreach and snoopy police, the 5th literally only applies when you have commited a crime.

".... only applies when you are accused of a crime" might be more accurate. Or "only applies when you MIGHT be accused of a crime".

If you have video of a fake murder on your phone (like maybe you were planning on pitching a movie idea), and the actor winds up dead in the same manner, and you are called as a witness, and they ask for your phone data, you might want to "take the 5th", even without having committed or even being suspected of a crime. Of course, talk to a lawyer before doing anything else.

Comment Re:Why a threshold? (Score 1) 60

Why not just prioritize all traffic by previous traffic used per billing cycle? So light users generally get top prioritization and heavy users get gradually lower prioritization but nobody has to pick a number where it suddenly switches form one category to another.

I was thinking the same thing. When there is no congestion, everyone gets top speed, otherwise priotiize the lightest users. Heck - the light users probably won't make much of a dent in available bandwidth anyway.

Comment Re:The story of Geohot's autopilot (Score 1) 132

Currently the death rate is already largely random

No it isn't. There is some random elements, but it you're familiar with crash statistics, you'll know that once you take out the common factors such as alcohol, drugs, mobile phone use, fatigue, bad weather, speeding, faulty vehicle, health issues etc, the chances of death on the road drop dramatically.

You missed my point by chopping off what I said. Was that deliberate? It seems needlessly argumentative. The quote continued with "anyone who isn't a driver has virtually no control..."

I don't disagree with the useful information you have added to the discussion.

While you have some control over your own behaviour, your odds of encountering someone else being infleuenced by "the common factors such as alcohol, drugs, mobile phone use, fatigue, bad weather, speeding, faulty vehicle, health issues etc." are largely random - and even more so if you are not a driver. We often have an illusion of complete control over our destiny when we are behind the wheel. Autonomous systems seem likely to reduce many of these common factors in the other cars on the road, so I suspect they will become more common if they in fact do so.

Comment Re:Real Science! (Score 1) 181

Sure, welcome to the science of 2012! Unfortunately, that means it's not news.

Oh, I was going to say that!

Maybe in another five years we will have actual products that can be bought!

I saw back in the 1990s that some reasearcher had made some spoons coated with superhydrophobic coatings that he used as honey spoons - I would love to purchase something like that. I'm still waiting.

We're living in the future... maybe next year.

Comment Re:tech (Score 1) 224

Within a few percent of the speed of light is interesting. But even more interesting, and not stated is whether it is a few percent slower than light, or a few percent faster? I'll bet it is slower unless I hear otherwise.

The measurements don't give that detail. Of course all the theoretical underpinnings are based on "c" beinging the max speed in the universe, so I would not be one to take that bet, but I don't think there is as of yet any measurements that rule it out - it could be a tiny bit faster or slower than "c". My bet is that it is exactly "c" and that the graviton is a massless force carrier.

Slashdot Top Deals

//GO.SYSIN DD *, DOODAH, DOODAH

Working...