Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:CS is part of IT (Score 1) 520

In the company I work for, I am a software developer, and I work in the Product Development department. We also have an IT department which is responsible for maintaining the computer network and servicing the companies computer assets. So I work in Product Development, not IT. IT is a subset of computer, and CS is not programming it is the study of things, both practical and theoretical, that can be processed by computers. Stop being a jack ass.

Comment Re: US Ponzi (Score 1) 148

This is completely academic. The US is bankrupt. It is not possible to pay off our debt unless we do one of two things.

1. Default
2. Print the money to pay it, without borrowing the created money like we do right now

Why? A few reasons. For one reason there is more debt than there is money when you take into consideration the private debt as well. When you pay that much debt, reserves get drained and banks become insolvent, causing a classic fractional reserve deflationary spiral. That doesn't even take into account the 80 trillion in unfunded liabilities we have with the pension insurance program and others.

We're screwed. So we either default, or print the money. Borrowing it just keeps propagating and enforces the only two possible solutions.

Comment Re:Stupid slope (Score 1) 440

That all depends on the state you are in in the US. In Georgia, there is a stand your ground law. This states that if a person is threatening you or your property, you stand there and warn them that you intend to use deadly force if they continue, if you have the opportunity to do so, and if they continue to their threatening action you can engage, and be immune from criminal and civil penalties resulting. So the family won't be able to sue if it was found that you warned the person off, or you were not given the opportunity to if it was a swift attack.

Comment Re:Can someone explain (Score 1) 1239

We don't really pay off debt as much as we keep rolling it over to another set of bonds. The best analogy would be using one credit card to pay for another. It doesn't really matter at all though as we can not pay off the debt under our current monetary and banking system. Even if done slowly, it would be a massive deflationary event that would remove more reserves from banks than could possibly be made up for by reserves from the Fed, which would have to be paid back, and the system would collapse. That's the price we pay for fractional reserve accounting.

Comment Re:Normally - Equity (Score 1) 811

Umm, you've got a bit of a problem. The wealthy don't make their money through income. They make it through dividends, and business income, where they do not pay the 15% to social security, and all their expenses are pre-tax. The national sales tax would avoid this issue as all consumption would get taxed and the wealthy actually would pay a share, unlike now where their share is pathetically low.

Those who pay the most are high wage earners, like athletes, doctors, lawyers and the such. I do not consider those people wealthy as most of them still have to work to maintain their standard of living.

Comment Re:Um, we're broke? (Score 1) 760

We have a slight problem though. Our GDP numbers since Clinton are cooked. The calculation of GDP was changed so that increase in functionality but decrease in price were counted as net positives in the GDP numbers. So if a TV with a set of features sold for $500 one year, and the next that same TV sold for $300, for each of the TVs sold the second year, it would be considered a $200 boost to GDP. If looking at the prior way of calculating GDP it figures out to be less than 10%. Our GDP has been shrinking for a long time, and when counting in inflation (of which the government numbers are also cooked) you can see the complete erosion of the middle class. The only reason we brought our Debt to GDP ratio down after WW2 is we had a massive inflow of wealth from taking advantage of/rebuilding Europe.

Comment Re:judge cases (Score 1) 775

Are you kidding me? Judges are not supposed to rule on the constitutionally of a law? They are the last line of defense against laws which run contrary to, and destroy the rights and liberties defined in the constitution. So if the Congress passed a law, which the President signed, which stated that freedom of speech were officially abolished, the Supreme Court couldn't rule on its constitutionality? You're kidding? Please, please, please tell me you're kidding. If you are not joking, then is the only way to overturn an unjust law revolution?


Comment Re:Not the school's problem (Score 1) 319

Libel and slander are not criminal offenses. They are civil offenses. Your argument about what would be best for the family doesn't matter. The school should have no rights or authority over a student when not at school or a school event. This is a question of jurisdiction. I'm sure people would like to be tried for misdemeanor offenses by a US court when they do something stupid in Mexico, but it doesn't matter since they were not in the US and thus Mexico has jurisdiction. Here the act was committed off school grounds and not on school time. The school has no rights to enforce punishment.

Slashdot Top Deals

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman