Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment vOv (Score 1) 537

I don't care, I bought a bitcoin back in March, and just sold half of it for almost 10 times what I originally paid.
If the other half I still have drops in value, I'm still well up on the deal.
And to those who say "it's just numbers in a computer somewhere, it has no value!", all I've done is convert it to a slightly bigger number in my bank account, which is also just a number in a computer...

Comment Re:will it help against impluse eating? (Score 3, Interesting) 151

That kind of discipline is great, but our brains are hardwired to seek high calorie foods, to which snacks fit right in. Most people just aren't going to overcome the urge to eat too much at least some of the time.

Case in point, the country with the most fat people is the one with the most "all you can eat buffet"s. For most people, it is easier and better to simply limit the amount of temptation than it is to deal with that temptation when it is 10 feet away...and salty, and rich, and sweet, and chocolaty and....

Excuse me, need to grab a snack....

Comment Re:Orders of magnitude errors dont inspire confide (Score 1) 534

No, Karmshock is spot on. It would likely be easier to just put a tariff on polluter countries like China and India, unless those good can be shown to be at least "average" in CO2 output. Same with the US. There are plenty of green companies here, or relatively, the main polluters are the employees, not the employers. Driving cars.

And before people scream "tariffs are bad for developing countries", I would remind them that every imported item created lots of CO2 to cross the ocean to get here. Maybe all countries should charge an extra 4-8% tariff to encourage domestic production. Not enough to choke imports off, just just enough to encourage local production.

Comment As much as it pains me to say it... (Score 1) 504

...I actually agree with that she-bitch Feinstein that he shouldn't get clemency. However, that's where it ends for me. Not giving clemency is different than hunting down.

To me, leave the guy alone. Let him live out his life in whatever country he wants that isn't America, free from the threat of assassination or jail. The only caveat is he's lost his U.S. privileges. It's kinda like Wallace in Pulp Fiction: "You lost your L.A. privileges".

Here's my thing: he DID break the law. Now, me, I say he did it for the right reasons and I'm glad he did... but he still did leak classified information and that can't go unpunished. But, to me, the punishment of never being able to set foot in his home country again is plenty. I don't need him dead and I don't want him in jail. There's plenty of other nice countries out there Mr. Snowden- pick one and make it your home and enjoy the rest of your days. But you don't get to come back here either.

Comment Bad, bad stuff (Score 4, Interesting) 219

What these companies do is serially violate Wikipedia policies while padding with fluff or outright lies. I'm not against paid editing itself, and a few people do it without problems, but the more known companies have methods they use are purely deceptive and they cause a great deal of expense and problems because of the thousands of sockpuppets they create, and the hit and run methods. They are not doing this in an open and honest way, whatsoever.

Trust me. If I know anything, this I know, and I know it first hand from actually working the SPI cases.

Comment Re:Invulnerable? Really? (Score 1) 112

Nuclear weapons are designed to survive EMPs because there's a strong possibility that they will be used in an environment where other nuclear weapons are being detonated, either with intent to stop incoming weapons, or as part of a barrage.

So, yeah, they are expecting nukes to have to survive being nuked.

Comment Re:yep (Score 1) 671

Sorry, but you are clueless. They don't get a "tax benefit", other than they can write it off as a business expense, just as they already do for wages. The only advantage to the employer is that it is easier to keep good employees with reasonable health care. They don't get any other bonus writeoffs.

The EMPLOYEE gets a tax advantage, because before Obamacare, I could pay for my insurance using pre-tax dollars. Now I have to use post tax dollars. Instantly, my health insurance costs just shot up over 35% since that means I use dollars AFTER I pay Social Security, Federal Income tax and State income tax.

Comment Re:yep (Score 1, Informative) 671

OMG, holy cow and all that. Speaking as someone who has started and sold a couple of small businesses, I can promise you that Obamacare will NOT make it easier. There is even a tax for every employee, whether you have health insurance or not. Sorry to burst your bubble (and no matter how you feel about Obamacare in general) but more regulations do NOT make it easier to start a business, no matter what kind of regulations they are.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Working...