Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Oh boy, the media is not bias (Score 1) 66

Ha, you must be a time-traveler from the pre-SJW leftist era. These days the apeshit coming from the SJW left makes the old A.M. radio batshit coming from the right look positively sane.

It's a pretty bizarro world where liberals are now the ones screaming for banning free speech and bullying their opponents into silence. They've even managed to one-up conservatives on their conspiracy theories. I remember laughing after Obama's election when pawn shops were reporting a run on gun-buying from gun nuts convinced that Obama was coming for their guns. The I read a story recently about how there has been a run on birth control from crazy lefties convinced that Donald trump is coming for their birth control. Lol, same crazy, different day.

Comment Re:Milton Frieldman? (Score 1) 268

So.......we just had an article on Slashdot that showed there are more jobs in America now, at the end of the Obama administration, than there ever have been in the entire history of the US. More people working.

When do you expect that AI job reduction to actually start showing up in the numbers? That is, when do you think the number of jobs available will start decreasing instead of increasing?

Comment Re:IRS can only pursue taxes on "income" (Score 1) 201

Thanks to you input, I just had this revelation: https://slashdot.org/comments....

If the 1099 documentation is already being generated for the "sizable" transactions (I think the current lower limit to trigger reporting is $600 - but don't quote me) then there is only one purpose: "If they can get all the US taxpayers in the block chain and their bitcoin addresses, they can continue to erode the pseudo anonymity."

Comment Re:Why would this concern Trump? (Score 1) 182

There is the very slim possibility that he will ally himself with Putin and Assad and finally take an active role in actually fighting back against ISIS and the radical Islamic movement that has come to dominate the region since the "Arab Spring." I'd give it a 10-15% chance, tops.

Other than this slim hope, I suspect it will be more of the same. He'll continue to suck up to countries like Saudi Arabia and they'll keep funneling the oil money we give them to movements that want to destroy Western civilization. Russia, Iran and Syria will continue to be the only countries really fighting ISIS. Turkey will continue its descent from the lone beacon of modern civilization in the region into just another radicalized Sharia-authoritarian shithole. And Western Europe will continue to keep their fingers in their ears in their own dreamworld where Islam is just fine and Muslims can't wait to come to Europe to exchange hugs with feminists and gay people.

Comment IRS can only pursue taxes on "income" (Score 1) 201

There is no definition of income in the constitution, and there are a bunch of convoluted court rulings on income taxation. (It's not all that comes in.) This move by the IRS is (as I believe) to be unprecedented. It is effectively assuming that any american who traded bitcoin was evading the income tax without any evidence thereof. This presupposition of guilt is what makes it newsworthy. Anyone who traded btc is assumed to have evaded the tax, even though self-reporting is the obligation of the taxpayer always applies. Furthermore, the taxes due would only be on the profits of trading, just like a stock. But unlike a standard stock broker, a 1099-B would not be issued by coinbase automatically. It's not coinbase's responsibility to report, it's the taxpayers.

Good luck evading this one... the blockchain is public. Which begs the question... does the IRS have blockchain analysis tools?

Comment Re:Die (Score 1) 226

Well, it depends very greatly on whose definition of "harassment" they're going to use. There are plenty these days on the SJW left who define "harassment" as pretty much any public statement that disagrees with their views or challenges them in any way.

If they're just going to ban direct threats ("I'm going to kill you!"), doxxing, calls to violence ("We should go burn this guy's house down!"), etc. then I doubt most people would object.

If they're going to ban anyone who says "I think we should deport illegal immigrants" or "I support a border wall" that's a VERY different story.

It's also a very different story if they decide to get into the business of deciding what ideas and news are worthy and which aren't. One man's "conspiracy theory" or "fake news" is another man's "story that the mainstream media are ignoring, but shouldn't be." Right now, other media companies like Wikipedia are already beginning to ban "fake news" on the right, but not on the left. You can learn all about discredited pedophilia claims against Donald Trump, for example. But search Wikipedia for the equally dubious "Pizzagate" and you'll see that it's been blocked as "A conspiracy theory falsely claiming the existence of a child trafficking ring". It's that double standard that people are worried about.

It's hardly a secret that most of these media companies are located in SJW-central Silicon Valley and that their leadership skews radically left. So you would have to have your head buried pretty far into the sand to buy into the idea that they have any intention of applying their new censorship policies fairly.

Slashdot Top Deals

No line available at 300 baud.

Working...