Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: So...seriously... (Score 1) 131

good points.
Nonetheless I think there are emotions at play here and I would rather listen to a Japanese analyst.
Also I don't really buy into the 'people were gentlemen back then' idea.
The amount of public information available about a person 100 years ago is/was orders of magnitude less compared to today and thus more susceptible to 'curation'.

Comment Re: So...seriously... (Score 1) 131

I didn't mean fighting, literally.
Point is, they've been leading a successful and tough conventional war for years, and it appeared to be near conclusion by then. Maybe.
Then they say it was all the effort beforehand, and not the nukes. Yes I am questioning their integrity.

We are talking about a weapon that can be carried by a single airplane and level a city within seconds leaving many many ten thousands dead and a multiple of that injured. And the exposure to that weapon twice within days.

Claiming this experience had _NOTHING_ to do with the Japanese surrender, as LeMay did, is extraordinary (absurd). I don't see extraordinary evidence backing it up.
Claiming it was 'the scientists' who decided to drop the bomb is equally absurd.

Comment Re:I'm actually not that worried about it (Score 1) 301

I know I am late to the party, but I have seen this argument many times and it is wrong. In order to hit anybody in the face with a wrench, you need to find their present location, physically send out physical thugs with a physical wrench and do the face hitting. That is a lot of effort and it doesn't scale well. Plus, when all hell breaks loose, there is the option of resistance via second amendment or flight. When everybody's everything is a mere number in a database somewhere, things like 'freeze assets of everyone present at location X at time Y' (political rally or whatever) can be done in an automated fashion with basically zero effort required and zero order scaling. And there is no straightforward way of resistance or evasion. that is a significant difference. Another aspect of 'cashless' that I never see mentioned is the institution of negative interest imposed on deposits. When there is no cash the government can basically force you to spend your money.

Comment Re:And they prove it (Score 1) 314

I need toilet paper. Advertising has raised my awareness of the brands available and the attributes of their product

when you take information in advertising into account for a purchasing decision, that's a clear sign there are no real stakes involved.

So the GPs point is actually too specific. Advertising is for shit you don't need AND/OR don't give a fuck about.

Comment Re:Not funneled into (Score 1) 284

Any time you establish rules, people will figure out how to use those rules to their advantage.

that is why we need to have simple rules. You cannot game 2+2=4. Of course the federal tax code is 75 thousand pages for that very reason. So it can be gamed by those who have the means.

Tax based on profits? Tax based on sales? Tax based on cash hoard?

No. No. No.

Tax the corporations based on gross income. You know, just like you and I are. Very easy to track and audit. With the same tax rate for corporations and people.

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep the number of passes in a compiler to a minimum. -- D. Gries

Working...