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


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

Comment Re:We can afford to give away $30 Million (Score 1) 51

Dear employee:

As a way of thanking you for working hard for our company all year to help us be a success in our marketplace, we are giving other people a buttload of stuff on your behalf.

Hope you saved enough money so you could donate to a charity that you want to donate to, because, well, screw them.


The ABC Grinch

Comment Re:Problem is not liberal vs conservative (Score 1) 245

"if im reading correctly, they are buying the bonds with pre tax dollars."

Foreign earnings are only taxed by the US worldwide tax regime if they are repatriated to the US. Foreign earnings are, of course, taxed by the country where they are earned (generally by a territorial tax regime).

Comment Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . (Score 1) 245

Generally the corporations lobby, often with hard cash, for these laws that they've written

The Lift America Coalition (including large corporations like 3M, Cisco, Intel, Walmart, etc.) has been lobbying for a territorial corporate tax system rather than a worldwide corporate tax system, which would allow trillions of dollars of profits to be repatriated back to the US, but to date they have not been successful in getting Congress to change the corporate tax regime (which the majority of OECD countries have).

Comment Re:I Would Rather Go To Theatres (Score 1) 324

I had a bad experience back in 2007 watching JJ's "Star Trek" and my movie-viewing (in-theater) went way down after that.

I had a bad experience watching that movie, too, but it was because of the deliberate lens flare that some moron thought added to the realism and wouldn't destroy the illusion of reality. Every time you can trivially recognize that "there's a camera involved" you lose.

Comment Re:Depends on price (Score 1) 324

Do you really want to train your kids to spend their entire lives inside the same four walls?

If the only time your kids see the outside of your house is when you take them to the movies, there's already a problem.

And sure, why shouldn't they learn early how to live inside the same four walls? It will get them ready for when they are unemployed adults living in their parent's basement.

Comment Re:Depends on price (Score 1) 324

Sure you save a drive but otherwise why would you not go to the movies if it is the same price.

1. You save a drive, which is time and money.

2. You can watch it without being disturbed by those awful "other people" who might have a cellphone vibrate when they get a message.

3. You can have your cellphone set to play The Star Spangled Banner as a ringtone at full volume and not disturb other people.

4. You can have a beer or wine or hard liquor while watching the movie.

5. You can shag while watching the movie with impunity, barring other legal issues like age or consent.

6. Most important, you can watch the movie in your underwear and scratch whatever parts of your body you want to when you want to.

I think the intent of the question about paying more than a movie ticket price to see a current-run release at home is intended to allow those who to keep up with the water cooler chatter about current events a convenient way of doing that.

Comment Re:It wasn't tax free money being stashed (Score 1) 245

Wrong, federal bonds (government bonds) are taxable at the federal level, but not at the state or local level.

The point was that the foreign earnings were not being tax sheltered by the purchase of government bonds, which is what the summary alleged. But thank you for the correction.

Comment It wasn't tax free money being stashed (Score 1) 245

By taking advantage of a provision in the American tax code, Bloomberg says that Apple has "stashed much of its foreign earnings -- tax-free -- right here in the US, in part by purchasing government bonds."

The interest on government bonds is tax-free. The money used to buy them is what's left after paying taxes on it. I.e., the earnings were not exempt from taxes because they were used to buy bonds.

And "yawn."

Comment Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score 1) 68

All? Nope. Not everybody accepted it,

Sigh. In context, please. "All" refers to everyone who was subject to the process. The electors, for example. The people who voted knowing that they were picking electors who voted in the Electoral College.

I don't care if ignorant people who don't understand the Electoral College don't agree to what they tacitly approved of when they cast their ballots. I don't care if YOU don't accept it, because you don't define the process.

It's fascinating to watch the tiny minority of people who actually object trying to change the process after the fact when their candidate loses, but who are otherwise silent when it works out ok for them.

As a matter of fact, the right of revolution already exists, for example, in Kentucky:

The "right" of revolution wasn't under discussion. The right of the losers to jump up and down and shout and scream and get their losing candidate put into power in the US system of democracy was. That quote talks about the "power of the people", and this is the system in place, today, to represent those people. A vocal minority who don't like the result don't have the right to change the result, even if they have the right to scream about how the process should be changed.

Comment Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score 1) 68

Sorry... That wasn't civil and this reply isn't either- Boohoo, myself?

I replied using the same words you used with me. If that isn't civil, then deal with it.

and I'm only advocating respect

Boo hoo? Ok.

The pledge exists so that electors are forced to weigh their options carefully and avoid rash decisions.

The electors are selected by the voters. The names are on the ballot, the electors know who they are pledging to vote for. If they can't keep their pledge to vote for their candidate, then they shouldn't be electors in the first place.

They and those appealing to them are not subverting the process.

The process includes, in 26 states as I understand it, LAWS that require the electors to vote for the person that got them to the party. Taking these laws to court now is trying to subvert the process that was in place on election day and that was agreed to BY THE ELECTORS THEMSELVES. Not only did they get the job because they pledged to vote for the candidate they represent, they are, in many cases, required by law to do so.

Tell me that changing the law after the fact isn't subverting the process.

who fall victim to your lies

I'm so glad that you took the civil discourse pathway here. And if you can't detect it, that was sarcasm.

Comment Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score 3, Insightful) 68

First, look who's jumping down throats... Please keep it civil.

I've kept it civil, and I made that comment based on a posting history.

The electoral college was designed to allow electors the freedom to cast votes contrary to the pledge you've mentioned.

So the pledge to vote the way the voters of the state that elected them want them to means nothing. The fact that they are disenfranchising their voters means nothing.

And no, the system was not designed so that the results of other states are intended to influence the electors for anyplace else. Montana electors are not supposed to care what the voters in Oregon or California do. They're Montana's electors. And Ohio's electors are Ohio's, not New York's. Etc. etc. etc.

If you must complain, I recommend you direct your complaints at the actual process

I'm accepting the process. The complaints are directed towards those who think some fictional "popular vote" means something. Or a petition calling for a different result. Or a protest march calling for a different result.

So "boohoo" yourself.

Comment Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score 3, Insightful) 68

Why would you characterize what he described as 'subverting' the process?

Because the process is that those electors were elected to vote for a specific person. They pledged to do so when they were selected.

The rules of the process were designed to allow for those scenarios.

What are "those scenarios"? Protests in the streets demanding the overturn of the results? Petitions demanding the same? No, sorry. Those scenarios are not part of the process. We have elections, not mob rule. The "popular vote" cannot be one of those scenarios because there IS no popular vote defined as part of the process. It is a fiction. It is something used by people who lost the actual election to try to get the real results overturned. (And by those who "win" by a huge number as proof of a mandate -- just as silly.)

Interestingly, the states that have introduced penalties for electors who choose to vote their conscience are the ones who are trying to subvert the process.

What utter nonsense. Do you work for the Ministry of Truth? Were you someone Orwell warned us of?

The electors who are saying they will reject the result of their state are being the same hypocrites who claimed they would not support the Republican nominee, after demanding that Trump pledge that HE would support the Republican nominee when they expected him to lose.

Comment Re:Seriously? (Score 1) 252

Massive spending binge = inflation = a decrease in the value of the dollar, not a "surge"

You could have a rise in the value of the dollar relative to other currencies while at the same time domestic price levels rise.

But in general, that would be unusual with a floating currency, but it could happen with unusual capital controls and/or a pegged currency.

Comment Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score 4, Insightful) 68

The only election that counts has not occurred.

I realize that you love jumping down my throat for every little thing you can, but if "the only election that counts" has not occurred, then I am absolutely correct in saying that she has not won the only election that counts.

And I am well aware that there are people trying to subvert the process that was accepted by all prior to Election Day, but didn't turn out the way that some people wanted. The losers think they don't need to accept the loss and want the process to change so they win. Petitions have been signed! Protests have been held! Mob rule. How nice.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Never face facts; if you do, you'll never get up in the morning." -- Marlo Thomas