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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Hit them back (Score 1) 783

In that situation, you probably would be paying 100 times more for your car, food and house. Because they're nicer. You see, if you have more money, you're going to get more benefit from it.

The guy who is earning 10000 a year might get a welfare check and foodstamps for his taxes, as well as some environmental and health protection. At 1000000 a year you'd be getting police protection of your stuff, military protection of your assets and investments, political power (that comes nearly free by virtue of just having the money), subsidies for your investments or business, the kind of stability that allows your business to even function, etc.

The other guy is likely to be hassled by the cops as much as protected by them. He has no foreign investments that require a powerful military and diplomatic structure for protection. A much smaller military would be sufficient to prevent invasion. Most of all any benefits that keep him alive and not starving are keeping your workers alive and well and not rioting outside your door. Like someone else around here said, taxes buy civilisation.

Comment Re:Logic Fail (Score 1) 382

How does the existence of the Tea Party illustrate that people are missing basic logic tools?....The basic point is that the government cannot continue to spend more than it takes in indefinitely without a collapse at some point. Raising taxes does not solve the problem.

The fact that you take this idiotic statement as a gospel truth -as indicated by the certainty with which you write it- illustrates the problem. If the rest of them think like that (and it seems they do) then you have proved GP's point. The first part is correct, sure, but the second statement wouldn't be worth responding to if it weren't such a depressingly common "fact".

Comment Re:Survival? (Score 2) 272

The point GP is making is that many of those diseases cause people or animals to act/move/look slightly "off", and noticing that was key to avoiding them and avoiding infection. The rabid person doesn't look normal. It's not so much a physical thing, it's a behavior thing which still plays into "appearance". It's perfectly natural that a revulsion reaction would be an evolutionary defense for this.

Likewise computer animations are often slightly "off" in the same way - the muscle groups may not work together like they should, or reactions may not be what we expect, or slower than usual.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." -- Rick Obidiah