Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Incorrect (Score 1) 174

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Without taxes, the wealthy and corporations mostly transfer wealth among themselves, and very little of it ever actually manages to trickle down. Perhaps you missed the memo, but "trickle down" economics doesn't work, and never has done.

I'm not supporting trickle down economics here, I'm just saying that Apple's $250B in cash would probably not be stuffed under a mattress. It would be doing SOMETHING in our economy (whether that benefits everyone or just the 1% is an open question) rather than doing something in someone else's economy, which is the current state.

IOW, this is a false dichotomy. "We need to tax that money to realize a return on society's investment" is all well and good, except for the fact that we're not actually taxing that money, Ireland[1] is.

[1] - Or the Cayman Islands, etc, but the point remains.

Comment Re:Incorrect (Score 1) 174

For the sake of argument, let's take everything you said as fact (both literally and morally). The status quo has all of that money (that our infrastructure enabled them to earn) leaving our nation to go elsewhere, and enrich other economies, so we're not benefiting from it at all (but we're still out the cost of the infrastructure).

I'm NOT suggestion that the tax rate here should be 0, but if it were, that money would be in our economy and working, thus a net benefit to us.

To put it another way, half an apple is better than no apple at all, and our tax code should realize that rather than levying punishing rates that absolutely NO ONE actually pays and discourages the repatriation of those funds.

Comment Re:Yeah so (Score 4, Interesting) 167

Up until the point that he got on the Hillary train, I had a LOT of respect for Sanders. You're right that most of his positions are close to "normal" for Democrats, but unlike most politicians, he was not trying to walk both sides of a line, and he was that rare (almost unique) straight shooter. He didn't hide behind weasel words, he didn't equivocate, he stated, simply, what his ideals were, and appeared to live by them.

When's the last time you heard ANYONE at his level of politics say something like "I have to get my tax returns from my wife, she does them" and then further find out that he's actually living on his Senate salary and not "speaking fees" or other similar near bribes?

I'm actually pretty upset over the whole thing--I would NEVER have voted for Sanders, because his politics are too far off from mine, but he was a politician I could admire... until he became just another party hack at convention time.

Comment Re:That's the last straw: TRUMP IS A TRAITOR (Score 1) 1004

The former hed of the CIA seems to take this pretty seriously. One does not commit treason even as sarcasm. It isn't funny, and at some point, this is taken pretty seriously.

Your copy of the constitution must have a different definition of treason than mine does (mine's pretty specific, and though people have LOVED to throw the word around for the last 15 years at both the Rs and the Ds at various times, very little of it has actually come even close, much less passed muster).

The really amusing part (to me) is all the people that are getting worked up shouting "treason" etc can't seem to remember that (according to Hillary) none of the contents of that server were classified or sensitive, the data in question is "missing or deleted," and that we're talking about a "personal email server" and not a computer belonging to the US government (a computer that doesn't even exist to be hacked anymore).

I stand behind my statement that this is manufactured controversy. "hey russia, you guys have those 30,000 emails that Hillary didn't turn over to the FBI?" is not an inducement to hack something--at best, it's a request to provide something they may have ALREADY hacked in the past. It's VERY obviously a dig at Hillary's other email problem, and pretty much anyone "viewing with alarm" right now is probably anti-Trump to some degree or another.

I can't believe I'm put in a position where I'm actually defending that walking carrot with a toupee, but the sheer lack of critical thinking involved in this "controversy" is mind boggling.

Comment Re:How were crimes solved before cell phones? (Score 1) 254

I'm not sure it was the Rosenbergs, but at least one major Atom Bomb spy was caught because of the breakable encryption he used.

You're point only makes sense if you think encryption started with smartphones.

Now, backdoors can be bad for a host of reasons, but that doesn't mean you should make easily-refuted points against them, instead of better ones.

Comment Re:It's a ridiculous JOKE (Score 1) 120

Such statements aren't usually wrong. Some superfast mass mover will exist on the ground. MagLev, or Hyperloop, or what-have you. Keep in mind, when poeple said, e.g. Da Vinci's ornithopter thing would never fly, they really meant heavier than air flight. And ewhile we got heavier than air flight, and his ornithopter can now be buitl, we primarily use planes or helicopters. The few ornithopters are built as toys. Likewise, while we may eventually be able to build a hyperloop, it seems likely that mag leve will beat it as super-fast people mover.

The statemnts that are normally wrong are theings where no competitor obviates the need before the technology matures.

Comment Re:Why not? (Score 1) 1004

I can predict he'll start isolationist trade policies (his only consistent position for 30+ years), that he'll prefer Putin to our historic allies (he's been working on Putin for Trump Tower - Moscow for 15 years), that he'll poison our relationship with Mexico (at least offically and for the length of his presidency), that he'll cause a crazy debt default incident (the Republicans already went half-way, and he's never said anything indicating he understands what works well for a casino doesn't work well for a country).

Is that sufficent?

And,yeah, Clinton's no prize. But if the worst that happens is she takes a few million bucks to pardon a tax cheat who already fled to a non-extradition country or gets eaten out in the Oval Office, I honestly don't care about those scandals.

Comment Re:How were crimes solved before cell phones? (Score 4, Funny) 254

That's how Billy the Kid got off... they tried him for shooting Sheriff William Brady, but he was acquitted because his iPhone was encrypted and they couldn't get at the data. They even tried getting Steve Jobs' great grandfather involved, but the sonofabitch insisted that he didn't even know what a cell phone was, much less how to remove the encryption from one.

Julius Rosenberg also went free because they couldn't decrypt his thumb drive to prove he was spying for the Soviets.

At least that's the impression I get from listening to these assholes whining that they can't spy on all of us 24/7.

Comment Re:Dear IOC, Barbara Streisand called (Score 1) 244

They don't care about unauthorized publicity. Their sponsors care about their exclusive rights.

But the IOC desperately wants any story on the games (other than "Rio will kill the athletes"), all press is good press, etc.

Long story short, giving the IOC the finger is good for their sponsors (they get publicity, but no backlash), good for the IOC (they get publicity for the games, sponsors happy), and not bad for the IOC (people mentally separate IOC from the games themselves - see FIFA governing body and World Cup)

Comment Re:That's the last straw: TRUMP IS A TRAITOR (Score 1) 1004

I don't think even Donald Trump is oblivious enough to suggest that someone should hack a server that was decommissioned years ago.

I'll agree that man does a fine job of de-calibrating sarcasm detectors, but I just don't understand how anyone can take this seriously. The idea that professional journalists are doing so (apparently it was played as straight news by CNN as their top story) does not pass the smell test with me, and (in my opinion) is just an excuse to manufacture controversy.

Comment Re:What's the legal basis? (Score 1) 244

If they're basing this on owning the copyright to the Olympics, this isn't going to work - owning a copyright on the name of a thing doesn't mean that you can prevent anyone from talking about your thing, just that nobody else can sell it. Lawsuits like this fail often - confused people think that they can use copyright to do more than control the right to copy...

They don't have to (and probably don't expect to) win, but they have the power to ruin anyone they choose to that violates their demand (they will simply sue them into the ground, regardless of merits, and their resources will significantly exceed that of their targets).

Slashdot Top Deals

The beer-cooled computer does not harm the ozone layer. -- John M. Ford, a.k.a. Dr. Mike