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 Say what now?? (Score 1) 186

Because it disrupts the competitive market

How doe s factory " disrupt the competitive market" in a market where most factories are winding down or closing? Where much factory and construction labor sits idle?

increasing costs for every other party

Are you writing this out of a fifty year old textbook or something? Give a concrete example of people who's costs increase when an Apple assembly factory is built in the U.S. Are you saying you are worried iPhone or Mac purchasers are going to have to pay a bit more?

It disrupts the revenue of better managed companies that are not reliant on tax breaks

SLAP. Back to reality, this is a FACTORY. It's not building anything that "better managed companies" are selling because there is no U.S. competition for Apple at this point... are you worried abut the "better managed company" Samsung???

An Apple factory would mean no less in taxes being paid by other companies and would mean more government revenue from Apple, along with many, many more jobs (some permanent). You have to be eight shades of crazy to look at that and not be pleased.

Comment Re:127 Mill Maintenance robot vs 4 Billion AF1 (Score 1) 29

Well, it's actually $3.75 billion. And it's not one, but two aircraft, so that's 1.875 billion apiece. That's to ensure the executive branch can function in a military crisis while one of the planes is being service.

Deduct 375 million apiece for the airframe, and we're talking 1.5 billion dollars in customization for each aircraft, including aerial refueling capabilities, which on a two-off job is a craft job; no economies of scale. Add defense and countermeasure capabilities that Air Force is extremely close-lipped about. Is there a actual escape pod on Air Force One like in the movie? Well probably not, but I'm sure the idea was at least contemplated. However it's pretty certain that if someone locks onto AF1 with a targeting radar the aircraft will have options that a stock 747-8 doesn't.

Next outfit each one so it can function as a replacement for the West Wing and the Situation Room for up to two months -- that's a deducible requirement based on the known fact that the aircraft stores 2000 meals for 100 people. That means three-of-a-kind electronics and communications systems (one for each airframe and one for the actual White House).

Is 3.75 billion too much for that? Probably. But it's hard to think of any weapon development program since WW2 that is less extravagant.

By that standard 127 million for an orbital repair robot is an almost inconceivable bargain, even if you factor in a 5x cost overrun.

Comment Tax breaks implies paying some taxes (Score 2) 186

Right now how much does the government get in taxes from a factory that does not exist?

$0

After the factory is built, let's say the government gets just $1 a year in taxes from the factory. How is that not still better than today? And of course we know the company will be paying more that that...

If tax breaks mean the factory, and the jobs to build it, and the jobs to maintain it, and the jobs created by shipping material in and products out, gets built how is that not inherently better no matter what "tax breaks" are given?

Comment Re:Oh murrrrder! (Score 1) 81

"Troll" Such puerile little crybabies with mod points...

I think that a lot of people with mod points are just searching pages for the word "fake" then modding the post down.

I've made obvious jokes with the word fake in it that get modded as troll. And fustakrakich's post was obviously in that middle ground between a joke and insightful, and it gets the same treatment.

Perhaps the moderators would be better used to mod down the anal sex haiku and the endless screwed your mother quips.

But then - that's none of my business.

Comment Re:#1TermDonald (Score 1) 367

Though you appear to decry use of derogatory nicknames, it is among the rhetorical tactics of the apparent President-elect.* During his campaign, he used such a nickname for each of his opponents: Low-Energy Jeb, Little Marco, 1 for 38 Kasich, Lyin' Ted (which some of his supporters attempted to reclaim as Lion Ted), and Crooked Hillary. Now watch leftards turn the practice back at "One-Term Donald".

* Faithless electors could yet keep Mr. Trump from officially becoming President-elect on December 19. There are eight so far.

There is actually one, not eight. The seven people who already were not going to vote for Trump (because they're pledged to Hillary) don't count.

That said, "One Term Donald" sounds like a great nickname. Here's hoping.

Comment Re:I do not! (Score 1) 367

And here again we see the goddamn problem. You're presented with a fair argument, outlined in easy-to-reply-to numbers, and your only response is "bu-bu-but Hillary lol."

That's a human thing, not a conservative thing. Ask almost anybody about the horrible thing that $PERSON_THEY_SUPPORT did, and the answer is almost ALWAYS going to be, "but $OTHER_GUY did the same thing!" Ask them about something they personally did, and they'll complain about something you did. It comes down to education (or lack thereof) and emotion--most people cannot think critically anymore, have no desire to do so, and allow their emotions to rule their arguments.

Conservatives used to make serious arguments, sometimes reasonable, sometimes specious. Not anymore. What the fuck happened?

Again, same problem on both sides. The arguments on the conservative side are largely devolving into conspiracy theories, while the arguments on the liberal side these days largely consist of repeating the words "you racist, misogynist, fuck!" over and over.

I'm not being entirely fair--there are quite a few people on both sides that still make really good arguments. But their numbers are relatively small, and their signal is being lost in the sea of noise. The conservative thinkers appear to be letting this go because their side is (currently) "winning." The liberal thinkers appear to be letting this go because if they open their mouths, they'll be ripped apart by the shrieking hordes of SJWs.

Comment An Actual Comment About the Article (Score 1) 70

Since every other post seems to be eye-rollinging inept trolls or meta-commentary about gender along the full spectrums, I thought I'd actually pos about the content since I read most of the article before I saw it on Slashdot...

It's more interesting than you might think as the people polled are from different technical fields, so the answers are a lot more varied than you usually get in a predictive piece.

If you take a step back though what is really interesting is how much the whole thing together looks like the parable of the blind men and the elephant, each describing only the part they could feel.. The actual future we reach by 2027 will be a really odd mash of all the answers given, where a breakthrough in any number of fields could change the dominance of one answers probability over the others..

Personally I hold out for the dark horse of computational biology taking the forefront by 2027. Perhaps that ship at the end of System Shock 2 was... US!

Comment You have got to be joking (Score 2) 70

*virtue_signal*I don't mind these are all women, I think it's great.*virtue_signal*

However, how many times on Facebook now have I seen an image of "Tumps Economic Team" noting that it's all men and a few of them named Steve to boot? (Never mind that he has already appointed a few women for various roles, or that he won the election because of a team of women)

You seriously do not think MS would be roasted if in this ay and age they came out with a think piece like this, all from men?

Heck, you are doing that RIGHT NOW.

Comment Re: Stop calling it "skepticism". (Score 3, Interesting) 367

The history of greenhouse effect theory is interesting and well worth reading up on. It was first raised as a possibility in the 1890s, but rejected quickly based on two erroneous beliefs: (1) that the oceans would rapidly absorb any increase in atmospheric CO2 and (2) that the absorption spectra of water vapor and CO2 mostly overlapped. Together these implied that CO2 could not increase in the atmosphere, and even if it did it could not capture any heat that water vapor wouldn't have anyway.

There are a lot of twists and turns in the story, which Wikipedia does a pretty good job of summarizing. I highly recommend reading that article.

Slashdot Top Deals

"...a most excellent barbarian ... Genghis Kahn!" -- _Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure_

Working...