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:Thanks, Trump! (Score 1) 154

Lick my balls, bro.

Buying "carbon credits" and the like don't mean that you're actually using sustainable energy. What happens when the wind plants and solar plants aren't producing? Covering average demand is ONLY covering average demand. Idiots.

Its an accounting trick. They are actually using energy produced by non-renewable generators much of the time. They are simply signing contracts and paying a bit more to say it comes from renewables. Meanwhile, every neighbor is using the exact same mix of power from the exact same generators. The only difference is the piece of paper..

No, there's a little more to it than that. The fact that they're paying more for renewable means that utilities can afford to invest in more renewable production. Buying renewable energy, even if it does get all mixed together with non-renewable in the grid, actually causes renewable energy production to be built out -- and eventually to replace non-renewable production.

Comment Re:No investment opportunities big enough (Score 1) 129

They can't pay it out as dividends without repatriating it, nor can they invest it in anything in the US.

So they bring it back and pay taxes on it, and pay the remainder as a dividend. Then they tell the shareholders they would have got more if not for those taxes and deflect the blame, easy peasy.

And their stock price would take a big hit as they reduced the assets on their balance sheet by a huge amount, to no benefit. Shareholders would be pissed, and the blame deflection would not work. At all.

Bottom line: the reason they have big piles of cash is because the US has the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world.

No, it's because the US has a pathetic tax structure that makes it easy to dodge taxes.

You don't know what you're talking about. The taxes we're talking about here are taxes that companies in most countries wouldn't pay at all. The US is nearly unique in trying to tax overseas profits.

Comment Re:US tax policy is NOT the problem for Apple (Score 1) 129

They don't have to repatriate it to do useful things with it. Believe it or not you can actually do interesting things outside the USA. I know right? Who knew?

Lose the snark. They already do about as much as they can with their cash outside of the US. There are a lot of reasons they keep the bulk of their operations in the US, and in Silicon Valley.

Have you wondered why Apple has taken out loans in recent years despite having gobs of cash and no actual need for the money?

No, I haven't wondered because it's blindingly obvious, and it's not the reason you state. The reason they do it is because they can borrow against overseas capital and use it to obtain cash for operations and growth in the US. It's a way of partially working around exactly the problem I described.

Over 50% of Apple's business is outside the US.

Revenues, yes. Operations, no.

The effective tax rate in the US for corporations is actually below the world average.

Only because many corporations have big writeoffs available due to depreciation, losses, etc. Apple already uses all of those to reduce their tax liability for US revenues. They'd pay full rate on money they repatriated.

I won't bother rebutting the remainder point by point, because it's all predicated on your above errors.

Comment Re:Music industry != artists (Score 4, Interesting) 54

I think artists of the progressive rock genre are ones that suffer most from streaming

I think they are probably among those who suffer least.

Artists in most of the less mainstream forms of rock have basically never made any money from royalties. Their album sales have always served primarily to feed fan interest in their live shows, and they've made most of their their money from merchandising at the shows. I'd expect prog rock to be in this category. And for artists who make most of their money from touring, YouTube is a *good* thing because it does an even better job of feeding fan interest, enabling a lot more interaction with fans. YouTube does this so well it's enabled artists who would never have made it in the old world to make a decent living with their music. One of my favorite examples is Lindsay Stirling, the dancing pop violinist. She actually makes considerable money from YouTube streaming (because she doesn't go through a label), and sells out concerts in respectable venues worldwide.

The artists who in decades past made their money from royalties rather than touring are the ones who are most hurt by streaming, because their contracts generally pay them a pittance of streaming revenues. On the other hand, the artists in question, the ones to generate massive royalties on album sales, are the big pop acts who are rolling in cash in spite of being ripped off by their labels.

Please don't interpret this as a defense of the labels. I spent a while writing a royalty calculation system for a big label, and it's crazy how much crap they get away with and how badly they rip off the artists, with or without streaming. They suck, and I'm rooting for artists to exploit YouTube, iTMS, Google Play, etc., and social media to reach their fans directly and cut the bloodsucking leeches out completely.

Comment Re: what about not giving a printer an public IP (Score -1) 78

If you want to be a technical asshole:

Telnet has 0 authentication built into it. It just connects you to a port and has some extensions to relay environment variables such as term type to the remote end. The remote host MAY use something like 'login' on most UNIXes to authenticate you after the fact, but it has nothing at all to do with the Telnet protocol.

FTP (by RFC) supports any authentication type, which is why you can use FTP securely when you use proper authentication protocols like say Kerberos. If you use plain text password for FTP on an unsecured network, yes it's unsafe. Kerborized FTP? At no point will you get my password because I never send it to the server! And if you DO get my ticket ... It's time sensitive and only valid ONCE ... Since you had to get it when I was using it ... That means the ticket you stole from me is worthless.

Now stop for a second and look in the mirror,. THAT is an epic fail. Wipe the arrogance off your smug face and you'll probably stop getting schooled by people who have forgotten more about security than your entire total sum of knowledge.

Comment Fix the illness not the symptons. (Score 1) 550

Are you seriously considering that the issue with the past election was how the votes were counted?

Let's say this, popular or electoral, the votes said "We don't want either candidate... period". They clearly screamed out that the American people were pissed off that these were the two options they were left with.

In 2016 there's simply no reason for electoral colleges anymore anyway. Do the popular vote and be done with it. The electoral college had logistical reasons.

I promise you that the electoral college and the popular vote are two perfectly bad ways of choosing a president since it depends on candidates running against each other like two professional wrestlers running up to a match. It's all nonsense and we have absolutely no idea who we're voting for anyway. How about scored debates. I mean really... do we really choose winners and loser and provide scores for witty remarks and snotty banter? Do we give points for "Your mamma so fat..." jokes? What the fucking hell was this all about?

Let's simply do away with campaigning. Let's ask voters to invest their campaign contributions into groups who will interview candidates and groups representing what we believe are our interests. Let's have the try and sit down and find out something about the candidates. Let's see if the candidates are qualified for the job. Let's see how the candidates would respond to role play scenarios dealing with politics, conflict, war, strife, etc... let's test them to see if they would actually do well in office.

As we get closer to an election, let's test them in real world scenarios and give them real white house responsibilities and see how they would handle it. Let's invite foreign dignitaries and leaders and identify how the candidates would mix with them. Let's ask them to select their prospective cabinet and test them to see how they would respond to a real or simulated military situation.

So, instead of pissing money away on idiots who just trash talk. Let's identify qualified candidates. Let's show the American people how they are likely to perform in their jobs. Let's test their cabinets. Then, let's try and decide which one would make a suitable president.

P.S. I know my solution isn't great. But after over a year of what I felt was a low budget reality TV show designed by the producers of the World Wrestling Federation (or whatever they're called now) , I just feel as if we are doing it wrong. The two party system and the entire vetting process of the primaries have failed the American people. I am grateful to both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton for showing us how low we have fallen. I hope it's not to late to try and make a difference in 4 years.

Comment Re:Bad is better than Worst (Score 2) 367

Depends. China is, apparently, a pretty nice place to live if you're relatively wealthy and are on the good side of the Party establishment. Trumps America will probably be quite similar. Going from one such country where you're on the wrong side of the people in power to one where you're on their right side is probably an improvement.

Comment Re:Why should this be surprising? (Score 1) 155

The problem with that idea is that internships are a two-way interview. You're judging the candidate, but they're also judging you as a place to work. If you give them a crappy experience and they still come and work for you then that tells you that they couldn't get a job anywhere else. Probably not the candidates that you actually want to hire.

Comment Re:Spinning even now (Score 1) 735

People who actually believe it are in the minority and are simpletons or mentally ill.

Yeah the problem with that, is even if that value is 1% or even 0.1%. That's a lot flipping people who suddenly have a reason to open fire on unsuspecting folks. That's not to say that they weren't already unhinged, it's just, why the heck do some feel the need to toss matches into lakes of gasoline? The lake of gasoline is bad enough as is, and yes most matches just get extinguished because they never hit a vapor before hitting the liquid. Still though, why rock the boat for the simple reason of f'ing with everyone? Where's the fun in it? I obviously will never understand 4chan.

Comment Re:No different from China (Score 1) 220

Once you reach a certain threshold of users, common carrier rules should apply.

That sounds like an issue of having clear rules. By all means might I redirect you to the US Congress website? I'm pretty sure that if the people who said they're tired of rules with the clarity of mud actually did something about that issue we might start getting lawmakers that actually thought out legislation rather than the typical knee jerk. But both the issue of people doing something about it and intelligent lawmakers are just wishful thinking.

Slashdot Top Deals

Hard work never killed anybody, but why take a chance? -- Charlie McCarthy