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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Is this sarc or are you this insane? (Score 1) 45

1. Trump's supposed collusion with Russia was based on anonymous sources + a "dossier" coocked up by a British former spy (Christopher Steele) and his Russian spy friends. The DoJ now admits in official docs that there was never anything backing this stuff up and that it was cooked up by the Clinton campaign. There was never ANY evidence of Trump Russia collusion. Period. The FBI had to lie to the FISA court to get permission to spy on Trump's 2016 campaign and even then they found NOTHING.

2. The kid in Kenosha murdered NOBODY (Murder is a specific term, and the kid was found not guilty in court). The Kid killed TWO people and badly injured a third. NONE of the three were "innocent" - indeed all three were assaulting HIM. One was a convicted rapist of underage boys, who was witnessed verbally threatening to kill the kid, then chased him and assaulted him before the kid shot him. The second was a woman beater, who also chased and physically assaulted the kid before being killed, and the wounded guy was a felon in illegal possession of a firearm who pointed a loaded pistol at the kid's head before the kid shot him in the arm. The kid was so obviously engaged in legitimate self defense that the prosecutors felt compelled to hide evidence, violate his constitutional rights, and dismiss pre-existing criminal charges against the wounded guy in an attempt to get SOME charge to stick against the kid - to the point of angering the DEMOCRAT judge. Before this incident, the kid had never been arrested in his life (and he tried to turn himself in to the cops immediately after the shooting) but ALL 3 OF THE PEOPLE HE SHOT WERE GUILTY OF PREVIOUS OFFENSES... and all were white in case you are one of those people who believed the "mainstream media" when they lied and told you the kid shot people of color.

It helps to watch actual congressional hearings and read the docs, and to watch the actual trial (where only actual evidence is admitted and people testify under oath), instead of listening to insane leftist meat puppets at CNN or MSDNC spinning fantasies, if you want to know what's actually happening.

The kid in Kenosha was committing a crime when he killed those people (he was 17, and crossed state lines to carry a firearm (not legal), and so, if the judge had not obviously been trying hard to prevent all the facts being used (ie refused to allow those killed to be referred to as "victims" but allowed them to be called "rioters", etc, refused to allow the video of the kid saying he couldn't wait to shoot people as that may influence the jury...no shit! Of course evidence will influence the jury, as does preventing evidence being used).

As for the false claims about the victims.. EVEN IF the claims you made were true, the kid wouldn't have known, and killing someone even if you find out after the fact they were a criminal is still illegal.

And I expect he will face the civil suits for the deaths (and as OJ discovered, a "Not Guilty" in a criminal trial does not result in a dismissal in the civil suit!). And there could be federal charges (after all he crossed state lines to do what he did), though I am surprised his mother was not charged as an accessory as she drove him there.

Comment Re:Good. (Score 1) 337

Whether you meant to or not you just proved why single-payer is unworkable. Thank you, all it took was a global plague for socialists to understand simple reality.

Except we have to pay for Medicare when we reach 65 in the U.S. The government forces you to cough up money to pay for something you don't use. So is that socialism? As a side note, using taxpayer money to prop up failing businesses is a type of socialism. We should cut that out as well.

Also, I've never been a fan of me paying for the medical bills of drug users, alcoholics, or the obese. They too have made their choice and should have to pay for it. The only ones the government should help with medical bills are those people either born with a medical condition or who acquire one in life, and this includes people losing limbs while on the job or in an accident. No one chooses to be born with spine bifida, no one wants to acquire MS or Alzheimer's, no one wants to be paralyzed.

I was going to say no one wants to have a hand removed, but then . . . At least it wasn't in the U.S.

Not accurate...Medicare Part A is free (covered by your Social Security), but Part B you have to pay for....if you decide to take it. Of course, if you delay taking it, the cost goes up every year you decline it. For some though, they have insurance through their job they can continue into retirement that works out cheaper than Medicare Part B, so they decline it when they hit the point to make the decision.

Comment Re: seven megawatts of power each month (Score 1) 172

They are bone-achingly poor, they lack running water, electricity, broadband internet, etc.

As an 'independent nation' they don't pay state or federal taxes or vote in State & federal elections, so they are cut-off from all sources of 'free money' from the government for infrastructure projects.

They are also US citizens and so can vote in State and Federal Elections.

The cut-off is that fed money tends to only really flow through the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Comment Re: That is how it works worldwide (Score 1) 190

Sounds like someone has no clue what being a civil servant is like.

1. Great benefits.
2. Decent Annual Leave, and separate Sick Leave earned from day 1. (plus all those sweet, sweet federal holidays)
3. Decent retirement plan

And depending on what you do and if you enjoy your career, you can work you way up the ladder and have a major impact along the way. And, auditors in the IRS make fairly decent money (I'd guess they are at least GS12 and above at full performance level), so depending on where you live it could be $100k easily. (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2021/general-schedule/) GS13 in DC pays over $100k to start.

Comment Re:Removing Late fees killed Blockbuster (Score 2) 135

When Blockbuster went to no late fees their sales dropped by 2/3. The reason being is when people returned their movies/games to not get late fees they tended to checkout new movies/games.

This could hurt libraries too. Although libraries are publicly funded if the number of books checked out is reduced by 2/3 it is possible their funding will be reduced.

Did you read what you posted? Blockbuster's rentals went up when they eliminated late fees. So, more people checked out movies. Sales were not the primary business model of Blockbuster.

Libraries business model is not sales. It is lending books. When those who have eliminated fines for late returns, etc see an increase in returned books and increase in usage of the library, then it appears to be beneficial for the business model of the library.

Comment Re:Well, it is "Artificial Ignorance" after all (Score 3, Insightful) 154

The Jim Crow Laws were NOT sponsored by Conservative Politicos!

The Jim Crow Laws were some of the most draconian laws, including surveilannce, that have ever been enacted.

The Jim Crow Laws were Democrat Laws --- you know, Democrats, Liberals, Progressives!

The Internment of the Japanese during WWII were NOT sponsored by Conservative Politicos!

The Internment of the Japanese during WWII were some of the most draconian laws, including surveilannce, that have ever been enacted.

The Internment of the Japanese during WWII were Democrat Laws --- you know, Democrats, Liberals, Progressives!

The Covid Vaccination Mandate were NOT sponsored by Conservative Politicos!

The Covid Vaccination Mandate were some of the most draconian surveilance laws that have ever been Ordered.

The Covid Vaccination Mandate was Ordered by Joe Biden, a Democrat, who is the POTUS!

Your broad brush statements that are not based in fact are not helping!

You forget the parties switch sides of the political spectrum in the 1960s as a result of the Civil Rights Act, and many Southern Democrats (aka the DIxiecrats), like Strom Thurmond switched parties, and then the Republicans went hard-core conservative despite being the party of Lincoln. So...perhaps you should learn a little US political history before ranting.

Comment Re:Example? (Score 1) 141

No, the illegal immigrant driver's license does not allow voting in state elections

I didn't say it did. Try to pay attention.

You did say this though:

No, he means driver's licenses for people in the country illegally. California does that. (Let's the vote in state elections, too, I believe)

Which does give the impression that is what you said.

Comment Re:Social Credit System (Score 1) 141

Can you site the part of the US Constitution that states only citizens have the vote, or even the part that makes voting a right? I've looked and didn't see it.
Canada, for example has it spelled out in our Charter of Rights that voting is one of the few rights that only applies to flesh and blood citizens. So all Canadians of age, with 2 exceptions (the head of Elections Canada and their deputy) can vote. Possibly if convicted of voter fraud, someone could also be banned at sentencing.

See the 15th, 19th, 24th , and 26th Amendments of the US Constitution:

15th: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

19th: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

24th: The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

26th: The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Note the specific use of the term "citizen" vs "people" in these amendments. The US Constitution uses the term "people" when it means everyone within the jurisdiction of the US, and "Citizen" when delineating specific rights only given to citizens.

Comment Re:Space is "high terrain" like it or not. (Score 1) 111

More importantly, if we had a Space Corps we could have had Space Marines. I can't believe we had the opportunity to have Space Marines and missed it!

They decided to call a member of the Space Force a "guardian", was "marine" taken? There's "soldier", "airman", "sailor", and...? I think that's all of them. ;^)

I find "guardian" both a bit silly and generic. For one a guardian, at least to me, implies an almost passive role. I'm thinking, "do not fire until fired upon" as opposed to a "go get 'em" attitude. That may be intentional. It's also a bit close to "guardsman" which is what I would call someone in the National Guard or Coast Guard. In the end aren't all members of the US military a "guardian"?

Technically, as I recall, a member of the Army National Guard is a soldier, and a member of the Air National Guard is an airman, neither a guardsman. Is a member of the Coast Guard also a sailor? A quick search of the internet came up with just more people asking the same question, and informal suggestions like "coastie".

It's all in good fun. As an Army veteran I have great respect for all that served and while they may not admit it readily we all know all of us answers to whomever occupies the Oval Office regardless of branch.

I believe the US Coast Guard is more para-military unless activated in wartime and seconded to the US Navy. And they are not part of DoD for legal reasons: The military is prevented from civilian law enforcement activities due to Posse Comitatus laws, whereas one of the Coast Guard's primary missions is civilian law enforcement.

Comment Re:Conflicts with a century of case law (Score 1) 67

This decision directly conflicts with over a century of case law that has, until now, said that government officials have no expectation of privacy, anywhere, in the performance of their official duties.

Please provide some citations. Personal browsing while on a break is NOT in the performance of their duties usually (though there as times I have browsed legal databases to get caught up on the latest in the area of law I work in. I am not a lawyer, but do work within a niche aspect of federal labor law).

While in public, government officials cannot expect privacy. However, case law does point to times where the public can be excluded from aspects of government work. For example, if a person is in a mediation for an EEO complaint, the public is not able to gain the transcripts or even witness the mediation live unless the parties in the mediation agree to it.

Or do you have a citation to a SCOTUS or lower court decision that says any and every aspect of a government employee's day at work may be observed by the public?

Comment Re:The judge is wrong (Score 1) 67

They are records of something civil servants were doing on the job, paid by our tax-money.

If they are wasting our taxes by surfing Pornhub, we have the right to know.

We are even allowed to request the videos and photos they take with their private phones while on the job.

I guess the judge doesn't want HIS history revealed.

No...Pornhub and the like are probably filtered out (most federal agencies tend to have both allowable and not-allowable lists on their network.

My personal phone? Get a warrant.

My government issued phone? File a FOIA request, and maybe the lawyers will allow it to be released, maybe not. I wouldn't care either way.

As far as a log of what I was doing while on the clock...do you need a list of every bathroom break, and what exactly was done? What about when I grab something to drink or eat on my break to take back to the office as I only have 15 minutes to do so between a couple of meetings, while I would otherwise be tied to my computer for back-to-back-to-back meetings? Need a list of everything I bought and consumed? What about if I checked my blood sugar? ...Sorry, one of the times when HIPAA comes into play...the agency can't release that, and I sure won't (I'll tell you to pound sand if I'm feeling polite).

Records have a legal definition (not what you want it to be), and as such, things that are Records have a retention requirement. If they are not a record, they can be deleted immediately legally.

Comment Re:If I were rich I would go (Score 1) 210

insurmountable medical debt. What we talking 200k, never really heard of number larger than that? How many years of additional taxes in the UK is 200k, 4 or 5 years for me, Medical debt if paid off in 5 years does not seem all that much of a life changer. Once you become 45 and have the timer running on the income years you will realize taxes and benefits are not better than long term investments and flexibility.

Let me introduce you to the concept called insurance. Medical insurance, Home Owners Insurances and Car Insurance protects people against critical event losses due to life's events, do they make you whole no way, do they covery 80% certainly do. If you are rich one pays these gladly because they are cheap compared to the potential losses in tort or uncovered medical event.

With proper medical insurance and reasonable expectations of loss someone who is "rich" has very little to fear except loss of earning power from a medical event. Taxes and cradle to grave government provided health care is inflexible, Life altering is covered by disability/income insurance and investment planning, that can be flexable for future outlook. I have nearly 65k in medical savings plan that was built up with less than 1% of my income and market index funds that I am betting I can cash out once I go on Medicare to cover any gaps in the program.

If you are rich, the best part of the US is you can vary your taxes paid on a year to year basis by deferring income. Both parties support you in doing that if you have not noticed.

You have no clue what such costs are. Prior to the ACA, insurance companies would drop you for exceeding a $ value in cost. Then you would have a pre-existing condition and couldn't get insurance. Or...prior to getting a job where you could afford insurance, a medical issue occurs, and suddenly, that becomes a pre-existing condition that precludes you getting coverage, or coverage is so expensive you can't afford it, or the insurance won't cover anything related to that.

Now compare this to a country with national health care...yes, you pay more in taxes, but it is less than you pay for medical insurance. AND, if you want medical insurance as well (to get in faster for elective procedures, have a private room, etc), you can and it is cheaper because you already have decent coverage for your health needs. (I've used both the US Military, private US and British NHS health systems in my lifetime...the NHS was as good as any in the US outside the concierge medical practices).

Transplants can result in costs well over a million dollars US, and as a result (if not insured, leads to bankruptcy or if insured, so much may not be covered you still end up with 6 figure debt). And with costs that high, some may forgo treatment to not put their families in debt and so death is the cheaper option. Even without such known issues, many in the US avoid going to the doctor or getting tests done due to the expense. This leads to people ending up in emergency rooms for problems which may have been easier and cheaper to treat if they had been seen earlier....but they couldn't afford this, so now are in even higher debt as a result.

In contrast, those with good coverage, especially those in places with national health care, get preventative care and early treatment. Which results in lower overall costs for everyone. Things that aren't a priority may require some waiting, but overall, people are healthier and have better long term outcomes due to early identification and intervention of issues.

As far as taxes go, most countries tax you on your earnings in the country, not on all earnings everywhere. Perhaps if the US closed the ability to move money out of the country and taxed as we did when even Reagan was president (though I'd go a little further back, perhaps to when he was pro-union), less need to try and grab money from those working and living overseas.

Comment Re:MOD PARENT INTERESTING (Score 1, Informative) 207

It was not meant to be a troll comment. Sexual harassment to HR means what you FELT, not what others think you meant by it. Apply the same tried and true principles that have been around for at least a year or two.

No,,,no it doesn't. Sexual Harassment has a legal definition. Only one word has any reference to how someone feels: "Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination and violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it occurs in the workplace. EEOC guidelines define sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

Submission to such conduct is a term or condition of an individual’s employment. The requirement may be stated outright or may be implicit, or implied.
Submission to or rejection of the conduct is a basis for employment decisions
Conduct of a sexual nature has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with work performance
Conduct of a sexual nature creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment."

So, if you do not make a sexual advance, request sexual favors or do any other actions of a sexual nature, then it is irrelevant to how someone feels about your actions. The reasonable person standard applies in the cases where it is not clear cut. ie. A bunch of coworkers are headed to a bar after work for happy hour. You ask someone in the cubicle next to you if they want to join the group. Not sexual harassment. You ask them to come back to your place after work for a drink...not sexual harassment. They say no but you continue to ask them after they said no...now you are in the realm of harassment.

Comment Re:You can't just call it UBI because you want to. (Score 1) 354

Poor of today may be fat due to the low quality food available to them. In some cases where a food desert exists (ie few grocery stores with small stores offering high priced items along with selling gas such as 7-11), the dollar menu at fast food places becomes a regular source of food/calories. Add in lack of transportation (or unreliable transportation), this get magnified. So, whenever groceries are able to be gotten, you will tend towards cheap, high-calorie items in order to make it last. This is also the reason why when rich politicians try to show how easy it is to live on the amount someone getting food stamps receives it is simply political theatre. After all, if you have a reliable car, access to several grocery stores within a short drive and they have a variety of fresh fruits, vegetables and meats, one can make nutritious meals...because they also have reliable fridges, stoves, etc. to do so.

If you have none of those things, you have to plan accordingly....more canned and dry goods to last you. Of course, buying in bulk helps...but only if you have enough money to do so and a place to store it. And so on. I've been fortunate and never been in the position the poor are in. Been close, but I had a decent job and benefits (junior enlisted in the military do not make that much, especially when I was at the E4 and below grades), and the benefits definitely took pressure off with regard to getting sick or injured. My meals may not have been fancy for a few days prior to payday...but I had healthy food and decent housing.

Perhaps universal healthcare would take enough pressure off the poor that they won't have to worry about getting sick (preventative care is way cheaper than dealing with major issues...early screening for cancer, diabetes, etc) or skipping needed medication (like insulin) to stretch it out in order to have enough to pay for food/rent/transportation, etc. Not saying we give everyone mansions and expensive cars, but seek to find ways to help folks move up vs simply trying to not die daily.

Comment Re: Trump's Armed Retard Insurrection (Score 1) 162

Breeding soldiers involves a 15-20 year lag, so I think you are wrong in how you describe the process.

We've been in Afghanistan and Iraq for that length of time....and you don't need cannon fodder to be that old (see plenty of child soldiers in war zones), all you need is someone who can carry a rifle and pull a 3-5lb trigger pull to fire the weapon. Put them on more modern systems, even less strength is needed.

Slashdot Top Deals

My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells down by the seashore.

Working...