Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:No (Score 2) 399

Primarily, I think you've got several screws loose. I think the rich voted for Trump because of things like the estate tax...

This implies that rich and upper-middleclass people are stupid. 90% of Americans have a net worth < $1 million. 99.5% have a net worth < $11.8 Million. Under current tax law, you only pay federal estate taxes on the part of your net worth that exceeds $10.9 Million for 2016, which is automatically adjusted for inflation. That < 1% of the population obviously couldn't have elected trump on their own, so the rest of the rich and semi-rich who voted for him must either be stupid or naively optimistic about their future earning prospects. Even if the Democrats were in power and bumped the estate tax exemption down to the pre-Bush $1 million level, that's still only 10% of Americans who'd pay a penny in estate taxes.

Speculating about the higher order effects of how large structural changes in the tax code will effect the income distribution is akin to astrology, but the 1st order effects are clearly more beneficial for a small minority of the wealthiest Americans.

Note that this post isn't rhetorical. It's entirely possible that Trump voters did vote primarily on personal economics and fall into these three categories:

  • 1. Think Trump's tax policies will directly benefit them, but just can't or didn't bother to do the very simple math.(i.e. the stupid and the lazy)
  • 2. Understand that Trump's tax policies will lower taxes on people richer than them a lot more than it will lower taxes on them directly, but believe the higher-order effects will have a net benefit to them (i.e. trickle-down economics).
  • 3. Are really rich and will benefit from Trump's tax policies

I'm just saying that #3 is far too small a voting block to even move the needle in the popular or electoral college votes. If economics was a deciding factor for a significant number of voters, some combination of #1 and #2 were heavily involved.

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 399

He's already said he wants to get rid of safety and consumer-friendly regulations ...

And there's your answer. He WILL bring jobs back to America. His tariffs will raise prices and cause scarcity. One party control will abolish the minimum wage and the social safety net. Once we're all broke and desperate, deregulation will gut both OSHA and the EPA, making American labor competitive again. Then the incredibly wealthy elite like Trump can manufacture things at home while still increasing their share of GDP even faster than they did under the Democraps (which was pretty fast!)

Comment Slashdot leads the way (Score 1) 186

Slashdot has been making me less productive since before Twitter and Facebook were a gleam in the eye of Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg's eyes. And I've been using "well, it's technical, so maybe I'll meet someone or learn something" as an excuse to read slashdot the whole time. Doh! I'm doing it again, right now, as I type. Screw this trash. I'm done with it. I hereby give up caffeine too, since its clearly just a tool the Illuminati use to control us all.

Comment Re:Charge Apple with contributory neglegence? Morr (Score 1) 152

Probation? He needs a "thank you" from both Apple and whatever IT department manages 911. If they can't handle a 6000-phone oops by some kid, WTF do I pay my taxes for? When ISIS and foreign governments launch such attacks, they will be much larger scale and at much less opportune times that really do cause lots of death and mayhem. He basically just walked into their wide open front door and said, "hey, you left the door open". If he happened to track a bit of mud on the carpet on his way out, that seems like a small price to pay.

Comment Re:No, they didn't. (Score 4, Interesting) 1028

"Wipe out" is indeed what it would do.

Let's imagine this is a MIRV with 15 separate warheads, totaling 50 megatons, total (maybe). Let's imagine the targets are the following British cities: London, Bristol, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Birmingham, Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinborough, with the larger ones receiving two warheads.

Britain would basically cease to exist as a nation. So much damage would be done the economy would be non-functional. All the transport links in the country flow through those now destroyed cities, and that infrastructure would be destroyed. Every single piece of modern electronics in the country and in neighbouring countries that was not EMP hardened would no longer work, and everything (especially the transportation system) depends on all this stuff working. The prevailing south west winds would ensure that enough fallout would end up on surrounding areas adding to the casualties, and areas with nearby nuclear power stations would receive a lot of extra fallout. Just feeding the survivors with a barely functioning transportation system would be a logistical nightmare - ground transportation would be difficult thanks most of the major road and rail routes having been destroyed. Injured survivors would be left to fend for themselves - the entire capacity of the health service would be overwhelmed with the casualties of just one of the bombs. The electricity grid would be destroyed, even to the undamaged areas, it would be years before power was restored.

The survivors themselves, many of them would be suffering PTSD in the years afterwards, and virtually everyone will have lost friends and family and probably most of what they own in the attacks. What survived wouldn't be Britain, it would be a grotesque almost zombie like Britain with at best third world conditions for decades following.

Just because there are survivors and some land left untouched doesn't mean the country is effectively destroyed.

Comment Re: Hmm (Score 1) 1028

> You think Russia is going to bother bombing North Dakota?

Yes, absolutely North Dakota would be bombed, because that's where a bunch of American missile silos are, and Minot AFB. North Dakota might not exactly be carpet bombed but it would be the recipient of more and larger weapons than you might think.

> A nuclear war would be horrifying but it wouldn't wipe out all life on earth

No, but human life afterwards wouldn't be much fun for generations, and even after the planet had recovered, would be like pre-industrial times. A nuclear winter caused by an all out exchange would be deeply unpleasant and finish off most of the survivors. Industrial society would unlikely ever restart, given the lack of people and lack of easy to mine resources (to get much of the resources we use now requires an already existing high technology base, that would no longer exist after a catastrophic exchange of nuclear weapons).

Comment Re:Consistent with Semerian sources (Score 1) 232

It's all true, I was there where Nibiru (our mystery planet) and Tiamat (the remnant of which became Earth) collided. And it was a conspiracy too. I know because everyone's home insurance had a interplanetary collision exclusion. WTF! Why would they even put that in there -- unless they knew it was going to happen.

I knew I should have voted for Enlil. He may have been a bully, but at least he wasn't selling influence to the highest bidder like EA.

- Ashurbanipal

Comment Unique (Score 1) 412

Obviously Ecuador is meddling in the US election, but if they hadn't they'd be truly unique among nations. I'm not mad at Ecuador (or Russia if they were the source of leaked info) for hacking or disclosing this that and the other. I expect it. It's just some bits on disk somewhere. It's not like they shot a missile at us. That sort of think occurred long before the Internet, it's just less risky and at greater scale these days.

I just hope to high Heaven that our secret intelligence services have the capability to do the same.

Comment Re:Queue Monty Python (Score 1) 99

No, I meant that I figured there would be so many people wanting to make this monty python reference that there would be a queue to do so. How did I end up first in the queue? Why would anyone need to wait for a cue to make a Monty Python reference on slashdot?

No go back to eating your donuts (or doughnuts, if you prefer) grammar police.

Comment Queue Monty Python (Score 3, Funny) 99

Great Barrier Reef: I'm not quite dead yet!
Global Warming: 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
Science: Yes he is
Great Barrier Reef: I'm not
Science: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill
Great Barrier Reef: I'm getting better
Science: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.

How is it that no one beat me to this post here on slashdot?

Slashdot Top Deals

We are not a loved organization, but we are a respected one. -- John Fisher