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

 



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

Comment Re:IRS can only pursue taxes on "income" (Score 1) 203

However, if this is an investigation of individuals, the Fourth doesn't apply because they're not searching the individual's effects. If it's an investigation of the exchange, then it isn't a general warrant.

The quotes from the investigators said they were wanting to see if any of the exchange users were using it to evade taxes. That's an investigation of the individuals. They did not say they were investigating the exchange because they had probable cause to believe the exchange was evading taxes. They have no specific probable cause to search the private financial data (papers and effects) of the individuals. It's a fishing expedition using a general warrant. That's the reality.

Of course, a Venn diagram of reality and the US legal system would show only a very modest area of intersection, particularly in more recent times.

Strat

Comment Re:Those who something, something (Score 1) 409

No idea where you get that idea. For a start I can go anywhere in the EU, moving from country to country without even a passport in many cases, and not being watched while I do it.

And I can travel from State to State within the United States just as easily. The EU is a collection of member-states as well and so similar travel freedoms are the norm there too.

What's your point?

Similarly, when I visit Japan I don't even need a visa, and no-one keeps "tabs" on me.

So there have been special agreements made between Japan and your nation/the EU. What about visitors to Japan from Somalia or Syria?

Corner/special cases where special agreements/arrangements have been made are not equivalent to general visa/immigration policies. Try again.

Strat

Comment Re:Those who something, something (Score 3, Insightful) 409

What does this have to do with immigration? Border controls are one thing, but you said "keep better tabs on", as in watch them once they are inside the country. That requires extensive surveillance. And not just immigrants, visitors too.

You don't even seem to understand the implication of what you are saying.

Apparently you've never traveled internationally much. Almost every other nation on the planet keeps far closer watch over people entering/visiting/immigrating to their countries and while they are there than does the US. The US has one of the most open and liberal immigration/visa systems of any nation and keeps far fewer tabs on them once here than almost any other nation.

You talk like implementing sane foreign visitation/immigration policies are equivalent to going full-'Big-Brother'. It's hyperventilating like yours that prevents rational debate. Of course, derailing rational debate may be the goal.

Strat

Comment Re:Liars will Liar (Score 1) 290

Typical Leftist response
Please enlighten me.
What is that supposed to mean?

In this context it refers to the typical response to inconvenient facts by those who are committed US Leftists of attempting to shout-down, censor, and/or silence those expressing them, a 'shoot-the-messenger' tactic commonly employed by those on the US political Left.

Why can I not have a political opinion without being labeled a "lefty" and why can I not be "left" without being supposed to have a particular opinion on a topic?

I ask the same question regarding being on the 'Right'. One need only scroll through responses to my past posts to see the mirror-image labeling and pigeon-holing being employed.

Strat

Comment Re:Those who something, something (Score 0) 409

I'd call it common sense to keep better tabs on visitors/new immigrants from such regions

Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

That lack of self-awareness must require Orwellian levels of doublethink.

Yes, because a sane and effective immigration policy is *exactly* the same as an Orwellian dystopia.

Do you realize how much of a wingnut that makes you sound like?

Don't worry, everything will be fine. Just put on another safety-pin and find a safe space and a comfort dog.

Strat

Comment Re:Those who something, something (Score 3, Informative) 409

PS. When exactly did you realise you were a fascist?

When exactly did you realize you have no intelligent or cognizant refutation and so chose to fall back on juvenile name-calling? Way to keep it classy, AmiMoJo!

And we do keep tabs on domestic gang members in places like Chicago and L.A. where gang violence is a problem. Police keep extensive records including photographic records of gang member's tatoos. Can we not demand at least this much scrutiny of people from regions known for terrorism asking to enter the US and who have no background data to speak of with which to vet them against?

Seeing as how one of the Federal Government's main duties is to secure national borders and screen those entering and all that, it seems like asking them to do that in a competent and effective way would be the farthest thing from 'controversial'.

Strat

Comment Re:Those who something, something (Score 4, Interesting) 409

I think I speak for anyone who's read a history book when I say this is an absolutely awful idea. I know Twitter gets a lot of stick but well done them. If you're in favour of this then you're a fascist or you're an idiot. There's literally no middle ground. This is how it starts.

This story is based on an NPR interview with Muzaffar Chishti who directs the Migration Policy Institute's office at NYU School of Law. So, we're talking about a Muslim professor at an extremely Left-wing university being interviewed by a Left-wing government-funded "news" service. Naturally there will be a balanced, fair, and unbiased tone regarding PE Trump in any reporting.

They noted that Trump has made a number of statements, many contradictory, regarding the influx of immigrants, refugees, and temporary-visa visitors from nations known for harboring and exporting radical Islamic terrorists.

Currently there are only minimal and mostly ineffective systems for vetting/screening these people and enforcing deportation of those who violate the conditions of their visas and/or overstay the temporary-visa limits. This IS a problem that needs to be addressed.

They were not discussing, as many here attempt to imply, that Trump wants to 'register' every Muslim, including US citizens who have lived here their whole lives. They are talking about recent/current immigrants and visa applicants from regions that many radical Islamic terrorists call home. I'd call it common sense to keep better tabs on visitors/new immigrants from such regions, particularly as (like with Somalia) there are often no criminal or other databases from those regions with which to vet them against, or to even verify where they were born.

If you think it's a good idea to just throw open the doors and let anyone into the US from those regions, can we place them all into your neighborhood/city? You may want to visit Londonistan and look around a bit before you answer.

Strat

Comment Re:Liars will Liar (Score 1) 290

And where is your evidence for that claim?

You're a funny guy!

Oh, wait...you were serious?

How is it that CAGW alarmists can basically wave their hands and repeat some sciencey-sounding BS and we're not supposed to question it because "science!" but on the other claw, opposing viewpoints are required to trot-out extraordinary levels and amounts of counter-evidence (that they then simply claim is funded by "big oil)?

You CAGW folks are the ones making extraordinary claims and demanding massive societal and economic changes. *You* are the ones that must produce the extraordinary levels and amounts of evidence if you expect to be taken seriously, and not just seen as using CAGW as a convenient propaganda tool to further your political and ideological agendas.

We're still waiting.

Typical Leftist response. Down-mod but don't refute. Because facts are stubborn things and are hard to refute.

That's fine, I've got enough karma to burn to raise global temps by 10C by New Years!

Strat

Comment Re:Liars will Liar (Score 0) 290

And where is your evidence for that claim?

You're a funny guy!

Oh, wait...you were serious?

How is it that CAGW alarmists can basically wave their hands and repeat some sciencey-sounding BS and we're not supposed to question it because "science!" but on the other claw, opposing viewpoints are required to trot-out extraordinary levels and amounts of counter-evidence (that they then simply claim is funded by "big oil)?

You CAGW folks are the ones making extraordinary claims and demanding massive societal and economic changes. *You* are the ones that must produce the extraordinary levels and amounts of evidence if you expect to be taken seriously, and not just seen as using CAGW as a convenient propaganda tool to further your political and ideological agendas.

We're still waiting.

Strat

Comment Re:IRS can only pursue taxes on "income" (Score 1) 203

Nope. This is not a presumption of guilt. This is a presumption that investigation is warranted, which is something entirely different.

Funny you should use the term "warranted".

"[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What probable cause, a well-defined term legally, do they have that each these other individuals have or are about to commit a specific crime? Remember, general warrants are forbidden. They are not even alleging that all are or are about to commit a crime, only that some may be committing a crime.

It's pretty obvious this is a fishing expedition, something most judges frown heavily upon.

If police discover a meth lab in a house on your block, it does not give police the right to search every house on your block. Even if every single other house is somehow discovered to have a meth lab, that still is not sufficient grounds to search *your* house, with no other evidence of a crime.

Strat

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 501

Actually, there is sharp growth from 1950 to 1970, after which point it becomes more-flattened. 33% of income spent on food in 1950, 15% in 1980, 13% in 2000. That's cutting it by more than half in 30 years, and then by barely 1/7th in 20 years.

The slower growth occurred when things stopped getting cheaper more-rapidly: growth was rapid in abundance and slow in scarcity.

Comment Re:Average income down, fewer people working (Score 1) 501

TFA is talking about a month-to-month report.

And the OP said:

These are not the hallmarks of a thriving economy. The US economy is in a sickly state, with too many part time jobs with no benefits. We need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot. The fact that the numbers look like an improvement is a bit like a doctor telling a patient wife that he's not sick any more. He's dead. The US needs to get healthy before it dies.

Are you telling me the OP's argument here is, "Oh my! The economy was healthy in October, but it is actually sicker in November! This is a crisis of immense magnitude! One month of severe illness is killing the US!" Was this OP's argument made in isolation of any trend leading up to the month of October, 2016?

Are you arguing that the above quote is about October 2016 to November 2016, with no prior context, rather than about the long-running state of the economy?

Comment Re:I appreciate using the correct Unemployment met (Score 1) 501

Even looking at take-home pay would blow that argument out of the water. The fact that we can buy more and better things than we could years or decades ago is an increase in real income.

Nobody wants to admit income is actually hard to measure, and that wage income doesn't tell you about buying power because the entire point of technical progress is to make the same things with less labor, and thus to employ the same wage-compensated hours to make more things and more-complex things. It sounds easy when I describe it in terms of wooden chairs versus chairs with cushions, but what happens when we get to talking about cars with fluid couplings versus cars with torsen differentials?

One day, we will have the same cars with self-driving modules in them. Look at Tesla: the self-driving hardware is already in the cars; you pay $2,000 for a software update. Building a car with a self-driving module versus building it without isn't flatly the cost of the module; it's also the cost of labor to make two different assemblies, and logistics to determine how many to supply of each. Those labor and logistics costs are so high in some cases that many cars with a heated seat option actually ship all seats heated, and simply don't install a heating port or connector on the seat itself--that way it gets built the same, and they simply skip a step. How do you gauge how much buying power you've gained now that a car with heated seats or a self-driving software program costs trivially-more than one without, when those things come with all cars and you only pay for the permission to use them?

Comment Re:Average income down, fewer people working (Score 1) 501

Arguing about long-term economic trends like incomes going up or down requires a long-term context. A context of one-month is like trying to describe climate change in terms of August to September.

GP even argued about inflation. How much inflation do you suppose happened--or was even measured--between October and November? For that matter, with holiday sales, wouldn't inflation over a few weeks be negative, if you picked the right weeks?

It's unreasonable to assume an economics discussion about the general state of the US economy is a short-term discussion. Unemployment rate falling segways into larger discussions quite-readily. If the discussion were meant to be in a one-month total context, then OP and GP are just morons; while I don't doubt they're terrible economists, I tend to doubt people are truly that stupid--usually those kinds of absolute retards have some sort of pathological mental illness and exhibit defense mechanisms that look an awful lot like, but are distinct from, schizophrenia.

Comment Re:MODS, GET A GRIP!!! (Score 1) 501

Person A: "Obama fucked everything up."

Person B: "Actually, looking at these numbers... he made things better."

Person C: "Person B is a moron and wrong. He used incorrect numbers."

Person D: "Oh, Person B is wrong. Obama fucked everything up, like Person A said."

You are Person C. You made the type of calculated argument that I would have intentionally developed if I wanted to mislead the reader into dismissing an argument without directly stating anything factually-incorrect. I responded the same way as any other reader: I interpreted your simple "you're wrong because your numbers are wrong" to incorporate "thus your conclusion is wrong"--the way every English language speaker who hasn't redone the analysis themselves would interpret it, because assuming you're not implying my conclusions are incorrect would be ludicrous.

My post is insightful and informative, because it shows that, in fact, Obama improved the economy--albeit a clerical error demonstrates that improvement to a lesser degree than actual. You argued that "every number is wrong or irrelevant" and that I should be modded down, without implying that the conclusions are correct. You either fully-understand that you're trying to convince others that Obama actually made shit worse, or you have zero ability to communicate clearly with other people and are probably considered some kind of weird-ass social failure--and likely don't even understand how awkward people find you.

Slashdot Top Deals

APL is a write-only language. I can write programs in APL, but I can't read any of them. -- Roy Keir

Working...