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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:What's the plan, Stan? (Score 3, Interesting) 199

it's absolutely necessary to have open fora -- and for platforms like Twitter etc. -- for the presentation of minority views

I agree. What does "open" mean though? For that to be meaningful the platform has to be moderated. The quality of the outcome correlates with the quality of the people involved. The fact that you think it's a silly viewpoint tells me that you lack experience in unmoderated discussions with large groups of hostile people. When you have 20 people all arguing slight variations of the same theme against you, and not reading your replies to other people, it's just a quagmire. If you have no way of "muting" most of the people, the exercise is pointless.

Slashdot is open enough for me and has great moderation because it's mostly great people who mostly value principles like free speech.

Comment Re:What's the plan, Stan? (Score 4, Insightful) 199

It's virtually impossible in an unmoderated forum. For instance if your opponents vastly outnumber you, your brilliant repudiations will largely go unnoticed due to the noise. Not to mention many people judge arguments based on apparent popularity. If lots of people are acting offended by what you say, regardless of the merit of your argument, there is a huge group of people who simply won't want to believe you because you're a troll/jerk/mean/whatever.

unless your own wack bullshit depends on similar constructions

Your own wack bullshit DOES depend on similar constructions! Unless you're only going to go out and argue the most basic, obvious things that virtually nobody disagrees with.

Comment Re:I don't see anything wrong with what he said (Score 2) 187

But then they don't have a lot of control over how that investment performs, Uber does. If Uber lowers the rate (as may have happened, it's unclear) you're suddenly getting a pay cut

Nobody has more control than that over how their investment performs. You see that right? Hey Warren Buffett just said people should invest in a low cost index fund.... but if I follow his advice, I might lose money. I don't control the S&P 500's performance.

Furthermore, why do you think the driver is fully reliant on Uber? I did a quick search and found http://therideshareguy.com/how...

Excerpt:

If you currently only drive for one TNC, you may be wondering why you would ever want to complicate your life by running two services at once. Well, running two apps at the same time actually increases your chances of getting a request and in turn will increase your earnings.

Can you explain to me why that's wrong? He goes on to say you should also sign up for a delivery service since those tend to have peak traffic times that complement ride sharing.

Comment Re: Dunno if (Score 1) 115

Feeling superior are we? Yes I called you a fucking idiot because nothing gets through to you. I love how you ignored everything I said because you were so distracted and offended by that, whereas you expect people to tolerate your own arrogance and smugness.

You can't explain it because you're wrong. That's it. In the world of hypothetical money, the government could charge you $1 million for something, anything. It's hypothetical. Yet they didn't. In your world that must be a subsidy.

If not, explain how it's not.

Pro-tip: you can't, because this analogy is quite good... the LACK of a legal requirement to pay something, either insurance for nuclear damage, or something else

It would be different if you WERE required to pay something but got a special dispensation not to. That's not hypothetical money because you can point to some people having to pay it and others not paying it.

You haven't addressed a single point I've made, but you feel superior because dumb shit like "I'm not going to argue with people who cannot understand that dollars are dollars" is more polite in your world than "fucking idiot." Fucking idiot.

Comment Re: Dunno if (Score 1) 115

What would be the difference between a company paying for 12 billion dollars of insurance coverage, and one paying for 10 or 20 times that?

Do you not understand numbers or something? You don't know the difference between X and 10X and 20X?

I would like that setup for say, my house insurance. Since we bought our place, it has trebled in value, and I have had to pay more every time it gets re-assessed.

No you don't. Once you own your home, you don't have to have homeowner's insurance at all. It's only your mortgage agreement with a bank that requires you to. Oh hey you learned something new!

A better example would be car insurance since it's legally required in order to drive on public roads. But hey look what do you know, car insurance does not require you to cover a worst case scenario! In my state it's $30k for bodily injury. Now can you use a few brain cells and come up with a situation where $30k wouldn't cover the medical fees for a car accident? Hm? On the other hand you probably ARE the kind of idiot who treats that lack of required unlimited insurance as a driving subsidy.

And as it turns out, there is a federal flood insurance program that does similarly to the Nuc industry exemption from liabilit

You're really not understanding the issue are you? Flood insurance protects the person who holds the policy. If your house floods, you get a new house. If you don't have flood insurance, you don't get a new house. The end.

Now what happens if there's a nuclear disaster? The insurance isn't to protect the company's assets, it's to protect the public. Flood insurance is a terrible analogy.

But I would indeed have about 20 thousand dollars sitting around that I would have not had to pay out over time if I could have been covered in the same way the nuc plants are covered.

Hey well since hypothetical money is real to you, guess what? You're a millionaire! Because the government *could* have a 90% tax rate! And it *could* assess a 100% asset tax every year. And it *could* require everybody to have a $10 million umbrella insurance policy just in case. And it *could* reverse the tax benefit of dependents so you pay $5 million for each child you have.

Wow! You have like literally millions of dollars of hypothetical money lying around! So that means you have millions of real dollars lying around right?

I'm not going to argue with people who cannot understand that dollars are dollars

Buddy, please explain it, because I really don't understand. Why don't you have $500 million in the bank, since the government could assess various fees totaling $500 million against you? You didn't have to pay that, so it should be just lying around unused right?

Explain, I'm soooo confused! Or I would be if I was a fucking idiot like you and thought hypothetical dollars were real.

Comment Re: Dunno if (Score 1) 115

And like I said, this limitation of liability applies to nearly everyone in the modern world. Debt slavery is gone. Debts are not passed to others. So we are all being subsidized by your logic, which is illogical.

Hey a homeless guy could start a fire in a big city and cause millions of dollars of damage. And he wouldn't have to pay a dime. So the government is subsidizing homeless guys to start fires!!! That's the equivalent of your logic. It's nonsense.

If there is money that you DO have to pay, and the government allows you to not pay it, then that could be considered a subsidy. But if it's money that you DO NOT have to pay, such as a $250 billion charge for Chernobyl, then it's nonsense to call that a subsidy. It was never owed or expected to be paid.

I totally agree with you.. this should not be hard to understand.

Comment Re: Dunno if (Score 1) 115

The limitation on liabilities isn't even "money that you don't have to pay." It's money that some groups (like Energy Fair) *wish* you had to pay. Otherwise, the maximum liability would be capped at the assets of the company anyway.

I mean I guess you consider that a subsidy, so actually everybody is being subsidized due to bankruptcy laws. That doesn't seem like a useful definition. It's worthless in fact.

Comment Re: Dunno if (Score 1) 115

Whoa, what? So you reject everything I said because I said "anti-nuclear"? Did you think I just applied that label because I assume they're anti-nuclear due to their use in the article? No, here's the wikipedia page about them: "Energy Fair in the United Kingdom is a group of six people leading a campaign that claims that the nuclear power industry receives unfair subsidies"

That's just what they do. They have tried to come up with every conceivable point to use against nuclear power, whether they are rational or not.

Either it was a poor assumption on your part, or you know better in which case you're just the type of person who enjoys living in their bubble. I mean really that's shocking, anybody interested in talking about pro OR anti nuclear power should not dismiss others for saying "pro" or "anti" -- it's like a joke.

Comment Re:you mean capitalism works? (Score 1) 372

I've always assumed it's some kind of tax scam. To take another example like medical costs.. an ER might have a negotiated rate with an insurance company that is 75% lower than what they charge an uninsured individual. My question is, does that mean if the uninsured person doesn't pay, the ER gets to write off the inflated price as bad debt? So in that case, boosting the price by 4x actually results in the write-off being profitable, assuming say 35% tax. In other words, hey we get to deduct $1000 against the profits we made on patients who paid, that's worth $350 to us, rather than hey we get to deduct $250 against the profits we made, that's worth $87.50 to us. But I don't know.

Comment Re: Dunno if (Score 1) 115

I've seen that list so there's an easy example to give you.

One of the largest subsidies is the cap on liabilities for nuclear accidents which the nuclear power industry has negotiated with governments. “Like car drivers, the operators of nuclear plants should be properly insured,” said Gerry Wolff, coordinator of the Energy Fair group. The group calculates that, "if nuclear operators were fully insured against the cost of nuclear disasters like those at Chernobyl and Fukushima, the price of nuclear electricity would rise by at least €0.14 per kWh and perhaps as much as €2.36, depending on assumptions made".

So an anti-nuclear group came up with some assumptions that make nuclear energy look bad. News at 11.

This is an example of what I'm talking about... this "subsidy" is actually not a payment to any fossil fuel producer or user.

Another one...

The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:

1. Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)

Now I don't know if you know anything about taxes, but foreign tax credits are not a subsidy to fossil fuels. They are part of the tax treaties we have with many many countries. I get a foreign tax credit every year (about $2... but hey...) for withheld taxes on dividends from foreign corporations that I hold in some mutual funds.

So yes, I'm sure that if Exxon is producing oil from Canada, and must pay a royalty to the Canadian province where it's happening and also to the Canadian federal government, they get an equivalent tax credit here... that's to prevent double taxation because otherwise they'd be paying taxes on the full price of a barrel of oil, when in reality up to half of it is directly given to Canada.

Slashdot Top Deals

Usage: fortune -P [-f] -a [xsz] Q: file [rKe9] -v6[+] file1 ...

Working...