Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:Correction... all AMERICAN millennials (Score 2) 495

From the Time article: 'The [New York] Times found that nearly 20% of Trump supporters did not approve of freeing the slaves, according to a January YouGov/Economist poll that asked respondents if they supported or disapproved of “the executive order that freed all slaves in the states that were in rebellion against the federal government”—Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.'

Of course, the more detailed results from says, "Of the 2,000 respondents, 53 percent said they strongly approved; 17 percent approved somewhat; 8 percent disapproved somewhat; 5 percent disapproved strongly; and 17 percent said they were not sure." So, 13% percentage disapproving was rounded up to "nearly 20%", but curiously the more accurate assertion that 30% did not approve was not used.

Furthermore, the suggests from related polling that perhaps the opposition was more towards executive orders in general, i.e., opposition to the means of freeing the slaves rather than the actual freeing of the slaves. It also suggests that liberal Republicans were more likely to be white supremacists than conservative Republicans and that similar survey results were seen before Trump's presidency. Also, without a comparable survey of Clinton supporters, it's not clear that the results are not simply reflective of Americans in general.

Comment Re:It's the content providers (Score 1) 209

People say that they don't want to pay for the big bundle of programming since they only want to watch a few specific shows. However, what they really mean is that want to pay less. If they could pay less and get the bundle, the complaints would largely vanish. The huge question is whether content production would be profitable at the consumer-desired price.

Comment Re:But why? (Score 1) 336

Tim Cook has been paid nearly $400 worth of Apple stock...

So almost 4 shares. Impressive.

What a few million shares between friends? :) Yes, he's been paid nearly $400 million in Apple stock, with another nearly $400 million in the next 5 years. That is definitely impressive, especially next to the measly $10 million or so for his salary.

Comment Re:But why? (Score 1) 336

What's so "incredible" about a $9 million salary for the CEO of one of the most valuable companies anywhere?

It's downright pedestrian compared to what many sports players get to throw a ball or make tackles, and it comes with a massively higher responsibility to boot.

Remember that Steve Job's salary was $1. Why? Because it's good PR, and it results in tremendous tax savings by shifting the income to capital gains. Tim Cook has been paid nearly $400 worth of Apple stock with another nearly $400 million upcoming in the next few years. His tax savings by paying capital gains taxes instead of income taxes will exceed his entire salary.

Comment Re:Blaming the wrong thing (Score 1) 103

About 5 years ago I stumbled across a full internal accounting report of a local school district online. The biggest expense wasn't teacher salaries, classroom supplies, or building construction and maintenance. It was administrative salaries. Think about that. The administrators at the school - the people who sit in offices, push paper, and rarely interact with parents or kids - take a bigger chunk of the school's budget than the teachers.

It's possible that your suggestion that administrators claim a lack of funds for supplies in order to garner government support for budget increases may be true. However, the assertion that administrator salaries are greater than that of teachers is not believable. For example, for my local school district in the previous school year, teacher salaries were $65.5 million versus $8.7 million for administrators. I'm confident that it's similar for the vast majority of school districts simply because there many more teachers than administrators, and while administrator salaries are usually larger than teacher salaries, the ratio of average administrator to teacher salaries is far lower than the ratio of teachers to administrators.

Comment Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . (Score 1) 267

Well, you made the claim that lawmakers wrote the law because of an ideological preference, and then implied that their ideology was irrelevant because it had secondary effects that the lawmakers did not (likely) anticipate.

I made no declarations about the intention of lawmakers, because they are irrelevant to my point. Additionally, the intention of lawmakers is also irrelevant, either directly or tangentially, for the companies. Companies based their decision on laws, regardless of the intention or motivation behind those laws.

Change the law to fit a different ideology - do away with the tax, for the sake of american workers - and by lucky coincidence, corporations will find it in their interest to repatriate a _massive_ amount of money.

Everybody wins but the politicians, who would rather drum up taxes by any other means than raising taxes on their constituents.

My main point was that companies will do what is in their best interests, and those interests are significantly affected by the relative tax offerings of all possible countries. The US could reduce its tax rate to zero, but if Ireland had a negative tax rate (i.e., a subsidy), the money would remain in Ireland. In fact, many cities, states, and countries compete on the basis of offering the highest negative tax rate.

Comment Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . (Score 1) 267

It's more ideological than you think.

If a US-educated, US-residing workforce designs a product, and that product is then sourced, manufactured, shipped, sold, serviced, and recycled, ENTIRELY overseas, how much of that profit is actually owed to the US government at all?

One could make a case that those US-educated US-residing employees are already paying the "fair burden" of tax dollars simply by raking in a boatload of cash from foreign shores and then paying a large hunk of that in income tax. Why call them dodgers, when you could call them heroes, because they are pulling money into the US economy without creating any wear on the local public infrastructure to source, manufacture, sell, service, or recycle anything.

But this is an entirely different issue about the fairness of tax policies. I was simply commenting about the economic incentives of the current reality. Apple dodges taxes because it can do so legally, not because it thinks the US scheme is unfair. If the US scheme were somehow fairer in Apple's eyes, would they abrogate their fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders to maximize corporate value and voluntarily decline to avail themselves of the Irish tax haven?

Comment Re:Google, Motorola, Intel . . . (Score 1) 267

Part of the issue is that the U.S. has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. If it were lowered, companies would probably be more willing to bring back money or not try to store it overseas because there would be no financial advantage towards doing so.

This is not correct. The entire issue is that there is at least one country in the entire world that is willing to levy a lower rate. The problem isn't that the rest of the EU countries have lower tax rates than the US, it's that Ireland has a much lower rate. The rest of the EU has zero impact on the Ireland situation (other than ostensibly complaining about Ireland's low rates).

The other issue is that there are advantages to operating in the US. If there weren't, these corporations would simply move entirely to Ireland or other tax havens. The immorality of the situation is that these companies want the benefits without paying the fees. Yes, I know that they're operating within the letter of the law, and I'm sure that the lawmakers wrote the law that way because they feel so strongly about the issue ideologically and not for any other reason ...

Comment Re:A new golden age (Score 1) 324

"China, will say, "Give us our money for all the bonds we've been buying from you." That then sends us into an economic depression as we have to come up with ways to pay those bondholders or do what Trump thinks is good business sense and throw up our hands and default. "

Which causes China's economy to tank. They simply will not do that when they rely on the US so heavily. They can't afford to.

The holders of US treasury bonds can't simply return them for a refund. They have to sell them to other buyers. So, there is no direct impact on the US federal budget. However, dumping a large number of bonds on the market puts downward pressure on the bonds, which increases the yield, which then in turn affects things like mortgage rates.

China has dumped large (tens of $ billions) in some months. However, they can't dump them too quickly or they would have to sell at a discount.

Comment Apple problem mostl or platform-independent issue? (Score 1) 121

That fake chargers cut corners that lead to unsafe designs is not a surprise. However, I wonder if Android devices suffer from a similar problem. Is there something inherent about the Apple design that leads to a higher probability of unsafe knock-offs, or is the current focus on Apple chargers simply a matter of more media attention devoted to Apple at the moment?

Comment Re:Great for China! (Score 1) 600

Difficulty: China considers Taiwan part of China and is trading with itself

Besides direct economic considerations, trade with China carries significant consequences for international relations. Almost half of Taiwan's exports are to China, and 1 million Taiwanese businesspeople live in China. This type of economic dependence has succeeded in exerting hegemonic influence with greater success than the 1500 missiles targeted at Taiwan.

Comment Re:So what? (Score 1) 472

When so many corporations get around their taxes completely, what can cuts do.

A lot. One of the reasons that corporate tax payments are so low is because the rates are so high, so corporations have a big incentive to lobby for loopholes, and pay accountants to exploit them. If they pay an accountant $80k, and he finds $81k of tax reduction, then it is worth it to the corporation to employ that accountant, but it is an $80k dead loss to society.

There is truth to this idea. Unfortunately, unless the tax rate is close to zero, i.e., less than the cost of a few accountants, the tax dodge will always be worthwhile. I.e., the motivation is not that the tax rates are so high. Rather, it's that they are above $0.

Comment Re:No beeping please (Score 1) 361

So in the first instance if you are using traffic noise as a proxy for determining whether it is safe to step out into the road your are a complete sociopath in my view and frankly if an EV runs you down serves you right.

No, not as a proxy but as an added sense. And furthermore, as an added sense that subconsciously triggers added vigilance. I teach this to my young kids when we come to an intersection, that they need to listen with their ears as a trigger to look for cars in a particular direction.

Comment Re:Customers vs. cattle (Score 1) 75

You're only seeing part of the picture.

Android isn't the product Google sells. Google search isn't the product. Gmail, Youtube, and all the other services Google provides are not the products that Google sells.

YOU are the product Google sells. The reason Google search is so awesome is so that YOU will use it, and Google can then sell your viewing of their page to advertisers. Same with Android, Youtube, Gmail, Drive, all of it.

I see this and completely agree. We are the cattle, to be fattened, slaughtered, and sold.

Comment Customers vs. cattle (Score 1) 75

"We never compromised the quality or relevance of the information we received. On the contrary, we improved it. That isn't 'favoring' -- that's listening to our customers."

Google is stating the truth. It's just that we have to keep in mind who Google's customers are. The vast majority of Google service users are cattle and not customers. We don't pay Google any money, and in return Google doesn't consider the impact of their actions on the general public. There are cases where Google interests coincidentally align with general public interests, but that's just coincidental. The drivers of Google actions are Google customers. I certainly wouldn't blame Google for fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities to their stockholders, but at the same time, it would be disingenuous of Google to claim that they aren't willfully harming the interests of their customers' competitors.

Of course, all of this is really tangential to the legal question at hand, which is whether Google is abusing it's dominant market position.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." -- The Wizard Of Oz