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. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Let's be clear on what we mean by election hack (Score 1) 250

"Oh, get serious. The whole "superdelegate" apparatus exists only to thwart the will of the voters."

It's how parties work. They try to ensure that popular passions dont overwhelm the party based on emotions. Kind of like how republics work. They reflect the will of the people "smoothed out" over time -- just not when they are pissed off over something that recently occurred and likely to make poor choices until anger fades and they can make choices based more on ideals thought than feelings and reactions.

Comment Re:Maybe train the American kid first (Score 4, Insightful) 660

"A Trump America is an isolationist America- afraid of the world."

Because everything is black and white, right? Maybe making it a little harder to get through the door isn't "isolationism", but the word sure is cool to use, right? Filled with all the evil, nasty and ignorance implications you could possibly throw at a wall to see if any of it sticks. Protectionism, yes. Isolationism? No.

Clearly the fairly unfiltered commercial traffic since the 1990s has damaged the average American. It certainly sounds like Perot's "sucking sound" prophecy was spot on... Maybe THAT isn't the answer either. Maybe... just MAYBE be a bit more "protectionist" rather than letting all the water flow downhill.

Note: I didn't vote for Trump -- I think he's a psychopath with poor impulse control and he scares me. That doesn't mean at least some of the stuff coming out of his mouth isn't worth considering.

Comment Re:Externalities. (Score 1) 381

"$530.8 million in tax breaks, 11000 jobs eliminated, "

I can't speak to your specific example as I have no details, but what I will ask is this: Without the tax breaks how many jobs would have been eliminated or never created that much sooner?

So... one of the reasons why allowing "freebies" or whatever to companies is a bad idea that was included previously mentioned (by you, I believe) was of the strain on infrastructure the state/city will endure. Lets look at a few things:

o 50,000 people either unemployed or under employed (many likely receiving some type of state aid)
o current PA highway/road maintenance budget for the entire state is 170 million per year (
o expected tax income from 50k employees for the state of PA would be about $1200 per (at about $40k per employee at PAs income tax rate) + sales tax (6%-8%). That's a pretty huge chunk of change. Over $6 million per year.

So. We have over 6 million per year coming in to the state via income tax and probably at least a quarter again as much in sales tax on a LOW-BALL average income of $40k per year per employee. That's less than .4% of the population of PA (which is about 12million) providing about 3% of the entire transportation budget. I'm pretty sure that cancels out any concern about that. And that's not even including the increased sales tax.

Also, it would be difficult if not impossible to determine how much the state will no longer need to spend on assistance to who knows how many of these 50,000 possible newly hired folks -- but that just adds to the net gain to the state.

Comment Re:Externalities. (Score 1) 381

"So when a state 'forgives' taxes, it is just pushing it onto the existing residents"

Do the math. How much are the "existing residents" paying for 50,000 unemployed citizens? So it's not that they are paying zero -- they are a net NEGATIVE on the budget. If the math says it's cheaper to blow off BigBusinessX and lose a bunch of jobs and keep providing aid to unemployed or underemployed people so be it. I think the math would show something quite different, though.

" it ends up being a race to the bottom."

Welcome to the world of unintended consequences! Please sign in!

Comment Re:Sad to see Trump... (Score 0) 381

"By that logic, giving a company a billion dollar tax break in order to hire just one extra employee is a great deal."

Do you know what a "tax break" is? The state isn't GIVING the company 1 billion dollars... they aren't going to COLLECT 1 billion dollars. But they wont collect that money if they try to enforce it ANYWAY because the company would go somewhere tax friendly.

So, basically -- Yes. If the OPTION is to lose the company ENTIRELY (and all the OTHER jobs), then it IS a great deal for that one extra employee (plus KEEPING the existing employees).

However, we're talking about 50,000 NEW jobs at a NEW facility that doesn't exist. Do you want 50,000 x SOMENUMBER in tax revenue (sans any tax collection of the company employing the 50k people) or say "No Company X! You get no tax breaks!" and then you dont get either the revenue from the company *OR* the 50,000 people? And probably need to provide public assistance to those 50,000, too (which takes even MORE money out of the state budget which is FUNDED by tax dollars).


Comment Re:Sad to see Trump... (Score 0) 381

"How much is the State giving away in freebies of taxpayer money to subsidize these jobs?"

Math is interesting. If there are zero jobs, there is zero tax coming in to the state.

If there 50,000 jobs and the state has 50,000 employees each paying state income taxes and sales taxes on money they now have then YAY!. Does it REALLY matter that the state doesn't have money coming in from the company EMPLOYING these people (due to freebies and subsidies)? Because if it's too expensive, then these people will NOT be employed and the state gets a great 'ol goose egg on tax day.

So, what we've learned is that 50,000 x SOMETHING + zero (from corporation) is a bigger SOMETHING! And 50,000 x nothing + 0 (because the corporation wont build or employ anyone there) is a big goose egg.

Do the math.

Comment Re:Didn't think this was in doubt. (Score 1) 148

I know. I was replying to someone who indicated problems with digital broadcasts "because the reception was so spotty." I compared 20 year old streaming quality to poor quality broadcast digital. Which is true -- (20 year old streaming with modest bandwidth problems) it was watchable while digital broadcasts with modest reception problems is not.

Comment Re:Didn't think this was in doubt. (Score 1) 148

"So, it was better than digital broadcast TV displays?"

Quality of picture? Hello no. However, if the "signal" (slower bandwidth) was weak in Media Player or Real Player (or whatever), the most I would see was a "buffering" and a pause. On broadcast digital TV there's horrible artifacting, audio buzzes and skips that make the program unwatchable -- or it just doesn't come in at all.

Comment Re:Didn't think this was in doubt. (Score 2) 148

I saw the future 20+ years ago. I had DSL in an apartment rather than cable TV (I could afford one or the other -- not both). Antenna reception was crap. There were a bunch of sites that offered (then free) live video feeds (go go Real Video!). Local news, 1950's tv programming and even some cable programming. I lived that way for quite some time. Then I got married and wife just wanted to push a button and have the screen magically show what she wants to see. It was a few years ago when we finally got rid of cable again.

It wasn't 1080p, but a lot of it was about as good as an analog TV could display.

Comment Re:It's still version 1 (Score 2) 88

DirecTV Now does not require Silverlight on IOS. It does not require Silverlight on android. It does not require Silverlight on my Fire TV.

I was an original SlingTV user and I can say the trouble they had early on was worse than what I'm seeing on DirecTV Now. Except for the first 2 days. That was horrible.

Slashdot Top Deals

Things are not as simple as they seems at first. - Edward Thorp