If for no other reason than I want the government to do as little as possible.

Do you object to anything specifically, or just what doesn't benefit you directly? Outside of something big like war, people who say this often object to social security or medical benefits for others (but not for themselves). Or they don't like funding schools in poorer districts (so long as their kids get a good education).

I'm not politically correct.

That phrase has little meaning outside of elderly people complaining they can't complain about black people, "the jews", "the gays", and women. Seriously, what do you even mean by that?

The U.S. is not Europe and we should be thankful, not embarrassed, for that fact.

How specifically? Do you not like their universal healthcare? Are you one of those fox news Republicans who are "scared of those Muslims"?

I don't believe in hateful divisions along lines of gender, race, heritage, education level, ... {insert wedge issue}, ... and I don't believe in a "class" system.

Are you saying you don't believe those divisions exist? That's denying the painful reality. Or are you saying that Democrats somehow divide people by acknowledging how some groups of people take advantage of others? For example how wealthy Republicans con poor Republicans into voting away their power by using wedge issues like gun control, abortion, and gay rights.

My life has not been so miserable as to make me long for "fundamental transformation" of the country I was born & raised in.

You basically just said "I haven't suffered, so to hell with those who have". This is wrong on two levels. First, it's selfish as hell. Second, it's short sighted and blind. You probably have suffered and just don't realize what you could have had. Imagine an America not held back by religious political football hindering scientific advancement. Or both parties greedily allowing the financial system - still in power - that wrecked the larger economy. When the economy tanks we all take a hit. Not to mention the cuts to education that might have already turned potential Einsteins into office drones.

Basically your prehistoric beliefs are holding the rest of us back, and we rightfully look at them as something to evolve past.

"Net Neutrality Campaign To Show What the Web Would Be Like With a "Slow Lane"" vs "No actual traffic will be slowed down".

It's a newsworthy and important topic that deserves a headline both inviting and accurate.

The discovery was made around June 22 by one of Mozilla's Web developers, Stormy Peters, Director of Developer Relations at Mozilla, said

Makes it sound like Stormy Peters is both the Director of Developer Relations and the developer who discovered the error.

This is entirely accurate. Full time jobs have in many cases given way to contracts. Then there are layoffs. It is a pretty cynical thing for a company to then turn around and judge people for being at a job for less than 5 years when a year or less is becoming far more common.

Same applies to blood transfusions and vaccines. Hell, private business pays for it by even paying you! So really, fuck you for giving a private corporation that much power over the lives of it's employees.

You need to shift your perspective. Nothing but contempt? Colleges are turning into trade factories, and that's a problem. There are HUGE societal benefits to the intellectual exploration that comes with college. We need to expand who has access to that! Universal college is a laudable goal.

In saying "6-figure debt makes it the point", you've made a mistake. Debt is a problem, and we need to address it. But the fact that college is too expensive doesn't mean you need to turn college into merely a stepping stone to a job. That's misguided.

Clarity please. Does the submitter mean competition? Legal challenges to the product? Logistical challenges with the products?

While there are a few reasons for not hiring Americans in general, and black Americans in particular -- is racism among them, considering they scour South Asia for candidates?

Sure. Someone could be racist towards a very specific group of people, vs racist in general.

That's a fascinating answer. I wonder if that data from the IRS is shared so that action could be taken? I imagine it isn't made public (imagine the uproar if it was) - so any sort of social pressure on companies for hiring practices wouldn't have data to go on.

No company is so big that it's a significant portion of the economy... at least in America.

- A big company hiring specialists in a field could constitute a significant portion of the market in a given city.

It's not as if it's a good-ole boy's club over at the googleplex.

Source for that statement? What if it turns out it is? Is that "none of the government's business"? Is it up to brave consumers to decide if we care or not, and apply market pressure on google by not buying their products?

If google and facebook could find qualified black (or American employees in general) employees, wouldn't they do that rather than importing people from India/Pakistan/$wherever?

No. That's part of the problem. There are plenty of qualified employees here. When you import people, you get two very nice things from a corporate perspective: 1. Lower cost. 2. More control.

Fear of getting their visa revoked makes these workers easier to bully and manipulate. And they will work for less. That is the reason big tech wants to look overseas, not a lack of talent stateside.

Which brings us back to the original point - if a company is systematically passing over people because they are (black, female, the wrong kind of christian, etc) - it's hard to do anything about it if they never release those stats. For a company as big as google or facebook, that kind of thing could really put a damper in a qualified person's ability to find a job and feed their family. So we need to decide as a society - does that bother us? If not, then business as usual. But if it does, then we need larger companies (at the very least) to report who they hire, so we can try our best to identify potential trouble.

How much did it cost to setup their infrastructure to produce these cars? It seems like it would be a loss if they don't sell any at all. Why wouldn't they raise the price? This sounds like it's more about politics than sound business decisions. That makes me question Sergio Marchionne's ability to run the company effectively.

I live here. $300 won't even get you a shared room unless you are very far from the city. Rent is crazy expensive, even in previously less expensive areas in Brooklyn and Queens. Plus there is little connection between what we pay in rent and the "social safety net", unless you want to stretch the impact of low rent housing on surrounding rents. No wonder the original post was as AC.

What amazes me is that anyone considers it ethical to impose restrictions upon the poor the wealthy do not have to deal with. Want society's support? You better be willing to uproot yourself and move or you are out of luck. Surely we can do better.

"Most humans will be lazy if you let them be." Citation Needed.

"In NYC the average person pays $300 plus a month in rent just to cover the social safety net" - I don't believe you. Source?

We DO have an idea what happened. Read rabtech's insightful comment: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Harassment claims are not always he said/she said things - that is a pretty gross generalization. In this case there were plenty of witnesses, as well as admissions (direct and tacit) from the company itself!