Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re: How about (Score 1) 385

Well, yes, Obama could have fired Eric Holder, but despite not doing so, he got re-elected. If he was the head of a corporation and did something similar, I could choose to not do business with the corporation. I cannot choose to not do business with the U.S. government without moving out of the country, and even then I might still have to do business with it.

Comment Re: How about (Score 1) 385

It is amazing how many people seem to have forgotten what this thread is about. It is about whether it is better to have powerful corporations which I can chose not to do business with or a government which can theoretically be voted out of office. So, let's ask this another way. Which is easier? Not doing business with Comcast if I decide that their terms of service, price, and invasion of my privacy are not worth it in order to have access to the Internet? Or voting the government out of office in such a way as to actually change the DHS which I don't like for more or less the same reasons?
People seem to forget that if I am willing to do without the products or services a particular company provides, I can easily not do business with them. On the other hand, it is very hard to actually vote a change in the government (possible, but very hard).

Comment Re:Not all that new, but what is personal? (Score 1) 206

That is great, if you are talking about a business that will earn you hundreds of thousands of euros, but what if you anticipate that your business idea will bring in a dew thousand a year?

In fact the biggest complaint from the small business owners is usually that once the initial help package is used up, the "drop" in support tends to sink small business.../quote And right there, you point out the problem. Small businesses get that assistance and as a result have to become bigger than the entrepreneur is ready to handle so that when the assistance runs out, they do not yet have the skills and cash flow to maintain the business. As to wanting replacement income early, you exactly miss my point. I know full well that it is going to take a long time for a small business to earn a replacement income. That is exactly why I want to keep my regular job while I start a business. Government support will not, and cannot, solve the problem created by excessive government regulation. Regulation does NOT hurt big business. It never has and it never will.

Comment Re:Not all that new, but what is personal? (Score 1) 206

Wow, you have clearly never attempted to start a business. I have looked into several businesses. They were all things I could have easily started as part time and held done a full time job until they started bringing in enough money to replace my income. Unfortunately, it would have cost me more than I could afford to satisfy the government regulations and the business would not have provided enough income to cover those costs for several years.

Comment Re:Not all that new, but what is personal? (Score 1) 206

I do not interpret your words in the opposite way they are intended. I interpret your words on the basis of the consequences of the policies you espouse. The only way to avoid that is policies which drive up costs for consumers by eliminating competition from companies not based in a particular country.

Comment Re:Not all that new, but what is personal? (Score 1) 206

So, basically what you are saying is that you are OK with the world being dominated by large corporations that can afford to deal with the various and sundry regulations that exist only because the governments were able to convince the population that they needed more power in order to prevent those large corporations from dominating the world.

Comment Re:Not all that new, but what is personal? (Score 1) 206

Having read your posts further down, you appear to believe it is OK for the EU to extend at least some of their laws to people who do not live in the EU. So, if I post something to the Internet that is legal to post in my country, but is illegal to post in the EU, it is perfectly appropriate for the EU to consider me a criminal if someone in the EU reads it.
The basic problem is that you think of these laws as applying to big companies such as Google or Amazon, but forget that they also apply to a one-man operation that someone in the EU may make a purchase from. Under your concept of what is a good idea for laws, a company that is too small to afford a lawyer familiar with the laws of any particular country cannot do business with someone from that country without risking being considered in violation of that country's laws.

Comment Re:Blame Google. (Score 1) 239

The problem is that there is no reason for people like this guy to NOT take them to court over this, even if he does not qualify for being "forgotten". His reasons for wanting this article de-listed are important enough to him to be worth what it would cost him to challenge Google in court. Basically, there are no "efficient procedures that everybody can live with." No matter what procedures Google put in place, this guy, and people like him, would go to court. It is not worth Google's trouble to deal with that. While it is possible that the EU could put such procedures in place, Google cannot do so because, no matter what procedures they choose, people will challenge them in court.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close