Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:The US needs a loser-pays legal system (Score 2) 136

Why not make the losing plaintiffs the lesser of the 2 legal bills? Big corp sues small guy. Small guy wins. Big corp pays his costs.

Small guy sues big corp. Small guy loses. Small guy pays the equivalent of his legal bills to the big corp.

That way, overspending isn't covered.

So, BigMegaCorp fucks you over and you sue them. They can afford to throw more lawyers at you and you lose. This happens. A lot.

It isn't bad enough that BigMegaCorp fucked you, now you get to pay extra for getting fucked.

Comment Re:non news (Score 1) 288

Actually this really is non-news. For as long as I can remember, . . at least back to the early 90s . . . HP has regularly announced big layoffs. Every few years they announce that they are getting rid of 10,000-15,000 people, and yet, the total number of people working for HP doesn't go down. The truth is, while all these alleged layoffs are going on, HP continues to hire people.

It used to be that layoffs were bad. it meant that your business wasn't doing well. But now, everyone does The Dance of the Big Business. Stock price is down? Announce big layoffs. Wall Street loves that and your stock will go up. And then you just quietly hire more.

Comment Re:Why would anyone want it? (Score 2) 254

They don't know, that in the real world, people actually WANT advertising. That's why people buy things like newspapers and magazines, BECAUSE of the ads.

Wrong.

In the days before the World Wide Web existed I bought Computer Shopper magazine for the ads (the whole magazine was 95% ads). But that's the rare exception. People DO NOT want ads and they especially do not want the annoying, obnoxious ads that have become so prevalent.

Comment Re:Correlation vs correlation (Score 1, Insightful) 433

OK, so "there has been no significant correlation between successful strikes and a reduction in al-Qaeda attacks".

Am I the only one thinking things might have been much worse if no terrorist leaders had been taken out at all?

If there is no significant correlation between successful strikes and a reduction in al-Qaeda attacks, then, no, things wouldn't be worse. It would be the same.

The bigger issue that no one wants to admit is that we are dealing lunatics and engaging them, is a mistake. During World War II, both Germany and Japan eventually admitted defeat and gave up. But that's because you were dealing with people who were somewhat rational. The people we are dealing with today are literally insane. No amount of military action will ever convince them to quit. As a result, You only have 2 choices:

Kill every last one of them

Contain and isolate them

Comment Re:That sounds like great news (Score 5, Insightful) 626

Saving the common people several billions a year would send nothing but good vibrations up the economic chain. Yeah, some cops may lose their jobs, but the billions extra that people would have every year means other jobs get created elsewhere.

There is no reason for any police to lose their job. Now the police can go back to doing what they are supposed to be doing. Traffic tickets aren't supposed to be a source of revenue. Every police office operating a radar gun and giving out traffic tickets is one less police officer available to go after real criminals.

Comment Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy" (Score 2) 278

The original court decision was twofold
1. You have no right to be forgotten by the Newspaper that published the story
2. You have a right to be forgotten by search engines.

This only applies in the EU and only applies to companies incorporated in the EU.

How are those two things not exactly the same?

A fact is a fact. If a newspaper reports a fact and a Google search returns articles which state that same fact, how is there a difference? Why can Goolge be forced to remove reference to a fact, but not the newspaper.

Comment Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy" (Score 4, Insightful) 278

While I don't particularly think they should have been fired in the first place (businesses should not be concerned with the beliefs of individuals)... these people were fired by their organizations/companies, not the government. It was totally legal and legitimate.

It's legal, but that doesn't make it right. Technically, the first Amendment only prevents the government from restricting free speech. That restriction should apply to every one.

If your ability to earn a living can be taken away because of something you said or did, even though what you did is perfectly legal and you broke no laws, and even though you weren't at work when you said or did it, then you have effectively created a society where there is no free speech.

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...