I find it funny how so many Slashdotters are critical of the current RS business model. Has anyone actually looked at how the business is doing? RSH has had only one unprofitable year in the past 20. And although they don't have the exact same inventory lists, their most direct competition for most of what they sell has been big box stores like Best Buy and Circuit City. Look how many big box stores have died during the past 10 years - meanwhile RS keeps on going and going, generating cash at an impressive clip.

Requisite Anecdote: I was at a friend's house last weekend, and he had just bought a new digital camera at a garage sale. He was wondering aloud where he could find a cable for it. Standard USB cable used by thousands of cameras, cell phones, etc. His first thought was "Radio Shack probably has it." He was fully prepared to go there and probably spend way too much for it, esp. when compared to Monoprice or other sites that sell this type of thing at very low prices. I think lots of (normal, less-nerdy) people still think of RSH as the place to go for any kind of accessory item related to electronics. These are high-margin items. A few USB cables at 80% markup or more will cover a lot of missing component/part sales.

Plus, they sell a LOT of cell phones and plans. This is a profitable business. As an investor, I guess I don't really care too much that everyone on /. thinks a couple of bucks is WAY TOO MUCH for a capacitor or whatever. Their management seems to realize this also - they have been buying back the company's stock at a pretty good clip at current prices. Also, the market has beaten this stock price down to where another company may buy it just to pick up the additional cash flow - the stock is trading at very low multiples.

I'd be willing to bet that an ad worded "Just $X" would have some positive impact on the number of people who would respond to the ad in some way, compared to a similar ad that displayed only the price. It's human nature - the word "just" suggests an unusually low price for the item. There are plenty of people in this world who have virtually no skepticism about things like this.

what else has Cuban done? While it's easy to poke fun at Cuban when he behaves like a spoiled child, most people would agree that he's made some very wise business decisions. Between his basketball team ownership and his involvement in many other businesses like HDTV programming, there is plenty of evidence of "what else" he's done. One small example: you know those three-sided 24 second clocks on top of the backboards in the NBA now? Probably wouldn't have happened if Cuban wasn't listening to his customers: http://creatingcustomerevangelists.com/resources/evangelists/mark_cuban.asp

when did we get laws against aliens? Discrimination!

I don't know about anyone else, but after I play GTA I notice myself driving a little more aggressively. But after I play Assassin's Creed I somehow manage to avoid skewering random people with my sword. Go figure. I guess all my social behavior filters are in place.

When a gamer does something unstable, all bets are off and gaming gets blamed like "rock and roll" got blamed for the sexual revolution. After a while almost everyone will be a gamer and then that will stop, just like you rarely see people now blaming rock and roll for Sally's teen pregnancy.

My guess is that gaming probably affects us in the same ways anything else we experience affects us.

It seems to me that many defamation cases could be avoided if people would just use some basic qualifiers to lend truth to their statements.

If someone says "Maybe you have sex with farm animals" that statement is less libelous than the statement "I know you have sex with farm animals."

We just need to teach trolls how to use the proper qualifiers in their statements.

IANAL, but yes, if you choose to do so. But if he says "I think you are a faggot" then you probably won't get anywhere. If he says that he knows for a fact you are a faggot, and assuming that being known as a "faggot" is a bad thing for you, and assuming a ton of other conditions apply, then maybe you could sue him and get some relief.

But, as with many legal options, practical financial considerations often drive the outcome, rather than strict rule of law. What would be your financial motivation to sue the person ("punk" is kind of libelous, don't you think?) that is calling you a "faggot" online? If I were his attorney I'd try to convince the jury that you are not really legally damaged in any financial way by this comment, and that you are trying to abuse the court system by suing over something that would be considered trivial to most people.

None of this means you can't sue - it just means that it probably wouldn't be such a good idea.

In this case, I'd guess the burden of proving actual damage would fall on the plaintiffs. This might be one of those court cases that will get settled for pennies on the dollar, or outright dismissed, and THAT story most likely won't make the wire service, because it doesn't really spark any debate like this one does...

so if it's not in the Bill of Rights then you aren't allowed to sue over it? hey, everybody, the U.S. legal system has been simplified, and now all laws have been reduced to only what is in the Bill of Rights. Free speech is only free up to a point. Not everything that comes out of your mouth (nor, apparently, your keyboard) is protected by this right.