Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Consumer ignorance (Score 1) 437

It's beyond me in this day and age of ubiquitous information available at one's fingertips that anyone can walk into a dealership and NOT know what they want to buy (or at least have it narrowed down to one or two models and/or trim levels). You should do all your research BEFORE going to the dealership. The only point of going to the dealership should be to actually drive the car and confirm or refute what you already know about it.

Dealerships HATE informed customers because it basically removes the need for a salesperson. I don't WANT some smelly guy in a bad suit trying to tell me what I want. I already KNOW what I want. The only reason I'm even there is because I can't order one from the factory directly. I have my financing worked out with my credit union before I set foot in his doorway. The salesperson's total interaction with me ought to be "Here is a filled-out build sheet for the car I want along with all options I would like. Here is the price I'm willing to pay which ensures a modest profit for you and your dealership. I will not negotiate one penny above and beyond that, nor do I want to be sold on additional options or extras I have not already specified. Please locate the car in your database. If you have one on the lot that matches it, I'll take it today. If not, please have it delivered here and let me know when it arrives. Thank you. Goodbye."

Why in the hell can't we just ORDER these things from the factory??? Oh, dealerships have local politicians blocking that sort of thing. Land of the free, home of the brave-but-not-so-brave-that-we-want-actual-competition.

Comment Re:This is only true (Score 2) 361

When what's legal and what's sustainable for the society are not aligned, there are likely one of two results: 1) Law is changed to be more sustainable or 2) the society suffers.

But hey, more power to those who can screw over everyone else for their tax free money!

If what the company is doing is not sustainable, the company will fail, as it should. If what society is doing is unsustainable, it will fail, as it should. It's called capitalism and if you leave it alone, you'd be surprised at how good it works.

What would you propose? We block companies from doing these kinds of inversions? They'd just transfer their entire operation overseas and then the US would see zero percent of that income. There are any number of other countries that would LOVE to have them, as is evidenced by their lower tax rates and success in luring said companies.

The stupidity is the assumption you can somehow control these companies, or punish them for their actions. Controlling them is impossible so long as there are other places to do business. Punishing them does nothing but punish those who consume their products or services. Putting them out of business adds to unemployment. Banning their products or services from the US market would damage consumers *and* employees. You know...employees...those people who work hard every day to take home a paycheck to their families. Not everyone at a corporation is Scrooge McDuck burning hundred dollar bills to warm their gold-plated mansion.

No, the answer is to lower our corporate tax burdens and win this business back to US shores and the US tax system. It doesn't take a genius to realize that 15% of something is better than 26% of nothing.

Comment Re:Defense will be based on advertising dollars (Score 1) 56

I wasn't really thinking this, but you do have a good point. I was more along the lines of abuse, things that either are fair use or are completely original content getting hit by the DCMA. Google/Youtube enables this, by allowing channels to be auto-banned with no human intervention. I have never heard of anyone getting punished for abusing this.

It isn't just corporations too. Some Youtube users will DCMA anyone that makes a reply video to them if they don't like it. (read: the reply makes a valid point and makes the user look like an idiot)

Comment Re:Defense will be based on advertising dollars (Score 1) 56

My point is that they will only protect profitable channels, small fries will continue to get abused by the DCMA.

From a corporate profits perspective this is the prudent thing to do, can't waste dollars protecting things that will never make money. Is it the right thing to do? I don't know. Most youtube content is complete crap, why bother protecting it?

How do we decide what is worth protecting? This I really don't know.

Comment Re:Defense will be based on advertising dollars (Score 1) 56

"Google and Youtube really does not care about fair use or the legal rights of their users."

nitehawk214 does not care if you know if that is true, as he has no idea if it is or if it isn't, but he does hate Google, and will write whatever he can against them in hopes that he can sway your opinion of them.

strawman much?

Comment Re:Go Work for the Competition (Score 4, Insightful) 192

Nobody high up in a big company cares about legacy code and technical debt. Even if cleaning up the codebase would increase customer retention. ERP is not about delivering a product to customers that they want, it is about getting sales to make predatory contracts to squeeze money out of hapless customers.

Comment Defense will be based on advertising dollars (Score 5, Insightful) 56

Google and Youtube really does not care about fair use or the legal rights of their users. All they care about is advertising money. Now that there are some alternatives to Youtube, big channels are threatening to leave if the flood of false DCMA notifications does not stop.

The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made. -- Jean Giraudoux