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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Perspective (Score 1) 72

by smooth wombat (#48640825) Attached to: NASA Video Shows What It's Like To Reenter the Earth's Atmosphere
Since asshats like to take vertical movies with their phones,

Or maybe phone makers shouldn't make shitty products which create the sidebars in the first place. You never had this problem when shooting analog movies, it has only occurred when we "upgraded" to digital.

The world doesn't exist only left to right. It also goes up.

Comment: Re:Supremes never said corps are people ... (Score 1) 580

by PopeRatzo (#48634045) Attached to: Top Five Theaters Won't Show "The Interview" Sony Cancels Release

As do members of unions and members of activist groups. Using your logic these groups of individuals should also be silenced.

I agree. No additional rights because you have pooled your money.

As the court has said, a group of people have the same speech rights as individual persons. There are no additional rights, just the same right.

Except, corporations are allowed to participate in elections to an extent and in ways that private citizens cannot.

Using your logic employees may have even more rights than shareholders. In your logic shareholders may have two voices, individual and corporate; while employees may have three voices, individual, corporate and union. Again I am referring to a situation such as "a steel corporation wanting the government to maintain a tariff on steel imports". The steel workers union would probably want the government to maintain the tariff too.

Right. Everybody gets the same vote. Everybody gets the same campaign finance limit (and citizens only). That's simple. Corporations, unions, etc are not citizens. They cannot vote or run for office. Why should they be allowed to participate in politics financially?

And if it was all about "rights" why has Citizens United allowed corporate donors anonymity in political finance when individuals are not allowed to be anonymous in the same way?

You make the mistake of thinking that everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal. You have an image living in your head that is not real.

Comment: Re:Enforcing pot laws is big business (Score 1, Troll) 463

by smooth wombat (#48633055) Attached to: Colorado Sued By Neighboring States Over Legal Pot
Colorado already proved that with the tax revenue they brought in from legalized marijuana,

False. Colorado brought in 20% of the promised revenue from legalization and the prospects of them meeting their initial projections are about as likely as Steve Ballmer running Linux.

Before you then say, "Well, they at least got something," I would like to remind you of this article wherein people on here were claiming Chicago's use of red light cameras a failure when they only got 44% of the initial projected income. Apparently getting 44% of of something is much worse than getting 20% of something.

Still further, Colorado is seeing the general effects of people being stoned, such as deaths, robberies and murder, and of course the general loss of productivity from people unable to perform their jobs such as two nurses who quit their good paying jobs at a hospital where a family member works because they would have failed the mandatory drug tests.

Just like Kansas' failed experiment of lowering taxes and cutting services didn't magically produce more revenue, whatever amount of money Colorado brings in will be eaten up by the side effects of legalization and, as this article clearly indicates, bordering states will also suffer financial losses and deaths.

Comment: Re:Supremes never said corps are people ... (Score 1) 580

by PopeRatzo (#48632619) Attached to: Top Five Theaters Won't Show "The Interview" Sony Cancels Release

Those employees and shareholders already have their individual rights. Do you believe that the corporation should confer upon them additional rights? So that people who own stock have rights to certain speech that others do not? Because that's exactly the current situation.

Nossir. Corporate personhood was a legal shorthand that has gone out of control. It will be looked upon by history with embarrassment.

Comment: Re:Supremes never said corps are people ... (Score 1) 580

by PopeRatzo (#48624555) Attached to: Top Five Theaters Won't Show "The Interview" Sony Cancels Release

Groups of people have the same speech rights as individuals.

For-profit corporations are not groups of people, they are aggregated capital.

The nature of the group (corporation, labor union, activist group, etc) does not matter.

See above.

Media corporations (i.e. traditional news) have no special rights with respect to speech, all corporations have the same speech rights.

They don't deserve ANY rights at all. They are just aggregated capital allowed to exist for the purpose of deferring liability. Why should money have rights?

"No job too big; no fee too big!" -- Dr. Peter Venkman, "Ghost-busters"

Working...