Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Decent (Score 1) 466

The first thing that you do with your cash flow is pay your people. Everyone gets paid after because without you people you are nothing.

Experienced and driven people are what attract investment, and they are what makes you profitable. Investors usually use you ideas as a formality but when they choose to invest they will be looking towards what kind of employees you can attract. That's the reason why Tesla's shares are at $181. Because Elon Muck has the drive, experience, charisma, and track record to get that investment, and no one cares if Tesla won't be profitable until 2020. Businesses can survive for quite a while without profits, but they die pretty fast without people.

Don't believe me then lets try an experiment with two businesses. In one case they don't pay their employees salary for a month and in the other they don't pay the shareholders for a month. See which one dies sooner.

As far as the stunt being for PR I don't think that is the primary motivation here. As I said before even with the stock options (based on the calculations of a previous poster) he is still slashing his salary from 2.2M to 400K. That is a very large drop in money for something that is just designed to generate PR especially seeing as how our spending budgets tend to grow to fit how much money we make. And even if his salary climbs again so what? He should be paid in proportion to how well his company is doing especially if he founded the the thing.

Comment: Re:Socialism! (Score 4, Insightful) 466

Clearly a comment from someone who has never been without money. FYI it costs a lot of money to start your own business, and those who live paycheck to paycheck are very much short on options when quitting means they are homeless. Money gives you options. Lower income people have less options because they have less money, and the reason they have less money is because the money is being scalped by higher income people who have the options, granted by wealth, to do something like influence an election or lobby for a lower minimum wage.

The fact that some people have more choices doesn't mean that you have less

Did you actually read this statement? Do you realize that it contradicts itself or are you just that blinded by you unsubstantiated ideology that you cannot see reason?

Comment: Re:Decent (Score 3) 466

Slashing your own take in by 75% isn't a PR stunt anymore, and he has the benefit of ensuring he will have the pick of the litter in terms of talent for his company. Who wouldn't want to work for a guy that doubles your salary to look out for you? The most important part of running a company is getting the right people and keeping them happy. With this one move he has done both with a perfect ten.

Comment: Re:WWJD? (Score 1) 1168

Yes, plenty of well deserved outrage mostly from non-homosexuals. Assuming the group was not the benefit of a mass movement how do you propose that 3.8% of a population[1] can significantly impact a local economy or business?

The reason that so many people leap to the LGBT communities defense is because they correctly surmise that a threat to freedom and just anywhere is a threat to freedom and injustice everywhere.


Comment: Re:WWJD? (Score 5, Insightful) 1168

This act is clearly targeted at homosexuals. An economic group that has far less influence than the much larger minority, based on percentage, of blacks in Montgomery. Any boycott by homosexuals could certainly be ignored by the businesses of Indiana as they would have negligible impact on the cake industry. Do you suggest that because homosexuals don't have the same economic clout as blacks did on the bus industry in Montgomery that they do not deserve the right to be served like a human being in a public business?

I would also like to remind you of the LAWS that came about because of that bus boycott to preserve the rights and freedoms of those who engaged in civil disobedience to obtain them, as it is because of those laws that the benefits from the bus boycott still exist today. Namely the lack of "whites only" signs. I would rather not repeat those times with blacks replaced with "fags."

Comment: Re:WWJD? (Score 1) 1168

That is fine when we are talking about a private contract between two people, but as eleventy billion people on this forum have pointed out it is not ok for a public business to refuse service based on skin color, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. A business is a public facing entity and must abide by the rules of non discrimination.

Comment: Re:Reductio ad absurdum. Colbert would have agreed (Score 1) 149

The difference in this case as I understand it is that the hospital was legally required to lock that door then they failed to properly secure the door which resulted in the theft of sensitive information. In your example there is no such burden placed on the workmen. They are not required by law to ensure the safety of the homes that they work at unlike the hospital. A better example would be to compare the hospital to a bank. If a bank is robbed and all of there customer's money is stolen is the bank not responsible for the damages caused to those customers for failing to properly secure their money? I would think that they would be, and make no mistake, having such confidential data stolen can be just as devastating if your credit rating gets nailed or your accounts get drained. As far as standing I don't think there is a question that there are damages here. The time and effort alone to rectify all of the locked accounts, get cards reissued, and reverse charges is plenty of damage to justify a civil suite.

Comment: Re:Well, aren’t you a glass half empty type. (Score 2) 191

by Forgefather (#49030331) Attached to: Apple Invests $848 Million Into Solar Farm

Actually now that I am thinking about this could it be possible to use massive solar farms to combat desertification? I know that it's a huge problem in west Africa where desert encroachment has been taking over the precious agricultural land and causing food shortages. If you could boost the shade amount in the desert which would theoretically increase the amount of plant life while cooling the surface it could be possible, when done on a massive scale, to reclaim stretches of desert. All while developing cheap energy for their respective people. Can someone with some knowledge on this subject weigh in?

Comment: Re:Well, aren’t you a glass half empty type. (Score 1) 191

by Forgefather (#49030249) Attached to: Apple Invests $848 Million Into Solar Farm

I pity the poor service men that will have to maintain these panels because every snake, lizard and cactus will be fighting for the shade. You are exactly right that this will become the metropolis of the desert.

As another point what if we put a solar farm in the Atacama Desert? As the driest place on earth there is hardly any life at all even on a bacterial level so would it be habitat destruction to turn the whole thing into a solar farm?

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.