Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Citizen of Belgium here (Score 2) 1054 1054

Don't "loan" money to people without the ability to pay it back.

This money was gone a decade ago and many saw it then. You will probably never get back more than 66 euro per person- if that.

From the greek perspective-live misery the rest of their lives and sell away all their national treasures permanently was what was at stake. It was really a "peaceful" conquest by germany and the wealthy. I'd have said "screw that" too.

Comment: Re:MMORPGs aren't any of those things anymore (Score 2) 75 75

Tried wow. it felt like everquest in "easy" mode. I could see why it would appeal to many.

Everquest had a sense of wonder I will never feel again. Nothing was documented. Gm's showed up personally to give you your second name or marry characters. It was extremely hard and was a lifestyle. You had to play 40+ hours a week to keep up.

You could lose everything and be badly hurt. You needed other people to survive. The 72 person raids demanded huge political guilds with massive logistics,strategy and tactical skills. We won't see 72 person content again.

It's sort of like DND vs all the other systems that came later. They were more polished and had some great ideas. But there was something primal in DND that I never found elsewhere.

Comment: Re:Whats wrong with US society (Score 1) 609 609

You have a good point...

If we are willing to live in primitive conditions worse than our current prison population and if other governments give us free weapons to resist the u.s. government we could probably do the same in the mountainous and densely wooded areas of the country.

Comment: Re:TL;DR (Score 1) 367 367

Relatively speaking, it ends much worse for the wealthy than it did for the poor.

People who are starving and hopeless lose less than people who "have it all". Just a teeny bit of generosity would allow the poor to live much better. And on the high end, the wealthy don't even live worse. If everyone has $800,000 instead of $900,000 then you'll find the total cost of the expensive things cost $100,000 less.

Societies which have more even income spreads are measurably happier. To be fair, I'm not sure if they are more stable.

Then again, tyranny can be stable for a long time so stability isn't the best measure.

Comment: Re:Sounds like reasonable changes to me (Score 1) 116 116

I agree. Reviews from someone who bought the item are more valuable.

The change might cut out people who bought the item thru another channel.

My main issue are fake reviews. And a company can always "sell" an item to it's employees who then give it glowing reviews. And buy products from competitors and give them terrible reviews.

Comment: Re:$100,000,000 (Score 1) 205 205

I made over 100,000 and I assure you that I would have felt a $1000 fine.

Now- if you are saying , "made an extra $100,000 and was fined $1,000 for it" then I agree with you.

That was the problem with the investment bank fines. The fines were smaller than the extra profits.

I'm not sure AT&T made that much extra just from denying 1% of their customers some bandwidth.

Comment: Re:Whats wrong with US society (Score 1) 609 609

Based on federalist paper commentary, it's a common view that the 2nd amendment is also about keeping the state free from the state itself turning tyrannical. You also have to consider that when it was written government oppression by England was in the immediate past. Only by being armed were the colonists able to stop England's oppression.

However, when you consider that today a person in an apache helicoptor flying over 2 miles away can put a half dozen 30 millimeter shells in your chest, center of mass, at night, modern weapons civilians can own don't stand a chance against the government.

So then you have to ask, have we reached a point where the cost in blood of our citizens killing themselves is worth it.

Comment: Re:$100,000,000 (Score 1) 205 205

No I don't. I saw that line of reasoning but don't agree with it

For example, if I have a moving business and I have to pay three guys $60,000 a year and I take in $100,000 a year- I only get to keep $40,000 a year. If I were shareholders, we would split $40,000 per year.

The government has always recognized that costs of doing business are not part of your gross revenue. Other than occasional abuses, the government has never allowed buying of toys and cool cars to come off of gross revenue.

Businesses typically have net profit ratios of 3% to 7%. If you fined them based on their gross revenues, most would immediately be at a loss for the year. It's obviously unreasonable to bankrupt companies with fines. It's not good for society to constantly throw people out of work and destroy businesses that way.

At best with your line of reasoning, a fixed amount or deduction should be used. Because people overspend on cars, housing, clothing, food and only a base amount should be allowed to be ignored. A person shouldn't get a smaller speeding ticket because they bought a really nice house and an expensive sports car.

For people, fines are too high for the poor and too low for the rich. In some countries, they recognize this and fines are actually percentage based so a wealthy person can get a multithousand dollar speeding ticket while a poor person gets a fine for less than a middle income person.

But for middle income people- most fines are set based on their remaining income- not their gross income.

Comment: Re:$100,000,000 (Score 2) 205 205

I understand where you are coming from but...

Revenues are not profits.

AT&T's profits in 2014 were about 6 billion. Their annual average profits over the last 6 years were about 10 billion a year.

Fines are usually not a tax deductible expense so they lower profits not revenue.

So the fine was over 1% of last years net profits and about 1% of their average net profits.

That would be like getting a $1,000 fine if you made $100,000 a year. You'd notice.

Comment: Re:Hmmm. Sponsor copyright free music? (Score 1) 389 389

I was speaking about the restaurant industry as a whole. It would cost them less than a penny each to have songs created. You know- just like programmers collectively write programs and make them public domain.

Even Houston alone has 4000 restaurants so $25000 for songs would be a one time expense of about $6.25 per restaurant.

Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.