Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Not surprised (Score 1) 334

It means that instead of a payout that covers their medical bills and other damages (which would be covered by the mandatory insurance), your victims get whatever bankruptcy court can squeeze from you and nothing else.

I might be in favor of this if they were allowed to sell of your organs in cases where you can't pay for the damage you cause and you aren't insured.

Comment Re:Social mobility was killed, but not this way (Score 1) 1032

Please read what I was responding too.

10 million times perhaps $5k/year would be $50 billion. I figure that's cheap enough. However, I'd go even further and put income restricts so only lower income individuals would qualify. (Under 250% of the poverty level.) And only those who maintain a 2.0 GPA.

My question was whose income should be counted? The childs (which is likely near 0 even for children of billionaires) or the parents? And if it should be the parents, what about parents that refuse to finance their child's education? Should the child be punished by being denied aid for having parents that are both rich and uncaring?

Comment Re:Contact the EFF (Score 1) 87

I can see how this would damage the company, but won't this actually help the customers? Right now they are relying on the locks to be secure. We do not know how many other people have discovered the flaw that makes them insecure. So is it better to leave the customers in the dark, or should they be notified so they can switch to a different lock supplier?

Comment Re:Saudi Arabia, etc. (Score 1) 653

Again, I was responding to your statement.

Nobody should be compelled to do something that conflicts with their conscience, period, regardless of whether they are working for a living or not. Ever.

And all of the situations I described were possible outcomes if the law followed your reasoning. I understand that the current law does not go that far. However it is clearly right to compel people to go against their beliefs in SOME cases. So what makes it OK to discriminate in this case?

Comment Re:Saudi Arabia, etc. (Score 1) 653

I think you vastly overestimate humanity if you think these are just straw men.

All the cases I imagined could, and in some manner likely would happen. Perhaps not as blatantly (the person might feel at least a bit of shame), but similar situations occur all the time.
Think about people doing their best to prevent certain groups from voting.
Or the way cops like to protect their own.
I do admit that the example with the doctor is a bit far fetched (at least I hope it it), but I can see homeless people being turned away - (helping someone that can't pay is wrong!).

All of those situations would now be completely legal. So even if an investigation uncovered them, what could you do - they were just following their conscience.

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer