Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

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

by TFAFalcon (#49430137) Attached to: Carly Fiorina Calls Apple's Tim Cook a 'Hypocrite' On Gay Rights

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

by TFAFalcon (#49420383) Attached to: Carly Fiorina Calls Apple's Tim Cook a 'Hypocrite' On Gay Rights

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.

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

by TFAFalcon (#49416711) Attached to: Carly Fiorina Calls Apple's Tim Cook a 'Hypocrite' On Gay Rights

That would lead to some very strange situations.

A: So did you arrest the rapist?
B: No, that would have been against my conscience.

A: So how many people voted at your station?
B: None, they were all black so I didn't give them the ballots.

A: What happened to that gunshot victim you were operating on?
B: Oh he turned out to be a Jew so I just let him bleed out. It would have been against my conscience to save one of those.

Comment: Re:Tim Cook is a Pro Discrimination Faggot (Score 1) 1168

Would the law also apply if Joe declares that he can only serve people that are satanists (due to his religion)? If it does I can see shops becoming quite a good jobs for lazy people - "My religion prevents me from serving you because you are human, sorry."

Comment: Re:Here is the text (Score 1) 99

by TFAFalcon (#49178697) Attached to: Has the Supreme Court Made Patent Reform Legislation Unnecessary?

Isn't that more of a problem with the whole legal system, rather than a problem with patent reform?

Having a "loser pays" system in a "fair" system (where the side that has the law on their side actually wins) is fairer than not having that system. Because without "loser pays", the side that wins may be in a worse situation than if they had just given up in the first place (they may win 50k, but spent 100k on lawyers).

Think about the current system from the other side. A small company is sued by a big one over a frivolous patent. The small company may have the law on their side, but if they fight and win they will still be bankrupt.

Comment: Re:Double Irish (Score 1, Interesting) 825

by TFAFalcon (#48956401) Attached to: Obama Proposes One-Time Tax On $2 Trillion US Companies Hold Overseas

But it seems companies are not doing it. They are just opening subsidiaries overseas and funneling all of their earnings to them. So why not force them to pay (just like everyone else) for the privilige of staying in the US?

If you don't want to pay taxes, then leave. Or stay and obey the law just like everyone else. And just think of the benefits if they do leave - the rest of the companies will no longer be forced compete against someone who skirts the rules and the US might even start making some sane decisions when it comes to IP.

Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too." -- Dave Haynie