Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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?

United States

Patriot Act Spy Powers To Expire As Rand Paul Blocks USA Freedom Act Vote 500

Saturday, we mentioned that three major spying powers that the U.S. government has exercised under the Patriot Act might be nixed, as the sections of the Act granting authority to use them expires. The Daily Dot reports that Senator (and presidential contender) Rand Paul today used Senate rules to block a bill which would have extended those powers, which means that as of midnight Sunday on the U.S. east coast, sections 206, 207 and 215 of the Patriot Act will have expired. Says the Daily Dot's article, linked by reader blottsie: The reform bill, which the House passed before leaving town for a week-long recess, would end the government's bulk collection of Americans' phone records under the Patriot Act's controversial Section 215 but leaves the other two provisions intact. ... Sunday's procedural meltdown was the second narrow defeat for the USA Freedom Act. In a late-night session on Friday, May 22, the bill fell three votes short of an initial procedural step after [Senate Majority Leader] McConnell lobbied hard against it. The Senate's failure to meet its deadline was a blow to President Obama, who on Friday had warned lawmakers that the country would be vulnerable if the USA Freedom Act did not pass.

Comment Re:So, the other side? (Score 1) 422

Why didn't the CEO or the owners give a loan to the company. If it just needed a few months to pay it off, then there wasn't any risk was there? And unlike the former employees the CEO and the owner had both an interest in keeping the company going and all the information about it's current status.

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.