Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment Re:It's a Criminal Organisation (Score 1) 153

What a crock. Everyone has their own reasons for doing whatever they do. Some people do good things to please another person, some do them because they believe in an afterlife, some do them for their own egos, some do them to look good. Who the fuck cares what the motivation is? Important things are being done, and people's lives are better for it.

Then there are people like the author, and you, who try to build up their own pitiful egos by tearing down others. The only difference in the two approaches is that the philanthropist actually accomplishes something positive for others, and you don't.

Comment Re:It's their money... (Score 2, Insightful) 153

A favorite target of the 'inequity' crowd seems to be Walmart. And why not, after all their average employee makes about $15K/year, while the CEO makes $26M. Until you do math, that is. There are 2.2M employees. Paying the CEO the same as everyone else, assuming you could find someone to do the job, would result in an extra $10 PER YEAR for each employee. Man, that is sure going to make their lives better.

Comment Re:Book misses major points (Score 1) 153

I agree with most of what you said, but think you unfairly slammed Make A Wish. $58M is about 1% of what the NIH alone spends on cancer research every year. Is an extra 1% really going to make that big of a difference? People and businesses who donate to Make A Wish know they are not funding research, they think they are making some poor dying kid happy for a little while. What is wrong with that? And if you are going to criticize how people choose to spend their money, there are FAR bigger targets. For instance, how much was spent last year to get the latest shiny smart phone, or on video games, music, movies, and sporting events.

Comment Re:The judge got paid on this one. (Score 3, Informative) 100

The judge understands perfectly well, it is you and many other posters who do not understand. This is happening pretrial. The only things in play now are matters of law.

The DMCA says that if you notify subscribers when you are notified of claimed infringement, and if after repeated notifications you cut them off, then you can not be sued for facilitating infringement. Cox claims they get this protection, but they admit they did not do the above, as you yourself stated. Therefore, as a matter of law, they don't get the protection.

So what does that all mean? Well, first of all it does not mean that the judge is biased or has made an error. It does not mean that the judge has sided with anyone. It does not mean that Cox has lost the case. And it certainly doesn't mean that the judge doesn't understand. What it does mean is that there is an actual dispute as to the facts of the case, and disputes of facts are to resolved by juries, not judges. It very well may be that when a jury hears the case they decide that BMG was in fact unreasonable, and therefore they lose the suit.

Comment Re:The judge issued a verdict ahead of trial? (Score 0) 222

Nope, no evidence of bias. Here is what he said about the EFF's brief:

I read the brief. It adds absolutely nothing helpful at all. It is a combination of describing the horrors that one endures from losing the Internet for any length of time. Frankly, it sounded like my son complaining when I took his electronics away when he watched YouTube videos instead of doing homework. And it's completely hysterical.

See that bit about 'adds absolutely nothing helpful at all'? That is why it was rejected, which is a perfectly valid reason. An amicus brief is supposed to provide some HELPFUL legal information, not just be a bunch of whining about why someone does not like a law.

Judge probably thinks the internet is a series of tubes....

In other words, there is plenty of evidence of YOU being biased.

Comment Re:The judge issued a verdict ahead of trial? (Score 2) 222

No, it is not a 'thing', because if it was a 'thing' nothing would ever procede. It is not unusual for there to be lots of pre-trial motions filed, etc. Remember the SCO v IBM case? All that stuff was pre-trail, and it went on for years. And in every one of those motions, someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. That in no way indicates bias on the part of the judge, even if every ruling goes one way. His job is, after all, to judge.

Bias would be if the judge had some reason to favor one party over the other, and that reason had nothing to do with what is presented. There is no evidence of bias here, except that he issued a ruling some people don't like. According to those people, the only possible reason anyone could disagree with them is if they were biased, paid off, etc.

Comment Re:Freedoms (Score 1) 39

So is it stockholders, officers, or employees that are not part of 'we the people'? At what point does one stop being 'people', and thus become eligble to lose their rights? As soon as they are successful?

I never said one word about whether or not I agree with the actions of Facebook, et al. I simply said that if we are free, the NOBODY has to do ANYTHING just because someone else wants them to. You apparently don't agree with that position, and think it is just fine to force someone to do something against their will.

Comment Re:Freedoms (Score 1) 39

The only 'committment' Facebook, et al make is through their terms of service, which state that they don't have to carry everything. So no committment has been broken.

An awful lot of people seem to confuse freedoms (rights) with abilities and opportunities. They are not at all the same. Your rights are guaranteed, abilities and opportunities are not.

Your rights do not place any responsibilities on anyone else, which is good because if they did then their rights would place responibility on you. And in both case that is a loss of freedom.

Comment Re:What free speech? (Score 2) 39

No, they are not at all at odds with one another. Freedom of speech means that you will not be prevented from speaking, nor will your life and liberty be put at risk by making a speech. Free speech most definitely does not mean, and has never meant, that anyone else has to provide you with a forum or outlet to make your speech. Why does it not mean that? Because any such requirement would detract from THEIR rights.

Facebook, Twitter, et al can not stop you from speaking, therefore they are not restricting your speech. Whether or not you can be heard is an entirely different matter, but you have no right to be heard.

Comment Freedoms (Score 1, Insightful) 39

Is there some reason they think freedom of the press is somehow of lesser importance than freedom of speech? It is not, they are equals. A newspaper is not 'censoring' you if they decline to print your letter to the editor. And they don't need to be 'transparent' about it, it is their right to print or not print whatever they want. And they don't owe you any explanation either, because that itself would be a restriction on their freedom.

Comment Re: On this I side with facebook (Score 1) 147

What makes you think that a newspaper, or anyone else, has to publish ads with 'only limited and nuanced discrimination allowed'? The only possible restriction might be that they can't discriminate against a person based on some proscribed criteria, but they can 'discriminate' at will against any content they choose.