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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Nope... Wrong interpretation. (Score 5, Interesting) 414

GP meant Depression in both places it is used. GP did also leave out a clause that would clarify the meaning and tie it to the Great Recession though. Here's what (s)he is trying to say: "..the unemployment rate *now*, if calculated the same way it was calculated during the Great Depression (as opposed to how they've changed the calculation to make the numbers look better) is higher than it was for all but one year of the Great Depression." In other words, GP is claiming that the current REAL unemployment rate is a lot higher than what you hear in the news.

Comment Re:The quality of trolling on here... (Score 1) 193

"They were subtle and had convincing arguments, yet in your mind they were all definitely trolls. Why is that?"

How about first you explain why so many people are fond of straw men.

GP stated "Whatever happened to the subtle trolls (yes they did exist)..," showing (s)he does in fact believe they were trolls, and then gave two pieces of evidence which I claim shows they weren't trolls at all. Please explain where you see a straw man in this argument.

Comment Re:The quality of trolling on here... (Score 3, Insightful) 193

..has really done down. These guys might as well hang a flashing neon TROLL or SHILL sign above their posts nowadays its so obvious. Whatever happened to the subtle trolls (yes they did exist) that had - on the surface at least - had very convincing arguments?

Perhaps they weren't trolls at all, and simply had different opinions than you do. They were subtle and had convincing arguments, yet in your mind they were all definitely trolls. Why is that?

Comment Re:IANAL (Score 1) 226

So this isn't about a statute of limitations. It's about something more like the U.S. 6th Ammendment which, basically, bans open ended investigations and other Kafkaesque stuff. Within a reasonable timeframe law enforcement has to bring formal charges to a court of law, specifying exactly what the person is accused of, the court decides and that's the end of it.

What do you think a statute of limitations is?

Comment Re:Can we quit pretending that it's car "sharing"? (Score 1) 231

Not if the goal is to ensure *someone* is always supplying this service. Without regulation, you'd have wild fluctuations between too many drivers and not enough drivers, which means absurdly high prices and incredibly low prices. I'd rather have a reasonably regulated market so that I knew the service would be around when I needed it, and at a reasonable price.

Comment Re:Can we quit pretending that it's car "sharing"? (Score 1) 231

When there are hundreds or thousands of cabbies on the streets, finding the ones with the best business model isn't likely. I've heard of people asking for a cabbie by name, but that is rare; mostly because people want the convenience of the nearest taxi, at the expense of most other things. So business model would not be the driving factor in determining which taxis remain operational. Instead, you'd have all these taxis on the roads and prices plummet until a large and random subset goes under. Then prices will soar, people will try their luck at being a taxi driver (again?) until the cycle repeats. This oscillatory pattern won't stabilize. Instead you'd have wildly fluctuating prices and at any point in time you wouldn't know whether you need to take $5 or $50 from the bank for the taxi ride home that night. So what makes this different from any other company or service? Simple. Just about everyone already has a car and a license. Without any other restrictions, you have yourself a ready made business. This is exactly what differentiates Uber from legitimate taxi companies.

Comment Re:That's how the law usually works. (Score 1) 330

If a Scotsman commits rape in France, he may be tried in England.

The main problem is that laws which protect Google's property - especially IP - are global, mostly thanks to international treaties. I would like to see countries where this is not so, and would be keen to find out how Google would feel about that :-).

Barring niche circumstances linking the crime to England, like the Scotsman travelling on official government business, or the raped person being English, or the rapist having a really long dick and so the crime was actually committed on the other side of the English Channel, then I don't believe this is true at all.

Comment Re:When do I get to be a multinational corp? (Score 1) 330

>> While (X) may be the law in (place), it is not the law globally (therefore pound sand)

Wow. And techies thought Microsoft was arrogant when dealing with Europe in the 2000s.

More to the point: how do I get to be a multinational corporation so I can tell local authorities to fuck off too?

I think you are missing a major point of the discussion. Google complies with French law in France. Google complies with EU law in the EU. Google did not want to comply with Chinese law in China, so they left China. The issue is that France is trying to force Google to comply with French law everywhere else. I hope you can see the distinction.

Comment Re:ask slashdot (Score 1) 65

Turns out it was *I* who didn't know what the A stood for. When I replied to your post I was thinking it stood for 'Anti' as in Anti-global-warming. Add that to the fact you called GP a denier moron and you can see my confusion. Note my emphasis was on your use of the word denier, not moron.

Byte your tongue.

Working...