Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Just makes them look even more guilty (Score 1) 321

In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain.

easy enough for you?

in either of the cases you sighted, has unlawful gain occurred? and if you say something like "unlawfully gained TV time from avoiding dish duty", you should be slapped.

Comment Re:How long will the company stay up? (Score 1) 494

dude, no one knows what the hell you are saying. you are right, it's definitely unclear how much of a deterrent punishment provides, but i can say one thing for sure, having ZERO punishment provides ZERO deterrent.

i could couldn't care less anyway. if someone does a crime, they should do the time. whether the motivation is deterrence, "justice", revenge, monetary compensation, or whatever. it's called being accountable for your actions. it's something we teach our kids, and it's a pretty good standard.

Comment Re:How long will the company stay up? (Score 2) 494

really, WTF are you saying? corporations should be able to cheat the system for as long as they can hide it, and when found out, their only punishment is that they need to find a new way to cheat?

everyone gets what you are saying about the economic ramifications, but simply letting them get away with it isn't something that society should let happen. there's a greater good to be had beyond the immediate hardships to VW stockholders and employees. you nip this on the bud, and show to VW and the greater industry that cheating doesn't pay. and yes, corporations do respond to fines. they exist to maximize profits and they simply won't participate in cheating if it doesn't maximize their profits.

Comment Re:Collateral damage (Score 1) 494

Do you honestly think McDonald's is changing anything they do based on this? How about Coke? Apple? John Deere? Bank of America?

you can count on corporations to maximize profits. if cheating is profitable, they will. and vice versa. the *only* way to keep them from cheating is to make it not profitable, and that means fining them disproportionately to the profits gained from the act.

Comment Re:How long will the company stay up? (Score 1) 494

Why? Because the people who profited from this don't care if the company is fined into nothing in 5 years, they got theirs today.

of course they care. the people that profited are shareholders / investors that unless participating in insider trading still owned their stock when it plunged. at this point tough decision as to whether to hold on and hope for a comeback or just dump it. either way, not good for them.

Comment Re:23% of the company (Score 1) 471

Again: There is NOx in your air right now, that you're breathing. If you go outside, there's like 8 times as much NOx in that air.

it's not the NOx, it's the products thereof it like ozone, as i quoted 2x now.

yes, there' NOx now, but less is better. what exactly is your argument? there's trace amounts of arsenic in a water source, so f*** it, let's dump as much as we want? or what? you are saying that since these polluting cars don't measurably increase the NOx in the atmosphere, we shouldn't restrict them? you do realize that sums add to a whole right?

really terrible reasoning.

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 683

We choose to go to mars not because it's easy, but because .... Wait... it's not easy?
Oh, well lets give up then

OTOH, being hard isn't a good reason either is it?

there'd better be a damn big payoff for trillions of taxpayer dollars. all things being equal, i'd send humans but we can get the same science by sending more and more advanced probes at a fraction of the cost.

secondly, some things simply aren't within our grasp technically. going back to the moon appears to be a bridge too far. how many times difficult is it to get to mars? fine, keep at the innovation that's going to get us there eventually, but stop setting unrealistic goals of getting to mars in 10 years, or whatever.

Never trust an operating system.