Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:Laugh (Score 1) 189

It's a hard problem. My only contention is that the solution is not "do the recall only if we expect lawsuits would cost more". Some people affected wouldn't know to file suit, the victims' lawyers would take a cut of the proceeds, human life is impossible to value monetarily and attempts to do so necessarily fall short, etc.

We have regulatory agencies which sometimes force car companies to initiate recalls. They are the ones ultimately in charge of making that judgement call. That seems to me to be a reasonable approach.

Comment Re:Laugh (Score 1) 189

That's a good point.

However, there's a difference between inevitable engineering tolerance failures and flaws in the design or construction. If there's a known flaw in the vehicle's construction, because the wrong materials were used, etc., and the company doesn't initiate a recall because they think they can "get away with it" and have to pay less by not doing the recall, that's different, and many could consider that sociopathic/evil.

Comment Re:Laugh (Score 1) 189

Not your point (not sure what is, precisely), but high sugar intake doesn't cause diabetes. That's an urban legend. There are multiple risk factors; obesity is probably the biggest one that people can do much about.

There are some very recent studies that seem to indicate a relation between extremely high sugar intake and diabetes, but even that is uncertain.

Comment Re:Lying scum (Score 1) 303

What you said is utter nonsense.

Even if the document is "born classified", it only matters if she created it -- receiving an email isn't an action. Hillary Clinton is not politically dead; she will get the Democratic nomination for President and there's probably a greater than 50% chance she'll win the general election.

Sending someone to prison for receiving emails is necessarily making that person a political prisoner. Political imprisonment is injustice per se. Perhaps it's best that everyone in important executive branch offices is usually of the same political party; the temptation to make political prisoners out of people is less that way.

There was always going to be a political scandal involving Hillary Clinton, because of the media. No, not because of a "vast right-wing conspiracy", because "Hillary Clinton still is a shoe-in for the nomination" is not a story and the media likes stories. So they have to go, "OMG Bernie Sanders MIGHT WIN!" and "OMG SCANDAL WILL IT MAKE HILLARY FALL???".

There's nothing, or at most very little, substance to the email thing.

Comment Re:Where the choice for Roger Goodell (Score 1) 686

I'll read that as "Republicans don't support gay marriage." Let me help you understand the difference between not having gay marriage and putting people in concentration camps.

When you put people in concentration camps, you take them out of society and put them all together in a big prison. People in prison don't have nearly the same liberties as people not in prison. For example, people in prison can't travel freely, because they're in prison. They can't work -- except maybe in prison jobs, which generally pay below minimum wage -- because, again, they are in prison. They have limited contact with the outside world and limited ability to interact with others outside the prison, including forming friendships and romantic relationships, because their days are spent -- notice the pattern here -- in the prison.

In a society without gay marriage, gay people lose a small tax benefit because they can't marry each other. That's about it. In contrast to being in a concentration camp (prison), gay people in this society are able to work at jobs they choose, move freely around the country, and associate freely with other non-prisoners in society.

There is a huge difference between being in a prison and paying slightly higher taxes. By not recognizing this difference and engaging in this hyperbole, you trivialize the grave injustices suffered by those throughout history who have been wrongly imprisoned and especially those who have suffered the horrors of actual concentration camps.

Comment Re:Where the choice for Roger Goodell (Score 1) 686

It's hard to tell whether you're a troll, but let's assume not.

Arrogant name-calling isn't an argument, political or otherwise. There are plenty Republicans who aren't racists. In fact, most probably aren't racists, for any reasonable definitions of "racist". There are crazies in both parties.

The Republican party does not advocate the re-enslavement of black people, nor does it advocate putting gay people in concentration camps. Not a single one of the candidates who debated on Fox News advocated anything remotely similar to those statements, either. That statement doesn't even qualify as putting up a strawman because it's so far from the truth. It's closer to just libel.

Comment Groklaw Needed More Than Ever (Score 5, Insightful) 457

It's a shame Pamela Jones shuttered Groklaw ... her insight into this case would have been invaluable.

We need to stop the dangerous idea that interfaces can be copyrighted before it becomes as much a bane on software as software patents were before Alice vs. CLS Bank.

Comment Re: But but but.. (Score 1) 278

But that's wrong, you fucking lying sack of shit. There WERE flipper babies in the US. THOUSANDS of them.

Umm, according to this, there were fewer than 100 Thalidomide-related birth defects in the US:


Given the obvious incorrectness of your statement about thalidomide, please forgive my skepticism that you actually cured AIDS.

Comment Re:No! (Score 1) 227

I once worked at a place where the policy was "don't use the camera on your phone without permission on site or we immediately fire you." That's under the limit of what I am willing to put up with, but it's close.

What was so great about this job that you were willing to put up with such inconvenience?

Comment Re:No! (Score 1) 227

And the penalty for bringing it in was to have the equipment (or at least the disk) crushed; as happened to a contractor who was not aware of the rules and brought in his laptop.

People put up with this? I would have dropped the contract immediately and perhaps sued for damages (unless it was the government, because you can't sue them due to "sovereign immunity" which really needs to be repealed).

"Pok pok pok, P'kok!" -- Superchicken