Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:It should be obvious (Score 1) 285

I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of the Federal Reserve Bank. This institution exists only for the purpose of enriching, protecting and expanding the influence of the global banking cartel. The economic principles are very sound.

1. Create money out of thin air, loan it to a sovereign government and collect interest on the loan.
2. Ensure that member banks can never go bankrupt by serving as a lender of last resort.

The Federal Reserve was created by bankers for the exclusive benefit of bankers. Fed policy only seems insane or unsound if you assume that this monetary system was set up for the purpose of facilitating real economic activity without preference or bias.

They don't care if they ruin the USA economy and cause a crash of the dollar. It's all funny money that they conjured out of thin air anyway. What they really want is to make sure that they end up with all of the tangible assets which do have real value. Look at how much real estate they were able to steal in the wake of the 2008 crash.

Comment Maybe they can make it work (Score 1) 111

but I doubt it.

Acquisitions that account for more than a small fraction of the acquiring company's overall value are risky and don't have a good track record. Both companies are fairly well, if not very well managed, so Dell execs aren't going to lend value to EMC's operations in that regard. EMC has positive earnings and is paying out dividends, so Dell won't be providing investment capital that EMC could not otherwise access.

Looks like EMC closed with a market cap of ~$53B on Friday. A $67B acquisition is quite a huge premium on that price. Does the merger of their product lines into a more complete offering create significant value and additional revenue potential? Enough value and potential to justify the $14B premium that Dell is paying for the acquisition? I tend to doubt it.

Of course with Dell being a private company, we won't have the detailed financial reports that we would see for a publicly traded company, so it will be harder to tell how it's going until they file for bankruptcy.

This reeks of a desperate attempt to diversify by a company in a declining industry. Probably a good idea in principle, but going about it on this scale is quite the gamble.

Comment Re:EPA and other like agencies have to know (Score 1) 414

Very true. Government regulators routinely fail in their jobs, either through direct criminal complicity with the violators or by gross negligence. Then, when their failures are revealed, they ALWAYS claim that they need more laws, more people and bigger budgets. Nobody in the regulatory agencies is ever investigated, prosecuted or otherwise held accountable no matter how badly they perform.

The 2008 financial crisis is the absolute perfect example. The government has the SEC, OTS, OCC, CFTC, FDIC, FBI, etc. all with regulatory power in the financial industry. Yet this army of bureaucrats utterly and completely failed to carry out their most basic responsibilities AND neglected to enforce the laws even when the criminal practices of the big financial firms was openly exposed. Government solution? More regulations and more bureaucrats in a new CFPB.

EPA agents must have been too busy (or too incompetent) to actually test a few vehicles for compliance with emissions laws. They were probably off threatening and harassing some small business owners who can't afford full time lawyers and compliance officers.

Comment Re:What a surprise (Score 1) 414

A special place in hell should be reserved for government bureaucrats who never designed or built anything, never ran a business and never had to actually provide value in excess of their exorbitant cost. It's easy to sit in a taxpayer-funded air conditioned office and dream up new rules which you can justify your existence by enforcing. Much harder to be the person that has to deal with them.
Every business is probably breaking some number of rules, knowingly or unknowingly.

Comment Re:SG-1 Episode Foreshadowing... (Score 2) 153

"... the only people the government can force to get vaccinated are soldiers."

Nonsense. Coercion by threat of consequences is exactly the same as force. Requiring injections for kids as a precondition of their enrollment in taxpayer funded public schools is coercing people to make decisions which they might not otherwise make. That "do what we say or there will be consequences" approach is a perfect example of the way government uses force against The People. The threat of having their kids banned from taxpayer funded schools is "forcing" people to get their kids vaccinated because home schooling or private schooling requires resources many people don't have.

Comment Re: Why? (Score 1) 450

"the trend of gun violence in this country."

The only "trend" in this country is the trend of media sensationalism, mass marketing of fear and public ignorance. The truth is that firearms-related homicide is on a twenty year downward trend. Thanks to the media however, you and millions of others live in a false reality where things are getting worse.

Comment Re:LOGICIANS OUTRAGED/Strawman! (Score 1) 450

How about backing up your claim by providing proof that the NRA advocates that people under 18 should have access to firearms? Their website has a detailed description of their stance on the issue and there are plenty of YouTube vids of NRA spokespeople.

Otherwise, refrain from posting your strawman BS.

Comment Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... (Score 1) 450

Firearms are used by individual citizens hundreds of thousands of times each year in self defense, typically without a shot being fired. Law enforcement agents carry firearms based on the rationale that they might need to engage violent criminals. Why are cars any more "necessary to life" than the tools you might need to defend your life?

Driving yourself to the hospital might be a matter of life and death (although most places have ambulance services). Otherwise, your life being dependent on access to an automobile is a direct result of your lifestyle choice.

Comment Re:Teens shouldn't have access to guns... (Score 1) 450

Parents' discretion. If the kids are disciplined, it doesn't matter if they're idiots. From age 5 onward I knew better than to fool around with firearms. Even the antique shotgun on the wall was off-limits.
I received my first .22 rifle at age ten and by age 15, I had a shotgun and deer rifle and was allowed to shoot alone and unsupervised. I've never shot anyone or had a firearms-related accident.
Parents should be held responsible for recklessness and negligence which results in their kids causing injury or death. To hell with cookie-cutter solutions tailored to the least common denominator in our society.

Comment Re:Age discrimination is obvious (Score 1) 350

Did you ask them why it was a problem? Are employers worried about your health, your learning ability or the degree to which your skills are up-to-date?

One of the considerations of any potential employer is healthcare costs. Even if they can't legally discriminate based on that consideration, they will be making a conscious appraisal of your perceived health and how it will relate to the total cost of employing you.
If you are a healthy, active, 40+ person, let the employers know about it. They cannot legally ask for that information, but that does not mean you are legally prohibited from offering it. List your exercise routine as hobbies. Ask about the quality of the bike paths and running trails in the area. Inquire about the fitness center on site or if they offer discount gym memberships as a benefit.

Comment Re:Natural effects of a maturing field? (Score 1) 350

I disagree. The union movement was not hatched in the halls of government. In fact, government was (and is) usually on the side of the businesses and has engaged in numerous bloody crackdowns on people attempting to organize and go on strike. The political left is fond of reminding us how unions fought for better working conditions, a 40 hour work week, etc. Then what happened? Government decided that it was government's job to guarantee these things. As a result, unions have withered and died. What's the point of keeping the union strong and paying dues if workers think Big Brother is going to protect them? By contrast, if the union is the only thing standing between a person and a hazardous job with miserable wages, they have every incentive to keep the union strong.

Back in the infancy of unions, what you're describing is exactly what happened. Not only would individuals be fired for attempting to organize their co-workers, companies would share a blacklist of such troublemakers preventing them from getting work anywhere. It took a lot of courage to be an organizer and the work had to be conducted largely in secret.

What's to prevent the company from ignoring the union and firing everyone? Reprisals by the workers. Sit-in strikes, blocking replacement workers and customers from accessing the business, organizing boycotts of the products and basically anything else that can be done to make the company's life miserable. It's necessary to make the pain of paying union wages and benefits much less than the pain of firing everyone. Even sabotage and property destruction might be on the table for pissed-off unemployed people. Also, do you notice how unions are typically for the skilled trades and are organized at an industry level vs. a company level? By doing this, you make it hard for a company to find a large pool of willing replacement labor with the same skills.

Comment Re:Hacking 'Round Encryptions (Score 2) 91

I don't think libertarians have drifted toward neoconservativism. If you're perceiving Republicans in libertarian clothing, I think there are a couple of things going on which might give that impression but neither is driven by a philosophical shift.

The whole "TEA Party" thing for example is a rejection of the big government neocons of the Bush era. It has a few libertarian leanings, but unfortunately maintains much of the Republican baggage. These neocon/libertarian hybrids have evolved in the opposite direction from what you're implying.

Then, you're also seeing the Rand Paul type folks who are willing to jump through the Republican hoops in order to bring a few libertarian ideas to the mainstream. Let's face it. In order to win the Republican presidential nomination, you need to have at least some appeal to the "family values" and "strong defense" contingents in the Republican base. The strategy of compromising principles for political appeal is a huge bone of contention among liberty activists. People willing to go down that road might also appear to be "pseudo-libertarians", but their drift toward the Republican orthodoxy is a matter of practical necessity, not political philosophy.

Comment Re:Won't stop the moral hysteria (Score 1) 175

I find it highly unlikely that people who are behaving in a manner which is rude or reckless have deliberately developed a philosophical basis to justify their behavior.

Anyone interested in liberty from a societal standpoint knows that there can be no freedom which infringes on the freedom of others. Most liberty activists also hold private property rights in high regard, so I can't imagine an argument for allowing one's animal to defile the property of others.

At least try talking to your neighbors before calling men with badges and guns to mediate the dispute for you. I've never had a problem with a neighbor that couldn't be settled with dialogue. Most of the time, it's a case of one person having no clue that they were even bothering the other.

Comment Re:dear people who hate government (Score 1) 114

"government sucks ... it is simply superior to all of the abuses possible without government, or with weak government"

Are you making that claim only in the context of the USA or would you apply it to the whole world? In the 20th century alone, governments have murdered well over 200 million people. Another 37 million have died and countless more have been maimed in wars largely caused by governments. Then, add in all of the people who have been tortured, incarcerated and otherwise abused by agents of government.

How could the absence of government possibly result in abuses any worse than that?

Comment Re:It's insignificant and makes banks $150 billion (Score 1) 114

Banks do not accumulate $150 billion by lending their own money, or their depositors' money and charging interest. Nor do they get this by payments for handing card and check transactions. Thanks to their scam of fractional reserve banking, banks are granted the privilege of creating money out of thin air and loaning that money at interest as well. Easy to generate profits when you can loan out money you don't actually have.
Almost all of the money in the U.S. economy is "created" based on a debt obligation to a bank. That's why practically everyone you know is in some form of debt. ALL the people doing the real work and producing all of the real goods and services in the economy struggle under a debt burden while bankers, who provide very little of value manage to suck hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy.
Watch a short film called "Money as Debt" (it's on YouTube) It's rather astounding that the bankers can run this enormous con game and people tolerate it. First step to solving the issue of poverty and wealth inequality would be to abolish this practice.

You are in a maze of UUCP connections, all alike.