Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:I'm not American so why would I care? (Score 1) 139 139

Which has then conspired to de-legitimize the celebration of its own independence. I have close to zero respect for anti-fireworks laws. Go ahead and do it, but be responsible, or be held liable. What the hell is wrong with that?

What's wrong with that is that it's a little hard to track down the individual who lit the fireworks AFTER a wildfire has devastated the region. You do understand that fire prevention is the primary reason for these laws, right? (There may be rural areas where the noise frightens livestock, and that would be a legitimate reason for prohibiting their use as well).

Comment: Re:I'm not American so why would I care? (Score 1) 139 139

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/maga... when it happened....there were nukes.....hmmm who knew

The way to do it that would have been legal would have been to petition parliament like the Scottish just did, you can't just decide you don't like the way your country is run so you'll make you're own....if that was a thing, I'd have my own already.

Um, remember that phrase "taxation without representation" that got thrown around back then? Parliament did not recognize the colonies' right to petition because there was no colonial representative member. The colonists then did what they could--petitioned the king directly.

I guess that didn't help either.

Comment: Re:Boo hoo... (Score 1) 815 815

I should follow up that I do not believe that the sale of the flag should be banned. That would also represent a restriction of free speech. If you can find people who want to make it, and people who want to sell it, you should be able to buy it, just like people should be able to buy other symbols and icons that represent a desire to change the law ("Legalize it!, etc,). I just believe that people aren't thinking carefully enough about what this particular symbol truly represents, and if a majority of the citizens in a State believe it's offensive to display an item over the Capitol, then those people have the right to bring those grievances to the State Government and expect change.

Comment: Re:Boo hoo... (Score 1) 815 815

The flag only represented treason when the South lost. Up until then it represented freedom from the oppressive North, a North that wouldn't let them govern themselves how they saw fit.

I can't believe we're still dealing with this strawman. I also can't believe you don't see the irony in your own statement. The people of the south wanted "freedom" to deny freedom to others, and you're OK with that?

When some folks finally got enlightened enough to realize that the ownership of human beings is just plain WRONG, a majority of the citizens of the US (which is how our representative democracy works) convinced their legislators and President that "how they saw fit" should be outlawed. They way we effect change in this country is through legislation. If an Army base were to be attacked today for the reasons that Fort Sumter was shelled, we'd call it terrorism. So, yes, the flag was treasonous on the day it was created, and continues to be so because of the "ideals" it represents.

The southern states only considered this "oppressive" because an end to slavery meant lower profits for slave-owners. This is clearly outlined in their secession statements.

Comment: Re:Don't worry, they'll try again (Score 1) 229 229

Oh, and of course there's always that *one* part of Fantasia that they did have to pay for--Stravinski's "The Rite of Spring." They've managed to convince an appeals court that the original contract (explicitly covering theatrical release only) also licenses all home video distribution, so its copyright has been rendered essentially null for them and them alone. I can think of at least 10 other movies that have never had a DVD or soundtrack CD release because the prevailing legal opinion is that those rights must be negotiated separately.

Comment: Re:Don't worry, they'll try again (Score 1) 229 229

It is interesting to note that some of Disney's most well-known films are based on public domain works, while Disney has been one of the biggest factors in eliminating the public domain altogether.

can you open that up for us? I wasn't aware of this, and would appreciate a short schooling session

Open it up? You weren't aware that Disney didn't have to pay anyone for the rights to Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland, Hercules, Hamlet (The Lion King), Mulan, Pocahontas, Pinocchio, ad infinitum? .

I always use my favorite example of how they abuse copyright--Disney has now held the copyright on *their* version of Alice in Wonderland for more than twice as long as Lewis Carrol did for the original work.

Comment: Re:Some thoughts about comments I'm reading... (Score 1) 105 105

I'm sure the logic is that only other baseball teams would want that data anyway, so there was no real concern about a group of Russian hackers copying a database. Why be fort knox secure when you trust and respect the other 29 teams that you share billions of dollars of revenue with? Naive, yes. Intentional, no. Deserved what they got, no. (No one deserves to be the victim of a crime)

As a resident of Houston who has avoided the sport since they gave the home run title to a cheater, I have to respond to this part of your comment. If THAT was the logic, then while they may not have "deserved" it, implementing security this poor amounts to criminal negligence. There are *plenty* of others who would want the info. You see, there's this little thing called gambling, and small advantages like this is how the pros stay ahead. Strangely enough, these same pros also tend to associate with folks who are part of organized crime.

Comment: Re:Tolls? (Score 1) 837 837

road damage from a prius vs road damage from a semi. Hmm. sounds equitable.

I'm an Oregonian.. and holy god, this is one of those proposals which needs to be killed with fire before it metastasizes.

Yes. At the very least, the proposed tax should be multiplied by [ (number of axles) - 1 ].

Comment: Re:Privacy? (Score 1) 776 776

What? This was a PRIVATE employment agreement between a PRIVATE employer and a PRIVATE employee. If she doesn't like the employers terms she can find a new job. The GOVERNMENT has zero business intruding in a PRIVATE affair!

While I haven't decided which candidate I prefer in the upcoming election, I endorse the remainder of this comment. The employee ignored the devastatingly simple solution to this problem: just leave the phone at work, in your (desk, locker, whatever) when you go home at night! If you have components of your life that you want to keep from your employer, don't being your employer everywhere you go! Duh.

Comment: Re:Sanders amazes me (Score 1) 395 395

what you ignore while you talk about capitol gains is they already paid taxes on that income. why should they pay again??? let alone at a higher rate???

That is absolutely false. From the definition of capital gains:

When you sell a capital asset, the difference between the basis in the asset and the amount you sell it for is a capital gain or a capital loss. Generally, an asset's basis is its cost to the owner, but if you received the asset as a gift or inheritance, refer to Topic 703 for information about your basis. You have a capital gain if you sell the asset for more than your basis. You have a capital loss if you sell the asset for less than your basis. Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, are not deductible.

You are not re-taxed on your original earnings (the "basis"). You are taxed on the growth in value or gain (hence the name).

If a 6600 used paper tape instead of core memory, it would use up tape at about 30 miles/second. -- Grishman, Assembly Language Programming

Working...