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

 



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

Comment: Re:We're All Dicks (Score 0) 246 246

We're all dicks.

I dislike how this phrase is being used because I think it trivializes the extent to which Jobs was not a good person and introduces an inappropriate levity into the discussion. A much better term would have been acute sociopath.

I prefer to inject levity into all situations. And the parts of Jobs that did more than get him to the top of Apple -- e.g., disowning his daughter, as others have pointed out here -- are total asshole moves. There's a difference.

Comment: Re:No shit ... (Score 1) 133 133

-- do really expect people can pursue happiness with Bing?

Actually, Yelp paid for this study and staffed it as well... See the footnotes of the first page in the first link in TFS http://www.slideshare.net/lutherlowe/wu-l

Ha ha...Yelp involved in accusing others of unfair practices? Oh, the blessed irony.

Comment: Re:No shit ... (Score 5, Funny) 133 133

All I have to say is use another search engine if you don't like it. No one is forcing you to use Google.

Googe is a Basic Human Right. The US was founded on the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- do really expect people can pursue happiness with Bing?

Comment: Re:Why Republicans want to take away health insura (Score 1) 591 591

There are a variety of reasons why the ACA is a bad law. Primarily, it is because it leaves intact the insurance companies and the outrageous costs of medical procedures, and does not put an upper bound on medical malpractice awards. Basically, it just guarantees the insurance companies a few million additional subscribers, and puts the onus on employers to suck up the cost difference (either through their company contribution or the penalty they pay to have employees shop the exchanges on their own). And don't get me started on all the fees. And how about the fact that we're still getting final regulations from the executive branch? Congress enacted a law over which they gave up control to the executive? Well, they maintain the ability to stop funding, sort of; but that isn't going to happen.

tl;dr: I'm mostly just against the individual mandate -- which is little more than an admission by the government that they couldn't find another way to fund the law. But don't underestimate the impact of all the fees on companies. And the unintended fees in the form of the costs of implementing the various reporting requirements (e.g., 30 hour; 6055/6056).

Comment: Re:Prime Scalia - "Words no longer having meaning" (Score 1) 591 591

I believe the "old saying" you want is:

None of us is as dumb as all of us. (http://despair.com/collections/demotivators/products/meetings)

Or one of my favorite movie quotes (Men in Black):

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

Comment: Re:Prime Scalia - "Words no longer having meaning" (Score 1) 591 591

I don't recall the repeal of amendment 17 being a right wing talking point, but then I don't pay attention to talking points. One answer is to fix congressional salaries to some measure of the overall health of the country. Or perhaps we dial it back to a paltry $80k per year, then require pay raises to be voted on not by them but directly by us. Finally, make them work in government for a reasonably long period of time before they are eligible for a pension that gives them health care and a salary above the median income for the rest of their lives.

Comment: Re:Prime Scalia - "Words no longer having meaning" (Score 3, Insightful) 591 591

As long as there's a plausible rationale for why the text is the way it is ...

The reason the text is the way it is, is because of the election of Scott Brown to fill the seat of the recently deceased Ted Kennedy. The Democrats lost their 60 seat super-majority required to override a filibuster. So congress had to pass the bill "as is" with no changes or edits. It was either a flawed law or no law.

Regardless, I'm pretty sure they passed it without reading it. And not because, say, they wouldn't have passed it if they did; rather, because the bill as a whole is entirely unreadable.

Comment: Re:Prime Scalia - "Words no longer having meaning" (Score 1, Insightful) 591 591

Typos can indeed lead to ludicrous conclusions that can be corrected judicially. This was not one of them.

Apparently, six justices disagree with you...

But if six judges disagreed with you, and they happened to rule against your favored political party, would you placidly accept their decision?

Your good nature will bring you unbounded happiness.

Working...