Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Wrong use of money these days (Score 3, Insightful) 356

But only if the government is involved, it is all the fault of of the government, right?

When the government uses force to take money from ordinary people "invests" it for them, losing $10 billion on the deal, then yes. It's their fault.

If the people whose jobs/future that were saved by that "investment" now have an excess of $28 billion in cash, they should give it back to the people who were forced to help them (with threats of jail, etc. if they didn't).

Comment Re:Unless they were bonds (Score 1) 356

I'm long past tired of "investors" suing for their losses. You want to gamble with your money, you take the risk of losing it.

It wasn't their money to gamble with. It belonged to the taxpayers.

The people at GM should be glad they still have a company and jobs to go to. Saying "thankyou" to the taxpayer doesn't make any sense to you? It's not like they don't have the money (in cash) to do so.

Comment Re:Wrong use of money these days (Score 0) 356

This isn't personal. His job is to protect shareholder value. He indicated, in the interview, that if he paid back the $10B loss he would be opening GM up to lawsuits from every other shareholder who lost money in the bankruptcy.

a) Those 'other shareholders' bought the shares voluntarily. The taxpayer didn't.

b) Those 'other shareholders' should probably be grateful that their shares aren't valued at $0 right now. Thanks to the taxpayer.

It's sad that the law can't ever make an exception to do the decent thing without exposing itself to a bunch of assholes who're just trying to game the system.

Comment Re:Welcome to the stock market (Score 3, Informative) 356

The government did not issue a loan, they bought a large amount of stock.

a) Would they have purchased that stock if it hadn't been a "bailout"?

b) A "loan" would have left them with nothing if the company had tanked. A stock purchase would entitle them to some company assets to sell off, this is what most people call "security".

Comment Re:No Sympathy (Score 1) 413

It's not just a (physical, building) security system, it's ANY system. Why on earth would you choose to base your product (something that presumably companies will use for many, many years) on something that will have no security support in just 4 months?

a) It's not connected to the Internet.
b) There's no idiot users surfing the web with it.

Comment Re:Real enough to tax. (Score 1) 245

Sounds like a currency to me.

It's far too unstable to be a real currency. It's more like, eg. gold - something with limited supply that has a value to other people.

Except that right now it's far too unstable to even be compared to gold. It's more like a stock in a smallish company - the value goes up and down wildly every day.

Comment Re:How is Norway going to know? (Score 1) 245

the NSA doesn't care about tax cheats, they are concerned with terrorism. Since I have zero intention of ever being a terrorist, I'm not really worried about the NSA.


The NSA generates (and stores) data.

The trouble with having mountains of data is that sooner or later a politician will think "I could use that for...XXXX".

Or some police department will request it. Or the IRS.

If you build it, they will come.

Comment Re:How is Norway going to know? (Score 1) 245

Well this applies to anything else.


If I aquire a load of highly prized poppies and don't report my acquisitions, how will they know?

Sooner or later you'll sell them and convert their value to real money.

Poppies are much safer than Bitcoin in this respect. Poppies are physical so can sell them for cash and keep it under the mattress. Bitcoin can only be exchanged for real money electronically, good luck keeping that a secret from the spies.

Slashdot Top Deals

interlard - vt., to intersperse; diversify -- Webster's New World Dictionary Of The American Language