Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States

US Government Shutdown Ends 999

An anonymous reader writes "After more than two weeks of bickering that made the schoolyard appear civilized, Congress has finally passed a bill to reopen the U.S. Federal Government. 'The Senate passed the measure by a vote of 81 - 18, followed by approval in the House by a vote of 285 - 144. The bill now goes to the President, who will make remarks on Thursday regarding the reopening of the federal government. ... Earlier in the day, Speaker Boehner conceded that the House would not vote to stop the Senate-negotiated agreement. In a statement, the Speaker said that, after a fight with President Obama over his signature health care law, " . . . blocking the bipartisan agreement reached today by the members of the Senate will not be a tactic for us." The agreement will raise the debt limit until February 2014, fund the government through January 2014 and establish a joint House-Senate committee to make spending cut decisions.' CNN adds, 'Obama, for one, didn't seem in the mood Wednesday night for more of the same -- saying politicians in Washington have to "get out of the habit of governing by crisis." "Hopefully, next time, it will not be in the 11th hour," Obama told reporters, calling for both parties to work together on a budget, immigration reform and other issues. When asked as he left the podium whether he believed America would be going through all this political turmoil again in a few months, the President didn't waste words. "No."'"
The Courts

Mark Cuban Found Not Guilty of Insider Trading 48

schwit1 writes "Mark Cuban won a years-long fight with the federal government Wednesday as jurors decided that the billionaire basketball team owner did not commit insider-trading when he sold his shares in an Internet company in 2004. The jury in federal district court in Dallas said that the Securities and Exchange Commission failed to prove the key elements of its case, including the claim that Cuban agreed to keep certain information confidential and not trade on it. The nine-member jury deliberated about half a day before reaching the unanimous decision that ended the three-week trial."
The Internet

Most Parents Allow Unsupervised Internet Access To Children At Age 8 198

colinneagle writes "The timing for this study is interesting, given the arrests of two teenagers believed to have bullied a 12-year-old classmate until she committed suicide, but Microsoft found that 94% of parents said they allow their kids unsupervised access to at least one device or online service like email or social networks. The average age at which most children are allowed access to at least one online service, such as email or social media, was 8 years old, while 40% allow children under the age of 7 to access a computer unsupervised."

Comment Nice job blaming the regulators (Score 1) 93

I love this line of reasoning. It's the same reasoning that blames the Union Auto Workers and a guy who tightens bolts for a living for making shotty cars instead of the CEOs and Engineers who made the decision to use cheap bolts.

If the regulators are untrained it's by design. You don't just 'forget' to train the people that inspect your Nuclear power plants you know...

Comment Re:Yeah, right ... (Score 2) 734

Why does your kid have a computer, ipad, ipod, and cellphone? More specifically, why do you continue to let him have them after he's repeatedly rebelled against you? Have you tried selling all of them and disconnecting the internet from your house, then reintroducing them when he's learned to behave?

Parenting is only affective when you're consistent.

Comment The iPhone's pretty reasonable... (Score 2) 361

I can get one from t-mobile for the same or less than a Samsung S-4. I agree you can't do as much. I wrote a little Android program (Shameless Plug) that pops up a contact's picture (sadly the cute girl in the screenshots is a stock pic from the Creative Common's main image site) and keeps it there because I got tired of not noticing the itty bitty missed call notification. It's only pretty recently that I could distribute it to others on the iPhone without jumping through a _lot_ of hoops.

Comment Naw, not really (Score 2) 610

the powers that be aren't going to let us go to war. It's bad for business. Take that one terrorist attack ages ago in India that was traced back to Pakistan. The Indian people called for blood, the corps said no (since real war cuts into their profits) and everyone backed down.

Oh, for sure you're going to see a lot of human misery for the sake of the super rich being super rich. But large scale wars that wipe out the pleebs aren't going to happen again.

Comment Re:It's not theirs (Score 1) 305

Are the people of N Korea 'responsible' for Kim Jun Un? No, but they're powerless to do anything about it. The only thing that can stand up to concentrated wealth is a black plague that wipes it out or a strong central gov't. There's a reason we had a 'Dark Ages'

You once again state that I want the super rich to be able to abuse the gov't, ignoring my point that no matter what you or I want their going to, so same to you, my comment stands.

I'd love to live in a magic world of fairy dust and pixy farts where something as powerful as a central gov't doesn't get abused. Instead, I'd rather work around the inevitable abuse. It's kinda like floods. In 4,000 years we might have weather control. We don't have it today, so I'll build levies instead of just prayin' to god to make the water stop.

You seem to have grasped my point about gov't being controlled by people to enrich themselves while being completely oblivious to my point that _you_can_do_that_too? There's enough gov't to go around. Just like there's enough food, shelter and health care to go around. People like you perpetuating the lie that there isn't is what's wrong with the world...

Comment Re:What fiasco? (Score 1) 501

I don't think you can really phase in stuff like this. Letters wouldn't really help. With the internet you already know the site is up. I guess you could put a code in the letter, but then there's the political element. Delays could be used to put the service on hold indefinitely. Plus the codes become yet another piece of infrastructure to fail.

Comment Re:What fiasco? (Score 1) 501

Whether you fail gracefully or not you've still failed. The only difference is a pretty little message instead of a 404. Incremental growth is hard, because you've got so many factors fighting for the status quo that a large change is the only thing that can survive multiple lobbying efforts. If you want health care reform (debatable, but let's assume you do) You've got to strike while the iron's hot and there are people in office with the political will to implement it.

Comment Re:Tired of this nonsense (Score 1) 548

The point you disagree with them on is that society should bend over backwards to accommodate children rather than leaving it up to parents to explain adult things to their kids. If kids don't have decent parents, they have bigger problems than seeing tits.

Therein lies the irony since these are the kids that grow up to be the perverts.

Comment No, not exactly (Score 1) 305

the last one should recognize that he had a _lot_ of help along the way (which he did) and be willing to pay it forward.

In the real world kids from the projects don't make it big. In the real world they're crushed by daily life and their lack of education. Look up the unemployment rate and average income of project kids (especially the ones that speak Ebonics, which sadly makes them more or less unemployable outside of manual labor and fast food). It's not a fun read.

Comment What fiasco? (Score 4, Interesting) 501

This happens every time a major new internet service is launched. And it _always_ will. See, here's the problem: at launch everyone is interested and wants in. After a few weeks/months the interest dies off and the site hits a BAU point. So if you're designing one of these sites you're stuck either:

a. Spending billions on infrastructure for 3 months tops of high volume and then getting ripped to shreds in the press for 'wasting' all that money. or...

b. Taking your lumps up front and waiting a few months for people to forget about it.

The guys running healthcare.gov opted for 'b.', and I would too. The kinds of people that just want to say bad things about the ACA would have a field day with 'a.', with 'b.' they'll have to acknowledge (or at least ignore) the fact that in a few months it'll be working more or less as intended.

Comment Nice straw man (Score 1) 305

past $9 million a year then no. You're not 'working hard to earn more' any more then. You're riding on someone else's hard (that sounds dirty). Do you seriously think the Chinese billionaire that owns Foxconn 'earned' that? Or to go more extreme how about the southern cotton plantation owners in the 1800s? Yeah, I'm being inflammatory, but the point is still valid.

Slashdot Top Deals

The finest eloquence is that which gets things done.

Working...