Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Paul Krugman, 1998 (Score 3, Insightful) 187

> I disagree. The burden of proof is on those who want to interfere with the right of the rightful owners of these companies to dispose of their property as they damn well please.

We already have experience in these areas. We even wrote a body of laws to address this particular problem. There is nothing new or interesting here.

We just have libertardians trying to pretend that history doesn't exist and these kinds of problems haven't happened before.

Your notion of capitalism is about 150 years out of date.

Comment Re:Ok (Score 1) 187

The funny thing is that we have already heard the same arguments from them. In fact, the pro-monopoly mouthpieces are using the fact that we tolerated this crap last time to justify it again. They're like 4 year olds point and say "but but you allowed it this other time".

This is what we get for tolerating this bullshit.

This "but we will play nice" and "but you can add conditions" is the same argument they made for the last merger that should never have gone through.

If you need to create "special conditions", then by definition the merger is bad. The fact that you create a new set of rules that the relevant corporation can break in the future really doesn't change anything.

Comment Re:Ok (Score 1) 187

> As I already said, in a vain attempt at preventing this, I was talking about the frequency space that used to be called "channel 5", etc, NOT THE ARBITRARY CHANNEL DESIGNATION EMBEDDED IN THE DIGITAL STREAM.

NOBODY cares about that. Packets can be treated just like electrons from a power company. It doesn't really matter who the source or the destination is or if is even a broadcast.

Even the notion of "channel 5" being dedicated to anything is an obsolete idea as anything that isn't a packet switched network is moving in that direction.

Comment Re:Statute of limitations (Score 1) 467

> The market panicked, and groupthink took over, causing an emotion-based drop in the value of mortgage-backed assets that was far out of proportion to the actual losses

No. What happened is that people realized that the ratings were a total fiction. That realization was applied not only to the mortgage equivalent of junk bonds but to EVERYTHING.

It took more than just home foreclosures to melt the economy.

Once people realized that the ratings agencies were a big fat fraud, trust in general was destroyed.

THIS is why we have an SEC to begin with. We have experienced much of this nonsense before and chose to make laws intended to avoid the negative consequences of financial corruption. However, people forget about the relevant history and just start to whine about how they are being impeded from making a buck today.

Comment Re: what price increases? (Score 1) 424

> Why buy the physical disk if you can get the same quality, and access it anywhere you want

1) It is NOT the same quality
2) You can NOT access it anywhere you want

Chances are, you won't even be able to access it on any device you want. The only way to really ensure what you are describing is to buy physical media, rip it, and have a copy stored on your mobile device.

We have to deal with the world the way it is, rather than pretending that we live in some fantasy version of that world.

Neither the land line nor the mobile network operators are interested in accomodating your fantasy. Your fantasy is never going to come into being so long as the status quo remains with the current telecom incumbents.

Comment Re: what price increases? (Score 1) 424

> Why buy a blueray disk when you can buy the streaming version for cheaper, with the same quality, if we had the broadband the rest of the world has?

The streaming version is almost never cheaper than the physical media version. Even if it is, it's probably not cheaper enough to offset the total lack of any real ownership you have in a streaming copy.

Plus physical media is subject to all of the other aspects of physical property. Supply cannot suddenly be completely eliminated and the media obeys the laws of supply and demand.

For the price of cable, you can quickly get to the point where you can distract yourself without paying for cable or streaming or even more media ever again.

Comment What a stupid idea... (Score 2) 424

The whole thesis is a remarkably stupid idea. Time Warner and Comcast are NOT direct competitors. They are MONOPOLIES in differet markets. They already have the ability to screw with you if you are trying to cut the cord. You probably have no where to go.

PERHAPS you can flee from your local cable monopoly to your local phone monopoly. MAYBE.

All this does is increase the number of cities where Comcast has a monopoly. Ultimately, the real impact of this will likely be with negotating with content providers. Comcast might be able to go all Walmart on Disney.

Comment Re:Mexico City (Score 3, Insightful) 424

The obvious solution to that is regulation that alows for CLECs in cable and Internet just they way they were allowed for in phone service. This whole stupid mess is just the result of a bunch of Ayn Rand cultists thinking that the market would magically sort itself out if we let all of the jack*ss corporations run amok.

Los Angeles had multiple competitive DSL providers 15 years ago and it's WAY more spread out than New York City.

Comment Re:can also lead to more schools to teach real ski (Score 1) 597

> Actually, college is supposed to be a breadth oriented experience. It is not supposed to be job training. If you want job training, that's what technical school is for.

Actually, this is exactly how the original Universities started out. It was all about the Benjamins. It was only later that academic pretense developed.

"Fluff" courses can be dangerous in the wrong hands...

Comment Re: Basic Economics (Score 1) 888

> Yeah, yeah, yeah, the poor have refrigerators and cell phones. Medical care, education, and decent food is a problem. "Obamacare" and Medicare are half- assed solutions.

The poor have more than ample resources in the food department. Their girth is ample proof of this. What they lack is wisdom and impulse control. Unlimited resources won't help the situation.

Comment Re:Wow (Score 2) 888

> Why are you so sadistic that you want to force people to work as garbage men?

It's not sadism. It's pragmatism. Someone has to do the shit jobs and chances are that there aren't enough people naturally inclined to do them. The real challenge of Earth in the Federation universe is what you do with a bunch of people that are economically pointless.

You also have the problem of what people are going to do with themselves all day. Some people handle this well and others handle it very poorly.

Comment Re:Isn't this the Peter Principle (Score 1) 312

No. It still requires bullshitting and sitting in endless meetings. That's just crap that someone who is cut out for management can actually deal with (and do so effectively).

The whole point of society is so that people can specialize and do what they do best rather than being some deluded jack-of-all-trades that could just be his own boss anyways.

Slashdot Top Deals

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman