Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:I don't get it. (Score 1) 416

No, I'm not attempting to justify the penallty for breaking the law, but you really should pay attention to what you're signing up for.

You don't even understand the law. The law in question says you go to jail for 5 years for unlocking a phone you own. And you do purchase the phone. That's the phrase used. The contract is about the service not the phone.

Comment Re:I don't get it. (Score 2) 416

The part you don't get is that the carrier is not obliged to unlock the phone at the end of the term

No one is asking the carrier to to do a damn thing. The phone is mine. I paid the full price for it (actually more than the full price if I completed the multi-year obligation). Why should I be a criminal because I modify something I friggin paid for and own. It's completely asinine. The congress idiots that passed such a law should be in jail.

Comment Re:Biomechanics (Score 2) 379

but all it does is move TDC 20 degrees along the pedal cycle

No, it doesn't. The forces involved at the peddle and at the crank are identical to those if it were a straight connection. The only difference is the shape of the metal piece connecting them. TDC is in exactly the same place as it would be if there was a straight piece of metal connecting the peddle to the crank.

Comment Re:Thanks for the concern (Score 1) 341

Funny, it used to be that if you just *knew* the government was a grand conspiracy despite having no evidence of such you'd be considered crazy.

Yeah, the dozens of news articles you can read every month are no evidence at all, including one of the more bizarre ones that I linked to. I'll point you to 2 quick ones off the top of my head. The Kim Dotcom fiasco and the retroactive immunity for the illegal monitoring at the behest of our government by certain telecoms. Just friggin read some news and open your friggin eyes.

Comment Re:Thanks for the concern (Score 5, Insightful) 341

...and you know this how?

I read the news. Note I said read and not watch. I could list dozens of stories (probably hundreds if I took some time to research) of questionable if not down right illegal actions by the US government in the last few years. I'll name 2 quick ones other than the one I linked to just to get you started. The Kim Dotcom fiasco and the retroactive immunity for the illegal monitoring at the behest of our government by certain telecoms. Just friggin read some news and open your friggin eyes. It's not hyperbole. It's reality and it's getting worse rapidly.

Comment Re:Thanks for the concern (Score 5, Insightful) 341

My god. Does anyone think about consequences, or anyone but themselves, before acting anymore?

Yeah. Problem is people like you are blind to them. We need far more of our government's secrets leaked. 99% of what the US government is keeping secret has no business being secret. And a fair percentage of that is being kept secret to cover up illegal activity by the US government. When you have crap like this going on consistently something needs change and don't give me any crap about voting either. There are no options to vote for.

Comment Re:Thanks for the concern (Score 1) 341

...So, Manning's rationalization for exposing many more people and putting them in a much graver situation must be worse, right?

If you do something you know will put people in danger, then it's only OK if those people are soldiers and foreigners?

This is complete BS and has been thoroughly debunked numerous times.

Comment Re:Get real! (Score 1) 338

the rest of the figures are for their Super PACs as stated in the original posting

So you're saying the millions donated to Obama's Super PAC all came from ordinary people and not corporate interests? The only point this seems to make is that Obama is beholden to a larger group of more diverse corporate interests. It certainly in no way indicates that the corporations didn't support Obama.

Comment Re:Get real! (Score 1) 338

Limits to the campaign directly. I'm quoting figures from the Obama and Romney Super PACs.

Strange that. According to the NY Times the numbers you quote seem to exactly match those they report for direct donations. So I guess the NY Times are idiots too?

The numbers for the Super PAC donors actually fairly closely match in levels for both Obama and Romney, respectively: <$100k 11% and 14%, 100k to 1m 40% and 44%, >1m 49% and 42%.

Correct, and who is more likely to have the power to strong arm someone? a business executive. And who do they majoritarily favor? Romney.

Please actually look at the link I provided earlier. Arguments work much better if actually look at information that supports them rather than just spouting what you think is right.

Comment Re:So copyright is not just who can copy? (Score 1) 338

You can't honestly believe that has the production value of LotR.

No. I wasn't saying that. Monsters does actually have some fair special effects, all done on the guys laptop apparently. I was pointing out the contrast in a decent movie with decent special effects made for $15,000 versus your typical Hollywood fair where $15,000 would even come close to covering the catering bill. LotR could be made as good if not better (focus on story and characters rather than the FX and big names being the movie) for at least an order of magnitude less money than it takes a main stream studio. I provided Monsters an example to support my position.

Comment Re:Get real! (Score 1) 338

Donor 58 by highest amount for Obama gave as much money as the 217 highest donor for Romney. Yeap, Romney had approx. four times as many 1%ers giving money to this campaign.

Did you even look at the link I provided? You see, there are limits to how much an individual can contribute. So what they do is strong arm all their buddies into giving some. The money may technically be coming from a bunch of different people but in reality it's source to one corporation or individual. Kinda makes the numbers you so proudly expound about irrelevant. Yup. I'm the simpleton.

Slashdot Top Deals

A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you. -- Ramsey Clark