Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Guantanamo in President's control (Score 1) 128

Now remind me who blocked him from closing down gitmo...

No one can block the President from doing whatever he wants with the military. He is the Commander in Chief, remember? And Guantanamo is a military prison — that's the whole reason it was used by Bush to hold foreign combatants out of reach of America's civil legal system.

So, yes, Obama could have just let all of the inmates loose. Into Cuba or into Antarctica or anywhere else... Or he could've killed them — the way he deliberately killed tens and hundreds of would-be detainees to avoid having to explain to his base, why Guantanamo population is growing... Including Osama bin Laden.

Comment Re:Don't worry (Score 1) 411

You are only responsible to yourself (and possibly your family), you don't have to work if you don't want to, but you cannot demand that others work for you and pay for you, feed you, cloth you, shelter you, treat your diseases, educate you, etc.

So it is a choice, you can choose to work or not to work, you can choose to eat or not to eat. How is that a 'country' situation? It's a UNIVERSE situation.

Again, if Uber is the *difference* between Joe Somebody earning money or not earning money, then attacking the *ONLY* company that Joe is apparently capable of finding a work at is ridiculous and economically suicidal.

Comment Bush's fault! (Score 5, Insightful) 128

Thanks Trump!

Don't forget Bush! Obama inherited DEA from his predecessor, didn't he? 8 years of Presidency is not enough to fix a federal law-enforcement agency, especially if you pick Attorney Generals for their Social Justice credentials, rather than the ability to run a sizeable organization. (An ability, Obama himself never had either.)

And, unlike closing Guantanamo, Obama never even promised to reign-in the Drug Enforcement Administration — so we can't hold him responsible for its abuses, can we?

Comment Re:Wow, just... I mean, wow. (Score 0) 411

I see, so now Uber, who you basically just said yourself is *saving people from starvation and death* is a husband who beats his wife?

So what you are saying is that the wife that is being abused is actually unable to survive without the husband, is that what you are implying? So is it the economy that makes the wife unable to survive or is that only something that exists in her (your) head?

You are now comparing people, who are driving for Uber to wives that take a beating but cannot leave their husbands because *they believe* they cannot survive in the world without the husband?

You see, I wouldn't make claims similar to yours, so I wouldn't put myself in such a precarious position in a conversation.

I think that people driving for Uber are not on the brink of starvation and hunger death, they have other choices, *you* implied that they are starving and cannot survive without Uber.

I think that they are making a conscious decision to drive for Uber because it works for them better, maybe it gives them extra income, maybe it gives them the flexibility, maybe they like not going to an office and like being treated as independent adults who are perfectly capable of making their own life choices.

You, on the other hand, are implying all sorts of things about these people that I think cannot stand to any type of scrutiny. These are not starving people, they are driving cars, they wear clothes and they have mobile phones and they are able to afford all of that and still they can eat something (or they wouldn't be driving).

You should stop attacking companies simply because you think they are not providing the type of work conditions that you expect them to provide, instead maybe (if you think you can do it better) you should run a competitor to Uber or to WalMart or to McDonalds or to Apple or to whatever and see if you can do better and if you can provide those jobs under the conditions that you are promoting here.

Comment Re:Don't worry (Score 1) 411

This has nothing to do with 'deserving', the point is that nobody at all is forcing anybody to drive for Uber.

I run a company of my own, at times I made not simply less than minimum wage would be, but in a number of cases I was paying people who work for me out of pocket, as in I was losing money, not making it. *Nobody* forced me to do this, it's a private personal decision.

Comment Re:White supremacists banned, Black ones -- protec (Score 1) 101

while protecting the Black ones?

Did you link the right story? I don't see what it had to do with Twitter.

What I linked to had to do with BLM containing Black Supremacists, bent not merely on subjugating or mocking, but outright killing Whites. That Twitter protects them is covered by TFA itself.

Comment Re:I wonder (Score 1) 213

the issue that the federal government is meddling with stupid shit that is not within its charter.

- correct.

guarantee that I can find a job

- also not within their authority, because to *guarantee* a job to person A would mean to guarantee that other people have to subsidise that job. It's direct transfer from one person to another. OTOH government should step aside and *not diminish your chances* of finding a job by destroying the economy, that would be nice.

Comment Re: Better be ready to be beat up when layed off w (Score 1) 538

you seem to be implying that, to compete with automation, humans should be willing to be treated like dirt.

- no, I am implying that the cost of litigation is a consideration for any employer *regardless of the merits*. Anybody can sue anybody else if there is merit, that's one thing, however the labour laws make it too easy for an employee to sue an employer for things like 'wrongful termination' and that's a garbage claim. Same with 'human rights' related lawsuits, there is no such thing as a 'human right to work', human rights are protections against government oppression, not entitlements for the employees and obligations upon the employers, yet that's exactly what 'human rights' lawsuits against employers are: they didn't do something the government puts an obligation on them to do, to satisfy an entitlement that the government deems an employee is supposed to receive from an employer.

Being treated like dirt is one thing, and nobody has to work for an employer who treats people like dirt, being provided government entitlements because an employee and employer are working together is something else, that's one of the 3 main reasons why I outsource most of my development to a different country.

Comment Re:Welcome to the Trump future... (Score 0) 483

you want everyone to be forced to pay into

- I completely disagree, individual freedom is more relevant and more important than individual life, i.e., an individual should be able to do with his or her life as he or she pleases, but they should not get any subsidies from anybody based on the oppression of any government apparatus.

This is not about GDP, this is not about society, this is about individual freedoms and I am 100% against anybody being forced to subsidise anybody else, under those conditions buying health insurance is a decision that would be taken much more seriously than if everybody was oppressed by the state and forced to pay into it.

Comment Re:Apple PAYS for your SS, Medicare, Welfare and W (Score 1) 266

So, there is zero risk.

- :) You are being sarcastic I hope, I had a great chuckle (for real) reading this, hopefully you were smiling while writing that, yes?

The only 0 risk in buying government bonds is this: risk of getting back the value of the money you bought the bonds with.

Comment Re:Welcome to the Trump future... (Score 1) 483

It's sure to drop further once he repeals health care.

This is amazing. I was going to post something snarky to the effect that, had Republicans done some kind of major overhaul of national healthcare in recent years, they would've been blamed for the decline of longevity.

But reality is even stranger than what I imagined — although Obamacare was passed without a single Republican vote, the Democrats blame Republicans for nation's worsening health anyway. Because of something they may do in the future!..

Now, the Anonymous Coward may have been sarcastic. But the moderators, who've elevated him to "Score: 4, Insightful" (at the time of this typing), certainly weren't...

Submission + - Student facing legal threats for publishing video of professor's anti-Trump rant (cbslocal.com)

mi writes: When the "Human Sexuality" teacher called Trump's victory "an Act of Terrorism" in classroom, a student began recording her rant. Now that he posted the video online, he is facing legal threats from the professor's union:

"This is an illegal recording without the permission of the instructor. The student will be identified and may be facing legal action.


Slashdot Top Deals

Overflow on /dev/null, please empty the bit bucket.

Working...