Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Corporations are an Abomination (Score 3, Insightful) 182

Ah, yes. Just like copyright law, the laws governing corporations are an abomination and perversion of what was originally intended.
In the beginning:

  • Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
  • Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
  • Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
  • Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
  • Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
  • Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

What the hell happened? Corporations made TONS of money off of the Civil War (Military-Industrial Complex?). Corporations bought influence and successfully eroded the protections given to the people by the founders and the states from such corporations as the East India Company.

Yes, I know we like to ridicule the founders as not being worthy of the pedestal they've been placed on. But they got a lot of things right that got royally screwed up over time. Corporations were not intended to be given power with the singular purpose of making money. They were intended to be given power to fulfill a purpose, and then dissolve when the purpose was fulfilled, or no longer necessary. The corporation would cease to exist if it violated any laws, and the people running the corporation would be held accountable for those actions. Almost sounds like a utopia.

Comment Re: Why "I" shouldn't trust Geek Squad? (Score 2, Informative) 389

You have all rights. The Bill of Rights lists the rights Congress is explicitly never to infringe upon.

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."

Comment Re: Then LG prada (Score 3, Insightful) 35

I've seen the patent for this prior to this release. I was pretty confident it was disinformation so competitors wouldn't know what they were actually doing. I still believe that's case, and what this protype is.

It may have been George Lucas style revisionism, but it's been said the iPhone was a stepping stone to get to Jobs' goal of the iPad. The click wheel wouldn't fly. And I doubt AT&T would have redesigned their network and voicemail system for this either.

Comment Re: But why? (Score 1) 336

Jobs had a vision. For him Apple was not just a spreadsheet of metrics with which to extract the most amount of wealth from and then leave.

Jobs genuinely wanted to change the world with technology while also making a living at it. Was he a douche? Sure. Was he a manipulative son of a bitch? Perhaps. But he knew what he wanted to do and he seeked out the talent to make that happen.

Apple without a visionary is not Apple. Tim Cook and Jony Ives are not visionaries. I am without a doubt sure that the were the best people for the jobs they did while Jobs was there, however with out the direction/management that Jobs brought to the table, Apple is just adrift.

That spark Jobs, Gates, Hewlet, Packard, all the former great tech founders had is gone and have been replaced with out of sync number crunchers only interested in cost cutting and maximizing profit.

Comment Re:I doubt this is correct (Score 1) 289

You could be right. To me it sounds like both the battery design was too aggressive for current technology as well as the space allowed for the battery to do its thing was insufficient. If they replaced the battery, it would have to be less aggressive, lower capacity design plus a reduction in the battery's physical size.

The resulting battery may have been insufficient for the phone in a way that was unacceptable to the marketing guys. If the phone only has 1 to 2 hours of power with the fix, the hit to the brand may have been calculated to be too great than just doing a recall and going back to the drawing board.

Comment Re: Click Bait (Score 2) 232

Availability or the number of people who have insurance has no validity as a metric on quality or affordability of healthcare.

Insurance is the problem with healthcare in America. Forcing people to buy the problem isn't going to fix healthcare. Subsidies on the problem isn't going to fix healthcare. Just because you are paying for the problem doesn't mean you are entitled to or receive any better healthcare than anyone else.

Paying for the problem doesn't make healthcare cheaper, it makes it more expensive. The problem with healthcare makes it more expensive for people who don't pay for the problem.

We either need to go full on single payer or complete remove health insurance all together.

Comment Re: Proof her perf evaluations weren't fair (Score 1) 566

From the Wikipedia:

In 2009, Teva Pharmaceuticals filed an ANDA to market a generic EpiPen in collaboration with Antares Pharma Inc, a maker of injection systems; Pfizer and King sued them for infringing US Patent 7,449,012 that was due to expire in 2025;[29] Pfizer, Mylan, and Teva settled in April 2012 in a deal that allowed Teva to start selling the device in mid-2015, pending FDA approval.[30]

Comment Re: It's not the intrusion per se (Score 1) 45

That's easy. We declare war and let the military do it. Say we are at war with ISIS or whoever and monitor their communications like the military complex would do in any other war.

Of course domestic lone wolves would be off limits like they should be anyway. You can't be guilty of a crime without actually committing one. Obviously we've gone too far requiring ID and and recording such information any time someone buys a pressure cooker, right? Right?

Comment Re: Proof her perf evaluations weren't fair (Score 3, Informative) 566

I've never seen that quote before. But as someone who is a small cog in the industry, what she said about the FDA is absolutely true.

Rising drug costs? The FDA is complicit. Drugs approved without being properly vetted? The FDA is complicit.

Vaccines are great and everything, but do we really need to require thousands of dollars in vaccines for things like chicken pox before a child can go to public school? It's great that insurance hides this cost for most, but I have seen the other side where people have fallen through the cracks in Medicaid and Obamacare. These poor, both in terms of wealth and luck, people needing to get their five year olds caught up before school needing $1200 for the first round.

It was $1200 because government required it, not because of free market. Just like Epipen. Just like so many common generic drugs the FDA pulls from the market as being "unsafe" and then a single patented brand medication takes their place at 100x to 1000x the cost.

Then there is manufacturer collusion where a common drug all of a sudden has "manufacturing" issues and it's not available from any manufacturer. Then in a month or two it's available again, but only from a single source, and yes it's still generic, but at 4x the cost.

This is mostly hidden from "consumers" because insurance. You are still paying your $4 copay. But the costs on the back end are high. Meaning less money for labor, so long lines and wait times at the pharmacy. Higher costs for the insurers mean higher premiums. So all that anger gets thrown at the pharmacy and the insurers. The guys at the top are laughing all the way to the bank.

Comment Re:A sit in (Score 4, Insightful) 350

Using the no-fly list to keep bad guys from guns is a terrible idea, here is why:

It's just a bad idea that can and will be abused to keep law abiding citizens from possessing guns, which the federal government has no legal power to do.

If you actually want to solve the mass shooting problem, and not just use fear to remove freedoms from individuals with thunderous applause, this is what I propose:

Let guns be in schools. As part of P.E. or even on its own, students will be in a firearm safety course. They will be target practicing. They will be tearing their guns down. They will be cleaning their firearms. They will be using hand guns, and rifles, and shotguns, etc. They will be taught that they are tools just like the circular saw or the welder in shop class, or knives and scissors in art class and home economics. They will take this class every year they are old enough to hold a weapon safely.

Just like at 16, when they are given a license to operate a tool that "kills" on average 3,287 people per day, at 18 they will take a test and if passed they will get a concealed carry license issued by their state of residence. The CCL will be valid in every state and territory of this nation. All of our children will be taught to not fear guns, and if they so chose they will be armed. That way the next time someone decides to bring a semi auto rifle to a night club to kill innocent people, that person would potentially be staring down a hundred barrels of trained good guys.

There will be no fear for the government to use to tighten gun control. People will not fear guns and will know how to use them. There will not be a gun control problem. Who knows, if everyone is armed, perhaps people may be more respectful to each other.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." -- Will Rogers

Working...