Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

Comment Re:Lack of other, different choices == force (Score 1) 436

If that was their best option, (per you, they have no other better options,) and you remove Uber from the equation, you've still done them a disservice by taking that OPPORTUNITY to work for Uber away. Afterall, that was their best option. You can't have it both ways. It's either their best opportunity or it isn't.

Comment Re:It's force nonetheless. (Score 1) 436

Force would be against their will. What people SAY they are willing to do and what they actually do are very different things. If they really didn't think they were getting a benefit equal to or greater than their involvement with Uber, they would quit. That's the difference between force and not force. Whether they like their other options or not, they have options. Anyone who stays working for uber, or any other company for that matter, CHOOSES to. That is the opposite of force.

Comment Re: Obama has no right to do this (Score 1) 557

Yeah, but if they did ratify it, then there would be no argument. I get what you're saying. And it's the same as what the founders said. That's why it is that way in the constitution. But, we have a way to change that, and I was just enumerating it. Not that it would necessarily pass, but just saying. At that point, "States" would become virtually irrelevant in the context of the presidential election. If that's what they want then fine, if not, also fine. Just saying.

Comment Re: Obama has no right to do this (Score 1) 557

I'm not talking about what is right and what is wrong, better or worse. I'm describing what is, and why it was originally put there. I gave no normative direction on it at all. It takes a constitutional amendment to change it. So, either run for office yourself, or get on the horn to your congressmen, because 'fairness' speculation is getting you nowhere.

Comment Re: Obama has no right to do this (Score 1) 557

That's fine, then someone should write up an amendment, get it passed and ratified by 2/3 of the States. Nobody is really a 'proponent' of it, as far as I know, it just hasn't had any real congressional Opponents who weren't only griping about losing elections. It's just not been changed because that's the way it has been, and changing it is hard.

Comment Re:Um.. the populuar vote is very, very real (Score 2) 557

It's in the constitution. Which was created before republicans. There never was a 'national' vote. It was ALWAYS the states picking. Of course, you can change it by passing a constitutional amendment. At the time it was designed it was meant to prevent people in one state from having an influence on how another state voted, which as we see, is pretty much what it does.

Comment Re: Obama has no right to do this (Score 5, Interesting) 557

I didn't vote for Hillary or Trump, but yes, this is true. The popular vote is actually not even an official thing at all. It's a media invention. The states vote. They vote with electors. How they apportion their electors is up to them. Adding California voters to Florida voters as a big total is actually an apples to oranges mistake.

Slashdot Top Deals

"355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!"

Working...