Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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 Re:America! (Score 1) 341

So let's say it doesn't receive any special treatment (not like private ISPs don't get special treatment because they do). According to the libertarian conservative narrative there's no way a publicly run enterprise could possibly be competitive with the lean, efficient, absolutely perfect capitalist private sector. There's just no way that could possibly happen so why not let them?

Because if you were to try it then the municipality would have a vested interest in the success of the publicly run enterprise. The municipality would find it irresistible to refrain from putting their thumbs on the scale, especially if it means that failure of the publicly run enterprise would reflect negatively on the municipal government. If only one enterprise could go first, then the publicly run enterprise would get first choice. When measuring success, profits by the private sector would be counted as a negative. Costs of the publicly run enterprise wouldn't be counted because they are paid for by government. (Office space in city hall, for example.) The list is endless.

Comment Re:Translation (Score 1, Interesting) 231

Let me translate. A bunch of whining millennial snowflakes want a say in getting out of working hard. They also think they're entitled to power even though they haven't worked hard enough to earn a management position. Millennial snowflakes are crybabies and don't deserve to be promoted.

Hmmm...could be. On the other hand it occurs to me that people who own stock have a say in running the company. Why is that? I'm certain that they pay more for stock or take less compensation in order to get partial control. Why couldn't people who work for a company want partial control for similar reasons? They think that if they have control then their investments (in time, in "roots", whatever) are better represented. You seem to be saying that the only reason an employee would want control is to work less hard, but I recall the company before last that I worked for. Management decided that instead of being a hardware and software company that they wanted to be a software-only company. I thought that was particularly poorly thought out, but I had no control.

By the way, you might want to get a narrower brush.

~Loyal

Comment Re:clearly the truckers are right (Score 1) 331

It's not necessary to know with 100% certainty. A lot of legislators who voted for the law can't possibly know what the intent of the writer was, but presumably they know with sufficient surety to vote for the law. It's not a huge stretch to conclude that people under the law can know enough to obey it, and so can the judge. Obviously, there are exceptions where the law is overly confusing, and thus cannot be obeyed, but that's not the proper conclusion to draw for the vast majority of laws.

~Loyal

Comment Re: Free (Score 2) 259

I totally disagree that this is 'taking care' of their employees. It's blatant abuse, of both the employees themselves as well as tax-payer money that has to be spent on their employees on account of them not paying a livable wage or offering proper health care.

And yet, with all the other options available to them, people choose to work for Walmart. Why do you suppose that is? I think it must be because Walmart is the best place to work for compared to those others. Either those other places pay less wages, or offer fewer benefits, or have worse working conditions, or do something else that the employees find objectionable. And since it's not apparent what that something is from the articles you posted, I have to think that they aren't providing a fair account of Walmart's practices. It's like someone has an anti-Walmart agenda. I wonder who gains when people get angry at Walmart? Competitors? Politicians? Social leaders? Something to ponder.

~Loyal

Comment Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence? (Score 2, Interesting) 346

"He can run that trending thing however the fucking company wants under current law."

Perhaps not. Suppose someone offers you a deal where you agree to read the advertisements he promotes, and in return you get to see the most popular stories from everyone in his group. Suppose you agree to that deal. Then, if you read the advertisements, but he only offers you the most popular liberal stories, then he's in breach of contract.

I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm just saying that it may be more than merely a case of freedom of speech on Facebook's part.

~Loyal

Comment Me, too. (Score 2) 227

I just lost my job of ten years on the 15th of March. I also have two sons who are recent college graduates living with me who cannot get a job. None of us three are counted in the cited statistic because I was a new claim three weeks ago, and new college graduates aren't considered unemployed. If you read the linked article you'll see that continuing claims also went down. I'm a continuing claim, but my sons are not. So even though three of us are looking for jobs, none of us are considered unemployed, and only one-third of us is considered a continued unemployed. Needless to say, I'm not too impressed with the Obama recovery. At least my wife has a part-time job, enabling use to (barely) put a third son through college so he'll be able to take his turn being unable to find a job.

Unfortunately, my wife is working as a receptionist at a tax preparation office, and that's likely to end...tomorrow. As a part time worker, she's going to be ineligible for unemployment. That means that next week, with none of us five having a job, the new claims statistic won't reflect that. At least the statistics will look good.

~Loyal

Comment To what end? (Score 3, Interesting) 568

If we want to be strict shouldn't the term "engineer" apply only to those people involved with the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of external-combustion steam-engines for use pulling large masses along doubled rails, and naval propulsion? I don't mind anyone calling themselves an engineer, so long as they don't defraud someone about their abilities for the purpose of selling them a bill of goods. And this from an engineer having two engineering degrees from major state universities.

~Loyal

Slashdot Top Deals

"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." -- Rick Obidiah

Working...