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 Re:Translation (Score 2) 166

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

Comment Re:Reasons things fail (Score 5, Informative) 118

While I suspect that you're a tad sarcastic here,...

I agree with you that Impy the Impious Imp was speaking sarcastically. It reminds me of the four types of spending Milton Friedman classified, and the value of its results. I'm working from memory here, so please forgive me my mistakes. Type 1 spending is where you spend your own money on yourself. This type of spending has the greatest results because you take care to spend as little as possible, and to purchase the things you want most. Type 2 spending is where you spend someone else's money on yourself. This has worse results than type 1 spending because, while you still take care to purchase what you want most, you are more likely to try to spend the entire amount. Type 3 spending is where you spend your money on someone else. In type 3 spending you try to conserve funds, but rather than getting someone what they most want, you get them what you think they should want. Type 4 spending is where you spend someone else's money on someone else. In type 4 spending you neither try to conserve money nor purchase what's most needed or wanted. I interpret Impy to be saying that all government spending is type 4 spending.

~Loyal
 

Comment Re:Counterpoint (Score 2) 207

I know most people here hate the "Disney extension" of the copyright term, but what is the "community" losing, besides the ability to get Warner Bros. and Disney plush toys for practically free?

Economics answers this by referring to the effects of monopolies in general. Copyright is a government-granted monopoly. Insofar as Disney is able to function as a monopoly they increase their profits. That implies that there will be a shift of goods and services to Disney and away from their customers. Monopolists accomplish the increase in profits by reducing supply. That means that there will be fewer monopoly-associated goods and services produced than there would have been had there been no monopoly.

The point that hardly anybody remembers who Buck Rogers was, cuts both ways. Why can't the makers of this movie come up with a different name and tweak things a little bit? It's not like that would be a violation of precedent. Is their movie going to be so lame that they need this tie-in to prop up the box office?

Characters can be incremental, just like inventions can. Perhaps I want a can opener with a bottle opener on the other end. Perhaps you want to read about a character who's trying to do good, but who had a tortured past.

~Loyal

Slashdot Top Deals

A list is only as strong as its weakest link. -- Don Knuth

Working...