Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Submission + - Wasserman Schultz won't Speak at Dem Convention After Wikileaks Revelations ( writes: CNN reports that the head of the Democratic National Committee will not speak at the party's convention next week, a decision reached by party officials Saturday after emails surfaced that raised questions about the committee's impartiality during the Democratic primary. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose stewardship of the DNC has been under fire through most of the presidential primary process, will not have a major speaking role in an effort "to keep the peace" in the party, a Democrat familiar with the decision said. The revelation comes following the release of nearly 20,000 emails. One email appears to show DNC staffers asking how they can reference Bernie Sanders' faith to weaken him in the eyes of Southern voters. Another seems to depict an attorney advising the committee on how to defend Hillary Clinton against an accusation by the Sanders campaign of not living up to a joint fundraising agreement.

Comment Re:If they didn't want unlimited use (Score 2) 409

Verizon has ZERO obligation to do anything for you if you're off plan, not thing one.

Verizon has lots of obligations, including some to society in general (i.e., people who aren't even Verizon customers at all). Operating with good faith and fair dealing is one of those obligations.

Comment Re:If they didn't want unlimited use (Score 4, Insightful) 409

And they also are under no obligation to allow out-of-contract users from continuing to use the old plan - which is exactly what they are doing here, telling the heaviest out-of-contract users to let up, move plan or Verizon will no longer do business with you.

So? That doesn't change the fact that other users are still on the plan, and Verizon is still describing it as "unlimited" to them, which is false advertising.

Comment Re: XBox 1: jumped shark, shark ate it (Score 1) 107

Bullshit, eh? Do you remember MechAssault? One of the most popular games for the XBox. Online community, many-person gaming via the XBox live servers, worked very well without anything even remotely resembling this kind of hurry-up-and-wait nonsense. Even downloads of new terrain and/or game types (which you chose to do) weren't much of a challenge. The Live interface was much easier to use, too. It was mostly about gaming, not about trying to turn the machine into some kind of Rube Goldberg nightmare.

Next, why should I want to leave a multiplayer game disconnected from the network?

Your position is either that I shouldn't be able to multiplayer-game, or that it's justified that if I do, Microsoft puts a huge time and convenience penalty on the experience, or that there is no significant inconvenience. I don't buy any of those arguments.

Sorry, I've seen the many-hours of no-gaming downside. It's real. It sucks. Not interested.

And hey, did you know MechAssault and MechAssault II both still work offline? I mean, hell, if I have to stay offline in order to keep Microsoft from ruining my day, I might as well do it with one of the most awesome games they ever produced. :)

Comment Re:Not so fast, there... (Score 1) 606

Who is producing that wealth?

Here's the list.

Why don't those who aren't working, work, so that they can get some wealth of their own?

Because people don't get to work just because they want to; they work because a company was willing to hire them. Companies don't hire unless they need to -- and they don't need to, because we still have a shortage of aggregate demand

"But what about entrepreneurs" you're about to ask. That requires having a profitable idea and the capital to implement it, and frankly, most people are too stupid and/or poor for that.

Furthermore, your question is ill-posed: wealth is not produced through work. Wealth is produced through owning productive assets. Even if you're earning a six-figure income, if you are spending it instead of acquiring productive assets (e.g. stock in the companies listed above) you're still a pauper.

Why would those who you claim are hoarding money keep it, instead of investing it in some productive enterprise?

Ask Apple; they're the ones hoarding the biggest chunk of it ($203 billion, according to the most recent source I could find).

Comment Re:Dumb extrapolation (Score 1) 606

But the article states that their earnings will be less "over the course of their working lives" than the previous generation.

In other words, this new study has not only corroborated the other study I cited, but has found that the effect is even worse than they thought before. So no, "the next upturn in the economy" will not "go a long ways towards evening that out" because both the TFA and the study I cited directly contradicts that -- even before considering my previous point that "evening out" the salary does not even out the wealth.

I really don't understand what you think your point is. Are you trying to say "this must not be true because I don't want it to be?" Because nothing in either study supports your fact-free, wishful assertion that it somehow evens out.

Slashdot Top Deals

VMS must die!