Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

Comment Re:Unconstitutional (Score 1) 428

If Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorists then Hillary Clinton should stop taking money from them.

I don't care if the wall is concrete, metal, electronic, robotic, or just a damn mine field. I want to see a real effort to defend the borders. It's one of the few things the federal government is actually supposed to do.

I'm sticking to "no refugees". We're taken enough tired and poor over the years. It's time for other nations to step up and do their part. We're due for a break. We don't need to be the next Europe. Hell, pretty soon the refugees will have taken over Europe and they'll have no need to come here.

Comment Re:Unconstitutional (Score 1) 428

Murder won't stop if firearms are outlawed. Like the saying goes, then only the criminals will have guns. The rest of us would become easy targets. And even if we could erase every gun from reality, there are countless other ways to kill people. How many people died on 9/11 where the weapons used were mere box cutters? In St Cloud, it was a knife. In NY, a kitchen appliance. The Boston marathon before that. In Nice, a truck.. which could easily happen here. We accomplish nothing by trying to repeal our right of self defense. All it would do is make it easier for evil people to do evil things. You'd save more lives by banning fatty foods. But that's not going to happen either.

Hollande is done. He's doubling down on Merkel's stupidity. He'll be lucky if they don't drag the guillotine back out. Britain is leaving the EU. France will be next once Marine Le Pen takes over. The left's inability to listen and admit their mistakes is putting the nationalists in power. France is suffering not only from terror attacks, but also near endless protesting. They're on the brink. Germany is no better. They're censoring and arresting wrong-thinkers like crazy. She'll be looked back on as the one individual most responsible for the end of the EU.

The French way of life is almost over. They've been invaded. They've suffered non-stop violence. No one except the nationalists have put forward any plan to protect the public. Look at the lawlessness in Calais. Tell me how Hollande has improved that situation. He hasn't. He can't. You've confused cowardice with courage. Trump pointed out in a visit to Belgium that they were taking a great risk with their policies on immigrants. He was called a racist. Then they were attacked. He was still called a racist. But he hasn't backed down. That's courage. Hollande taking a blind eye to the destruction of his country, that's cowardice.

If America is truly great, you have no need to fear its citizens being armed. Otherwise you're saying they can't be trusted and you wish to control them. That's not how our nation works. The mere fact that you think the government should take our guns away is the proof that says we need them.

Comment Re:Unconstitutional (Score 1) 428

Refuse people re-entry but leave our borders wide open? There's a good plan. I'm sure those that leave and get radicalized wouldn't try to sneak back in. I mean, if you can't trust a terrorist, who can you trust? Right?

And no, let's not take in the refugees. Greece already let a terrorist in that was posing as a refugee. A lot of people in France paid for that mistake with their lives. Hillary mocked Trump's "strict vetting", yet she's now proposing "strict vetting" as well. I'd prefer no vetting. Let the oil-rich Arab countries take in the refugees. It would be less distance and less of a culture shock. It makes far more sense than sending people all the way over here where they have no familiarity with anything or anyone.

Comment Re:Unconstitutional (Score 1, Informative) 428

Did you miss the terror attacks this past weekend, or the many that came before them? We're being invaded by an ideology that wants us all dead. "Lone wolfs" that aren't actually lone. It may be recent immigrants, it may be the offspring of immigrants. But the ideology is the same. The foreign countries they visit before becoming radicalized tend to be the same. St Cloud could have been worse if not for the armed off-duty cop. Some of the other attacks might have been stopped sooner if more people exercised their 2nd amendment right.

Look at what happened in Nice. Eighty six dead and four hundred thirty four wounded. Or the Bataclan theater. Those types of attacks could easily happen here too. It'd be a shame if we let the government outlaw self defense. It's bad enough we have "gun free" murder zones. People are so busy attacking the 2nd and organizations like the NRA that they're losing track of what's really going on. NRA members aren't running around killing innocent people. No one guns down the innocent and yells "the NRA is great!" No one holds people at gunpoint and asks them to recite the second amendment to decide whether or not to execute them.

By the way, 911 isn't always available. We've had looters break and enter after severe winter storms in the north east. That's a major problem if you're in a small town that may not even have a full time police force. You're either armed or you're a victim. But that's fine with you right? So what if people die that might have been able to save themselves, you were a proper liberal!

Comment Re: see what the Union free work place get's you! (Score 1) 297

You're using an anecdote to counter my anecdote? Strikes happen. For a while, you could use UPS's strikes to tell what time of the year it was. Verizon was the same way, and Fairpoint is now carrying on that tradition. Our local school teachers even threatened and prepared for a strike even though it's forbidden by law in my state. The supermarket's warehouse people went on strike and were publicly ridiculed at the end of the supermarket's parking lot by the people trying to get food. Strikes are hardly rare. These are things that I've seen in my town firsthand. I was even a member of the AFL-CIO at one point, I feel fortunate to have left it for greener pastures.

I've been bullied by union labor in the past so I'm not terribly keen on hearing how great you think they are. Try to run a small company in a big city with union thugs threatening to "f you up" if you don't hire them to do the work. Utterly disgraceful. The unionized police are no help either. It's all thuggery and mob mentality. If they don't get what they want then they make threats. If the threats don't work, they break stuff. If breaking stuff doesn't work, they strike. I've never had non-union labor behave like that, not ever. The labor unions breed a sense of entitlement and fill their members with the type of worker party "the company can't run without us" bravado that's simply not so.

Of course, that's my experience in the US. China obviously isn't there yet. But they'd best be careful if they want to keep their economy running.

Comment Re: see what the Union free work place get's you! (Score 1) 297

Investors have investments in the company. Everyone else just works there. What you're saying probably sounds great in front of a roomful of union members or people thinking about unionizing, but it doesn't really help solve anything. Unions do not provide stability. When a union strikes, the company grinds to a halt. If that company tries to service its customers by bringing in replacement workers, the union does everything possible to interfere, with violence on occasion. I used to work in telecom and I always knew when the "talks broke down" because the circuits would start failing. Those oh-so-vested workers would go out and sabotage the network as they walked off their jobs knowing the entire community would be harmed, all to gain an unfair advantage in their hostage negotiations. Those strikes can go on for a long, long time, regardless of how well the company is run. You're dishonest if you're suggesting that only the leadership of a company can be greedy. Unions go bad over time. They use thuggish behavior and the threat of strikes to make increasingly absurd demands. The workers end up no less greedy than the management, perhaps more so because they're entirely willing to let the company fail.

China has its share of problems as does any developing nation. The problem is that they're caught in a catch-22 situation. When their protections of workers, students, and the environment catch up with those of developed nations, the cost of doing business there will have caught up with developed nations. Once that happens, they're going to need some way of convincing companies to stay, or have companies of their own to take up the slack. The global corps will just move on to the next low-cost-country, or bring the work back to its origins if there's not enough of a savings to make it worth moving elsewhere. I doubt that any company's leadership at any point in history has ever said "hey, I'm thrilled that our workers just unionized because this is going to make everything so much better."

Comment Re: see what the Union free work place get's you! (Score 1) 297

Companies aren't going to look at the costs of resolving each grievance. That's not the problem. The real issue is that unions pose an unknown risk in terms of production and cost. If workers do walk out and the production process comes to a halt, that creates a long list of problems for the company. That's why some companies shut down operations when a union gets voted in. It's not worth the risk to them versus moving the factory elsewhere. Those costs in moving production can be reduced by getting other countries to compete for the business. They'll get lured in with tax cuts or other incentives. Either that or they'll automate the work. The US serves as a perfect example of how ridiculous union demands can get over time. They served a purpose in the beginning, but become a liability to the point where companies sent the work to places like China. Yes, the unions weren't the only reason for the move, but they certainly had a role in it.

Comment Re: see what the Union free work place get's you! (Score 2, Insightful) 297

The only thing a labor union would do here is to drive the business elsewhere. Either some other Chinese company would get the work, or they'd find someplace outside of China with even fewer legal protections. The old school checks and balances don't work with global mega-corps.

Comment Re:Free space wiping controversial? (Score 2) 569

Everything on that server is part of the investigation. She chose to have her own server and she chose to mix personal emails in with government emails. She shouldn't be the one to decide what the investigators get to see. For all we know, she didn't have any personal email on there and she's been having her people wipe sensitive info that would impact her electability or land her in prison.

Comment Re:I use something regularly; am *I* a criminal? (Score 1) 569

The most likely reason for her to use a private email server is to hide her email from investigators and/or FOIA requests. The government started investigating and what happened? Her team started "going through" her email and destroying whatever they decided they wanted to destroy. She claims they were personal emails, but we'll never know. To erase the data with a secure erase program is good technique, but doing that while the authorities are requesting access to the data is pretty much destruction of evidence, which itself is a crime. If the utility was run automatically once a week and that's how the data was erased, then fine. But if they ran this intentionally because they wanted to make sure there was no chance for the authorities to recover the data, that's something else entirely. And even so, that's just more reason why private mail servers should not be used for government business. We need to be able to hold our officials accountable, and that means they don't get the ability to purge potential evidence whenever they feel like it.

Slashdot Top Deals

If bankers can count, how come they have eight windows and only four tellers?

Working...