Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment Re:Theft by another name.. (Score 2) 37

He does make a good point though. Holding the corporation liable for outright criminal action, but not the individuals who actually give the order, means there is little reason not to take the risk and break the law. If the executive doesn't get caught, they make a ton of money for the company and can enjoy the resulting bonuses and personal wealth. If they do get caught, no big deal - the company pays a fine (which is often less than the money gained by the criminal action) and they carry on working.

It also creates the sort of class difference that fuels resentment: The lower-income groups see how easily those with wealth and corporate connections can get away with actions that the ordinary person would be jailed for, and this leads to a lot of "fight the corporations!" and "We are the ninety-nine percent!" protests.

I am not sure quite what the solution for this is, but the current approach is far from ideal.

Comment Re:Immigration policy is not hate speech (Score 1) 1055

So, if you want to be sure you can walk down the street safely, you have to be rich enough to buy bodyguards?

You can't trust in self-defense to protect you from all criminals. That just makes sure the criminals will shoot you in the back. And what about property? No matter how good you are at defending yourself, you can't defend your home while you are not in it. Without some form of police force, the only people who can be sure of the security of their house are those who can afford a guard. Everyone else gets robbed blind.

I suppose you could get together with some of your neighbors and set up some sort of collective arrangement where everybody agrees on rules for appropriate behaviour and collectively uses force to make sure that outsiders do not violate these agreements, but that that point you've basically reinvented government.

Comment Re:Hand out Playboys at every tech conference... (Score 1) 250

Erotic photography is also unprofitable. You can't compete with the internet, which has a lot more such photos and a near-zero distribution cost. Playboy today is a shadow of what it was. 800,000 issues in 2015, down from a peak of 7,100,000. Much of their income comes from just licensing out their logo.

Slashdot Top Deals

Science may someday discover what faith has always known.