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


Forgot your password?
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:But but, it'sâ a Republican idea! (Score 0) 230

Republicans are conservatives so they only care for big established business, never for small business and startups unless they can show a huge profit or impact the trade balance.

Small businesses are the core Republican constituency. This silly lie never seems to go away. Big business contributes to Democrats almost exclusively because they offer more bang for the buck for rich folks.

Did you miss out on Obama getting paid $400K for a speech to Goldman Sachs?

Comment Re:This can't be true (Score 1) 247

What kind of pot are you smoking and why aren't you sharing with everyone? There have been senators and house reps that spoke up against large corporations off-shoring. For example Bernie sanders has been railing against it for over a decade. The majority of of both parties have supported off-shoring, since they are paying for their campaigns and "other" stuff. Go look at the voting record before you take a hit from the bong. You've been screwed by both parties. As an independent, I wish both parties would just die and go away already.

I get it, I'm an independent, also. But Republicans are the ones who have been talking properly about this on (with Trump actually doing something about it, by the way) while Democrats are assuring us that there is no problem. Hillary even wanted to expand the H-1B program.

Comment Re:Unrealistic for you, maybe (Score 1) 538

Do you think we should not have an air force because there were no planes when the constitution was written?

It's part of the "armies".

Do you think cybersecurity needed to be enumerated explicitly?

Cybersecurity isn't a federal issue beyond the general interstate or international commerce implications.

If you think that the air force and nuclear arsenal are far less important because they were not envisioned in 1787, then perhaps you can consistently believe that modern healthcare should also be considered far less important.

But that internal consistency would still not make you correct.

Healthcare existed in the late 1700s, it wasn't invented in the last 100 years like airplanes and nuclear weapons. The fact that the founders never talked about providing healthcare means they didn't see it as part of something the federal government should do. And, it's actually not. The federal government has no authority to do anything with healthcare unless the Constitution is amended.

You should read it sometime. It's really not as difficult as people such as yourself make it out to be.

Comment Re:Unrealistic for you, maybe (Score 1) 538

In what way does "The Congress shall have Power To...provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States" not imply the power to promote the general welfare? The founders undoubtedly didn't see what was coming, but they explicitly made it possible. Courts do consider original intent, but not typically to override what's printed in black and white.

Because "general welfare" is well-known to mean the actual general welfare of the country itself. It's not the welfare of individual people. This is much the same way your local police have a duty to generally keep the peace, but numerous court cases have established that they have no legal responsibility to any individual person.

You cite items 12, 13, and 14 of the appropriate section to show that Congress can maintain armies and a navy. They say nothing about an Air Force. The only way that can be Constitutionally justified is by the provision of the common Defense in item 1.

Ironically, the Army has more airplanes than the air force. But the US Air Force would be considered part of the armies that the US may maintain (note the plural).

Comment Re:Unrealistic for you, maybe (Score 3, Informative) 538

If "provide for the common defense" can be used to justify spending as much on the military as the next 10 countries combined then perhaps "promote the general Welfare" might be considered to include keeping the citizens of the country healthy.

You're quoting the preamble, which simply explains why they wrote the Constitution. The actual powers of the federal government are vested in Article I, Section 8. Specifically, items 12, 13, and 14:

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

There is no specific power granted for "promote the general welfare". Item 1 may come close, saying that "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States", but the fact that the founders didn't start building hospitals means that they never meant it that way. It's something the states can do, much in the same way that states establish university systems.

Comment Re:They already made money (Score 1) 166

If the government did it, they would be putting the finishing touches on their plan to roll ISDN

Like they did in Chattanooga, TN, Longmont, CO, and tens of other cities across the US? Oh wait, you said ISDN, not Gigabit fibre.

I'm not a big government fan, but when it comes to services that have reached utility level (aka everyone needs them to function in society, like water, electricity, and now internet access) the profit driven "free market" approach only seems to create monopolies that drive up prices and lower the quality of service.

Sigh. Again, this isn't a free market. Remember "billions in subsidies"?

The other issue is that this isn't like water and electricity. The same standards of delivery for those services was the same 100 years ago. Broadband has changed dramatically in the last 5 years. There is simply no comparison.

I have no problem at all with municipal broadband competing in a market on a level playing field (meaning they also have to provide service to places that might not be lucrative), which is mostly what you see in Chattanooga. But it can't be an either/or.

Comment Re:They already made money (Score 2) 166

they got billions (with a 'b') in subsidies while _also_ being allowed to charge extra fees to bring fiber to those poor neighborhoods. ... Why the hell Americans are so obsessed with the "free" market...

And, yet again, we have cronyism being confused with a free market.

Hint: If they got billions in subsidies, it's not a free market.

Hint 2: If the government did it, they would be putting the finishing touches on their plan to roll ISDN out to those neighborhoods over the next 5 years.

It's difficult to find the winning path.

Comment Re:No. (Score 1) 65

Because Google can store the music on servers on its own network and not rely on pulling data in from a peer.

And that network is not behind my connection to my ISP? Since otherwise it wouldn't make any sense whatsoever not to count it toward my data cap.

They pay less to carry that traffic because they don't have to bring it in through a peer.

Comment Re:No. (Score 3, Insightful) 65

Please, please tell me why Google Play Music should be free while Bob's Music Shop down the street would cost to stream the exact same songs?

Because Google can store the music on servers on its own network and not rely on pulling data in from a peer.

This is why it probably makes sense to split such companies up into physical connection companies and content providers, since the physical connection companies have a built-in advantage for providing content.

Comment Re:Right Sure... (Score 4, Insightful) 619

Apparently you don't know what the fuck you're talking about since that's not remotely close to being true.

Please educate yourself. You're embarrassing all the other asshats on Slashdot.


Uh, yeah. You're the embarrassment who needs to educate yourself. The executive order is based on a law passed in 2015 and signed by Obama - and the seven countries are listed there. Even the loons at Politifact know this:


Comment Re:Biased article.. (Score 1) 619

I can tell the article and website are biased by the first phrase.
"In a bid to court working class voters..."
No, it's not a bid for voters. It's fulfilling a campaign promise.

Right, which is supposed to be a good thing. And to further the point, Trump won because of working class voters. it's the coastal elites and their stooge (Hillary) who would have expanded the H-1B program to bring in more tech workers at lower wages.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer