Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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:Open Source is similar to the Tea Party ... (Score 2) 356

Don't bother. The leftists here have their talking points. Pointing out that the Democrat party was the party that founded the KKK, created the Jim Crow laws, created gun control specifically to keep blacks from arming and protecting themselves, founded Planned Parenthood as a way to euthanize the black population and had a grand wizard of the KKK in the Senate up to just a few years ago.

The Democratic party did not found the KKK. A former Confederate Cavalry General did - Nathan Bedford Forrest. Look it up. There WERE indeed a group of SOUTHERN Democrats who were against the Civil Rights movement, but between Nixon and Reagan and the 'Dixiecrat' strategy, they are all gone and turned Republican. The Republican party in 1860 was the LIBERAL party. The Dems and Reps switched ideologies not to long after the turn of the 20th century (minus the Dixiecrats). You seriously need to go learn some history.

Yes, the GOP is certainly for minorities in this country considering they just gutted the Voting Rights Act to make discriminating against minority voters much easier.... not.

Any black person, such as Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Alan West or any of the many others who go against their Democratic talking points are "working for the man" and not "real" black folks.

Last I checked, Colin Powell was no longer too high on 'conservatives' and the 'GOP' (given that they lied to him and used him to start a war, then threw him under a bus) - in fact, he voted for Obama. And frankly I defy anyone to logically defend Clarence Thomas. Even his fellow conservatives can't understand what crazy sort of 'logic' the man uses in his nutty 'decisions'.

Liberalism is a mental disease.

Say what? I am sure George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would be shocked to learn that, considering they founded this country on Liberalism. Oh, and by the way, this is an ad hominem attack that does nothing but prove you are a Rush Limbaugh talking point drone.

So go learn some history that didn't come out of Savage or Limbaugh and then we can talk.

Comment Re:Interesting (Score 1) 192

Such activities involve a pretty large number of people. It's interesting how they collectively can keep it a secret for a pretty long time.

It's even amazing that the "fixed" prices are not essentially different than Amazon or Alibris or BN. Very clever price fixing indeed.

BS they weren't 'different'. They were SIGNIFICANTLY higher. At least $3 to $5 higher under the 'agency' model, which on a book that was $9.99 is a 30 to 50% price hike.

Are you some Apple fanboi or something?

Comment Re:What do they call termination fees? (Score 1) 272

Except this is clearly bull*hit as the fee to cancel early does NOT go down the closer you are to the end of your 'contract'.

I have no doubt that part of that fee is indeed used for that, but I am absolutely positive that if you are in the last 1/4 of your contract (and hence have paid off all or almost all of your phone), they get almost 100% profit on that money.

The mobile phone companies are evil beyond comprehension. They make Sauron look like a naughty child.

Comment Re:under the DMCA any antivirus software can get s (Score 1) 473

There is no reason that replacing the board and CEO will 'sink the whole company'. And even if there is a fair probability that it WILL, then GOOD.

Punishment must be sufficiently heinous to DETER misbehavior, and it is clear that the total BS fines that corporations get hit with are NOT in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM a deterrent.

Look at Barclays. Look at HSBC. Barclays blatantly manipulated LIBOR and violated numerous laws and got a fine that is maybe 50% of 1 quarter's PROFITS. Not revenue... PROFITS... Barely enough to even make a dent in their earnings.

HSBC money laundered drug profits and ran accounts for known terrorists and did this KNOWINGLY, and they are not in any way shape or form looking at a penalty that will destroy the company or put the CEO and his cronies in JAIL. This is the PERFECT CASE for a corporate DEATH PENALTY, where all corporate assets are SEIZED and sold off.

Mark my words, until we have a way to realistically hold corporations accountable for their misdeeds, they will continue to steal from and kill us individuals with IMPUNITY.

Comment Re:under the DMCA any antivirus software can get s (Score 1) 473

We need realistic penalties for corporations, and I don't mine fines. They are useless for the reasons mentioned above.

The only way to get a corporation to behave differently is to hold the people that run it (the CEO, board, President) accountable.

The best way to do that is to give the government the power to outright kick the board and CEO out and replace them with a government determined management team for a set period of time. Call it Corporate Jail. And the people kicked out CANNOT COME BACK to that company to work. Or maybe they could after a set period of time. Probably both punishments would be useful for different offenses.

Comment Re:Now to understand what it means (Score 1) 2416

Insurance rates will likely go up LESS fast since

Yep. That's certainly what happened in Massachusetts with Romneycare.

No, wait, I'm wrong the exact opposite happened. Health care costs in Massachusetts are some of the highest in the nation, and it's BECAUSE of the mandate.

Look, there's a reason Romney has backed away from Romneycare. It was a great idea when he proposed it, but we've tried it now, and it DID. NOT. WORK. Insanity is trying the same thing and expecting different results.

And now the Supreme Court has sold the nation out, giving the Legislative branch unlimited power over our lives via their "tax" powers. I suppose the upside is, if the electorate fails to correct their mistake in November, there won't be any question who's to blame when the nation falls apart.

In Massachusetts the reverse happened because people could just come in from other states at the last minute when they had a health problem and take advantage. Now that is no longer possible. But nice try.

Comment Re:It's no surprise.. (Score 2) 316

You get your say every 2, 4 or 6 years with the elections. Of course, those are mostly a crapshoot between bad choices and really bad choices but if we stopped re-electing the same people, then the congresscritters might start to listen to us.

That's effectively NO say. Not when we have only two choices, both of which are pre-vetted and pre-bought by the corporations. The technology exists for real democracy. We should start a new experiment in government. There is no need for a Congress any more. Let all of us vote once a week on the proposed laws.

Comment Re:What's wrong with suing shoplifters? (Score 2) 105

because its unreasonable, thats why!

Just like the woman who sued McDonalds for $16 million and won for a spilled cup of hot coffee.

Or mabey we should start executing shoplifters and given their entirety of personal possesions to the stores. That would show them!

Learn what the f**k really happened to the woman at McDonalds and then stop posting your ignorant moronic response using that as an example. That is a crap example. The woman had to get multiple skin grafts. Why is the internet full of ignorant morons when the info is just one google query away. Stop being lazy.

Comment Re:What's wrong with suing shoplifters? (Score 3, Insightful) 105

So the punishment for a crime depends not on what you did, but on what others did? If you stole a candy bar, you should be punished for the unknown person who stole a diamond necklace?

I agree about do the crime/do the time. But for your crimes, not someone else's. If it is right to fine someone 100 times the value for shoplifting, it is right whether they are the only shoplifter in town or one of a thousand. Making any punishment depend upon how many others are doing it is unfair.

Taking product from a store without paying for it is unfair too. So boo hoo Mr. Thief. You wanted unfair, you got it. I have no problem making people collectively responsible for the collective activities they participate in.

Then you are an idiot with poor logic. Think decimation (killing of 1 in 10 for actions by the legions members) by the Roman army was a reasonable response? How about the collective punishment of the Jews in the Holocaust? Almost by definition, collective punishment is unfair since the degree of damage done by each individual is significantly different in most cases. I agree that punishment must be sufficiently harsh to be a deterrent, but making it collective is going too far.

Comment Re:So from here on out ... (Score 5, Insightful) 2416

Yeah, this is a loser for all Americans. The majority of the country didn't want this legislation. It was voted down in congress and they had to resort to some trick to pass it. The entire time the Obama Administration kept saying that this was NOT A TAX ... that it was a Mandate. Now the SCOTUS says that it is unconstitutional as a Mandate, but it's ok at a TAX. So the bill that was passed was not only against the wishes of the majority of the people, it doesn't even work the way the minority said it would when it was voted upon.

Not really factually correct. A majority of Americans like a majority of the acts of this law. The 'no preexisting condition' portion is particularly popular as is the 'no lifetime maximum' and the 'no copay for preventative care' portions. The one part that more unpopular with most people is the 'must buy insurance part'. But the rest of it doesn't work without that.

Slashdot Top Deals

Your computer account is overdrawn. Please see Big Brother.