Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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:Consider this... (Score 1) 134

So you want to keep having the privilege of maintaining the ability to come and go to the US, and do not wish to pay for that privilege?

As you need to earn 6 figures to worry about paying US taxes on your overseas income, this compaint is rather esoteric. ANd, if you wish to avoid US taxes on your overseas earnings, you can do as the one rich kid did to avoid taxes and renounce your US citizenship.

Comment Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... (Score 1) 822

IF he had gone to any of the various Representatives or Senators, he would have been a whistle blower.

However, he handed information from the NSA to a foreign reporter...and then ran to Russia. Sorry....loks like someone knew they violated the law even though there was a way to be a whistleblower without violating the law.

Comment Re:Really?!? (Score 1) 1448

Where does the Constitution say you have the right to not experience repercussions from your speech? The boycott of a business who makes statements or acts you disagree with is ALSO "free speech". So...if you went out of your way to support a company that supports bigotted actions, then you are tacitly stating you agree with their position. If you went no more or less than you did prior, then you are simply saying you a neutral on the issue. If you avoid the company, then you are saying you disagree with their position. In all cases, you are "speaking" via your wallet.

Comment Re:Really?!? (Score 1) 1448

Actually, fiscally punishing people for stating their opinion is not stupid. It is how someone can exercise THEIR free speech by demonstrating with their wallet how much they disagree with them. If you wish to financially support those who you disagree with,go for it. However, your opinion on not supporitng them fiscally you say...stupid.

Free speech does not mean free from repercussions.

Comment Re:Just another way to bash someone's success (Score 4, Insightful) 422

Actually, you over-simplified. You presume someone cannot be empathetic AND be able to do a cost/benefit analysis and make a decision. In the military, you do both frequently...PFC Johnny has had his mother go into hospital for cancer. She may not make it. SGT Dave works to ensure PFC Johnny gets home to see Mom before she passes. 12 months later, SGT Dave has no issue sending PFC Johnny through the door first as part of the sweep team as he is the best person for the job. If PFC Johnny gets killed as part of the sweep, SGT Dave will be sad as he has lost a team member and (if he is a good NCO) a protege, but he will move on and scream to his leadership for a replacement for the now dead PFC Johnny while also shedding a tear at the memorial service for PFC Johnny.

The two conditions are mutually exclusive in most people.

Comment Re:Another perspective (Score 1) 1218

Not true....those religions have not pushed for their beleifs to be taught in SCIENCE classes, but a small, but highly vocal subset of Christians have done just that. And found (via the courts) that our Constitution does not allow that to occur in PUBLIC schools. You can still teach religion in schools as long as it is done in a neutral manner. This is usually done in conjuction with subjects where this is applicable (ie World Religions, Literature, History, Sociology, Anthropology, etc), just not in biology.

So...for those who wish to treach religious beliefs as science, they can send their children to a church school or home school them. Of course, the courts have also said that colleges aren't required to accept religous beliefs as substutues for actual science when they consider applicants.

Comment Re:Problem here is "racism" (Score 1) 915

This post shows your ignorance about Islam. Islam recognizes many prophets, but consider Mohamed to be the last one. They even consider Jesus (Isa) to be a prophet, and more powerful one than Mohammed in many ways as he performed miracles, but in the end, simply another mortal prophet. They recognize all the Jewish prophets as well.

Not saying I agree with any of the Abrahamic faiths, just correcting your factually incorrect assertion that Muslims only recognize one prophet.

Comment Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score 1) 857

"Consider Social Security. What did people do when they got old in the past? Did they die en masse in the streets? No. They generally had families support them or there were private charities that helped out. However, now we are so used to the government taking care of things, there has been a social shift away from families taking care of their elders and now that is firmly ingrained in our society. So now, we couldn't go back now if we tried, unless we accept the pain that it will cause."

Actually, the truth is people died at an earlier age and had many more children than we have today. In some societies, the old simply wandered off to die to avoid being a drain on their families. If you had no/not enough children, and were not in reach of a charity, you did die...though probably not on the street. Just alone/with your spouse, usually of disease or starvation or both. We also used ot have debtors' prisons, but did away with them as well if you are interested in going back to the olden days.

Social Security was/is a forced pension scheme to ensure that old people have some income post retirement. This means that some can seek careers that are not financially rewarding but does benefit society.

Comment Re:Anyone have a link to the decision? (Score 1) 150

But it also says "former students" the 25 year old who is in the military/college/beginning of a great career who wants to connect with their favorite HS teacher who encouraged them to succeed is forbidden from doing so, even though there is no longer an active student/teacher relationship and both are adults. MAJOR violation of the 1st Amendment.

Comment Re:Why was the contract unsealed? (Score 3, Insightful) 130

She received the damages because McDonald's was found to have been purposefully negligent. That is they knew prior to this incident that the coffee was too hot (and had similar complaints/claims/lawsuits in the past), yet determined that the cost savings to them was less than the potential costs of medical bills (because the coffee was too hot to drink when initially given to you) than having to throw out and remake the coffee more frequently. THAT is what cost them, as the jury wished to send a message to the company that their profit margins mean less than the potential to injure.

The woman was parked (not driving), and was trying to remove the lid to add creamer and sugar when it spilled. If the coffee had been served at the LEGAL temp, no burns would have been caused, and if any had, McD's would have not been liable. The victim initially only asked for her medical bills to be paid, but was told to go away by McD's....which meant she had to sue to get recompense. And, McD's attitude cost them the large sum of money as a result.

Submission + - Dane gets refund for Microsoft Windows through Con (

AnteTempore writes: The Danish Consumer Agency has announced a verdict in a case where a Danish consumer gets 850 DKK (115 EUR) in return for his Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium license.

The consumer had bought a computer at the supermarket, Aldi. The computer contained Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium. In the license it says:

"By using the software you accept these terms. If you cannot accept the terms, you do not have the rights to use the software. Instead contact the producer or whoever has installed the software to learn how you get a refund or store credit." (My translation from Danish).

The store refused to refund the license. The consumer asked for a refund of the retail price 1489 DKK, but the Danish Consumer Agency decided the price of 850 DKK was fair.

The strong point in this case is that The Danish Consumer Agency takes a stand. While they do not have the power of a Danish court, the Danish courts' decisions are usually influenced if there is a verdict from The Danish Consumer Agency. It remains to be seen if this verdict makes it possible for all Danish consumers to get a refund, or if they will have to go through The Danish Consumer Agency.

As Danish law is different for consumers and companies the verdict does not indicate if companies can claim a refund.

The verdict (in Danish):

Slashdot Top Deals

This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough hunchbacks.