Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:One white elephant for sale. (Score 1) 63

I don't think either Yahoo or Twitter has to lose money, but the path to profitability is a horrible one: they're both heavily overstaffed for what they do. Twitter in particular, IIRC, has thousands of employees, managing what's actually a fairly simple product. You could reduce the headcount to well under a hundred people.

In that respect, being bought out is a preferable solution. The newly created division can set about reorganizing itself as a small focused team on the product at hand, while much of the remaining staff can be absorbed into the larger company over time. There'd still be redundancies, but they wouldn't be anything like as bad.

Comment Re:Anti-Hillary is not Pro-Trump (Score 1) 798

Trump is Bush with more bankruptcies, less military service, and no discernible interest in anything about the job other than power.

And, if anything, you're still being unfair to Bush. Bush! Probably the worst President since Nixon. And pretty much any comparison of him to Trump makes him look like a peace loving world statesman.

I would vote for Bush over Trump in a heartbeat. People ask why I'm prepared to vote for Clinton, given I dislike her politics so much, and there's your reason.

Comment Re:Don't blame the courts. (Score 1) 220

For one counter example, the state government is absolutely prohibited from abridging the free speech of their citizens, which includes the rights of municipalities to speak out as well. The states are not given free reign to be despots, they are not autonomous nation states. We even fought a war over this point.

Comment Re:Don't blame the courts. (Score 1) 220

However there's a federal constitution as well, which says that the federal government has jurisdiction over interstate commerce. The state would be forbidden to prevent Comcast from doing business in the state for example. It would seem to follow that the state therefore can not forbid local entities from competing with the out of state companies.

Which is why the supporters of bans on local governments doing this is not based on interstate commerce but on "omg, government run services are communist tools!" It's true we don't normally want governments to compete in the economic arena as it's unfair. However we generally allow this for essential services (sewage, fire, police, schools). In this particular case however there is NO competition, the broadband companies are not providing this service at any price to this town. The municipalities are filling a void in other words. The reason big broadband companies don't want this is because it makes them look bad when it turns out they charge more and provide less service than a small town can can provide.

Slashdot Top Deals

You can't have everything... where would you put it? -- Steven Wright