Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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 $90k per year is poor in California (Score 1) 101

Secondly, and most importantly, those companies don't get massive subsidies from taxpayers to provide services to all, not just a privileged few.

And, pray tell...which group of people being considered here are paying the bulk of said taxes that fund said subsidies?

The wealthy neighborhoods or the Section 8 housing part of the city?

Comment Re:No one makes anyone buy anything. (Score 1) 233

Do you actually think that at some point prices were based on maintaining a "moral" 10% profit margin?

This is a product of snowflake think.

Sadly, we've raised a sheltered generation of kids that thing the world is fair, everyone is equal, business and all manner of human interaction is moral, and above all else, protect everyones self esteem.

Yes, for some reason, people are now attaching the word 'moral' to fiscal transactions...job salaries, welfare.....etc. Hell, I've had them talking about morality in taxation...really?

Money has never been about morals. It is there to earn the person/company a profit, to pay its employees and owners. Nothing more.

Taxes are there to fund the govt. services to the populace...nothing morality based at all.

But, you are running more and more into "Snowflake Think" of this type.

Hmm...I may have just coined a phrase here....

Comment Re:Privacy (Score 3, Interesting) 76

Seems that the US is actually the anomaly, having a high GDP *but* happily providing all their personal information to be abused by marketeers/advertiser, by three-letter agencies, and by pirates leaking databases and personal photo collections.

I dunno if it is so much "happily provide", but likely last not, too uneducated, ill-informed, or ignorant of the fact that massive data even IS being collected on them, much less the implications of such massive data collection and analyzation can do the people and their privacy.

I'm guessing that sure, a lot of folks wouldn't care, but I would posit that the majority of the populace using social media even is NOT aware of the massive information collection going on, nor how it is used.

Comment Re:I'm curious (Score 1) 50

I'm very apolitical and don't care about Trump or Clinton. Trump is the elected president and therefore it makes no difference to me if he has a low approval rating or if his approvals were to spike to the highest levels on record. The American people wanted him as their president. Russia poured a lot of money into his campaign, it is reported, but they could easily do that to anyone running so I see it as a fair playing field under the current rules.

If Americans lack critical thinking methods to distinguish between astroturf or genuine appeal, then their democracy will extend that lack of intelligence and eventually it will cost them their place in the world as the #1 superpower because the only decisions that weaken the USA in the long run are the ones anyone voting should be concerned with.

I may disagree with all of Trump's policy but my opinion is not important. Only facts are important, which Trump's people are certainly deadset against; they say anything they want and deny factual accounts consistently.

This won't help the USA in the long run and they will certainly pay a high price for this administration's ineptitude in lost GDP and lost global relationships.

But at the end of the day, USA elected him and I believe in democracy.

If I place my hand in a fire and it hurts and my reaction is to place my other hand in the fire so that I notice my first hand's pain less, well then I certainly deserve the consequences of that stupidity.

Comment Competition (Score 2) 386

...its not the developers of the software rejecting the suggestions -- its users of the software that often react sourly to improvement suggestions that could, if implemented well, benefit a lot of people using the software in question.

When you arrive to some forum and post a suggestion, you are in competition with other people who use the software and might not want to divert developer attention away from bugs or improvements already slated. Another probable reason is competition between suggestions by users vying for developer time. These people shooting down your ideas probably made some other suggestions and had them shot down by other users, or alternatively have some suggestions still pending, so they view your suggestion as a threat.

There could be technical reasons why your suggestion shouldn't be implemented and users may instinctively know this because they are often experts on that particular piece of software as they use it daily.

However, as a developer myself, I can assure you that I always dig deeper to determine if the users have valid feedback or if their feedback is only playing politics.

Good ideas always influence me, even if they are imperfect ideas and would need some adjusting to become viable.

Comment Re:Oops (Score 2, Insightful) 223

All the 'normal' sized people I know who drink soda drink diet soda.

But, the "normal" person today, is pretty much obese as compared to someone as recent as maybe 20 years ago or so....

But heaven forbid you say that to cannot "fat shame" people, and everyone is to feel good about themselves.

Hence, overweight is now the accepted new normal.

While that might help peoples' self image, it won't ever help their physical health.

Comment Re:Its pretty important... (Score 2) 307

Seafood doesn't even factor into this. "More" ocean is supposed to translate into less seafood? Seriously?

Actually it will.

The brackish water of the marshes that is a major part of the ecosystem of birth and lifecycle on a lot of fish that start there, breed there, but move more into the ocean. Oysters live on that edge between fresh and salt water....if you lose the marshes, you lose that wide area they can proliferate.

There's also the bird population that depends on this area.

So, no, it is not as simple as "more ocean". That entire ecosystem between the ocean and the fresh water is very important and if not replaced and allowed to disappear, will have great consequences for the seafood and other life that feed a good bit of the US.

Comment Re:Its pretty important... (Score 1) 307

That's your choice. Why should the rest of society subsidize your poor choices?

No, to suggest that they just pack up and move is common sense. The U.S. is a mighty big country. Just pick another location, and move. To continue living anywhere that continues to get battered by Mother Nature is just plain ignorant. Just because they think it's "home" is not a valid reason. Just because they were born there is not a valid reason. At some point in your life, you have to take responsibility for your actions. And that includes where you choose to live.

The point is...if this happens off the coast of LA to the point of the worst case scenario....this will not just affect those people who "choose to live there" will effect a great portion of the US economy, which will affect the whole country.

If you even discount the amount of domestic seafood that this part of LA produces for the whole of the US, you'll definitely feel it in the shortages of oil and gas that come from this area. Not only production from the Gulf coming in (those people that work those platforms live close to the coast for access to work)....but also the large processing plants in LA for oil from all over the world that feeds into the US.

Chances are, no matter where in the US you live, you likely get your gas from the processing plants in southern LA.

And for many parts here, New Orleans for instance, it is OLDER than the United States itself. The danger has evolved over the years, and a lot of this erosion is due to the pipes cutting across the bayous and the artificial water ways dug to transport all that oil from the Gulf to the processing plants and then to your tank.

SO, if you drive a car, or fuel your home do have a stake in the coastal erosion of southern LA.

NIMBY the rest of the US, doesn't want the oil refineries....we've given our coastline for the rest of the US, so why not shows some togetherness and thankfulness for that and help restore the coast.

If you're going to be that way....there is NO safe place in the US to live. Should we tell all the folks along the MS river to move, since it floods there? What about all those folks living where wildfires annually are rampant in CA? NYC is pretty much a huge terrorist target, why should we pay to protect it...etc?

Don't be so fucking selfish....

Comment Its pretty important... (Score 4, Informative) 307

This area of LA....a large percentage of the US's seafood comes from here, and, a large portion of the US's domestic oil comes from the Gulf into LA, and processed here.

Oil from all over the place is processed here.

The people that work these jobs, live on the coast and the sealife that supports these folks and provides a good amount of seafood to the US will disappear if this coastal erosion is allowed to continue.

This isn't just for the people of Louisiana, but for the great resources it provides the rest of the US.

Comment Buzzfeed (Score 3, Informative) 54

Buzzfeed seems to only link their own articles in their stories, so it's not convenient to fact-check them. I would have prefered some other information on this subject and since there is none in the TFA, I will provide you with some more info on this lobbying dollout:

From an obnoxious website that I won't link because of how totally obnoxious their javascript is; you may wish to read this anyway:

f the surprising election win by President-elect Donald Trump left you feeling dispirited, you may be looking for a way to take action.
One way you could do so is donating money or time to causes you believe stand against Trump's politics. Conversely, you could hold back your money â" by boycotting companies and/or corporate executives that stand against your beliefs.
As of mid-September, no CEO of a Fortune 100 company supported Trump by donating to his campaign.
But in other ways, and in the time since, a few big companies have shown support for the president-elect â" directly or indirectly.
Here are five examples.
New Balance
The day after the election, Matthew LeBretton, vice president of public affairs for the sneaker brand New Balance, told a Wall Street Journal reporter: "The Obama administration turned a deaf ear to us and frankly with President-elect Donald Trump, we feel things are going to move in the right direction."
After that message went out, angry people on Twitter shared photos showing them destroying or trashing their New Balance shoes.
In response, New Balance issued a statement to Sole Collector clarifying its position.
"As the only major company that still makes athletic shoes in the United States, New Balance has a unique perspective on trade and trade policy in that we want to make more shoes in the United States, not less," the statement reads. "New Balance publicly supported the trade positions of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump prior to Election Day that focused on American manufacturing job creation and we continue to support them today."
On a final campaign swing through Pennsylvania at the end of October, Trump's son Eric stopped by the Yuengling Brewery in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania.
Richard "Dick" Yuengling Jr., who is 73 and the fifth-generation owner of the nation's oldest beer company, gave him a tour.
"Our guys are behind your father," Yuengling said, the Reading Eagle reported. "We need him in there."
Eric Trump promised a Trump presidency would help businesses like Yuengling, a $550 million company with breweries in Pottsville and East Norwegian Township in Pennsylvania and Tampa, Florida.
"Maybe your dad will build a hotel in Pottsville, or serve Yuengling in his hotels," Yuengling said, jokingly, according to the Eagle.
Following the visit, there were calls on Twitter for a consumer boycott of the beermaker.
Home Depot
Kenneth Langone, one of the co-founders of Home Depot, has been publicly supporting Trump since May.
After supporting GOP presidential candidates New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and then Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Langone settled on Trump.
"And you want to know something?" Langone said on CNBC's "Closing Bell" in May. "I think he'll do a hell of a good job. At least I'm hoping."
Langone even doubled down after Trump bragged about sexual assault in the bus video leaked in October.
When asked for comment about the Langone's support, Stephen Holmes, the director of corporate communications for Home Depot said: "The Home Depot nor our CEO endorse Presidential candidates. Ken is a co-founder, and was once on our board of directors, but he retired from the board several years ago and is not speaking on behalf of the company."
Deactivating your Facebook account might be really hard â" scientific research suggests the social media site really is addictive.
But in a big way, Facebook played a role in this presidential election.
One way is the unchecked proliferation of shared fake news stories on the site that were partly responsible for Trump's rise.
Another? One of the company's board members and also one of the co-founders of PayPal, Peter Thiel, spoke in support of Trump at the Republican Convention in July.
Thiel began publicly supporting Trump in May â" and pledged more than $1 million to Trump's campaign in October.
When he spoke at the National Press Club in October, Thiel said what Trump represents "isn't crazy and it's not going away."
Thiel said he doesn't love everything about Trump does support Trump's plan to reduce waste in government, which he says is throwing away trillions of dollars of taxpayer money.
In a post-election interview with the New York Times, Thiel said he is currently in Trump's inner circle as an informal tech adviser.
Hobby Lobby
Despite his conservative background, Hobby Lobby CEO David Green did not endorse Trump in the primaries.
As you may recall, in 2014 the Supreme Court ruled that companies with religious owners â" like Green â" can't be compelled to pay for insurance coverage for women's contraception.
It's been called the "Hobby Lobby decision," because his was the company that brought it.
Green even talked down Trump during the primaries, telling Politico that Trump "scares me to death."
He added he would like the president to be someone "my kids, my grandkids and my great-grandkids can emulate."
Then, in October, Green apparently changed his mind. He threw his support behind Trump because of a hope for conservative judges on the Supreme Court, he wrote in opinion piece for USA Today.
"Fortunately, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby in 2014, but it's frightening to think that we â" and all Americans â" were just one judge away from losing our religious freedom," he wrote.
Requests for comment sent to New Balance, Yuengling and Facebook were not returned by press time. Hobby Lobby declined to comment.

Comment Dumbest thing Subway could do (Score 1) 293

Subway just shot itself in the foot here. This is a Barbara Streisand move that will only further expose Subway as a bad company with bad faith practices. Their sales will totally tank because of this and I would be surprised if they haven't already been hit really hard by their own stupidity. No empathy from me. They should have owned up to it and issued an apology and discontinued this bad product.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso