Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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:WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY (Score 1) 1026

Until the budget is balanced, we don't need shit like this.

So you'll happily accept cutting your ridiculous military expenditure right? You spend more than the next 10 countries combined, most of which goes to military contractors on cost+ contracts. How about a 10% cut. That's $60B, not counting what you spend on the Iraq and Afghanistan boondoogles, they're not paid for either.

Or allow the government to negotiate drug and medical procedure prices with private industry and use its negotiating power as a large buyer in Medicare/Tricare right? You expect government to buy everything else at the cheapest possible price, why subsidize pharmaceuticals?

Or stop subsidizing ethanol production which promotes overproduction, artificial food inflation by diverting food production to uneconomic fuel production and socializes rural industry at the cost of urban individuals?

All of those would save substantially more than you are worried about in terms of year-on-year expenditure. But it doesn't fit into everyone's "omg the sky is falling" bullshit.

Comment Re:Stupid Idea (Score 2) 1026

Even then I say balance the budget and pay down the debt first.

Why? Most of the debt you owe to yourselves. You can borrow from yourselves and the world at 3%. Balancing the budget is easy. Halve your military... there's $300 billion / year. Allow Medicare to negotiate prices as a single payer and stop subsidizing the medical industry. There's another chunk of change.

Stop subsidizing ethanol production to maintain congresscritter seats in mid-west states. The subsidies are totally wasteful, cause food production costs to rise, and are an urban sop to the rural minority.

Balancing the budget is exactly the wrong thing to do as a Federal government during a recession. Government spending (and borrowing) is only bad when it takes away from private capacity. There is no pressure on interest rates to go up because the government is crowding out private borrowing. There is no pressure on labor capacity by the government creating jobs and crowding out private job creation.

In other words, stop wasting money on unproductive subsidies and start actually using government funds for things that improve infrastructure, reduce economic inefficiences and assist in job creation and industrial renewal.

Comment RTFR (Score 1) 338


If you read the ruling, the judge said that:

a) Of the people who filed to squash the subpoena, 3 of the 4 people actually revealed the pertinent information (name, address etc) as part of their filings
b) That the subpoena was for the ISP to reveal name and address
c) That fulfilling the subpoena was not burdensome
d) That the time and place to defend against the accusation would be after the plaintiff actually filed to litigate against individuals

Sounds to me like at this point in the process, it's a solid ruling on the merits. Of course, once the plaintiff refiles against an individual, they can respond to the accusation with (in roughly this order):

* this court doesn't have jurisdiction
* you don't have standing to sue me in the US
* you can't prove (on balance of probabilities) it was my IP address at the time without getting the ISP to reveal my traffic through them
* you can't prove (on balance of probabilities) that my equipment wasn't a) hacked or b) setup in accordance with the ISPs instructions so any possible downloading was by intrusion on their equipment (ie, it's their fault)
* If it was on my IP, you can't prove which individual was connected to that IP at the time (wifi etc)
* if I did download it, you can't prove I infringed your copyright (is downloading an infringement)
* If I infringed your copyright, you can't prove there was any financial loss
* If there was financial loss, it was minimal
* If it was minimal, then the case should never have been brought at this level and it should be refiled in small claims (or equivalent)

Comment Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin (Score 1) 2424

You're absolutely right.

If your neighbor's house is burning down, why should you have to pay for the fire brigade to put it out.

If the girl next door is being raped, it's not your problem, so why should you pay for the police.

You're like that joke on the movie Airplane... "They bought their tickets, I say let 'em crash!"

What benefit do you get?

'cos it's all about you right?

I agree with you, you shouldn't have to buy health insurance. You should be taxed for it.

Comment Re:Users only infringe *once* per file (Score 2, Insightful) 252

"letting it seed" isn't transmitting it ("making available") or copying it. It's made available once (seeded), and then each individual downloading is infringing. This means that even if they do manage to prosecute an individual, it will be for one copy made (if they catch them downloading), and one making available (if they catch them seeding).

That severely limits the potential liability, makes it a civil offence, not a criminal one and probably not worth the studio's time.

Comment Re:Do democrats even realize that they do in fact (Score 1) 658

I am sure they would love to ignore the Republicans... Unlike the House rules, however, the senate requires 60 votes to get anything substantial done. Meaning, they have something called filibuster rules that allow individual senators to slow/stop bills in its tracks...

No, it means that if the Republicans want to filibuster, the Democrats should let them try.

Make them stand there and talk and read the phone book and carry on. Cloture requires 60 votes, otherwise debate continues until no one wants to speak anymore. The Democrats should just call the Republican's bluff.

Comment Re:Republicans are Flat-Earth Economists (Score 1) 658

America is no longer a capitalist nation.

That is so much Fox Noise bullshit talking points.

That era is now over, thanks to Congress.

No, that era is now over, thanks to a de-regulated market that used securitization to not only spread risk but to totally disconnect any responsibility for loan quality from the ultimate lenders.

Not to mention that the de-regulation of financial services allowed monolithic structures to be created that are "too big to fail" requiring the badly managed "bailout".

Comment Re:Republicans are Flat-Earth Economists (Score 1) 658

Now, tax cuts - in a normal economic environment - do stimulate the economy.

That's why it made so much sense to cut taxes at the same time as you're trying to fund two land wars.

And it was entirely ACORN's fault that complete de-regulation of the financial market led to fraud and inappropriate incentives for loan sellers to get bad loans and securitize them, taking a commission and absolving them of responsibility.

And it was the government's fault, not the so-called "rating agencies" that these bad loans were packaged and sold as triple A rated.

Face it, the last 8 years were a clusterfuck of enormous proportions. Republicans are convinced that government is a bad idea, and whenever they're in power, they do their best to prove it.

Comment Re:Oh, Democrats want children to be ignorant. (Score 1) 658

How come Cleveland has more spending on its public schools than most other G8 nations, but they are all shitholes. Maybe the students are stupid and unwilling to learn? Maybe they come from a culture that denegrates education before it even starts?

Maybe because parents don't want their precious snowflakes egos to be upset by having to work hard?

Democrats ... continue to spend billions on an arts and media that does nothing but continually denegrate culture, learning, and refinement?

This the NEA that Republicans always bitching about? The one that pays for art and orchestras and stuff? The one with the 144 *million* dollar budget? That's about 50 cents for each of you a year...

Comment Re:Republicans are Flat-Earth Economists (Score 1) 658

So maybe take some of that money you waste on spending in the military (more than the next 45 countries *combined*) and spend it on education or bi-lingual teaching materials.

Having the "legal" population learn Spanish wouldn't hurt them either. You could have ESL and SSL classes.

Did you ever consider the reason *why* those kids are in the country? Maybe some foreign aid would help? Oh, no, better to spend it on a pointless fence and yet more pseudo-military forces.

No, much easier to just bitch about it. There's no way that all those illegals are going anywhere, cheap labor is needed to do the stuff that you guys are too proud to do yourselves.

Slashdot Top Deals

Too much of everything is just enough. -- Bob Wier