Slashdot Mirror


The Ethics Cloud Over Ballmer's $2 Billion B-Ball Buy

theodp (442580) writes '"It is hard to imagine any more heinous way of earning money than by benefiting from racism," writes Rick Cohen, who argues that Donald Sterling and the NBA owners are being unjustly enriched by Sterling's racism, which led to the $2 billion sale of the L.A. Clippers to ex-Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, a record-high sum for an NBA team. "Indeed, the only losers in the Sterling affair are the players," adds the NY Times. "What held promise as a possible D-Day in the N.B.A., a day when N.B.A. owners stood up to be counted and voted Donald Sterling out of the league, instead turned into a great day for the status quo." Forbes contributor Robert Wood speculates that if he plays his cards right, Sterling's windfall could be tax-free.'

57 of 398 comments (clear)

  1. pishaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ethics? Ethics in the corporate world is what gets you the most cash. The corporate assholes live in a scruple-free culture.

    1. Re:pishaw by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ethics on Slashdot? No one questions that someone was banned for life and was forced to forfeit his property because of something he said in a private conversation that was recorded and published without his permission.

      If you are not outraged by this then please do not bother ever complaining about privacy.

      Remember racism is not illegal. Discrimination based on race in the workplace is.

      BTW I do not like racism at all but this is just too weird for words.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:pishaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you don't live for yourself then you live for others. Living for others makes you a slave.

    3. Re:pishaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Forfeit? Nope. He's getting paid for it. TFA and TFS even say so.

    4. Re:pishaw by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 4, Informative

      A private association had rules governing the association, and one of those members broke one of the rules*. Hence, he was kicked to the curb. No laws are alleged by any part to have been violated.

      *He broke the rule that said he wouldn't do or say anything to harm the league financially. Its very broad rule for a reason. This reason.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    5. Re:pishaw by Jiro · · Score: 2

      You know nothing about libertarians.

      Libertarians believe it should be legal to a lot of things that leftists don't like, including kicking someone out for bad reasons. However, this does not mean that doing so should not be subject to moral condemnation. Unless you have an example of libertarians saying that what the NBA did should be made illegal, you have no valid criticism.

      What property did he "forfeit" by the way? He didn't lose anything - he SOLD his property on the market for $2.2 billion.

      He lost the difference between what it was worth to him and what he got by selling it. If this was not a loss, then he would have sold it spontaneously, which he obviously didn't.

    6. Re:pishaw by Stuarticus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The either/or is a huge false dichotomy. Maybe you should consider what 100% "living for yourself" would actually entail?

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    7. Re:pishaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Channelling Ayn Rand so much like that is unhealthy. You become feeble in mind and spirit, blinded by selfishness and greed, unable to see other ways of living.

      You can live for others without being a slave. Serving others does not make you a slave.

      You could also live for a greater cause than merely living for yourself or others. You could lead, guide, teach, serve others, all in service of a cause you believe in.

      Some also kill for a cause. Fighting/dying for someone/something not yourself does not necessarily make you a slave.

      You can also be a slave to your own desires. So you could still end up a slave even if you lived purely for yourself.

      p.s. Don't follow that "selfishness is a virtue" bullshit. Selfishness is not a virtue and never will be. But if you're one of those serving others don't forget to take care of yourself - you might not be able to help so much if you die too fast or get crippled/impaired.

    8. Re:pishaw by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      And was the league harmed?
      Also do you think that any owner can pass that rule if you looked at all their private conversations?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    9. Re:pishaw by kaatochacha · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Selfishness is a negative, by definition.
      Self-interest, however...that's a whole different kettle of fish. Self-Interest is a universal law, like gravity.
      As long as you understand it, you can moderate/use it.

  2. So what's the problem here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it that he's being paid a market price for his team? How could it have been otherwise?

    1. Re:So what's the problem here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He has an opinion that liberals don't like so they think that they should be able to take his property from him without providing compensation.

    2. Re:So what's the problem here? by LordKronos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. I don't get all of the talk about how this is a reward. He could have sold the team at any time of his choosing. The price he got isn't because of his racist remarks. It's because there are so few teams available, they don't often come up for sale, and as teams go, the Clippers is actually a pretty highly ranked team. If anything, forcing him to sell actually is a punishment, even at $2 billion. He bought the team for $12.5m 33 years ago. Now it's worth $2b. That works out to an average annual return of almost 17%. It's virtually impossible to find an investment that gives those sort of returns over the long term. When you actually do have one, you'd want to hold onto it as long as possible (unless you have reason to believe its value is about to tank). Forcing him to sell such a fast growing asset is indeed punishment.

    3. Re:So what's the problem here? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 2

      Is it that he's being paid a market price for his team? How could it have been otherwise?

      Well, technically you are correct, but the problem is that before this sale, only the Chicago Bulls ($1 billion) and the Los Angeles Lakers ($1.3 billion), were valued at even one billion US dollars among NBA teams. Basically what we have is a bunch of billionaires who for no good reason got into a bidding war on a team that has never even played for a championship, let alone won one, and the "winner" was the guy who was willing to badly overpay the most. Right now it's difficult to understand how this deal makes sense for Ballmer. And if he personally has the billions available to make this deal rather than just being a front man for an investment group, then he is maybe the most badly overpaid CEO in history. A few years ago an investment group shocked everybody by paying $2 billion US dollars for the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team, but the deal began to make sense when you took into account that the team got a TV contract that was something like maybe $6 billion dollars. Nobody expected the Dodgers to sell for even a billion dollars, but a bidding war ensued and basically the winners were a group that could pay $2 billion up front and make it back on the TV contract. There's no evidence yet that Ballmer can get this money back and right now it just looks like a stupid decision where a jobless rich boy paid more than he should for the bragging rights of owning an NBA team. Maybe things will change in a few years and with new TV money he'll look like a genius, but right now it just looks like a bad deal.

  3. Racism or Thought Police? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here's Slashdot cheering the thought police. The man was baited into saying something in a private phone call. Where are our privacy champions now? What a bunch of frauds. We cheer Snowden because the media tells us to, but then champion spying on someone because the media tells us to.

    1. Re:Racism or Thought Police? by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, but privacy and free speech and all that only applies if you're saying politically-correct stuff. The second you say "nigger" or even mildly criticize some protected group YOU MUST BE DESTROYED!!!!!

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:Racism or Thought Police? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      > Here's Slashdot cheering the thought police. The man was baited into saying something in a private phone call. Where are our privacy champions now?

      It wasn't a phone call, it was in person. But, while the recording was what brought his bigotry to public attention, what really matters are all his other public actions, like refusing to rent apartments to blacks and hispanics. It was only a matter of time before all his shit caught up with him.

      http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-sterling-racist-history-2014-4

    3. Re:Racism or Thought Police? by Triklyn · · Score: 2

      not all of us... the most troubling aspects of the sterling case to me, has always been it's issues regarding "court of public opinion", confiscation of property, and privacy. I'm a damn liberal, but civil liberties are more important than that.

      I say if sterling makes a windfall from this, it's karmic punishment for people thinking it's a good idea for him to be done so for why he was. Force him out for racism? only when he's caught DOING something racist. not just saying it at home.

    4. Re:Racism or Thought Police? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What happened to Sterling is the exact same thing as someone going into your house, reading your diary, and then getting offended at the content. And then trying to get you fired from your job over it.

    5. Re:Racism or Thought Police? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, but that is NOT why the team was sold, and in fact, had nothing at all to do with it. His ONLY crime was being recorded in a private conversation without his knowledge or consent. You're correct, it doesn't matter what you think about his personal opinions, but they are just that, his personal opinions which he was purposely baited into revealing.
      If you're going to hold everyone to the same standard, which we should, have you ever said a negative thing about anyone to a close personal friend, in private, and had that friend secretly record you, where that view was not the popular view? If so, we should all be able to march into your life and take whatever we want without any compensation to you, because we don't agree with your view.

    6. Re:Racism or Thought Police? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The definition of "ownership" when it comes to sports franchises varies, but basically Sterling doesn't own anything. According to the NBA's constitution, he doesn't even really own so much as the name - if the NBA terminates his ownership, the NBA immediately takes over the team and all its' assets (and has to provide the market value from the sale or liquidation of those assets). The NBA is structured more like a club, where when you join, you get a name under which you can conduct business, and have to share a bit of the profit with the club, and have to follow an extremely detailed set of rules on how to conduct that business.

    7. Re:Racism or Thought Police? by ATMAvatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Privacy and free speech apply to government entities, not to ex girlfriends and basketball associations.

      Privacy means that what you do with another person should remain between you two, so long as both of you keep it as such

      . All bets are off when one of the individuals involved in the private activity decide to disclose what happened. The moral here is to better choose who you decide to associate with in private.

      Free speech doesn't mean that you can say anything you want without consequence - it means that the government cannot be the one to bring about those consequences. Public shaming and ostracization are perfectly OK. In this case, it also happens that the statements ran afoul of NBA policy, which Sterling agreed to when be purchased the team in the first place.

      Sterling isn't serving any jail time, and he's getting a giant return on investment. I don't see why the right is to up in arms over the outcome. Sterling probably got more money for the sale of the team now (due to the expediency everyone else felt to buy the team out from under him) than he probably would have putting it up for sale on his own before the controversy.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    8. Re:Racism or Thought Police? by laie_techie · · Score: 2

      So I guess you'd be cool with it if the NBA choose to enact a "No Homosexual Players Allowed" policy? After all, they're a private organization and don't have to respect anyone's legal rights, right?

      Actually, as a private organization, it would be up to them to decide whether to disallow openly gay players and / or owners. Perspective owners and players would need to know of such a rule (and fans would want to know about it, too). Those who don't agree with such a stance would be free to not participate in nor support such an organization. No one's legal rights would be trampled.

      As per homosexual players, I think their teammates should have the strongest word, considering that most locker rooms don't have private showers. Personally, I choose which teams to support based on performance on the field and moral conduct of its owners and players. I don't take into account sexual orientation, but will note if the owner cheats on a spouse.

    9. Re:Racism or Thought Police? by SensitiveMale · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, but privacy and free speech and all that only applies if you're saying politically-correct stuff. The second you say "nigger" or even mildly criticize some protected group YOU MUST BE DESTROYED!!!!!

      That's the odd thing. Sterling didn't even use a slur.From what I understood of the tape, he didn't even have a problem with minorities. He told his girlfriend that she could sleep with anyone she wanted. Again, no slurs. Just don't brag about her boyfriends on Instragram or bring them to the game in public.

      He didn't tell his ticket sellers not to sell to minorities. He didn't use any slurs. He employed, from what I understand was a general consensus, the worst GM in the NBA for over 20 years who happened to be a minority. He hired a minority coach.

      He was illegally recorded and punished for something he said in the privacy of his own home, not for something he did. Not to mention he was goaded. Listen to the tape. She knew what she wanted him to say and she kept at it until he said it.

      This is very scary stuff because there isn't one person alive who wouldn't be ostracized, using this ruler, if a select one minute of their private speech was made public.

    10. Re:Racism or Thought Police? by Enigma2175 · · Score: 2

      Actually, as a private organization, it would be up to them to decide whether to disallow openly gay players and / or owners. Perspective owners and players would need to know of such a rule (and fans would want to know about it, too). Those who don't agree with such a stance would be free to not participate in nor support such an organization. No one's legal rights would be trampled.

      As per homosexual players, I think their teammates should have the strongest word, considering that most locker rooms don't have private showers. Personally, I choose which teams to support based on performance on the field and moral conduct of its owners and players. I don't take into account sexual orientation, but will note if the owner cheats on a spouse.

      That is insane. If you could do that, you could do the same to people of religion (or lack of it).

      It depends. IIRC, sexual orientation is not a federally protected class. Religion IS a federally protected class so anybody denied entrance into the league because of their religion would have grounds to sue. That being said, I believe sexual orientation is a state protected class in California so the Clippers could not participate in such discrimination without running afoul of the law.

      --

      Enigma

    11. Re:Racism or Thought Police? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can possibly be that stupid, can you? "he didn't even have a problem with minorities"?! Seriously?!

      He said that he didn't want black people at his games or getting within one degree of separation from him. That's pretty obviously "having a problem with minorities".

      Further, it's absolutely absurd to say that he's being unfairly characterized as racist due to "one minute of [his] private speech". Sterling has a decades' long history of blatant and overt racism, and not just in the form of speech or attitude. The man settled the largest housing discrimination lawsuit in US history for systematically trying to drive out minority tenants.

      While he may not have used any slurs in that one particular recording, there are PLENTY of other examples: http://deadspin.com/your-complete-quotable-guide-to-decades-of-donald-sterl-1568047212

      It's astonishing that you can be so misinformed in the age of the internet.

  4. Wut?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What an incredibly stupid thing to post on Slashdot. the ONLY link to technology is Ballmer's name.

    1. Re:Wut?? by Bigbutt · · Score: 2

      Meh. The site changed from the implied "news for nerds who got beat up in school" to "news for anyone who geeks out about something" a while ago. I don't know why we don't see news about Electric Motorcycles.

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
  5. It's just proof positive.... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    that no matter what, ** SOMEONE ** is gonna bitch about ** SOMETHING ** no matter what happened. Can't please all the people all the time.

    1. Re:It's just proof positive.... by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      In the age of the internet, bitching has become the number one export of western civilization.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  6. nonsense by JeffSh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sterling never did anything illegal, he was just an old biggoted man. There exists no punishment society can inflict on him beyond personal actions like boycotting or just not liking him... So what gives? Why do people think that he can be robbed of an asset for being a biggot?

    He has first amendment protections to be as big of a douchebag as he wants. His privacy was violated by his mistress and he was doing nothing illegal. The NBA has no grounds to force him out or deny him profit from the sale of an asset he shouldn't be forced to sell.

    1. Re:nonsense by Threni · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Isn't `bring the game into disrepute` a reason? It's their rules...they can have any clause they like. He might not mind not caring what people think of his outdated mentality, but the sport suffers if people boycott it, or if it's embarrassing to have to admit you are involved with it, if for no other reason.

    2. Re:nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Illegality only applies to what the government can do to him.
      What the NBA can do to him is a matter of contract law.

      But what society can do to him is pretty much arbitrary. This is all about society's judgment of him and that's fair - the value of the team is 100% a function of public approval. You didn't hear him complaining when public approval resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars of income for him so, live by the sword die by the sword.

  7. Re:Crusade against capitalism by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm pretty sick and tired of this crusade against capitalism all over the world, where anyone who makes a lot of money is either evil, unethical, or oppressive to his employees.

    And I'm sick of how statistically speaking, anyone who makes a lot of money is either evil, unethical, or oppressive to his employees.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. Simple. Wonder why no-one's thought of this before by just_a_monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We ought to outlaw selfishness. Everyone should always work towards the common good.

    --
    How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
  9. Disable Advertising? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Informative

    More like "Ignore my checkbox to Disable Advertising". I'm still seeing banners at the top of the content and at the top of the right column.

  10. Think harder Rick by PsyMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    '"It is hard to imagine any more heinous way of earning money than by benefiting from racism," ... Well, lets think, you could run a child prostitution ring, child slavery, people trafficking, run a pharmacutical firm/country that denies poorer people medicine or be a banker. Not hard to imagine at all. (not sure what the rest of the summary was about as I did not read it.

    1. Re:Think harder Rick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, I don't think he's "earning money than by benefiting from racism" (I realize that doesn't make grammatical sense). He's earning money off a basketball team which is comprised mostly (completely?) of black men while at the same time being a racist. He's actually making money because the majority of the operation isn't racist and has the best players it can get, who happen to be black. Making money from racism would be more akin to owning a golf course, and having a bunch of black caddies and paying them peanuts because they had no other options. Paying a bunch of people millions of dollars to play a sport and are treated as royal by their fans and the general public is hardly the worst thing somebody could do.

    2. Re:Think harder Rick by MitchDev · · Score: 2

      No kidding.

      Grow some spine and some thicker skin America, you're turning into the wimps of the "free" world...

    3. Re:Think harder Rick by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      buh buh, if the team (and every other team in the entire NBA) is comprised almost entirely of black players, then the we need some kind of investigation on diversity, and how the NBA can make itself a more tolerant, and diverse organization.

      We're sending a strong message to young white, asian, and hispanic children that they cannot be professional athletes, and in 2014 that's a travesty. I thought we were past this as a society.

      If Jackson can do this to to Google, then perhaps in the interest of fairness the NBA could ask itself why they are so ... awfully monochromatic. (the majority/minority percentages are likely pretty close to identical)

  11. Re:Simple. Wonder why no-one's thought of this bef by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Funny

    For the hundredth time, vulcan, we're not joining any goddamn federation of planets!

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  12. Re:Crusade against capitalism by Threni · · Score: 2

    > I'm pretty sick and tired

    Have a lie down. And then see a doctor. And try and think of a reason other than sympathy towards your sorry plight for others to be interested in your opinions.

  13. Re:Harder Idea - Shutter the team by fredprado · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure. In your dystopic society where people can only think what you want them to think that is how things work. Fortunately in the real world things are not that bad, yet...

  14. Re:Crusade against capitalism by fredprado · · Score: 2

    Not any more than you are, my friend, but it is easier to see the bad side of others whilst ignoring your own. I am pretty sure you wouldn't be able to satisfy the standards you want to enforce to the people you envy.

  15. Re:Harder Idea - Shutter the team by flappinbooger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    bear in mind this man is guilty of nothing more than saying something politically incorrect within the privacy of his own house.

    What happened here? 1984 much?

    --
    Flappinbooger isn't my real name
  16. Re:Crusade against capitalism by fredprado · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Crony capitalism only exists when there is a big government to buy. Even more, the bigger and stronger the government is the "cronier" capitalism becomes. The only real way to fight crony capitalism is by decreasing government size and scope.

  17. Ballmer's been cheaped by AgentSmith · · Score: 2

    He spent 2.2 Billion just to have the opportunity to throw chairs in public again?

    There are many things you can buy for 2.2 Billion. This is one of them.

  18. Re:Crusade against capitalism by fredprado · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rich people are not "harming" anybody. Much on the contrary. Someone with employees is providing the employees jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist. He can "screw them over" and they can decide to go elsewhere. That is how a free society works.

    On the other hand if you increase government powers, those same employees can be "screwed over" without any chance to defend themselves under the threat of force. And even worse this force can be bought by those rich guys.

    So if you want to prevent damage from being done you should defend that governments should be as small as possible and that violence and coercion, which are the tools of any government, should be kept at a minimum.

  19. Re:Crusade against capitalism by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    Rich people are not "harming" anybody. Much on the contrary. Someone with employees is providing the employees jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist.

    [citation needed]

    On the other hand if you increase government powers

    It's not the other hand. It's the same hand, because business runs government.

    So if you want to prevent damage from being done you should defend that governments should be as small as possible

    Corporations are running government, so your solution is less government, so that corporations can run everything without government.

    My solution is less centralized government, so that people have control over their own destinies, but so that they still have control.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  20. the summary is a lie by sribe · · Score: 2

    I just RTFA. Even though some of the techniques the author speculates go beyond questionable into the realm of "no fucking way could he get away with that" (claiming a forced sale, claiming a loss), NONE of them actually eliminates taxes on his gain. They change the amount; they shuffle the timing around; but again NONE of them results in a "tax-free" windfall.

  21. Worse on mobile! by swb · · Score: 2

    Mobile Safari gets banners at the top and obnoxious floaters at the bottom. On iPhone the floater often goes off the side and doesn't zoom right, making the dumb "hide" button hard/impossible to get at.

    It's better than Beta, but not much.

  22. I'd say it swapping one rich dickhead for another. by hey! · · Score: 4, Funny

    But Sterling got rich as a personal injury lawyer, and then mega-rich as a slum lord. He's the one man in America *everybody* can despise. Ballmer has actually found a situation where he can step in and people will heave a sign of relief.

    Well played, sir. Well played.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  23. Re:Harder Idea - Shutter the team by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 4, Informative

    Let's not forget that Sterling has been a Grade A fuckwad for decades before this. He has been sued multiple times for his racist housing discrimination practices. He lost one case outright. The terms of the other were confidential, but he had to pay millions in attorney fees, so let's guess how that one ended.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/l...

    That's just the tip of his douchebag iceberg. He should have been run out long ago, but the league is a bunch of cowards. Fortunately, the players forced their hands by pretty much promising that no one would play for him again after this season.

  24. Poor imagination by Dishwasha · · Score: 2

    '"It is hard to imagine any more heinous way of earning money than by benefiting from racism," writes Rick Cohen

    I guess Rick Cohen has never been to or heard of a donkey show.

  25. Two-party recording laws by Pollux · · Score: 2

    If you prefer to live in a state that requires two-party consent to record, be my guest.

    Just don't ever complain if a police officer ever takes away your camera as they're beating you senseless. (In other words, when an injustice is being committed, you cannot expect the unjust to permit their acts to be made public. One-party consent states doesn't have this issue.)

  26. What part of "private association" do you not get? by voidstin · · Score: 2

    The NBA is a private association with it's own governing charter. It's a billionaires club. If all of the other members of the club hate you because you have a LONG HISTORY of being a total racist, cheapskate, and litigious dick, it is within their right to throw you out. Additionally, his wife had him declared incompetent, so legality is even less of an issue. As for the "baiting", even if we ignore his long history of bad behavior, he insulted Magic Johnson - one of the greatest players of all time, and the guy who's statue he walks by every time he enters the Staples Center - IN HIS APOLOGY. Yes, he said he was a bad influence him for HAVING HIV. Yes he said he could be "doing more" for the community - the guy who opened hundreds of new businesses in black neighborhoods across LA. Oh, and that apology took him a week, and in the meantime, he said he should have just "paid her off". Also, BOTH teams (including his own) were going to refuse to play (in the playoffs) if the commissioner didn't act. NO ONE liked him, not even those who worked for him. If you want to talk about freedom, how about the freedom to not have to deal with this jerk? I believe they always had the legal authority to kick him out, but his history of litigious dickishness would have cost them billions in legal fees and bad PR. Carpe Diem. And Ballmer (not famous for his likability) will be a HUGE upgrade.

  27. Thoughtcrime by Spy+Handler · · Score: 2

    Remember racism is not illegal. Discrimination based on race in the workplace is.

    Thoughtcrime is currently not illegal, but they (the media + the powers that be) are trying their damned hardest to make it so.

    Remember that guy, Harvard University President or something, he was caught saying "maybe we shouldn't be so obsessed with pushing more women into math/science, after all women on average show less aptitude in those fields". He was vilified in the media as being worse than the Devil and Hitler combined. He was fired like the next day. All for saying what pretty much every average Joe knows already.

    I swear, I'm all for high tech and scientific research, except when it comes to mental technology. Because if they ever make a thought detector, you just KNOW they're gonna use it to sniff out people with impure thoughts and round them up. They're trying to do it right now even though they don't have a mental detector.