It's happened in plenty of places, including where I live in Indiana. Right-of-way access was given to fiber companies here and those companies as eating Comcast's lunch in those areas.
Really what is sounds like to me is that Comcast wants all the advantages of their government granted monopoly and none of the requirements.
It's time to cut government granted monopolies loose. The Comcast deal with real competition in all areas. The don't seem to be able to deal with it in any other area, so now they have chosen the court system.
I am tired of hearing about how great corporatism is when the "free market" is thrown out the window and companies like this go whining to the courts and to their reps when things do not go their way. If they want to champion corporatism let them die from it as well.
In a country where Labor what the amount of power they deserve this happens. You see, the US is *not* a free market country. Labor banding together is logical if the market is free.
I get scoffed at regularly when talking about the negative tax-rate multinationals, but it happens way more often than most anyone thinks. Guaranteed tax refunds mean that a lot of companies, like GE and Boeing, are actually getting paid to work in the US and it's a matter of public record.
The executives and management should be held personally responsible
Though I agree in this case, this is a dangerous line of thinking — not entirely unlike blaming a rape victim for wearing too short a skirt...
This is the worst simile I have EVER seen on Slashdot. That's saying a lot.
The corporate CxOs are NOT the victim in this scenario. The corporate worshipers on/. and the Internet love to tell us that the executives deserve huge pay packets because they are responsible. However in *every case* when something happens that hurts thousands of people they are always don't know what happened. Executives hold responsibility and deserve what they are paid or they don't know what is going on and they are overpaid. You can't have it both ways.
The CxOs were the benefactors of the malfeasance. Calling them rape victim is idiotic.
The corporate death penalty, i.e. the loss of charter, needs to be a thing. The possibility of all the stock becoming worthless would be a great tool in getting corporations to actually follow the law.
However since we have a congress that is OWNED by corporations there isn't a way for it to happen.
...is why most people are not on the 4 day work week. The numbers don't lie and the numbers say we are more productive than ever before.
What are the economic factors that are leading us to work longer rather than shorter? That's the better question. It's also the question that those that do reap the benefits of all that work do not want you to ask.
No where in the constitution are corporate rights mentioned. The current right press for corporate rights in a big way. Also Scalia, who was billed as a "strict constitutionalist" creamed his pants over corporate rights.
Until the idea that somehow corporations have rights that are equal to the rights of humans (which ARE in the constitution) then the idea that ANY of these people are strict constitutionalist is a joke.
My thought was if they are celebrating 40 years of x86, HOW THE HELL are they talking about patents? Overall the term of any patent dating 40 years ago should be long gone.
Before I get jumped on, yes they could be talking about certain parts of it added on later, but still it was strange seeing sword rattling like that on a document celebrating 40 year old tech.
Just because you get to the end of what silicone can do also doesn't mean another tech doesn't take over from that point, either.
I read one interesting posit that said that if you consider the *processing* part of Moore's law only that our ability to calculate as a speces has been following Moore's Law for thousands of years. Silicone wafers took over at the limits of paper and pencil, by hand calculation.
The idea of economies is supposed to be something that helps a maximized number of people to get their basic needs. This type of statement is putting the importance of capitalism before the basic importance of providing people to live. Not to mention it's an attempt to purposefully misunderstand why the current wave of change is different than the previous changes like the industrial revolution.
Point missed. What jobs will it make the labor available for? High-end jobs only this time. One of the saving graces of the industrial revolution is that it required more warm bodies than it required skilled labor.
Not to mention that the post-WWII boom was at least partially due to the investments the US made in its people, especially through instruments like the GI Bill. A lot of that was paid by taxes on the upper-income brackets. We have a government culture where policy is set by the highest bidder and proper taxation is nearly impossible because of it. Tax the rich (not even at post-WWII which were arguably too high) and actually fix our infrastructure and we have a good start at makeing the landing a little softer.
Slashdot Mirror
Until Trump gets congress to monkey with the law, truth (and even belief of what the truth is) is a defense against libel and slander.
So good luck with that.
It's happened in plenty of places, including where I live in Indiana. Right-of-way access was given to fiber companies here and those companies as eating Comcast's lunch in those areas.
Really what is sounds like to me is that Comcast wants all the advantages of their government granted monopoly and none of the requirements.
It's time to cut government granted monopolies loose. The Comcast deal with real competition in all areas. The don't seem to be able to deal with it in any other area, so now they have chosen the court system.
I am tired of hearing about how great corporatism is when the "free market" is thrown out the window and companies like this go whining to the courts and to their reps when things do not go their way. If they want to champion corporatism let them die from it as well.
In a country where Labor what the amount of power they deserve this happens. You see, the US is *not* a free market country. Labor banding together is logical if the market is free.
This would only mean something if Trumpists DIDN'T have contempt for working people.
I get scoffed at regularly when talking about the negative tax-rate multinationals, but it happens way more often than most anyone thinks. Guaranteed tax refunds mean that a lot of companies, like GE and Boeing, are actually getting paid to work in the US and it's a matter of public record.
I think the gun pointing to their head is the need to eat and have somewhere to live.
The constant whine about regulations when as a country we pretty much allow our large corporations to get away with anything is rather tiresome.
The executives and management should be held personally responsible
Though I agree in this case, this is a dangerous line of thinking — not entirely unlike blaming a rape victim for wearing too short a skirt...
This is the worst simile I have EVER seen on Slashdot. That's saying a lot.
The corporate CxOs are NOT the victim in this scenario. The corporate worshipers on /. and the Internet love to tell us that the executives deserve huge pay packets because they are responsible. However in *every case* when something happens that hurts thousands of people they are always don't know what happened. Executives hold responsibility and deserve what they are paid or they don't know what is going on and they are overpaid. You can't have it both ways.
The CxOs were the benefactors of the malfeasance. Calling them rape victim is idiotic.
The corporate death penalty, i.e. the loss of charter, needs to be a thing. The possibility of all the stock becoming worthless would be a great tool in getting corporations to actually follow the law.
However since we have a congress that is OWNED by corporations there isn't a way for it to happen.
So your solution seems to be shut up and know your place. THAT is typical of the right.
Conflating people who show up for peaceful protest and people who are attracted to those protests to riot isn't illegal, but it is stupid.
This is a bullshit rationalization of course. The constitution does NOT say that groups of people equals an individual.
...is why most people are not on the 4 day work week. The numbers don't lie and the numbers say we are more productive than ever before.
What are the economic factors that are leading us to work longer rather than shorter? That's the better question. It's also the question that those that do reap the benefits of all that work do not want you to ask.
No where in the constitution are corporate rights mentioned. The current right press for corporate rights in a big way. Also Scalia, who was billed as a "strict constitutionalist" creamed his pants over corporate rights.
Until the idea that somehow corporations have rights that are equal to the rights of humans (which ARE in the constitution) then the idea that ANY of these people are strict constitutionalist is a joke.
My thought was if they are celebrating 40 years of x86, HOW THE HELL are they talking about patents? Overall the term of any patent dating 40 years ago should be long gone.
Before I get jumped on, yes they could be talking about certain parts of it added on later, but still it was strange seeing sword rattling like that on a document celebrating 40 year old tech.
Just because you get to the end of what silicone can do also doesn't mean another tech doesn't take over from that point, either.
I read one interesting posit that said that if you consider the *processing* part of Moore's law only that our ability to calculate as a speces has been following Moore's Law for thousands of years. Silicone wafers took over at the limits of paper and pencil, by hand calculation.
Neither is sugar. But try eating 200 pounds at one siting and see how well it turns out.
Better than purposefully misunderstanding all problems?
This would be a fine answer if it wasn't for the fact that the world only needs a finite number of tractors.
The idea of economies is supposed to be something that helps a maximized number of people to get their basic needs. This type of statement is putting the importance of capitalism before the basic importance of providing people to live. Not to mention it's an attempt to purposefully misunderstand why the current wave of change is different than the previous changes like the industrial revolution.
Your whole argument is a false dilemma. There are plenty of steps between capitalism and communism. Plus that continuum isn't probably real either.
Point missed. What jobs will it make the labor available for? High-end jobs only this time. One of the saving graces of the industrial revolution is that it required more warm bodies than it required skilled labor.
Not to mention that the post-WWII boom was at least partially due to the investments the US made in its people, especially through instruments like the GI Bill. A lot of that was paid by taxes on the upper-income brackets. We have a government culture where policy is set by the highest bidder and proper taxation is nearly impossible because of it. Tax the rich (not even at post-WWII which were arguably too high) and actually fix our infrastructure and we have a good start at makeing the landing a little softer.
Because education isn't something you poor into someone's ear and suddenly they are skilled.
Not everyone can be an engineer, doctor, or even a programmer as far as that is worth. Some people can not benefit from training.
This problem was written elegantly a long time ago by Kurt Vonnegut in "Player Piano".