Re:Shouldn't shareholders demand an asset auction.
on
BlackBerry 10 Unveiled
·
· Score: 1
Personally I can't wait until these mega corporations are deemed illegal.
Who is going to deem them illegal? The same government that deemed mega corporations "too big to fail" and poured hundreds of billions of taxpayer money in to prop them up?
If products were made, marketed and sold locally, the distribution of wealth wouldn't be so skewed.
That is nice when you are talking about produce at the grocery store, but the "gotta have it" gizmos everyone is enamored with wouldn't exist in such a system. What did exist would offer significantly reduced utility at a much higher price.
Spreading the wealth is a nice concept, but in reality causes there to be much less wealth to be spread around. That makes it easier to achieve the stated goal, but doesn't do much toward the intended goal.
Can a police officer detain and strip search you if they see you jaywalking now?
Only if you get arrested and go to jail. The strip search is not due to the arrest. The strip search is about keeping contraband out of the jails.
At least that is the theory. Unfortunately, much like the TSA was put in place to keep weapons off of planes, it is quite a bit of time, money, and effort to plug one small hole in a large, leaky dam.
And "service complaints" are down because 1) airlines have set expectations so low that as long as you arrive alive you are thankful for the flight, and 2) after being mugged by the TSA the surly gate agent seems downright hospitable.
I agree with your sentiment, except power isn't something they ask Congress for. They just do it and say they won't do it again if/when they get caught. Or they will do illegal and immoral things to gain new powers through FUD legislation. Google "fast and furious gunwalker" if you would like an example of the ATF and DOJ at work.
"We're losing the war against hackers" is the public version.
"We're losing the war against hackers unless my budget is tripled" is what he tells Congress.
GM, under government ownership, gives us the wildly successful Chevy Volt. The Dept. of Energy produces squat, unless anyone considers Solyndra a bragging point. A bunch of zookeepers with an elephant exhibit sponsored by Toyota design a gassification system to utilize organic waste that, at a minimum, reduces the amount of zoo waste sent offsite and potentially has further reaching benefits and uses.
The best discussion on Slashdot is a bunch of poo jokes.
It is downright funny to see someone calling others halfwits and morons when he doesn't seem to grasp that Obama and Bush are two sides of the same coin.
The only difference between the two is tense. One was disastrous as president, one is disastrous as president.
This is an excellent solution.
And you'll only disagree with me until the point one of the douches driving whilst uninsured hits your car or runs you over.
Unless of course you are one of those douches. Driving a car is a privilege not a right.
The problem is that once you accept more control over your life the line blurs and then disappears. It doesn't take that much thought to see this morphing well beyond the good intentions you buy into now.
You accept having government approve your fuel purchase based on having insurance. Should government approve your fuel purchase based on the time of day? No fuel for you at 11:00 -- you should be at work.
Anything the government does for "safety" or "security" is absolutely for that purpose -- for theirs, not yours.
It cannot be said better than this:
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Why put so much effort into getting around the system rather than voting the douchebags that come up with this stuff out of office and taking your government back?
Comment not limited to the Brits. The US government needs a good housecleaning as well.
Warren Buffet has gotten much less ethical in his old age. He used to enable businesses and growth. Now he is advocating destructive social trends in the hopes of getting away with the largest tax evasion scheme in history.
Citation please?
Don't you listen to talk radio every day and night? How do you stay informed?
willing to do what it takes to succeed, even if doing those things hurts others
That often depends on your viewpoint. When one has more responsibility, their decisions often carry more ramifications. For example, laying off a group of workers hurts them, but if preserves the company and maintains jobs of those remaining, was the decision correct even though some were hurt?
There are many business decisions where none of the options is considered desirable. And just because someone has to make those difficult decisions doesn't mean they enjoy doing it.
Facebook is a free service. Facebook users and their data are the commodity being sold to advertisers. The business model isn't a secret.
There are two ways to grow revenue with this model. 1) Sign up more users. 2) Invade deeper into the user data so the data sold to advertisers is more relevant and worth more.
Simple solution here is to have separate backup files of separate data. How hard is it to set the routine to make a backup of "robs documents" and another of "debs documents"?
If my wife knew about Deb that would make the divorce inevitable and immediate.
Evidently I am in the/. minority thinking that the ability to use 911 in an emergency and have *GASP* "Big Brother" locate me (e.g., an ambulance dispatched by THE GOVERNMENT) is good thing.
OK, I'll bite.
1. Your ambulance is not dispatched by the Federal government. There is a big difference between your local sheriff knowing where you cell phone is to dispatch fire/police/medical services than three letter government agencies monitoring your whereabouts.
2. Having the ability to pinpoint any given cell phone when requested by the user while not actively monitoring movement or storing history is significantly different than knowing your location and movement with indefinite history and record keeping.
It is OK if you are willing to accept intrusion and control in the name of safety. However, there is no reason to have such a negative reaction to those that prefer to hold our government overlords at arms length and within the reins of the Constitution.
I know, on one side we've got loads of data, models, research... On the other side, denial.
Yes, all this data that proves the point beyond all doubt. But when questioned, there is no debate of scientific merit or discussion of flaws, real or perceived, in the data. There is labeling the counter opinion "deniers" while firmly placing your hands over your ears.
Kind of like back in the day where conventional wisdom said the earth was flat and "deniers" were killed rather than mocked.
Science that cannot tolerate being questioned is not science.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I can't wait until these mega corporations are deemed illegal.
Who is going to deem them illegal? The same government that deemed mega corporations "too big to fail" and poured hundreds of billions of taxpayer money in to prop them up?
If products were made, marketed and sold locally, the distribution of wealth wouldn't be so skewed.
That is nice when you are talking about produce at the grocery store, but the "gotta have it" gizmos everyone is enamored with wouldn't exist in such a system. What did exist would offer significantly reduced utility at a much higher price.
Spreading the wealth is a nice concept, but in reality causes there to be much less wealth to be spread around. That makes it easier to achieve the stated goal, but doesn't do much toward the intended goal.
It was in college and he was drunk.
She had a good personality.
He and Michelle were "on a break".
Or you could tell CNN that patent trolls are "the 1%" and get them "occupied".
Can a police officer detain and strip search you if they see you jaywalking now?
Only if you get arrested and go to jail. The strip search is not due to the arrest. The strip search is about keeping contraband out of the jails.
At least that is the theory. Unfortunately, much like the TSA was put in place to keep weapons off of planes, it is quite a bit of time, money, and effort to plug one small hole in a large, leaky dam.
And "service complaints" are down because 1) airlines have set expectations so low that as long as you arrive alive you are thankful for the flight, and 2) after being mugged by the TSA the surly gate agent seems downright hospitable.
I agree with your sentiment, except power isn't something they ask Congress for. They just do it and say they won't do it again if/when they get caught. Or they will do illegal and immoral things to gain new powers through FUD legislation. Google "fast and furious gunwalker" if you would like an example of the ATF and DOJ at work.
"We're losing the war against hackers" is the public version.
"We're losing the war against hackers unless my budget is tripled" is what he tells Congress.
GM, under government ownership, gives us the wildly successful Chevy Volt. The Dept. of Energy produces squat, unless anyone considers Solyndra a bragging point. A bunch of zookeepers with an elephant exhibit sponsored by Toyota design a gassification system to utilize organic waste that, at a minimum, reduces the amount of zoo waste sent offsite and potentially has further reaching benefits and uses.
The best discussion on Slashdot is a bunch of poo jokes.
Kudos to the zoo and its staff.
Or, as the OP eluded to, they just define whatever it is you are doing as a potential terror indicator and then keep your data forever.
Don't worry about being added to the list. You're probably there unless you live a very boring, very sheltered life and speak to no one.
Don't be alarmed. This is all for safety and security. Just not yours.
It is downright funny to see someone calling others halfwits and morons when he doesn't seem to grasp that Obama and Bush are two sides of the same coin.
The only difference between the two is tense. One was disastrous as president, one is disastrous as president.
This is an excellent solution.
And you'll only disagree with me until the point one of the douches driving whilst uninsured hits your car or runs you over.
Unless of course you are one of those douches. Driving a car is a privilege not a right.
The problem is that once you accept more control over your life the line blurs and then disappears. It doesn't take that much thought to see this morphing well beyond the good intentions you buy into now.
You accept having government approve your fuel purchase based on having insurance. Should government approve your fuel purchase based on the time of day? No fuel for you at 11:00 -- you should be at work.
Anything the government does for "safety" or "security" is absolutely for that purpose -- for theirs, not yours.
It cannot be said better than this:
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Why put so much effort into getting around the system rather than voting the douchebags that come up with this stuff out of office and taking your government back?
Comment not limited to the Brits. The US government needs a good housecleaning as well.
Why is this news?
You are not smart enough to understand.
What exactly is a faget?
Is faget an antonym of faggot, in which case you are frightened about becoming heterosexual?
Warren Buffet has gotten much less ethical in his old age. He used to enable businesses and growth. Now he is advocating destructive social trends in the hopes of getting away with the largest tax evasion scheme in history.
Citation please?
Don't you listen to talk radio every day and night? How do you stay informed?
By asking for citations on Slashdot, of course.
willing to do what it takes to succeed, even if doing those things hurts others
That often depends on your viewpoint. When one has more responsibility, their decisions often carry more ramifications. For example, laying off a group of workers hurts them, but if preserves the company and maintains jobs of those remaining, was the decision correct even though some were hurt?
There are many business decisions where none of the options is considered desirable. And just because someone has to make those difficult decisions doesn't mean they enjoy doing it.
Facebook is a free service. Facebook users and their data are the commodity being sold to advertisers. The business model isn't a secret.
There are two ways to grow revenue with this model. 1) Sign up more users. 2) Invade deeper into the user data so the data sold to advertisers is more relevant and worth more.
(I'm happily married to my first wife, so I have only the experience of others to draw on.)
Word to the wise, don't let her hear you calling her your first wife!
Listen to him. If not, you might as well call her your ex-wife!
Simple solution here is to have separate backup files of separate data. How hard is it to set the routine to make a backup of "robs documents" and another of "debs documents"?
If my wife knew about Deb that would make the divorce inevitable and immediate.
Evidently I am in the /. minority thinking that the ability to use 911 in an emergency and have *GASP* "Big Brother" locate me (e.g., an ambulance dispatched by THE GOVERNMENT) is good thing.
OK, I'll bite.
1. Your ambulance is not dispatched by the Federal government. There is a big difference between your local sheriff knowing where you cell phone is to dispatch fire/police/medical services than three letter government agencies monitoring your whereabouts.
2. Having the ability to pinpoint any given cell phone when requested by the user while not actively monitoring movement or storing history is significantly different than knowing your location and movement with indefinite history and record keeping.
It is OK if you are willing to accept intrusion and control in the name of safety. However, there is no reason to have such a negative reaction to those that prefer to hold our government overlords at arms length and within the reins of the Constitution.
No doubt this is for the good of the citizens. I hope the US follows suit soon.
/sarcasm
Fair enough. The quoted statement is incomplete and should have also included "or interpretation of the data".
Yet you continue to demonstrate your science is unwilling to be questioned, and therefore not science.
Therein lies the problem of labeling any disagreement as a denier and assuming you know the question.
I never stated the climate wasn't changing. It is. The data shows a warming trend.
I never stated the rate of change isn't changing.
However, the conclusions of cause and what action should be taken, if any, have not been so clearly established.
Please. Cite one real example. Go on.
1) Your post.
2) Original post. I know, on one side we've got loads of data, models, research... On the other side, denial.
"hands over your ears". Talk about projection.
Indeed.
I know, on one side we've got loads of data, models, research... On the other side, denial.
Yes, all this data that proves the point beyond all doubt. But when questioned, there is no debate of scientific merit or discussion of flaws, real or perceived, in the data. There is labeling the counter opinion "deniers" while firmly placing your hands over your ears.
Kind of like back in the day where conventional wisdom said the earth was flat and "deniers" were killed rather than mocked.
Science that cannot tolerate being questioned is not science.