why can't the people in charge be forced to work themselves out of the whole. The whole bankruptcy concept seems way too much like a get out of jail free card.
is the most backward, selfish and anti-progress idea ever. To think that the only time anyone would solve a problem would be if they had an enormous financial reward coming their way. What about the benefits of solving the problem itself? Is that not enough anymore?
Re:Shouldn't shareholders demand an asset auction.
on
BlackBerry 10 Unveiled
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
What's SO wrong with a few small players in the market? Doesn't anyone see the danger in only having mega-corporations making all our products? RIM is selling millions of devices per quarter, sure that's less than they used to sell but is that not enough to be considered successful? So what if they aren't breaking sales records, they are still huge and their products are still high quality.
Personally I can't wait until these mega corporations are deemed illegal. They leech every last penny out of the system in the name of capitalism, forcing competitors out of the market and making the chance of other small businesses competing almost impossible.
If products were made, marketed and sold locally, the distribution of wealth wouldn't be so skewed.
Does it not occur to the business men exporting these jobs that locals won't have that 'wage' to spend on products right here at home? The economy only works if people have money to spend and people only have money to spend if they have jobs. The near-sightedness inherent here is just dumbfounding.
from a TV set, a VCR, a car radio or any other usually stolen good. If you get your device stolen, it's completely and totally your own damn fault. Don't get me wrong, yes, it sucks, but how is it in any way shape or form AT&T's problem?
WIth that said, sure, AT&T could probably come up with a solution and market it, but don't pretend criminals won't just unlock them and bring 'em to verizon, or sprint, etc... heck, iPhone are great iPod touches too.
What I have a beef with is that no one is forcing anyone to buy something new. And then what's stopping someone from selling their iPhone for cash, then claiming it was stolen? No, this is going too far.
Shouldn't it be up to the supposed 'abused' to decide if they are really being 'abused' or not? People say tons of hurtful things, you can either blow it out of proportion and react very badly or brush it off and be the more mature person.
There are always going to be assholes in this world... Who was it that said:"Turn the other cheek."?
Fact is that racism is a double edge sword. It takes one person to stereotype and another to take it badly, without either of those, there's no conflict.
I keep seeing people protesting with huge signs with the words 'Freedom' and 'Liberty' on them. I mean, who buys that BS anymore anyway? There's no such thing as freedom, and 'liberty' in what sense? You can't be completely free and still expect society to be safe, I mean, what about the freedom to kill? The freedom to feed oneself at the expense of another creature or someone else? Hopefully someday we'll have a third party, the Realist party. Until society can handle to not believe in noble lies, we're doomed to mediocrity.
On a side note, I thought of a great analogy to show what's wrong with capitalism today.
The original expression:
If you give a man a fish, you'll feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you'll feed him for life.
The capitalist version:
If you sell a man a fish, you'll feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, or give a man a fish, you'll go out of business.
How do I know he was chasing him down?
Zimmerman called the police, telling them he was chasing the guy down. Uh... 'nuff said?
"Can't use a gun for self defense if you "have a lethal weapon on your person"? Really?"
That's not what I said, that was the second part of my sentence only. Nice job taking a short sentence, cutting out one piece and using it to argue against me though.
""How could anyone take the story of the person who did the killing seriously?" ?? Wow. Okay, if you ever need to kill someone in self defense, your account of events should automatically be discounted."
First of all, I never said 'discounted', I said "taken seriously" as in "with a grain of salt". It's an expression, look it up. Secondly, you assume that the killing was in self-defense; that, if anything, is far from clear. Without knowing exactly what happened, I would expect the police to at least be skeptical of the murderer's story.
My point was simply that one grown armed man admittedly followed an unarmed adolescent, a fight broke out and the adolescent got shot. If someone were following you, would you not feel threatened? Is that not provocation enough to 'stand your ground'? And on the other hand, if you are following someone and they react badly to it, do you have the right to claim 'self-defense', clearly you were the aggressor, you could have, oh I don't know, not followed the guy in the first place.
If Trayvon Martin had been female, white or old. Zimmerman would be behind bars right now. So the question is not whether or not Zimmerman is racist, I honestly think that he probably didn't intend on killing Trayvon, the issue here is that a wanna-be cop was walking around with a gun, decided that a young black kid looked suspicious and took actions that ended up with him shooting that kid. For all the mistakes Zimmerman made that night, I am sorry, but self-defense just isn't going to cut it. Mark my words, Zimmerman will go to jail and hopefully, just hopefully, this sick type of profiling will become rarer.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter anyway, they won't let you through security with the warhead you'd need to make that kind of speed worthwhile.
the Champions. But if you move here, please respect what's left of the physical environment too.
why can't the people in charge be forced to work themselves out of the whole. The whole bankruptcy concept seems way too much like a get out of jail free card.
11. Thou shalt not slashdot.
And if they did go to war, it'd be over in a few days and nothing would be left. Also in Soviet Russia War fights you!
javascript, jquery, ajax.
is the most backward, selfish and anti-progress idea ever. To think that the only time anyone would solve a problem would be if they had an enormous financial reward coming their way. What about the benefits of solving the problem itself? Is that not enough anymore?
What's SO wrong with a few small players in the market? Doesn't anyone see the danger in only having mega-corporations making all our products? RIM is selling millions of devices per quarter, sure that's less than they used to sell but is that not enough to be considered successful? So what if they aren't breaking sales records, they are still huge and their products are still high quality. Personally I can't wait until these mega corporations are deemed illegal. They leech every last penny out of the system in the name of capitalism, forcing competitors out of the market and making the chance of other small businesses competing almost impossible. If products were made, marketed and sold locally, the distribution of wealth wouldn't be so skewed.
In other words, intelligence cures us of religion
Does it not occur to the business men exporting these jobs that locals won't have that 'wage' to spend on products right here at home? The economy only works if people have money to spend and people only have money to spend if they have jobs. The near-sightedness inherent here is just dumbfounding.
Do planes no longer have this?
...you're using it wrong.
Yeah, it's only ok to do that if politics are involved!
from a TV set, a VCR, a car radio or any other usually stolen good. If you get your device stolen, it's completely and totally your own damn fault. Don't get me wrong, yes, it sucks, but how is it in any way shape or form AT&T's problem? WIth that said, sure, AT&T could probably come up with a solution and market it, but don't pretend criminals won't just unlock them and bring 'em to verizon, or sprint, etc... heck, iPhone are great iPod touches too. What I have a beef with is that no one is forcing anyone to buy something new. And then what's stopping someone from selling their iPhone for cash, then claiming it was stolen? No, this is going too far.
...with:"Hey, can I check my email on that centrifuge?" -"Yeah sure!"
Shouldn't it be up to the supposed 'abused' to decide if they are really being 'abused' or not? People say tons of hurtful things, you can either blow it out of proportion and react very badly or brush it off and be the more mature person. There are always going to be assholes in this world... Who was it that said:"Turn the other cheek."?
...and say we did.
so I guess it is sort of related to /.
Fact is that racism is a double edge sword. It takes one person to stereotype and another to take it badly, without either of those, there's no conflict.
Knowledge is intellectual property and no one has the right to it without paying. Down with freedom of speech and freedom of knowledge! /end sarcasm
I keep seeing people protesting with huge signs with the words 'Freedom' and 'Liberty' on them. I mean, who buys that BS anymore anyway? There's no such thing as freedom, and 'liberty' in what sense? You can't be completely free and still expect society to be safe, I mean, what about the freedom to kill? The freedom to feed oneself at the expense of another creature or someone else? Hopefully someday we'll have a third party, the Realist party. Until society can handle to not believe in noble lies, we're doomed to mediocrity. On a side note, I thought of a great analogy to show what's wrong with capitalism today. The original expression: If you give a man a fish, you'll feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you'll feed him for life. The capitalist version: If you sell a man a fish, you'll feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, or give a man a fish, you'll go out of business.
It'll cost pennies!
How do I know he was chasing him down? Zimmerman called the police, telling them he was chasing the guy down. Uh... 'nuff said? "Can't use a gun for self defense if you "have a lethal weapon on your person"? Really?" That's not what I said, that was the second part of my sentence only. Nice job taking a short sentence, cutting out one piece and using it to argue against me though. ""How could anyone take the story of the person who did the killing seriously?" ?? Wow. Okay, if you ever need to kill someone in self defense, your account of events should automatically be discounted." First of all, I never said 'discounted', I said "taken seriously" as in "with a grain of salt". It's an expression, look it up. Secondly, you assume that the killing was in self-defense; that, if anything, is far from clear. Without knowing exactly what happened, I would expect the police to at least be skeptical of the murderer's story. My point was simply that one grown armed man admittedly followed an unarmed adolescent, a fight broke out and the adolescent got shot. If someone were following you, would you not feel threatened? Is that not provocation enough to 'stand your ground'? And on the other hand, if you are following someone and they react badly to it, do you have the right to claim 'self-defense', clearly you were the aggressor, you could have, oh I don't know, not followed the guy in the first place. If Trayvon Martin had been female, white or old. Zimmerman would be behind bars right now. So the question is not whether or not Zimmerman is racist, I honestly think that he probably didn't intend on killing Trayvon, the issue here is that a wanna-be cop was walking around with a gun, decided that a young black kid looked suspicious and took actions that ended up with him shooting that kid. For all the mistakes Zimmerman made that night, I am sorry, but self-defense just isn't going to cut it. Mark my words, Zimmerman will go to jail and hopefully, just hopefully, this sick type of profiling will become rarer.
An eye witness claims they were on grass during the scuffle... pound my head into grass all you like.
All the ghosts were female.