You can't be asked "have you ever been arrested". Prospective employers can only ask "have you been convicted of a felony charge within the last 7 years", for exactly this reason... it certainly doesn't do much if you live in a place where everyone knows what happened (or say it was broadcast on the news, like the library masturbator...), but still.
No. This is not about AOL refusing to run ads for Earthlink to their subscribers, this is about Time Warner refusing to run ads on the CABLE SYSTEM about ISPs other than Roadrunner and AOL. No one is saying that AOL and Roadrunner have an obligation to run ads for other ISPs, the issue is the media outlet.
What if Roadrunner blocked access to Foxnews.com? Would that be ok because Fox is a competitor to the media outlet of AOL/Time Warner?
Does anyone else think this guy writes a lot like JonKatz? He talks about the fact that the affect of the death tax on family farms and buisnesses have been "debunked" and gives absolutely no evidence. The main issue with the death tax is that it is UNFAIR and, here's the biggie, UNCONSTITUTIONAL . It double taxes income. The government doesn't have the right to say, 'Well, this is wrong, but since it benefits people who should be benefited, we'll do it anyways'. If they aren't going to say that about corporate accountability and political reform, why the hell do they get to say it about taxation?
Dismissing Nader because he has personality traits you don't like and then saying vote for Gore cause he's a nice guy is utter bullshit. There are no views presented in this letter backed up by anything with so much as a semblence of fact.
If you want to talk about keeping the pyramid healthy and fair, what about the billions of dollars we sink into the "Drug War" that both Gore and Bush (not Browne or Nader) support; and support increasing? What about the billions, if not trillions of dollars we give away to corporations, both national and international? How about the HMOs and insurance companies? What about a bigger DoD budget?!
I'm voting for Nader because I agree with him on virtually every point (I'm wary of his views on nuclear power), and he has the record to prove it. What has Gore done in the last 25 years, let alone the last 8 years that DESERVES my vote?! Ralph Nader has done more as a consumer advocate not holding ANY political office than either Gore or Bush have done during their entire time in office (not counting of course wasting money and killing people).
If you want to talk about personality traits, how about two people too enamored with themselves and their political oligarchy-monopoly that they can't even get around to finding any points to disagree on during a debate?! Gore has served, according to him in the last debate, in public office for 25 years. In that quarter of a century he hasn't figured out how to debate a moron who doesn't know his ass from a screwdriver on national television in a way that makes people see what a moron he is? He needs a team of thirty "debate coaches" to sit around and tell him how to sigh correctly? Oh please.
A monkey with half an ass and a tutu could make the American public see that George W Bush has about as much capability to be an effective president as his dad and Ronald Reagan and half the intelligence or vision; Reagan and Bush, Sr. were terrible presidents, but atleast they had some idea of what they wanted to do.
On the subject of Supreme Court Justices, Ralph Nader and Michael Moore (during the super rally in NYC which was excellent) made excellent points. The two worst justices, Sculia and Thomas, were voted in by DEMOCRATS. Sculia was 98-0 in the Senate, and Thomas was pushed over the top by 11 Democrats. Where is your democratic rhetoric now?
Besides voting history, two of the three possible retirees have said they won't retire unless there is a republican president; electing Gore will not get them replaced (unless they die).
Sheesh. Next you want to post Democratic bullshit rhetoric trash, try some that atleast appears viable.
Don't forget the fact that article posts on/. are not only to engender discussion, but also awareness.
Would you rather that instead they didn't report any cyberpatrol stories? If Virginia decides to pass UCITA (god help us that this doesn't happen), would you rather than no one post the story on/. because we all know what 99.999999% of the/.ers think about the issue?
I would say that not reporting it is a more egregoius offense because of the repression factor. I mean be honest, it takes what, three seconds to scan the/. headlines? Another two to complain about another censorware story...:)
The point is whether or not he is giving away money so that he can say "look at me, I got kids adicted to a crappy operating system by giving away the money I have in my wallet" versus "look at me, I really care, and gave away real money".
I think it is admirable for anyone to give away any amount of money or do anything charitable, but when you are talking about someone with 130 billion USD, it really shifts perspectives on his philanthropy, or lack thereof.
Let's not kid ourselves. I live in a city that GE owned for a/very/ long time. During that tenure, they kept virtually every other buisness out of this city. About fifteen years ago, they pulled out of this town, and it's not a shithole. Very "good neighborish" eh?
As for other tech companies, I would say it is/very/ difficult to judge. On the one hand, we would all like every country to have excellent standards for things like human rights and enviromental regulations like the US does, but unfortunately, countries like Taiwan and China let companies get away with terrible things like virtually slave labor and dumping toxic chemicals into the ground and air. I mean, remember, production of semiconductor devices is/extremely/ toxic.
Until we get universal workers' rights and enviromental laws (that have some teeth so people actually follow them) companies, all companies, even companies that we like, are going to do bad things. Companies are here to make money. That's what government is for, to protect you and me (royal) from the company, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
(man this is turning into a socialist rant)
Remember, just because someone "good" is in charge of a company, and/or the company has a "good neighboor policy" doesn't mean (in any way) that it necessarily does all good things all times. Do you think Steve Jobs knows every worker in every factory that Apple uses? Do you think Mike Dell interviews all of his factory managers in Taiwan to make sure they are paying fare wages and not "accidentally" dumping chemicals...?
I have read a lot about the varying clauses in the antitrust law, like the ability for the DoJ to take the MSFT case right to the Supreme Court and bypass the lower Appelate judges that have been more compassionate towards MSFT's "plight" than have the regular courts.
What do you feel are the chances of something like that happening? Do you think it is likely that the DoJ will allow the case to continue if MSFT attempts to appeal the FoF before the rest of the trial is over? What do you think the impact of the other class action suits arleady being brought against MSFT after the FoF was released is going to have, if any, on the final stages of the case?
Slashdot Mirror
You can't be asked "have you ever been arrested". Prospective employers can only ask "have you been convicted of a felony charge within the last 7 years", for exactly this reason... it certainly doesn't do much if you live in a place where everyone knows what happened (or say it was broadcast on the news, like the library masturbator...), but still.
No. This is not about AOL refusing to run ads for Earthlink to their subscribers, this is about Time Warner refusing to run ads on the CABLE SYSTEM about ISPs other than Roadrunner and AOL. No one is saying that AOL and Roadrunner have an obligation to run ads for other ISPs, the issue is the media outlet.
What if Roadrunner blocked access to Foxnews.com? Would that be ok because Fox is a competitor to the media outlet of AOL/Time Warner?
Does anyone else think this guy writes a lot like JonKatz? He talks about the fact that the affect of the death tax on family farms and buisnesses have been "debunked" and gives absolutely no evidence. The main issue with the death tax is that it is UNFAIR and, here's the biggie, UNCONSTITUTIONAL . It double taxes income. The government doesn't have the right to say, 'Well, this is wrong, but since it benefits people who should be benefited, we'll do it anyways'. If they aren't going to say that about corporate accountability and political reform, why the hell do they get to say it about taxation?
Dismissing Nader because he has personality traits you don't like and then saying vote for Gore cause he's a nice guy is utter bullshit. There are no views presented in this letter backed up by anything with so much as a semblence of fact.
If you want to talk about keeping the pyramid healthy and fair, what about the billions of dollars we sink into the "Drug War" that both Gore and Bush (not Browne or Nader) support; and support increasing? What about the billions, if not trillions of dollars we give away to corporations, both national and international? How about the HMOs and insurance companies? What about a bigger DoD budget?!
I'm voting for Nader because I agree with him on virtually every point (I'm wary of his views on nuclear power), and he has the record to prove it. What has Gore done in the last 25 years, let alone the last 8 years that DESERVES my vote?! Ralph Nader has done more as a consumer advocate not holding ANY political office than either Gore or Bush have done during their entire time in office (not counting of course wasting money and killing people).
If you want to talk about personality traits, how about two people too enamored with themselves and their political oligarchy-monopoly that they can't even get around to finding any points to disagree on during a debate?! Gore has served, according to him in the last debate, in public office for 25 years. In that quarter of a century he hasn't figured out how to debate a moron who doesn't know his ass from a screwdriver on national television in a way that makes people see what a moron he is? He needs a team of thirty "debate coaches" to sit around and tell him how to sigh correctly? Oh please.
A monkey with half an ass and a tutu could make the American public see that George W Bush has about as much capability to be an effective president as his dad and Ronald Reagan and half the intelligence or vision; Reagan and Bush, Sr. were terrible presidents, but atleast they had some idea of what they wanted to do.
On the subject of Supreme Court Justices, Ralph Nader and Michael Moore (during the super rally in NYC which was excellent) made excellent points. The two worst justices, Sculia and Thomas, were voted in by DEMOCRATS . Sculia was 98-0 in the Senate, and Thomas was pushed over the top by 11 Democrats. Where is your democratic rhetoric now?
Besides voting history, two of the three possible retirees have said they won't retire unless there is a republican president; electing Gore will not get them replaced (unless they die).
Sheesh. Next you want to post Democratic bullshit rhetoric trash, try some that atleast appears viable.
Don't forget the fact that article posts on /. are not only to engender discussion, but also awareness.
Would you rather that instead they didn't report any cyberpatrol stories? If Virginia decides to pass UCITA (god help us that this doesn't happen), would you rather than no one post the story on /. because we all know what 99.999999% of the /.ers think about the issue?
I would say that not reporting it is a more egregoius offense because of the repression factor. I mean be honest, it takes what, three seconds to scan the /. headlines? Another two to complain about another censorware story...:)
...it's now a shithole.
sorry about that.The point is whether or not he is giving away money so that he can say "look at me, I got kids adicted to a crappy operating system by giving away the money I have in my wallet" versus "look at me, I really care, and gave away real money".
I think it is admirable for anyone to give away any amount of money or do anything charitable, but when you are talking about someone with 130 billion USD, it really shifts perspectives on his philanthropy, or lack thereof.
Don't look at the total amount of $$ that Big Gates has given to charitible organizations, look at percentage wealth.
Me giving 1,000 USD, a helluva lot of my total money.
Big Gates giving 1,000USD, does he even notice? If Big Gates gave 100,000USD, does he even notice...?
Let's not kid ourselves. I live in a city that GE owned for a /very/ long time. During that tenure, they kept virtually every other buisness out of this city. About fifteen years ago, they pulled out of this town, and it's not a shithole. Very "good neighborish" eh?
As for other tech companies, I would say it is /very/ difficult to judge. On the one hand, we would all like every country to have excellent standards for things like human rights and enviromental regulations like the US does, but unfortunately, countries like Taiwan and China let companies get away with terrible things like virtually slave labor and dumping toxic chemicals into the ground and air. I mean, remember, production of semiconductor devices is /extremely/ toxic.
Until we get universal workers' rights and enviromental laws (that have some teeth so people actually follow them) companies, all companies, even companies that we like, are going to do bad things. Companies are here to make money. That's what government is for, to protect you and me (royal) from the company, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
(man this is turning into a socialist rant)
Remember, just because someone "good" is in charge of a company, and/or the company has a "good neighboor policy" doesn't mean (in any way) that it necessarily does all good things all times. Do you think Steve Jobs knows every worker in every factory that Apple uses? Do you think Mike Dell interviews all of his factory managers in Taiwan to make sure they are paying fare wages and not "accidentally" dumping chemicals...?
I wish.
I have read a lot about the varying clauses in the antitrust law, like the ability for the DoJ to take the MSFT case right to the Supreme Court and bypass the lower Appelate judges that have been more compassionate towards MSFT's "plight" than have the regular courts.
What do you feel are the chances of something like that happening? Do you think it is likely that the DoJ will allow the case to continue if MSFT attempts to appeal the FoF before the rest of the trial is over? What do you think the impact of the other class action suits arleady being brought against MSFT after the FoF was released is going to have, if any, on the final stages of the case?