Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!



Discuss the US Presidential Election & the War

why-is-it Re:Define "Winning" (1211 comments)

He's murdered thousands of American citizens and would do so again if he had the means and the opportunity?

As others have pointed out, more americans die every day at the hands of impaired drivers than died in the 9/11 attacks...

I think a sense of proportion is required.

What purpose does allowing him to continue living serve? He murdered almost three thousand people.

So he did. Why not treat him as the criminal he is, rather than the martyr he wants to be?

Will killing OBL un-do any of the crimes he is responsible for? The answer is self-evident, but it should also be self-evident that killing him will not achieve anything beyond appeasing a base desire for revenge. Worse still, it will likely encourage his followers to seek their own vengence in return.

As Ghandi, observed, the policy of 'an eye for an eye' eventually makes everyone blind.

I'll never understand why we play the game by the rules when we are fighting people who don't.

Um, because playing by the rules is the mark of a civilized people?

It is interesting that you invoke the Romans. Perhaps you might want to re-read your Roman history, and find out why their empire crumbled. Something to do with too many foreign mis-adventures, not enough money to pay for it all, and incompetent leadership. Does any of that sound even remotely familiar to you?

Good for him. He'll still be dead though. I'll take a dead martyr over a living murderer any day of the week.

I see. Well then, what kind of seeing eye dog would you like?

more than 6 years ago

Scott Adams's Political Survey of Economists

why-is-it Re:Wait .... (939 comments)

CEOs, on the other hand, are more like coaches. They're a lot more in the trenches and actually make the decisions that carry significant consequences, good or bad. And while their answers will certainly be biased in the direction of their self interests, it's more likely that their self interest coincides with yours/ours.

In the trenches? I think your average CEO resides in an ivory tower every bit as removed from reality as a career academic.

Similarly, I do not believe that the CEO's self interest is particularly aligned with that of the staff. Most people have mortgages and bills to pay and have to plan for a future which revolves around meeting those financial commitments. CEO's are grossly overpaid and are evaluated based on the most recent quarterly earnings. Executive compensation packages tend to reward short-term behaviour, reflecting the reality that most CEO's are free agents recruited from outside the organization to achieve some goal. Without a history within the organization, or any long-term commitment to it, it is in the CEO's best interest to game the system for maximum short-term advantage and if that doesn't work out, there is always the golden parachute to look forward to.

This behaviour is closely aligned with the interests of the largest shareholders who are not typically long-term investors. I'm not so sure that the short and long-term interests of the staff are taken into account, but that's fair enough. CEO's are accountable to the shareholders - not the staff.

more than 6 years ago


why-is-it hasn't submitted any stories.



Now I know what it feels like

why-is-it why-is-it writes  |  about 9 years ago

Last night, the Canadian voters elected a new Prime Minister.

Our new PM is unique. I do not know many other world leaders who would describe their nation as being "second rate". He appears to be a dull and humourless man entirely lacking in empathy or compassion. He does not seem like the kind of guy you would want to sit down and have a beer with on the back deck.

If he feels passion for anything at all, it would be for neo-conservative economic policies. He stated during the election that "all taxes are bad taxes". He wants to transform the way Canada is governed, largely by taking money and power away from the Federal government and handing it to the provinces. The only government program he wants to expand is the military. He firmly believes that this is in everyone's best interest. He is a believer.

He has no foreign policy experience. He has not travelled much outside of Canada. He would like our military to travel though. He would have sent our military to die in Iraq if he had been the leader at the time.

Many Americans are embarassed because of their leader, and the policies he has pursued. I know and share their shame.

I only hope that this government does not last long enough to enact it's corrosive policies.


A polite question

why-is-it why-is-it writes  |  more than 10 years ago

I have a simple (I hope) question to anyone who cares enough to read this:

Why would the people of the United States re-elect George W. Bush? As someone who lives outside of the US, it seems to me that he has damaged his own country - both domestically and internationally. He has turned surplus into record deficit, he has presided over a net loss of jobs, his tax cuts benefit only the very wealthy leaving the middle class entirely responsible for paying off the deficit and the existing government debt. More people are living below the poverty line, fewer people have health insurance. How many people (apart from the very wealthy) are better off today than they were before he got elected?

His appears to be a pretty poor record, and we haven't even touched on foreign policy yet...

I don't think that is a record anyone would be proud of.

So why is he going to be re-elected?

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?