Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment No (Score 4, Interesting) 1051

Don't remove the exemption, just exempt the people using the exemption from being able to frequent public areas without protective clothing (protective as in protecting others from them, not protective as in protecting them from everyone else).

Its illegal to be naked in most public places, its illegal to knowingly infect others with dangerous illnesses, so why shouldn't it be illegal to knowingly be in a public place when you are much more open to infection from dangerous illnesses and thus to infect others with them...?

Comment Re:Damn Dirty Apes (Score 1) 341

Assistance dogs do not "understand" those things, they are trained to react in a certain way to a certain set of stimuli, but that's not the same as understanding the link between the stimuli and the reaction. Put an assistance dog in a similar situation, but change some of the stimuli, and their reaction will not be the same. They cannot adapt training to new circumstances on their own, they have to be led.

Comment Already in WP8 (Score 1) 96

Interesting, been using this since WP8 was released, and its literally called "battery saver" - the blurb on the settings page says "When Battery Saver is on, all non-essential features and background tasks are truned off and push notifications are sent less often". So it looks like Windows Phone features are making the cut back into Windows.

Comment Re:cable?? Bit extravagant, aren't we? (Score 3, Insightful) 70

You know what also happens a heck of a lot up there? Storms. And you know what storms can do? Degrade radio transmissions significantly.

And why would submarines be colliding with cables laid on the sea bed? That would require submarines to be dragging themselves across the sea bed - which they don't normally do...

Comment Re:Huh? What does this reveal? (Score 1) 114

No, its not - simply not competing is not enough to violate anti-trust laws, there has to be an active component of cooperation between the two (or more) companies involved for it to violate anti-trust laws - each company simply deciding not to enter their competitors market is not illegal, no anti-trust law requires a company to always compete, it simply stops companies from agreeing not to compete.

If you can show a component of mutual, explicit agreement between the parties here, then anti-trust comes into play - but simply not competing based on each company deciding not to compete with the other, but not agreeing that with the other, does not violate anything.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Show business is just like high school, except you get paid." - Martin Mull

Working...