Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:call insurance (Score 1) 492

According to this site some places would say that the attempt is assault with actually hitting being "battery," while others would call it "attempted assault."

Think of it as being like "attempted murder." Being a bad shot and missing doesn't absolve you of wrong doing.

Comment Re:More likely medical practice, not evolution (Score 4, Interesting) 277

I submitted the article. I completely agree with what you say. I did mention the idea that the definition of babies being "too large" might be changing due to cesarean becoming more routine. And I agree this seems to be happening too fast.

What I considered really interesting was the question: if cesarean became the normal method of delivery for an extended period of time (many generations) could humans end up at a point where natural birth was not possible?

Submission + - Cesarean births *possibly* affecting human evolution 1

CanadianRealist writes: Larger babies delivered by cesarean section may be affecting human evolution. Researchers estimate cases where the baby cannot fit down the birth canal have increased from 30 in 1,000 in the 1960s to 36 in 1,000 births today. (Science Alert and ( BBC "this is happening headline" version.)

More detailed studies would be required to actually confirm the link between C-sections and evolution, as all we have now is a hypothesis based on the birth data.

Agreed, more studies required part. Cesareans may simply be becoming more common with “too large” defined as cesarean seems like a better idea. It's reasonable to pose the question based simply on an understanding of evolution. Like it's reasonable to conjecture that length of human pregnancy is a compromise between further development in utero, and chance of mother and baby surviving the delivery.

Comment Re:Only if you let them (Score 3, Insightful) 60

they can't hurt you IF YOU CHOOSE to not let the words hurt you

True. But that's easier said than done and many people who know the rhyme still are hurt by name calling and criticism, even if they have "chosen" not to be.

The issue there is privacy, you shouldn't be putting personally identifiable info online

You don't need to put any personal information online to be subject to abuse. If you post anything anywhere where people are allowed to comment on it, you can be subject to negative comments. You've posted anonymously. I could still have been offended by your comment and gone off on a rant and started calling you names. If you checked back to see if anybody had replied to your comment you would see that. If you are completely immune to such attacks, that's great. I suspect that quite a few people are not.

I also avoid putting personally identifiable info online because of concerns like what potential future employers might think of my personal views.

Comment Sticks and stones may break my bones ... (Score 3, Interesting) 60

Thankfully I've never been attacked with sticks and stones. And you can't be attacked with sticks and stones through the internet.

But contrary to the old saying, names can and frequently do hurt, as they are intended to do. And calling people names and any other sort of verbal abuse is very easy online. Likely much easier than it is in real life since you don't even have to see the person you are abusing.

At the same time online abuse may in some ways be less painful or threatening since your abuser is not present. A threat to do physical harm is much scarier when the person is actually right in front of you. However the sheer number of people online means you will probably be subject to much more such abuse online than in person.

On of the great things about the internet is that it can connect you to all sorts of wonderful resources. Unfortunately it also connects you to every abusive, vile, stupid (etc. etc.) person anywhere on the planet.

Comment Re:Too secure for insecure? (Score 1) 569

The "justice system" is a third party.

If it was easy for third party states to gain information from her e-mail server then the "justice system" could have gained it just as easily. Maybe foreign states did hack her server. It's just as likely that the NSA or some other US government entity hacked her server.

Or is the claim that she wiped the server in such a way that it is no longer readable by the US government or even "God", but somehow can still be read by foreign governments?

Comment Re:Won't Work (Score 1) 499

These people already distrust anything science.

Then they should take another course which shows them all the good that science has done for them. As part of that course, remove everything they have which was made using the results of science. So no cell phones, no computers, nothing made of plastic, no modern medicines, and on and on. Probably simpler to say they have to give up pretty much everything they have except for a few things like animal skins, home made bows and spears.

Really they should be much happier having gotten rid of all that distrustful science stuff.

Slashdot Top Deals

God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean. -- Albert Einstein

Working...