Assuming that segregation actually works out to favor an overall academic improvement for the students, isn't this creating an even bigger problem by removing social interaction between kids of the opposite gender? School isn't just purely for academic purposes, kids actually learn other life skills there like how to make friends, or how to interact with people of the opposite sex. Maybe there's a perceived benefit that teen pregnancy goes down (or some other nonsense), but now we've got a bunch of kids more likely to be misandrists or misogynists, because they're only used to interacting with their own gender.

Perhaps we can have some insight from a gender-segregated boarding school or something, and how that's affected your life (or how some of your classmates behave now when compared to others in society)

Why is that considered a sexist statement? "Men negotiate harder than women do". Men are generally more aggressive and take greater risks than women do in everything, including salary negotiation. That's a basic biological difference; most males in any species have to take a much greater risk than the females if they want to pass on their genes. If men truly do negotiate harder than women do, how is stating that fact a sexist statement? Seem no more sexist than stating that men are physically larger than women, or they drink more beer, or they play more video games.

Now, if Ellen instead made a point that women are socially punished for being more aggressive during salary negotiation (or in general in the office), that may have garnered more sympathy. It's the suggestion to remove salary negotiation completely that's the problem here; this would be like removing physical tests for firefighters or police officers because women aren't physically built like men are. But we know this is probably a combination of a) bitter retaliation for losing the gender discrimination lawsuit and b) an excuse to try and pay less overall.

I find it a little funny that he thinks H-1B workers lead to less diversity. Wouldn't bringing in foreign workers bring in more diversity? Isn't that the definition, when your company has a wider variety of employees from across the globe? Maybe he's referring to the old wooden ship used in the civil war era.

Yes Yes, I know they're taking our jerbs so companies can save a few bucks and that's bad. But "diversity"?

My question then to you would be, why shouldn't the equal protections act apply to gay people as well then, if it applies to race, color, religion or national origin? If any of those don't belong there it's religion (as it's the only choice), and being gay wasn't a choice the last I checked. That's the whole unfair part of this whole debacle.

Sure, it's fair enough that restaurants or grocers can refuse service for any reason (you're not wearing a shirt, for example). But your statement earlier up says Yet, the intention here is that the business not have the same rights-- to refuse service because of their customer's beliefs . It's the word "beliefs" that doesn't belong there, you're implying that being gay is a choice. If I'm a baker and I can't refuse to make a wedding cake for a black or Jewish couple - then why should I be legally able to refuse service to a gay couple? That's the real issue here; that homosexuals aren't covered under the equal protections acts.

And in the event I'm wrong and they are a protected class, and I'm still legally allowed to refuse service as a business to gay couple because of my religious beliefs, then what's stopping businesses from claiming their "religious beliefs" don't allow them to serve black people?

Not really relevant to this particular topic, but thanks for stopping the auto-play of video in the comments section, Slashdot.

Everyone else will be in the same boat as you, because you'll get to see their previous breakups as well. Perhaps we'll all be better off when there's more transparency in the world, and others can see what you've done with your life, and you can see what they've done with theirs. As recording technology and data capturing improves, we're going to see an increase of information available on everyone - whether they want it or not. This is a really difficult concept to swallow because we value privacy so much, even though most of the things we want to keep private are shared by most of the population. You probably wouldn't want people to know about a dramatic high school breakup, or that you wet the bed as a kid, or what kind of porn you watch - because you'd feel embarrassed about that. But eventually, no one will care because everyone had a stupid high school relationship, or half the population wet the bed when they were younger, and everyone watches porn.

What about the other side of the coin? If your potential partner has herpes, or that they were horribly abusive in their relationship, or they have a costly medical condition, or if they gambled away their trust fund - would you want to know that information? Would you be willing to give up your history to learn the history for other people? Maybe deeds shouldn't ever be forgotten, and the world will be a better place when there's no "right to be forgotten" and no one will care about the things you'd want to keep private now because they're only embarrassing because you don't realize how many other people have that (or don't have access to that information). And on the other hand, if you've done some truly appalling things in your lifetime, why should you able to keep that hidden from everyone?

Are we sure this was anonymous? Maybe this was a message from the Legion guy from the Geth. Clearly, he's leveled up recently in his AI hacking skills.

Let's see, shooting a shotgun (or any gun for that matter) at objects located in the air above your house..what could go wrong? Why doesn't it surprise me that this NRA-like solution seems like a good idea to those that would actually follow through with it?

So I click on the comments. Initially there's some worry when I see the space for the video. "Uh oh, is that gonna autoplay?" I think. But the worry goes away and it's peace and tranquility when I see the acute triangle embedded within the image. "Ah, it's not going to autoplay. It's waiting for my prompt to start the video". But after about a second, the not-so-cute triangle goes away, and the video starts autoplaying! ARRGHHH! But wait, there's more! If you're fortunate enough to see the ad before the video, then you won't even get an option to pause that ad OR disable the audio! You'll pretty much have to kill your tab or browser to kill the sound. Fantastic for those of you at work that have your audio turned up that thought slashdot was safe to browse without bringing attention to your cubicle-mates

As a software tester of sorts, I'd like to believe that the delay between the page load and video autoplay is just some poor programming or latency issue or something technical in nature. But I'm almost positive that some spawn of Satan was on the design team here and thought "Hey, I got a great idea! Instead of just starting the video right away like other click bait sites or waiting for the user to manually start the video (crazy! right?), we'll put a still image in there for a second and a play button. Then right about the time the user scrolls down to the comments past the video, we'll autoplay the video without giving them any option to pause or mute the ad that comes up!"

Now excuse me while I email youtube to tell them about how great their embedded ads are in their videos

I know it might suck that drugs can't be easily bought online now, but you can't take the good (recreational drugs) without the bad (CP, hiring a hitman, illegal weapons, slavery). You don't get to have a version of silk road on a darknet where you pick and choose the services; it's all or nothing. In my opinion, the world is much better off without an outlet for illegal transactions; because most of the transactions contribute to a massive net loss for humanity.

"+ 3 Insightful"

Really? Has your lawn been horribly trampled by kids lately? There's so much good stuff out there I don't even know where to begin. We're in a golden era of music choice and availability. Not only do we have a plethora of different types and combinations of sounds and rhythms that are available for the mixing (mostly due to electronic music and computers), but this generation has the ability to find any music from anywhere now - thanks to the internet you can find all kinds of obscure stuff from another corner of the world. You have millions of artists to choose from anywhere now - maybe it's your perception bias making you think it's off (because when you walked into a CD / record store 20-30 years ago, they tend to carry only the best material, and you don't have to wade through crap).

Maybe you meant to say "I don't like the top 40 stuff they constantly repeat on the radio or at sporting events or at the bars". Newsflash: every generation thinks their parents' music was lame, but my generation's music was the greatest ever, but my kids listen to complete shit. Talk to a 30-something and they'll think Pearl Jam or Nirvana were the greatest. Talk to a 60-something and they'll think Zeppelin and Queen were the greatest. Talk to a teenager now and they'll think Katy Perry or Taylor Swift are the best evar! Maybe this has to do more with the music you listed to as a teenager shaping your musical tastes (and associating good times with that music).

Pretty much nailed it there. Music is easily available through enough other sources that I don't need to pirate it to listen to the song i want. I can stream it on youtube or grooveshark and not pay anything, or just buy it for much less (easier to justify forking out a dollar for a song you can play an infinite number of number, instead of a movie you'll likely watch once), and there's no waiting period for a song once it's been released. If I want to see a movie that's out, it's easier to pirate it than drag myself to a theatre and pay 10 bucks or more.

Those are good points on GMOs causing potential environmental problems, but the question presented in TFA was actually "Safe to eat genetically modified foods". The summary here is a bit misleading ("37 percent of the public said GMOs were safe"). I think if you reworded the question to something like "Is there an environmental risk with GMOs?" then we'd get a higher percentage of scientists agreeing with that statement (as vague as it is, what qualifies as a risk?)

If the school suspects some form of bullying, then shouldn't the victim be able to log on themselves and simply demonstrate the instances of cyber-bullying? No one needs to disclose passwords to anyone to prove cyber-bullying.

I'm pretty sure this violates the TOS on facebook or any other social media, since they specifically say not to disclose your password to anyone. They have no legal ground to stand on.

I imagine these flags wouldn't apply to the links themselves; we wouldn't see any sort of count based on the total number of false flags for the link or article itself. This would probably be something relative to the context or area where it's being posted. Something posted on someone's wall for instance, would only be flaggable by those that could see the wall post (friends only). A link posted in a FB group would only be flaggable by members of the groups.

To get around shills, they'd probably have to identify the users disagreeing with a link or article (if you think that's false, well then don't be afraid to stand behind your decision!). If some shill keeps flagging opinionated or factual articles as false - then users would get some sort of option to ignore all of their false flags (similar to the way you can ignore game invite requests from specific people). Maybe user accounts that continually flag articles as false would be banned from making flags; this would deal with trolls as well