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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Um.. we don't see it as advancing our career (Score 1) 125

At least in America if you don't move into management you're dead meat by 40, 50 tops (unless you're some sort of genetic freak). Around that time it becomes impossible to put in the 50+ hour work weeks at a moments notice ... It's not even age discrimination. They don't care that you're old, they care that you either can't or won't put in tons of overtime they don't pay you for.

Genetic freak checking in. I'm 52, still a senior systems programmer/administrator and can still work 36 hours straight when needed - though I seriously try to keep those sessions from being needed. I've been asked many times if I want to move into management, but always decline as I'd rather shoot myself in the head than attend meetings, do budgets and write reports, etc... So far, I've also managed to avoid daily scrum and other process meetings (which are a complete waste of time, or my time anyway, btw).

Sure they can fire me, but I'm debt free and financially independent (even w/o a job) for, basically, the rest of my life, so they have little leverage over me... I work because my teammates depend on me to help get things done.

Comment Re:Another great Scalia line (Score 2) 1083

The religious argument is irrelevant here, because marriage has legal rights and protections which have nothing at all to do with any church.

The declaration of independence would seem to disagree with you: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". It's not me saying that...it's the founding fathers.

The "Founding Father" - geesh. A bunch of unelected lawyers setting up a Democracy. Scalia would be soooo pissed. :-)

Comment Re:Welcome! (Score 1) 1083

Several of the more conservative Republican candidates are already adding a push to get a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage added to their platform.

And if they and/or their supporters actually believe anyone could get 3/4 of the states and a super-majority of the Senate to pass such an amendment, then they're: (a) really drunk, (b) really high, (c) really stupid, (d) all of the above.

Do Republicans even care -- at all -- about anyone who's not: rich, white, old, and heterosexual?
[Hint: They don't and if you're not in all those groups and support them, you're an idiot - just my $0.02.]

Comment Re:Prime Scalia - "Words no longer having meaning" (Score 4, Insightful) 591

Typos can indeed lead to ludicrous conclusions that can be corrected judicially. This was not one of them.

Apparently, six justices disagree with you...

But if six judges disagreed with you, and they happened to rule against your favored political party, would you placidly accept their decision?

Yes. That's how this works. Part of the function of the Supreme Court is to do what *they* interpret as correct WRT to the law and Constitution, not the most popular or the wishes of the masses or majority.

Congress is free to amend or write a new law - but if they weren't spoiled, selfish children, they would have done that already. They could have easily clarified this, but didn't because Republicans would have used the opportunity to destroy the ACA rather than helping to make it even a little better -- especially important in light of the *fact* that the Republicans have no alternative to the ACA, except to get rid of it. Don't know why they don't want to keep the poor and middle class from getting health insurance...

The person who brought this particular suit is special kind of asshole as he has admitted he has no personal standing as he is already eligible for VA or Medicare coverage - so nice for them to have *his* Universal Healthcare Coverage taken care of...

Slashdot Top Deals

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Working...