Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Money for his defense (Score 1) 294 294

Yeah when I saw the list I was like um.

I have a bookmark to my local public TV station that lists it's 3 OTA channels: PBS, Create, and World Channel. That's pretty much all I watch unless I'm checking on local news coverage for something that's going on around here.

Comment: Re:Gentoo (Score 1) 627 627

This is exactly why I've been running Gentoo since at least 1.4. I typically run the stable arch on most computers so things rarely break. When I do break something, I can usually figure it out quickly since I know just about every software package on my system, and the tools Gentoo provides are easy to use. With most other distros, troubleshooting seems to always be more work.

Comment: Re:It's the hypocricy (Score 2) 319 319

Now if there was a background check form that had him write in his education history anew and sign a "this is true to my knowledge" statement, and he still put the degree on there, perhaps there's some basis for termination just for the explicit lie. But it's not at all clear that that exists.

I would think all information you provide is _all_ under the assumption of "this is true to my knowledge". What is the point of it if it's not true? Does that really have to be spelled out?

Comment: Re:Truth is a defense against libel [Re:Meh] (Score 1) 301 301

My point is there is no expectation of confidentiality based in law period. Many seem to think otherwise, and it's just not true.

Confidentiality in the employment relationship only exists because the employers extent it to the employees. There is no law requiring it whatsoever.

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.