Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Dropping Epix and gaining a lot (Score 4, Informative) 294

Did people read a different article than I did? The linked article says the following:

"We also have some great family films coming your way, including Minions, Hotel Transylvania 2, and Home through arrangements with Sony Pictures Animation, Universal Pictures and DreamWorks Animation. Starting next year, we will be the exclusive US pay TV home of the latest theatrical movies from the The Walt Disney Company, including Pixar, Lucasfilm and Marvel movies. The majority of these films will arrive on Netflix faster than traditional arrangements had previously allowed."

I lose movies like World War Z and Transformers and gain access to the libraries of Disney and Sony? So long, Epix.

Comment Re:Close to owning (Score 1) 374

I think we agree on the end result that the woman has rights to use the pre-embryo to become pregnant, but I think we differ on how we get there.

First a note: it's not an embryo until a week or so after fertilization. I'm writing this on the assumption that you meant to say a woman owns her eggs and men own their sperm up until it fertilizes an egg.

If, in this case, the man and the woman jointly signed up for this service "no explicit contract in place" as the article says, they should both have access to the eggs. If the woman alone signed up for the service and the man was only involved to contribute his sperm (as seems to be the case), again "with no explicit contract in place", then the property is hers. In either situation, she should be able to use the pre-embryoes to become pregnant.

I don't think the deciding factor should be if it were an egg or sperm. Again, if we reverse the situation and it was the man who was going for chemo and the healthy woman who donated her eggs to be fertilized (with the expectation that the man would find a surrogate willing to accept the eggs [it's not a perfect comparison, I know]), should the healthy egg-donor be able to claim those eggs simple because the eggs trump the sperm? I should hope not, but, legally, I just don't know.

Comment Re:Close to owning (Score 5, Insightful) 374

Should sperm not be seen as part of a man's body then? And what if the situation was reversed? What if the man began a new relationship with a woman who couldn't have children. Should the man then be given rights to have the eggs he fertilized with girlfriend 1 transferred to girlfriend 2's uterus?

Comment Freezing Fertilized Eggs? (Score 3, Interesting) 374

I guess I'm confused as to why they chose to froze her fertilized eggs instead of the eggs alone. Is there a scientific reason for choosing to freeze a fertilized egg over a non-fertilized egg? Since she was only with her boyfriend for five months and she was the one going through chemo, they should have had no reason to think his sperm would need to be preserved. I won't judge them though as I can imagine a cancer diagnosis can impact judgement, but I'm curious if one option was better than the other.

Comment Re:That's why nobody sensible wants them (Score 1) 223

It's a bit premature to suggest that the breach was a result of negligent security. Look at the Hannaford's Supermarket breach a few years back: they had just had (and passed) their PCI review but being PCI Compliant didn't prevent their breach. To use your analogy, your son may be held accountable if he brought his 3DS to school and it was stolen, but the consequences are different if the 3DS was stolen from his desk compared to having it stolen from his locked school locker.

Comment Re:How many times done anything helpful? (Score 1) 189

I'm not sure the elimination of all private health insurance companies is required. Something I've learned by watching Healthcare Triage's International Health Care Systems playlist on YouTube is that a lot of countries have great government health care systems available to the vast majority of the public plus private insurance options with which they can supplement what the government supplies. I don't see why the same sort of system couldn't work here in the US.

Comment Re:Black hole? (Score 1) 277

I can definitely imagine situations where email forwarding isn't the best answer. My company has a lot of interaction with outside businesses and if John Doe leaves the company, any businesses he has a relationship with still need to be able to communicate with my company. Whether that means that John Doe's manager has John's email forwarded to him or simply adds it as a secondary inbox within Outlook is a matter of company preference. Regarding your example of criticizing your manager to another employee via company email, that is a terrible idea and you can be fired for it so please be careful. Make sure you're absolutely clear on your company policy and any EULA you accept before you end up in a position you don't want to be in. In the case of communication to HR, my advice would be to use email only to ask HR to set up a meeting so you can discuss your issue and leave the details to an in-person meeting. Your manager should not get access to view those complaints nor should they hold it against you if they did, but this is hardly a perfect world. If your manager makes the case that they have a business need to access your email (either auto-forwarding or another method), the Legal, HR, and InfoSec teams I've worked with won't bat an eye at granting that access just as easily as they can get a list of websites you're visiting at work if your company uses any sort of web filter.

Comment Re:Black hole? (Score 1) 277

I can't speak to other countries, but in the US it's not illegal. Employers will put a section right in their Employee Handbook or contract that states the company owns all of the data that employee creates, their work email, their work documents, etc. In InfoSec, we're often called to perform an investigation on what a user has been accessed and what they're doing, and we can do legally this because having that ability is noted in the employee handbook.

Comment Re:Where I live, that's normal weather (Score 1) 290

I think it's a poor comparison. An earthquake, hurricane, or tornado is magnitudes more destructive than a little bit of snow even with black ice on the roads (I'd say we are prepared, as Boston was hit with all three over the course of 2012). However, unlike the snowy, icy situation where my in-laws live outside of Raleigh, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes and volcanic eruptions are just as dangerous if you drive 20mph instead of 70 on the highway. With snow, it's often the difference between arrive home safely and a serious car accident.

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.