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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment 800 down 3 million to go (Score 1) 205


I love how strict societies in modern settings formally become more entrenched even while their younger generation is long past the drama.

Arranged marriages that last a lifetime. No one looks at porn of course, it's evil. No one cheats of course. 7 kids in a 2 bedroom flat. All you really need is love and respecting your parents.

When David Cameron said that we should be able to block illegal adult sites he had no idea how unrealistic he was being...let the those that have no idea how the internet works come up with "solutions" to a problem that is not even technical.

Pablo Escobar ended face down in a pool of blood but he did say one smart thing I can recall, where there is demand there is supply.

As a society we like to believe that nothing stands in the the way of will power. So I dare anyone to try separating man from porn.

Comment Re:Solutions? (Score 2) 210


What makes you think I do not have children?

Let me tell you that you can always find a McDonalds, Starbucks or some such in central London.

Public urination is an offence that is committed by adults. I don't recall any children getting hit with a £50 fine.

You, parent/responsible adult are doing it wrong if you cannot factor in your kids needing to pee on a trip anywhere. -which is beside the point as this was originally about adults getting drunk and urinating in public.

A strong response because it's disgusting that people piss in the streets because they drink more than they should. That's the reason.

Comment Re:Solutions? (Score 2) 210


Local councils are funded with tax payer money yes. The establishment in which you buy drinks is not funded (entirely) by tax money and by purchasing a drink the use of the facilities, lightning, heating, space AND toilets is factored in.

In reality what you are asking is that your tax money is used to create/fund toilets (naturally close to areas of drinking where most pissing takes place). Except of course that you have already paid for the use of a toilet when you bought a drink. So really you want to pay for two toilets and basically use one. Why? so when you drink too much you don't need to think about peeing before you go...a basic function that many children have mastered.

Bars, pubs and restaurants, I'm told, have toilets. Why do we need more? -Let's not forget why most public toilets closed to begin with, besides cost. Drugs, rape, basic disgusting and intentional misuse, that sorta thing.

In my opinion the government and local councils got this one right.

Forgive me if I assume that you're an adult; with the ability to gauge how much you've been drinking against the amount of time you can be away from a toilet.

Comment Re:Solutions? (Score 3, Insightful) 210



No I do not contradict as those are not the options.

To name a few;
1. Piss in the establishment in which you bought the drinks. They have toilets.
2. Do not drink to the point you cannot control your basic bodily functions.
3. Behave like an adult and find a solution that is superior to a 4 year old.

Many excuse themselves with the stupidity of "I was drunk" but the truth is you can still exercise wilful self control. If you are unable to hold your alcohol then you should not be drinking.

Some may not care whilst they are already plastered true, but when they come to they'll remember for next time and their friends and family will hopefully also help these people come back to the fold of civility.

Imagine that all the people you know knew everything to the smallest detail about you. Can you still hold your head high and look into their eyes as an equal?

Otherwise if you wanna piss everywhere and drink without consequences you might as well go live in some gutter. At least then it will drain somewhere in the sewage system...

Comment Solutions? (Score 2) 210


As I see it the problem is deterrent. People drink too much, cannot hold it in and need to pee. Given their drunken state they no longer care about how it looks or what others may think and they just piss anywhere.

IF fines were high and CCTV footage or pictures were published to name and shame I'm pretty sure we'll have far less people doing this!

Comment Re:Generally? You don't. (Score 4, Insightful) 318


Firstly to say I am not arguing against what you said. I do however want to add to point 4.

Getting employee buy-in is important. An employee that is engaged, that believes he has a higher purpose than just working for this company will put more effort and pride into his work. In theory higher quality and more work is the result.

This internal marketing helps employee retention as well as getting many of them to do more for no additional pay because they are committed and feel it is their duty.
Most new employees will eat this up and feel they are part of a larger group, a wider family, with a purpose beyond just plain old Monday work. After a period of time people, being smart, wisen up and read between the lines if they have not already. then the "engagement" becomes a game of pretending. Managers pretend to be engaged and pursue engagement activities (that include making sure no one works from home) and employees pretend to be engage and embrace the "culture" as a valued framework.

Many companies will cite Yahoo's experience and many managers will see it as "proof" of something. I believe it all boils down to the employee in question.

Most employees will be very concerned that they may be viewed as not doing much if they are working from home and will often do more "just to make sure". but perception is the name of the game. If your manager thinks people that wear jeans are not serious about work well...we know what happens if a candidate shows up to an interview in jeans.

As a society we are still a bit far off the holy grail of working from home. The old way of thinking is still prevalent and despite having the technology this way of thinking is holding us back as a society. Imagine the cost savings if you did not have to provide your employees with environmentally controlled facilities and giant office spaces. Imagine how much traffic will be saved if 50% of us do not have to actually be physically at work.

Personally I find working from home easier. I can sleep more and have an environment that I enjoy and helps me concentrate. I don't need a manager to interrupt me as he reads through his emails or colleagues playing music wanting to gossip over coffee or deal with the less than gourmet food on offer.

In conclusion I think that a person wanting to work from home needs to find the right employer and that is where the real challenge lies. Most do not advertise that you can work from home so it's still a matter of finding out manually. It's one of the questions I'd ask of a future employer.

Comment Re:Slippery slope (Score 1) 270


You may have considered it polite and non-offensive but not everyone will, which is the point.

Replace unicorns with snake oil. The points stands. Belief lacking any factual basis that is protected by law may as well be the celestial teapot, pink unicorns or anything else without factual basis.

The point being is that in this case religion itself allows no flexibility. If you deny the holy spirit and evidently I do I cannot be forgiven ergo, according to this baseless belief I am a "sinner". Such a biased belief based on nothing at all should not have legal protection.
You see to deny the holy spirit is apparently a big deal and that offends people. Imagine how ridiculous it would be to deny the holy snake oil. Just as baseless, just as valid.

My argument is for sense. Legislation such as this has too much room for error. Queue "I'm offended" lawsuits.

Comment Re:Slippery slope (Score 1) 270


OK. I find the belief in unfounded god/s is one of the leading causes of murder, rape and mutilation etc throughout history. It has also repeatedly held humanity's progress back and tend to be non-democratic and unreasonable in nature having no place in schools or modern life in general.

I argue that if there was a god he/she/it would not need any believers nor would he need them to be offended to defend his/her/its name or honour.

Furthermore as the very nature of a supreme being/entity is knowledgeable to humans should such a being or entity actually exist it would be impossible for humans to know the will of such a deity and is best left for the deity to express, preferably in written form. (sure you can say some holy book but I'm pretty sure an all powerful deity does not need people to make editing mistakes in written form and then claim divine origins.

If I believe, wholly and deeply in divine pink unicorns a legislation demanding that others respect such an unfounded belief would be an insult.

The very questioning of belief is repeatedly a cause to offend some. After all, the only unforgivable sin is to deny the holy spirit, should such a spirit exist in the unlikely event that spirits become factual.

It is high time that much like homoeopathy things which have absolutely no basis are removed from legal protections etc. Besides, if god doesn't like it, he'll just change it back right?

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?

Working...