Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Qualifications (Score 2) 479

by Major Blud (#48832729) Attached to: Fighting Tech's Diversity Issues Without Burning Down the System

"This is about RECRUITERS. They go out and find candidates."

This doesn't change what I said. In this case the recruiter is passing on qualified people just so they can hit a %20 quota. It's not like they have infinite candidates to begin with.....they may be limited to 100, or 50, or whatever. If there aren't enough qualified people to fill the candidate quota to begin with, they'll have to start reaching out to unqualified female candidates to fill that 20%.

And I did read the article thanks.

Comment: Re:Why didn't they take them alive? (Score 1) 490

by Major Blud (#48775797) Attached to: In Paris, Terrorists Kill 2 More, Take At Least 7 Hostages

Seems too risky. Non-lethal weapons aren't always reliable in these types of situations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

If you wanted to hit someone with a "sleep dart" over 100 yards away, such a weapon would most certainly be no different than a bullet at closer range, making it potentially lethal anyways.

Not to mention that these guys were known to be heavily-armed, wore body armor, and had hostages. Better to take them out quickly than risk any more lives.

Comment: Re:Go Nuclear (Score 1) 560

by Major Blud (#48719227) Attached to: 2014: Hottest Year On Record

"Because it isn't. It is shit. It always has dramatic environmental impact, which is precisely what we're arguing against with coal and oil."

Not to mention the safety record. People love to rail against nuclear because of Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, but none of those hold a candle to the amount of damage caused by hydro electric failures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

Comment: Re:From Jack Brennan's response (Score 1) 772

by Major Blud (#48559591) Attached to: CIA Lied Over Brutal Interrogations

"No, but that's not the point"

So we should just ignore them and let them get on with it? I'd love to hear your non-violent solutions.

Look at how many innocent civilian casualties there were in Dresden, Rotterdam, Warsaw, Tokyo, London, Coventry, etc etc. The U.S. could easily do the same thing to Mecca, Riyadh, Kabul, etc etc. I think we've moved on from that.

Comment: Re:From Jack Brennan's response (Score 1) 772

by Major Blud (#48559123) Attached to: CIA Lied Over Brutal Interrogations

Please mod this up.

Some people seem to have the idea that all of this is the fault of U.S. policies. Sure, maybe...but if we were suddenly stopped recognizing Israel, bombing Yemen/Iraq/Syria/Afganhistan, and left middle-east affairs completely, would ISIS/Al-Qaeda/Taliban call off their aggression? If you believe they would, then I have a bridge to sell you. These three organizations don't just hate America, they hate the entire western way of life, and has pretty much been their M.O. from the beginning. Look up their policies on women, religious tolerance, and free speech for more info. But hey, I guess we're supposed to tolerate intolerance.

I don't think torture should be a U.S. policy, but please don't try to make out ISIS/Al-Qaeda/Taliban out to be good guys fighting for a good cause. You know, those SS guys were just trying to spread their way of life through Europe because of the unjust Versailles treaty (Oh My Godwin!).

+ - Should IT professionals be exempt from overtime?-> 1

Submitted by Paul Fernhout
Paul Fernhout (109597) writes "Nick Hanauer's a billionaire who made his fortune as one of the original investors in Amazon. He suggests President Obama should restore US overtime regulations to the 1970s to boost the economy (quoted by PBS NewsHour):
"In 1975, more than 65 percent of salaried American workers earned time-and-a-half pay for every hour worked over 40 hours a week. Not because capitalists back then were more generous, but because it was the law. It still is the law, except that the value of the threshold for overtime pay--the salary level at which employers are required to pay overtime--has been allowed to erode to less than the poverty line for a family of four today. Only workers earning an annual income of under $23,660 qualify for mandatory overtime. You know many people like that? Probably not. By 2013, just 11 percent of salaried workers qualified for overtime pay, according to a report published by the Economic Policy Institute. And so business owners like me have been able to make the other 89 percent of you work unlimited overtime hours for no additional pay at all.
    The Obama administration could, on its own, go even further. Many millions of Americans are currently exempt from the overtime rules--teachers, federal employees, doctors, computer professionals, etc.--and corporate leaders are lobbying hard to expand "computer professional" to mean just about anybody who uses a computer. Which is almost everybody. But were the Labor Department instead to narrow these exemptions, millions more Americans would receive the overtime pay they deserve. Why, you might ask, are so many workers exempted from overtime? That's a fair question. To be truthful, I have no earthly idea why. What I can tell you is that these exemptions work out very well for your employers. ...
    In the information economy of the 21st century, it is not capital accumulation that creates growth and prosperity, but, rather, the virtuous cycle of innovation and demand. The more innovators and entrepreneurs we have converting ideas into products and services, the higher our standard of living, and the more people who can afford to consume these products and services, the greater the incentive to innovate. Thus, the key to growth and prosperity is to fully include as many Americans as possible in our economy, both as innovators and consumers.
    In plain English, the real economy is you: Raise wages, and one increases demand. Increase demand and one increases jobs, wages and innovation. The real economy is simply the interplay between consumers and businesses. On the other hand, as we've learned from the past 40 years of slow growth and record stock buybacks, not even an infinite supply of capital can persuade a CEO to hire more workers absent demand for the products and services they produce.
    The twisted irony is, when you work more hours for less pay, you hurt not only yourself, you hurt the real economy by depressing wages, increasing unemployment and reducing demand and innovation. Ironically, when you earn less, and unemployment is high, it even hurts capitalists like me. ..."

If overtime pay is generally good for the economy, should most IT professionals really be exempt from overtime regulations?"

Link to Original Source

Matter will be damaged in direct proportion to its value.

Working...