Who the fuck QAs this? This is literally the second most important function on the site, after being able to comment. How the fuck did this make it into production?
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
There is a simple way to prevent unions from gaining a foothold in your company: stop treating your employees like crap. Stop implementing life-sapping schedules that prevent workers from having meaningful relationships, give them solid healthcare that they don't want to trade away, give them a paycheck that allows them to live within a decent distance of their work, and don't treat them like meatbags whose sole purpose is to make you more money. If they still want to unionize after that? Fine, throw 'em to the wolves. But quite frankly, reading through the description of what the bus drivers get, the company had this coming.
That said, fuck the unions as well. No, a bus driver isn't the same thing as a programmer. Stop pandering to your audience and do something useful instead.
You're quoting a parliamentarian from 19th century France. Which had some very specific issues that the socialists were trying to address, and where a lack of state intervention indeed would mean nothing of that sort happening (see specifically education).
And just to pile on your vaccine statement: I am damn sure in my right to force you to not be the carrier of a disease that can infect me 2 hours after you passed through the room.
A libertarian may lean more towards equal opportunity, a liberal more to equal outcomes.
That's a (deliberate, I frequently think) misunderstanding of the liberal position. The reason that there's a lot of talk about outcomes is because it is the single clearest and simplest metric we have about success. If a group is represented at 5% in a field where we suppose that equal opportunities should lead to something more like 50%, the conclusion is that the initial assumption of equal opportunities is wrong. Measuring opportunity is incredibly hard, consists of hundreds, if not thousands of factors, is impacted by the cultural biases of the investigator, and some impacts to opportunity are so embedded in the culture that they are quite literally invisible to the investigator. As a result, outcome is frequently used as a proxy for opportunity.
Is it right to make it a 100% proxy? No. But it is a valid starting point to look into opportunities.
the DC money is also ineffectively used since it doesn't consider the local circumstances.
Which sometimes is a good thing. See for example the "local" Alabama Chief Justice who just gave the finger to gay people because he doesn't like what he's being told to do. Sometimes, the big stick of the uninvolved far away helps to knock sense in the locals. Sometimes, the locals do know best. But blanket statements like "local government is much more often best" is trivially proven to be wrong.
You make the mistake of listening to articles about scientific research instead of actually reading the research. Additionally, you make the mistake of thinking that one study == Truth. Especially in biology and medecine, with hugely complicated machines and enormous difficulty setting up good controls, a single study is almost meaningless.
Wait for studies to confirm others, wait for things to percolate through the scientific community, then start paying attention to it.
Oh - is that why all the posts about "SJWs are ruining Slashdot and the world" regularly sit at +5?
The main application for piping your phone through your car audio is that phone calls are clearer, and you get access to your audio books, music, or online newspapers that have an audio stream. In other words, making sure that your car system isn't obsolete 3 years after you buy it requires a tethering mechanism. And bluetooth is the simplest one out there.
Absolutely true. Unfortunately, it's far easier to convince management that the problem is the lack of a shiny tool that shows them pretty graphs than shitty data that they have to pay some consultant an ungodly amount of money to fix. Because, of course, no one in the company has the time to fix the data on which they run their business.
There are a few of them that grew up exactly like that. They show little difference with the rest of the politicians. Why? Because if they got to their position, anyone can, and those who don't become part of the 1% are clearly just lazy moochers.
Being poor in the US is either a temporary embarrassment or proof of being a bad person. It's quite amazing how alive Calvinism is in the US.
Great! That means that Al-Qaeda is not about Islam and instead is just about some base for some people, right? The fact that they constantly talk about Islam, Mohammed, and infidels is just a coincidence.
It's called an election. Not my fault that you can't convince enough people to vote for people who'll rewrite the Constitution.
No. If you want Truth, Philosophy is down the hall. Science is about collecting data, creating models of the world around us, and testing the models for usefulness and accuracy.
How is GMail necessary to the growth of the middle class? There's 1.3 billion people who can pick from any other email provider. Compared to creating an OS from scratch, creating and running an email service is trivial.
The bigger concern is that you may not be able to reach any users of the very popular (and state-supported) Chinese services. If you can't do business with people in China through Gmail (and corporate GMail is a significant portion of GMail), you will switch to a provider who does. Or Google figures out a workaround.
In other words, it's a real concern, but not one I would lose a tremendous amount of sleep over. I'd much rather worry about Chinese hackers absconding with my data than about the Great Firewall blocking my GMail.
Wrong. You said it yourself: radar technology is so sensitive that they have to dial it down, otherwise they're swamped by false positives. If a giant bomb-dropping machine traveling at Mach 2 can pretend to be a sparrow flying over some forest, it's already a win. So it's a huge positive when fighting someone even with that kind of technology. When fighting someone whose AA system is a guy holding an AK-47, it is 100% useless. Until we get to active camouflage.