Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not just ineffective (EEO bullshit) (Score 1) 553

by ScienceofSpock (#49615977) Attached to: Recruiters Use 'Digital Native' As Code For 'No Old Folks'

The whole point I am making is that it should not have to be "good" or "justifiable". In fact, there should be no need for any reason at all

Why not? Age didn't gain protected status for no reason. Older people have the same right to work as younger people.

It is none of our business. Both literally and otherwise...

I understand what you are saying. You want business owners to have the right to build whatever team they want, and there are any number of reasons for that, not all of which are discriminatory. Maybe you just want a younger looking public-facing team because you think it makes your company look fresh and cutting edge, and that's valid, but too many employers have demonstrated that those decisions sometimes ARE used to discriminate against older workers, and so the government stepped in. If you don't understand why the government stepped in, then you haven't been passed over for someone younger (yet).

We're not even talking about how this affects the workers. Imagine if there were no age discrimination laws, and all the companies in your area started grabbing all the fresh young college grads, and stopped hiring anyone over, say, 38. Now you have a whole population of perfectly qualified, willing workers who can no longer find work, simply because they were born earlier. How fair is that?

Comment: Re:Not just ineffective (EEO bullshit) (Score 1) 553

by ScienceofSpock (#49614639) Attached to: Recruiters Use 'Digital Native' As Code For 'No Old Folks'

they seek to punish thought-crimes

Not hiring someone strictly because of age is not a thought crime, it's an ACTUAL crime. You can hate or dislike older people all you want, but as soon as you act on that hate or dislike, it's a crime. So no, they are not trying to punish thought crimes.

and force employers into hiring those, whom they do not wish to hire, for whatever reason.

If an employer's only reason for not wanting to hire someone is age, then it's not a good, or justifiable reason. If the skillset is there and the person is physically and mentally capable of doing the job, what possible part could age play in the decision? Don't like to look at grey hair or wrinkles? Tough.

Comment: Re:reflexes? (Score 1) 114

I'm not an expert either, but it seems to me that the activity they were seeing in the brain was not in that area. If I recall, they were using those caps with all the wires coming out of them to monitor brain activity, not some of the more sophisticated/expensive machines, so I don't know how accurate that is.

Comment: Re:reflexes? (Score 1) 114

I get that I can simulate it, but I choose not to because it makes me uncomfortable :)

To your point of not being able to tell how far away anything really was, it's interesting because one of the pages I found during my cursory search said that stereoscopic depth perception only works within about 20 feet, anything further than that, the difference between left and right images is so negligible that your brain doesn't register any difference, and can't determine distance anyway. To get any better distance would require moving the eyes farther apart.

Comment: Re:reflexes? (Score 1) 114

Right. My point was that at least some states don't seem to require it, and while I feel it's pretty essential to driving, I have no clue what it would be like to actually go through life without it. Maybe it's not as "required" as I think it is, so maybe it's not that irresponsible either.

Comment: Re:reflexes? (Score 3, Interesting) 114

I was going to post something to the effect of:

"If 3D movies don't work on her, she probably has limited or no depth perception, which is a huge problem for driving"

BUT

A cursory google search shows stereo vision or depth perception doesn't seem to be a requirement for a driver license, at least in some areas. Only "sufficient vision" and a regular field of view are required. People can get a driver license with only one eye.

Personally, *I* wouldn't feel comfortable driving with limited depth perception, or only one eye, but I'm speaking from the perspective of having both of those things all of my life. I wouldn't feel comfortable doing ANYTHING without depth perception or only having one eye.

Comment: Re:reflexes? (Score 4, Interesting) 114

I watched a show a few months back, one of those shows where they talk about people with different/special abilities, synesthesia, a German guy who was blind from birth, but could understand and draw perspective, etc.

There was one study they talked about where they had a group of people who were blind in one eye, but the blindness was the result of a brain injury or defect, not a problem with their actual eyes. In the study, the subjects had their sighted eye covered, and were shown pictures of faces with various emotions/expressions to the blind eye. They found that even though they were blind in that eye, they could still "see" the emotion in the faces and would mimic it on their own face.

Basically, they were saying that the visual signals were getting into the brain and were being interpreted on some level by an unknown part of the brain before getting lost in the damaged visual cortex. I wonder if this has something to do with it?

Comment: Really dissappointed in Obamacare (Score 1) 739

by ScienceofSpock (#48281095) Attached to: Statisticians Study Who Was Helped Most By Obamacare
I was excited for Obamacare, until I experienced Nevada's botched implementation, and found out it's not nearly as affordable as it's made out to be. On March 28th, I received a mass email from whitehouse.gov, purporting to be from a Mark D. Bearden, Ph.D., and how he's a "staunch Republican and self-proclaimed Fox News addict". The bulk of the email was how he was a chemotherapy patient, who was paying $428/mo for health coverage and it was cancelled, so he signed up for Obamacare and found a plan for $62 a month and it's the best healthcare he ever had. I was excited, but when I tried to find a comparable plan, there wasn't anything even close. How can a Ph.D. in North Carolina find a good plan for $62 a month, but the cheapest plan I could find was $160 with a $2000 deductable? If I wanted a "manageable" deductable, closer to $500, my monthly payments went up to $300. I even tried searching in North Carolina, where he is from, and couldn't even get close to $62, even if I set my income below minimum wage, there were 0 plans for $62 month, so where did this guy get his insurance? Does he *really* exist? Why can't I find a plan like this? I emailed whitehouse.gov to get answers to this, but all I got was an autoresponder.

My problem with the whole implementation of Obamacare is that it is supposed to be affordable, however, the only way to get the payments truly affordable is to have high deductables, which means if you go to the doctor a lot for small things (most of which won't exceed the deductable), then you are paying out of pocket for most of those. On top of already having to pay out of pocket for most of your care (which you would have to do if you didn't have insurance), you are also forced to pay for the insurance, so instead of costing people less, it's actually costing people more.

If you opt for reasonable deductables, then the plans are MUCH less affordable. Basically, it seems the insurance companies have managed to massage this whole thing into just a government mandated requirement for you to get and keep insurance.

Comment: Re:Meh (Score 1) 208

by ScienceofSpock (#47317497) Attached to: The Simultaneous Rise and Decline of <em>Battlefield</em>
Yeah, Desert Combat was cool as hell, but I thought the inherent small size limits of the maps made modern jets quite a bit over powered in terms of their ability to move across the map quickly. Most DC maps I played were quickly dominated by the jets. Hell, there are still BF1942 servers up, I may have to dig out my disks this weekend :)

...there can be no public or private virtue unless the foundation of action is the practice of truth. - George Jacob Holyoake

Working...