Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Morons ... (Score 2) 190 190

The story changes if he emailed them and offered them his domain name at a high price, for one example.

Why does that change things? It's HIS domain name which he has had for 15 years, LONG before they registered their trademark. Why shouldn't he be allowed to make whatever he can from it? Office Space's saying he renewed it in bad faith doesn't make it true. Even if he renewed it after he knew about their trademark, that doesn't make it bad faith. Just because you have a trademark for something doesn't mean you automatically get the domain for it, and it sounds like that's what Office Space wants to believe.

Comment: Re:Goodbye free speech (Score 1) 209 209

I "believe" Google should pay me for beta-testing their various products that almost never leave beta. When can I expect the courts to make them send me a check?

When you can point to a law that says it's illegal for them to not pay you.

The difference between you and the owner is that he has legal recourse since libel is illegal. You on the other hand have no legal recourse. What could possibly make you think these two things are even remotely comparable?

Comment: Re:root problem (Score 3, Informative) 136 136

I thought so too. I was under the impression that Mars has no spinning iron core anymore, so terraforming is all but impossible since there isn't a strong enough magnetic field to prevent the solar winds from stripping away any potential atmosphere beyond what is currently there. What am I missing here?

Comment: Re:I have Bronze blood (Score 1) 97 97

So, they can't test my blood to see if I carry vCJD and then clear me to donate if it I don't carry it? I can't imagine that the cost of a test would outweigh potential lives saved.

Also, if vCJD is such a concern, then why do they bar you from donating if you were there for 5 or more years, but if you were only there for 4 years, you're good to go?

Not trying to start an argument, just trying to understand the logic here

Comment: Re:I have Bronze blood (Score 1) 97 97

I heard 5 years as well, but that figure refers to the cumulative amount of time spent abroad, not how long until you can donate again. It may be different for Middle East than it is for Europe. As far as I can tell from the Red Cross website, because I spent more than 5 years in Germany, I can never donate blood again.

I know this isn't even remotely equivalent, but it rather makes me feel like a felon who can no longer vote, even though I did nothing wrong and was serving my country.

Comment: Re:I have Bronze blood (Score 1) 97 97

I am O Neg (universal donor*) CMV Neg (good for premature babies) and I used to donate regularly, up until some time in the late 90s when the Red Cross stopped accepting donations from individuals who had lived in areas where mad cow disease had occurred, like Europe. I lived in Germany as a dependent for 4 years and as a service member for 3 years.

From what I understand, the reason is because of Variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease, which they think is a mutated form of Mad Cow disease that has jumped to humans. So because I was in an area where Mad Cow disease has occurred, I can no longer donate blood because it could carry vCJD. Don't they have tests for this?!?

* Rh is also a factor.

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

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) 553 553

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) 114 114

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) 114 114

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.

Counting in binary is just like counting in decimal -- if you are all thumbs. -- Glaser and Way

Working...