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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Disturbing. (Score 1) 106

by aevan (#49451957) Attached to: Japanese Court Orders Google To Remove Negative Reviews From Google Maps
True, but I wasn't considering US Law.

Note: 230-1 is defamation
Article 230-2(1)When an act prescribed under paragraph (1) of the preceding Article is found to relate to matters of public interest and to have been conducted solely for the benefit of the public, the truth or falsity of the alleged facts shall be examined, and punishment shall not be imposed if they are proven to be true.

Comment: Re:Disturbing. (Score 2) 106

Depends. If it's pursuant to a defamation lawsuit... and slander and libel are things untrue... how is that review of lies helping your personal decision?

Not entirely germane, but were the reviews involved not anonymous I'd be more inclined to side with them: their reputation versus the reputation that feels slandered. By hiding behind anonymity, they aren't really feeling the burden an unsubstantiated declaration should entail.

Comment: Re:I tried this myself (Score 1) 892

I've seen people call in managers are 'big ticket' items and get price cuts that way (things with prices over 1,000) while at WalMart, at Sears, etc. Rather pissed me off to be honest, after having repeatedly told them we cannot negotiate the price, a manager comes in and blames us for being rigid but he will 'help them out'.

Another job in an electrical warehouse, prices were negotiated all the time. Losses were just taken out on clients with less ability or that bought less overall. Remember that smirk on the one guys face as he sold a lamp fixture at triple normal price, all because the old lady took it at face value that was its worth. Eventually that place went under. Good riddance.

Comment: Re:This whole issue needs to be buried (Score 1) 365

Just to throw it out there for you: my retired grandparents did. Just as mine are doing so for my sibling's spawns.

It isn't unusual in some cultures for an extended family to care for children, thus allowing both parents to work.

May or may not result in kids with more emotional ties to the grandparents but, what can you do.

Comment: Re:Good! (Score 1) 326

by aevan (#49349499) Attached to: RSA Conference Bans "Booth Babes"
You're right. It's sexist. It implies men can only be drawn in by sexual attraction. It implies men cannot be hired at the booths because the jobs are preferentially given to women. It implies women hold a power over men just by existing that reduces men to simmering hormonal idiots that then cannot make a rational decision because their libido trumps their common sense.

Oh wait, you were going for the women being the victim here. My mistake. Misuse of 'literal' should have been the flag.

We don't really understand it, so we'll give it to the programmers.