Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

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).

×

Comment: Re:Another failure (Score 1) 392

by bkr1_2k (#49226161) Attached to: Does USB Type C Herald the End of Apple's Proprietary Connectors?

Please find me an 11" laptop (full laptop, not a pad of some kind) for anywhere near the price of an 11" macbook air that has the same specs. When I bought my Apple I was desperately searching for something as an alternative and never found one. The next closest competition was a Sony Viaio something and it was about $800 more expensive. If it had been the same price I would have bought the Sony.

Comment: Re:Hmmm (Score 1) 392

by bkr1_2k (#49226113) Attached to: Does USB Type C Herald the End of Apple's Proprietary Connectors?

For those of us who actually travel a lot, lighter is better. I can run about 3 hours doing blender or gimp or garage band (recording audio books) on my 11" macbook air battery. No it's not 8 hours but who really expects to work that long on battery power? Even on planes you can get power in your seat these days. Does it suck having to carry an adapter? Absolutely. I'm not a fan of getting rid of even more connectors, but lighter is better in my opinion. The real question is whether the adapter just eats all the weight savings of no ports. At least with USB C you can just adapt usb devices with a cable not a real adapter.

Comment: Who cares (Score 1) 200

by bkr1_2k (#48981661) Attached to: Too Much Exercise May Not Be Better Than a Sedentary Lifestyle

I don't care if I'm really extending my life any longer. We're all going to die, that's a given, and nothing other than medicine and hygiene (both personal and societal) have been statistically shown to significantly increase that life span. What I care about is how I feel while I'm alive. I don't exercise to live longer, I exercise to feel better while I'm alive. That's also why I don't exercise in a gym. Go out and play.

Comment: Re:Hospitals require testing (Score 1) 673

by bkr1_2k (#48887175) Attached to: Should Disney Require Its Employees To Be Vaccinated?

So pretty much every retail job in the country should be required to be vaccinated?

Ideally yes though I realize that is probably unrealistic.

I'm just trying to clarify what level of "general public" interaction requires this vaccination oversight? Who's going to pay for it? The government or the employer?

Most people are vaccinated already when they are children so the vast majority of the cost is already accounted for. The rest of it is probably pretty much the easiest cost/benefit analysis ever. The cost of the vaccines and program administration would almost certainly be hugely outweighed by the reduced health care costs. I imagine it would be pretty straightforward to do this either with public or private money. Most medical insurance already covers getting vaccines. (vaccines are generally very cheap)

If people shouldn't be forced then how do they work, given that 44% of the jobs in the US are in some form of retail, transportation, education, or healthcare and another ~10-15% are "professional and business services" or "government" that include some sort of regular customer interaction, how are they to have jobs and also choose not to be vaccinated?

Since the point is that they should be vaccinated the answer to your question seems self evident. Furthermore those numbers do not add up to 100% and the percent of loonies who don't get vaccinated is in the single digits.

No they don't add up to 100% but it's a huge portion of the working populace and you can't have it both ways. You can't say you want to give people choice and then limit ~60% of the job market from them.

Regarding cost, I was talking about the cost of the oversight. Verification that people do, in fact, have the appropriate vaccinations etc. You can't ensure this without some significant cost associated with the tracking and oversight.

Comment: Re:Hospitals require testing (Score 1) 673

by bkr1_2k (#48886405) Attached to: Should Disney Require Its Employees To Be Vaccinated?

So pretty much every retail job in the country should be required to be vaccinated? I'm just trying to clarify what level of "general public" interaction requires this vaccination oversight? Who's going to pay for it? The government or the employer?

If people shouldn't be forced then how do they work, given that 44% of the jobs in the US are in some form of retail, transportation, education, or healthcare and another ~10-15% are "professional and business services" or "government" that include some sort of regular customer interaction, how are they to have jobs and also choose not to be vaccinated?

Comment: Re:Yes. (Score 1) 673

by bkr1_2k (#48886257) Attached to: Should Disney Require Its Employees To Be Vaccinated?

Hiring people actively engaged in breaking federal and state law and putting themselves in a position of incapacitation as a result? I draw the line there. I don't like drug tests but the reality is I dislike hiring people who could potentially screw up my company by 1) bringing illegal substances to my office 2) potentially getting arrested before a big meeting they are crucial to 3) whatever else you might be able to come up with that increases the risk of hiring the drug using person over a non drug user.

That said, I won't provide employers with financial data, nor will I provide anyone that asks information about my personal life outside of work, be it facebook information, linkedin, my hobbies or anything else.

Comment: Re:Not "like Slashdot" (Score 1) 225

by bkr1_2k (#48867601) Attached to: Facebook Will Let You Flag Content As 'False'

Your definition of "beyond reasonable doubt" and mine are different. the few times I've moderated something overrated it has ALWAYS been because it was at least a majority, if not entirely, incorrect. I agree, there are very few reasons to mod down but incorrect information is definitely one of them.

Comment: Re:how is this any different?? (Score 1) 894

by bkr1_2k (#48822917) Attached to: Pope Francis: There Are Limits To Freedom of Expression

No one has said it was acceptable. What I said (and what I believe the Pope meant) is that it's not a surprise that when you go out of your way to offend someone, they react badly.

There are any number of instances where you could say so & so should be "turned into a glass crater" because of some real or imagined slight or offense. Obviously no one is condoning the out-of-proportion response to the Charlie Ebdo but let's not act like this is some sort of shock either. It's happened before and the editors of Charlie Ebdo chose to continue the action. I'm not saying I disagree with their choice (I think we should be able to say & print whatever we think as long as it doesn't put people in physical harm - like yelling fire in a crowded theater as the classic example) but let's not try to imply they had no part of this and the action was completely unexpected.

The only real question is whether or not it is reasonable to think that their actions did directly put people in harm. I think not, but clearly someone disagrees with me.

Comment: Re:how is this any different?? (Score 4, Insightful) 894

by bkr1_2k (#48819257) Attached to: Pope Francis: There Are Limits To Freedom of Expression

What he said was violence is bad and you shouldn't commit violence. But if you deliberately offend someone, you should expect some level of violent response. He implied this is because humans haven't learned very well how not to respond with violence.

Just because violence is bad doesn't mean you should go through life somehow expecting to avoid it and acting insulted when it happens after you've been a douchebag.

Comment: Re:Yet another buzzword! (Score 1) 273

by bkr1_2k (#48805323) Attached to: Silicon Valley's Quest To Extend Life 'Well Beyond 120'

Please read the rest of Genesis. Abraham lived to be 175 supposedly. This came after Genesis 6:3. Hell, Isaac (son of Abraham) was born when Abraham was 100 years old and Sarah (Isaac's mother) was 90 years old (Genesis 17:17). Terah (Abraham's father) was 205 years old (Genesis 11:27–32).

That reference is inconsistent, to say the least.

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes. -- Dr. Warren Jackson, Director, UTCS

Working...