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

 



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:this pisses me off about modern business (Score 1) 160

by cdrudge (#49496629) Attached to: MakerBot Lays Off 20 Percent of Its Employees

If you're firing a single individual, that might work. When you're letting go of 20% of your workforce, or around 100 people, you probably are not doing it all at once. Making them do the employment walk of shame could be very demoralizing throughout the day for a very large layoff, not to mention tipping off the next guy to get called down to HR to go postal on his way down.

Comment: Re:Lets use correct terminology. (Score 1) 160

by cdrudge (#49496565) Attached to: MakerBot Lays Off 20 Percent of Its Employees

It all depends on how you define fired. If fired is used to indicate termination with cause, such as you were showed up drunk, fighting in the workplace, looking at porn, habitual late/no show, something with significant misconduct... then unemployment probably will be denied.

If you're terminated for no fault of your own, you likely can still collect unemployment. "No fault of your own" can still include things that were directly associated with you, such as low job performance, inability to perform the job, "just not working out", etc. It requires a deliberate misconduct that could have been prevented and is beyond an isolated accident or minor incident.

A little more detail...and things can change if you're under contract, a part of a union, or specifics in local labor laws.

Comment: Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score 1) 698

by cdrudge (#49479671) Attached to: 'We the People' Petition To Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

But for tax advantages, you need more. You need an organisation that tries to be beneficial to society.

Actually, no you don't. Churches and related religious entities are exempt from being required to fill out from 990 and formally receiving written 501c3 status. They're automatically granted it although they can go through the process anyways to formally get the declaration.

As to benefiting society, IRS allows "advancement of religion" to qualify for being exempt. It's vague what exactly that means, I'm guessing intentionally, as being overly specific may cause more issues then being broad.

Comment: Re:Why use secrete service agents (Score 1) 175

Perhaps because they aren't looking for the best pure athlete to simulate an intruder. Presumably Secret Service agents (at least those that are on White House duty) would also have training in searching for evasive intruders, and therefor would have an idea how to play the role of one as well.

Now perhaps they could train world class athletes as well as cross train them to be Secret Service agents...

Comment: Re:Hmmm .... (Score 1) 886

by cdrudge (#49343653) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill

I think the founders would be laughing their asses off at the idea that the local baker should be forced to make products his religious beliefs don't support.

But it's not just the baker refusing to bake a cake with two male figures on top. It's the potential to allow the baker to refuse to sell a plain loaf of bread to two male figures because he doesn't agree in gay marriage. Or a gas station refusing to sell fuel. Or a doctor refusing to provide medical treatment.

Comment: Re:I will never attend another GenCon (Score 1) 886

by cdrudge (#49339289) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill

People should be able to serve whom they want and I refuse to bow down to the tyranny of the minority

Doesn't GenCon have just as much right to express who (and where) it wants to do business with that the businesses who want to discriminate do? If the state is going to put it into law that a business can object to doing business with someone who goes against their religion, why can't GenCon say we choose not to do business with the state?

It probably won't affect you too much, but add Alcoa, Eli Lilly, Cummins, and Sales Force to the list of companies who won't ever patronize because they all wrote similar letters to the governor.

Comment: Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1) 886

by cdrudge (#49338759) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill

Please cite specific gyms, clothing stores, medical centers which refuse to business with men for services that would be applicable for men. For everyone you post, I'll likely be able to post an example of the same type of business being sued and winning a discrimination lawsuit.

Comment: Re:They have the freedom to leave it they want (Score 2) 886

by cdrudge (#49338521) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill

Pedophilia is illegal. Being gay isn't. Big difference.

And it's not just about producing something "gay" (e.g. a wedding cake with two grooms on the top). It also would allow discriminating a gay couple from buying a regular sandwich at a deli, or a drink at a coffee shop just because of their marital status. It's a license to discriminate.

Nothing happens.

Working...