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


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

Comment: Re:And what if he's right? (Score 1) 412 412

I'm inclined to disagree. But that may be because I met my now wife (and mother of my three children) at the office. There isn't anything inherently wrong about office romances like your post suggests. Rather, relationships that get in the way of work are problematic. I don't see any need to single out romantic relationships. Now, that said, employers are entitled to setup policies as they see fit: I just think such policies are generally repressive and don't address the heart of the issue. No pun intended.

Comment: Re: Maybe in a different country (Score 1) 498 498

Yeah. Actually I think that was some of the wisdom to creating "united states." The smaller the group, the more likely for that group to consist of like-minded people (especially if one can rather easily change groups.) Too bad that didn't last... Frankly, I think it was doomed to fail, though.

Comment: Re: Maybe in a different country (Score 1) 498 498

It's been a bit since I've read the constitution, but I don't believe that it ever defined what made someone a person or "property". The subsequent amendments which addressed blacks and women were necessary because at the time, it was the only way that the federal government could decree such a thing over the rights of the state. In other words, it wasn't that the constitution declared slavery legal or anything like that; such issues were up to the states to decide.

Comment: Re:Yeah.... (Score 3, Informative) 106 106

Google does not arbitrarily filter search results. They filter search results in ways that makes them the most money. It's bad for business for them to simply remove search results because "they don't like you." Such a policy be bad for their own business, as it would hurt their search results, giving an excellent opportunity for competitors to claim a portion of their vast market share. Obviously there are complications to this, as Google does filter results in a way to promote their own business activities. But again, this is hardly arbitrary: they do so because they think it will make them more money.

Comment: Re: verified (Score 1) 311 311

So then the girls who have made the unfortunate decision of allowing compromising pictures to be taken of them should scour the internet for themselves so that they can make complaints? That hardly seems right. The children argument is a red herring; this has nothing to do with making the world safe for children; this is a matter of who holds the rights to the photo and what sorts of reasonable actions can be taken to protect the property owners. Also, how does this punish "everybody"? If anything, it seems like it only punishes people who are posting naked pictures of others. Well, I suppose it might make certain naked pictures harder to find. I guess if that's your concern, make your own site/app for doing just that. (Remember, Reddit is a for-profit company; they can and should do what they think is in the best interest of their customers.)

In 1750 Issac Newton became discouraged when he fell up a flight of stairs.