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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Need to be adjustable (Score 2) 340

I've had a similar experience. Although I still have some back issues, for the most part, my posture, etc. have gotten much, much better since I've started standing. My standing workstation is a total hack job--basically a small, cheapy (non-standing) desk with some Ikea parts bolted on to it. It's hideous but I work from home as a contract worker and am on a budget, so it works just fine for that. To sit, I've got a backless bar stool thing (it's kind of an odd stool). Sitting in it matches the height of my makeshift desk. It is also uncomfortable to sit in for great lengths of time, as I tend to slouch and my back gets quite tired without a seat back to relax into. I've found this to be a very good quality, though, as with a comfortable chair I found myself far too likely to forget to stop my sitting break and start standing again--I'd just end up sitting in a tall chair at a tall desk all day long.

Oh, also, you know those kinks you get in your neck sometimes when you sleep on your bed all wrong? Well, those have almost all but gone away since I've started standing. If I do get one, a day's worth of standing almost always clears it right up. I also feel substantially better and, while I generally need to take a 30 minute break after work to sit down on a couch and rest, after that I have plenty of energy. Of course, it's very difficult to measure happiness, but I will say that in general, the times that I've deviated from my standing work station have been promptly followed by less satisfaction both with work and in my home life. I simply can't imagine going back to sitting all day.

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

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

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

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

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.)

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: #44 Zebras are colored with dark stripes on a light background.

Working...