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


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:I don't actually have a problem with this.... (Score 1) 427

>p> There is absolutely *NO* evidence to substantiate that EM sensitivity is caused by anything external to the person claiming to have it.... numerous double-blind studies have been done, and the only factor that determines whether they are "sensing" any EM is simply when the person claiming to have EMS believes that such phenomena is present, whether or not it actually is.

That does not necessarily mean that their suffering is all in their mind because what a person believes or thinks can sometimes have real, measurable effects on their physiology. Although I think that what it does mean is that EM sensitivity needs to be treated as a psychological matter rather than physiological one.

Comment Re: the $15 minimum wage... (Score 1) 61

Not even slightly.... The number of people may be very large, but the amount of money they control and spend is still very small compared to overall consumer spending. The top 20% income earners account for 95% of the economy. Even doubling minimum wage wouldn't impact that number in any appreciable way because of the enormous income disparity between the rich and the poor.

Comment Re:Why no test (Score 1) 427

Numerous double blind studies have conclusively shown that such sensitivity ultimately depends on what the subject *believes* to be true, regardless of whether or not it actually is. Whether she would still "sense" anything inside of the Faraday cage actually depends on whether or not she genuinely believes the Faraday cage will truly stop the signals she believes are harming her, and whether or not she believes those signals to be present.

In other words, its all psychosomatic.... and should be treated as such. Psychosomatic disorders can still produce externally measurable changes in a person's body, so the suffering can still be legitimately real, and so I would not think that being simply dismissive of it is necessarily the best approach, but probably psychological help would be for the best so that she can learn how to recognize the false signals that her brain is telling her about, and perhaps eventually overcome the dysfunction.

Comment Re:So I guess CEO's don't get hit with non-compete (Score 1) 131

"Stealing" customers is a different matter... I've seen such agreements before and they are entirely legally enforceable. However, the person *is* still allowed to work for a competitor in the exact same industry, and solicit business from potential customers that did *NOT* have any imminent or active business dealings with the employee's former company while they were there. If the area is not large enough that there are no available customers, then that suggests the market is already saturated anyways, so a person *would* be out of luck in such a case just as if there were no available jobs in an area at all.

Comment I don't actually have a problem with this.... (Score 4, Interesting) 427

.... as long as the woman is getting mandatory psychological treatment.

All available evidence on Electromagnetic sensitivity suggests that is actually a purely psychosomatic disorder, but belief is tremendously powerful thing and can produce real and measurable physiological changes in a person, causing immune reactions without any externally visible cause, change in hormone levels that should otherwise only be explainable by other external phenomonena, etc.

Treating serious psychosomatic disorders requires the person to not just be aware that the problem is all in their own mind, but it also requires that a person be aware of some pathway to a solution to their apparent problem. I have heard it best described by one psychologist as (althouh I am paraphrasing here, this is not a direct quote) "there's nothing actually wrong with your hardware, but basically the software in your brain is misfiring and telling your body the wrong thing.". A person with a psychosomatic disorder needs to learn a skill that is not necessarily easy to come by, and that is to learn how to ignore those essentially false signals that their brain is telling their own body, and causing it to react in ways that might otherwise be attributed to some external phenomena. This is why the person needs psychiatric help.

Simply telling an EHS sufferer that it's just all in their own head and they should be able to simply think their way out of their problem is only going to get you ignored, because their body may still be producing a real reaction to something, even if that something is only imagined.

Comment Re:So I guess CEO's don't get hit with non-compete (Score 1) 131

In practice, an ex employer is not even going to know what a former employee is doing after he or she leaves, let alone who they are working for without having to spend time and resources following what that person is doing outside of company time. Non-competes really are, for all practical purposes, completely unenforceable, and not generally worth the paper they are printed on... at best they typically only serve as a cautionary warning to not violate any NDA's, which an employer *CAN* legally go after you for violating potentially even years after you leave the company, although the more time that elapses since employment ended, the more difficult (exponentially, even) it becomes to establish any plausible NDA violation, and so NDA's have a practical upper limit to their duration that is usually less than a decade.

If noncompetes were generally legally enforceable, they could be presented as a condition of employment by an employer, and effectively prohibit any employees from legally practising in whatever trade it is that they are trained in after they leave said employer (short of moving to a distant enough jurisdiction), when they have not actually done anything to warrant such treatment. Although a lawyer can be disbarred, and a medical practitioner can lose their license, for example, such people actually have to do something that was *WRONG* to warrant such a thing.

Comment Re:So I guess CEO's don't get hit with non-compete (Score 3, Insightful) 131

Non-competes are often not enforceable after a person's employment contract is over. If a company doesn't want you to work for a competitor, they can usually be required to compensate you for that, typically in an amount equivalent to salary for the duation of the non-compete.

They may be able to successfully sue you for NDA violation, as long as they have a sufficient factual basis to show that it was more likely than not that you had actually violated the NDA. But that's not the same thing as a non-compete.

Comment Re:Tasers are not non-lethal. (Score 1) 179

What sentiment are you accusing me of propogating, exactly? I'm only suggesting that even guns have a significant chance of not killing their target, and yet somehow they are considered as "lethal" while tasers are frequently not. Sure, guns have a better chance of killing you than tasers do, overall... but that is only because a gunshot wound is simply much more likely to result in medical complications that require a physician and medical treatment than a tasering is (nearly 100% for the former, while the latter is around 33%). Does something that is only about 1/3 as lethal as a gunshot wound barring medical treatment strike you as particularly "non-lethal"?

Comment Re:So then the question becomes (Score 2) 440

That said, I'm wondering how AM even made any money.... didn't they offer something like a money-back guarantee or something if people didn't have an affair within some fixed period of signup, like maybe a month or two? Or did they depend on people becoming indifferent about it, and not trying to get their money back?

Comment Tasers are not non-lethal. (Score 3, Informative) 179

They just have significantly better chance than not of not killing you. They are, in fact, "less lethal", but definitely not non-lethal.

For what it's worth, getting shot by a gun is statistically only fatal about 5% of the time. While a taser is lethal even less often than that, it's still clearly lethal.

The goal of science is to build better mousetraps. The goal of nature is to build better mice.