Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Privacy? (Score 1) 776

by sh00z (#49672369) Attached to: Worker Fired For Disabling GPS App That Tracked Her 24 Hours a Day

What? This was a PRIVATE employment agreement between a PRIVATE employer and a PRIVATE employee. If she doesn't like the employers terms she can find a new job. The GOVERNMENT has zero business intruding in a PRIVATE affair!

While I haven't decided which candidate I prefer in the upcoming election, I endorse the remainder of this comment. The employee ignored the devastatingly simple solution to this problem: just leave the phone at work, in your (desk, locker, whatever) when you go home at night! If you have components of your life that you want to keep from your employer, don't being your employer everywhere you go! Duh.

Comment: Re:Sanders amazes me (Score 1) 395

by sh00z (#49610887) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

what you ignore while you talk about capitol gains is they already paid taxes on that income. why should they pay again??? let alone at a higher rate???

That is absolutely false. From the definition of capital gains:

When you sell a capital asset, the difference between the basis in the asset and the amount you sell it for is a capital gain or a capital loss. Generally, an asset's basis is its cost to the owner, but if you received the asset as a gift or inheritance, refer to Topic 703 for information about your basis. You have a capital gain if you sell the asset for more than your basis. You have a capital loss if you sell the asset for less than your basis. Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, are not deductible.

You are not re-taxed on your original earnings (the "basis"). You are taxed on the growth in value or gain (hence the name).

Comment: Re:acceptance is the only fair outcome (Score 1) 301

Then you didn't actually read my post. I wrote " If the authors omitted information, then there would be a legitimate criticism." If the reviewer thought that gender bias could have crept into the paper, THAT is what the reviewer should have commented. Instead, the reviewer said "get a man to co-write this with you, because they're better writers." If you don't see the difference, I sure hope a similar example didn't come up during your defense.

Comment: Re:acceptance is the only fair outcome (Score 0) 301

so again. if these two phds in gender studies doing a study on gender bias received criticism about potential gender biases... Why is it wrong to address that?

Because the reviewer only talked about the potential, and did not find any actual gender bias in the article. I would be willing to bet that the article contains several examples and red flags of gender bias. If the reviewer had FOUND and could name "ideologically biased assumptions" or gender bias in the writing, then the reviewer would have a legitimate criticism of the article. If the reviewer had a counter-example to refute the article, then there would be a legitimate criticism. If the authors omitted information, then there would be a legitimate criticism.

Bottom line, the reviewer criticized the authors, not the article. And the editor should have been smart enough to see it and call BS.

Comment: Re:Waitasecondhere... (Score 1) 403

by sh00z (#49587925) Attached to: Tattoos Found To Interfere With Apple Watch Sensors

Precisely. If I had ink covering my wrist, I would definitely read the watch's promotional material to see what technology is being used in that sensor. And once I determined it was optical, I sure as hell wouldn't buy one without a test-drive. The same for any off-nominal physical condition--it's the responsibility of the individual to see if the equipment functions in the presence of their physical variation. If you were one of the people whose dental work causes them to hear radio signals, would you buy a Bluetooth headset without trying it?

What I *do* have is quite hairy arms, I'm concerned enough about the pulse sensor working that I'm not even thinking about one of these watches until they're common enough to try on without an appointment (that, and since it's Apple, version 2.0 will be 25% cheaper and have 25% more features).

Comment: Re:America (Score 1) 120

by sh00z (#49509663) Attached to: Pull-Top Can Tabs, At 50, Reach Historic Archaeological Status

I think you are missing the point. When the pullout tabs were phased out in favor of tabs that stay with the can, I remember thinking that a thousand years from now discarded pullout tabs will be a valuable archeological resource. They are distinctive, ubiquitous, and indestructible, and because they were only used during a short time, they would conclusively date any architectural layer they were found in. ...

Exactly. I'm a contractor at the NASA Johnson Space Center. One day in the 90's, I was walking across a parking lot that had just been graded flat in preparation for a new layer of asphalt. I found myself in a "field" of dozens of pull-tabs embedded in the pavement. It was easy and fun to imagine some Apollo-era astronaut gathering. The Right Stuff, indeed.

(of course, today, just bringing alcohol inside the gate will get you fired)

Comment: Re:What on earth (Score 3, Interesting) 234

by sh00z (#49293803) Attached to: No Fuel In the Fukushima Reactor #1

But since this is Japan, the author speculates that the antipodal point is somewhere in Uruguay, which it is not (it's kinda close though).

Ironically, "Uruguay syndrome" is a more accurate term because Uruguay is a heck of a lot closer to being an antipode of Japan than China is to being an antipode of the US.

Well, sure, but there's *no* land antipodal to anywhere in the US. Gotta call it something. Indian Ocean syndrome?

"Your attitude determines your attitude." -- Zig Ziglar, self-improvement doofus