Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 1) 451

You'll always be able to find an edge case to beat up the general principle with, but you're ignoring the bulk of the cases to try and win an argument.

You *still* haven't grasped my position. My position is that there are only two positions that can be justified on moral grounds:

1. No abortions at all.

2. Wide availability of abortions (before some point, which could be consciousness, or viability, etc.)

People may hold other positions, but they cannot be justified on religious or moral grounds.

Comment Re:Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 1) 451

In the cases of rape and incest, a horrid wrong has been done to the woman involved

False. In cases of rape, a horrid wrong has been done to the woman. She could be a willing partner in the incest.

having to carry and bear (and then support) the resultant child only furthers the wrong done against her.

So what happens when the woman uses contraception, but it fails? She has done nothing wrong, but must bear a huge burden. What about cases of disability? Or do you think that women should not be engaging in sex at all?

Pragmatism is always an empty position. Pragmatic means practical

And that's my point. The "No abortions except in cases of .." is a pragmatic position, because it recognizes that the majority will not accept a simple "No abortions" rule.

Comment Re:Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 1) 451

In other words, you want to avoid discussing the inconsistencies in your own position. Pathetic.

So, here are some more thoughts: If you allow abortions in the case of incest, this is because of the dangers of inbreeding, but what about the case of a foetus that has already been determined will be badly disabled when born? Surely, if you allow abortions in the case of incest, you should allow abortions in the case of disabilities.

Comment Re:Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 2) 451

Excepting cases of rape and incest, you chose to have sex, deal with it...

You not wanting to carry the child doesn't give you the right to kill it...

Why are rape and incest different? The "child" isn't responsible for the rape or incest. Why should a potential child suffer for someone else's actions? The potential child is the victim.

What I am saying here is that "no abortions, except in the case of rape or incest" is not a moral position. The only moral position is: "no abortions". It's a pragmatic position, and if you are going to be pragmatic, you should allow abortions in a much wider set of cases.

Comment Re:Oh good, a reason (Score 0) 346

I'm beginning to wonder if I'm going to even vote in the 2016 presidential election. If I do, I'll have to use one hand to hold my nose while I'm voting..

If that's the case, you don't have any moral right to comment on politics, the judges of the Federal courts, or any US government policies.

You can do a write-in vote if you don't like any of the candidates.

Comment Re:If she really wanted to rescue the company... (Score 1) 217

Because that person has knowledge of trade secrets, internal processes, vendor relationships, future product plans, etc. Sure, they might be shit at leading a company, but what they know could be extremely valuable to a competitor.

That's what NDAs are for. A hiring company risks being sued if it allows a new hire to use secret information from a prior employer.

The fact that non-compete agreements are not enforcible is a significant part of the reason for Silicon Valley's success in building new businesses.

Comment Re:Bring Back GeoCities (Score 1) 217

From what I can see, it's not so much that Mayer has made a bunch of bad decisions, but rather that she hasn't made any decisions at all. Well before she took over, everyone knew that Yahoo was in trouble and that their status quo wasn't tenable. So she was fully expected to come in and make sweeping and disruptive changes, hopefully thereby saving the company.

She has spent money on buying a bunch of small companies that were too small to have an impact on Yahoo. Perhaps she should have bought Netflix when she was first appointed.

Comment Re:If she really wanted to rescue the company... (Score 2, Informative) 217

For example, the guy who used to run the division of the (huge) company that I work in ended his tenure, and had a contract that basically said "when you leave here, you can't work in this industry again for at least 10 years"

1. Such agreements are not enforcible in California.

2. Why would a company care about someone who wasn't successful as CEO running another company?

NDAs are enforcible and any company that hires a senior exec risks being sued over trade secrets.

Comment Liars! (Score 1) 179

Uber's legal team first outlined this identity in a filing with the California Public Utilities Commission in 2012: "Uber is a technology company that licenses the Uber App to transportation service providers. The transportation service providers pay a fee to Uber to use its software technology; the passenger of the transportation service provider pays the transportation service provider for transportation services received.

That's an outright lie. Uber collects the fares and pays the driver, after collecting its cut.

Comment Re:Of course ... (Score 1) 312

With the present US healthcare, quite a few people still can't afford insurance, even with government subsidizes, and worse are penalized for it.

I would be willing to bet that many of those people live in Republican-controlled states (especially those that refused to extend Medicaid) and either don't vote, or keep voting for "lower taxes".

California provides free healthcare for those with low or no incomes

Slashdot Top Deals

Never buy what you do not want because it is cheap; it will be dear to you. -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...