Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Bullshit, Todd. (Score 3, Interesting) 267

From the court's decision:

"In the circumstances, the Court recognises that the Appellant's desire to have a child of her own, with her Husband, is a desire that is a basic human impulse, and its loss is keenly and deeply felt.

"The ordinary human experience is that parents and children are bound by ties of blood and this fact of biological experience - heredity - carries deep socio-cultural significance...

"And when, as in the present case, a person has been denied this experience due to the negligence of others then she has lost something of profound significance and has suffered a serious wrong.

"This loss of 'affinity' can also result in social stigma and embarrassment arising out of the misperceptions of others, as was the case here."

Comment Re:Easy solve for this (Score 1) 606

Who would want to use a search engine so petty as to censor the web and distort search results (their primary and only useful function as far as I'm concerned)

Google already does that with their search results.

over a mischievous TV commercial?

Simply another reason.

If Google were willing to artificially modify their results over something as trivial as that, you can bet they'd do the same for money, political influence, etc.

See my first response.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never put off till run-time what you can do at compile-time. -- D. Gries