Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Enforcement for "rank and file" workers? (Score 2) 167

Companies can handle that without using non-compete clauses.

As an example, companies I have worked for consider employee and customer lists to be proprietary information. Engineering and management staff sign NDAs that explicitly cover employee and customer contact information. I have known senior management to call managers who left when the senior manager suspected the separated manager of soliciting employees who were still at the first company (to come work for at a separated manager's new place) and "read them the riot act". Current employees were free to initiate negotiations, and some did, which annoyed the senior management but was not considered actionable.

Comment Re:The planet will survive (Score 4, Interesting) 359

Any ancestors we had with 4-color vision were probably before we became mammals. Most mammals have 2-color vision; only some primates (including humans) have 3-color vision, due to duplication and later mutation of one of the genes that support 2-color vision.

While we can't say for sure why mammals went down to 2-color vision, the standard explanation is that nocturnal animals do not need the extra color channel, and may be helped if they lose it (e.g. by having more space for rod cells). This explanation is supported by studies of modern mammals, and how one of the two common mammalian cone cells are absent or non-functional in strongly nocturnal mammals. If mammals did not have such a long small-nocturnal-animal phase, we would probably have retained more capacity for color vision.

Comment Re: The planet will survive (Score 1) 359

Genus names are capitalized, species names are not. "Homo sapiens", not "Homo Sapiens".

For extra pedantry, use the initial letter for the genus after introducing it, except that would be ambiguous. "On our time travels, we saw Homo sapiens, H. habilis, Hadrosaurus foulkii, and Homo neandertalensis. H. neandertalensis was particularly interesting."

Comment Re: Wrong approach (Score 1) 430

Which law, either statute or case, says that how the president uses a communication channel gives people a right to either read it in near real time without switching to their browser's incognito mode, or to respond on the same website such that their response is prominently linked to the original statement?

(Hint: There isn't any such law.)

Comment Re: Wrong approach (Score 4, Informative) 430

In the context of the First Amendment, such a meeting is called a limited public forum, and is subject to some restrictions by the government that organized it. http://www.firstamendmentcente... goes into more depth about what is and isn't allowed.

I very much doubt that the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account will be held to be either a traditional or limited public forum for the purposes of First Amendment analysis. It meets the usual criteria for a nonpublic forum, and any "public" uses of it align closely with Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) as described at

Comment Re: Wrong approach (Score 2) 430

You have the right to write angry responses to the Twit In Chief. You have the right to jeer when he speaks. You do not have the right to force anybody else to read your responses or listen to your jeers. You have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, but bitching and moaning on his personal Twitter feed is not the constitutionally approved mechanism for that.

Comment Re: Terrible misnomer (Score 1) 180

You may not think it changes your point, but that is because your point is pretty vapid. To the extent that it isn't vapid, it is based on incorrect beliefs and faulty premises. Do you blame minimum-wage workers for struggling to break even? By your logic, if they chose to scale down their hours at the minimum wage it would reduce the supply of cheap labor and thereby increase the market-clearing wage.

Comment Re: Wrong approach (Score 4, Interesting) 430

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit have no right, First Amendment or otherwise, for the general public to be forcibly exposed to their responses to Trump's blather.

They can even set up a public mirror of his tweets, and respond there, if they want. Call it @realSmallHands or something, although that's probably taken.

Comment Re: Wrong approach (Score 2) 430

Deleting data from a government system does not necessarily break any laws. Only government records, as defined by the relevant laws, have to be preserved and archived.

For example, the Presidential Records Act defines presidential records as certain kinds of things that the president (or his staff) create or receive "in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President".

When Trump uses Twitter to point out that CNN, the NYT and the WaPo are spouting fake news, it probably doesn't come close to counting under that law. In fact, little (of anything) on his Twitter account would qualify.

Comment Re: Better idea: punish Facebook and Google. (Score 1) 116

What else do you think the back button should do? If the media dinosaurs think that's a problem, maybe they should work harder and/or smarter to convince people that links on their pages are worth clicking. When it's hard to tell what tries to be real news from paid content, clickbait ads, and malware, they shouldn't be surprised when people leave their site so quickly.

Comment Re: Better idea: punish Facebook and Google. (Score 1) 116

Google put basically zero effort into the web content that they index and provide a search interface to. Yet Google makes money from as revenues related to those searches. Does that mean web site authors should get a "break-the-law" pass when it comes to dealing with Google?

Slashdot Top Deals

Trap full -- please empty.