Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Impeding the West's intelligence efforts (Score 1) 84

Considering your signature, I really hope you are being sarcastic. There is reasonable evidence that the Obama Administration used the intelligence apparatus of the U.S. to spy on his political opponents (in particular those who opposed the Iran Nuclear deal, an example where there is no support for the idea that those being spied on domestically were involved in anything which gave the government legal authority to spy on them). It is certainly possible, maybe even likely, that previous Administrations had done the same thing, but they were subtle enough in the way that they used what they learned that way that it is possible they were not doing so.
Medicine

Diet Sodas May Be Tied To Stroke, Dementia Risk (cnn.com) 215

Gulping down an artificially sweetened beverage not only may be associated with health risks for your body, but also possibly your brain, a new study suggests. From a report: Artificially sweetened drinks, such as diet sodas, were tied to a higher risk of stroke and dementia in the study, which published in the American Heart Association's journal Stroke on Thursday. The study sheds light only on an association, as the researchers were unable to determine an actual cause-and-effect relationship between sipping artificially sweetened drinks and an increased risk for stroke and dementia. Therefore, some experts caution that the findings should be interpreted carefully. No connection was found between those health risks and other sugary beverages, such as sugar-sweetened sodas, fruit juice and fruit drinks.

Comment Two separate things here (Score 1) 145

There are two separate things here: CCing the recipient's boss, CCing the sender's boss. When the sender CC's the recipient's boss they are usually trying to apply pressure to the recipient by going over their head. The overwhelming majority of the times people have done this to me it is because they want me to do something which violates my understanding of company policy. Since the majority of the time, my understanding of company policy is the same as my boss', this usually fails. Sometimes my boss sees their point and changes policy. Sometimes the other person has sufficient clout that their take on company policy overrides my boss'. Very rarely, my understanding of policy was wrong (the reason this happens so rarely is not because I am such a genius about company policy, rather it is because if I am not absolutely sure about company policy on an issue where someone is pushing me, I CC my boss first).

When the sender CC's their own boss, it is usually one of four things:
  1. 1)The sender wants to make sure his boss has his back on the position he is about to take on the issue under dispute
  2. 2)The sender thinks the situation has potential complications which his boss should not be blindsided by
  3. 3)The sender thinks the decision is one which should be made at a higher level (if higher than his boss, it is his boss' job to decide who)
  4. 4)The sender is covering his ass in case things go badly (and he thinks they are likely to go badly)
  5. Oh there is a fifth reason, although this could apply to both types: the sender is a complete douchebag.

Comment Re:Basic liberals propaganda (Score 1) 281

"Not renewing its mandate" means allowing something which was set up to operate for a limited time to end when that limited time is up. "Dismantling" means shutting down something which was set up to operate for the indefinite future. Saying that they dismantled this commission is like saying LBJ dismantled the Warren Commission after it gave its final report.

Comment Re:Common Sense calling - Women have babies (Score 2) 238

Women are not penalized for having a baby. Men, and women who do not have babies, are rewarded for being in the workforce more. It is real simple, every time you take an extended period of time off (whether that is to have a baby, or for some other reason) you need a certain length of time to get completely back up to speed when you return to work. Even leaving that out, studies have shown that women make essentially the same as men, when adjusted for time in the workforce and education (the remaining variation can easily be explained by the other work-life balance decisions tend to make differently than men). In other words, the only real difference that having a baby makes for what a woman earns is the amount of time she is out of the workforce while having/raising said baby.

Here is a simplistic example of that: a man and a woman start work at the same company in the same job at the same time. After a year, the woman takes three months of maternity leave. At the end of those three months she chooses not to return to the job. However, she left the company in good standing, so when she chooses to go back to work when the child enters school at five years old, the company rehires her at the rate they pay someone who has been with the company for one year.. At this point, the man has 6 years of experience in the workforce, but the woman only has one. This sort of scenarios (although usually the company hiring the woman when she returns to the workforce is different from the one she left, but she is usually hired at the rate of someone with the one year experience rather than that of someone with no experience).

Comment Re:Who decides what is fact? (Score 1) 230

Well, since the "don't even go down this road" is my preferred option, you obviously got my point. Once you go down the road of determining which articles are accurate and which are not, you are quickly going to start basing that decision on whether or not you agree with the conclusions they reach.

Comment Re:Who decides what is fact? (Score 3, Interesting) 230

What Politifact is commenting on is whether the opinion, belief, or conclusion drawn from those facts is "mostly false".

In other words, Politifact is NOT a FACT checking organization. They are checking whether or not the opinions presented are "correct". If the facts presented in the story are true, I do not need someone else to tell me if the conclusions the author reaches are true or not. If someone is going to claim to be a fact checker, I want them to limit themselves to checking the facts. If they do not, it is just a matter of time, and probably not much of it, before they are calling fake news true because it reaches the "correct" conclusions (or leads people to do so) even though the facts are completely false.

Comment The law cancels a future regulation (Score 1) 69

The summary continues to play into the hype about a law which merely cancels a regulation which had not yet gone into effect. The passage of the law changed NOTHING with regard to consumer privacy. It merely prevented a regulation from going into effect in December, which it was claimed would increase protections for consumer privacy (I have not studied the regulation in question, so I do not have much of an opinion of whether it would have actually done so. I am however skeptical about whether it would have made much difference based on my experience with similar previous regulations).

Slashdot Top Deals

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...