Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Strange (Score 1) 140

So they correct the figures by removing women with hysterectomies from the group and the number jumps up, and then they claim that the cause is "unequal access to healthcare" causing higher stats in that group. So I take it the women are getting their uterus and cervix removed by NON health care professionals?

Comment Re:It's a start! (Score 2) 221

4) create a secret shopper program where well-qualified 'testers' apply for jobs and if they are turned down, an OFFICIAL (and expensive, if the company is found to be fraudulently rejecting locals) investigation would occur. one that has PUBLIC RESULTS POSTED for anyone to see. public shaming, big-time, for violators.

without a secret shopper program, there's no good way to keep the fucking companies honest. they'll continue to pay lawyers to find loopholes. but if they are publicly shamed, they'll stop. guaranteed!

Comment Re: In the interest of infringing further: (Score 1) 146

Really? I've heard the last few Trek outings were absolute shit. I've been too busy to see many movies, but after Paramount's shenanigans began I couldn't see making time to give them any of my money. The fans made Trek - if they want to shit on the fans, then the fans can u make Trek. Except that most of them are p'tak.

Comment Endowments (Score 3, Insightful) 313

If the Endowment is large enough they can give every student free tuition. If there is no endowment, everybody pays. In the middle, they need enough people paying full-boat to subsidize the kids who need a full ride. Look at the economics before you assume ill intent. There is no magic money and locking kids into thirty years of debt is no magnanimous gesture.

Comment Re:Cue Jeff Goldblum (Score 4, Informative) 163

For anyone wanting to know more, the scientific name for this is parthenogenesis. It's well documented across many species and as usual Wikipedia has an article on it here:

Simply put it is indeed a survival mechanism that's more common than we probably realise.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 1) 797

Cheers, that's really interesting. Does pardoning the act still apply post conviction also? So if for example Snowden did face trial for leaking classified material for the leaks in general, and from some treason charge for leaking the stuff that he didn't need to leak, then must the whole act still be pardoned, or could he then be pardoned for just the leaking portion of the act, but not the treason portion of the act, and would his jail time then be adjusted for the single charge of treason with any years added for the leaking of classified material removed from his time only? I guess really, I'm asking, do partial pardons exist?

It sounds like there may well be some sensible rationale behind Obama's decision to have wanted to see a trial for Snowden before committing to any pardon.

Comment Re:So Oracle discriminated (Score 4, Insightful) 314

I worked at sun for about 5 years and was let go when oracle bought sun.

I worked at the menlo park main campus. I am older than 50 and I'm white. during my 5 years there, I got good reviews and was the main guy for one of the products (software) that ships on sun servers.

all you have to do is walk around the outside of any major silicon valley campus and you'll see the same thing over and over. yes, its mostly indian and we all know this, even though the media does not want to outright say it.

and I'm 90% certain that I was let go because all the rest of my group was indian and I was making a good salary there.

it happens to me at almost every place I'm at, these days. the inevitable firing when the numbers from the company go downward and they need a quick 'profit boost' by letting go of the senior and well-paid engineers. this rarely happens to the indians, though.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 2) 797

I'm intrigued as to how pardons work legally and in terms of documentation. It seems pretty clear that presidents can pardon pre-try as many people here have evidenced, but what does that pardon look like? If there's been no charges and no trial, then how do they define what the pardon is for? If they pardon for presumed charges then isn't there a risk that when someone like Snowden comes back home they just get run through the system on different charges than were pardoned for? So for example if he pardoned Snowden for crimes of espionage and leaking state secrets then isn't there a risk he could be charged still, for say, treason?

If the pardon is more arbitrary and more general then isn't there a risk that the person could've committed other more serious, as yet unknown crimes which they're then absolved of via the generic pardon? What if for example Snowden was pardoned for his crimes but it turns out he has since been assisting the FSB beyond mere whistleblowing? If it's descriptive as to what actions the pardon is supposed to cover then I imagine that still leaves massive scope for legal wrangling as courts would surely need to determine what the wording actually covers?

I ask because I have no idea how this works, but it would certainly seem likely that not pardoning before charges, and relevance of charges in court, though not against the rules, would at least seem eminently sensible for everyone involved - it would make it clear exactly what the extent and limitations of the pardon are for, without leaving scope for later dispute on the extent of the pardon. I can see why, if this is the case, that Obama might want legal certainty on what he's actually pardoning before doing so even if other presidents may be a bit more laissez-faire about it.

Comment Re:Only a fraction of US munitions... (Score 2) 199

"Our Nobel Peace Prize President dropped 26,000 bombs (real bombs, not little hand grenades) last year on various brown people (even though we are not at war)."

Why make it about skin colour? Your president was the same colour but he very clearly didn't bomb himself, so that was obviously not a factor in determining targets so why bring it up?

"BTW, has anyone considered that it might be preferable to address their grievances rather than just bomb them?"

Whilst I'd always agree for rational actors such as the IRA, FARC, and maybe even the Taliban, these actors aren't rational. You could make the same argument for the Nazis in WWII but given that their greivance was that they wanted to extinguish entire groups of humans to the tune of millions then it's not exactly a greivance that any reasonable human being can help address is it?

When the greivance in question is our very existence and way of life, then it's not merely that they're a bit upset about something and we can help make that better, it's that they want to extinguish our very existence, and the only response to that is to extinguish theirs first.

But if you believe otherwise, then do feel free to go and talk to them. I'll keep an eye on YouTube for a video of how you got on.

Comment Re:If irreversible, why not let it continue natura (Score 2) 467

The problem is that the fossil fuel industry is the most heavily subsidised industry going. A nuclear plant for example is always going to be made to be responsible for complete costs of waste disposal, and yet fossil fuel plants, and cars are allowed to just spew their waste into the environment at no cost.

If you were to make the fossil fuel industry pay it's actual costs - i.e. impact on people's health for example, rather than expect people to subsidise them by paying for their own health issues caused by fossil fuel users then the cost of petrol cars, of power via fossil fuels and so forth would be untenable and the market would change overnight but with massive economic and social disruption as people fail to afford to adjust to paying what they actually should, rather than to continue using their fossil fuel based power source or car at the expense of others.

So given the difficulty in trying to just completely alter the entire economic model of most countries overnight by making it illegal for fossil fuel users and power plants to continue to be subsidised by, say, doubling the price of petrol and electricity from non-renewable sources it's easier to just give at least some kind of counter-subsidy to renewables.

The problem is that the "natural" rate of change you're referring to isn't the natural rate of change, it's a rate of change crippled by the fact that fossil fuel power plants and so forth receive massive indirect subsidies through the fact they're not faced to pay for the actual costs they incur on society.

If you want to learn more search for "fossil fuel externalities". You'll find no end of articles and papers trying to estimate the hidden costs of fossil fuels, and whilst estimates vary it's to the degree of hundreds of billions every year in the US alone. The problem is that the system has been manipulated so long by the fossil fuel industries due to the power of big oil et. al. that they're not even close to playing on a level playing field even with renewable subsidies - they're at a massive subsidised advantage over renewables even when renewables have the subsidies they do.

Slashdot Top Deals

Those who can, do; those who can't, simulate.