Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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

Comment Re:WTF? (Score 1) 760

These programs cost more than they 'save' and are all around useless.

While I also disagree with drug testing literally everyone who applies for welfare, (it should at least be random) the way they measure whether it "wastes money" is flawed. Opponents simply point out that there are a low number of drug tests coming back positive, and the denial of benefits for those folks is less than the cost of all the testing. Except of course the numbers are low, they're only catching the people stupid enough to be doing drugs and yet take the test anyway. Personally the fact the number of positives being low gives me a bit a faith in humanity. But what's not being accounted for (or even considered) is: How many people DIDN'T APPLY because they knew they wouldn't pass a drug test? Now that number isn't easily to establish, but people aren't even bothering to check whether application numbers changed at all as compared to years before drug testing was implemented.

Comment Re:Popcorn (Score 1) 457

Popcorn is not empty calories, it's whole grains.

While popcorn is technically whole grain, this does not make it highly nutritious. It isn't. It only means that it contains slightly more nutrients than de-germinated corn (such as hominy or grits) which probably is the most un-nutritious crap on the face of the planet.

Comment Re:But why *must* I have an iPhone? (Score 1) 265

If I had a choice - get iPhone for free or buy E61, E71, or something like that - I'd reach for my wallet.

Of course if you're in the states and you want an E61 you'll have to reach for eBay, since Nokia only sold that model in Europe. For the US market they offered the wonderful E62 instead. It's just like the E61, minus only a few trivial features like WiFi and 3G.

Comment Fraud? (Score 2, Insightful) 1246

Lying is not necessarily fraud. Nor would it be fraud in this case. Lying to the police can be a crime, in most jurisdictions this is called Obstruction of Justice. But the girl was not charged with that.

What baffles me the most about this case was the rigamarole everyone went through to determine that she had a phone. Why did it matter? If the teacher saw the phone, that's the end of it. Give the pupil the appropriate punishment. (detention, suspension, saturday school, etc) Why did it have to be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that she did in fact possess a phone? What if she had passed the phone off to a friend before the officer arrived? Would they have then had to let her go unpunished? The incident originally wasn't about her committing a legal crime, it was about breaking school rules. When you're talking about breaking school rules you don't need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to get a "conviction".

Slashdot Top Deals

Another megabytes the dust.

Working...