Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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: Bullshit, Todd. (Score 1) 266

Not sure which countries you are talking about: in most European countries I know medical malpractice is always open to huge liabilities. I think you are confusing malpractice with accident: in case of medical accidents nobody is at fault, so nobody is liable. In case of malpractice somebody it's at fault, usually due to some form of negligence. This leads to liability and could easily even lead to criminal charges.

Comment Re:Goes to the heart of capitalism (Score 1) 266

In most jurisdictions a request of voluntary termination of parental rights needs to be evaluated and accepted by a court, which often denies such requests unless there is "good cause" (typically to allow adoption). Without good cause the request is denied no matter what the parents want or agree, since it would free one of them of his obligations to support the child, which is not in the child's best interest, which is the absolute priority.

Comment Re:If he treats everyone as equals... (Score 1) 477

No, that is already the standard. It's how corporations work, it's how foundations work, it's how businesses work. It's how in fact all relationships work, paid or unpaid. If someone doesn't want you associated with them, they get rid of you. That's what voluntary association is all about. Are you opposed to voluntary association?

Often associations have rules determining why and how a member can be kicked out and it's usually not "because the boss says so", especially when a Code of Conduct exists and disagrees with the boss.

Even in business an employer might not always be able to fire an employee without just cause. In some countries this even means an employer might be required by law to reinstate a fired employee, even if he wants to "get rid" of him.

Comment Re:Some messes cannot be fixed (Score 1) 477

Once you sack a person, you cannot re-instate them. They hold grudges for being sacked, they act like they're bigger than their boss and many other personality traits make it impossible.

That's only if they are being unprofessional and let their beliefs interfere with their work... which is actually the employer's problem in this case.

About re-instating employees not working, actually in some countries if an employer unlawfully sacks an employee he might be forced by law to re-instate him and no, the employer might not be able to avoid re-instatement by offering different forms of compensations.

Comment Re:Wow. (Score 3, Informative) 513

Even this in most countries this would be illegal. E.g. here by law an employee may not be required to work on call for more than seven days in any period of four weeks. On top of that, you are entitled at least 11 hours of uninterrupted rest time every day which can be reduced to 8 hours only once a week.

Most companies actually *bar* you from exceeding these limits since violations would result in very harsh penalties not to mention the reputation damage.

Comment Re:Vatican denies evolution while undergoing it (Score 2) 181

Post doesn't assert that the Vatican denies evolution. Post doesn't even mention evolution.

The post's *content* might not, but the post's *title* surely does.

Post asserts that Vatican is under threat from knowledge. Something you've just illustrated with your reference to the theory of evolution. At least I guess it's a reference to the theory, rather than the facts of evolution.

That's absolutely *not* the case: the Vatican's position is that science and the scientific method are absolutely valid and compatible with faith since it consider science and faith to pertain inherently different domains. Actually it consider scientific discoveries to be an important challenge to the faith and humanity to better understand itself.

The "threat" to the Vatican is not from knowledge, it's from not understanding social changes until it's too disconnected from the people it preaches to. It's a danger well known to an organization thousands years old which might be conservative, but in context it *did* change a great deal to adapt to completely different societies since its inception. Technology is definitely a player in such changes, which is why the Vatican wants to study them.

Comment Re:"Taxes applied to worldwide earnings" (Score 4, Informative) 176

Apple was abiding with a special deal Ireland made with them but the deal was illegal according to EU regulations. What the EU did is basically tell Ireland "you cannot treat Apple favourably compared to other companies since it would be unfair to the companies not getting the special deal, so your special deal is null and void and your own regular taxation applies instead".

Comment Re:Backups? (Score 1) 131

A backup implies exactly that regardless of medium or location, and if the backup runs after the infection, then you're doing nothing but backing up (ransomware) encrypted data.

The end result is you're still fucked.

Only if you foolishly overwrite all previous backups so that only the last version remains. If that's how their backup works, then it's severely lacking given the importance of the data in question. What if you need a file and discover it got corrupted, and it might have been corrupted months ago?

Slashdot Top Deals

Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards. -- Aldous Huxley

Working...