Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:My experiences in other companies and opinions. (Score 1) 98

In general I would frown on any employees, but in particular a manager, getting into a shouting match, homophobic slur or otherwise. In a manager I would find this particularly disturbing, because you should really be promoting managers based on leadership qualities, and shouting at your subordinates doesn't display leadership, it displays bullying. As to a specifically homophobic slur, like it or not, we live in a litigatory age, and, as you point out, if the staff member being yelled at were gay, then your manager has crossed a realm into pain. As others have pointed out, this kind of culture comes down from the top. Good sound senior management would not allow the workplace to behave this way.

The fact is that in any workplace, but particularly a large one, you're going to have conflicts, and on occasion they may get out of hand. I agree that the homophobic slur is the least serious of them, but it still isn't something that should be tolerated. An off the record warning would be exactly how I'd deal with that as well, but if the employee persisted in that sort of conduct, then it would have to move on to a more formal disciplinary process.

Oh, and to all those brave alt-right haters, want to end up in court, go tell a subordinate who complains they were threatened or abused to suck it up.

Comment Re:Pretty common (Score 1) 98

It's what happens when you let sociopaths into senior management. The advice I received many years ago about "toxic employees" is that while companies should throw them out as soon as possible, quite often, because they have some sort of narcissistic personality, they ingratiate themselves with their bosses, move up the corporate ladder, where they become nightmares to everyone else and create an incredibly toxic environment. And they can significantly harm a company in the process, driving out talent along the way. I cannot imagine why any company would tolerate this kind of behavior, or would allow such a workplace environment to persist. Apart from the risks of expensive lawsuits, such a workplace will have low morale, wallow in inefficiency, and ultimately gain a reputation as a shit place to work.

Comment Re:Awesome (Score 1) 140

I was posting on moderated Usenet forums in the early 90s, and trolls who got too abusive (and it wasn't just about content, but also about the number of posts) would get booted. This happened in particular in specialist forums like the sci. hierarchy, In fact, the talk. hierarchy was initially created to try to siphon off the kooks.

In general, anyone whose posts frequently amount to intimidation and threats, and who posts large volumes of them, is the kind of person who is often given the boot in many forums.

Comment The solution is simple. (Score 1) 131

If at first you don't succeed, try try again. Then if you succeed, try try again. Carry on until you have constructed a body of results you can evaluate as a whole.

There is a reproducibility problem for who have a model of the universe that works like this: If A is true, then investigation will uncover evidence supporting A, and no evidence supporting not-A. If this is your world view, then the instant you have any contradictory data you have a worldview crisis.

It is perfectly normal for science to yield contradictory results. That's why when you see a study reported saying taking Garcina Cambogia yields astonishing weight loss results you don't immediately run out to the health food store to buy miracle pills. It's absolutely routine for results like this not to stand up. The problem is that journalists are too ignorant of how science works to understand this.

Comment Re:"Toxic" comments huh? (Score 1) 140

No, that's not the definition of a troll. FRom the earliest days, trolls were people who said inflammatory things, started flamewars, and generally were bullying and derogatory, and even in the early days of Usenet, moderated groups would see such people banned. There are ways to express contrary views that doesn't involve threats and bullying.

Comment Re:Mostly, send the snowflakes to Venezuela (Score 0) 98

So you think managers threatening to kill someone or calling them a homosexual slur is just fine? If I was in charge, there would be a whole lot of people being marched out the door. I certainly would never tolerate anything like that (I'm management now). Manager or regular employee, if you cannot behave with a modicum of decency and manners, then you won't long have a job anywhere I manage.

Comment Re:Refillable packaging (Score 1) 139

There's no intrinsic reason why there cannot be big jerrycans filled with ketchup on the shelves, where you can fill standardised 1 litre bottles yourself, it's just not how the supply lines currently work.

Actually, there are. It has to do with food safety. Tomato in particular is a sketchy one. Even hippies don't do this, yet they are willing to watch the machine grind their peanut butter to an inferior standard as compared to what's in the jar on the shelf. Honey is also distributed to hippies in the manner in which you describe — honey keeps basically forever, so there is no hazard there. I've also seen olive oil begin to be distributed in this fashion of late. Also, add to the list beer and wine; wine bottle-filling kiosks are beginning to become popular, as are growler filling stations for the beer lovers. And of course, all the dry bulk stuff available in the bins at the health food store, like flour, salt, baking powder, nuts, dried fruits, granola, dried legumes...

Ketchup goes bad easily, so you're not going to see it distributed in this fashion any time soon.

I misspoke when I talked about the environmental impact; what I meant to say was that using virgin glass has basically no environmental impact as compared to recycling glass.

Comment Re:I know a way to do it, too (Score 1) 139

The fridge is upside down already! I have zero g here in outer space, so I am ignoring the numbnuts part of your statement, you insensitive clod!

Unless you left your balls in space, it probably doesn't apply.

You may have to put your bottle in a centrifuge. Just don't mix it up with the science samples.

Comment Re:I know I'm being selfish, but... (Score 2) 241

The world of code is more like this:

Software is inherently different to hardware, so you make a valid point. Though in a more perfect world, in which interoperability was forced by hook or by crook (so, if you don't use standards, your code repo gets raided until people can figure out how to interoperate with you) the software world itself would probably be more streamlined anyway as those who have built their existence on lock-in become eliminated.

Arguably though, for software all that has to be done is protect open source and Free Software, because eventually it will destroy all other software. It has a tendency to surpass commercial software given enough time and attention, and it has a tendency to attract that attention in proportion to the need — as Linux has proven.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Just think of a computer as hardware you can program." -- Nigel de la Tierre

Working...