Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:If I was President... (Or King!) (Score 3, Interesting) 219

$500 seems pretty damned insufficient when you've basically taken away a large portion of the working poor's discretionary income. No matter how you try to force it, flat taxes are fundamentally unfair.

Elected SCOTUS judges is even worse. There are enough politicians without making what amounts to a constitutional court effectively a third legislature with the power to veto the others.

Comment Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score 5, Insightful) 219

Even in countries with effective third parties, where FPTP is in play, it almost always tends towards a two-party system, with a third parties playing spoiler, but almost never becoming a governing party. FPTP almost inevitably shuts out third parties from power. There can be unique situations where FPTP multiparty Parliamentary countries can enter a period of minorities, this is particularly true in Canada during the mid 2000s until 2011, where a strong regional party in Quebec managed to destabilize the national parties enough to force two hung Parliaments, and it happened in the UK in 2010, where a strong regional party in Scotland (the SNP) wrestled enough votes from Labour to deprive it of power, but a similar effect with UKIP deprived the Conservatives of an absolute majority. But all in all, these are fairly rare in FPTP legislative assemblies.

It should also be noted that in the UK, in particular, it has a huge lower house, 649 seats in the House of Commons as compared to 435 in the US House of Representatives, and the House of Lords with 798 seats as compared to the US Senate's 100. This far greater number of representatives must also be factored in to any modeling of how FPTP plays out, the UK has a lot more room for third parties to find their niche with smaller Parliamentary constituencies than US districts.

If you truly want to give third parties a shot at significant power, you need to move to some sort of proportional representation. Even normal instant-runoff systems are not truly proportional, and are vulnerable to certain strategies that can give unfair advantage (with the exception of multi-member district STV, which is roughly proportional). But I'm not sure how that would even play out in US presidential elections, where by and large, the game has been rigged to make third party runs for the White House all but impossible. You'd have to make some big changes to the way the electoral college works, or abandon it entirely, but that seems pretty damned unlikely to me, since the intent of the electoral college was to create a sort of hybrid popular vote/state vote system, and any support for amending it after the 2000 election seems to have long since failed, though perhaps a very close election (which this one might be), might bring back demands to reform or eliminate the electoral college (though what kind of voting would replace it isn't clear).

Comment Re: Rule of thumb: not so much. (Score 4, Interesting) 392

The only troublesome events I've had with other coworkers was in some of the management positions I held where I had to take some disciplinary action for tardiness or poor work. Once I had to terminate someone, and I have to say that of all the hard things I've had to do in my professional and personal life, that was just about the hardest thing I ever had to do. The individual was a very nice person, someone who I personally liked a lot, but for a lot of reasons, some of them not their fault, they just couldn't do the job, and after multiple chances, the management team decided they had to go, and I, being direct supervisor, was the lucky recipient of that task.

Now I have seen some pretty deplorable behavior between other workers. I've seen bullying, both subtle and not so subtle, and have seen two coworkers enter a sexual relationship. None of these were my supervisors, and I wasn't their's, so it did not affect me personally, but I'd say that good people and shitty people are pretty much evenly divided between men and women.

The worst boss I ever had was a man, however. A petulant, ill tempered asshole who took out his shitty marriage on his employees, to the point where, after a ten minute session of the most vile berating because she had forgot to make a new pot of coffee, she just ran out the door in tears. She came back an hour later, and actually fucking apologized to that creep, mainly because she was a single mother with a young child, and couldn't afford to be unemployed. That certainly taught me a good deal about situations of relative power and impotence, and while not sexual abuse, was a kind of hostility and abuse where I did see people stick with the job, simply because they needed to pay the bills.

Comment Re:Outside the organization? (Score 1) 392

It may not be a crime to be bad, but in may still be an actionable offense by one's employer. Employers, particularly where employment contracts are in place, do not have to sit and wait for the police to charge someone, or wait until they're convicted, or even ignore violations of policy because they don't rise to the level of criminal actions, to sack someone.

Whether it's someone sticking his hands down a woman's pants or even just common theft are almost always actions that can lead to immediate termination.

Comment Re:They don't want one (Score 2, Interesting) 392

They don't want a court involved for the same reason no corporate or private entity wants a court involved; because the court will find the organization was in the wrong, and will find against it. The whole point of having sexual harassment policies and making them apply to everyone from the CEO to the guy that vacuums the carpet is corporate liability for sexual harassment or assault lies solely on the perpetrator. Even where a board or management has been proven to have insufficiently protected employees from sexual or other kinds of abuse, a strong response is seen as a way of assuring the corporate culture is appropriately modified.

Where I work, and I am in a senior management position now, sexual harassment, bullying and other anti-social actions are all in the company policies, and those policies constitute part of an employee's employment contract. While serious assaults would be referred to police, actions that while perhaps not criminal in nature, but still in violation of the policies surrounding the most egregious behaviors will inevitably lead to termination (with severance where we deem it inappropriate to have the individual on premises one second longer).

It sounds to me like Tor hat a right shitty organizational culture which had far too much familiarity between employees, and while I'll wager that they did have the proper policies, non-enforcement can lead to those being little more than a booklet that collects dust in everyone's office. Well, that's bad on them, but at the end of the day, in the world we live in now, at any point one party in a sexual or erotic encounter can terminate that encounter immediately, and if the other party does not comply, then the line is crossed. But really, there should be a zero tolerance for shenanigans. Managers should not be having any kind of sexual encounters with subordinates, even if it is consensual. It's disruptive, bad for general moral, and opens up the organization to significant liabilities. Frankly, if I or one of the other managers had a sexual encounter with a subordinate, and it gets found out, I'd say we'd be out the door in a pretty big hurry.

Comment Re: Rule of thumb: not so much. (Score 2) 392

Their attitudes rather explain why. They clearly hate women, and it stems from their own fear of women.

For chrissakes all but one of my bosses has been a woman. I have worked with women as my supervisors and women working under me, and women in equal positions. I've never had one accuse me of anything untoward, nor have I ever seen any of them behave in a dishonorable fashion towards me.

Comment Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man (Score 2, Funny) 392

But that's impossible. Everyone knows Slashdot posters are the most desirable of all men? How is it possible that she didn't immediately leap across the space, demand sexual gratification from you, and then inevitably go and tell your mutual supervisor that you molested her in a wanton and depraved manner?

Oh, I forget to mention SJW, so SJW this and SJW that! Women are vile evil creatures out to entrap men and then get them fired!

SJW....

SJW...

SJW .... SJW .... SJW !!!!!

Comment Re:While most on Slashdot loathe Trump (Score 1) 999

By "frowned upon", you mean "treason". Inviting a foreign power to breach US security with the promise of reward is treason. If he were in office and made that statement, it would be grounds for impeachment.

But I get it. Trump can say anything he wants and his supporters will either ignore it or make excuses.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Working...