Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:I Know Where The 22,000 Went! (Score 1) 474

It's also not a union issue.

So why did you bring up right to work? If it's not a union issue, right to work is a non-sequitor.

Automation doesn't care how much the worker it replaces is making.

That's not strictly speaking true either. If the lifecycle cost of employing people (including training and benefits in addition to salary) is cheaper than the lifecycle cost of automation (including service and initial setup cost) then automation doesn't make sense. Cheaper employees have a lower lifecycle cost.

Comment Re:I Know Where The 22,000 Went! (Score 1) 474

No they weren't. The new Hostess didn't lay off 22,000 people.

The 22,000 figure is from before the collapse, when old Hostess wasn't exercising its right to employ at-will and most of the employees weren't exercising their right to work. There were some layoffs at old Hostess prior to its collapse, but most of the 22,000 lost their jobs when old Hostess went out of business.

New Hostess didn't hire everyone that worked at old Hostess, but that's neither an at-will employment issue nor a right to work issue.

Comment Re:I Know Where The 22,000 Went! (Score 1) 474

Rat, "Right to Work" means you can't be forced to join the union as a condition of employment. However, employees can waive that right by voluntarily joining the union. If you DO join the union, as nearly all Hostess employees did, your relationship with your employer (wages, whether you can be fired, etc) is governed by the union contract just like in a forced-union state.

The thing you're thinking of is "At-Will Employment," which means that the employer has the right to fire the employee without showing due cause (i.e. misconduct by the specific employee.) This right can be waived by the employer (and was waived by Hostess) by agreeing to a union contract specifying a grievance process.

Since Hostess waived its right to employ At-Will, and nearly all Hostess employees waived their right to work, neither were in play when the original Hostess collapsed. The Hostess bankruptcy went down exactly like it would have in a forced union state.

Comment Re:I'm confused (Score 2) 97

Neither of those statements are true.

Zuckerberg is a liberal. He gives big money to people with D's at the end of their names. He also supports liberal groups, notably (for the Slashdot audience anyway), an open borders and pro-H1B group.

None of that is an attack on Zuckerberg. He can vote for whoever he wants and use his money to support whoever he wants. It's simply inaccurate to call him a conservative.

As for the Keystone Pipeline being at risk of creating an environmental disaster, not even the EPA belives that. There's pipelines all over the place.

Comment Re:I'm confused (Score 1) 97

Hey Rat, you know how people are pointing out how Trump is a bad tactician with the Saddam Hussein and the Star of David being PC BS crap? And that if he was even halfway competent, his message this week would have been "The FBI didn't indict Crooked Hillary because the Democrats are corrupting the rule of law to protect her?"

This is the third time today I've seen you bitching about that meme on Slashdot, and IIRC, none of the three threads had anything to do with Trump. There's plenty to oppose the man over, but you're taking attention away from those to argue the semantics of a meme that Trump's guy posted.

You and Trump actually have a lot in common.

Comment Re:So... (Score 1) 165

Clinton didn't violate security willfully, and shared state secrets with those authorized to see them, not wantonly.

Neither of these things are true.

Setting up the server itself was the act that violated security. The server was set up because Clinton ordered it to be set up. Ergo, Clinton ordered the security violation. (The individual emails themselves also show evidence of Clinton specifically ordering subordinates to send classified info through unclassified channels.)

Among those who had access to classified information on the Clinton Email server was Sydney Blumenthal, who has been a Clinton lackey for years. He's so untrustworthy that higher-ups in the Obama administration (to their credit) EXPLICITLY ordered Clinton not to hire him at the State Department. Since Blumenthan had no official position in the government or other need to know classified information, he wasn't authorized to have it. Blumenthal used the classified information he received in his Clinton email to run a secretive intelligence service that interfered with the CIA in the Middle East.

Comment Re:Suicide by politician (Score 1) 1010

the key point of difference between all the examples you twits bring up is this: they were classified at the time that they were knowingly misused, rather than retroactively classified after the fact.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the top secret, special access program, at the time they were sent and received. Those chains involve Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters, and receiving emails about those matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified secret by the U.S. intelligence community at the time it was discussed on email. That is excluding any later upclassified emails.

None of these emails should have been on any unclassified system.

- FBI Director James Comey, today.

dywolf, you've been full of shit about this from day 1.

Comment Re:Forgot the party ... again (Score 2) 95

I'm with you that they should always label the party that a politician belongs to. (And with Senators they should also give the state.)

However, the problems with FOIA's execution are of the executive branch, which is currently run by a Democrat. Leaving out the party ID helps Democrats, because if someone isn't paying attention, they'll assume the story is "Republican Senator criticizes Democrat President," which happens all the time. "Democrat criticizes Democrat" is more likely to be interesting.

Comment Re:A question .... (Score 1) 95

Because France didn't enter the war on July 4th? If you want to have a "Thank France Day" you should probably either line it up with the signing of the Treaty of Alliance [between France and the United States] on February 6th, 1778, or the Battle of Yorktown (October 19th, 1781), because it was the biggest example of French and American cooperation during the war. (The British defeat also largely ended combat operations in the war.)

You could also pick a French holiday.

Comment Re:Yep - impersonation (Score 1) 565

No, what I said was factually correct. According to the PDF from the CDC's website that was linked earlier in the thread,

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) serves as the national focus for developing and applying disease prevention and control, environmental health, and health promotion and health education activities designed to improve the health of the people of the United States.

. The CDC exists to study health concerns. Because guns are not a health concern, guns are out of their scope.

The domain of the CDC explicitly, by law excludes guns. There are people, including you, who wish otherwise. And if you want to campaign to change that law, you can do that. But the reason the law was changed to take this away from the CDC was because of an attempt to have the CDC produce politicized results for a crusade.

It's also dishonest for people like John Oliver (who was the example cited earlier in this thread, although he's not alone) to claim that the CDC isn't allowed to collect gun crime statistics and imply that the rest of the government isn''t allowed to do so either. The FBI has the statistics that Oliver, et al, are looking for. However, in addition to those, they have other statistics that undermine Oliver's point, which is why he wants the politicized stats from the CDC.

Comment Re:Yep - impersonation (Score 1) 565

So what is your cut off for number of deaths before something is worthy of the CDC looking into it?

The cutoff isn't "number of deaths." The cutoff is "is this actually a disease?" Since owning a gun ISN'T a disease, it's outside the CDC's purview.

If the problem is guns, and the only solution is banning law abiding people from owning guns, you're the problem. You don't get to use the machinery of the federal government for your political crusade.

On the other hand, if the problem you want to solve is reducing gun crimes that's different. Law enforcement sources, notably the FBI, track gun crimes at the national level. The "problem" with the FBI statistics is that they differentiate between "self defense" and "crime," rather than "It's all gun violence." (Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun grabber group, includes one of the Boston Marathon Bombers as a "victim of gun violence.") The other problem that the FBI statistics have is that they contextualize the information: The FBI statistics make it clear that there's much more "violence" than "gun violence" and that long guns (including the AR15) are a tiny percentage of the weapons used to commit crimes.

So there ARE statistics. It's kind of curious why people want it assigned to a different government agency than the one currently doing it.

Comment Re: Pray tell... (Score 1) 421

New START is a failure. Israel and Hamas remain at war. The shitty places in the world continue to oppress women and minorities despite Clinton's speeches. All you havesis "Madeleine Albright, who got a job from Hillary Clinton's husband, says Hillary Clinton improved the US's reputation in some nebulous manner."

A successful foreign policy means that your allies can trust you, you enemies have to fear you, and everyone wants to trade with you. The Obama foreign policy is a failure, and it's one for which Hillary Clinton is partially responsible for.

Slashdot Top Deals

Backed up the system lately?