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


Forgot your password?
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: It is just a decent thing to do (Score 1) 40

Don't want fraudulent items, make them in your own country.

You're either a (lame) troll, or utterly clueless about how quickly knock-offs are created based on nothing more than things like product photos on the designer's web site. All a knock-off company has to do is place an order for an item (and return it, later - free access!) in order to inspect it closely enough to make a sellable ripoff version. No, not every knock off (or even most of them) is made by scam artists at the factory making the original, and brand owners are increasingly able to police that since that practice became more prevalent over the last few years.

Comment Re:bloviated shit gibbon (Score 1, Informative) 529

while cutting Meals on Wheels

This is Fake News, which you know. So, the question is, why are you lying about it? It's something that's so easily debunked that you have to know anyone well-informed will know you're lying - so why do it? Which low-information audience are you taking to, and what do you think you're going to persuade them to do as they take onboard the false narrative you're trying to sell? Really - I'm curious. What's your purpose?

Comment Re:The guy who cleared clinton ? (Score 2, Informative) 529

Whatever was the problem with Clinton was surely of much lesser magnitude than Trump's people having secret dealing with foreign state entities.

What? So, Hillary Clinton and her husband personally rake in millions of dollars selling access to foreign dictators, and she conducts all of her correspondence on a server in her house in order to avoid FOIA scrutiny of her conduct in such matters, and then fails to turn over her records as she left office (as required by law), and the foot-drags for years and even destroys records while under subpoena ... all while continuing to soak up cash from overseas businesses and governments in anticipation of getting the presidential crown to which she felt entitled ... and you're saying that's not as bad as some imaginary conduct by someone associated with the Trump campaign having done something that Obama's own DNI and other officials have said they've seen absolutely no evidence to suspect happened.

Comment Re:Comey? (Score 3, Informative) 529

Why are you lying? Isn't it sort of silly when the fact your lying is so easily established through publicly available records and actual video recordings of people like Comey explaining things to us?

In the week before the election, he notified congress that a separate criminal investigation DID turn up new evidence related to the investigation of Clinton's mishandling of classified information. Why was it new evidence? Because Clinton and her aides (who had been granted immunity) said they had already turned over every scrap of data or device containing any record of the emails that Clinton handled from the internet-connected server she ran out of her house. This wan't true, of course. They had NOT turned over all of that data, or the devices on which it was stored. Because Clinton's closest aide had hundreds of thousands of such records on a laptop in her home - something that didn't come to light until the investigation into her husband's criminal activity exposed that fact. The FBI told congress about this, because congress was in the middle of investigations that relied on the FBI providing them with all such information, and the FBI - which had taken Clinton at her word that all such material had been turned over - suddenly found themselves with hundreds of thousand of new records to sort through, some of which might indeed cover some of the material that Clinto had destroyed while under subpoena. You don't think that matters? Or more to the point, you so wish it weren't the case that you're willing to try to lie it away from having happened?

And never told anyone they were investigating Trump.

Gee, I wonder why? Maybe it's because they WEREN'T "investigating Trump" at the time, and still aren't. They're investigating the manner and degree to which the Russians tried to influence public opinion during the election, and owing to political pressure, are including in that investigation whether or not individuals "associated with the campaign" had anything to do with such activity. They've also said, more than once, that they've seen no evidence at all that indicated any such thing. So what is it exactly that you're thinking they were supposed to disclose? They have nothing to show because they haven't seen anything - unlike in the Clinton case, where they had abundant evidence of her repeatedly lying, destroying evidence, and more. They pointed out that they weren't going to be able to get the Obama administration to prosecute the case, though they did say that if had been anyone else (besides Clinton) things would have been handled differently. I know, you're really trying to wish all of that away.

Comment Fake News Headline (Score 1, Informative) 529

What the FBI says they're investigating is Russian attempts to interfere with the election. This includes investigating whether or not anyone associated with the Trump campaign did or did not have any involvement with such Russian efforts. And Comey has repeatedly gone to great lengths to point out that he can't talk about which individual people are or aren't reviewed as part of that investigation into Russia's actions. At no point have they said what the OP's headline implies - that they're "investigating the Trump campaign."

The hearing, on the other hand, HAS spent a lot more time examining the circumstances under which someone working on the Obama administration's watch committed the serious federal felony of publicly disclosing the details of surveillance that swept up the conversations of a US citizen - identification of which should have remained "masked," and which could only have been unmasked by high-level officials within the Obama administration. The FBI says they are vigorously pursuing who committed that felony.

Comment Re:It's not ambiguous at all (Score 1) 331

Yes, it's called contract law. If the employer or the employee don't do what was agreed to, the courts are there to provide backup muscle for the consequences of breaching that contract. That's different than a law that says those two parties shouldn't be allowed agree on what it means to be a truck driver serving the particular needs of that employer under terms that the driver is ready to agree to and take money for.

Comment Re:It's not ambiguous at all (Score 1) 331

No, you should get whatever you and the person paying agree should be the compensation - in the form, and on the schedule and terms that you both agree to. It doesn't need to get any more complicated than that. If the contract spells out overtime and and the employee can show breech of that contract, then it's lawyer time. If the contract makes it clear that people like employees doing long-haul trucking aren't paid overtime, then it really should be that simple. If you don't take that into account (as a driver, looking for a job) and negotiate a salary that you feel compensates you for the fact that job is a roller-coaster of no-work-days and long-ass-days, then that's on you.

Comment Re:It's not ambiguous at all (Score 1) 331

The legislature probably didn't think a reasonable person would be confused about the fact that prepping shipments and actually handling distribution are two separate things, so they didn't get too worried about the punctuation (though they should have, because some lawyer is looking for a way to make a bunch of cash off of the difference in the punctuation, never mind the obvious intent).

Comment Re:It's not ambiguous at all (Score 1) 331

So if shipping is part of distribution (we'll call them collectively shipubution for clarity), what would packing for shipubution be? That's correct, a specific step that is not being included in shipubution. So the packing is exempt, the shipubution is not.

What? The entire sentence is providing a list of the activities that are exempt. The don't list the activity of distributing the products as an exemption from the exemptions. Are you even listening to yourself?

Comment Re: Oakhurst Dairy is correct (Score 1) 331

Nonsense. In a serial list, the OR ahead of the last item means that you are looking at an entire LIST of "or" items. The lack of the comma doesn't change that. More specifically, shipment IS distribution. You don't do one or the other. You pack for shipment, and THEN YOU DISTRIBUTE. How are you foggy on this?

Comment Re:I know the way Slashdotters vote but... (Score 1, Insightful) 305

it's alarming to me how left-wing countries are rapidly approaching and embracing authoritarianism / fascism

It isn't "left-wing countries," it's lefties in general over the last few decades. There is no greater group of speech-muzzling little tyrants to be found. Try saying something out of alignment with the dictatorial left on a college campus like Berkeley - and get literally beaten bloody and unconscious. And then watch the lefty columnists in the school paper cheer it on! It's astonishing. Or would be, if we hadn't been seeing the liberals/progressives patting their brown shirts on the back for some years now. Today's left is all about power and silencing others, violently when they're in the mood to be that way, in order to get and secure it. And the left-leaning press cuts them all the slack they need in order to carry on that way.

Slashdot Top Deals

Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is supposed to be doing at the moment. -- Robert Benchley