Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:As usual, if its a (D) senator, no mention is m (Score 1) 336

of the party affiliation.....

Don't be a Republican memeist. Every article I have read so far says specifically that she is the daughter of the Democrat Senator from West Virginia.

Tell me is that supposed to mean that she is a Democrat? And everyone from West Virgian is a Democrat, And BENGHAZI! And just to burst another bubble, I'll be that he is a big fan of Coal mining.

Aww hell, I might as well expose that you are lying From the link to the article:

One Democratic senator whose daughter has allergies has called for action and another Democratic senator's daughter is CEO of the company responsible for the price hike.

O hell, lookie here Right here in River city from the Slashdot summary!

One Democratic senator whose daughter has allergies has called for action and another Democratic senator's daughter is CEO of the company responsible for the price hike. And just to make certain you see it - I know some of you folks need a lot of repetition for the hard stuff to sink in.....One Democratic senator whose daughter has allergies has called for action and another Democratic senator's daughter is CEO of the company responsible for the price hike.

Any questions?

Comment Re: iOS sucks! (Score 1) 70

You can actually do all that yourself now with their App Store app on your iPhone. They'll let you walk right out without even checking your bag. Someone keeps an eye on the door and they know when you pay with the app. Can ask for a bag if you want. Pretty slick, hope more stores do that in the future.

Comment Re:If you are so sure (Score 1) 270

Now I'm not saying that you're exaggerating the amount of work you did in comparison to others (especially those tricksy women, amirite?), but it would be consistent with what we know about human nature and the actual data from the workplace of people who claim to work long hours.

My hours tended to be quite variable. We had 2 meetings a year that were brutal, and I had documented 100 hour weeks. Other times random meetings and experiments might add 10-15 hours. Support functions were really variable, and by nature random. And some times I worked a 40 hour week.

So any claims I might have made to the number of hours I worked, would be brute forced averaging.

note1: might there be a non-genderized clue in there? I thrive on chaos in a positive way. Some others probably hate it with a passion - my better half has next weeks meals and chores planned already.

So someone with children might not do so well with that - even though I would leave work at 5 to pick up the kid from daycare, then come back in. Flexibility. But still, a lot of people crave structure like plants crave Brawndo.

Might women as a group prefer more structure? Maybe - I'll probably catch shit from some quarters for asking the question. Do some lifestyle choices make a difference? Hell, a single mother has a lot less flexibility.

In a forum like this, we can often get slammed into one camp or another. For some, my questions above put me squarely in the patriarchy camp.

It also ignores that I put in a good bit of time in recruiting young women into STEM fields, I put off three promotions in order that a woman get one. A silly HR quota system, and since it didn't affect pay, I was okay with it.

And in the end, when faced with the dilemma that the Ledbetter act places upon employers, I suspect that I would have been moved to an entirely different position, apart from the regular folks. Why they didn't do that in the first place is beyond me. It would have eliminated some folks from being pissed at me, and avoided other issues as well.

Comment Re:Fair use (Score 1) 153

It would be fair use only if used infrequently. For example, if you want to quote someone else's article in your article, that's fair use. However, if your entire business is dependent upon making snippets from thousands of articles, that's no longer fair use, it's commercial use.

No, you're wrong.

First, fair use applies to both commercial and non-commercial uses. For example, when Mad Magazine did a movie parody, that would be fair use, even though the magazine us sold for an increasing cheap price and is a commercial venture.

Second, the previous poster didn't really explain it well. Fair use is when a copyrighted work is used without permission in a way that, but for fair use, would be infringing, but which is not infringing because it is in the general purpose of copyright to allow such a use. It's evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and is completely fact dependent. This, any particular use might be a fair use, but not just any use actually is.

There's a test for finding out whether a use is fair or not. It has four factors, though it isn't a matter of adding up how many factors go one way or another, and depending on the case, one factor might be treated as outweighing another. Plus, it's just a tool; other factors can be considered too.

The factors are: 1) the purpose and character of the use, such as whether the use is for profit or not, whether the use would advance the progress of knowledge by resulting in something new or otherwise helpful; 2) the nature of the work being used, such as whether it is fictional and therefore very creative and worth protecting, or factual, and therefore not worth protecting quite so much (how a work presents itself is also often relevant in copyright; if you claim that something is a fact, even though it's made up or is just a hypothesis, others may get to treat it as a fact) as well as whether the work being used has already been published or not; 3) the amount of the work used, and how important to the work that portion is; and 4) whether the use will have a negative effect on the value or market for the work (positive effects are not considered).

Snippets of this type -- in aggregate, mind you -- have repeatedly been found to be fair use in the US because for the first factor, although the use is commercial in nature, it provides a benefit to society in being able to search for this material (which of course requires as much material as possible to be used in constructing the index, even though the index itself, as opposed to the results of a search, is not made available), the second factor may weigh against the use depending on the material being indexed, but it is not treated as being very important, obviously the whole work must be used to make the index for the index to be useful, so the third factor doesn't matter, and for the fourth factor, it doesn't harm the market for news articles to be able to find them and to see in one or two lines why they match your search terms. It doesn't matter if that's the business model.

And if you think this is extreme, look at time shifting, which is bad on all of the first three factors, but is sufficiently successful on the fourth so as to be fair use (in a general way, since again it is highly fact dependent)

Comment Re:Oh yawn... (Score 1) 207

So if he says I prefer BSD license because I don't care about my code

You have a big problem with comprehension. He's not saying it's THE reason why YOU prefer it. He's saying it's a good match IF you don't care what others do with the code. He's talking about what the licence is good for, not about the people who use it.

No, really. I was talking to Linus just the other day over latte's and scones, (such an eclectic fellow our lad is) and he was telling me, "There's this fucking programmer that goes by QuietLagoon, and I can't stand that damned idiot. Always fucking disagreeing with me, and piss on that" (oh, our salty tongued lad, that Linus is)

But he closed with saying "I know this fucking QuietLagoon and his ways. I'll be watching that bastard, because this is personal between me and the him."

Comment Re:If you are so sure (Score 1) 270

Did you miss the bit about "equal work"?

And the definition of equal work is what?

As one person told me when discussing this subject "My bread costs the same as yours. He was in big favor of a Union-like rule that if you are a sheet metal worker, that the newest and most experienced should get exactly the same pay.

I'll note that as he put in more years, it didn't seem quite so fair.

Regardless, there are people out there that demand that.

Let us take the Patriarchy out of the equation and deal with an only female situation

So tell me. A Woman who takes a year off from her position every time she has a child, should she be paid the same as a person in the same job who continued to work those 10 years?

This is not a hypothetical question. We had a staff assistant who over a 10 year period, had three children, and took the max leave each time.

And in an odd twist of equality, she got her her job back each time. While that sounds like the height of equality, that meant that her activity cost three other women their jobs, as the temporary workers lost theirs when she came back.

And if you asked her, almost certainly she will say yes. Her co-workers? Maybe not so much. The three women who lost their jobs? I dunno, they weren't around to ask.

If you were to ask the people who worked with me yet were making a third of what I was - I wonder what their response would be. I know many didn't like it one bit. That didn't cause them to start working harder.

The Ledbetter act, that modifies the Equal Pay act (1963!!) also known as the Fair Pay Act of 2009 shows a prima facie cas as:

Prohibits paying employees in a job dominated by a particular sex, race, or national origin less than employees in another job dominated by the opposite sex or a different race or national origin, if the jobs are “equivalent” and in the same establishment. “Equivalent jobs” means “jobs that may be dissimilar, but whose requirements are equivalent, when viewed as a composite of skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions.”

An affirmative defense to the charges has to be

“Factor other than sex” – employer must prove: (1) such factor is either job- related with respect to the position in question or furthers legitimate business purpose; and (2) that such factor was actually applied and used reasonably in light of asserted justification. Employees could rebut legitimate business purpose defense by demonstrating that an alternative employment practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing such differential and employer has refused to adopt such alternative practice. It's rather difficult to find the actual contents, with most people simply siding into their camps and battling it out. http://www.americanbar.org/con...

So I think the woman who had all the children in short order, might actually have a case. Why should she be paid less than teh other women who did not make the choice to do that?

And as for the law, as I see it, my seniority or work skills are not applicable under the new law, a woman or whatever gender one feels like using, who refuses to work any more than 40 hours a week will have a successful lawsuit. Based on our genders - no one owuld ever expect her to say it wasn't gender based. Thoughts?

Comment Re:If you are so sure (Score 1) 270

I do not know all of the details of this equal pay business, so I could be talking out of my ass - wouldn't be the first time. But its not remotely cut and dried. Let's hope it doesn't become a least common denominator situation.

What, you think everybody is going to be at risk of getting the same pay, across the board?

Sure, whatever.

Meanwhile, my local police department just had to settle a lawsuit for over half a million dollars because of pay disparities. Some people got paid more. Some people got paid less. And there was ZERO explanation for it.

The pay was just different.

I reprinted your post because it was so interesting. Despite your "sure whatever part, your post in the next paragraph offers the disproof of what you say.. If no one knows why, it might have been to pay everyone the same. But hey! Whatev.

Comment Re:Cool (Score 1) 270

Fuck me, I'd forgotten how fucking awful comments on this site are.

Oh well. It's been nice, Slashdot. But I think we're done.

Trigger warning! Someone's about to post something......

SRSLY? Entitiy, if that comment pushed you over the edge, you sersiously need a safe area where no one dares utter a word you disagree with. That wasn't even designed to upset anyone.

If I knew you needed something to piss and moan about, I'd do a lot better than that post. I haz mad skillz.

Comment Re:If you are so sure (Score 1) 270

That's all good, but it still doesn't answer the question of how you suffer if someone else doing the same job makes as much as you.

Then we have to define Job and work. The job that a bunch of others and myself had was the same. The work we did? Along with one other guy who are professional and willing to put in extra. We did a helluva lot more work than the rest of them.

Which is all to say, if someone with the same job was doing as much work as I was, I don't have a problem if it was female, black, hispanic, gay transgender or a bunny rabbit.

If someone with the same job was doing much less, such as refusing to work anything other than 8-5, refusing to go on field trips to work, refusing to work the meetings, then yes, I do have a problem with them making as much as me for doing significantly less work, end especially less of the more demanidng work.

And while not all co-workers were like that - there was another guy who was seriously competent that I woked with, most of the others were not.

And there is an inconvenient truth that only two of the women were willing to do anything other than minimum. Those two were as hard working as my deceased frind and myself. Hell for big meetings, I would often finish people's work for them that would not otherwise be finished in time. This was known to management, and another reason for the pay differential.

So the question might be reversed, should everyone with the same job description be paid exactly the same, regardless of work output or experience?

That by the way, is as equal an inequity as the opposite.

Comment false statement (Score 1) 336

"is the only developed nation on Earth which allows pharmaceutical companies to set their own prices."

this statement is simply not true. Even in Australia they set their own prices and drugs not listed as being subsidised by government can truly have insane prices. The only thing we have is the government rejects drugs for the program subsidies if the pharma companies aren't reasonable in price. Being a government subsidised drug is far more beneficial than a limited market at high prices in most circumstances.

Slashdot Top Deals

How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? One to hold the giraffe and one to fill the bathtub with brightly colored power tools.