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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Mostly for info (Score 1) 268

NPR (most stations) | Listen Money Matters | Stuff You Should Know | Ben Greenfield | Optimal Life Daily | Optimal Finance Daily | Optimal Health Daily | Brain Stuff | Psychiatry Today | Physics World Data-hungry, so these are on my list. I just added some from here now: Security Now | Freakonomics | O'Reilly (Data and Security) I'm afraid to ask for suggestions, but please do share.

Comment Not just the savings (Score 1) 250

Saving money wasn't my main reason for staying off cable; it just didn't make sense to pay for TV AND still be hit with commercials. And, in NYC, having to pay a sports tax for crap I don't even care about. Yeah, I'll stick to Netflix. There will be a study claiming that streaming services keep us on the couch longer; thereby making it unhealthy.

Comment 200k, that's it? (Score 1) 184

From the article, it looks like they may be looking at cost deducted from revenue. But how about the market impact? Wouldn't their overall net worth suffer an immediate blow too? Optimistically, it would recover over some time, but still leaves a stain in the company's image that may drive some investors away. But I'm sure they've accounted for this.

Comment Re:Racism or availability? (Score 1) 200

This! I just posted this below, but I'll repeat here: Should we cast blame on employers? What if we saw true numbers, and judge by those. I would be interested more in the applicants, than the ones hired. Could it be that simply there's that many less minority/female applicants? Of those minority/female applicants, how many get hired? This is a better number to look at, IMHO. I would guess that the number of white male applicants is just that much higher, so they would obviously have greater probability. Not fair that employers should have to increase their hiring from such a smaller pool. But, that's just my $.02.

Comment Another one of these? (Score 1) 200

Should we cast blame on employers? What if we saw true numbers, and judge by those. I would be interested more in the applicants, than the ones hired. Could it be that simply there's that many less minority/female applicants? Of those minority/female applicants, how many get hired? This is a better number to look at, IMHO. I would guess that the number of white male applicants is just that much higher, so they would obviously have greater probability. Not fair that employers should have to increase their hiring from such a smaller pool. But, that's just my $.02.

Slashdot Top Deals

You're using a keyboard! How quaint!

Working...