Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:Better get started on that replacement... (Score 5, Informative) 502

Cynic in me says they are looking for someone who can be implicated as a terrorist supporter to be used to justify the ban.

Funny thing about that...

Trumps actual order has an exception for immigrants who are already in transit, viz section (e): "[...] when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States."

So holding people up at US airports just some ICE pricks trying to make a false narrative to paint Trump in a bad light.

I'd say you hadn't read the article you linked to, but since you quote it, and seem capable of English comprehension, I can only assume you are deliberately trying to mispresent the case. The "ICE pricks" are doing exactly what Trump has decreed. You conveniently left out the start of the section, which includes as the beginning...the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis...[including] when the person is already in transit...

So those 'ICE pricks' have no discretion. BOTH Secretaries of State AND Homeland Security must apply that "in transit exemption". AND they can't even do it by a class or group - they have to give approval for each individual. Before they can enter.

AND this exception only applied to refugees. Not to tourists or people visiting their families.

Comment You are so wrong. Re:Oh brother (Score 3, Insightful) 90

No.

FIRST was this (and who knows what else). THEN there was Snowdon. This is important.

One of the arguments in favour of Snowdon being an honourable whistleblower was this:

If he was malicious, he would have quietly stilen the data and sold it to the highest bidder. Like this guy did. And Snowdon didn't.

One of the (many) arguments in favour of Snowdon is that if he could *so easily* collect that information undetected, then other, malicious people could be doing so. And so it turns out. Snowdon alerted us to the weaknesses of the NSA security practices (amongst many other nobler services).

Vindication. Again. It tastes sweet. But not as sweet as a pardon.

Comment Re:Waze doesn't seem to have "avoid dangerous area (Score 1) 199

The closest thing I found was "avoid dirt roads"

I browsed through the source code when the client app was first released and you are indeed right. The option (at the time) to "Avoid Palestinian controlled areas" had been replaced with "Avoid dirt roads" in the worldwide code release.

Comment Time travel powered by cold fusion is the problem (Score 5, Funny) 344

Actually cold fusion works just fine, and powered the first practical time travel engine. Unfortunately, inevitably time travel leads to paradoxes until the universe (well the one with observers remaining) settles into a consistent steady state as increasingly improbably events take place until the result is no time travel.

Last time it was the bird with a baguette sabotaging the Large Hadron Collider at a critical point in time (ha!). http://www.theguardian.com/sci...

And poor Pons and Fleishmann are victims of the same process. No one (who will be believed) will ever be able to replicate their work. Something will always go wrong.

Oh, and don't try and take advantage of this information to do anything about it. I barely survived the Orca landing on my garage where my experiment was running, and I was 200 miles inland.

Comment Re:Ha! (Score 4, Insightful) 480

Imagine that.

Differences in pay exist for a reason: Because different people perform functions of different value to the company.

No. This is a common mistake. It is wrong.

Differences in pay exist because of supply and demand. If there are many people willing to do your job, then pay for that job will be low, even if your job is valuable (see nursing, teaching, etc). Yes, many jobs we "value" are highly-paid (but not all). But that is because there is greater demand (or less supply) for people to fill those jobs.

In short, do not confuse correlation (high value jobs have high pay) with causation (we do NOT give high pay to people with high value jobs because we value the jobs).

We pay people what we need to pay in order to find someone to do the job. That is the "value" of the job - as an economic valuation. Do not confuse that with the moral worth of the job. Or its intrinsic value to the employer.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The value of marriage is not that adults produce children, but that children produce adults." -- Peter De Vries

Working...