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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:As soon as you're invited to visit, I agree (na (Score 1) 193

I understand your "block entry to your own home" argument, but:

Once you're in the US (and while your outside the US), your rights as a human being should be fully respected.

I think this clearly shows the problem with your argument. People's rights as human beings should be fully respected everywhere, without exceptions.
To verify people are not "potentially dangerous" there is a visa interview and a background check.
Maybe the interview and the background check could/should be even more strict (it is already the worst). If they consider necessary to check people's phones, social media stuff, etc, they should request that in the visa application, when the person is still in his own country, not have thugs detaining and intimidating people at the border, threatening (at best) to make them lose a ton of money, doing stuff no country would allow.

Comment Here is the decision (Score 1) 131

For those who can read Portuguese: Sentença.
It's pretty good.

The judge says that according to Brazilian Labor Law (CLT), employee is "any natural person who provides services on a regular basis to an employer, under his or her dependence and on a salary basis", so the elements to recognize the employment relationship are: natural person (i.e. not a company - legal person), personal relation, regular nature of the relationship, onerosity (I've never seen this word in English, in this context means that there is payment for something) and subordination.

1. The driver is a natural person.
2. On the personal relation the main points the judge makes are: 1. That Uber requires previous registering from the drivers. The drivers have to send several documents, not have criminal antecedents, etc and, at the time, the driver had to pass an interview to be approved by Uber. 2. That the driver cannot give his account to another person in any way (rent, cede). He can only share his car with other uber approved drivers. In this point Uber defense was that the users cannot chose the driver, so it was not a personal relationship. The judge dismisses this argument by pointing out that the personal relation in question is not between the driver and the user, but between uber and the driver, just like the user doesn't choose the cook in a restaurant, but the restaurant chooses the cooks that will work for it.
3. On onerosity, the defense argues that the driver is paying uber, and not the opposite. So it is Uber that is providing a service to the driver and being paid. The judge dismisses this argument by pointing out that it is untrue. The facts he pointed are: there are several promotions where the user doesn't pay for the ride, but Uber still pays the driver; There are "promotions" where Uber pays the driver to be available, even if there are not enough rides; and the most important that the users pay Uber, Uber receives the payment, removes it's percentage e retain the rest, passing them along to the drivers at the end of the week. That shows that Uber not only mediates the businesses between driver and passenger but the opposite, receives for every service realized and later pays the worker.
4. On the regularity of the services, the judge points that it is a complicated matter, points some theories and ends up with pointing out that: 1. this driver was working regularly; 2. that if drivers are not available for long periods of time they are excluded from the platform; 3. that one of the drivers received an email threatening being excluded from the platform if he didn't make any rides in the following week. With this he points out that the defendant demands frequency from the drivers. Then he points that the non-eventuality of the relationship was even more evident by the theory of the ends of an enterprise. He questions what are the ends of the defendant? Is it a technology company that only makes the interface between people or a modern passengers transportation company? Then he gets the definition of a transportation service... It goes on for a while, it's late here...
5. On subordination he says it's the most important in the employment relationship. He says it is the most complex to identify. So its very long and I'm sorry. He talks about how the drivers cannot chose prices, cannot refuse rides, cannot hand out personal cards (I didn't know that), etc. Then he talks about how the control over the employees occurs in a different way nowadays, fact that was included in Brazilian law in 2011 (electronic means of control and supervision are equivalent to personal control and supervision he quotes from the law). He points that the control is diluted between the users and the algorithm, and that drivers are punished for being under 4.7 stars, or automatically terminated if under 4.4 stars or committing severe infractions (like handing personal cards).

With this he decided that there is an employment relationship, it's probably going to be appealed.
Good night.

Comment Sad (Score 1) 895

He was against the drone assassination program, actually pointed out that the US politics was creating terrorists. One of the few actually good things that I had to say about Trump was that he put up an anti terrorism support in the cabinet. Let's count the bodies and compare to Obama/Clinton to see if he ended up being worst.

Comment Good for diversity (Score 0) 363

If the youtubers people like (not me) are banned, a few million will enrage enough to ditch the google website.
This guy had 53 million followers, let's hope he takes his business elsewhere. The clearer the "censorship" gets the better. (Not real censorship in this case, but behavior manipulation).

Comment Is GTMO closed? (Score 3, Insightful) 564

Its incredible the double standard around here.

On one hand we have a man with 10 year perfect record for truth telling -> weasel, liar, attention whore because he won't surrender for the torture country;
On the other hand we have the mass murderer, who kept people who lied to congress in control of the intelligence, that was caught lying to help his candidate, and that didn't stop the human right abuses he promised to -> nobody is criticizing him.

I really hope he does not keep up with this "promise". Who will enable the next Manning? Who will save the next Snowden? The Guardian? WP? Only Wikileaks go the extra length to protect whistleblowers and to publish the truth in adversity. We need Assange free and working more than we need him keeping up with his PR stunts.

Comment Re:Strange Logic (Score 2) 278

Manning was just a show-off trying to data-dump anything she could get her hands on without a greater purpose in mind. She did it because she could, not because she had any morale compass.

According to Manning in her final statements:

I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables, this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the effected environment every day.

When someone claims a purpose that matches his actions it seems wrong to claim they didn't have a purpose. Manning's leaks were what actually took the troops out of Iraq, when their government was forced to threaten taking American criminals to international court. Stratfor leaks relating to Syria show that officials believed the public would not support air attack without media attention to a massacre. Obama bombarded Libya without congressional approval.
She not only had a purpose, but she actually achieved it.

Slashdot Top Deals

The next person to mention spaghetti stacks to me is going to have his head knocked off. -- Bill Conrad