This ad didn't go through Slashdot's editorial staff. That's the problem. It's a paid advertisement posted as if it were editorial content. Kind of like newspapers do with those ads typeset in columns, or TV stations do with those half-hour hostess-and-pitchman ads. But without the "This is a paid advertisement" notice attached to protect what's left of their integrity.
The key word there is "originate". Most news stories that begin as PR material are reworked into stories before they are published. And if they can't be (such as this nonsense; there is no story – no news – in this ad), they aren't published.
I don't mind slashvertisements so much... as long as they're submitted as look-at-what-we-just-did stories by the company, are subject to pre-release rating like any other submission, and can be approved or rejected by the editor on duty at the time. It's the "here's some money, put this crap in your news feed" transactions, bypassing editorial review, that disgust me.
Legitimate news sources clearly differentiate paid advertising from editorial content. This practise renders Slashdot illegitimate. "Slashdot: News and ads for nerds, stuff that might matter."
"...unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful"
Probable cause is the standard for making an arrest in any case. Police routinely cite it with weaker justification than in this case, one which offers ample basis for a probable-cause arrest. Y'know... if they wanted to.
There's a very simple lesson here: If you think your work is worth something, don't give it away for free. Donating your time and the fruits of your labor to an open-source project or to a non-profit as charity work is one thing. But the harm that comes to a person from giving their work to a for-profit corporation is a self-inflicted injury. Furthermore, it doesn't just harm the people doing it, it also harms the professionals who are unable to do the same kind of work for a living, by undercutting them.
I'm not even going to pretend to read TFA. The summary refers to sexual orientation as something that employers aren't allowed to ask, but in most states in the US, that's simply not true. Apparently some idiot doesn't understand the difference between his state's laws and the laws in other states or federal law. Or just doesn't know jack shit about employment law, and is making assumptions. Guessing.
Under US federal law, sexual orientation is not a protected trait. The law offers no protection whatsoever to someone who is gay/lesbian/bi/transgender or who is perceived as such. Many states do offer that kind of protection. But many do not. Some cities offer protection. Most do not. An interviewer can ask, and if they don't like your answer, they can deny you a job. Or an employer can fire you from one you already have. There is no penalty for it. If this strikes you as unfair, maybe you should get off your ass and tell your Senator and Congressperson, so maybe they'll feel some pressure to pass ENDA someday. Thanks.
Once upon a time when I was looking for work, and collecting unemployment benefits, I was "this close" to a formal job offer from an organization which I knew had problems with gay people. To protect my benefits from the consequences of getting hired and then fired again, I told the HR director that I was gay, and that I was involved in publicly advocating for the rights of gay people, such as being interviewed briefly on TV about it the year before (which is why I had to tell her), hoping that by being up-front about it, I'd inoculate myself from unpleasant surprises down the road. She got very quiet, and the next communication I received was a terse form letter saying that they were not offering me the job. And that's when they're nice about it. I got to collect unemployment benefits for several more months while I found another place that would hire me.
Most employers don't ask. At least not directly. But I've learned that, unless I am willing to suppress any hint that I'm gay (e.g. mentioning that I am unmarried at my age), my employment options are limited. At least they aren't allowed to ask if I'm married or what church I go to, which might give me away, but I've had to go from "activist" to "passivist", effectively going back into the closet, because I can't afford the luxury of being an openly gay member of the workforce.
So to answer the question: I'm rarely asked illegal questions. But when I'm asked legal ones that I know will result in me not getting hired... I lie.
There's a world of difference between "rightly frowned upon" and "put in jail for". It's the difference between a civilized free society and a totalitarian police state. Congratulations, Brits: you live in the latter.
Zimmerman is not protected by the so-called Stand Your Ground law, which is bad legislation, but still doesn't excuse stalking and killing a person.
Zimmerman is being protected by the failure of officials in his locale to enforce state law and charge him with murder, officials who are (as far as I can tell) acting as accessories after the fact, just like the racist cops who used to look the other way and sit on their hands whenever there was a black man lynched.
On the infrequent occasions when I am on a plane, in the early/late phase of a flight it isn't the internet or the phone system that I particularly want to make contact with. I don't give a damn about 802.11 or 3G data access. I don't want to make stupid "where are you" phone calls... or carry on conversations of any kind, for that matter.
What I want is to be able to get back to the story that I was writing on my laptop, resume reading the book in my Nook, or consult the travel information stored within my phone reminding me of what gate my next flight is on, or what time I said I'd meet someone after arrival. All I ask is that the FAA spare me the enforced meditation, let me disable the potentially troublesome RF transceivers in my FCC-approved devices, and use them for anything else.
I asked an actual school teacher about this recently, and kids still learn how to tell time with the big hand and the little hand, because there are still countless clocks in public places for which they'll need this skill.
And considering the abysmal grasp of geometry demonstrated by adults of all ages, I don't think that "hands at 30 degrees above the horizon" would be understood as clearly as "10 and 2 o'clock".
When I'm on the road, I keep one hand firmly on each handlebar, my fingers lightly gripping both brake levers. If I need to use a hand for something else, I keep my right hand in place, because that's the one that operates the throttle on my motorscooter.
I get that this would render GPS systems less usable. But the notion that it would "cripple" them or make them "useless" is alarmist nonsense. You know, the paper maps that I used to keep on the seat next to me when navigating in unfamiliar territory didn't automatically scroll for me, and never indicated my current location. But they worked. Sometimes I'd actually exercise my brain and memorize a route ahead of time! This sounds to me like a bunch of lazy stuck-in-their-ways but-this-is-how-I've-"always"-done-it whiners complaining that they might have to adapt, rather than a reasoned argument for why changed functionality would be unsafe or non-functional.
"(I still have a microwave that has physical dials and buttons on it in the basement.. I dare not turn it on!)."
Really? I still have a microwave with a twist dial to set the cooking time, and a back-and-forth switch to select high/defrost, of mid-80s vintage. But I turn it on every morning to heat my oatmeal.
$345 for just the box, BluRay drive, and power supply? For another $250, Apple will give me pretty much the same thing, but with a computer and a bunch of software inside. (OK, only DVD instead of BluRay, but who still uses optical media these days?)
It's subsurface petroleum pushing up! Black gold! Texas tea! If confirmed, the US will have a manned expedition to Mercury to start fracking the hell out of that rock by 2015.
Slashdot Mirror
This ad didn't go through Slashdot's editorial staff. That's the problem. It's a paid advertisement posted as if it were editorial content. Kind of like newspapers do with those ads typeset in columns, or TV stations do with those half-hour hostess-and-pitchman ads. But without the "This is a paid advertisement" notice attached to protect what's left of their integrity.
The key word there is "originate". Most news stories that begin as PR material are reworked into stories before they are published. And if they can't be (such as this nonsense; there is no story – no news – in this ad), they aren't published.
I don't mind slashvertisements so much... as long as they're submitted as look-at-what-we-just-did stories by the company, are subject to pre-release rating like any other submission, and can be approved or rejected by the editor on duty at the time. It's the "here's some money, put this crap in your news feed" transactions, bypassing editorial review, that disgust me.
Legitimate news sources clearly differentiate paid advertising from editorial content. This practise renders Slashdot illegitimate. "Slashdot: News and ads for nerds, stuff that might matter."
"...unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful"
Probable cause is the standard for making an arrest in any case. Police routinely cite it with weaker justification than in this case, one which offers ample basis for a probable-cause arrest. Y'know... if they wanted to.
Did you try reading the whole comment? Even just the second sentence?
There's a very simple lesson here: If you think your work is worth something, don't give it away for free. Donating your time and the fruits of your labor to an open-source project or to a non-profit as charity work is one thing. But the harm that comes to a person from giving their work to a for-profit corporation is a self-inflicted injury. Furthermore, it doesn't just harm the people doing it, it also harms the professionals who are unable to do the same kind of work for a living, by undercutting them.
I'm not even going to pretend to read TFA. The summary refers to sexual orientation as something that employers aren't allowed to ask, but in most states in the US, that's simply not true. Apparently some idiot doesn't understand the difference between his state's laws and the laws in other states or federal law. Or just doesn't know jack shit about employment law, and is making assumptions. Guessing.
Under US federal law, sexual orientation is not a protected trait. The law offers no protection whatsoever to someone who is gay/lesbian/bi/transgender or who is perceived as such. Many states do offer that kind of protection. But many do not. Some cities offer protection. Most do not. An interviewer can ask, and if they don't like your answer, they can deny you a job. Or an employer can fire you from one you already have. There is no penalty for it. If this strikes you as unfair, maybe you should get off your ass and tell your Senator and Congressperson, so maybe they'll feel some pressure to pass ENDA someday. Thanks.
Once upon a time when I was looking for work, and collecting unemployment benefits, I was "this close" to a formal job offer from an organization which I knew had problems with gay people. To protect my benefits from the consequences of getting hired and then fired again, I told the HR director that I was gay, and that I was involved in publicly advocating for the rights of gay people, such as being interviewed briefly on TV about it the year before (which is why I had to tell her), hoping that by being up-front about it, I'd inoculate myself from unpleasant surprises down the road. She got very quiet, and the next communication I received was a terse form letter saying that they were not offering me the job. And that's when they're nice about it. I got to collect unemployment benefits for several more months while I found another place that would hire me.
Most employers don't ask. At least not directly. But I've learned that, unless I am willing to suppress any hint that I'm gay (e.g. mentioning that I am unmarried at my age), my employment options are limited. At least they aren't allowed to ask if I'm married or what church I go to, which might give me away, but I've had to go from "activist" to "passivist", effectively going back into the closet, because I can't afford the luxury of being an openly gay member of the workforce.
So to answer the question: I'm rarely asked illegal questions. But when I'm asked legal ones that I know will result in me not getting hired... I lie.
Libertarian, n:
A person who understands the difference between government oppression and free market oppression and prefers free market oppression.
Being stoned doesn't make you more insightful than anyone else. It just makes you stoned.
Nothing is "ageless".
So do we say that these planets "are" orbiting HIP 11952, or that they "were" orbiting HIP 11952?
There's a world of difference between "rightly frowned upon" and "put in jail for". It's the difference between a civilized free society and a totalitarian police state. Congratulations, Brits: you live in the latter.
"you have to admire their swift justice in dealing with this situation."
But I don't have to admire their swift injustice in dealing with it.
Doing something stupid faster doesn't make it any less stupid.
Zimmerman is not protected by the so-called Stand Your Ground law, which is bad legislation, but still doesn't excuse stalking and killing a person.
Zimmerman is being protected by the failure of officials in his locale to enforce state law and charge him with murder, officials who are (as far as I can tell) acting as accessories after the fact, just like the racist cops who used to look the other way and sit on their hands whenever there was a black man lynched.
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences."
That's absolutely true.
But when those "consequences" are imposed by the state, that is tyranny, and must be opposed.
On the infrequent occasions when I am on a plane, in the early/late phase of a flight it isn't the internet or the phone system that I particularly want to make contact with. I don't give a damn about 802.11 or 3G data access. I don't want to make stupid "where are you" phone calls... or carry on conversations of any kind, for that matter.
What I want is to be able to get back to the story that I was writing on my laptop, resume reading the book in my Nook, or consult the travel information stored within my phone reminding me of what gate my next flight is on, or what time I said I'd meet someone after arrival. All I ask is that the FAA spare me the enforced meditation, let me disable the potentially troublesome RF transceivers in my FCC-approved devices, and use them for anything else.
I asked an actual school teacher about this recently, and kids still learn how to tell time with the big hand and the little hand, because there are still countless clocks in public places for which they'll need this skill.
And considering the abysmal grasp of geometry demonstrated by adults of all ages, I don't think that "hands at 30 degrees above the horizon" would be understood as clearly as "10 and 2 o'clock".
When I'm on the road, I keep one hand firmly on each handlebar, my fingers lightly gripping both brake levers. If I need to use a hand for something else, I keep my right hand in place, because that's the one that operates the throttle on my motorscooter.
Clearly this has been caused by the rocket engines of a military force, on its way to Earth as we speak! Time to break out the biological weapons!
I get that this would render GPS systems less usable. But the notion that it would "cripple" them or make them "useless" is alarmist nonsense. You know, the paper maps that I used to keep on the seat next to me when navigating in unfamiliar territory didn't automatically scroll for me, and never indicated my current location. But they worked. Sometimes I'd actually exercise my brain and memorize a route ahead of time! This sounds to me like a bunch of lazy stuck-in-their-ways but-this-is-how-I've-"always"-done-it whiners complaining that they might have to adapt, rather than a reasoned argument for why changed functionality would be unsafe or non-functional.
Mine's a Goldstar too. I think we may have the same model. Yours kind of Macintosh beige, with a dark brown front? :)
"(I still have a microwave that has physical dials and buttons on it in the basement.. I dare not turn it on!)."
Really? I still have a microwave with a twist dial to set the cooking time, and a back-and-forth switch to select high/defrost, of mid-80s vintage. But I turn it on every morning to heat my oatmeal.
$345 for just the box, BluRay drive, and power supply? For another $250, Apple will give me pretty much the same thing, but with a computer and a bunch of software inside. (OK, only DVD instead of BluRay, but who still uses optical media these days?)
Oy.
It's subsurface petroleum pushing up! Black gold! Texas tea! If confirmed, the US will have a manned expedition to Mercury to start fracking the hell out of that rock by 2015.