Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:First Amendment (Score 1) 131

You can shout "Fire" in a theater. There is no such prohibition anywhere. Especially if there is a fire. What you can't do, which doesn't fall into 1st Amendment arena, is causing panic without cause.

Congratulations, here's your medal for pedantic dickweedery. The example of shouting "Fire!" in a theater has always had the implicit assumption that there isn't really a fire. Everyone (except you, apparently) knows that, which is why nobody bothers saying it every time they bring up the example.

Comment Re:I'm still wondering (Score 1) 224

Automobile model years have started in the autumn for as long as I can remember. There's nothing illegal about it because "model year" doesn't tell you anything specific about the vehicle, so there's nothing that would be subject to false advertising laws.

Wait until you find out about corporate fiscal years.

Comment Re:Ironically I was quite a trekkie until this yea (Score 2) 206

So many of the plotlines are just neoliberal both-side bullshit refusing to take an actual moral stance on anything.

To be fair, Babylon 5 did that once in a while too. JMS said that his job wasn't to answer questions, it was to start bar fights. Believers is the prime example, though it's probably one of the least liked episodes of the entire show.

Comment Re:I remember when the phone companies (Score 1) 38

That's the neat thing - they haven't stopped doing this! The subsidized phone price the carriers give you when signing up is priced into the service plan. If you don't upgrade again when you're eligible (perhaps because you're elderly and don't follow the promotions), that's now all gravy for the carrier.

Do any carriers still do that? I haven't checked AT&T or Verizon, but with T-Mobile you can buy a phone from them and they just add the price to your bill over 24 months.

I think T-Mobile has only done it that way for at least a decade. I know that when I bought my Nokia N900 15+ years ago, I switched to T-Mobile because they were already giving a $20/month discount if you already owned a phone.

Comment Re:Hard to see Meta Losing (Score 1) 81

This is a civil case, not a criminal case, so the burden of proof is only preponderance of the evidence (A very oversimplified explanation: in a criminal case, if the jury says "I don't know", the defendant wins, but in a civil case, the jury can't say "I don't know", they must pick a winner). If Meta tells the judge and jury that they have no idea how the decision of who to lay off was made, it's going to be very easy for the plaintiffs to find one bit of evidence or explanation that will tip the jury in their favor.

Comment Re:Hard to see Meta Losing (Score 5, Informative) 81

The employees have to prove that their protected status was targeted to win, and that is a pretty tough sell IMO. It seems like the protected status was more of a side effect of "performance."

Not at all. If they use a metric of "Worked at least X hours in the past 12 months", and a person worked fewer than X hours because they were on parental leave, firing them would not be a "side effect of performance", it would be a direct violation of their legal protection.

Slashdot Top Deals

To do two things at once is to do neither. -- Publilius Syrus

Working...