Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Question is (Score 4, Interesting) 150

The diagnoses were merged because the evidence had begun to suggest that they were different severities of the same ailment. If the evidence has begun to suggest that we're dealing with fundamentally different ailments then the diagnoses should be split accordingly. If not then you're shuffling names for the sake of politics and it's not a good day in science when that happens.

Comment Re:Was it illegal? (Score 1) 120

You don't need an excuse. Doing a U-turn when you see a DUI checkpoint is almost always legal.

You'll catch the cops' attention but the courts have ruled that solely turning around is not sufficient to generate reasonable suspicion of a crime which would justify stopping you. They might follow you a little while to see if you do anything that would generate reasonable suspicion, but if the cop pulls you over immediately he's probably breaking the law.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.findlaw.com%2Flegalb...

Comment Bullets don't do that. (Score 1) 2

Bullets don't cause large Internet providers to suffer wide-scale outages. The failure to implement and maintain industry standard N+1 redundancy does that. Bullets can only cause component failures in a system that either is or is not robust to single points of failure.

Comment Was it illegal? (Score 4, Informative) 120

Are we quite sure it was illegal? That's what was reported, but doing a u-turn prior to a DUI checkpoint is not typically unlawful. If this was a pretextual stop to check for drunk driving, and it really sounds like it was, they might not have had the reasonable articulable suspicion needed for a lawful stop. It happens more than you think. And clearly the "driver" was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. If they go impounding the car, the deep pockets who own it are going to figure out the legality right quick.

Comment JPMorgan Says $100K 'Prices Out H-1B' (Score 4, Insightful) 125

JPMorgan Says $100K 'Prices Out H-1B'

That's the point, right? Companies aren't supposed to bring in workers on H1Bs because they're cheaper than their local counterparts, they're supposed to bring in H1Bs because there _isn't anyone_ they can hire locally. That $100k fee will sort the difference right quick.

Personally I'm against H1Bs period. If you have skills we should be offering you a green card, not a visa that's as close to indentured servitude as we can legally make it. But short of revamping the immigration system to be more welcoming to high-skill immigrants, there's a logic to the $100k fee to make the H1B work as designed.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I've got some amyls. We could either party later or, like, start his heart." -- "Cheech and Chong's Next Movie"

Working...