You do realize that most of the people who wish to commit terrorism are part of a religion that teaches that killing those who do not share their beliefs is a guaranteed trip to paradise, right?
The nice thing about discrimination lawsuits is that most of the times the burden of proof is on the company...especially since you can get a list of everybody who interviewed for every position that the company has filled in the last x number of years and see how many of them are willing to testify that the company did the same thing to them.
There are two problems for MS. First, they are not as structurally big as IBM was when IBM had their problems in the 80s. Second, MS is putting all (or most) of their eggs in the Windows 8 basket. I just cannot see Windows 8 getting much adoption in the corporate world. It does not appear to be a good environment for being productive. It seems to me to be an environment for consuming entertainment media.
For example, is the LED getting colder? Could it be converting heat to electricity?
Wow, yeah they should look into that...Oh wait, they already did and the LED is indeed getting colder and they postulate that it is converting heat into light.
NO, actually they don't "need to take a look at what their 'closed system' is", because they already have and they tell you where that energy is coming from.
There is no need for an outright ban. As others have pointed out, the answers to questions that an interviewer is legally not allowed to ask (how old are you, are you married, what is your religion, among others) are pretty much front and center on most people's FB profile. So, the answer is to start to log on and as you are entering your information, mention that the applicants they do not hire will have the basis for a discrimination lawsuit.
Actually, I would not refuse, however, as I was logging in I would tell them that if they did not hire me, I would now be in a position to sue them for discrimination based on them essentially asking for information they are not allowed to request (that of course would be if I had a FB account).
Your post is why companies doing this is setting themselves up for discrimination lawsuits.
I opened these comments to read insightful posts refuting and supporting the arguments in the book with logic and evidence. I found 100 posts of partisan political bickering without a shred of useful content.
Today I am ashamed to be part of Slashdot.
Did you read the summary first? I came here looking to see where the slashdot zeitgeist went with this one. I have noticed that on topics like this they tend to be skewed either very much towards expanding government power or towards reducing it. This one seems to actually fall somewhere in the middle. although in this case it appears that that is because the author of the book review (and possibly of the book as well) has managed to support the parts from either side that the sides on slashdot, for the most part, fail to support.
So, the government organization that is supposed to regulate the banks has been taken over by the big banks and your solution is more government regulation? I ask this question because your phrasing seems to imply that your post counters the OP in some way, when in fact you demonstrate his point. His point is that government regulatory agencies get subverted by the big players and end up serving their purposes every time and you counter that with an example that purports that a government organization has been subverted to serve the purposes of the corporations it was created to regulate.
A private citizen making a statement (regardless of the platform) is not the same as an advertisement paid for from the general treasury of a corporation.
But the NYT is not a private citizen. The NYT is a corporation. The NYT endorses candidates, not an individual who happens to work for the NYT, rather an individual who represents the NYT and not always an individual sometimes it is "the editorial board" (at least at some newspapers).
You are missing the fact that this incident occurred four months ago. Additionally, exactly where in the story did you see that he has had any opportunity to challenge this order? He is under an order to not spend any unsupervised time with his own child for the indefinite future. There is no suggestion that this order may expire at some point.
Yes, it is possible that when social services investigated this, they found that he was on the UK Sex offender registry. I might be comfortable with this if there was some forum whereby he could actually challenge this ruling by social services and have at least a remote chance of getting it overturned. The story seems to imply that there is no such forum in the UK.
Over people, because those who didn't report and are later discovered become automatically suspects, so they can be threatened.
Except that this demonstrates that those who do report automatically become suspects. The problem with the thinking that you are outlining (and it is common among many with power) is that while it increases the feeling/b. of power that the police have, it actually reduces their power to change people's behavior. If the police are going to treat me as guilty whenever they interact with me, than I have no reason to treat them with respect, I merely have to refrain from giving them justification to hurt me.
I was replying to your last sentence "The immune system is tricked into taking action against cancer cells by attaching cells it already combats to the cancer cells." My point was that instead of attaching cells the immune system already atacks to cancer cells this appears to reprogram the immune system cells so as to allow them to recognize cancer cells as "foreign", as opposed to standard immunization that "merely" cause the immune system to produce more cells which will attack a particular antigen that they already recognize as "foreign".
You appear to be under the impression that T-cells are not part of the innate human immune system. This is based, at least on part, on research such as that which you reference in your links.
You are close. However, this seems to be more of the immune system is tricked into taking action against cancer cells by telling it that features of cancer cells that it does not currently take note of are indicative of a foreign agent. What appears to be unique about this, as opposed to traditional methods of vaccination, is that it involves "reprogramming" the T-cells so that they are capable of attacking cells on the basis of the markers that have been chosen.
Actually, with the airbag issue (and the seatbelt issue before it), the free market could have resolved it, but some people decided to short circuit that process and have the government mandate that they be installed. I was not aware of what was going on when the seat belts were mandated so I do not know how that would have played out. However, I remember when the government mandate for airbags was instituted. At that time, car manufacturers were starting to install airbags as a competitive option. That is some models came with them standard and the car manufacturers advertised this fact as a selling point. Additionally, many more models had airbags as an option that could be added on. The number of cars that offered airbags (either standard or as an option) was rising rapidly as public awareness rose and costs came down. The government mandate drove the costs down further, but still raised the price of the lowest price cars and reduced the mpg of the most fuel efficient cars (by increasing the weight of those cars).
1) If self driving cars are proven to improve safety, all else being equal it's irresponsible to resist using them purely for the sake of personal enjoyment.
The thing is, all else will not be equal. Whatever makes the car a "self-driving car" will increase the cost of production. THis is actually an overall problem we have in this country (and probably in all developed nations). There is to much, "but this makes it safer" without enough analysis of the costs involved. For example, I do not think we have done enough analysis as to whether or not airbags are worth the total cost. While people have considered the cost of initially installing airbags as part of manufacture, I do not believe that people have really considered the cost of airbags over the lifetime of a car. The fact of the matter is that airbags reduce the overall useful lifetime of a car. For most cars the factor that renders them no longer worth maintaining is when the airbags need to be replaced (whether through age or deployment). This may not happen the first time the airbags need to be replaced, if they deploy in an accident in a new enough car, but even there they drive up the cost of repair, and thus drive up the cost of everyone's insurance.
You don't need to run an independent candidate. It is not that hard to take over the local political party machine...it just takes time, effort and committment.
You are an example of the problem. There have only been five Congressional elections and two Presidential elections since the TSA was established. In the first two Congressional elections and the first Presidential election, reining in/getting rid of the TSA was not even one of the issues on the table. Even in the last Congessional election and in the OWS protests, the TSA has not been a significant part of the issues people were concerned about. If you want to fix this, you need to make people aware of the problems with it and campaign to get it eliminated. It takes years to generate the sentiment and interest to make this kind of change. You need to get the airlines and the tourist industries on board by convincing them that the TSA is discouraging people from traveling. There may be other industries that have a vested interest in getting rid of the TSA, you need to indentify what they are and harness that to oppose those who have a vested interest in maintaining the TSA. But all of this takes time and more effort than posting on slashdot.
While the things you mention are part of the discussion on self-driving cars, most of the posts opposed to the idea are built around one of two (or sometimes both) feelings/beliefs. The first is that the poster likes to drive and is not really interested in a car that takes that task away from them. The second is that self-driving cars will be completely trackable by the government (they will maintain a log of everywhere they have been and that log will probably be remotely accessible).
Stephen R. Donaldson is a great author, but his protagonist is a completely unlikable asshole. I never liked his books, but they are very well written.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the people who are already marginalized who are drawn to that sort of rhetoric.
You mean, like doctors and engineers and other members of the educated professional classes?
You do realize that most of the people who wish to commit terrorism are part of a religion that teaches that killing those who do not share their beliefs is a guaranteed trip to paradise, right?
The nice thing about discrimination lawsuits is that most of the times the burden of proof is on the company...especially since you can get a list of everybody who interviewed for every position that the company has filled in the last x number of years and see how many of them are willing to testify that the company did the same thing to them.
There are two problems for MS. First, they are not as structurally big as IBM was when IBM had their problems in the 80s. Second, MS is putting all (or most) of their eggs in the Windows 8 basket. I just cannot see Windows 8 getting much adoption in the corporate world. It does not appear to be a good environment for being productive. It seems to me to be an environment for consuming entertainment media.
For example, is the LED getting colder? Could it be converting heat to electricity?
Wow, yeah they should look into that...Oh wait, they already did and the LED is indeed getting colder and they postulate that it is converting heat into light.
NO, actually they don't "need to take a look at what their 'closed system' is", because they already have and they tell you where that energy is coming from.
There is no need for an outright ban. As others have pointed out, the answers to questions that an interviewer is legally not allowed to ask (how old are you, are you married, what is your religion, among others) are pretty much front and center on most people's FB profile. So, the answer is to start to log on and as you are entering your information, mention that the applicants they do not hire will have the basis for a discrimination lawsuit.
Actually, I would not refuse, however, as I was logging in I would tell them that if they did not hire me, I would now be in a position to sue them for discrimination based on them essentially asking for information they are not allowed to request (that of course would be if I had a FB account).
Your post is why companies doing this is setting themselves up for discrimination lawsuits.
I opened these comments to read insightful posts refuting and supporting the arguments in the book with logic and evidence. I found 100 posts of partisan political bickering without a shred of useful content. Today I am ashamed to be part of Slashdot.
Did you read the summary first? I came here looking to see where the slashdot zeitgeist went with this one. I have noticed that on topics like this they tend to be skewed either very much towards expanding government power or towards reducing it. This one seems to actually fall somewhere in the middle. although in this case it appears that that is because the author of the book review (and possibly of the book as well) has managed to support the parts from either side that the sides on slashdot, for the most part, fail to support.
So, the government organization that is supposed to regulate the banks has been taken over by the big banks and your solution is more government regulation? I ask this question because your phrasing seems to imply that your post counters the OP in some way, when in fact you demonstrate his point. His point is that government regulatory agencies get subverted by the big players and end up serving their purposes every time and you counter that with an example that purports that a government organization has been subverted to serve the purposes of the corporations it was created to regulate.
Ghandi, Jesus, Buddha etc. Eh. Wait... That didn't work.
All three of those made fairly large changes in the world around them. Please define "That didn't work."
I think that story supports what I said, social services does not just hurt the parents, they usually hurt the children as well.
A private citizen making a statement (regardless of the platform) is not the same as an advertisement paid for from the general treasury of a corporation.
But the NYT is not a private citizen. The NYT is a corporation. The NYT endorses candidates, not an individual who happens to work for the NYT, rather an individual who represents the NYT and not always an individual sometimes it is "the editorial board" (at least at some newspapers).
You are missing the fact that this incident occurred four months ago. Additionally, exactly where in the story did you see that he has had any opportunity to challenge this order? He is under an order to not spend any unsupervised time with his own child for the indefinite future. There is no suggestion that this order may expire at some point.
Yes, it is possible that when social services investigated this, they found that he was on the UK Sex offender registry. I might be comfortable with this if there was some forum whereby he could actually challenge this ruling by social services and have at least a remote chance of getting it overturned. The story seems to imply that there is no such forum in the UK.
They don't help kids, they just hurt parents!
That is completely and utterly false. Social Services does not just hurt parents...they usually hurt the children as well.
Over people, because those who didn't report and are later discovered become automatically suspects, so they can be threatened.
Except that this demonstrates that those who do report automatically become suspects. The problem with the thinking that you are outlining (and it is common among many with power) is that while it increases the feeling/b. of power that the police have, it actually reduces their power to change people's behavior. If the police are going to treat me as guilty whenever they interact with me, than I have no reason to treat them with respect, I merely have to refrain from giving them justification to hurt me.
I was replying to your last sentence "The immune system is tricked into taking action against cancer cells by attaching cells it already combats to the cancer cells." My point was that instead of attaching cells the immune system already atacks to cancer cells this appears to reprogram the immune system cells so as to allow them to recognize cancer cells as "foreign", as opposed to standard immunization that "merely" cause the immune system to produce more cells which will attack a particular antigen that they already recognize as "foreign".
You appear to be under the impression that T-cells are not part of the innate human immune system. This is based, at least on part, on research such as that which you reference in your links.
You are close. However, this seems to be more of the immune system is tricked into taking action against cancer cells by telling it that features of cancer cells that it does not currently take note of are indicative of a foreign agent. What appears to be unique about this, as opposed to traditional methods of vaccination, is that it involves "reprogramming" the T-cells so that they are capable of attacking cells on the basis of the markers that have been chosen.
Actually, with the airbag issue (and the seatbelt issue before it), the free market could have resolved it, but some people decided to short circuit that process and have the government mandate that they be installed. I was not aware of what was going on when the seat belts were mandated so I do not know how that would have played out. However, I remember when the government mandate for airbags was instituted. At that time, car manufacturers were starting to install airbags as a competitive option. That is some models came with them standard and the car manufacturers advertised this fact as a selling point. Additionally, many more models had airbags as an option that could be added on. The number of cars that offered airbags (either standard or as an option) was rising rapidly as public awareness rose and costs came down. The government mandate drove the costs down further, but still raised the price of the lowest price cars and reduced the mpg of the most fuel efficient cars (by increasing the weight of those cars).
1) If self driving cars are proven to improve safety, all else being equal it's irresponsible to resist using them purely for the sake of personal enjoyment.
The thing is, all else will not be equal. Whatever makes the car a "self-driving car" will increase the cost of production. THis is actually an overall problem we have in this country (and probably in all developed nations). There is to much, "but this makes it safer" without enough analysis of the costs involved. For example, I do not think we have done enough analysis as to whether or not airbags are worth the total cost. While people have considered the cost of initially installing airbags as part of manufacture, I do not believe that people have really considered the cost of airbags over the lifetime of a car. The fact of the matter is that airbags reduce the overall useful lifetime of a car. For most cars the factor that renders them no longer worth maintaining is when the airbags need to be replaced (whether through age or deployment). This may not happen the first time the airbags need to be replaced, if they deploy in an accident in a new enough car, but even there they drive up the cost of repair, and thus drive up the cost of everyone's insurance.
You don't need to run an independent candidate. It is not that hard to take over the local political party machine...it just takes time, effort and committment.
Voting hasn't helped. Contacting representatives hasn't helped.
You are an example of the problem. There have only been five Congressional elections and two Presidential elections since the TSA was established. In the first two Congressional elections and the first Presidential election, reining in/getting rid of the TSA was not even one of the issues on the table. Even in the last Congessional election and in the OWS protests, the TSA has not been a significant part of the issues people were concerned about. If you want to fix this, you need to make people aware of the problems with it and campaign to get it eliminated. It takes years to generate the sentiment and interest to make this kind of change. You need to get the airlines and the tourist industries on board by convincing them that the TSA is discouraging people from traveling. There may be other industries that have a vested interest in getting rid of the TSA, you need to indentify what they are and harness that to oppose those who have a vested interest in maintaining the TSA. But all of this takes time and more effort than posting on slashdot.
While the things you mention are part of the discussion on self-driving cars, most of the posts opposed to the idea are built around one of two (or sometimes both) feelings/beliefs. The first is that the poster likes to drive and is not really interested in a car that takes that task away from them. The second is that self-driving cars will be completely trackable by the government (they will maintain a log of everywhere they have been and that log will probably be remotely accessible).
Stephen R. Donaldson is a great author, but his protagonist is a completely unlikable asshole. I never liked his books, but they are very well written.