> If you told someone back in the 90's that in order to get on a flight now
That's revisionist or just ignorant. Movies were already showing this eventuality (eg Total Recall). The ability to down planes with bombs came center stage in the late 80s, but the US population didn't support it (tacitly) until after 9/11
> There are plenty of examples of companies calling in John for an interview and not calling in Susan (or Enrique or Javon) even though they have duplicate resumes
This might be true of some industry, but there's no compelling case for it existing in software development.
> "Oh, this is all low-level device driver stuff. Not something a woman would be good at, so I won't waste my time"
If you think anyone would NOT hand this off to someone else, regardless of gender, I would love to know where you're swimming in so many candidates who understand the context that you can afford to discount anyone.
After 25 years, I've never even HEARD about gender discrimination (in hiring or tasking, within California), because finding a useful candidate is hard enough that nobody realistically cares about gender in software development. I've also never seen it, but have seen the opposite (men passed over in favor of young women) without the identical resume constraint. But sometimes it's obviously a chauvinistic preference for image, a prelude to predation, or a failure in competence.
> That contradicts a 2012 study in which academics gave higher ratings to hypothetical job candidates with male names than those with female names (and identical resumes). http://www.pnas.org/content/10... - This is not proof, but it is a study.
I mean, I don't see a lot of studies and not a lot of example companies that demonstrate anything either way.
> The more parts you split something into, the greater the overhead becomes, at all levels.
Organizations are already split at all levels. Formalizing the overhead is a net good. I don't understand how this is misconstrued. There's still chaos, but it's in smaller groupings.
> But Asimov fixed each of the problems in those stories
No, he did not. He had characters deal with the problems (with exception to weakening or removing the laws, which were inevitably to restore them to the 3 basics).
Why would this be unconstitutional? Why would anyone object to it at all? If a US company has data in another country's jurisdiction, there should be a legal mechanism for the US govt retrieving this data. The idea of everything being sent overseas to exceed the reach of the US government is even more dystopic.
The reverse should be true as a matter of being allowed to operate in the US to maintain parity, but that's another can of worms.
> "But as apocalyptic as it seems, sea-rise poses little risk to human well-being. " Ask New Orleans how that's working out for them.
This one sticks out as intentionally misleading. You actually highlighted that it's a local problem and not a problem for humanity, reinforcing the premise.
They do when the data points are tracked between locations. I don't see the point of splitting hairs over the timing granularity. The the intent of the cards is the same. To track volume, frequency and location. Again, this is just a more advanced version of a pedestrian practice that has existed for decades. Trying to avoid the tracking, seems self-defeating. The lack of basic attention to scripts, the hack directors, the wooden acting, is approaching horrific. The public sure doesn't seem to mind if there's enough explosions, but some of the moviephiles do. This is also a good way to give indie more visibility. YMMV
There always needs to be a disclaimer, of course, but this implied "scary intent" is laughable.
If the movie theaters want to know all about moviephiles and are willing to pay these people via the discounted/free activities they are super-invested in anyway, I think it's a great trade. Isn't that the basic idea behind grocery store discount cards as well?
> This wasn't the government banning him from saying anything,
Not interfering with a company to do the things the government can't (or wont), but would never allow internally, is different how? It's legal theater. In other matters, the government appoints a czar and pulls areas into purvey for "regulation" or more menacing, "enforcement" (Homeland Security). The retreat into a constructionist view has done nothing but encourage and promote injustice, while adhering to the letter of the imperfect law while allowing groups and committees, formed under the auspices of the public interest, to fill perceived power vacuums in the interest of private parties (although sometimes the public is served well) or outright protected private parties when behaving against the public interest. When intellectual honesty is punished and intellectual dishonesty is rewarded, in say...politics, isn't it in the realm of the same wrong? I believe that the 1st amendment was worded sufficiently, when a broad interpretation was used or, worse an ignorant one. That time has passed.
> How would they collect data or make money off of videos I don't watch?
Advertisers track what people don't watch, when offered as much as what people do watch. In digital advertising, it's one description of "optimization" and the brand-alignment retargeting (oh, you didn't click on Honda, I'll sell your preferences to Toyota and Ford and whoever else) has been dejour for decades (DoubleClick to thank for that). Youtube does something similar for content targeting and will attempt to serve you popular videos you specifically dislike, over and over.
> By 1997 pretty much every company of any size had a presence on the internet.
1997 was a very primitive time. In 1997, Amazon didn't even have UUIDs for books (beyond ISBNs) which was problematic for periodicals/resold/foreign inventory that didn't have them. By 2001, I had stopped encountering jobs to set up websites for existing companies in southern California. Maybe it would be more accurate to pin that assertion a few years beyond 1997.
Anything I need I can either photo with my phone and send or get printed at FedEx Office from Washington State to New York to Florida to Southern California. A printer is a waste of money and space, unless you are a business.
If I was to work there, how would they split the leave over someone who doesnt? Take a look at what the policy looks like, since it's been in the news a bit.
That's not a quantitative statement. Like most people who decried the memo (like the Quora link, just wow), there's a fundamental mismatch in what constitutes evidence and the bar for deducing conclusions. In the realm of carcinogens, far lower statistical deltas are used to make food safety determinations (in europe and the US) than what appear in the behavioral models in recent studies on gender proclivities. The memo was based on existing scientific analysis, despite the constant refrains that his memo was not, which is not to say there aren't differing views and studies. There always are and, in this case, almost exclusively by career ideologues. No equality of outcome behavioral study matches Finland's futile attempts, where there are still wide disparities in distribution that match biological gender. The idea that differing views are equally weighty, is just more of the same wishful equality of outcome hand waving. Damore's citations were relevant and removed early on in the smear attacks. That does not make the document baseless nor change existing behavior that you can re-examine. This is yet another particularly high-profile inconvenient truth that is not accepted, despite existing data.
You fail to make a compelling argument that changes the facts of the matter and you have had a lot of time to construct a coherent argument. I think you are just wrong on this one, due to bad ideology. Good Luck in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
> If you told someone back in the 90's that in order to get on a flight now
That's revisionist or just ignorant. Movies were already showing this eventuality (eg Total Recall).
The ability to down planes with bombs came center stage in the late 80s, but the US population didn't support it (tacitly) until after 9/11
> There are plenty of examples of companies calling in John for an interview and not calling in Susan (or Enrique or Javon) even though they have duplicate resumes
This might be true of some industry, but there's no compelling case for it existing in software development.
> "Oh, this is all low-level device driver stuff. Not something a woman would be good at, so I won't waste my time"
If you think anyone would NOT hand this off to someone else, regardless of gender, I would love to know where you're swimming in so many candidates who understand the context that you can afford to discount anyone.
After 25 years, I've never even HEARD about gender discrimination (in hiring or tasking, within California), because finding a useful candidate is hard enough that nobody realistically cares about gender in software development. I've also never seen it, but have seen the opposite (men passed over in favor of young women) without the identical resume constraint. But sometimes it's obviously a chauvinistic preference for image, a prelude to predation, or a failure in competence.
> http://www.insyncsurveys.com.a...
This is not proof.
> https://www.reuters.com/articl...
http://www.pnas.org/content/11... - This is not proof, but it is a study.
vs
> That contradicts a 2012 study in which academics gave higher ratings to hypothetical job candidates with male names than those with female names (and identical resumes).
http://www.pnas.org/content/10... - This is not proof, but it is a study.
I mean, I don't see a lot of studies and not a lot of example companies that demonstrate anything either way.
> Pay Trump, and you can do anything you want
That's not unique to Trump. Historically, not to the Clintons.
> The more parts you split something into, the greater the overhead becomes, at all levels.
Organizations are already split at all levels. Formalizing the overhead is a net good.
I don't understand how this is misconstrued. There's still chaos, but it's in smaller groupings.
I believe Github will only deploy to GVFS sometime after acquisition. This is one of the more obvious plans.
> Seems kind of limp-dicked when you've already made some pretty heavy concessions in the past.
I didn't make that concession. It was made before my time. Howsabout just stopping the slide down the slope?
> The whole point of the Three Laws was to illustrate the holes in the concept of the Three Laws.
> This is true
Indeed. The thought experiments were spawned out of the trivially porous "laws".
> But Asimov fixed each of the problems in those stories
No, he did not. He had characters deal with the problems (with exception to weakening or removing the laws, which were inevitably to restore them to the 3 basics).
> the proper thing to do if you disagree with the business model is to stop patronizing the model.
That's one opinion. Another is to not participate in the model that someone else wishes existed.
How deluded are you that you think there is an "us" and "them", in regards to the public's role in political parties?
Why would this be unconstitutional? Why would anyone object to it at all?
If a US company has data in another country's jurisdiction, there should be a legal mechanism for the US govt retrieving this data.
The idea of everything being sent overseas to exceed the reach of the US government is even more dystopic.
The reverse should be true as a matter of being allowed to operate in the US to maintain parity, but that's another can of worms.
> "But as apocalyptic as it seems, sea-rise poses little risk to human well-being. " Ask New Orleans how that's working out for them.
This one sticks out as intentionally misleading. You actually highlighted that it's a local problem and not a problem for humanity, reinforcing the premise.
> Store discount cards don't track your location
They do when the data points are tracked between locations. I don't see the point of splitting hairs over the timing granularity. The the intent of the cards is the same. To track volume, frequency and location. Again, this is just a more advanced version of a pedestrian practice that has existed for decades. Trying to avoid the tracking, seems self-defeating. The lack of basic attention to scripts, the hack directors, the wooden acting, is approaching horrific. The public sure doesn't seem to mind if there's enough explosions, but some of the moviephiles do. This is also a good way to give indie more visibility. YMMV
There always needs to be a disclaimer, of course, but this implied "scary intent" is laughable.
If the movie theaters want to know all about moviephiles and are willing to pay these people via the discounted/free activities they are super-invested in anyway, I think it's a great trade. Isn't that the basic idea behind grocery store discount cards as well?
> This wasn't the government banning him from saying anything,
Not interfering with a company to do the things the government can't (or wont), but would never allow internally, is different how? It's legal theater. In other matters, the government appoints a czar and pulls areas into purvey for "regulation" or more menacing, "enforcement" (Homeland Security). The retreat into a constructionist view has done nothing but encourage and promote injustice, while adhering to the letter of the imperfect law while allowing groups and committees, formed under the auspices of the public interest, to fill perceived power vacuums in the interest of private parties (although sometimes the public is served well) or outright protected private parties when behaving against the public interest. When intellectual honesty is punished and intellectual dishonesty is rewarded, in say...politics, isn't it in the realm of the same wrong? I believe that the 1st amendment was worded sufficiently, when a broad interpretation was used or, worse an ignorant one. That time has passed.
> How would they collect data or make money off of videos I don't watch?
Advertisers track what people don't watch, when offered as much as what people do watch. In digital advertising, it's one description of "optimization" and the brand-alignment retargeting (oh, you didn't click on Honda, I'll sell your preferences to Toyota and Ford and whoever else) has been dejour for decades (DoubleClick to thank for that). Youtube does something similar for content targeting and will attempt to serve you popular videos you specifically dislike, over and over.
> By 1997 pretty much every company of any size had a presence on the internet.
1997 was a very primitive time. In 1997, Amazon didn't even have UUIDs for books (beyond ISBNs) which was problematic for periodicals/resold/foreign inventory that didn't have them. By 2001, I had stopped encountering jobs to set up websites for existing companies in southern California. Maybe it would be more accurate to pin that assertion a few years beyond 1997.
What war crimes?
> 1. Mass White Supremacist Blowback from 8 years of having a black President.
I still don't think that demographic matters. Obama got re-elected, so they only get mobilized after 8 years? Absurd.
Anything I need I can either photo with my phone and send or get printed at FedEx Office from Washington State to New York to Florida to Southern California. A printer is a waste of money and space, unless you are a business.
> Split evenly with your wife?
If I was to work there, how would they split the leave over someone who doesnt? Take a look at what the policy looks like, since it's been in the news a bit.
My JP Morgan Chase offer, yesterday, included 4 mo parental leave for me (a man).
Ironic.
Atrocity is the correct term, if you consider speech violence or simply injurious.
> Fire is hot
That's not a quantitative statement. Like most people who decried the memo (like the Quora link, just wow), there's a fundamental mismatch in what constitutes evidence and the bar for deducing conclusions. In the realm of carcinogens, far lower statistical deltas are used to make food safety determinations (in europe and the US) than what appear in the behavioral models in recent studies on gender proclivities. The memo was based on existing scientific analysis, despite the constant refrains that his memo was not, which is not to say there aren't differing views and studies. There always are and, in this case, almost exclusively by career ideologues. No equality of outcome behavioral study matches Finland's futile attempts, where there are still wide disparities in distribution that match biological gender. The idea that differing views are equally weighty, is just more of the same wishful equality of outcome hand waving. Damore's citations were relevant and removed early on in the smear attacks. That does not make the document baseless nor change existing behavior that you can re-examine. This is yet another particularly high-profile inconvenient truth that is not accepted, despite existing data.
You fail to make a compelling argument that changes the facts of the matter and you have had a lot of time to construct a coherent argument. I think you are just wrong on this one, due to bad ideology. Good Luck in the world.