I work at a busy pool in a rough neighbourhood, as a lifeguard. One time, after closing, we came across a backpack, that clearly had a big box in it (you could see the outline). The bag was locked shut with a lock, and it was also chained to a bench. This was particularly unusual, and we were about to call the police (who would probably call the bomb squad) when a patron came back out. Turns out it wouldn't fit in a locker and so that was how he secured it.
What are you supposed to do? Assume it's fine when you aren't sure?
It's just I don't think a*hole-ness is a protected ground...so I don't get the grandparents problem. None of the protected grounds translates into whether you can "work well as a team." That characteristic is based on other traits, non-protected traits, rather than if you are gay/muslim/female etc.
If you've already hired a team of a*holes, (or the boss is in fact one herself) I can see why you would be tempted to discriminate, but then honestly you have bigger problems you need to deal with. Being an a*hole is not a bona fide grounds for discrimination, just like it isn't a valid excuse for breaking any other law.
You know what isn't illegal to ask: "Are you a bigot??"
Seriously, rather than asking the candidates if they ARE a Muslim/Gay/Transgender whatever, how about you ask everyone if they would HAVE A PROBLEM working with such an individual. Don't hire bigots and do fire the bigots. Then you'd have a nice "office culture" or whatever it is you're after.
But yea, punish the person who "sticks out" rather than all the people who irrationally have some sort of bigoted problem. How expedient.
It's so intrusive that the government says you can't discriminate against blacks or gays. How do any one of those questions "help" you, as business owner? Is there anything tangible (bona fide) beyond satisfying a pure bias against certain groups?
No, you're absolutely correct. I would have serious doubts about working for a business that would ask in the first place. That fact would definitely factor into my choice, as would my other job prospects and my ability to pay the bills etc. Their response would also be noteworthy: a truly positive response would somewhat redeem them in my eyes (i.e. "wow, we never thought of it that way, you're absolutely right") or if it was in fact a test for trustworthiness (as my parent suggested).
"I'm going to say no to you, potential employer, and here is why you should hire me over those who applicants who comply. When people add me as a friend and grant me access to their page, they are trusting me with information. When they contact me privately, they are trusting me not to share what they say. If, in the future, I were to leave this company and a future company asked me for confidential secrets regarding your business, you would rightfully expect that I would decline to cooperate. The fact that I am risking an employment opportunity by declining to cooperate with you here shows you that I am a trustworthy person, even under duress, and other candidates who cooperate with you are not so much."
These examples are the exception. The lab mouse is the closest non-primate relative on the evolutionary tree (I believe). It's also a suitable model because of their short lifespans and ease of care. Morally, it's more appealing to many because of the apparent lower level of intelligence.
I suppose using primates between mice and humans might make sense, provided they were administered in a similar manner to current clinical trials on humans. If it's ethical for humans to receive the clinical trial, then it's hard to imagine a solid argument as to why it would be seriously unethical for primates. Of course non-human primates can't exactly give informed consent, and that would be the one main difference.
Scan the books yourself. Don't pay for it twice. I can't imagine this being illegal on books you already own. (And they can't exactly put DRM on physical books.)
If there is oxygen there, then it's worth seeing if it can support human life, which would make it immensely more cost-effective to mine or colonize there? Even if it's too cold, if the atmosphere could support life then the main problem would be heating and possibly radiation shielding.
A Wikipedia search suggests it can't, but if other moons could the point stands.
Slashdot Mirror
so much win.
I second that. All I can say is I'm glad it is not HP executing this plan.
Alternatively, I'm wondering if this violates the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA.
Even if this hacking would otherwise be legal, the anti-circumvention clause does not allow for such a defense.
At first read, I was hoping they meant patent/copyright trolling.
Outlawing IP trolling would be a hell of a lot more constitutional than this nonsense.
I have to agree.
I work at a busy pool in a rough neighbourhood, as a lifeguard. One time, after closing, we came across a backpack, that clearly had a big box in it (you could see the outline). The bag was locked shut with a lock, and it was also chained to a bench. This was particularly unusual, and we were about to call the police (who would probably call the bomb squad) when a patron came back out. Turns out it wouldn't fit in a locker and so that was how he secured it.
What are you supposed to do? Assume it's fine when you aren't sure?
It's just I don't think a*hole-ness is a protected ground...so I don't get the grandparents problem. None of the protected grounds translates into whether you can "work well as a team." That characteristic is based on other traits, non-protected traits, rather than if you are gay/muslim/female etc.
If you've already hired a team of a*holes, (or the boss is in fact one herself) I can see why you would be tempted to discriminate, but then honestly you have bigger problems you need to deal with. Being an a*hole is not a bona fide grounds for discrimination, just like it isn't a valid excuse for breaking any other law.
I can see why hiring is risky for you if you choose to discriminate on prospective employees.
So much win.
You know what isn't illegal to ask: "Are you a bigot??"
Seriously, rather than asking the candidates if they ARE a Muslim/Gay/Transgender whatever, how about you ask everyone if they would HAVE A PROBLEM working with such an individual. Don't hire bigots and do fire the bigots. Then you'd have a nice "office culture" or whatever it is you're after.
But yea, punish the person who "sticks out" rather than all the people who irrationally have some sort of bigoted problem. How expedient.
It's so intrusive that the government says you can't discriminate against blacks or gays. How do any one of those questions "help" you, as business owner? Is there anything tangible (bona fide) beyond satisfying a pure bias against certain groups?
I am lawyer representing Monster Cable. Stop using the word "Monster" in this unauthorized way or you will face a lawsuit.
Doesn't the fact that it's government owned invoke first amendment questions?
No doubt, but it's easiest to discipline the lowest people on the totem pole.
No, you're absolutely correct. I would have serious doubts about working for a business that would ask in the first place. That fact would definitely factor into my choice, as would my other job prospects and my ability to pay the bills etc. Their response would also be noteworthy: a truly positive response would somewhat redeem them in my eyes (i.e. "wow, we never thought of it that way, you're absolutely right") or if it was in fact a test for trustworthiness (as my parent suggested).
I think the way I would put it is this:
"I'm going to say no to you, potential employer, and here is why you should hire me over those who applicants who comply. When people add me as a friend and grant me access to their page, they are trusting me with information. When they contact me privately, they are trusting me not to share what they say. If, in the future, I were to leave this company and a future company asked me for confidential secrets regarding your business, you would rightfully expect that I would decline to cooperate. The fact that I am risking an employment opportunity by declining to cooperate with you here shows you that I am a trustworthy person, even under duress, and other candidates who cooperate with you are not so much."
One hand, six o'clock.
To trumpet the merits of free trade to the rest of the world, of course.
No need to be mean. You made a good point and ruined it by trying to make yourself feel superior.
If the US shared the tech allowing equal defense for all maybe China and Russia would feel better.
These examples are the exception. The lab mouse is the closest non-primate relative on the evolutionary tree (I believe). It's also a suitable model because of their short lifespans and ease of care. Morally, it's more appealing to many because of the apparent lower level of intelligence.
I suppose using primates between mice and humans might make sense, provided they were administered in a similar manner to current clinical trials on humans. If it's ethical for humans to receive the clinical trial, then it's hard to imagine a solid argument as to why it would be seriously unethical for primates. Of course non-human primates can't exactly give informed consent, and that would be the one main difference.
Exactly. What more proof do you need than Rogers and telus ASKING to be regulated by the CRTC?
http://diybookscanner.org/
Scan the books yourself. Don't pay for it twice. I can't imagine this being illegal on books you already own. (And they can't exactly put DRM on physical books.)
That said it is probably the smartest thing in their governmental buildings.
I think if I agreed I would be reprogramming my cell phone camera to 'record' a 24/7 feed of YouPorn.
If there is oxygen there, then it's worth seeing if it can support human life, which would make it immensely more cost-effective to mine or colonize there? Even if it's too cold, if the atmosphere could support life then the main problem would be heating and possibly radiation shielding.
A Wikipedia search suggests it can't, but if other moons could the point stands.