Shut up. Every generation says the same crap about the next generation (accept for their own spawn who are somehow angels). No generation in America has done more to destroy this country than the Baby Boomers. They will be the first generation to leave this country in worse shape than it was when they inherited it.
Want cheese and breadsticks to go with that fine whine?
In reality you're just an apologist for a narcissistic generation that never really got educated enough to be useful to society. Somehow they faked it until they made it and got into management and they are so incredibly delusional.
Shut up. Every generation says the same crap about the next generation (accept for their own spawn who are somehow angels). No generation in America has done more to destroy this country than the Baby Boomers. They will be the first generation to leave this country in worse shape than it was when they inherited it.
Want cheese and breadsticks to go with that fine whine?
"you're too young to understand" is possibly the lamest, laziest response.
And fairly often, it is the kindest response.
Other times, it is just getting you out of the way.
It was a metric shitload of fun when I would demonstrate to the millennial just how much more I knew than they did. It was like the difference between me starting on original Photoshop, and them starting on Creative Cloud. Like it or not millennial, there is something to be said for experience, and us olde fartes had to prove our worth - we didn't get participation trophies.
It might be better to say that Google expressed a staggering amount of bad judgment.
If they were an anarchist collective maybe, but they are a corporation and it seems it's only people here that are astonished when a corporation acts like one.
Insult the boss and you are out the door.
Ah, but there is an issue at hand. While it is true that in an at-will work environment, you can be fired for anything, the shareholders might not like it. They might not care either, but you are taking a gamble by inserting the corporation into a social issue.
This is similar to the situation encountered by Tesla when a female who was making problems was fired. After which she claimed harassment, and hostile work environment. Independent arbitrators concluded that the firing was justified because of her actions.
Damore is arguing against the position that 100% of gender differences are due to discrimination. All that is required is to show some evidence of gender preferences, and you have an alternative explanation that has to be taken seriously. Ironically, the it is you and the gender warriors who look at different outcomes and claim that they are evidence of bias. And that is mistaking correlation for causation. Jim Edwards should apply his own logic to his own position.
Logic?
If as feminists and parts of society believe that gender differences are due to discrimination, we need to understand the reason why there are almost no male veterinarians in training any more. https://www.avma.org/News/JAVM... Less than 25 percent male now, and still dropping.
Oddly enough, in this strange world where women can do no wrong ever, even this drop is being blamed on men. "Pre-emptive flight" http://blog.smu.edu/research/2... is where sexist men - apparently almost all men - see that there are women at a school, so they don't go to that school.
With as much certainty as I can muster up, most women are simply not interested in STEM.
What should be interesting is after all of the efforts to make STEM attractive enough to achieve the slight female majority which is apparently desperately needed fail, what happens then? Will we finally realize that we will have to aptitude test, then force those women that have potential into STEM careers? It is difficult to imagine pre-emptive firing of men to achieve the goal.
Because for most people, STEM is simply boring. http://www2.cipd.co.uk/pm/peop... And that includes young men. But less young men than young women find it boring.
And that was the feedback that I got from years of efforts to get young ladies involved in STEM in about as friendly an environment as you can imagine for women. They didn't find it interesting. But they went for law or business for those who were interested in a career, or women's studies for those who had an axe to grind. Law and business have some horrid sexual discrimination and practices that border on sexual assault, yet young ladies eagerly sign up for those majors. Hard to imagine the stereotypically shy introvert guys in STEM are that much of a problem for them.
So yeah - boring. It simply doesn't interest most of the young ladies. Just as it doesn't interest a lot of young men, even if more young men do find it interesting. For myself, the work is exciting, and has made for a good career, so I'm not at all certain how excitement can be generated for a large number of people who are more interested in externalities than the more internalized joys of science and technology.
But that does not fit within some people's agendas. Perhaps if this guy had phrased it as simply boring, he might not have been fired. Then again....
They tried to create a forum to discuss things, but people said they were scared to participate because they feared being identified.
Darn straight. Who on earth thinks that agreeing with the opinion of the guy getting fired will not get them fired as well? If you don't toe the Politically Correct line, there is proof that your opinion is an offense punishable by termination
Looking at how anyone not agreeing with this guy on Slashdot gets hammered down with -1 mods, it seems they have a point.
There is a difference between disagreement and discussion, and disagreement followed by termination, wouldn't you think?
Also, Google never claimed to be the "greatest defenders of the First Amendment".
Of course not. What they have done is well within their rights. I don't think anyone is arguing they don't have the right to do what they did. Only protected classes are immune, and being a white male is more of a target class.
But if we look at this as Google's free expression of their intolerance, what we see is what sometimes happens to people who express extremely unpopular opinions. Others have the freedom to react as is their right. And Google is reaping the rewards of their decision.
They had every right to fire the guy. They also get to reap the rewards of the enveloping shitstorm, and the costs of the soon to happen lawsuits. It will be amusing if a civil rights lawsuit happens. I suspect this fellow will not have to work another day in his life.
And the results is Google will have created a very toxic workplace, one where one's opinion dare not be uttered.
In their effort to encourage inclusiveness and tolerance, they have become intolerant and exclusive. No doubt others have similar misgivings, but are keeping their mouth shut now that Googles intolerance of dissenting views has been exposed. Google has become the very thing the claim to stand against.
This! Jeezuz K Rryst on a bulldozer, this!
It is nothing short of fascinating the number of people here who are claiming the guy is Alt-right, playing the PhD iz a lie!" card, while exposing their ignorance, and acting just like the right wing bigots they claim to be protecting us from, in the matter of defending the poor downtrodden under-represented victims of the fascists.
There is no doubt that in a world where not making waves is the key to continued employment, the guy was an idiot for expressing his opinion, with unsurprising results, if this was a (fill in the victim other than white male) sending out a memo stating something something, and was fired, the same people who are trashing this guy would be calling for human sacrifice.
Problem is, shit don't work that way. I read the memo. If that is a fireable offense, no one should ever speak up. Ever. Anyone offended by that needs to counter it with words, not squelching.
And that is the problem. When you want to pretend to have a diverse workplace, but if an employee's honest and legal opinion does not conform, and that employee is fired, you have just proved that the workplace is vehemently anti-diverse.
I'm all for freedom of speech and diversity of opinion, but
DRINK! When AmiMojo does a "I'm not a racist but" line, take a drink
And since we have an international audience in here, as well as a lot of fringe right wingers seem to think they can say whatever they want and no one is allowed to oppose it (think Ted Nugent's thinly veiled threats against President O'Blama) The right of free speech in the US means you cannot be arrested for expressing your opinion. There are exemptions, such as making a physical threat against a person or persons, or pronouncements designed to cause physical harm - the shouting "fire" in a crowded theater concept, and slander, making untrue and harmful declarations against a person.
So Google is within their rights to suppress what this guy wrote and end their association with him.
Having read the memo, I wonder if that was the correct move. He definitely didn't pass any of the litmus tests for actionable speech legal system excesses. The general tone of his memo was only inflammatory if a reader was not tolerant of any opinion contrary to their own.
So now we know where Gooogle stands on that spectrum. I'll give them a little wiggle room since the time if his memo was awful, coming in the midst of Google's problems with gender numerical equality, so they wanted to show that they were intolerant of divergent opinions.
So anyone with a divergent opinion needs to understand that they are not allowed to express it.
It depends how divergent... If you boss thinks that people of your race should be property, it's kind of difficult for them to continue managing you.
While that is true, I didn't see any pro-slavery references in his memo.
I'm all for freedom of speech and diversity of opinion, but clearly some opinions make doing certain jobs untenable.
I agree fully. This is not even a freedom of speech issue. It isn't as cut and dried as someone making a threat of violence or promotion of illegal activities or slander. It was the expression of an opinion that was intolerable. Especially in light of Google already being in some trouble for gender representation issues. I've worked with people who are zealots in that ideology. They are as intolerant a group as you will find. But that is true of most idealogues.
This isn't even a pronouncement of his being right or wrong. He was an idiot. He deserved being fired for being an idiot, if not for expressing his opinion. See my previous paragraph.
I suspect that Google might have some issues getting people to express any opinions in the future, however.
He won't get a penny, because Google will just point to all the screaming conservatives who were emboldened to express their belief that women are inferior as evidence of creating a toxic environment.
So anyone with a divergent opinion needs to understand that they are not allowed to express it. That is pertty simple.
Google can help with the wrong headed people by putting out a manifest telling them what allowable opinions are.
Anyhow, the guy should have been fired because he is an abysmally stupid ass for stating his opinion in a memo. Keep the mouth closed if your opinion isn't politically correct and allowable. There are example on both the left and right of the political spectrum.
So to get more diversity in Google, we need them to get rid of an entire class of people. Once everyone looks, acts, and thinks exactly alike, then we will have the best diversity ever!!!
It is an uncomfortable truth that in order to achieve male and female equal numerical representation that women are going to have to be forced into the positions whether they want to work in STEM or not.
Reading the memo, there are certain parts that I agree with, and certain parts I do not.
The author injects too much left/right stuff into his memo.
However, make no mistake, he is correct in stating that there are issues that are too sacred for discussion - getting fired is proof of that.
But seriously men, learn from this. If you have an opinion that is not in lockstep with management, don't give it to anyone.
If you want to keep your job, keep your fucking mouth shut. There are corporate and societal "truths" that will not accept any ideas other than what you are told your opinion is. Freedom of speech does not mean you can say anything you want - it just means that the government cannot arrest you.
Regardless, this goes on in both left wing and right wing companies. Google is no exception.
And if your opinion isn't what your opinion is allowed to be - keep that yap shut, or get another job where you are allowed to have that opinion without getting shitcanned.
GPS only tells me where I am, and nothing else (of course it calculates heading and speed from repeated positions), in particular it does not tell me anything about other traffic.
This whole GPS versus Loran business is for some facacta reason, is presented in range war fashion, yet what Loran does is give us land based location that is one way. It's a fine adjunct to GPS and last resort sextant use.
But the concept that so many have fallen into (not you, as this is a general observation) is that if we lose GPS, that Loran will be one of "the old ways are the best ways, and get off my lawn while you are at it" memes. Not even remotely. It is one way, and doesn't allow for the sort of tracking that is a big help for coordination. It allows the ships to figure out where they are. A tracking system. It could possibly be built into a Loran system, but it doesn't have the universality that GPS does.
Then there are the loran stations. Right by the ocean because that's where they are used, and I can verify that the towers are very tall. and very tough. That salt air makes for a real maintenance headache. They are a strategic target as well.
It's no panacea, and if GPS is lost, won't do half the useful stuff. But all that being said, Loran is a good tool in the toolbox.
Ok, so you are a partisan ideologue... I happen to be a libertarian and hate Trump's guts. I also hate Hillary's guts. If assholes on both sides start shooting each other in the streets, I'll be the one hiding in the woods. Or Canada.
Not remotely partisan. I'm independent. I do however take great issue with an adversary of the USA having more influence over an election than US citizens, and unlike so many, I believe in majority rule. Not tyranny, there were protections against that. But anyone who supports minority rule is highly encouraged to vacate the premises. I too did not care for either of the candidates this year. I didn't choose however to vote for the one who an Ex-KBG leader has an unnatural sway over.
Make certain you are acceptable for Canada's immigration standards. I've been there. Pretty nice people and beautiful country. You probably won't like their healthcare system, being a libertarian and all. But after you can vote, y'all can install a US (pre-O'Blamacare) style healthcare system.
So you are saying that the legislature doesn't have to be elected too?
I think so. I think you have to poll the public, then find the group who has the least popular outlook, then ask one person who shares that outlook, and have them decide who rules, or even better, declare them absolute ruler until someone comes along with an even less popular ideology.
This is really the insanity of the concept that the loser must win because some farmer in Kansas doesn't like how the city slickers on the east and west coasts don't kowtow to his ideology.
This is what state's rights are for. If enough farmers in Oklahoma want to eliminate all taxes on business, they can do that. If they want to use the Bible as a science reference, they can do that.
But the idea that their votes count more than anyone eleses on a federdal election is monumentally stupid, anti-democratic, and prone to putting in the place where we are today. And since it was pretty obvious that where we are today was pretty predictable long before they cast out their rational candidates, it casts some doubt upon their wisdom.
All you are saying is that you reject majority rule for minority rule then.
Absolutely! One of the points of the electoral college is that support for a candidate can't be geographically limited. You need to get a broad consensus across a whole bunch of different states in likely multiple regions in order to get elected President.
Here's the problem. If we are to comply with the wishes of rural voters over urban voters, we have to comply over all, not just taken on a state level. The concept of Alaska or Montana being more equal because they are largely rural, is ignoring that large portions of say, Pennsylvania or New York are extremely rural, with low population density. So we need to give the Rural voters perhaps 10 votes per person to urban dweller's one vote.
Then you don't have to come up with these cockamamie ideas that turn rural voters into an anti-democracy bloc that are more equal than anyone else.
" should the loser of the popular vote immediately be declared the winner?" The loser should be strapped to the Altar of Presidential Power so they can be sacrificed and the winner can consume their heart and vitality! We must return to the true basic ideals of government!
I support the candidate that won under the rules of the election that were in place when the campaign and election were run.
Okay, so you are a Trump supporter. Good for you, You and your ilk are polling at 33 percent favorable, so you'll probably call it fake news. If and when your guy is ousted, and calls for aremend innsurrection form you and his other supporters, will you take to the streets and kill your enemy?
This is of course, a hypothetical. But if asked by Trump, will you declare war on the rest of us and act upon his demands?
Think if the states changed their laws so that individual elector votes could go to a candidate instead of the entire state based on a majority it may do better.
I'd love for an honest poll of who supported what party, and their opinion on the electoral college. As an independent, I suspect that the number of Republicans supporting the present system hovers near 100 percent. Of course, all they will need is a Demoncrat to win this way and the opinion will shift rapidly.
For some reason, my sig seems to be even more appropriate in this thread....
I voted for Cthlulu - why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No, the Electoral College does not need to go. We are still a nation of states, a republic.
Irrelevant.
States elect our President.
A nationwide popular vote will, in the current circumstances, guarantee Democrat presidents for the foreseeable future.
And there you have it. Your get out of jail free card. The way in which you achieve minority rule, enabling your candidate to win without actually winning. Damn, pretty amazing that you talked some folks into this being a great idea. More on that near the bottom.
Whether or not this is reflective of our nation is an interesting question, but it will leave many states entirely without representation.
God, I just love this stuff. What do you mean leaving states entirely without representation? The majority of the governors are Republican, the majority of the house of representatives are Republican, the Majority of the Senate is Republican. It is very obvious that you demand all of the seats. Don't deny it.
Some among us find that the current chaos is based largely upon just that. While one party in particular has found a way to perform modern gerrymandering a great way to ensure a majority in federal governance, their main tool, that of fear and loathing, has left them vulnerable to a populist hatefest candidate, who in conjunction with their much beloved gerrymandered electoral college, has allowed the minority candidate and his core of 33 percent to rule. They probably did not anticipate this, but it is filed under unintended circumstances.
And it argues that some people are more equal than others. Any electoral college that offers anything other than voting members based upon actual population is arguing for the Animal farm.
This is a remarkably dangerous situation.
Then there is the question of exactly why a candidate who loses the popular vote is winning via the electoral college.
I think you have to dig deeper and start to look at geographical political divisions and ask if even a majority vote winds up being "fair" if deep divisions exist between rural areas and the West Coast/NE Corridor.
It starts to come down to some basic constitutional-level questions of governance structure, like the reasons why we have bicameral legislature -- to prevent populous states from dominating low-population states.
So should we disenfranchise populated states and allow the least populous states to rule? How about if the least populous states all voted for the candidate who won the popular vote, yet lost the electoral college. According to what I read, you would both support and reject the idea.
The problem such as it is, is addressed within states rights. There is no way to address this "fairly" within the federal voting system. Why should the majority of voters have to be ruled by rural voters?
Then there is the question of exactly why a candidate who loses the popular vote is winning via the electoral college.
There is no question why. It is by design. What you see is a flaw is a built in protection of the majority from being able to totally control the government. Now the exact way the electoral college works is flawed, but the reason we don't do a strict popular vote is completely valid.
All you are saying is that you reject majority rule for minority rule then. Give me a rational reason that a candidate who received 3 some million more votes than another canditate should lose. The winner certainly had much more radical ideas and associates than the loser, who was about as establishment as you can get.
Do you support a winner who polls at 33 percent favorable? Your idea of fair government is intriguing, you should have a newsletter we can subscribe to.
Regardless, if you think that a large margin in the popular vote should not reflect itself in the electoral college, I'd love to hear the rationale behind that. Here's another one, In your quest for minority rule, should the loser of the popular vote immediately be declared the winner? It would accomplish your goals just as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Shut up. Every generation says the same crap about the next generation (accept for their own spawn who are somehow angels). No generation in America has done more to destroy this country than the Baby Boomers. They will be the first generation to leave this country in worse shape than it was when they inherited it.
Want cheese and breadsticks to go with that fine whine?
In reality you're just an apologist for a narcissistic generation that never really got educated enough to be useful to society. Somehow they faked it until they made it and got into management and they are so incredibly delusional.
Well, the offer still stands
Shut up. Every generation says the same crap about the next generation (accept for their own spawn who are somehow angels). No generation in America has done more to destroy this country than the Baby Boomers. They will be the first generation to leave this country in worse shape than it was when they inherited it.
Want cheese and breadsticks to go with that fine whine?
"you're too young to understand" is possibly the lamest, laziest response.
And fairly often, it is the kindest response.
Other times, it is just getting you out of the way.
It was a metric shitload of fun when I would demonstrate to the millennial just how much more I knew than they did. It was like the difference between me starting on original Photoshop, and them starting on Creative Cloud. Like it or not millennial, there is something to be said for experience, and us olde fartes had to prove our worth - we didn't get participation trophies.
If they were an anarchist collective maybe, but they are a corporation and it seems it's only people here that are astonished when a corporation acts like one. Insult the boss and you are out the door.
Ah, but there is an issue at hand. While it is true that in an at-will work environment, you can be fired for anything, the shareholders might not like it. They might not care either, but you are taking a gamble by inserting the corporation into a social issue.
This is similar to the situation encountered by Tesla when a female who was making problems was fired. After which she claimed harassment, and hostile work environment. Independent arbitrators concluded that the firing was justified because of her actions.
I would suggest.
tl;dr version - he expressed an illegal opinion.
Side note. Firing him actually did have an effect on the gender balance at Google. This might be a trend.
Damore is arguing against the position that 100% of gender differences are due to discrimination. All that is required is to show some evidence of gender preferences, and you have an alternative explanation that has to be taken seriously. Ironically, the it is you and the gender warriors who look at different outcomes and claim that they are evidence of bias. And that is mistaking correlation for causation. Jim Edwards should apply his own logic to his own position.
Logic? If as feminists and parts of society believe that gender differences are due to discrimination, we need to understand the reason why there are almost no male veterinarians in training any more. https://www.avma.org/News/JAVM... Less than 25 percent male now, and still dropping.
Oddly enough, in this strange world where women can do no wrong ever, even this drop is being blamed on men. "Pre-emptive flight" http://blog.smu.edu/research/2... is where sexist men - apparently almost all men - see that there are women at a school, so they don't go to that school.
With as much certainty as I can muster up, most women are simply not interested in STEM.
What should be interesting is after all of the efforts to make STEM attractive enough to achieve the slight female majority which is apparently desperately needed fail, what happens then? Will we finally realize that we will have to aptitude test, then force those women that have potential into STEM careers? It is difficult to imagine pre-emptive firing of men to achieve the goal.
Because for most people, STEM is simply boring. http://www2.cipd.co.uk/pm/peop... And that includes young men. But less young men than young women find it boring.
And that was the feedback that I got from years of efforts to get young ladies involved in STEM in about as friendly an environment as you can imagine for women. They didn't find it interesting. But they went for law or business for those who were interested in a career, or women's studies for those who had an axe to grind. Law and business have some horrid sexual discrimination and practices that border on sexual assault, yet young ladies eagerly sign up for those majors. Hard to imagine the stereotypically shy introvert guys in STEM are that much of a problem for them.
So yeah - boring. It simply doesn't interest most of the young ladies. Just as it doesn't interest a lot of young men, even if more young men do find it interesting. For myself, the work is exciting, and has made for a good career, so I'm not at all certain how excitement can be generated for a large number of people who are more interested in externalities than the more internalized joys of science and technology.
But that does not fit within some people's agendas. Perhaps if this guy had phrased it as simply boring, he might not have been fired. Then again....
They tried to create a forum to discuss things, but people said they were scared to participate because they feared being identified.
Darn straight. Who on earth thinks that agreeing with the opinion of the guy getting fired will not get them fired as well? If you don't toe the Politically Correct line, there is proof that your opinion is an offense punishable by termination
Looking at how anyone not agreeing with this guy on Slashdot gets hammered down with -1 mods, it seems they have a point.
There is a difference between disagreement and discussion, and disagreement followed by termination, wouldn't you think?
Also, Google never claimed to be the "greatest defenders of the First Amendment".
Of course not. What they have done is well within their rights. I don't think anyone is arguing they don't have the right to do what they did. Only protected classes are immune, and being a white male is more of a target class.
But if we look at this as Google's free expression of their intolerance, what we see is what sometimes happens to people who express extremely unpopular opinions. Others have the freedom to react as is their right. And Google is reaping the rewards of their decision.
They had every right to fire the guy. They also get to reap the rewards of the enveloping shitstorm, and the costs of the soon to happen lawsuits. It will be amusing if a civil rights lawsuit happens. I suspect this fellow will not have to work another day in his life.
And the results is Google will have created a very toxic workplace, one where one's opinion dare not be uttered.
Fir those who wonder, 30 cm/s is roughly 10km/h, so about the speed of a jogger.
Yes, but what's that in football fields per centar?
I'd prefer it be expressed in cubic cantaloupes.
In their effort to encourage inclusiveness and tolerance, they have become intolerant and exclusive. No doubt others have similar misgivings, but are keeping their mouth shut now that Googles intolerance of dissenting views has been exposed. Google has become the very thing the claim to stand against.
This! Jeezuz K Rryst on a bulldozer, this!
It is nothing short of fascinating the number of people here who are claiming the guy is Alt-right, playing the PhD iz a lie!" card, while exposing their ignorance, and acting just like the right wing bigots they claim to be protecting us from, in the matter of defending the poor downtrodden under-represented victims of the fascists.
There is no doubt that in a world where not making waves is the key to continued employment, the guy was an idiot for expressing his opinion, with unsurprising results, if this was a (fill in the victim other than white male) sending out a memo stating something something, and was fired, the same people who are trashing this guy would be calling for human sacrifice.
Problem is, shit don't work that way. I read the memo. If that is a fireable offense, no one should ever speak up. Ever. Anyone offended by that needs to counter it with words, not squelching.
And that is the problem. When you want to pretend to have a diverse workplace, but if an employee's honest and legal opinion does not conform, and that employee is fired, you have just proved that the workplace is vehemently anti-diverse.
I'm all for freedom of speech and diversity of opinion, but
DRINK! When AmiMojo does a "I'm not a racist but" line, take a drink
And since we have an international audience in here, as well as a lot of fringe right wingers seem to think they can say whatever they want and no one is allowed to oppose it (think Ted Nugent's thinly veiled threats against President O'Blama) The right of free speech in the US means you cannot be arrested for expressing your opinion. There are exemptions, such as making a physical threat against a person or persons, or pronouncements designed to cause physical harm - the shouting "fire" in a crowded theater concept, and slander, making untrue and harmful declarations against a person.
So Google is within their rights to suppress what this guy wrote and end their association with him.
Having read the memo, I wonder if that was the correct move. He definitely didn't pass any of the litmus tests for actionable speech legal system excesses. The general tone of his memo was only inflammatory if a reader was not tolerant of any opinion contrary to their own.
So now we know where Gooogle stands on that spectrum. I'll give them a little wiggle room since the time if his memo was awful, coming in the midst of Google's problems with gender numerical equality, so they wanted to show that they were intolerant of divergent opinions.
But intolerance seldom works out well.
So anyone with a divergent opinion needs to understand that they are not allowed to express it.
It depends how divergent... If you boss thinks that people of your race should be property, it's kind of difficult for them to continue managing you.
While that is true, I didn't see any pro-slavery references in his memo.
I'm all for freedom of speech and diversity of opinion, but clearly some opinions make doing certain jobs untenable.
I agree fully. This is not even a freedom of speech issue. It isn't as cut and dried as someone making a threat of violence or promotion of illegal activities or slander. It was the expression of an opinion that was intolerable. Especially in light of Google already being in some trouble for gender representation issues. I've worked with people who are zealots in that ideology. They are as intolerant a group as you will find. But that is true of most idealogues. This isn't even a pronouncement of his being right or wrong. He was an idiot. He deserved being fired for being an idiot, if not for expressing his opinion. See my previous paragraph.
I suspect that Google might have some issues getting people to express any opinions in the future, however.
He won't get a penny, because Google will just point to all the screaming conservatives who were emboldened to express their belief that women are inferior as evidence of creating a toxic environment.
So anyone with a divergent opinion needs to understand that they are not allowed to express it. That is pertty simple.
Google can help with the wrong headed people by putting out a manifest telling them what allowable opinions are.
Anyhow, the guy should have been fired because he is an abysmally stupid ass for stating his opinion in a memo. Keep the mouth closed if your opinion isn't politically correct and allowable. There are example on both the left and right of the political spectrum.
So to get more diversity in Google, we need them to get rid of an entire class of people. Once everyone looks, acts, and thinks exactly alike, then we will have the best diversity ever!!!
It is an uncomfortable truth that in order to achieve male and female equal numerical representation that women are going to have to be forced into the positions whether they want to work in STEM or not.
The author injects too much left/right stuff into his memo. However, make no mistake, he is correct in stating that there are issues that are too sacred for discussion - getting fired is proof of that.
But seriously men, learn from this. If you have an opinion that is not in lockstep with management, don't give it to anyone.
If you want to keep your job, keep your fucking mouth shut. There are corporate and societal "truths" that will not accept any ideas other than what you are told your opinion is. Freedom of speech does not mean you can say anything you want - it just means that the government cannot arrest you.
Regardless, this goes on in both left wing and right wing companies. Google is no exception.
And if your opinion isn't what your opinion is allowed to be - keep that yap shut, or get another job where you are allowed to have that opinion without getting shitcanned.
GPS only tells me where I am, and nothing else (of course it calculates heading and speed from repeated positions), in particular it does not tell me anything about other traffic.
Right, - then there is this https://www.marinetraffic.com/...
This whole GPS versus Loran business is for some facacta reason, is presented in range war fashion, yet what Loran does is give us land based location that is one way. It's a fine adjunct to GPS and last resort sextant use.
But the concept that so many have fallen into (not you, as this is a general observation) is that if we lose GPS, that Loran will be one of "the old ways are the best ways, and get off my lawn while you are at it" memes. Not even remotely. It is one way, and doesn't allow for the sort of tracking that is a big help for coordination. It allows the ships to figure out where they are. A tracking system. It could possibly be built into a Loran system, but it doesn't have the universality that GPS does.
Then there are the loran stations. Right by the ocean because that's where they are used, and I can verify that the towers are very tall. and very tough. That salt air makes for a real maintenance headache. They are a strategic target as well.
It's no panacea, and if GPS is lost, won't do half the useful stuff. But all that being said, Loran is a good tool in the toolbox.
Ok, so you are a partisan ideologue... I happen to be a libertarian and hate Trump's guts. I also hate Hillary's guts. If assholes on both sides start shooting each other in the streets, I'll be the one hiding in the woods. Or Canada.
Not remotely partisan. I'm independent. I do however take great issue with an adversary of the USA having more influence over an election than US citizens, and unlike so many, I believe in majority rule. Not tyranny, there were protections against that. But anyone who supports minority rule is highly encouraged to vacate the premises. I too did not care for either of the candidates this year. I didn't choose however to vote for the one who an Ex-KBG leader has an unnatural sway over.
Make certain you are acceptable for Canada's immigration standards. I've been there. Pretty nice people and beautiful country. You probably won't like their healthcare system, being a libertarian and all. But after you can vote, y'all can install a US (pre-O'Blamacare) style healthcare system.
I voted for Cthlulu - why vote for the lesser of two evils?
He didn't get enough signatures to make it on my local ballot...
Dammit, we have to change that law.
So you are saying that the legislature doesn't have to be elected too?
I think so. I think you have to poll the public, then find the group who has the least popular outlook, then ask one person who shares that outlook, and have them decide who rules, or even better, declare them absolute ruler until someone comes along with an even less popular ideology.
This is really the insanity of the concept that the loser must win because some farmer in Kansas doesn't like how the city slickers on the east and west coasts don't kowtow to his ideology.
This is what state's rights are for. If enough farmers in Oklahoma want to eliminate all taxes on business, they can do that. If they want to use the Bible as a science reference, they can do that.
But the idea that their votes count more than anyone eleses on a federdal election is monumentally stupid, anti-democratic, and prone to putting in the place where we are today. And since it was pretty obvious that where we are today was pretty predictable long before they cast out their rational candidates, it casts some doubt upon their wisdom.
Absolutely! One of the points of the electoral college is that support for a candidate can't be geographically limited. You need to get a broad consensus across a whole bunch of different states in likely multiple regions in order to get elected President.
Here's the problem. If we are to comply with the wishes of rural voters over urban voters, we have to comply over all, not just taken on a state level. The concept of Alaska or Montana being more equal because they are largely rural, is ignoring that large portions of say, Pennsylvania or New York are extremely rural, with low population density. So we need to give the Rural voters perhaps 10 votes per person to urban dweller's one vote.
Then you don't have to come up with these cockamamie ideas that turn rural voters into an anti-democracy bloc that are more equal than anyone else.
" should the loser of the popular vote immediately be declared the winner?" The loser should be strapped to the Altar of Presidential Power so they can be sacrificed and the winner can consume their heart and vitality! We must return to the true basic ideals of government!
Finally heard from the Mississippi delegation!
I support the candidate that won under the rules of the election that were in place when the campaign and election were run.
Okay, so you are a Trump supporter. Good for you, You and your ilk are polling at 33 percent favorable, so you'll probably call it fake news. If and when your guy is ousted, and calls for aremend innsurrection form you and his other supporters, will you take to the streets and kill your enemy?
This is of course, a hypothetical. But if asked by Trump, will you declare war on the rest of us and act upon his demands?
Think if the states changed their laws so that individual elector votes could go to a candidate instead of the entire state based on a majority it may do better.
I'd love for an honest poll of who supported what party, and their opinion on the electoral college. As an independent, I suspect that the number of Republicans supporting the present system hovers near 100 percent. Of course, all they will need is a Demoncrat to win this way and the opinion will shift rapidly.
For some reason, my sig seems to be even more appropriate in this thread....
I voted for Cthlulu - why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No, the Electoral College does not need to go. We are still a nation of states, a republic.
Irrelevant.
States elect our President.
A nationwide popular vote will, in the current circumstances, guarantee Democrat presidents for the foreseeable future.
And there you have it. Your get out of jail free card. The way in which you achieve minority rule, enabling your candidate to win without actually winning. Damn, pretty amazing that you talked some folks into this being a great idea. More on that near the bottom.
Whether or not this is reflective of our nation is an interesting question, but it will leave many states entirely without representation.
God, I just love this stuff. What do you mean leaving states entirely without representation? The majority of the governors are Republican, the majority of the house of representatives are Republican, the Majority of the Senate is Republican. It is very obvious that you demand all of the seats. Don't deny it.
Some among us find that the current chaos is based largely upon just that. While one party in particular has found a way to perform modern gerrymandering a great way to ensure a majority in federal governance, their main tool, that of fear and loathing, has left them vulnerable to a populist hatefest candidate, who in conjunction with their much beloved gerrymandered electoral college, has allowed the minority candidate and his core of 33 percent to rule. They probably did not anticipate this, but it is filed under unintended circumstances.
And it argues that some people are more equal than others. Any electoral college that offers anything other than voting members based upon actual population is arguing for the Animal farm. This is a remarkably dangerous situation.
Then there is the question of exactly why a candidate who loses the popular vote is winning via the electoral college.
I think you have to dig deeper and start to look at geographical political divisions and ask if even a majority vote winds up being "fair" if deep divisions exist between rural areas and the West Coast/NE Corridor.
It starts to come down to some basic constitutional-level questions of governance structure, like the reasons why we have bicameral legislature -- to prevent populous states from dominating low-population states.
So should we disenfranchise populated states and allow the least populous states to rule? How about if the least populous states all voted for the candidate who won the popular vote, yet lost the electoral college. According to what I read, you would both support and reject the idea.
The problem such as it is, is addressed within states rights. There is no way to address this "fairly" within the federal voting system. Why should the majority of voters have to be ruled by rural voters?
Then there is the question of exactly why a candidate who loses the popular vote is winning via the electoral college.
There is no question why. It is by design. What you see is a flaw is a built in protection of the majority from being able to totally control the government. Now the exact way the electoral college works is flawed, but the reason we don't do a strict popular vote is completely valid.
All you are saying is that you reject majority rule for minority rule then. Give me a rational reason that a candidate who received 3 some million more votes than another canditate should lose. The winner certainly had much more radical ideas and associates than the loser, who was about as establishment as you can get.
Do you support a winner who polls at 33 percent favorable? Your idea of fair government is intriguing, you should have a newsletter we can subscribe to.
Regardless, if you think that a large margin in the popular vote should not reflect itself in the electoral college, I'd love to hear the rationale behind that. Here's another one, In your quest for minority rule, should the loser of the popular vote immediately be declared the winner? It would accomplish your goals just as well.