...except I can turn it around so that the white candidate fits the description of "disadvantaged". Based on someone's skin color, you really have no way of knowing what kind of challenges they have faced in life. If you're assuming that they're from the ghetto just because they have dark skin then you're a flaming hypocrite and terribly clueless.
By the time a smug jackass like you is interviewing them, they have already conquered whatever "challenges" they may have had. It's a bit too late to make yourself feel better by pitying them.
Again, the do-gooders and SJWs miss the mark by a wide margin.
> So it is perfectly acceptable for a group to hire no one who is not a member of their own race as long as they don't espouse the belief that their race is superior?
Yup.
Racism is not the outcome, it's the intent.
You are trying to assume a cause when one might not be there at all. You are confusion equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. If there is discrimination present, you need to prove it and not just assume it.
That's the problem with this entire topic.
You seem to have absolutely zero experience with many of these "minorities" if you think them so feeble that they can't fend for themselves.
If you need to change what words mean, then your argument is corrupt. If you need to change what words mean to suit your agenda, then perhaps you are hiding something that you are unable to face. You need to corrupt language as a means to hide from what you are.
Of course the painfully obvious answer here is LACK OF SUPPLY. If Facebook wants more girls or more blacks then it has to go cultivate them. The big machine as it stands is simply not producing them. Recruit in high school, recruit in middle school, do whatever it takes.
Corporations have spent the last 30 years shitting on labor and leaving them out in the cold. They're like Ned Flanders' parents.
Shared data and a machine that can crush the phone sized thing (both literally and figuratively) is the much better option. They are two diametrically opposed form factors even without getting into the underlying guts of the things.
No, it just means that the desktop/server isn't the only game in town. It never was. Each class of microprocessor has it's own advantage inside of it's own niche and is awkward outside of it. ARM isn't any different despite the shrill cries.
5K really isn't that much money either in terms of drug transactions or in general. The notion that it is, is why so many people end up victims of forfeiture. Unwitting dupes continue perpetrating the myth that cash equals drug dealer.
I got grief while LEAVING a country once because I had too much electronics in my bag. I was carrying everyone's gear. Someone else had the liquids and such.
The only time I ever bother with video streaming on a PC is when I am away from home and I've got enough room to stretch out in and have a laptop setup with the screen so I don't have to hold onto it (like a tablet).
Beyond that very particular use case, pretty much ANY OTHER device is much better for dealing with those services. Video in browsers has always sucked and required far more resources than necessary on a PC. Choice of OS doesn't help this.
If anyone is having trouble playing youtube videos, then I think it is lack of support for current video cards. Adobe was particularly bad at this. They sucked even compared to community efforts. They seemed primarily good at making lame excuses.
Although struggling to play anything at 240p is sad.
I used an x86 AppleTV as a MythTV frontend until h264 started to become a thing. It could easily handle 1080 broadcast content.
Since Cooper has an engineering college, they probably have a CS department too. Many other engineering colleges do. Depending on your point of view, CS is just another branch of engineering.
It sounds very much like the stories our Software Engineering professor would tell us. Except his stories weren't about interviewing for jobs but doing actual work on real projects.
You don't but about 90% of the population does. That includes people that run corporations. That's why we have outsourcing and H1Bs and companies that think they can get away with paying half of what they really need to for talent.
There's plenty of examples I could give of the "cheap junk for less" mentality. Some of them are even tech products.
Has that ever worked out for you as an employee or as a manager?
That notion might work in some sort of model meritocracy but that's not what we live in but a long stretch. Most companies (and even managers) want more relevant experience and won't trust that you can "just adapt".
On the other hand, the stuff is already supposed to be illegal. So what are they doing exactly? Pledging to obey the law? A lot of this stuff doesn't have regional exceptions like gambling, alcohol, or porn.
> Correction: _licensed_ media, not purchased. People have this notion that they own the music they buy, which has never been true.
It's time to extract yourself from the RIAA's cock.
Personal property is still personal property. A physical copy still comes with certain rights. The fact that you are so eager to give my rights to some corporation is entirely irrelevant.
Contracts require certain elements. These are principles older than our republic that you don't get to change to suit your agenda du jour. This is well settled law that hasn't been overturned yet.
Slashdot Mirror
> Are you so messed up that you think that working == being a slave?
A lot of corporations thing that way. Without those evil unions, that's pretty much the way they would treat all of us.
Although old people have trouble working for a variety of reasons. Some of them you can't relate to because they involve things like muscles.
We already import cheap labor to care for the elderly.
...except I can turn it around so that the white candidate fits the description of "disadvantaged". Based on someone's skin color, you really have no way of knowing what kind of challenges they have faced in life. If you're assuming that they're from the ghetto just because they have dark skin then you're a flaming hypocrite and terribly clueless.
By the time a smug jackass like you is interviewing them, they have already conquered whatever "challenges" they may have had. It's a bit too late to make yourself feel better by pitying them.
Again, the do-gooders and SJWs miss the mark by a wide margin.
> and I pick the black person to counteract an inherent imbalance
Nope, that's racism.
You're just changing definitions so you don't feel like a Grand Wizard.
You are using race as a criteria. You are a racist. There is no glory or honor in this.
> So it is perfectly acceptable for a group to hire no one who is not a member of their own race as long as they don't espouse the belief that their race is superior?
Yup.
Racism is not the outcome, it's the intent.
You are trying to assume a cause when one might not be there at all. You are confusion equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. If there is discrimination present, you need to prove it and not just assume it.
That's the problem with this entire topic.
You seem to have absolutely zero experience with many of these "minorities" if you think them so feeble that they can't fend for themselves.
If you need to change what words mean, then your argument is corrupt. If you need to change what words mean to suit your agenda, then perhaps you are hiding something that you are unable to face. You need to corrupt language as a means to hide from what you are.
"Words certainly do change over time"
How perfectly Orwellian.
It's like you people don't even hear yourselves.
None of this is Facebook's fault.
Start with Vogue and Glamour.
Of course the painfully obvious answer here is LACK OF SUPPLY. If Facebook wants more girls or more blacks then it has to go cultivate them. The big machine as it stands is simply not producing them. Recruit in high school, recruit in middle school, do whatever it takes.
Corporations have spent the last 30 years shitting on labor and leaving them out in the cold. They're like Ned Flanders' parents.
"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas."
Shared data and a machine that can crush the phone sized thing (both literally and figuratively) is the much better option. They are two diametrically opposed form factors even without getting into the underlying guts of the things.
No, it just means that the desktop/server isn't the only game in town. It never was. Each class of microprocessor has it's own advantage inside of it's own niche and is awkward outside of it. ARM isn't any different despite the shrill cries.
5K really isn't that much money either in terms of drug transactions or in general. The notion that it is, is why so many people end up victims of forfeiture. Unwitting dupes continue perpetrating the myth that cash equals drug dealer.
I got grief while LEAVING a country once because I had too much electronics in my bag. I was carrying everyone's gear. Someone else had the liquids and such.
I've been hassled for going into Canada looking like a hippie.
On the other hand, my brother-in-law looks like Osama bin Laden when he lets himself go. He never got hassled flying in and out of DC.
The only time I ever bother with video streaming on a PC is when I am away from home and I've got enough room to stretch out in and have a laptop setup with the screen so I don't have to hold onto it (like a tablet).
Beyond that very particular use case, pretty much ANY OTHER device is much better for dealing with those services. Video in browsers has always sucked and required far more resources than necessary on a PC. Choice of OS doesn't help this.
VMS is dead. Get over it already.
If anyone is having trouble playing youtube videos, then I think it is lack of support for current video cards. Adobe was particularly bad at this. They sucked even compared to community efforts. They seemed primarily good at making lame excuses.
Although struggling to play anything at 240p is sad.
I used an x86 AppleTV as a MythTV frontend until h264 started to become a thing. It could easily handle 1080 broadcast content.
You're also not limited to the Danish college lifestyle. You can move on to something better.
Since Cooper has an engineering college, they probably have a CS department too. Many other engineering colleges do. Depending on your point of view, CS is just another branch of engineering.
The same idea applies to mathematics or business.
It sounds very much like the stories our Software Engineering professor would tell us. Except his stories weren't about interviewing for jobs but doing actual work on real projects.
You don't but about 90% of the population does. That includes people that run corporations. That's why we have outsourcing and H1Bs and companies that think they can get away with paying half of what they really need to for talent.
There's plenty of examples I could give of the "cheap junk for less" mentality. Some of them are even tech products.
Has that ever worked out for you as an employee or as a manager?
That notion might work in some sort of model meritocracy but that's not what we live in but a long stretch. Most companies (and even managers) want more relevant experience and won't trust that you can "just adapt".
This is probably even more true for a "bootcamp".
You only have to give source to those people you give the binaries to.
Unless you're giving your precious binaries to your competitors, you don't have to give them the source either.
As far as that bit about gcc goes, that's just pure bullshit and no self respecting lawyer attach his name to it.
...or just be a little less of a cheapskate. Terms like "server" and "desktop" are entirely arbitrary.
On the other hand, the stuff is already supposed to be illegal. So what are they doing exactly? Pledging to obey the law? A lot of this stuff doesn't have regional exceptions like gambling, alcohol, or porn.
> Correction: _licensed_ media, not purchased. People have this notion that they own the music they buy, which has never been true.
It's time to extract yourself from the RIAA's cock.
Personal property is still personal property. A physical copy still comes with certain rights. The fact that you are so eager to give my rights to some corporation is entirely irrelevant.
Contracts require certain elements. These are principles older than our republic that you don't get to change to suit your agenda du jour. This is well settled law that hasn't been overturned yet.