It is a fact that affirmative action is illegal in California. If there is also a law demanding affirmative action, then that too is a fact. I havent seen any such evidence.
If there is wage discrimination and you then fix the wages... that would not violate Prop 209.
If there is wage discrimination and you then implement affirmative action... that absolutely violates Prop 209.
But isn't then something really wrong when at the same time Google is about to be fined millions for not being affirmative enough and fixing (a perceived) pay gap?
Yes. Something is wrong.
What isnt wrong is what I said was the law. If another law conflicts, then the conflicting laws is whats wrong, not Damore.
In the memo Damore explicitly says Google's policies are illegal more than once.
I dont take anyones word for it.
I'm "on his side" and I still don't. I do however take citations to evidence and do research. Went through several State supreme court rulings since I first commented about the legality. In California this law is upheld, repeatedly.
But didn't he also argue that an entire group of his coworkers had inherently less potential than other groups simply based on their gender?
No.
Any other questions? Maybe instead of asking whats in it, you should read it. Maybe instead of pretending to be an expert on whats in it, you should read it first.
...which is what you *just did yourself* by using that bullshit three-letter-acronym
Its the acronym that the SJW's chose. The SJW's invented the term and are now mad that it has a negative connotation. It has a negative connotation because the SJW's gave themselves a bad name all by themselves. They dont believe that its their beliefs that are negative, of course... but hey.... sure... its just the term they chose thats negative... it was an accident to choose a negative one I guess.
the whole premise of the memo is that women are less suited to have tech jobs because of inherent differences between men and women.
You are either someone that didnt read the document and lying about knowing what in it, or someone who did read the document and are lying about whats in it.
Do you work for Google? Are you lying for Google right now? Why are you lying?
Scientist after scientist are coming forward saying that his paper is well thought out, well researched, well written, and in line with current scientific understanding.
...read like a child who was upset that things weren't the way he thought they were all along
No, thats you guys, who keep lying about whats in the paper, and keep slandering the person that wrote it.
I wonder if Slashdot's poster logs can be subpoenaed to show that all you anonymous people are working for Google on Googles behalf slandering the person you wrongfully terminated. Pretty sure that "I was just following orders" is not a defense against slander.
California has also clear laws regarding unlawful employment discrimination. Writing a memo pushing forward the agenda that diversity policies in the workplace is a bad idea will not fly well in courts.
Since 1996 the State supreme court has repeatedly upheld that affirmative action in the State is illegal in any institution that works for or with the State on any matter.
It is illegal to prevent workers from discussing work conditions.
It is illegal to discriminate based on political opinions.
it is illegal to implement affirmative action.
Welcome to California, Google. Did you have a look at the States laws before you gave your diversity monster power?
Whistleblowing implies that he was disclosing potentially illegal activity that google was engaging in.
..and what they are doing internally looks to be illegal if Google takes any State subsidies or contracts. Affirmative action is illegal in the State of California when State money is involved. This has been upheld by the State supreme court multiple times since Prop 209 passed in 1996.
The internal policy isnt that teams should be "diverse." The internal policy is that teams must be "diverse."
The more I learn about all of this, the more I think I was wrong the other day when I suggested that Google was in the clear legally. Its looking more like they are trying to cover up illegal acts.
And TSMC has developed their 14nm, nope sorry their 16nm, into a smaller "12nm". Unless I'm saying something wrong/silly here.
I believe TSMC transistor densities on their 14nm is significantly higher than Intels now, yes, but thats because Intel moved back onto FinFET and are late to the game. The other companies have refined their 14nm node. Intel had to scrap theirs and start fresh. Thats a big thing.
The best part is when they spend longer asking you to "subscribe" and "like" than they do on the subject.
Yeah, I'm going to subscribe to the guy telling me where my cars radiator pepcock is located using a video... because all his other videos are going to be useful to me..... sigh
Eighth-gen Coffee Lake chips will be built using a revised version of Intel's 14nm process technology for an unprecedented fourth time
Intel is switching to complete 14nm FinFET here. The reason is that some of the competing fabs that stayed with FinFET are now manufacturing 10nm FinFET while Intel spent 3 years now trying to make 10nm Tri-Gates economical and have failed miserably. The Tri-Gate lithography is just too expensive: Too many steps, and the yields too poor.
When Intel beat the world to 14nm it didnt matter so much that Tri-Gate's were not as economical as FinFET because Intel beat the world there by a big margin and didnt have to compete. Now they not only have to complete against 14nm FinFET but also 10nm FinFET and it wont be long until 7nm FinFET is in production by at least the companies that skipped 10nm on purpose (they are not the same fab companies as the ones producing 10nm FinFET's today)
Companies that beat Intel to 10nm (so far):
Samsung, TSMC
Companies that absolutely will beat Intel to 7nm:
Global Foundries, TSMC, Samsung. I predict that this is the order that it will happen in. GloFlo skipped 10nm on purpose to be the first to 7nm.
Could he get a record award from a jury? I think he's looking at north of a billion dollars in settlement money for the egregious actions taken against him.
Unlikely... especially in California where corporations rule and jury's hate all conservatives.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like you dont even have close to enough sock puppets to keep your posts modded up today.
Hows that going?
Neither. Thats not how it works.
It is that they conflict that is wrong.
It is a fact that affirmative action is illegal in California. If there is also a law demanding affirmative action, then that too is a fact. I havent seen any such evidence.
If there is wage discrimination and you then fix the wages... that would not violate Prop 209.
If there is wage discrimination and you then implement affirmative action... that absolutely violates Prop 209.
But isn't then something really wrong when at the same time Google is about to be fined millions for not being affirmative enough and fixing (a perceived) pay gap?
Yes. Something is wrong.
What isnt wrong is what I said was the law. If another law conflicts, then the conflicting laws is whats wrong, not Damore.
In the memo Damore explicitly says Google's policies are illegal more than once.
I dont take anyones word for it.
I'm "on his side" and I still don't. I do however take citations to evidence and do research. Went through several State supreme court rulings since I first commented about the legality. In California this law is upheld, repeatedly.
Or can you tolerate someone against diversity and hostile towards women
Nobody should tolerate that.
These arent things Damore did or believe, however, so what are you talking about?
But didn't he also argue that an entire group of his coworkers had inherently less potential than other groups simply based on their gender?
No.
Any other questions? Maybe instead of asking whats in it, you should read it. Maybe instead of pretending to be an expert on whats in it, you should read it first.
...which is what you *just did yourself* by using that bullshit three-letter-acronym
Its the acronym that the SJW's chose. The SJW's invented the term and are now mad that it has a negative connotation. It has a negative connotation because the SJW's gave themselves a bad name all by themselves. They dont believe that its their beliefs that are negative, of course... but hey.... sure... its just the term they chose thats negative... it was an accident to choose a negative one I guess.
And the basis for your assumption is what?
Based on the facts.
Already got you lying. Wanna go again?
Not allowing manifesto's to be campaigned through the business network does not prevent workers from discussing work conditions.
The only campaign is against the engineer that was fired.
Do you work for Google? Are you lying for Google right now? Why are you lying?
the whole premise of the memo is that women are less suited to have tech jobs because of inherent differences between men and women.
You are either someone that didnt read the document and lying about knowing what in it, or someone who did read the document and are lying about whats in it.
Do you work for Google? Are you lying for Google right now? Why are you lying?
It was not a scientific paper nor was it based on scientific papers and it certainly did not use any scientific methods.
He provided citation after citation to peer reviewed science all the way through his well written (as you admit) document.
Furthermore, scientist after scientist are coming forward saying he is right about the science.
Do you work for Google? Are you lying for Google right now? Why are you lying?
I think that's being exceedingly generous. It may sound 'sciencey', but certainly he does not have study data to back him up.
He gave citations for all of it.
Do you work for Google? Are you lying for Google right now? Why are you lying?
And Damore was really stupid to write a 10 page or so diatribe
When did he do that?
Do you work for Google? Are you lying for Google right now? Why are you lying?
The whole screed...
Scientist after scientist are coming forward saying that his paper is well thought out, well researched, well written, and in line with current scientific understanding.
...read like a child who was upset that things weren't the way he thought they were all along
No, thats you guys, who keep lying about whats in the paper, and keep slandering the person that wrote it.
I wonder if Slashdot's poster logs can be subpoenaed to show that all you anonymous people are working for Google on Googles behalf slandering the person you wrongfully terminated. Pretty sure that "I was just following orders" is not a defense against slander.
California has also clear laws regarding unlawful employment discrimination. Writing a memo pushing forward the agenda that diversity policies in the workplace is a bad idea will not fly well in courts.
Since 1996 the State supreme court has repeatedly upheld that affirmative action in the State is illegal in any institution that works for or with the State on any matter.
State of California.
It is illegal to prevent workers from discussing work conditions.
It is illegal to discriminate based on political opinions.
it is illegal to implement affirmative action.
Welcome to California, Google. Did you have a look at the States laws before you gave your diversity monster power?
Whistleblowing implies that he was disclosing potentially illegal activity that google was engaging in.
The internal policy isnt that teams should be "diverse." The internal policy is that teams must be "diverse."
The more I learn about all of this, the more I think I was wrong the other day when I suggested that Google was in the clear legally. Its looking more like they are trying to cover up illegal acts.
And TSMC has developed their 14nm, nope sorry their 16nm, into a smaller "12nm". Unless I'm saying something wrong/silly here.
I believe TSMC transistor densities on their 14nm is significantly higher than Intels now, yes, but thats because Intel moved back onto FinFET and are late to the game. The other companies have refined their 14nm node. Intel had to scrap theirs and start fresh. Thats a big thing.
Usually 30% is approximately the decreased distance between transistors with a node size transition.
... see the 30%'s?
..
The future for Intel will eventually be: 14nm to 10nm, then 10nm to 7nm,
But in this case it is almost certainly just due to an increased core count (making the chips bigger in the process)
It isnt really AMD that is making Intel bend over.
Its Samsung and TSMC.
Intel was a generation ahead on process tech with AMD's last iteration.
Now Samsung has sold time to AMD for 14nm production (Ryzen)
and TSMC has sold time to AMD for 10nm production (PlayStation and XBOX console chips)
AMD has always had the better CPU design. What they didnt have was access to matching process tech for about 8 years or so.
AMD is not even close to Intels rival. The other fab companies are, and they are ahead and pulling away now.
The best part is when they spend longer asking you to "subscribe" and "like" than they do on the subject.
Yeah, I'm going to subscribe to the guy telling me where my cars radiator pepcock is located using a video... because all his other videos are going to be useful to me..... sigh
Eighth-gen Coffee Lake chips will be built using a revised version of Intel's 14nm process technology for an unprecedented fourth time
Intel is switching to complete 14nm FinFET here. The reason is that some of the competing fabs that stayed with FinFET are now manufacturing 10nm FinFET while Intel spent 3 years now trying to make 10nm Tri-Gates economical and have failed miserably. The Tri-Gate lithography is just too expensive: Too many steps, and the yields too poor.
When Intel beat the world to 14nm it didnt matter so much that Tri-Gate's were not as economical as FinFET because Intel beat the world there by a big margin and didnt have to compete. Now they not only have to complete against 14nm FinFET but also 10nm FinFET and it wont be long until 7nm FinFET is in production by at least the companies that skipped 10nm on purpose (they are not the same fab companies as the ones producing 10nm FinFET's today)
Companies that beat Intel to 10nm (so far):
Samsung, TSMC
Companies that absolutely will beat Intel to 7nm:
Global Foundries, TSMC, Samsung. I predict that this is the order that it will happen in. GloFlo skipped 10nm on purpose to be the first to 7nm.
Could he get a record award from a jury? I think he's looking at north of a billion dollars in settlement money for the egregious actions taken against him.
Unlikely... especially in California where corporations rule and jury's hate all conservatives.
No one used that phrase until this year.
Why do you make shit up?
If whats in it for you isnt virtue signaling, then explain why you are a dishonest fuck.
Stop modding yourself up with sock puppets.