As a human being, I don't hang my head in shame for the poor decisions other humans make. That would be deeply narcissistic and irrationally collectivist. Instead, I realize they too are only human and make mistakes and give into hatred to try to compensate for their losses or retaliate for perceived wrongs.
I also understand that some, typically those without actual problems of their own, seek to feel guilt and shame by taking on the woes of society as their own personal plight, often without even understanding the driving forces behind what they see in front of them. I also understand that juvenile wishing for "utopia now", and the disdain for the world that does not match their ideals, does come from a place of genuine concern. I also understand the temptation to jump to conclusions, especially when the perceived victim is of a protected class.
What I don't understand is why a post that poses far more questions than it offers answers has been modded "insightful". IANAL, but I'll give it a shot.
...what is/are the responsibilities of "Tesla the Company", with respect to tackling and preventing racism in the workplace?
Tesla has a legal responsibility to report any illegal activities, including hate crimes.
Do they have to have anti-racism training for their staff? Do they have to have a grievance procedure? Do they have to have an anonymous whistleblowing program?
Legally, I don't think so, but again, IANAL.
Are there other things that an employer needs to demonstrate in order to avoid accusations of institutional racism?
There is no way to avoid accusation of institutional racism, aside from actual censorship. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything, and often people do make false accusations (not saying this is a false accusation) for profit or political motivations. As far as public opinion goes, there is no course they can force on their employees that could ever convince people that they are not racist if they get a bad reputation. Google, for instance, one of the most progressive companies on the planet, is often crucified in the media, and widely thought of as a racist and sexist organization. It is a stain that can only really fade with time.
But does the presence of one or more racist employees at any company mean that the company itself is racist?
If not, how do we make the differentiation?
A company can only really be considered racist if they have company-wide racist policies or tolerate / encourage racist behavior from the top. Almost exclusively though, racism in a company is the direct result of a few individuals and those that tolerate them. Condemning the entire company for the actions of a few is irrational.
Is it when 10% of employees are racist? 20%? Is it if the company fails to handle accusations of racism appropriately - and, if so, what does "appropriate handling" need to include?
Do those types of companies even exist in the US? How many of us do you really think are racist?
The best any reasonable person could expect is an executive's apology and a statement of condemnation of the employees responsible for the behavior, and the firing of said employees and any managers that looked the other way. I am slightly skeptical that racial sensitivity training would have any real impact.
...Is this reasonable skepticism, or is this splitting hairs that an unethical company would hide behind?
What if they truly did nothing wrong? What response should they give then? Not to say that Tesla doesn't operate unethically, but shouldn't we have some actual evidence before condemning the entire organization as racist, on the word of a single employee? And yes, just because a company does everything they can to "fix" the issue, they are mostly trying to save face. Of course, they also probably wish it was never an issue to begin with. The world is not black and white.
You presume that Kaspersky is the only software on US Defense systems that's exploitable?
I presume that there are hundreds, if not thousands of ways to breech US Defense systems. I also presume that it is extremely unlikely that the Israelis only had that one, single way in, the entire time before they notified the US of the security vulnerability. If your point is that Israel is not our ally because they spy on us, I've got news for you. Everyone spies on everyone. The fact that they notified the US at all is a pretty good indicator of who's "side" they are on.
For all I know, they specific told the US so they'd switch to another AV software which Israelis spies knew was vulnerable.
Why the hell would the US switch to AV software recommended by a foreign intelligence service? In what world does that make sense? Then again, why the heck did they go with Kaspersky in the first place?
Hi neighbor. You should really stop using Equifax. We were able to break in easily, and noticed other people were as well. By the way, your Equifax data has (obviously) been compromised. Might want to look into that.
I can't say I'm a fan of arguments using heavy-handed, over-simplified analogies, this one included. Seems more like a false equivalence.
Your timeline is wrong, and you are basically stating that the Israelis were only there to steal information from the US. Do you actually know this, or is this just pessimistic conjecture?
Even if they were only there initially to steal data (big if), we live in a world where everyone spies on everyone. It is what spy agencies do, it is their entire purpose. It makes no sense to expect not to be spied on, but it does make sense that allied agencies would inform you if non-allied agencies are successfully intruding into your systems.
If this was an attempt to gain an advantage over the Russians, they would have notified Kaspersky of the nature of the flaw as soon as they had a new intrusion method, not the US.
Notifying the US to the end of them banning the software you are trying to use to spy on them would be shooting yourself in the foot, especially if you've spent resources finding a brand new method to break in. Your theory doesn't make sense.
The Israelis notified the US that they were able to breach Kaspersky on their systems. The Russians did not. Speaks a lot about the intent. Not sure how you missed that.
Nice copy pasta. Half of that shit is pure fabrication by the Kremlin, and the other half, this troll has to reach back hundreds of years to find a time when the US was as bad as Russia is now.
Russia has an even longer and bloodier history than the US. The czars were murderous hacks who considered their serf population as their own property. They brutalized all of their vassal states in the cold war. Stalin massacred hundreds of MILLIONS. Russia has the most blood on its hands, more than any other country EVER. Go back to your Kremlin masters and shove it.
I can't be the only one who is proud of their CS degree. The courses I took challenged me greatly, and often taught me the answers to questions that I didn't even think to ask. Maybe I was lucky, but the professors I had helped me expand my knowledge far quicker than I could have done without them. Their dedication to education showed, and made it far easier to learn the concepts, history, and practical application of software development and computer science in general.
I often hear that "I'd rather have a self-taught English major, because they show dedication and adaptability", and I respect that, but I this attitude also sort of dismisses the fact that CS students can be just as dedicated and adaptable, and also have a large amount of relevant knowledge on the subject. I have worked with people with and without degrees in the relevant field, and those with seem to lean on me far less than those without. Just my personal experience.
I wouldn't say that I'd be lost without my CS degree, but I doubt very much I'd be able to get where I am today as quickly as I did, without it. Plus, I really did love my classes, so even if it isn't a "positive return on investment" (which I still kind of doubt is really the case), I do not at all regret earning the degree.
They do, but they are now called internships, and you don't get paid anything. Still better than working at the Taco shack because learning how to work a non-dead-end job is more valuable than minimum wage at that age.
Have her volunteer for the Special Olympics or something, then she will gain experience in a variety of useful business-related activities, instead of learning how to fold a burrito.
Do you know any lawyers looking to line their home with checks?
What? Checks are a way to transfer money. Lawyers work for money. Not sure where your disconnect is.
The next step beyond this is for the mob to learn that the "Even accused racists have a right to a good lawyer" fund is being run out of and demand that the bank cease having any relationship with them.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH. No. Banks have proven time and time again that they do not give a flying **** about anything except money. And if you define a "good" lawyer as an above-average lawyer, I disagree with the assertion entirely.
At the risk of being called a bigot, cops are killed at a much higher rate by minorities with guns than whites with guns. They profile out of a sense of self-preservation, most of the time. Don't get me wrong, it is tragic whenever an innocent person gets killed, but this is not a simple case of "the cops hate minorities". And again, it is simply unacceptable that any people at all are discriminated in a way that gets them killed, but the vast, vast majority of confrontations of officers with minorities, even when armed, do not lead to shots fired by the officer. It is, of course, still a problem whenever it happens, but it really doesn't happen as often as fear-mongers would like you to believe.
Some day an innocent man is going to set up a crowdfunding campaign for his defence and is going to get it shut down because he's been pre-emptively judged guilty.
So you are presuming this guy is guilty? Isn't that anathema to what you are arguing for?
Everyone has a right to a fair trial. No one has a right to have it paid for by a crowdfunding site.
Is that why they bothered posting corruption allegation on a blog with the aim of informing the public? Why risk being arrested if everyone can work it out for themselves?
Everything becomes rare over time, you just have to wait long enough. Of course, if cryo-freezing yourself doesn't work out, maybe that ET cart will net your grand-kids at least $5. Or whatever the steel bottle-cap equivalent is.
If PETA suddenly started getting more share of the pet adoption market, the net survival rate of non-PETA shelters would drop accordingly. Pet adoption demand has been easily met every year, so your point is pretty much moot. PETA itself claims it does not see euthanasia as a means of population control, but as a last resort for animals suffering painful, terminal conditions (supposedly).
I would be more comfortable with the shelters spaying / neutering wild pets in a catch and release type of program, but this method is more expensive than putting them to sleep, and the net suffering (due to the typically brutal lives that wild pets usually endure fighting disease and competing for territory and food) would actually decrease slower per dollar invested, in theory. I'd love to see some data on this, but I've been unable to find any studies that try to approach this from a purely pragmatic angle.
On the topic of euthanasia as a means of population control, is there a point at which killing one animal so another animal will suffer less worth it if the net suffering relieved is great enough, or is allowing both animals to suffer always the better choice? Is a live of misery still worth living? I still have no idea
Slashdot Mirror
I also understand that some, typically those without actual problems of their own, seek to feel guilt and shame by taking on the woes of society as their own personal plight, often without even understanding the driving forces behind what they see in front of them. I also understand that juvenile wishing for "utopia now", and the disdain for the world that does not match their ideals, does come from a place of genuine concern. I also understand the temptation to jump to conclusions, especially when the perceived victim is of a protected class.
What I don't understand is why a post that poses far more questions than it offers answers has been modded "insightful". IANAL, but I'll give it a shot.
...what is/are the responsibilities of "Tesla the Company", with respect to tackling and preventing racism in the workplace?
Tesla has a legal responsibility to report any illegal activities, including hate crimes.
Do they have to have anti-racism training for their staff? Do they have to have a grievance procedure? Do they have to have an anonymous whistleblowing program?
Legally, I don't think so, but again, IANAL.
Are there other things that an employer needs to demonstrate in order to avoid accusations of institutional racism?
There is no way to avoid accusation of institutional racism, aside from actual censorship. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything, and often people do make false accusations (not saying this is a false accusation) for profit or political motivations. As far as public opinion goes, there is no course they can force on their employees that could ever convince people that they are not racist if they get a bad reputation. Google, for instance, one of the most progressive companies on the planet, is often crucified in the media, and widely thought of as a racist and sexist organization. It is a stain that can only really fade with time.
But does the presence of one or more racist employees at any company mean that the company itself is racist? If not, how do we make the differentiation?
A company can only really be considered racist if they have company-wide racist policies or tolerate / encourage racist behavior from the top. Almost exclusively though, racism in a company is the direct result of a few individuals and those that tolerate them. Condemning the entire company for the actions of a few is irrational.
Is it when 10% of employees are racist? 20%? Is it if the company fails to handle accusations of racism appropriately - and, if so, what does "appropriate handling" need to include?
Do those types of companies even exist in the US? How many of us do you really think are racist?
The best any reasonable person could expect is an executive's apology and a statement of condemnation of the employees responsible for the behavior, and the firing of said employees and any managers that looked the other way. I am slightly skeptical that racial sensitivity training would have any real impact.
...Is this reasonable skepticism, or is this splitting hairs that an unethical company would hide behind?
What if they truly did nothing wrong? What response should they give then? Not to say that Tesla doesn't operate unethically, but shouldn't we have some actual evidence before condemning the entire organization as racist, on the word of a single employee? And yes, just because a company does everything they can to "fix" the issue, they are mostly trying to save face. Of course, they also probably wish it was never an issue to begin with. The world is not black and white.
Hell, even the laws of thermodynamics suggest not only that life's not fair, but that you also can't get even either.
Using the laws of Physics as a vehicle for a political world-view? Now you are just trolling.
You presume that Kaspersky is the only software on US Defense systems that's exploitable?
I presume that there are hundreds, if not thousands of ways to breech US Defense systems. I also presume that it is extremely unlikely that the Israelis only had that one, single way in, the entire time before they notified the US of the security vulnerability. If your point is that Israel is not our ally because they spy on us, I've got news for you. Everyone spies on everyone. The fact that they notified the US at all is a pretty good indicator of who's "side" they are on.
For all I know, they specific told the US so they'd switch to another AV software which Israelis spies knew was vulnerable.
Why the hell would the US switch to AV software recommended by a foreign intelligence service? In what world does that make sense? Then again, why the heck did they go with Kaspersky in the first place?
A more apt analogy would be:
Hi neighbor. You should really stop using Equifax. We were able to break in easily, and noticed other people were as well. By the way, your Equifax data has (obviously) been compromised. Might want to look into that.
I can't say I'm a fan of arguments using heavy-handed, over-simplified analogies, this one included. Seems more like a false equivalence.
Your timeline is wrong, and you are basically stating that the Israelis were only there to steal information from the US. Do you actually know this, or is this just pessimistic conjecture?
Even if they were only there initially to steal data (big if), we live in a world where everyone spies on everyone. It is what spy agencies do, it is their entire purpose. It makes no sense to expect not to be spied on, but it does make sense that allied agencies would inform you if non-allied agencies are successfully intruding into your systems.
If this was an attempt to gain an advantage over the Russians, they would have notified Kaspersky of the nature of the flaw as soon as they had a new intrusion method, not the US.
Notifying the US to the end of them banning the software you are trying to use to spy on them would be shooting yourself in the foot, especially if you've spent resources finding a brand new method to break in. Your theory doesn't make sense.
The Israelis notified the US that they were able to breach Kaspersky on their systems. The Russians did not. Speaks a lot about the intent. Not sure how you missed that.
Nice copy pasta. Half of that shit is pure fabrication by the Kremlin, and the other half, this troll has to reach back hundreds of years to find a time when the US was as bad as Russia is now.
Russia has an even longer and bloodier history than the US. The czars were murderous hacks who considered their serf population as their own property. They brutalized all of their vassal states in the cold war. Stalin massacred hundreds of MILLIONS. Russia has the most blood on its hands, more than any other country EVER. Go back to your Kremlin masters and shove it.
I can't be the only one who is proud of their CS degree. The courses I took challenged me greatly, and often taught me the answers to questions that I didn't even think to ask. Maybe I was lucky, but the professors I had helped me expand my knowledge far quicker than I could have done without them. Their dedication to education showed, and made it far easier to learn the concepts, history, and practical application of software development and computer science in general.
I often hear that "I'd rather have a self-taught English major, because they show dedication and adaptability", and I respect that, but I this attitude also sort of dismisses the fact that CS students can be just as dedicated and adaptable, and also have a large amount of relevant knowledge on the subject. I have worked with people with and without degrees in the relevant field, and those with seem to lean on me far less than those without. Just my personal experience.
I wouldn't say that I'd be lost without my CS degree, but I doubt very much I'd be able to get where I am today as quickly as I did, without it. Plus, I really did love my classes, so even if it isn't a "positive return on investment" (which I still kind of doubt is really the case), I do not at all regret earning the degree.
It is a public domain company and should be broken up and raided at will.
Whats its like, being a complete crackpot?
This just in: turns out taxing things makes them less profitable.
Selecting restart prompts for a reason for the restart on Server 2012. No way to accidentally restart unless your hand is spazzing out or something.
They do, but they are now called internships, and you don't get paid anything. Still better than working at the Taco shack because learning how to work a non-dead-end job is more valuable than minimum wage at that age.
Have her volunteer for the Special Olympics or something, then she will gain experience in a variety of useful business-related activities, instead of learning how to fold a burrito.
Do you know any lawyers looking to line their home with checks?
What? Checks are a way to transfer money. Lawyers work for money. Not sure where your disconnect is.
The next step beyond this is for the mob to learn that the "Even accused racists have a right to a good lawyer" fund is being run out of and demand that the bank cease having any relationship with them.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH. No. Banks have proven time and time again that they do not give a flying **** about anything except money. And if you define a "good" lawyer as an above-average lawyer, I disagree with the assertion entirely.
At the risk of being called a bigot, cops are killed at a much higher rate by minorities with guns than whites with guns. They profile out of a sense of self-preservation, most of the time. Don't get me wrong, it is tragic whenever an innocent person gets killed, but this is not a simple case of "the cops hate minorities". And again, it is simply unacceptable that any people at all are discriminated in a way that gets them killed, but the vast, vast majority of confrontations of officers with minorities, even when armed, do not lead to shots fired by the officer. It is, of course, still a problem whenever it happens, but it really doesn't happen as often as fear-mongers would like you to believe.
They know who he is, they can always cut him a check. No one is entitled to crowdfunding.
Some day an innocent man is going to set up a crowdfunding campaign for his defence and is going to get it shut down because he's been pre-emptively judged guilty.
So you are presuming this guy is guilty? Isn't that anathema to what you are arguing for? Everyone has a right to a fair trial. No one has a right to have it paid for by a crowdfunding site.
Electron velocity is a standard component of the Bohr Model.
Is that why they bothered posting corruption allegation on a blog with the aim of informing the public? Why risk being arrested if everyone can work it out for themselves?
So does this mean you potentially get offended when people bash "stupid Americans", or does the label apply only when convenient?
2. Perpetual motion is idiotic; There has never been a case of it being observed.
Said the electron to the nucleus.
I used to make badly written programs as a kid, so does this mean I have to quit my job?
My boss said he would give me a glowing referral for any one of our competitors. He's a pretty cool guy.
-Gen Y v86 signing off
Everything becomes rare over time, you just have to wait long enough. Of course, if cryo-freezing yourself doesn't work out, maybe that ET cart will net your grand-kids at least $5. Or whatever the steel bottle-cap equivalent is.
Cancer is a part of nature, but that doesn't mean we need to accept it as incurable.
If PETA suddenly started getting more share of the pet adoption market, the net survival rate of non-PETA shelters would drop accordingly. Pet adoption demand has been easily met every year, so your point is pretty much moot. PETA itself claims it does not see euthanasia as a means of population control, but as a last resort for animals suffering painful, terminal conditions (supposedly).
I would be more comfortable with the shelters spaying / neutering wild pets in a catch and release type of program, but this method is more expensive than putting them to sleep, and the net suffering (due to the typically brutal lives that wild pets usually endure fighting disease and competing for territory and food) would actually decrease slower per dollar invested, in theory. I'd love to see some data on this, but I've been unable to find any studies that try to approach this from a purely pragmatic angle.
On the topic of euthanasia as a means of population control, is there a point at which killing one animal so another animal will suffer less worth it if the net suffering relieved is great enough, or is allowing both animals to suffer always the better choice? Is a live of misery still worth living? I still have no idea