Do you think Nazis actually plot on the Daily Stormer? Are you nuts? They gloat, but they don't plot there. Plotting is done f2f or through private encrypted messages
We *are* pretty careful, are we not? This has happened only to a neo-Nazi website. Communism, libertarianism, and of course the alt-right all have many thriving websites.
Whether small or large, the question is "how do we make them smaller than today?". The OP suggested that protest was ineffective; I suggested that we could not know, and that protest may be more effective than lack of protest.
When I used the term "Nazis", I was using the same language as the OP, where the context indicates they meant "neo-Nazis", not the Nazis of the Third Reich.
If you can't understand the difference between treating people badly on the basis of their repugnant ideas and treating people differently on the basis of their skin colour, I feel bad for you.
Well sure it is free speech. I can tell an employer "this person you employ is a Nazi and you should fire him". And an employer can think to themselves "I don't want a Nazi fuck working for me" and then fire the Nazi.
Alternatively, if protestors hadn't protested against the KKK and Nazis, the KKK and Nazis would have been emboldened and run bigger marches next time round. You cannot be sure that not protesting is more effective than protesting.
I am amazed by how dumb some defenders of free speech are. Free speech is the ability to say what you want without the government stopping you by force. It doesn't provide you with immunity from others acting in response to your words, including trying to shout you down, get you fired, shun you, mock you, boycott you, get you kicked off your hosting service etc etc. If you want them not to be able to protest in this way, it is *you* that is anti-free speech. And you yourself may one day wish to protest in exactly this way and not have the government prevent you from doing so.
Some choices: 1. Nazis working underground 2. Nazis working in the open 3. Nazis trying to work in the open but finding it exceptionally difficult because people don't want to associate with them or take their money
He's obviously a fairly bright guy. He could have applied some of that brilliance to thinking through the likely consequences of posting that essay in that place. It wasn't exactly a wildly surprising outcome for the essay to get into the public domain and cause havoc for Google and for him. I'm certainly not going to feel sorry for him that he got sacked for bring a ton of avoidable crap down on his company and getting himself shit-canned in the process. Actions have consequences and all, and I wouldn't want him to be protected from the consequences of his actions, because he should man up and take responsibility and because that creates moral hazard and all those other excellent reasons conservatives like to give for why school kids should be free to drink pink milk and eat pizza and felons should have voting rights stripped for life etc etc.
Um. Posted on a v high profile internal message board. Tackles super-contentious topic. Says the employer is dealing with the super-contentious topic badly.
Some people do. Others don't: me, for instance. I'm more minded to take this at face value. While fossil fuel resource extraction has mainly been a resource curse, the same is not nearly as true for renewables.
Are you really incapable of scrolling down a page? There are nine specific benefits mentioned on that page -- why would you imply they only describe the first one? And why play down the significance of anti-desertification measures if you actually give a shit about Africa?
Dunno. But I'm sure TuNur will have done the analysis quite carefully before concluding that this was the best location. There will be plenty of other factors besides cost: political will, likelihood of objections, geological stability, and on and on. The issues I mentioned above were examples, not exhaustive. On costs, I can think of the following factors that make a Spanish location more expensive cf Tunisia: labour, land, water, regulatory burden, lobbying, cost per km of transmission from Spain to the rest of the EU over land. And the following make a Spanish location less expensive: access to talent, no need for undersea construction. But it will all be in the models TuNur and its investors created. They will have done thorough due dil.
Ahem. It now may help you to review the thread, and realise what I was responding to. Hint, it wasn't the memo.
Here's what's happened: OP: "the claim testosterone gives men an advantage in engineering (and leadership!) skills is false" AC: "no it isn't" Me: "if the claim testosterone gives men an advantage in engineering is true, show the evidence" You: "the memo didn't say women were inferior to women" Me: "your ability to throw insults about is not very impressive, but it is still vastly more impressive than your ability to follow a thread, which is a skill you clearly don't have"
As an aside, your latest post appears to suggest that you are the same AC as the one that made the comment about testosterone. If that's the case, you have passed well beyond the realms of stupid-or-satire and into some undiscovered land of imbecility.
Possibly, but engineering is about balancing competing priorities, and stability must be factored against cost-base (undoubtedly higher in Spain), insolation (at least 20% higher in Tunisia) etc etc. TuNur describe the factors they took into account in determining the location on their website.
Nope. Google did nothing wrong, either from the perspective of pro-business conservatives ("companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximise shareholder value") or those on the left ("companies should fire bigots, including clever-clever bigots who genuinely think they aren't being bigoted when it's clear they bloody are").
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think Nazis actually plot on the Daily Stormer? Are you nuts? They gloat, but they don't plot there. Plotting is done f2f or through private encrypted messages
Is there any actual evidence that:
1. Daesh got moved to the dark web
2. They have blossomed
?
We *are* pretty careful, are we not? This has happened only to a neo-Nazi website. Communism, libertarianism, and of course the alt-right all have many thriving websites.
Whether small or large, the question is "how do we make them smaller than today?". The OP suggested that protest was ineffective; I suggested that we could not know, and that protest may be more effective than lack of protest.
When I used the term "Nazis", I was using the same language as the OP, where the context indicates they meant "neo-Nazis", not the Nazis of the Third Reich.
Ditto for KKK.
If you can't understand the difference between treating people badly on the basis of their repugnant ideas and treating people differently on the basis of their skin colour, I feel bad for you.
Well sure it is free speech. I can tell an employer "this person you employ is a Nazi and you should fire him". And an employer can think to themselves "I don't want a Nazi fuck working for me" and then fire the Nazi.
That is all free speech and it's all good.
Um, no. Choice number 1 is when the *government outlaws Nazis*.
How do people struggle to understand this in America, of all places?
Alternatively, if protestors hadn't protested against the KKK and Nazis, the KKK and Nazis would have been emboldened and run bigger marches next time round. You cannot be sure that not protesting is more effective than protesting.
Exactly
I am amazed by how dumb some defenders of free speech are. Free speech is the ability to say what you want without the government stopping you by force. It doesn't provide you with immunity from others acting in response to your words, including trying to shout you down, get you fired, shun you, mock you, boycott you, get you kicked off your hosting service etc etc. If you want them not to be able to protest in this way, it is *you* that is anti-free speech. And you yourself may one day wish to protest in exactly this way and not have the government prevent you from doing so.
Some choices:
1. Nazis working underground
2. Nazis working in the open
3. Nazis trying to work in the open but finding it exceptionally difficult because people don't want to associate with them or take their money
I'll have a 3 please!
He's obviously a fairly bright guy. He could have applied some of that brilliance to thinking through the likely consequences of posting that essay in that place. It wasn't exactly a wildly surprising outcome for the essay to get into the public domain and cause havoc for Google and for him. I'm certainly not going to feel sorry for him that he got sacked for bring a ton of avoidable crap down on his company and getting himself shit-canned in the process. Actions have consequences and all, and I wouldn't want him to be protected from the consequences of his actions, because he should man up and take responsibility and because that creates moral hazard and all those other excellent reasons conservatives like to give for why school kids should be free to drink pink milk and eat pizza and felons should have voting rights stripped for life etc etc.
Guess the conclusion I draw is that every other user has had the presence of mind not to post super-inflammatory stuff that riles up their co-workers.
Um. Posted on a v high profile internal message board. Tackles super-contentious topic. Says the employer is dealing with the super-contentious topic badly.
That is the most gracious response I've ever seen on Slashdot: kudos to you!
Some people do. Others don't: me, for instance. I'm more minded to take this at face value. While fossil fuel resource extraction has mainly been a resource curse, the same is not nearly as true for renewables.
Are you really incapable of scrolling down a page? There are nine specific benefits mentioned on that page -- why would you imply they only describe the first one? And why play down the significance of anti-desertification measures if you actually give a shit about Africa?
Dunno. But I'm sure TuNur will have done the analysis quite carefully before concluding that this was the best location. There will be plenty of other factors besides cost: political will, likelihood of objections, geological stability, and on and on. The issues I mentioned above were examples, not exhaustive. On costs, I can think of the following factors that make a Spanish location more expensive cf Tunisia: labour, land, water, regulatory burden, lobbying, cost per km of transmission from Spain to the rest of the EU over land. And the following make a Spanish location less expensive: access to talent, no need for undersea construction. But it will all be in the models TuNur and its investors created. They will have done thorough due dil.
Ahem. It now may help you to review the thread, and realise what I was responding to. Hint, it wasn't the memo.
Here's what's happened:
OP: "the claim testosterone gives men an advantage in engineering (and leadership!) skills is false"
AC: "no it isn't"
Me: "if the claim testosterone gives men an advantage in engineering is true, show the evidence"
You: "the memo didn't say women were inferior to women"
Me: "your ability to throw insults about is not very impressive, but it is still vastly more impressive than your ability to follow a thread, which is a skill you clearly don't have"
As an aside, your latest post appears to suggest that you are the same AC as the one that made the comment about testosterone. If that's the case, you have passed well beyond the realms of stupid-or-satire and into some undiscovered land of imbecility.
He really should have known better than to think a memo like that would not find its way into the public domain.
There is extensive material on the TuNur website about the benefits for Tunisia. You could have looked it up instead of whining.
http://www.nurenergie.com/tunu...
It has been approved by the Desertec foundation.
Possibly, but engineering is about balancing competing priorities, and stability must be factored against cost-base (undoubtedly higher in Spain), insolation (at least 20% higher in Tunisia) etc etc. TuNur describe the factors they took into account in determining the location on their website.
Nope. Google did nothing wrong, either from the perspective of pro-business conservatives ("companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximise shareholder value") or those on the left ("companies should fire bigots, including clever-clever bigots who genuinely think they aren't being bigoted when it's clear they bloody are").