This isn't possible. The Earth is flat...Antarctica is a lie. Wake up, sheeple!
More "scientists" in on the conspiracy. How much did they pay you, Ohio State? How much?!? . . . P.S. The above is intended as humour. If you actually believe the Earth is flat, please seek professional help.
I support this idea, but nobody would ever go for it.
Why? It just increases the cost of voting.
You would need to audit every vote to ensure the counting machines weren't tampered with. If you are auditing every vote, it costs at least as much as a paper/pencil election.
Why on earth would we want to spend taxpayer money or government resources on this sort of thing?!?
This is the exact sort of thing that the free market should decide. If you need this degree of coddling, please see a psychologist as you have a serious phobia.
I'm extremely familiar with the types of sensors used by meat. They have trouble with rain, snow, sunlight, scratches, dirt, cellphones, coffee, alcohol, drugs, emotions, tiredness, loud noises, stray thoughts, basically anything. Try driving and pretend your eyeballs are the sensors. It's a pretty comparable comparison. We're 500 years out from a safe meat-driven car. The intelligence isn't there, the sensors aren't there, and yet we insist on asserting that a bag of meat is an acceptable driver even though there were over 40,000 deaths in the USA last year involving meat-driven vehicles.
But they aren't applying for those courses because when they graduate they won't get jobs!
Fine, then use STEM-related high school marks. Or SAT scores. There are far better metrics to use than general population. If we did that, we'd have to immediately stop hiring female nurses, psychologists and teachers to address the minority population of males in those professions.
There is definitely a problem here, but given that STEM fields were almost entirely white dominated 50 years ago in NA, but now are white/asian dominated, it doesn't appear to be systemic racism that is the cause. Unfortunately it is far to easy to look at big business and say "they are they one's doing this" than to look at our own government, school systems and communities and say "we are the one's doing this"
If not that, then what should the number of black, female, etc. employees in software development be?
Quoting from a comment above: "Instead of general population as the criterion, if you use STEM graduates of the top 100 or 200 US colleges, the percentages might not look so terrible for Google. If Google could say, "our workforce reflects the talent pool we recruit from" and that argument is accepted it would be good."
That's exactly the criterion that should be used. The question of whether racial minorities are being hired at an appropriate rate is different than the question of whether racial minorities are graduating with the necessary qualifications an an appropriate rate.
They are very different questions with very different solutions. Expecting companies to hire unqualified candidates because of government mandated is just another form of charity, which should not be the responsibility of private industry. This issue just gives the government an easy scapegoat and avoid the real issue: the education system in the USA has serious issues and nobody is willing to do anything about it.
Nope. Having the wrong gender/race mix is prima facie evidence of wrongdoing in a civil suit.
Reference?
Every legal precedent I can find regarding discrimination requires the prosecutor to show that equivalent candidates were systematically approved/rejected on the basis of race. I have never seen a legal argument made based on the racial characteristics of an employers workforce.
If that were a valid legal argument, I would expect to see many more lawsuits of sexism in heavily male or female dominated industries.
The accusation is, the general American population is 78% white, 12% black, 10% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 2% Arab, x% Jewish, 51% female. If your work force does not have the same percentages you are discriminating.
Says who? I have never seen anything remotely like that used as a legal argument. Do you have evidence for this assertion?
The federal government has every business doing commercial product R&D that won't pay off in the short term, but that may very well reap huge benefits in the long term. When the average tenure of an S&P 500 CEO is only 10 years (https://www.creditdonkey.com/ceo-statistics.html), they have no interest in investing in technologies that may only pay off in 20, 30 or 50 years.
Unfortunately, that's exactly the kind of investment humanity needs right now....long term, speculative innovation.
Or we could just stick our head in the sands, say that black is white, coal is clean, news is fake and we've always been at war with eastasia. Maybe that will work out for us.
We also know that a segment of the population, given the option to do nothing WILL DO NOTHING.
Even if this is true (and I don't believe it's been proven so), these people are already costing society. Either in tax dollars going towards welfare programs or tax dollars going towards police forces / incarceration.
It's entirely possible that there is a segment of the population that will do nothing. Do you really believe this segment is doing something productive in the absence of universal basic income? Alternately, there are likely some people who want to do something productive, but lack the means to obtain the basic necessities required to gain employment.
Now, I'm not saying universal basic income is a good idea or a bad idea. We don't know whether it works or not, but it very arguably has the potential to save money in the long run. Isn't that a good reason to study it?
And never mind media creators, do you know what I found out that exists....pizza restaurants that ALSO run a delivery service!
And I just found out that the company that owns Steam ALSO makes video games!
And you can download Debian directly from the Debian website!!!
When will the atrocities end?!?! How has the government let these anti-competitive reight-wing regimes exist for so long?
I'm gonna go watch "The Defenders" on Netflix just to calm myself down. At least Netflix isn't part of this whole "Produce content and distribute it" conspiracy.
Did he happen to ignore the popup with the big yellow exclamation mark that says: "Are you sure you want to discard ALL changes? This is IRREVERSIBLE!"
At the very least the ALL CAPS WITH EXCLAMATION MARK! should have possibly made him think "Hmmm...this seems to be a pretty important question"
But apparently he decided: "Ah, screw it. It's only 3 months of my life".
Given that level of skill, I can't think much of importance was lost.
Slashdot Mirror
So that's what happened to the kids!
I'd been thinking it's been awfully quiet around here lately.
This isn't possible. The Earth is flat...Antarctica is a lie. Wake up, sheeple!
More "scientists" in on the conspiracy. How much did they pay you, Ohio State? How much?!?
.
.
.
P.S.
The above is intended as humour. If you actually believe the Earth is flat, please seek professional help.
So I assume the machine counts the vote? How do you verify that it is counting the votes correctly?
I support this idea, but nobody would ever go for it.
Why? It just increases the cost of voting.
You would need to audit every vote to ensure the counting machines weren't tampered with. If you are auditing every vote, it costs at least as much as a paper/pencil election.
So....you want to use a very expensive pencil for electronic voting?
It's also an awesome way of finding a bunch of really stupid ways to do something....like with electronic voting for instance.
The freedom to try different approaches shouldn't override our rights to have fair elections.
Unfortunately, that's exactly what every attempted form of electronic voting I've heard of does.
I for one welcome our new pork-based overlords.
Why on earth would we want to spend taxpayer money or government resources on this sort of thing?!?
This is the exact sort of thing that the free market should decide. If you need this degree of coddling, please see a psychologist as you have a serious phobia.
No, No, and...hell no.
They haven't been caught harvesting or selling our data, at least.
Fixed that for you.
I'm extremely familiar with the types of sensors used by meat. They have trouble with rain, snow, sunlight, scratches, dirt, cellphones, coffee, alcohol, drugs, emotions, tiredness, loud noises, stray thoughts, basically anything. Try driving and pretend your eyeballs are the sensors. It's a pretty comparable comparison. We're 500 years out from a safe meat-driven car. The intelligence isn't there, the sensors aren't there, and yet we insist on asserting that a bag of meat is an acceptable driver even though there were over 40,000 deaths in the USA last year involving meat-driven vehicles.
Fine, then use STEM-related high school marks. Or SAT scores. There are far better metrics to use than general population. If we did that, we'd have to immediately stop hiring female nurses, psychologists and teachers to address the minority population of males in those professions.
There is definitely a problem here, but given that STEM fields were almost entirely white dominated 50 years ago in NA, but now are white/asian dominated, it doesn't appear to be systemic racism that is the cause. Unfortunately it is far to easy to look at big business and say "they are they one's doing this" than to look at our own government, school systems and communities and say "we are the one's doing this"
Then it should be trivial for you to provide evidence of this claim. I'll wait...
Quoting from a comment above:
"Instead of general population as the criterion, if you use STEM graduates of the top 100 or 200 US colleges, the percentages might not look so terrible for Google. If Google could say, "our workforce reflects the talent pool we recruit from" and that argument is accepted it would be good."
That's exactly the criterion that should be used. The question of whether racial minorities are being hired at an appropriate rate is different than the question of whether racial minorities are graduating with the necessary qualifications an an appropriate rate.
They are very different questions with very different solutions. Expecting companies to hire unqualified candidates because of government mandated is just another form of charity, which should not be the responsibility of private industry. This issue just gives the government an easy scapegoat and avoid the real issue: the education system in the USA has serious issues and nobody is willing to do anything about it.
Reference?
Every legal precedent I can find regarding discrimination requires the prosecutor to show that equivalent candidates were systematically approved/rejected on the basis of race. I have never seen a legal argument made based on the racial characteristics of an employers workforce.
If that were a valid legal argument, I would expect to see many more lawsuits of sexism in heavily male or female dominated industries.
It wont work.
The accusation is, the general American population is 78% white, 12% black, 10% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 2% Arab, x% Jewish, 51% female. If your work force does not have the same percentages you are discriminating.
Says who? I have never seen anything remotely like that used as a legal argument. Do you have evidence for this assertion?
The federal government has every business doing commercial product R&D that won't pay off in the short term, but that may very well reap huge benefits in the long term. When the average tenure of an S&P 500 CEO is only 10 years (https://www.creditdonkey.com/ceo-statistics.html), they have no interest in investing in technologies that may only pay off in 20, 30 or 50 years.
Unfortunately, that's exactly the kind of investment humanity needs right now....long term, speculative innovation.
Or we could just stick our head in the sands, say that black is white, coal is clean, news is fake and we've always been at war with eastasia. Maybe that will work out for us.
Jesus Christ, who was that?!?!
It sounds like the plot of a terrible book.
Even if this is true (and I don't believe it's been proven so), these people are already costing society. Either in tax dollars going towards welfare programs or tax dollars going towards police forces / incarceration.
It's entirely possible that there is a segment of the population that will do nothing. Do you really believe this segment is doing something productive in the absence of universal basic income? Alternately, there are likely some people who want to do something productive, but lack the means to obtain the basic necessities required to gain employment.
Now, I'm not saying universal basic income is a good idea or a bad idea. We don't know whether it works or not, but it very arguably has the potential to save money in the long run. Isn't that a good reason to study it?
Who are these imaginary people who "get all their browsing needs served locally" anyway?
I can't think of anyone I know who would want/use such a thing.
You should ask your mom about that sometime :-)
Exactly!
And never mind media creators, do you know what I found out that exists....pizza restaurants that ALSO run a delivery service!
And I just found out that the company that owns Steam ALSO makes video games!
And you can download Debian directly from the Debian website!!!
When will the atrocities end?!?! How has the government let these anti-competitive reight-wing regimes exist for so long?
I'm gonna go watch "The Defenders" on Netflix just to calm myself down. At least Netflix isn't part of this whole "Produce content and distribute it" conspiracy.
Wait, are you saying the P vs NP proof is not verifiable in polynomial time? :-)
So just for fun, I tried it.
Did he happen to ignore the popup with the big yellow exclamation mark that says:
"Are you sure you want to discard ALL changes? This is IRREVERSIBLE!"
At the very least the ALL CAPS WITH EXCLAMATION MARK! should have possibly made him think "Hmmm...this seems to be a pretty important question"
But apparently he decided: "Ah, screw it. It's only 3 months of my life".
Given that level of skill, I can't think much of importance was lost.
Where the heck are you getting your cassette tapes produced?
The article indicates small runs cost around $2/unit. That's around the same price I've seen online.
I can get CD's produced for as low as $0.50/unit.
You have proof of this? Or at least evidence?