If everyone has the same rights, why do you need to actively hire women and minorities in preference to white men who are equally qualifired? If it's really that everyone gets treated equally, why do we have hiring quotas, why do we tell people what gender or race they need to hire more of?
If there was no discrimination, you wouldn't even know what races or genders were hired, the mere fact that you're keeping that information means you plan to discriminate, against who?
Discrimination is discrimination, no matter what group it is against. Just because it's socially acceptable to discriminate against white men doesn't make it right.
It could also indicate that that particular demographic happened to apply more, or have higher interest in being hired, or it could just be a fluke.
If your hiring managers are hiring based on race or gender instead of results, then you won't have the best employees for the job, and you'll see that in your performance numbers. If however you pounce on every manager who happens to hire a white male, you'll find that managers are scared to hire based on proficiency, and will instead hire based on whatever arbitrary quotas won't get upper management to pounce on them.
Immersion and huge screen I have at home. The ONLY benefit theatres have at this point is early release, if you don't take advantage of that, why would you subject yourself to the theatre?
This much is known, but really, are my movie viewing habits worth enough money to anyone to pay for this? I highly doubt it. They'll pay pennies for that information, not dollars.
1) there are a grand total of zero theatres in my city, or any surrounding city, that do this 2) the odd times are the ones more likely to attract kids 3) if you're willing to wait for a movie anyway, why go to the theatre? the viewing experience is far better at home.
The question is whether tracking your users generates enough money to keep the lights on, and I suspect they've just discovered that it doesn't. I bet their user demographic, and the information they can collect about it, just isn't valuable and unique enough to earn enough money to cover the expenses.
Correct. Unfortunately when companies make it white males vs everyone else, everyone loses.
Companies need to stop discrimination, not shift the target of it. Companies shouldn't even keep track of race or gender of their employees, there is no legitimate reason to keep that information, and it is only ever useful for discriminatory practices.
And better yet, treat them exactly the same as you would treat women or minorities. That means no discriminating against people based on gender or race (as is alleged by the "discontent white males")
Discrimination against white males is no more "tolerant" than discrimination against any other race or gender. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter what group it is against. Just because it's socially acceptable to discriminate against white men doesn't make it right.
Companies have tried that in the past, and places have sued. It's legal for me to block ads on my end, but it's not necessarily legal for you to alter the content along the way.
Free is great, but it requires a lot of bandwidth, and servers, to provide this type of service. The money has to come from somewhere, so what do you do? do you insert ads in to the stream you just compressed? and if so, how do you display them? and how do you make sure that you still saved data when you're sending more stuff? If you aren't inserting ads, then maybe it comes out of your marketing budget, will people pay more for a product that has this feature? (considering google also provides this for free on chrome, I doubt it) So that leaves selling your customer's information, how much is that worth? and can you provide enough of it that companies can't buy elsewhere to make it worthwhile?
I bet Opera simply couldn't figure out how to make (or at least not lose too much) money on this.
Not necessarily, we do monitor for the presence of a signal, not just it's content. But even that presence can be hidden in various ways by technologies that we have already developed.
Honestly though I think signal strength is the larger issue for us, someone up thread used the example of someone standing on the coast of the pacific ocean, yelling across and expecting someone on the other side to hear them. It's just too far, and you just can't yell loud enough. Sure we have some pretty sensitive instruments pointed at the sky, but unless the signal is coming from relatively nearby (on the cosmic scale) it would have to be either focused directly at us or have a LOT of power (or both) before we'd hear it, and it's just not practical for alien races to do that unless they already know we're here, and for all the radio signals we've sent out, there's a good chance none have been strong enough, pointed in the right direction, and long enough ago for someone to realize we're here, and respond. Sure we've been using radio for a little while (infinitesimally small time frame in the grand scheme of things) but it's mostly been stuff designed to make it to other parts of our own planet, or maybe a spacecraft in our own solar system, this is really short range stuff, and we don't tend to use orders of magnitude more power than are needed to do the job.
It's even worse than that, the signal has to be in some form of format that differentiates it from background noise, on a frequency that we are monitoring, and strong enough to hear. So it's not just about the narrow time frame it has to have been sent in to reach us, and for us to have received it, there's also the exact method of sending, and a signal strength that raises it above the noise floor. Unfortunately I agree that there's a high risk that any intelligent species would wipe themselves out. We know that we've come close to nuclear war a few times, and in the future there are probably inventions we can come up with that will be far more destructive if used incorrectly. That said, I have trouble believing that the odds of that are 100% I think it is far more likely that the vastness of the universe is the culprit, beyond that we really have no idea what time frame were working with or what density we are working with. It's possible that the closest intelligent life is far too far away for us to detect, or that we are among the earlier developed ones and that anyone else has not had the time for their signals to get here, (a species that is a thousand years ahead of us, but 1200 light years away, would still not be visible to us today.) The truth of the matter is that with a sample size of one, we really just have no way to tell.
Your phone doesn't get anywhere without another phone at the other end and a whole lot of infrastructure in between. Radio signals only travel so far before they're too weak for us to differentiate from the background noise, especially when we don't know what we're looking for.
Using the scientific fact that men and women on average have different preferences, but that individuals are no way defined by the group is now a "conservative" view? wow... and conservatives are the ones being labelled anti-science????
It doesn't take more than a cursory glance at the comments to see that this is not the case. It is incredibly obvious that the vast majority of commenters on here have no clue what he wrote as they have consistently been putting words in his mouth that he not only didn't say, but was careful not to even imply.
You're assuming that science is still a thing we do. Instead we prefer taking a conclusion, and making all available facts fit it, and ignoring any that don't.
It's always been interesting to try to determine nature vs nurture, and I had always suspected that the latter had more influence than the former. Right up until I had a daughter. Despite exposing her relatively equally to toys for "boys" or for "girls" she's fairly reliably goes for the "girls" toys, she does like her train set, but she's more likely to chose her dolls, cars and trucks are neat, but not as much as her play kitchen. She also chooses movies about princesses over other movies of similar level (i.e. Frozen and The Little Mermaid rather than Cars or Lion King, etc) Favourite colours: pink and purple of course. We've been quite conscious to try not to push her to be "feminine" vs "masculine" (if anything, I push her more towards the "boy" toys) but there's no question that she does the "girl" things. There's no way you could convince me that the same isn't true of older people.
Seems easy to prove discrimination if they brag about favouring women and minorities, and end up with more of them than the industry at large (or even more tellingly, more of them than the percentage of graduates of schools in that industry)
The only way to actually end discrimination is to simply stop discriminating. And the first step to that would be having an honest answer of "I don't know, we don't keep those statistics because we don't discriminate based on race" when asked about the racial make-up of your workforce.
Thing is, this is socially acceptable discrimination, so no, they won't get in any trouble for it.
Everything they're saying they'll do is consistent with most major companies these days, it's also morally repugnant. Discrimination is discrimination, it doesn't matter which group it's against.
If you think your policy looks good, replace the groups you're favouring and see if it's still an acceptable policy: "We're going to do more to entice white males to join our company and stay longer", if that sounds awful, why does it suddenly sound ok when you replace "white males" with "women and minorities"?
The only way to avoid discrimination is to stop discriminating. Stop even keeping statistics on what percent of your workforce falls in to those various buckets. If asked how many minorities you have, reply "we don't discriminate based on race, so we don't keep those statistics" When accepting resumes remove the name before passing it to a reviewer to decide, where aptitude testing is required, separate the person supervising the test from the one evaluating the results so all they see is the end product, not the person. We still cant' completely avoid actual interviews, but conduct them last once you've already narrowed your field, if the people you have left fall in to a certain demographic group, so be it.
Nobody will admit to quotas, because then someone might sue for discrimination. Refusing to hire someone because they are white or male is still illegal discrimination, even if it's socially acceptable.
As a result there will be no quotas, but good luck explaining to HR why you hired a white man for the job if there was ANY other option.
Slashdot Mirror
If everyone has the same rights, why do you need to actively hire women and minorities in preference to white men who are equally qualifired? If it's really that everyone gets treated equally, why do we have hiring quotas, why do we tell people what gender or race they need to hire more of?
If there was no discrimination, you wouldn't even know what races or genders were hired, the mere fact that you're keeping that information means you plan to discriminate, against who?
Discrimination is discrimination, no matter what group it is against. Just because it's socially acceptable to discriminate against white men doesn't make it right.
It could also indicate that that particular demographic happened to apply more, or have higher interest in being hired, or it could just be a fluke.
If your hiring managers are hiring based on race or gender instead of results, then you won't have the best employees for the job, and you'll see that in your performance numbers. If however you pounce on every manager who happens to hire a white male, you'll find that managers are scared to hire based on proficiency, and will instead hire based on whatever arbitrary quotas won't get upper management to pounce on them.
Immersion and huge screen I have at home. The ONLY benefit theatres have at this point is early release, if you don't take advantage of that, why would you subject yourself to the theatre?
This much is known, but really, are my movie viewing habits worth enough money to anyone to pay for this? I highly doubt it. They'll pay pennies for that information, not dollars.
1) there are a grand total of zero theatres in my city, or any surrounding city, that do this
2) the odd times are the ones more likely to attract kids
3) if you're willing to wait for a movie anyway, why go to the theatre? the viewing experience is far better at home.
The question is whether tracking your users generates enough money to keep the lights on, and I suspect they've just discovered that it doesn't. I bet their user demographic, and the information they can collect about it, just isn't valuable and unique enough to earn enough money to cover the expenses.
Correct. Unfortunately when companies make it white males vs everyone else, everyone loses.
Companies need to stop discrimination, not shift the target of it. Companies shouldn't even keep track of race or gender of their employees, there is no legitimate reason to keep that information, and it is only ever useful for discriminatory practices.
But don't worry, discrimination against white males is socially acceptable.
And better yet, treat them exactly the same as you would treat women or minorities. That means no discriminating against people based on gender or race (as is alleged by the "discontent white males")
Discrimination against white males is no more "tolerant" than discrimination against any other race or gender.
Discrimination is discrimination, no matter what group it is against. Just because it's socially acceptable to discriminate against white men doesn't make it right.
Companies have tried that in the past, and places have sued.
It's legal for me to block ads on my end, but it's not necessarily legal for you to alter the content along the way.
Free is great, but it requires a lot of bandwidth, and servers, to provide this type of service. The money has to come from somewhere, so what do you do? do you insert ads in to the stream you just compressed? and if so, how do you display them? and how do you make sure that you still saved data when you're sending more stuff?
If you aren't inserting ads, then maybe it comes out of your marketing budget, will people pay more for a product that has this feature? (considering google also provides this for free on chrome, I doubt it)
So that leaves selling your customer's information, how much is that worth? and can you provide enough of it that companies can't buy elsewhere to make it worthwhile?
I bet Opera simply couldn't figure out how to make (or at least not lose too much) money on this.
Not necessarily, we do monitor for the presence of a signal, not just it's content. But even that presence can be hidden in various ways by technologies that we have already developed.
Honestly though I think signal strength is the larger issue for us, someone up thread used the example of someone standing on the coast of the pacific ocean, yelling across and expecting someone on the other side to hear them. It's just too far, and you just can't yell loud enough. Sure we have some pretty sensitive instruments pointed at the sky, but unless the signal is coming from relatively nearby (on the cosmic scale) it would have to be either focused directly at us or have a LOT of power (or both) before we'd hear it, and it's just not practical for alien races to do that unless they already know we're here, and for all the radio signals we've sent out, there's a good chance none have been strong enough, pointed in the right direction, and long enough ago for someone to realize we're here, and respond.
Sure we've been using radio for a little while (infinitesimally small time frame in the grand scheme of things) but it's mostly been stuff designed to make it to other parts of our own planet, or maybe a spacecraft in our own solar system, this is really short range stuff, and we don't tend to use orders of magnitude more power than are needed to do the job.
It's even worse than that, the signal has to be in some form of format that differentiates it from background noise, on a frequency that we are monitoring, and strong enough to hear. So it's not just about the narrow time frame it has to have been sent in to reach us, and for us to have received it, there's also the exact method of sending, and a signal strength that raises it above the noise floor.
Unfortunately I agree that there's a high risk that any intelligent species would wipe themselves out. We know that we've come close to nuclear war a few times, and in the future there are probably inventions we can come up with that will be far more destructive if used incorrectly. That said, I have trouble believing that the odds of that are 100% I think it is far more likely that the vastness of the universe is the culprit, beyond that we really have no idea what time frame were working with or what density we are working with. It's possible that the closest intelligent life is far too far away for us to detect, or that we are among the earlier developed ones and that anyone else has not had the time for their signals to get here, (a species that is a thousand years ahead of us, but 1200 light years away, would still not be visible to us today.) The truth of the matter is that with a sample size of one, we really just have no way to tell.
Your phone doesn't get anywhere without another phone at the other end and a whole lot of infrastructure in between.
Radio signals only travel so far before they're too weak for us to differentiate from the background noise, especially when we don't know what we're looking for.
The truly rich people are on the government gravy train, they would never want a Libertarian government because the gravy train would stop.
Using the scientific fact that men and women on average have different preferences, but that individuals are no way defined by the group is now a "conservative" view? wow... and conservatives are the ones being labelled anti-science????
We all know what he wrote
It doesn't take more than a cursory glance at the comments to see that this is not the case. It is incredibly obvious that the vast majority of commenters on here have no clue what he wrote as they have consistently been putting words in his mouth that he not only didn't say, but was careful not to even imply.
And then allow that idot to be CEO...
You're assuming that science is still a thing we do. Instead we prefer taking a conclusion, and making all available facts fit it, and ignoring any that don't.
It's always been interesting to try to determine nature vs nurture, and I had always suspected that the latter had more influence than the former. Right up until I had a daughter. Despite exposing her relatively equally to toys for "boys" or for "girls" she's fairly reliably goes for the "girls" toys, she does like her train set, but she's more likely to chose her dolls, cars and trucks are neat, but not as much as her play kitchen. She also chooses movies about princesses over other movies of similar level (i.e. Frozen and The Little Mermaid rather than Cars or Lion King, etc) Favourite colours: pink and purple of course.
We've been quite conscious to try not to push her to be "feminine" vs "masculine" (if anything, I push her more towards the "boy" toys) but there's no question that she does the "girl" things. There's no way you could convince me that the same isn't true of older people.
By risking one from white men...
Seems easy to prove discrimination if they brag about favouring women and minorities, and end up with more of them than the industry at large (or even more tellingly, more of them than the percentage of graduates of schools in that industry)
The only way to actually end discrimination is to simply stop discriminating. And the first step to that would be having an honest answer of "I don't know, we don't keep those statistics because we don't discriminate based on race" when asked about the racial make-up of your workforce.
if only the wage gap were actually a real thing...
Thing is, this is socially acceptable discrimination, so no, they won't get in any trouble for it.
Everything they're saying they'll do is consistent with most major companies these days, it's also morally repugnant. Discrimination is discrimination, it doesn't matter which group it's against.
If you think your policy looks good, replace the groups you're favouring and see if it's still an acceptable policy: "We're going to do more to entice white males to join our company and stay longer", if that sounds awful, why does it suddenly sound ok when you replace "white males" with "women and minorities"?
The only way to avoid discrimination is to stop discriminating. Stop even keeping statistics on what percent of your workforce falls in to those various buckets. If asked how many minorities you have, reply "we don't discriminate based on race, so we don't keep those statistics"
When accepting resumes remove the name before passing it to a reviewer to decide, where aptitude testing is required, separate the person supervising the test from the one evaluating the results so all they see is the end product, not the person.
We still cant' completely avoid actual interviews, but conduct them last once you've already narrowed your field, if the people you have left fall in to a certain demographic group, so be it.
Nobody will admit to quotas, because then someone might sue for discrimination. Refusing to hire someone because they are white or male is still illegal discrimination, even if it's socially acceptable.
As a result there will be no quotas, but good luck explaining to HR why you hired a white man for the job if there was ANY other option.