I can grudgingly accept the right to bigotry on an individual level (but, as with all free speech, there is no freedom from the consequences of it). However, this isn't about individuals, it's about businesses, and that changes everything. Businesses are not people. They are artificial constructs brought into being by government. They do not, and should not, enjoy the same freedoms as individuals, and that most certainly includes discrimination. If a government does not want the businesses it creates to exercise bigotry, it is well within its rights to mandate that, and can do so without impinging one iota upon the rights of individuals.
Except that we do. U.S. infrastructure is crumbling, we have lobbyists working around the clock to deregulate environmental protection, and even keeping the power on is becoming more of an issue. Thank goodness we have plenty of money to dump into unneeded military tech projects, though.
They can't trademark maths, but the entire point of coining a term like 'Retina' is to create easily-identifiable vocabulary that (ostensibly) conveys meaning in lieu of maths for nontechnical folks. The reason the term is useless outside of marketing for Apple is that Apple will not allow anyone else to use it.
Agreed, especially considering that refusing to release his returns is causing PR damage. Clearly his campaign feels it would be even worse to release them. And because of the Birther shenanigans, the GOP cannot appeal to a moral high ground to avoid a tax return "witch hunt", either.
This. We'll never know the extent of the D's intransigence in the 111th Congress, because they never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and the R's exercised the filibuster a record-breaking number of times during this Congress' tenure.
There are a number of studies that indicate that a middle class squeeze has occurred in the US. http://inequality.org/inequality-data-statistics/ isn't a bad place to start for some aggregate results. I don't agree with some of the conclusions they draw, but their data seem to be in order.
I agree. The problem is that the barrier to entry has been placed impossibly high, in the form of the amount of money needed to campaign for national office in a way that will reach enough voters. One is all but obligated to get backing (with all of the strings attached) to run.
Which is why the most valuable reforms must begin with campaign regulation. Contributions and capping expenses are a good place to start. Replacing simple plurality voting with an alternative system (like adjusted district voting) would also be huge.
The trick, of course, is getting any of it to be legislated by the people it will regulate who are already controlled by the people whose power it would diminish.
Unfortunately in practice these days, the money tends to exchange hands between investors a fair few times before it finally gets to something that will actually use it to generate work. By that time, the investment must generate an obnoxiously high return in order to satisfy all of the middlemen, which can limit who qualifies for that investment.
Which is all part of the problem with finance these days. There is a huge, bloated infrastructure of money men that are moving money around, keeping a cut, and allowing precious little of it to actually go to work, at which point the returns have to be unreasonably high. Recipe for disaster, as we've been experiencing firsthand.
I admit I chuckled a bit at "may even be testable".
I realize that particle physics must often invert the scientific premise of observe-then-theorize due to the cost of creating observable conditions, but it's kind of humorous when testability, the cornerstone of science, has to be remarked on in this fashion.
Which just goes to show how stupid and/or totalitarian their views are. It is not possible for a non-US citizen to commit treason against the US, so the implication is either they do not understand what treason is, or they think that everyone should be accountable to US law. Pretty chilling either way.
Not really a valid comparison. The apple app store is not just a storefront for apple-created products, it's a market for third party products as well. This potentially includes apps that access information about companies and products that compete with Apple.
Any right Apple has to run their app store the way they see fit must be tempered with consideration to competition law. Whether this act violates antitrust is subject to opinion (I don't feel that it is), but I do think it shows an intent by Apple to compete on grounds other than pure merit, and that's unfortunate.
What if Google retaliated by biasing apple-oriented search results to negative press, reviews, etc.? Or simply stopped building indices on Apple's sites? I think we'd all agree that's a bad thing, yet this is what Apple is dabbling with. I think Apple needs to be very careful.
This report from the ACLU of Texas pretty much sums it up. The TSBOE has always been able to abuse its power to push an agenda, but we've never seen it done this flagrantly before. This must not come to pass. We need legislation to halt these amendments immediately and reassess the Board's purview. Specifically, more checks and balances are needed to avoid the realization of personal agendas by a select few, and to allow more input into the process by the educators of our state.
Think of this as an IQ test of a potential employer. If one brings it up, point out to them, in detail, how easy it would have been to determine this wasn't you, then walk out of the interview and be thankful you've dodged a bullet.
Unfortunately, in reality, if any employers do see this as an issue, they'll never bring it up. They'll just refuse to interview you in the first place, or fail to make you an offer after your interview.
If you ask, you'll get a vague response like "We don't think you're a good fit".
Most employers will never give you specific reasons for turning down your application, largely as a CYA move.
Exactly. While I definitely agree that this could be a litmus test of sorts to weed out poor employers, the problem is you won't be able to determine why they didn't touch base for an interview.
That being said, I don't think there's anything you need to do to "fix" this problem. The fact of the matter is that this will simply be one of quite a few possible reasons a company doesn't hire someone. I honestly don't see this as hurting your overall chances of finding work. If it really bothers you (and I can understand why it would), then take the advice of others and create a web presence of your own.
Oh, I wouldn't go so far to label it a conspiracy, just an obvious conflict of interest.
The fact that they themselves sell software that benefits from the results of a study that they themselves conduct just degenerates the whole thing into the realm of the ludicrous.
Yes. Not only was the study out of context with the conclusions TFA reached (It's a study specific to FOSS Java-based projects and deployments, not FOSS in general), but the study itself isn't clear on what its objectives were. It fails to elaborate on methodologies used to conduct the examinations of projects or process, fails to elaborate on any of the security issues found, and fails to offer any comparative analysis with a successful application of the study to other projects, open source or otherwise. It reeks of FUD.
Fortify Software is not exactly a neutral party for conducting studies of the fitness of FOSS for enterprise software use. Half its Board of Directors have ties to enterprise software and service corporations like PeopleSoft, Sybase, Oracle, and Microsoft. I think I might get a second opinion.
Oh, yes. That good old American myth that the world would be safe if everyone and their dog were packing some heat. I guess I'll have to move to Baghdad or Mogadishu, which must be the safest places on Earth, since everybody there is armed to the teeth.
Actually, it has nothing to do with safety, but rather the ability to defend one's liberty, and the fact that safety isn't worth the loss of liberty.
It isn't about disregarding an applicant's merit and favoring US citizens, it's about companies exploiting the H1B system for profit. The H1B system isn't supposed to be a facilitator of cheap labor, but it has been demonstrated that this is often exactly what it is used for, which is the concern behind TFA.
The H1B program would be fine if fair wages could be enforced. They can't, which has caused the program to be abused by unscrupulous employers.
Unfortunately, parent is correct. This isn't the first contradictory point to the *AA's claim that pirating affects their sales. They've ignored all of the other arguments, and I'm sure they'll ignore this one as well.
That was my impression as well. At the very least, I'd really like to see some discussion on the matter rather than summary judgement. But this is Slashdot, and we do love our torches and pitchforks.
I'd like to see some discussion from someone more versed in the case and its legal proceedings before I make up my mind on this. I read TFA, and a couple of other similar articles, but also read the filing itself. Nothing from it led me to believe that the Obama administration was explicitly siding with Bush on this case, only that it was asking for a stay in proceedings until the appeal filed by Bush was handled. That seems reasonable to me, as the appeal had already been issued.
My questions for those more educated than myself on the matter is, would it have been more appropriate for Obama to ask that the appeal be dismissed outright and for the case to proceed? Would that cause more trouble for the case than simply reiterating that the case continue on the track that it had been when Bush left office?
When I hire people, I don't really care if I'm at a company that's business casual or shorts and a t-shirt. I dress up, and expect the candidate too as well. Discrimination? EEOC lists age, disability, equal pay, national origin, pregnancy, race, religion, retaliation, sex, and sexual harassment as this that can violate EEO rules. I didn't see anything about dress code. You are right though, there are probably a lot of companies that expected you to wear a tie that you are not a good match for.
Absolutely. I bear no malice against them at all. I just wouldn't want to work in that sort of environment.
They expect a certain amount of class and respect from someone who seeks employment at their firm. I never expect a low level help desk guy to wear a full suit (although many do) - but a shirt and a tie is nice, and a pair of slacks with a pressed button down shirt is a bare minimum. Want to come work at a senior level? Find a sports jacket and show me you want to make a good first impression.
That's where I have to differ in my opinion. I can understand why a dress code is viewed by many as a sign of respect, but I don't feel that way, and I wouldn't want to work at a place that does either. Simply a personal preference.:)
My first interview was at the age of 16 for a company that sold windows (vinyl windows, not the computer kind). I knew very little about interviewing, but wore a button down shirt, tie, and a pair of slacks. Why? I had enough respect for the interviewer.
I dressed up in the first interview I had as well, also out of respect. It occurred to me after doing this a couple of times that I really wanted a company to hire me for who I was and what I knew, not how smartly I could dress. I feel I'm doing both the company and myself a better service by dressing as I would come to work and take the measure of each other from there.
It's not so much a question of whether one is capable of playing the game or not, but rather whether one wishes to work for a company that requires you to play them. Which is of course the reason I brought up dressing up for an interview in the first place.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I can grudgingly accept the right to bigotry on an individual level (but, as with all free speech, there is no freedom from the consequences of it). However, this isn't about individuals, it's about businesses, and that changes everything. Businesses are not people. They are artificial constructs brought into being by government. They do not, and should not, enjoy the same freedoms as individuals, and that most certainly includes discrimination. If a government does not want the businesses it creates to exercise bigotry, it is well within its rights to mandate that, and can do so without impinging one iota upon the rights of individuals.
Except that we do. U.S. infrastructure is crumbling, we have lobbyists working around the clock to deregulate environmental protection, and even keeping the power on is becoming more of an issue. Thank goodness we have plenty of money to dump into unneeded military tech projects, though.
They can't trademark maths, but the entire point of coining a term like 'Retina' is to create easily-identifiable vocabulary that (ostensibly) conveys meaning in lieu of maths for nontechnical folks. The reason the term is useless outside of marketing for Apple is that Apple will not allow anyone else to use it.
Agreed, especially considering that refusing to release his returns is causing PR damage. Clearly his campaign feels it would be even worse to release them. And because of the Birther shenanigans, the GOP cannot appeal to a moral high ground to avoid a tax return "witch hunt", either.
Ah, thanks for that. I only saw the bit about the guy from Kargus getting jail time.
Fined? If this was an individual they'd be looking at extradition and jail time.
This. We'll never know the extent of the D's intransigence in the 111th Congress, because they never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and the R's exercised the filibuster a record-breaking number of times during this Congress' tenure.
There are a number of studies that indicate that a middle class squeeze has occurred in the US. http://inequality.org/inequality-data-statistics/ isn't a bad place to start for some aggregate results. I don't agree with some of the conclusions they draw, but their data seem to be in order.
I agree. The problem is that the barrier to entry has been placed impossibly high, in the form of the amount of money needed to campaign for national office in a way that will reach enough voters. One is all but obligated to get backing (with all of the strings attached) to run.
Which is why the most valuable reforms must begin with campaign regulation. Contributions and capping expenses are a good place to start. Replacing simple plurality voting with an alternative system (like adjusted district voting) would also be huge.
The trick, of course, is getting any of it to be legislated by the people it will regulate who are already controlled by the people whose power it would diminish.
That is how it should work in theory.
Unfortunately in practice these days, the money tends to exchange hands between investors a fair few times before it finally gets to something that will actually use it to generate work. By that time, the investment must generate an obnoxiously high return in order to satisfy all of the middlemen, which can limit who qualifies for that investment.
Which is all part of the problem with finance these days. There is a huge, bloated infrastructure of money men that are moving money around, keeping a cut, and allowing precious little of it to actually go to work, at which point the returns have to be unreasonably high. Recipe for disaster, as we've been experiencing firsthand.
I admit I chuckled a bit at "may even be testable".
I realize that particle physics must often invert the scientific premise of observe-then-theorize due to the cost of creating observable conditions, but it's kind of humorous when testability, the cornerstone of science, has to be remarked on in this fashion.
Which just goes to show how stupid and/or totalitarian their views are. It is not possible for a non-US citizen to commit treason against the US, so the implication is either they do not understand what treason is, or they think that everyone should be accountable to US law. Pretty chilling either way.
Not really a valid comparison. The apple app store is not just a storefront for apple-created products, it's a market for third party products as well. This potentially includes apps that access information about companies and products that compete with Apple.
Any right Apple has to run their app store the way they see fit must be tempered with consideration to competition law. Whether this act violates antitrust is subject to opinion (I don't feel that it is), but I do think it shows an intent by Apple to compete on grounds other than pure merit, and that's unfortunate.
What if Google retaliated by biasing apple-oriented search results to negative press, reviews, etc.? Or simply stopped building indices on Apple's sites? I think we'd all agree that's a bad thing, yet this is what Apple is dabbling with. I think Apple needs to be very careful.
This report from the ACLU of Texas pretty much sums it up. The TSBOE has always been able to abuse its power to push an agenda, but we've never seen it done this flagrantly before. This must not come to pass. We need legislation to halt these amendments immediately and reassess the Board's purview. Specifically, more checks and balances are needed to avoid the realization of personal agendas by a select few, and to allow more input into the process by the educators of our state.
Unfortunately, in reality, if any employers do see this as an issue, they'll never bring it up. They'll just refuse to interview you in the first place, or fail to make you an offer after your interview.
If you ask, you'll get a vague response like "We don't think you're a good fit".
Most employers will never give you specific reasons for turning down your application, largely as a CYA move.
Exactly. While I definitely agree that this could be a litmus test of sorts to weed out poor employers, the problem is you won't be able to determine why they didn't touch base for an interview.
That being said, I don't think there's anything you need to do to "fix" this problem. The fact of the matter is that this will simply be one of quite a few possible reasons a company doesn't hire someone. I honestly don't see this as hurting your overall chances of finding work. If it really bothers you (and I can understand why it would), then take the advice of others and create a web presence of your own.
Either way, best of luck to you. :)
Oh, I wouldn't go so far to label it a conspiracy, just an obvious conflict of interest.
The fact that they themselves sell software that benefits from the results of a study that they themselves conduct just degenerates the whole thing into the realm of the ludicrous.
Yes. Not only was the study out of context with the conclusions TFA reached (It's a study specific to FOSS Java-based projects and deployments, not FOSS in general), but the study itself isn't clear on what its objectives were. It fails to elaborate on methodologies used to conduct the examinations of projects or process, fails to elaborate on any of the security issues found, and fails to offer any comparative analysis with a successful application of the study to other projects, open source or otherwise. It reeks of FUD.
Fortify Software is not exactly a neutral party for conducting studies of the fitness of FOSS for enterprise software use. Half its Board of Directors have ties to enterprise software and service corporations like PeopleSoft, Sybase, Oracle, and Microsoft. I think I might get a second opinion.
Oh, yes. That good old American myth that the world would be safe if everyone and their dog were packing some heat. I guess I'll have to move to Baghdad or Mogadishu, which must be the safest places on Earth, since everybody there is armed to the teeth.
Actually, it has nothing to do with safety, but rather the ability to defend one's liberty, and the fact that safety isn't worth the loss of liberty.
I don't think that's the issue at hand.
It isn't about disregarding an applicant's merit and favoring US citizens, it's about companies exploiting the H1B system for profit. The H1B system isn't supposed to be a facilitator of cheap labor, but it has been demonstrated that this is often exactly what it is used for, which is the concern behind TFA.
The H1B program would be fine if fair wages could be enforced. They can't, which has caused the program to be abused by unscrupulous employers.
Unfortunately, parent is correct. This isn't the first contradictory point to the *AA's claim that pirating affects their sales. They've ignored all of the other arguments, and I'm sure they'll ignore this one as well.
That was my impression as well. At the very least, I'd really like to see some discussion on the matter rather than summary judgement. But this is Slashdot, and we do love our torches and pitchforks.
I'd like to see some discussion from someone more versed in the case and its legal proceedings before I make up my mind on this. I read TFA, and a couple of other similar articles, but also read the filing itself. Nothing from it led me to believe that the Obama administration was explicitly siding with Bush on this case, only that it was asking for a stay in proceedings until the appeal filed by Bush was handled. That seems reasonable to me, as the appeal had already been issued.
My questions for those more educated than myself on the matter is, would it have been more appropriate for Obama to ask that the appeal be dismissed outright and for the case to proceed? Would that cause more trouble for the case than simply reiterating that the case continue on the track that it had been when Bush left office?
When I hire people, I don't really care if I'm at a company that's business casual or shorts and a t-shirt. I dress up, and expect the candidate too as well. Discrimination? EEOC lists age, disability, equal pay, national origin, pregnancy, race, religion, retaliation, sex, and sexual harassment as this that can violate EEO rules. I didn't see anything about dress code. You are right though, there are probably a lot of companies that expected you to wear a tie that you are not a good match for.
Absolutely. I bear no malice against them at all. I just wouldn't want to work in that sort of environment.
They expect a certain amount of class and respect from someone who seeks employment at their firm. I never expect a low level help desk guy to wear a full suit (although many do) - but a shirt and a tie is nice, and a pair of slacks with a pressed button down shirt is a bare minimum. Want to come work at a senior level? Find a sports jacket and show me you want to make a good first impression.
That's where I have to differ in my opinion. I can understand why a dress code is viewed by many as a sign of respect, but I don't feel that way, and I wouldn't want to work at a place that does either. Simply a personal preference. :)
My first interview was at the age of 16 for a company that sold windows (vinyl windows, not the computer kind). I knew very little about interviewing, but wore a button down shirt, tie, and a pair of slacks. Why? I had enough respect for the interviewer.
I dressed up in the first interview I had as well, also out of respect. It occurred to me after doing this a couple of times that I really wanted a company to hire me for who I was and what I knew, not how smartly I could dress. I feel I'm doing both the company and myself a better service by dressing as I would come to work and take the measure of each other from there.
It's not so much a question of whether one is capable of playing the game or not, but rather whether one wishes to work for a company that requires you to play them. Which is of course the reason I brought up dressing up for an interview in the first place. :)