It is not fair that one set of people are offered this PAID BENEFIT, and other are not.
All those childless AMEX employees are offered that same paid benefit. All they need do is have a child. That's what it's for.
.that is discrimination
You're kidding right? Everyone is being offered the same benefit. No one is being excluded. That's not discrimination by any stretch of the imagination.
its hard to believe that everyone wouldn't see and jump on this too.
They don't see the discrimination because it doesn't exist. Again, everyone is being offered that same benefit. No one is being excluded.
I'm pretty much settled that I DO NOT WANT kids.
First, let me say Thank You. I couldn't be happier with your decision.
Moving on, just because you don't want to participate in a particular benefit, does not mean that you're being excluded. If a coworker brings in a plate of cookies, and you decline to take one, you don't get to complain that Alice and Bob each got a cookie, but you didn't. If you don't want it, then no one should have it, right?
What I'm seeing here is a disturbingly childlike selfishness. You're absolutely terrified that someone, somewhere, got a bigger cookie than you.
Still, even though you don't want to participate, that benefit is still being offered to you (assuming you're an AMEX employee). You can take your 20 weeks just as soon as you find a willing partner who ultimately delivers.
People without newborn babies are not a race, gender, religion, or any other class of person subject to discrimination. We have all been people without newborns. People with newborns will, in a very short time, be people without newborns.
If you are an AMEX employee, and you want to take 20weeks of paid leave, you need only find a willing partner and have a baby. (I understand that the first part might be very difficult for you.)
I'll bet you'd complain that sick days are unfair to healthy people!
What you do with should be your choice...have a newborn or go to Tahiti....Again, it is a paid benefit for some workers and not for others. That is unfair.
Unfair to who? This doesn't make any sense to me at all. Who is being cheated?
While you're not a parent now, should you opt to have children, and you can find a willing partner, you're welcome to take that time off. It's there for when you need it!
Are you saying that you want 20 weeks paid leave... for no reason whatsoever? Because someone who is not you advantaged themselves of that benefit? On what basis? That you think you'll never have children? How would it be decided when that leave was granted? What would you do? Turn in your imaginary future wife's uterus along with your testicles in to HR?
The only thing I can see here is your fear that someone is getting something that you're not. I'm not convinced that that something is paid leave.
But, what about those that do NOT want to have kids?
I suppose, then, that they won't advantage themselves of those benefits.
There's a box of Donuts in the break room. I don't want a donut. Have I been harmed by this in any way? How selfish do you need to be to complain about that sort of thing?
So, not only do the childless not get the free 20 weeks paid leave/vacation
With a newborn? It's not vacation.
they also will likely have to work EXTRA to cover for the breeders
Imagination land? If they're not already overstaffed, they'll hire a temp. If they are overstaffed, I suggest they downsize. Preferably starting with toxic, selfish, employees to improve workplace conditions of the remaining staff.
those childless folks will be just exact folks that have to work extra hours and pick up the slack for those new parents taking time off
People like you should be happy about that, were that delusion true. After all, some overtime sure beats drinking alone in an empty apartment while trolling Slashdot and wondering why women aren't interested in a cool guy like you.
Let's put this as simply as possible: When the public face of your company actively supports a hate group, it reflects poorly on your organization.
Had Mozilla forced Eich out, they'd have been justified. Neither the organization, it's employees, or their users want to be associated with hate groups. Of course, they did NOT force Eich out, he resigned on his own.
Mozilla didn't do what you claim they did. I'm saying that they'd have been justified, had that actually been the case.
When you're the public face of an organization, you don't have that luxury.
Jared Fogle, for example, wasn't using Subway to promote child molestation, but Subway gave him the ax anyway. They dropped him even before there was any trial! Where they wrong to disassociate themselves from Fogle? Would you still say:
I wouldn't have a problem with it either, because as a private citizen, he has the right to do whatever they please.
What if your kid's school teacher openly supported NAMBLA?
Of course, Eich resigned on his own because he believed that was in the best interest of the organization. Mozilla didn't "force him out" like you seem to believe. It was the users who shouted, en masse, that they don't want a hatemonger leading Mozilla.
What continues to surprise me is the number of people that believe that a person should be shamed/punished/etc for what they do as a private citizen.
How, exactly, do you think societies work? Do you think free speech guarantees you freedom from the consequences of that speech?
The trouble here is that you don't personally find Eich's politics repugnant. If, instead, he was actively supporting white supremacists, you wouldn't see anything wrong with either the criticism Mozilla received, nor would you so vocally object to Eich's resignation at every opportunity. (This is not to imply that one hate group is less repugnant than the other.)
There's no hypocrisy there, except in your own imagination. I can't even begin to guess how you came that that particular conclusion.
Of course, you're only talking to people that already agree with you. People who disagree with you are walking away, unsubscribing, etc. just like you've been doing to them.
When you share your message with millions, you start to think that you're really making a difference; like you're really doing a lot to spread your ideas. Of course, you're only sharing your message with people who have already heard it, and already agree.
That racist idiot shouting nonsense on street to passers by is, possibly, reaching more people from his street corner than than the average social media user can from inside their echo chamber.
I don't see why it wouldn't. A lot of kids started off back in the 80's with type-in programs. A lot of the Hour of Code activities seem similar, but now augmented with helpful annotations. That seems like an improvement to me.
There's a strange belief here that learning to program ought be a painful rite of passage to weed out the undeserving. It used to just be a fun hobby the average kid could pick-up in a few days.
No sweat. Chrome helped them out by being far more bloated and slow that FireFox ever was. Between that and the spying, Google is doing wonders to help FireFox regain its former position.
I turn off most mouse gestures as I tend to trigger them accidentally, and at the worst possible times.
Overloading an otherwise simple and intuitive control with a bunch of useless features that act like traps for the uninitiated is what I'd call a "UI disaster".
A recommendation system based on past viewing behavior.
Why hasn't everyone thought of this years ago? Imagine how handy that would be for Netflix! They could even use it to predict how I'd rate content before I view it.
Not stopping with TV, how cool would it be if Amazon made recommendations to be based on my past purchases? I could discover new products which match my interests instantly. I'll bet that would do wonders for their sales.
Now I'll make a recommendation of my own. Instead of a separate app, why not integrate this functionality in to existing products? Instead of an "Amazon Recommends" app, how about just showing recommendations on their website? Instead of a "Netflix Suggester" app, have a category like "Recommended for you" right along side the other categories?
There's so much potential here I can't believe this wasn't done many years ago. Thank goodness we have Apple to show us the future!
Not quite black text on a not quite white background looks better than black text on a white background. I'd argue that it's a bit easier on the eyes as well. (I find bright displays a bit painful, physically, and keep the display brightness on my phone and computer very low.)
It's such a simple and easy way to make boring old text 'feel' a bit more polished and professional, it's bound to spread.
The problem, naturally, is incompetent designers taking a cool trick like that to an extreme, and lowering the contrast way too dramatically. I can only assume its so people can 'tell' immediately that it's not just black text on a white background. Those people shouldn't be allowed to make design decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not fair that one set of people are offered this PAID BENEFIT, and other are not.
All those childless AMEX employees are offered that same paid benefit. All they need do is have a child. That's what it's for.
.that is discrimination
You're kidding right? Everyone is being offered the same benefit. No one is being excluded. That's not discrimination by any stretch of the imagination.
its hard to believe that everyone wouldn't see and jump on this too.
They don't see the discrimination because it doesn't exist. Again, everyone is being offered that same benefit. No one is being excluded.
I'm pretty much settled that I DO NOT WANT kids.
First, let me say Thank You. I couldn't be happier with your decision.
Moving on, just because you don't want to participate in a particular benefit, does not mean that you're being excluded. If a coworker brings in a plate of cookies, and you decline to take one, you don't get to complain that Alice and Bob each got a cookie, but you didn't. If you don't want it, then no one should have it, right?
What I'm seeing here is a disturbingly childlike selfishness. You're absolutely terrified that someone, somewhere, got a bigger cookie than you.
Still, even though you don't want to participate, that benefit is still being offered to you (assuming you're an AMEX employee). You can take your 20 weeks just as soon as you find a willing partner who ultimately delivers.
People without newborn babies are not a race, gender, religion, or any other class of person subject to discrimination. We have all been people without newborns. People with newborns will, in a very short time, be people without newborns.
If you are an AMEX employee, and you want to take 20weeks of paid leave, you need only find a willing partner and have a baby. (I understand that the first part might be very difficult for you.)
I'll bet you'd complain that sick days are unfair to healthy people!
It is *STILL* 20 weeks of Paid Time Off.
What you do with should be your choice...have a newborn or go to Tahiti....Again, it is a paid benefit for some workers and not for others. That is unfair.
Unfair to who? This doesn't make any sense to me at all. Who is being cheated?
While you're not a parent now, should you opt to have children, and you can find a willing partner, you're welcome to take that time off. It's there for when you need it!
Are you saying that you want 20 weeks paid leave ... for no reason whatsoever? Because someone who is not you advantaged themselves of that benefit? On what basis? That you think you'll never have children? How would it be decided when that leave was granted? What would you do? Turn in your imaginary future wife's uterus along with your testicles in to HR?
The only thing I can see here is your fear that someone is getting something that you're not. I'm not convinced that that something is paid leave.
But, what about those that do NOT want to have kids?
I suppose, then, that they won't advantage themselves of those benefits.
There's a box of Donuts in the break room. I don't want a donut. Have I been harmed by this in any way? How selfish do you need to be to complain about that sort of thing?
So, not only do the childless not get the free 20 weeks paid leave/vacation
With a newborn? It's not vacation.
they also will likely have to work EXTRA to cover for the breeders
Imagination land? If they're not already overstaffed, they'll hire a temp. If they are overstaffed, I suggest they downsize. Preferably starting with toxic, selfish, employees to improve workplace conditions of the remaining staff.
those childless folks will be just exact folks that have to work extra hours and pick up the slack for those new parents taking time off
People like you should be happy about that, were that delusion true. After all, some overtime sure beats drinking alone in an empty apartment while trolling Slashdot and wondering why women aren't interested in a cool guy like you.
He's talking about faithless electors like the Hamilton Electors. I have no idea what you're talking about.
No love on Slashdot for The I.T. Crowd?
Thanks to the power of Space Star Ordering!
While I have no doubt the reporting is bad, I doubt the "science" is much better.
PayPal, NetFlix, Medium, LinkedIn, Uber ... Quite a few, as it turns out.
Let's put this as simply as possible: When the public face of your company actively supports a hate group, it reflects poorly on your organization.
Had Mozilla forced Eich out, they'd have been justified. Neither the organization, it's employees, or their users want to be associated with hate groups. Of course, they did NOT force Eich out, he resigned on his own.
Mozilla didn't do what you claim they did. I'm saying that they'd have been justified, had that actually been the case.
This isn't complicated.
When you're the public face of an organization, you don't have that luxury.
Jared Fogle, for example, wasn't using Subway to promote child molestation, but Subway gave him the ax anyway. They dropped him even before there was any trial! Where they wrong to disassociate themselves from Fogle? Would you still say:
I wouldn't have a problem with it either, because as a private citizen, he has the right to do whatever they please.
What if your kid's school teacher openly supported NAMBLA?
Of course, Eich resigned on his own because he believed that was in the best interest of the organization. Mozilla didn't "force him out" like you seem to believe. It was the users who shouted, en masse, that they don't want a hatemonger leading Mozilla.
What continues to surprise me is the number of people that believe that a person should be shamed/punished/etc for what they do as a private citizen.
How, exactly, do you think societies work? Do you think free speech guarantees you freedom from the consequences of that speech?
What on earth are you talking about?
The trouble here is that you don't personally find Eich's politics repugnant. If, instead, he was actively supporting white supremacists, you wouldn't see anything wrong with either the criticism Mozilla received, nor would you so vocally object to Eich's resignation at every opportunity. (This is not to imply that one hate group is less repugnant than the other.)
There's no hypocrisy there, except in your own imagination. I can't even begin to guess how you came that that particular conclusion.
Of course, you're only talking to people that already agree with you. People who disagree with you are walking away, unsubscribing, etc. just like you've been doing to them.
When you share your message with millions, you start to think that you're really making a difference; like you're really doing a lot to spread your ideas. Of course, you're only sharing your message with people who have already heard it, and already agree.
That racist idiot shouting nonsense on street to passers by is, possibly, reaching more people from his street corner than than the average social media user can from inside their echo chamber.
I don't see why it wouldn't. A lot of kids started off back in the 80's with type-in programs. A lot of the Hour of Code activities seem similar, but now augmented with helpful annotations. That seems like an improvement to me.
There's a strange belief here that learning to program ought be a painful rite of passage to weed out the undeserving. It used to just be a fun hobby the average kid could pick-up in a few days.
I am become death, destroyer of worlds.
Best tweet ever.
Don't we want the best and brightest from around the world to work here, to our advantage, rather than their home countries?
No sweat. Chrome helped them out by being far more bloated and slow that FireFox ever was. Between that and the spying, Google is doing wonders to help FireFox regain its former position.
Okay, armchair expert, what would you have Mozilla do?
That's what I thought.
I turn off most mouse gestures as I tend to trigger them accidentally, and at the worst possible times.
Overloading an otherwise simple and intuitive control with a bunch of useless features that act like traps for the uninitiated is what I'd call a "UI disaster".
I don't doubt that we have more than our fair share of experts here.
A recommendation system based on past viewing behavior.
Why hasn't everyone thought of this years ago? Imagine how handy that would be for Netflix! They could even use it to predict how I'd rate content before I view it.
Not stopping with TV, how cool would it be if Amazon made recommendations to be based on my past purchases? I could discover new products which match my interests instantly. I'll bet that would do wonders for their sales.
Now I'll make a recommendation of my own. Instead of a separate app, why not integrate this functionality in to existing products? Instead of an "Amazon Recommends" app, how about just showing recommendations on their website? Instead of a "Netflix Suggester" app, have a category like "Recommended for you" right along side the other categories?
There's so much potential here I can't believe this wasn't done many years ago. Thank goodness we have Apple to show us the future!
this is slashdot so I'm expecting the cream of the crop.
How foolish...
We can do better:
The mysterious 9th planet was caused by Climate Change!
Not quite black text on a not quite white background looks better than black text on a white background. I'd argue that it's a bit easier on the eyes as well. (I find bright displays a bit painful, physically, and keep the display brightness on my phone and computer very low.)
It's such a simple and easy way to make boring old text 'feel' a bit more polished and professional, it's bound to spread.
The problem, naturally, is incompetent designers taking a cool trick like that to an extreme, and lowering the contrast way too dramatically. I can only assume its so people can 'tell' immediately that it's not just black text on a white background. Those people shouldn't be allowed to make design decisions.