You are correct.. But these little leaks could be offset by.... permanently storing some of the carbon in the Earth.. Maybe turn it into a diamond.. I can't imaging a whole lot of methane would leak.. Just make a diamond once a month and you're good..
Why do you HAVE to store it as a liquid? Just store it under high pressure.. Ya know, like they do right now..
You buy up an old mine, and you pump methane into it... Presto, you've just stored methane.
Because methane is relatively low value for its volume and building aboveground vessels for storage is prohibitively expensive, often companies interested in methane storage will purchase the rights to use old mine caverns to store high pressure methane for arbitrage purposes. In upstate New York, there are many old solution-mined salt caverns that are used for this purpose.
Regardless, there's probably no reason to store it anyhow.. Just build your plant near a gas fired power station.. Instant customer and no need for storage.. You just pipe it a few hundred yards down the road.
Why can't you do all of those things? Jesus Christ.. not everything is black/white, this/that, yes/no.
I think this is a great idea.. We need methane.. This place can make it in a carbon neutral way (assuming the plant is using electricity from a non-fossil source).
For at least a little while longer we have to have chemical energy storage. This place can do it without increasing the net amount of CO2 in the air.. Awesome!
Yeah. I do get that some don't like the term. That's fine. I DO NOT LIVE IN CANADA OR GREENLAND.
I live in the United States where it is NOT A SLUR.
As you, yourself, have just pointed out it is acceptable in Alaska. That's all it takes to shit all of your first statement of "Eskimo is a slur". You did not qualify your fucking statement by saying "....in Canada and/or Greenland". You made a blanket statement of "it's a slur". It is not a slur in Alaska. In fact it's even less than a slur. It is the correct goddamn term. Your original post was completely FALSE. Inuit is not an interchangeable term for Eskimo. Inuits are an entirely different people. So "Eskimo is a slur. We say Inuit or Aleut" is 100% false.
But rather than admit you were incorrect, you keep up with the hand-waving. I don't give two royal fucks what the term is in Canada. My comment was in regards to CALIFORNIA which is in the United States. Take your Canada/Greenland crap and shove it up your ass.
Really? You don't think you owe them an honest day's work for an honest day's pay, at the very least?
Would the reverse be true? Would your statement have symmetry?
Does Management owe Labor anything?
I am actually interested in your reply, if you'd care to.
I'm of the opinion that if Management owes Labor wages for work performed, then Labor owes Management work for wages paid. It's a symbiotic relationship, to a certain degree.
To those who say that automating the job, and keeping it a secret, is unethical:
We all accept a certain amount of "lying" regarding how much we work..
In the strictest sense, when we are being paid a wage to do a job, the most moral position would be do do your job as quickly and efficiently as possible, without breaking any laws, safety regulations, or putting yourself in danger. i.e. doing it "efficiently". I'm not saying you have to kill yourself with stress.. You just don't.... fuck off... while on the clock.
But, we all do it.. You go to the water cooler, and while there you talk to "Jim" for a minute.. You're not there for hours... Just a minute or two.. Technically.. you're fucking off on the job. We understand these short breaks.. They help with stress, they keep us sane.. But.. there's a line.. What is it? I honestly don't know. The law mandates two 15 minute breaks and one half hour break per 8 hour shift (I think this is federal, but I'm not positive. It's the case here in California at least). The other breaks tend to be informal and sprinkled here and there.. But what's the line? At what point does those minor breaks become unethical? 5 minutes? 20 minutes? 6 hours?
I have no opinion on it that I can formally define.. As an occasional employer, it's kinda like obscenity. I can't define what fucking-off is, precisely... But I know it when I see it.
You're paid for results and for your thinking, and if you can make a program work for you then you can sell it as a software solution, sell a license or the product and aell support for it on the way, for fixing improving and customizing it for common needs.
No.. No you cannot. (caveat, speaking to US Law here). If you invent a process, while on the job, your employer owns that process. You cannot patent it, you cannot sell it, you cannot license it. Not legally. It is the intellectual property of your employer, unless you have a contract that specifies otherwise. The default is ownership belongs to them.
Before anyone even bothers... yes, in some cases the law requires that the invention be related to the job you are being paid for (inventing a water powered engine while being employed as a software programmer would probably keep your invention in your hands). Automating your job, certainly, would fall well within the scope of "related to".
I'm not commenting on the moral position of that situation.. Just the legal position.
This has been one of the more enlightening articles with respect to the comments.. Most of them have been well thought out and detailed... albeit everyone is disagreeing with everyone else on what basically boils down to two points of view:
On one hand you have the folks who have a moral issue with a person figuring out a way to do their job without actually having to do their job. We'll call this... obscured productivity.
On the other hand you have the people who are okay with a person using their brain to do their job quicker and with more perfect results, but who are not forthcoming with their employer on how they are arriving at these results.
To the people who have an issue with automation it mostly seems that they have a problem with the fact that there is no "sweat equity". i.e. the person being paid for the work isn't actively burning calories to get the job done.
To me it appears that these people would be more "ok" with the programmer NOT automating his job, even though he has the skills to do so. i.e. he's under no obligation to make an invention. As long as he is plodding along doing his job manually it's more "honest". Somehow this is more moral for lack of a better term.
The automation way, according to the story, is more exact and produces far better results that are nearly error free.. i.e. it produces a much better result. The old manual way was more error prone and produced inferior results. But, it burns calories..
This is a tough one. On one hand, under the law in most places, the employer owns all the rights to that automated process since it was invented on the job. Thus, by automating the job the employee is potentially placing his own job at risk. The employer would have every legal right to terminate the employees employment as the job no longer exists.. it's been automated, after all. Even the most liberal states do not require employers to invent new jobs for surplus employees.
So, you have two situations... Do your job the manual and inferior way, even though you have the skill to deliver a better product but no legal obligation to do so, and you have some modicum of job security.. OR deliver the best possible product you can and potentially sabotage your own employment....
It's a pickle...
I've worked in many jobs over the years, and I've got to say, I've never ever had an employer tell me that inventing a new process, to vaporize my own position, was a job requirement.. All were simply happy when good results were produced.. But, one would be delusional if they even implied that the employer would not be in a better position, financially, if they were able to eliminate unnecessary costs. Redundant jobs, of course, being an unnecessary cost.
The employer pays you X amount of money to receive Y amount of value in return.
No. The GP is correct. You are paid for your time. If you work 40 hours in a week and through incompetence produce NOTHING, by law, your employer still must pay you for your time. Being incompetent is not grounds for withholding wages.
He is absolutely permitted to fire your ass, of course, but still must hand you that paycheck before you walk out the door.
People are fired every day for being shitty employees who can't perform their job to their boss's expectations.. They all get a check along with the pink slip.
Your employer hires you with the hopes, and expectations, that your productivity will exceed your costs. If they don't he'll find a replacement, but hours worked must be paid for nonetheless.
Yeah.. That's exactly what I said.. It's not a slur. In Alaska it is what they are called. In fact, going way back up this thread:
We don't say Eskimos. They are Inuit or Aleut.
Your text shows this to be false. Inuit is NOT accepted as a collective term.
Furthermore your comment of:
'Eskimo' is a slur that was picked up from a different tribe.
This is absolutely contradicted by this text from the AEWC:
Since it’s inception in 1977, AEWC has proactively lead the way for Native Organizations in ensuring the voices of the Yupik and Inupiat Eskimos are heard, their subsistence rights are protected and their resources managed cooperatively and responsibly.
It's a whole crapload of Eskimos who call themselves Eskimos.. So unless you're gonna go down the road where you are going to try to convince me that these people aren't smart enough to decide what they should be called.......
They'll continue to be oblivious right up to the point where the whole system collapses, at which time they'll cry "how did this happen?"
There is no political or social fix for coddled stupidity.
Indeed, and it'll happen sooner rather than later.. California's true debt to GDP is hovering around 125%. The argument from the liberals is always the same "8th largest economy!" Yeah... right now... and right up until 1 second before it collapses. The Wall Street collapse of 1929 happened in a matter of hours.. The 2008 financial crisis took a couple of days to unfold at most... There isn't a slow ramp down.. It happens very very quickly.. But this state is going to continue spending like there is no tomorrow, until it's tomorrow..
'Eskimo' is a slur that was picked up from a different tribe. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that unless you're black, you shouldn't suggest people not refer to Black people as, well, the N-word.
Oh bullshit. Eskimo isn't a slur word... What the hell is wrong with you? The word Eskimo is NOT on par with the "N" word.
In its linguistic origins, the word Eskimo comes from Innu-aimun (Montagnais) 'ayaskimew' meaning "a person who laces a snowshoe" and is related to "husky", so does not originally have a pejorative meaning.
Under U.S. and Alaskan law (as well as the linguistic and cultural traditions of Alaska), "Alaska Native" refers to all indigenous peoples of Alaska. This includes not only the Iñupiat and the Yupik, but also groups such as the Aleut, who share a recent ancestor, as well as the largely unrelated indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast and the Alaskan Athabaskans. As a result, the term Eskimo is still in use in Alaska. Alternative terms, such as Inuit-Yupik, have been proposed, but none has gained widespread acceptance.
At worst, it's an incorrect term applied to the wrong group. But, it's obviously not so offensive that it's still not in widespread use up in Alaska. As near as I can tell, the only complaint about it is that it isn't precise. Eskimo was supposed to refer to a specific subset or tribe, but has been blurred to refer to all of them. Hard to draw a good analogy, but maybe like calling someone from Texas a Californian.. They aren't going to be thrilled about it, but it's not a racial slur.
Look at the people.. Obviously ethnic Alaskans yes? And yet they call themselves the Alaskan Eskimo Whaling Commission.. Yes?
So.. we've got a bunch of Eskimos who call themselves Eskimos..
You virtue signaling asshole. I don't live in Canada or Russia, so I don't give a crap what the natives there call themselves. Here in the USA, the Eskimos are running around calling themselves Eskimos. So you can kindly fuck off.
Nobody is saying men get to the board by being competent, asshole. What we're saying is that this law just enforces sexism the other way.
You don't fix sexism with sexism just like you don't fix racism with racism.
What's amazing to me is that California figured out 20 years ago that affirmative action didn't work and outlawed it.. Now we're going to have sexual affirmative action.
You can't fix social problems with legislation. As many have pointed out, now no woman will really know if she's sitting on a board because she's wanted there or if she is just filling the fucking quota. This is exactly what people said about the aforementioned affirmative action. It didn't help. In fact, in many ways, it made the problem worse. Lots of absolutely qualified people were suspected of getting jobs to fill quotas.
Come up with a tenable solution that isn't sexist in the opposite way and we'll listen to your idea. But suggesting that it's never the case that women don't do some things simply because they don't want to is a break with reality. I've been in jobs that had ZERO women despite honest efforts by the employer to hire them. What do you do when some asshole demands that you hire women when it's possible that they don't want to do a certain type of job or can't meet certain requirements to do a particular job (heavy lifting for example)? Sometimes you can't reduce the requirements..
Y'all realize that this headline/summary contradicts itself right?
This asinine law will not result in all-male boards disappearing from California.. It only targets "publicly traded" companies.. If a corporation is not publicly traded (and the vast majority of them are not) then this law does not even apply.
It's like laws that target companies with 50+ employees. Most companies don't have that many employees...
These types of laws have the opposite effect. Women on these boards will be seen as only having the position because the laws demand it, so they won't be taken seriously. This is a blow to female advancement, not an improvement.
Very true. But it's even more asinine when you consider the fact that the state, itself, is prohibited from this very type of action.
Proposition 209 is a California ballot proposition which, upon approval in November 1996, amended the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education.
So the state forces, upon the public, that which it cannot constitutionally do itself... My state really is run by a bunch of mouth-breathing idiots.
That's my problem with "liberalism". At the core it really is hypocritical.
Liberals hate discrimination against women, but will champion discrimination for women.
Liberals demand there are no true differences between the sexes, but will support a law based solely on sex.
Liberals will rail against racial discrimination but will support laws that "fix" that by mandating selections based only upon race (affirmative action)
Sexual and racial discrimination suck. They really do, but the fix is not sexual and racial favoritism. You can't have solutions that mirror the problem. Education is the only way you can really fix a problem.
I'm not racist not because the government told me I couldn't be. I'm not racist because I've worked and been near people of all races and learned that they're just people.. Racism is taught. Tolerance is taught. Mandating legal solutions to social problems rarely works and there tends to be a lot of collateral damage.
Are the powerful, white, greying power elites really that mobile that they'd up and move to another state? It happens, but not the way you're imagining. A smart person would check out the lay of the land before making a knee-jerk, anger-based life change.
Do you think you have to actually move out of state?
You rent a small office (100 sq feet or so) in NV and reincorporate there.. Have your mail forwarded.. Meet in Vegas for your "board meetings" and you are in compliance with the law.
Yeah, there's a few other minor requirements you'd have to satisfy, but nothing major..
If "choosing according to merit" magically selects only straight white dudes, your definition of "merit" badly needs examining because you're basically saying that straight white dudes are somehow objectively superior.
Nope.. Not at all, but the solution to this problem isn't to mandate a fix that only takes sex into account. How nice of you to reduce a woman to her vagina by making her vagina the only qualification required to comply with this law. The law specifies no other requirements, whatsoever. So, to comply with this new law a company could place a woman, who is illiterate, mute, blind, has Down's Syndrome, and is in a persistive vegatative seat, on the board and be in compliance... Because she has a....vagina.
Right, because everyone begins their adult life from the exact same starting line, and all existing institutions are perfect as is.
You're absolutely right.. It's way more reasonable to select people for positions of power based solely on what they have between their legs.
Sometimes solutions to problems are not tried because they aren't rational solutions. You're right that not all institutions are perfect, but this isn't a reasonable resolution.
It would sound just as ludicrous to suggest a man was qualified for a board seat simply because he has a dick. Some boards might hire men exclusively, but I can guarantee you that sex isn't the only factor. The ability to speak words probably factors in there somewhere. i.e. there is some intrinsic level of intelligence required. e.g. Just because he's a male would not qualify a Down's Syndrome person to sit on the board of any random company you could name. So we can infer that existing boards aren't only using sex as the only factor in determining members.
However this new law ignores that. It declares that a vagina is the sole qualification needed to satisfy the requirements of the law.
Ya know how every time some Republican senator goes on a rant about the homosexuals, sooner or later he's caught in a public bathroom with a dick in his mouth?
Fits that old saying of "Methinks thou dost protest too much"
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct.. But these little leaks could be offset by.... permanently storing some of the carbon in the Earth.. Maybe turn it into a diamond.. I can't imaging a whole lot of methane would leak.. Just make a diamond once a month and you're good..
Why do you HAVE to store it as a liquid? Just store it under high pressure.. Ya know, like they do right now..
You buy up an old mine, and you pump methane into it... Presto, you've just stored methane.
Because methane is relatively low value for its volume and building aboveground vessels for storage is prohibitively expensive, often companies interested in methane storage will purchase the rights to use old mine caverns to store high pressure methane for arbitrage purposes. In upstate New York, there are many old solution-mined salt caverns that are used for this purpose.
Regardless, there's probably no reason to store it anyhow.. Just build your plant near a gas fired power station.. Instant customer and no need for storage.. You just pipe it a few hundred yards down the road.
Why can't you do all of those things? Jesus Christ.. not everything is black/white, this/that, yes/no.
I think this is a great idea.. We need methane.. This place can make it in a carbon neutral way (assuming the plant is using electricity from a non-fossil source).
For at least a little while longer we have to have chemical energy storage. This place can do it without increasing the net amount of CO2 in the air.. Awesome!
Yeah. I do get that some don't like the term. That's fine. I DO NOT LIVE IN CANADA OR GREENLAND.
I live in the United States where it is NOT A SLUR.
As you, yourself, have just pointed out it is acceptable in Alaska. That's all it takes to shit all of your first statement of "Eskimo is a slur". You did not qualify your fucking statement by saying "....in Canada and/or Greenland". You made a blanket statement of "it's a slur". It is not a slur in Alaska. In fact it's even less than a slur. It is the correct goddamn term. Your original post was completely FALSE. Inuit is not an interchangeable term for Eskimo. Inuits are an entirely different people. So "Eskimo is a slur. We say Inuit or Aleut" is 100% false. But rather than admit you were incorrect, you keep up with the hand-waving. I don't give two royal fucks what the term is in Canada. My comment was in regards to CALIFORNIA which is in the United States. Take your Canada/Greenland crap and shove it up your ass.
END OF STORY.
Labor doesn't owe Management anything.
Really? You don't think you owe them an honest day's work for an honest day's pay, at the very least?
Would the reverse be true? Would your statement have symmetry?
Does Management owe Labor anything?
I am actually interested in your reply, if you'd care to.
I'm of the opinion that if Management owes Labor wages for work performed, then Labor owes Management work for wages paid. It's a symbiotic relationship, to a certain degree.
In the strictest sense, when we are being paid a wage to do a job, the most moral position would be do do your job as quickly and efficiently as possible, without breaking any laws, safety regulations, or putting yourself in danger. i.e. doing it "efficiently". I'm not saying you have to kill yourself with stress.. You just don't.... fuck off... while on the clock.
But, we all do it.. You go to the water cooler, and while there you talk to "Jim" for a minute.. You're not there for hours... Just a minute or two.. Technically.. you're fucking off on the job. We understand these short breaks.. They help with stress, they keep us sane.. But.. there's a line.. What is it? I honestly don't know. The law mandates two 15 minute breaks and one half hour break per 8 hour shift (I think this is federal, but I'm not positive. It's the case here in California at least). The other breaks tend to be informal and sprinkled here and there.. But what's the line? At what point does those minor breaks become unethical? 5 minutes? 20 minutes? 6 hours?
I have no opinion on it that I can formally define.. As an occasional employer, it's kinda like obscenity. I can't define what fucking-off is, precisely... But I know it when I see it.
Just food for thought.
You're paid for results and for your thinking, and if you can make a program work for you then you can sell it as a software solution, sell a license or the product and aell support for it on the way, for fixing improving and customizing it for common needs.
No.. No you cannot. (caveat, speaking to US Law here). If you invent a process, while on the job, your employer owns that process. You cannot patent it, you cannot sell it, you cannot license it. Not legally. It is the intellectual property of your employer, unless you have a contract that specifies otherwise. The default is ownership belongs to them.
Before anyone even bothers... yes, in some cases the law requires that the invention be related to the job you are being paid for (inventing a water powered engine while being employed as a software programmer would probably keep your invention in your hands). Automating your job, certainly, would fall well within the scope of "related to".
I'm not commenting on the moral position of that situation.. Just the legal position.
This has been one of the more enlightening articles with respect to the comments.. Most of them have been well thought out and detailed... albeit everyone is disagreeing with everyone else on what basically boils down to two points of view:
On one hand you have the folks who have a moral issue with a person figuring out a way to do their job without actually having to do their job. We'll call this... obscured productivity.
On the other hand you have the people who are okay with a person using their brain to do their job quicker and with more perfect results, but who are not forthcoming with their employer on how they are arriving at these results.
To the people who have an issue with automation it mostly seems that they have a problem with the fact that there is no "sweat equity". i.e. the person being paid for the work isn't actively burning calories to get the job done.
To me it appears that these people would be more "ok" with the programmer NOT automating his job, even though he has the skills to do so. i.e. he's under no obligation to make an invention. As long as he is plodding along doing his job manually it's more "honest". Somehow this is more moral for lack of a better term.
The automation way, according to the story, is more exact and produces far better results that are nearly error free.. i.e. it produces a much better result. The old manual way was more error prone and produced inferior results. But, it burns calories..
This is a tough one. On one hand, under the law in most places, the employer owns all the rights to that automated process since it was invented on the job. Thus, by automating the job the employee is potentially placing his own job at risk. The employer would have every legal right to terminate the employees employment as the job no longer exists.. it's been automated, after all. Even the most liberal states do not require employers to invent new jobs for surplus employees.
So, you have two situations... Do your job the manual and inferior way, even though you have the skill to deliver a better product but no legal obligation to do so, and you have some modicum of job security.. OR deliver the best possible product you can and potentially sabotage your own employment....
It's a pickle...
I've worked in many jobs over the years, and I've got to say, I've never ever had an employer tell me that inventing a new process, to vaporize my own position, was a job requirement.. All were simply happy when good results were produced.. But, one would be delusional if they even implied that the employer would not be in a better position, financially, if they were able to eliminate unnecessary costs. Redundant jobs, of course, being an unnecessary cost.
And here you are posting on Slashdot during working hours. Bad, worker bee, bad!
I know you are being somewhat facetious, so this is said without malice;
How dare you assume my working hours? Some of us miserable fucks have to work non-standard hours! Next you'll be assuming my gender!
Nope.
The employer pays you X amount of money to receive Y amount of value in return.
No. The GP is correct. You are paid for your time. If you work 40 hours in a week and through incompetence produce NOTHING, by law, your employer still must pay you for your time. Being incompetent is not grounds for withholding wages.
He is absolutely permitted to fire your ass, of course, but still must hand you that paycheck before you walk out the door.
People are fired every day for being shitty employees who can't perform their job to their boss's expectations.. They all get a check along with the pink slip.
Your employer hires you with the hopes, and expectations, that your productivity will exceed your costs. If they don't he'll find a replacement, but hours worked must be paid for nonetheless.
This is a blatant case of "Russian bot delusion".
Ahhhh.. That's exactly what one would expect a Russian bot to say.... ;)
Yeah.. That's exactly what I said.. It's not a slur. In Alaska it is what they are called. In fact, going way back up this thread:
We don't say Eskimos. They are Inuit or Aleut.
Your text shows this to be false. Inuit is NOT accepted as a collective term.
Furthermore your comment of:
'Eskimo' is a slur that was picked up from a different tribe.
This is absolutely contradicted by this text from the AEWC:
Since it’s inception in 1977, AEWC has proactively lead the way for Native Organizations in ensuring the voices of the Yupik and Inupiat Eskimos are heard, their subsistence rights are protected and their resources managed cooperatively and responsibly.
It's a whole crapload of Eskimos who call themselves Eskimos.. So unless you're gonna go down the road where you are going to try to convince me that these people aren't smart enough to decide what they should be called.......
They'll continue to be oblivious right up to the point where the whole system collapses, at which time they'll cry "how did this happen?"
There is no political or social fix for coddled stupidity.
Indeed, and it'll happen sooner rather than later.. California's true debt to GDP is hovering around 125%. The argument from the liberals is always the same "8th largest economy!" Yeah... right now... and right up until 1 second before it collapses. The Wall Street collapse of 1929 happened in a matter of hours.. The 2008 financial crisis took a couple of days to unfold at most... There isn't a slow ramp down.. It happens very very quickly.. But this state is going to continue spending like there is no tomorrow, until it's tomorrow..
'Eskimo' is a slur that was picked up from a different tribe. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that unless you're black, you shouldn't suggest people not refer to Black people as, well, the N-word.
Oh bullshit. Eskimo isn't a slur word... What the hell is wrong with you? The word Eskimo is NOT on par with the "N" word.
In its linguistic origins, the word Eskimo comes from Innu-aimun (Montagnais) 'ayaskimew' meaning "a person who laces a snowshoe" and is related to "husky", so does not originally have a pejorative meaning.
Under U.S. and Alaskan law (as well as the linguistic and cultural traditions of Alaska), "Alaska Native" refers to all indigenous peoples of Alaska. This includes not only the Iñupiat and the Yupik, but also groups such as the Aleut, who share a recent ancestor, as well as the largely unrelated indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast and the Alaskan Athabaskans. As a result, the term Eskimo is still in use in Alaska. Alternative terms, such as Inuit-Yupik, have been proposed, but none has gained widespread acceptance.
At worst, it's an incorrect term applied to the wrong group. But, it's obviously not so offensive that it's still not in widespread use up in Alaska. As near as I can tell, the only complaint about it is that it isn't precise. Eskimo was supposed to refer to a specific subset or tribe, but has been blurred to refer to all of them. Hard to draw a good analogy, but maybe like calling someone from Texas a Californian.. They aren't going to be thrilled about it, but it's not a racial slur.
Take 1 minute to look at this page: http://www.aewc-alaska.com/aew...
Look at the people.. Obviously ethnic Alaskans yes? And yet they call themselves the Alaskan Eskimo Whaling Commission.. Yes?
So.. we've got a bunch of Eskimos who call themselves Eskimos..
You virtue signaling asshole. I don't live in Canada or Russia, so I don't give a crap what the natives there call themselves. Here in the USA, the Eskimos are running around calling themselves Eskimos. So you can kindly fuck off.
Well... it is the dominant OS on Earth (Android, Top500, Internet Servers).. When would you consider it the "year of Linux"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Operating_systems_used_on_top_500_supercomputers.svg
I used that as my reference.
Nobody is saying men get to the board by being competent, asshole. What we're saying is that this law just enforces sexism the other way.
You don't fix sexism with sexism just like you don't fix racism with racism.
What's amazing to me is that California figured out 20 years ago that affirmative action didn't work and outlawed it.. Now we're going to have sexual affirmative action.
You can't fix social problems with legislation. As many have pointed out, now no woman will really know if she's sitting on a board because she's wanted there or if she is just filling the fucking quota. This is exactly what people said about the aforementioned affirmative action. It didn't help. In fact, in many ways, it made the problem worse. Lots of absolutely qualified people were suspected of getting jobs to fill quotas.
Come up with a tenable solution that isn't sexist in the opposite way and we'll listen to your idea. But suggesting that it's never the case that women don't do some things simply because they don't want to is a break with reality. I've been in jobs that had ZERO women despite honest efforts by the employer to hire them. What do you do when some asshole demands that you hire women when it's possible that they don't want to do a certain type of job or can't meet certain requirements to do a particular job (heavy lifting for example)? Sometimes you can't reduce the requirements..
Y'all realize that this headline/summary contradicts itself right?
This asinine law will not result in all-male boards disappearing from California.. It only targets "publicly traded" companies.. If a corporation is not publicly traded (and the vast majority of them are not) then this law does not even apply.
It's like laws that target companies with 50+ employees. Most companies don't have that many employees...
These types of laws have the opposite effect. Women on these boards will be seen as only having the position because the laws demand it, so they won't be taken seriously. This is a blow to female advancement, not an improvement.
Very true. But it's even more asinine when you consider the fact that the state, itself, is prohibited from this very type of action.
Proposition 209 is a California ballot proposition which, upon approval in November 1996, amended the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education.
So the state forces, upon the public, that which it cannot constitutionally do itself... My state really is run by a bunch of mouth-breathing idiots.
Yep... Amazing isn't it?
That's my problem with "liberalism". At the core it really is hypocritical.
Liberals hate discrimination against women, but will champion discrimination for women.
Liberals demand there are no true differences between the sexes, but will support a law based solely on sex.
Liberals will rail against racial discrimination but will support laws that "fix" that by mandating selections based only upon race (affirmative action)
Sexual and racial discrimination suck. They really do, but the fix is not sexual and racial favoritism. You can't have solutions that mirror the problem. Education is the only way you can really fix a problem.
I'm not racist not because the government told me I couldn't be. I'm not racist because I've worked and been near people of all races and learned that they're just people.. Racism is taught. Tolerance is taught. Mandating legal solutions to social problems rarely works and there tends to be a lot of collateral damage.
Are the powerful, white, greying power elites really that mobile that they'd up and move to another state? It happens, but not the way you're imagining. A smart person would check out the lay of the land before making a knee-jerk, anger-based life change.
Do you think you have to actually move out of state?
You rent a small office (100 sq feet or so) in NV and reincorporate there.. Have your mail forwarded.. Meet in Vegas for your "board meetings" and you are in compliance with the law.
Yeah, there's a few other minor requirements you'd have to satisfy, but nothing major..
If "choosing according to merit" magically selects only straight white dudes, your definition of "merit" badly needs examining because you're basically saying that straight white dudes are somehow objectively superior.
Nope.. Not at all, but the solution to this problem isn't to mandate a fix that only takes sex into account. How nice of you to reduce a woman to her vagina by making her vagina the only qualification required to comply with this law. The law specifies no other requirements, whatsoever. So, to comply with this new law a company could place a woman, who is illiterate, mute, blind, has Down's Syndrome, and is in a persistive vegatative seat, on the board and be in compliance... Because she has a....vagina.
We don't say Eskimos. They are Inuit or Aleut.
Are you one? If not, then fuck off.
Do you have any idea how incredibly patronizing it is that you have decided you can speak for them?
Where the hell do you get off with that level of arrogance?
If an Inuit or Aleut prefers to be called Inuit or Aleut vs Eskimo, they can tells us that.
Right, because everyone begins their adult life from the exact same starting line, and all existing institutions are perfect as is.
You're absolutely right.. It's way more reasonable to select people for positions of power based solely on what they have between their legs.
Sometimes solutions to problems are not tried because they aren't rational solutions. You're right that not all institutions are perfect, but this isn't a reasonable resolution.
It would sound just as ludicrous to suggest a man was qualified for a board seat simply because he has a dick. Some boards might hire men exclusively, but I can guarantee you that sex isn't the only factor.
The ability to speak words probably factors in there somewhere. i.e. there is some intrinsic level of intelligence required. e.g. Just because he's a male would not qualify a Down's Syndrome person to sit on the board of any random company you could name. So we can infer that existing boards aren't only using sex as the only factor in determining members.
However this new law ignores that. It declares that a vagina is the sole qualification needed to satisfy the requirements of the law.
Do you really not think that is fucking insane?
Ya know how every time some Republican senator goes on a rant about the homosexuals, sooner or later he's caught in a public bathroom with a dick in his mouth?
Fits that old saying of "Methinks thou dost protest too much"
You got anything you want to "come out" with?