Prosecutorial discretion needs to be a simple case-by-case decision not to prosecute "for now"; DACA guarantees non-prosecution to a class of people for a well-defined period of time and hence isn't prosecutorial discretion.
Prosecutorial discretion can't be used to substantively alter laws; since DACA-like legislation had failed in Congress, Obama's adoption of DACA arguably does just that.
Finally, prosecutorial discretion only concerns the choice of whether to prosecute or not, but DACA creates additional benefits beyond merely not prosecuting.
No, they really don't. They listen to *their idea* of what people want to watch. And even then, they stick to their prejudices well past when it should be obvious they are wrong.
Are you kidding? Do you seriously believe movie investors put billions of dollars at stake without an extremely detailed analysis of markets, demographics, and audiences?
Most people in this country are neither white not men,
Hollywood is driven by international market preferences, not just US preferences. Note that many international markets, not just US markets, have a strong preference for "traditional gender roles", for lighter skin, and for Caucasian features.
yet white men are still the primary demographic targeted
Hollywood makes, and has made, movies for any and every major demographic: women, men, blacks, whites, Latinos, straight, gay, kids, young adults, families, seniors, etc. And the mix of movies it makes is adjusted based on the spending habits of those demographics.
Is that because of rational analysis of the market, or because the producer, directors, etc. are almost entirely white men and don't really know what anyone else wants?
Of course it's because of a rational analysis of the market. Your assumption that capitalists with billions of dollars at stake can't engage in a rational analysis of the market because of their white skin is ludicrous.
If there's a white guy, a black guy and a woman all equally qualified applying for a job, the white guy will probably get it
Bullshit. The white guy is the least likely to get the job these days. Of course, in high tech, this situation doesn't even arise; for the last decade, in any company I have worked, the rule has been "there is an unlimited number of job slots, hire anybody who is qualified".
As for your assumption about *my* brain - you're completely off base.
You already identified yourself as a white male, and your prejudices and viewpoints are typically heterosexual male.
Hollywood is never going to listen to normal people, any more than any other major industry.
Actually, Hollywood listens to ordinary people very well, based on how they spend their money. If ordinary people want to see more fat black lesbian hackers, Hollywood will show them. I suspect ordinary people don't want that.
Of the three, having other industries throw their weight around to get a more honest portrayal
About 20% of tech jobs at Google are held by women and 2% are held by blacks, and those are biased towards more low-end jobs. An "honest portrayal" would be to see a female hacker at most once every fifth movie, and a black hacker at most once every 50th movie. You don't want a "more honest potrayal", you want a "more dishonest portrayal" because of your beliefs about race and gender.
Or the status quo continues, and hundreds of millions of lives continue to be warped by their stereotypes (white men have *always* been a minority - second to women (51%) plus the men of every other race out there. We've maintained dominance by sculpting society to give us an unfair advantage)
I have white skin and a penis, and any American of any ethnicity had more opportunities and privilege than I growing up. Start reasoning about people as individuals, instead of categorizing everything into your racist categories.
As for "unfair advantages", your straight (?) white male brain is so addled by testosterone that you think that working yourself to death in high paying job is the ultimate measure of achievement and advantage. In fact, women have other, better options available to them, and many women are taking advantage of them.
that's no excuse to use them recklessly and without any community oversight
So you are saying that when corporations and billionaires go to Hollywood and encourage the manipulation of movies to portray unrealistic demographics, that is "community oversight"? Which "community" would that be exactly? It's no community that the average American is a member of.
You keep proving again and again that you are a totalitarian and a corporatist.
Obama never had the authority to implement DACA in the first place. Whether you like DACA as a policy or not, DACA undermines the rule of law, and that has disastrous consequences in the long run.
Trump's decision is a reasonable compromise: he is giving Congress six months to do what it should have done in the first place, namely define, in law, immigration policy for childhood arrivals.
Your beliefs are textbook Bernays, the American propagandist whose works formed the basis for Goebbels' Nazi propaganda machine. Bernays' work was also widely used by American progressives in their promotion of racial segregation and eugenics a century ago. I'm sorry you are obviously too historically illiterate to understand how offensive and deplorable your statements are.
Google's predominance is the result of the original architecture of the Internet, together with the way we provide and charge for Internet access. And Google's predominance isn't just a problem because Google is misusing it more and more, it's also a problem because it gives governments easy access for privacy invasion and censorship. (Facebook and the current DNS system are secondary problems.)
This needs to change: we need distributed, decentralized name services, P2P web sites, and distributed and crytocurrency-based advertising and business models. And given that Google is increasingly using government to maintain its predominance, we probably need to increasingly use government to fight Google. Good strategies would be to start more anti-trust complaints against Google, as well as demanding something analogous to "common carrier status" for Google's search, hosting, and advertising.
Really? That response is one (small) step above "I know you are but what am I?". Very adult.
Look, I made a quick sarcastic comment about Google that you obviously didn't quite get. You are a Google manager whose response was a series of ad hominems. Well, congratulations, your response is consistent with the article and the increasingly negative image that Google is getting.
Lewis's solution to producing the next generation of poets is worth considering for STEM too. Make sure everyone is adequately *educated* in poetry, and then those with a natural affinity for poetry will naturally like it. Now insofar as the evidence shows that girls in school are not getting the STEM education they ought to be, that ought to be fixed,
I'm not sure what kind of high school you went to, but in the US and Europe, there hasn't been segregation by gender in a long time. If girls don't take math and computer science as much as boys in high school, that reflects their preferences, not a lack of opportunity. The simple fact remains: girls and women simply don't like computer science that much relative to other choices open to them, and that's why they are underrepresented. Gender disparities exist in many fields, across cultures and across countries; they idea that all of these are due to discrimination is simply not born out by the data.
You are not entitled to a "safe space" at the expense of others.
We haven't been talking about "safe spaces" and I never asked for one. What we have been talking about is how Google is using Hollywood to manipulate public perceptions and meddle in people's decision making. And while Google's actions are legal, they are not just ridiculously ineffective, they are also counterproductive to the very goals (tolerance, acceptance, diversity, etc.) Google is trying to achieve. I'm sorry you lack the maturity and personal experience to see that.
Otherwise learn to tolerate women, Asians, black people, transgendered, etc, etc, etc. It's not that hard
You don't know me. In fact, the companies I've run and the people I have hired have always been far more diverse than companies like Google. See, diversity isn't about throwing millions at Hollywood, as Google is doing, it's about taking the time to actually individually help people. I.e., it's the opposite of the crap you and Google are peddling.
What we need are more females typing on inexplicably noisy keyboards
Personally, I think what we really need is more naked, well-endowed, muscular males typing on inexplicably noisy keyboards while a camera zooms in Jason Borne style (and not on the screen) while the music builds up the tension until....."I'm in!"
When I think "who do I think would make a good President,"
BarbaraHudson wasn't talking about "who makes a good president". She was talking about the people who vote for the president, and she held US voters in disdain, like many Democrats: "You are deplorable people, now shut up and vote for me."
I know lots of feminists who are coders. Most of them are men, though.
The population we're talking about isn't "feminists who are coders" but "feminists who advocate coding but refuse to do it themselves". Those kinds of hypocrites are common.
"At no time was there ever a data breach of any TigerSwan server," the firm said. "All resume files in TigerSwan's possession are secure. We take seriously the failure of TalentPen the security of this information and regret any inconvenience or exposure our former recruiting vendor may have caused these applicants."
You're responsible for your vendors, doubly so since assessing security of others is your business.
In a sane universe, the founders and owners of TigerSwan would be sued for every dime they have and be barred in perpetuity from all government contracts. In reality, this will get papered over using lame excuses, and Democrats and Republicans will continue to unite in institutionalized corruption and cronyism, in particular in favor of ex-military and ex-government employees.
Slashdot Mirror
Prosecutorial discretion needs to be a simple case-by-case decision not to prosecute "for now"; DACA guarantees non-prosecution to a class of people for a well-defined period of time and hence isn't prosecutorial discretion.
Prosecutorial discretion can't be used to substantively alter laws; since DACA-like legislation had failed in Congress, Obama's adoption of DACA arguably does just that.
Finally, prosecutorial discretion only concerns the choice of whether to prosecute or not, but DACA creates additional benefits beyond merely not prosecuting.
Are you kidding? Do you seriously believe movie investors put billions of dollars at stake without an extremely detailed analysis of markets, demographics, and audiences?
Hollywood is driven by international market preferences, not just US preferences. Note that many international markets, not just US markets, have a strong preference for "traditional gender roles", for lighter skin, and for Caucasian features.
Hollywood makes, and has made, movies for any and every major demographic: women, men, blacks, whites, Latinos, straight, gay, kids, young adults, families, seniors, etc. And the mix of movies it makes is adjusted based on the spending habits of those demographics.
Of course it's because of a rational analysis of the market. Your assumption that capitalists with billions of dollars at stake can't engage in a rational analysis of the market because of their white skin is ludicrous.
Bullshit. The white guy is the least likely to get the job these days. Of course, in high tech, this situation doesn't even arise; for the last decade, in any company I have worked, the rule has been "there is an unlimited number of job slots, hire anybody who is qualified".
You already identified yourself as a white male, and your prejudices and viewpoints are typically heterosexual male.
Well, SCOTUS has been pretty clear that conduct like DACA exceeds prosecutorial discretion.
It was neither law nor regulation. It was an application of "prosecutorial discretion" in a way that is likely unconstitutional.
Actually, Hollywood listens to ordinary people very well, based on how they spend their money. If ordinary people want to see more fat black lesbian hackers, Hollywood will show them. I suspect ordinary people don't want that.
About 20% of tech jobs at Google are held by women and 2% are held by blacks, and those are biased towards more low-end jobs. An "honest portrayal" would be to see a female hacker at most once every fifth movie, and a black hacker at most once every 50th movie. You don't want a "more honest potrayal", you want a "more dishonest portrayal" because of your beliefs about race and gender.
I have white skin and a penis, and any American of any ethnicity had more opportunities and privilege than I growing up. Start reasoning about people as individuals, instead of categorizing everything into your racist categories.
As for "unfair advantages", your straight (?) white male brain is so addled by testosterone that you think that working yourself to death in high paying job is the ultimate measure of achievement and advantage. In fact, women have other, better options available to them, and many women are taking advantage of them.
So you are saying that when corporations and billionaires go to Hollywood and encourage the manipulation of movies to portray unrealistic demographics, that is "community oversight"? Which "community" would that be exactly? It's no community that the average American is a member of.
You keep proving again and again that you are a totalitarian and a corporatist.
Prosecutorial decision is not unlimited, and DACA falls outside the limits of what is legally permissible.
And those elected officials have decided to exercise their prosecutorial decision differently now.
Obama never had the authority to implement DACA in the first place. Whether you like DACA as a policy or not, DACA undermines the rule of law, and that has disastrous consequences in the long run.
Trump's decision is a reasonable compromise: he is giving Congress six months to do what it should have done in the first place, namely define, in law, immigration policy for childhood arrivals.
Your beliefs are textbook Bernays, the American propagandist whose works formed the basis for Goebbels' Nazi propaganda machine. Bernays' work was also widely used by American progressives in their promotion of racial segregation and eugenics a century ago. I'm sorry you are obviously too historically illiterate to understand how offensive and deplorable your statements are.
"Shaping whole generations", etc.: you're a totalitarian. You are the disease.
Google's predominance is the result of the original architecture of the Internet, together with the way we provide and charge for Internet access. And Google's predominance isn't just a problem because Google is misusing it more and more, it's also a problem because it gives governments easy access for privacy invasion and censorship. (Facebook and the current DNS system are secondary problems.)
This needs to change: we need distributed, decentralized name services, P2P web sites, and distributed and crytocurrency-based advertising and business models. And given that Google is increasingly using government to maintain its predominance, we probably need to increasingly use government to fight Google. Good strategies would be to start more anti-trust complaints against Google, as well as demanding something analogous to "common carrier status" for Google's search, hosting, and advertising.
You just keep demonstrating your bigotry, your ignorance, and the contempt you hold for minorities.
Are you kidding me? I literally said "feminists who advocate coding but refuse to do it themselves" both in the first posting and in the second.
Are you representative of the kind of people Google hires these days?
Look, I made a quick sarcastic comment about Google that you obviously didn't quite get. You are a Google manager whose response was a series of ad hominems. Well, congratulations, your response is consistent with the article and the increasingly negative image that Google is getting.
Very professional and adult of you!
I'm not sure what kind of high school you went to, but in the US and Europe, there hasn't been segregation by gender in a long time. If girls don't take math and computer science as much as boys in high school, that reflects their preferences, not a lack of opportunity. The simple fact remains: girls and women simply don't like computer science that much relative to other choices open to them, and that's why they are underrepresented. Gender disparities exist in many fields, across cultures and across countries; they idea that all of these are due to discrimination is simply not born out by the data.
We haven't been talking about "safe spaces" and I never asked for one. What we have been talking about is how Google is using Hollywood to manipulate public perceptions and meddle in people's decision making. And while Google's actions are legal, they are not just ridiculously ineffective, they are also counterproductive to the very goals (tolerance, acceptance, diversity, etc.) Google is trying to achieve. I'm sorry you lack the maturity and personal experience to see that.
You don't know me. In fact, the companies I've run and the people I have hired have always been far more diverse than companies like Google. See, diversity isn't about throwing millions at Hollywood, as Google is doing, it's about taking the time to actually individually help people. I.e., it's the opposite of the crap you and Google are peddling.
Personally, I think what we really need is more naked, well-endowed, muscular males typing on inexplicably noisy keyboards while a camera zooms in Jason Borne style (and not on the screen) while the music builds up the tension until....."I'm in!"
BarbaraHudson wasn't talking about "who makes a good president". She was talking about the people who vote for the president, and she held US voters in disdain, like many Democrats: "You are deplorable people, now shut up and vote for me."
The population we're talking about isn't "feminists who are coders" but "feminists who advocate coding but refuse to do it themselves". Those kinds of hypocrites are common.
If I want to have an adult discussion, I have it with adults.
As you may notice, the perspective of the mass media is becoming less and less relevant.
Short term, it may seem that way. Long term, the trust of Americans in the federal government is eroding, year after year.
No, it doesn't even do that. All your line of reasoning demonstrates is your utter ignorance of the subject.
You're responsible for your vendors, doubly so since assessing security of others is your business.
In a sane universe, the founders and owners of TigerSwan would be sued for every dime they have and be barred in perpetuity from all government contracts. In reality, this will get papered over using lame excuses, and Democrats and Republicans will continue to unite in institutionalized corruption and cronyism, in particular in favor of ex-military and ex-government employees.
Hope springs eternal. I'm not holding my breath though.