As it should, according to right-wing ideology. Offended employees are less productive, and that's a bigger impact than allowing free and reasonable speech. Unless you believe that corporations have social responsibilities, the correct thing to do was to ignore free speech implications and minimize the number of people feeling offended.
He described himself as a classic liberal, which is not left-wing nowadays by any standard. Classic liberals are a variety of conservative that I rather approve of. Things in the world have changed since classical liberals appeared.
What I normally don't see is conservatives and Republicans like they had when I was a kid. Although I never supported them, they were good to have around. The current variety disappoints me.
Why don't we worry as a society about the gender gap in nursing, kindergarten teaching or flight attending?
False premise - we are worried about the gender gap in nursing. There's a lot of attention paid to getting more men into nursing. I don't know about kindergarten teachers or flight attendants. We don't tend to notice it, because we're largely a bunch of techno-geeks who pay close attention to what happens in STEM fields and not nursing.
I would suggest that most SJW self describe themselves unapologetically as such
I don't remember seeing anyone around here self-identifying as an SJW. I see it a lot being thrown around as an insult. It appears to me to be primarily used as an excuse for right-wingers to not have to think when arguing, like any ad hominem argument.
The whole "women make less money" is based on the fact that women make less money, and you can determine this through fairly simple research and objective arithmetic.
Women in general don't make much less than men within a particular job title, true, That doesn't mean women are not discriminated against, as "job title" is not a God-given characteristic branded on the forehead. What it means is that women don't get into higher-paid job titles as much as men.
In an at-will state, there are certain specific things you can't get fired for. It's illegal to fire me because I'm a white, or male, or heterosexual, or between 40 and 65. Presenting is not in a legal protected class.
In this case, the reason would appear to be that they ticked off the boss, and that's something it's legal to fire them for. It's stupid, and it may hurt the company down the line, but it's almost certainly legal.
We're not guaranteed equal opportunity by the Constitution, although some amendments have moved us towards it.
Also, I've noticed that people have different definitions of "equal opportunity". Some people appear to think it means lack of legal barriers, but I don't think a black girl from a crap school has equal opportunity to a white boy getting a great education.
That's very situation-dependent. I've never been in trouble for criticizing my workplace, and I've been free about it at times. (Of course, I really could retire at any time, so I don't have that much to lose now.)
The women convicted of being witches were hanged by the neck until dead. This guy got fired on Monday, and has another good job offer now. There is a difference, I think between "dead" and "temporarily unemployed".
They are watching the left get burned by their own tools.
At-will employment is not a leftist issue. I'd expect it to be more popular around the right wing. The idea that a corporation has social responsibilities is more left-wing.
So, I'm seeing people on the right say that the firing was socially irresponsible and Google shouldn't at-will fire a disruptive employee. The right is being burned by its own tools, also. Weird situation.
You'd find it really easy to find conservatives who don't believe that climate change is happening Whether you'd consider them "intelligent" is another question.
I'm cool with arguments about what we should do about it The predictions aren't all that good on details (and a lot of it depends on what we do anyway), the total economic impact is uncertain, and the decision about what to do is political.
The FBI viewed that case as a marketing opportunity to put public pressure on Apple not to be so secure. Their actions make no sense under any other hypothesis.
It was pretty clear that the phone wouldn't have anything useful, after the perps had wiped other information sources. Moreover, the FBI had had the ability to read the phone, and had ordered the agency it belonged to to destroy that ability. The FBI wasn't interested in the phone, the FBI was interested in being able to arbitrarily hack into iPhones without a warrant, and was using that phone as an excuse. If you remember, the FBI didn't just ask Apple to break into the phone, they asked Apple to break into the phone using a specific technique.
With the 5S, the security got tighter. If you don't know the access code, you're not going to get in. If there's an OS upgrade, a fingerprint won't open the phone without the access code. The security lives in a special piece of silicon, and an OS upgrade won't affect it. There may be ways to break into a 5S or later, but an OS update won't do it.
That's an interesting question, and one that TFS, at least, makes no attempt to answer. When a source tells you something that makes someone else look like they made an obviously wrong decision like this, you're not getting the whole story.
We can't know the results of experiments where we know the entire state. Take an electron. We make sure spin is up. We already know charge and mass, and are close enough on position. Run it through an apparatus to check left-right spin. The result is random, and various experiments have shown that there is no property of the electron that will determine the result.
Quantum theory where there are no local hidden variables? Take an electron with spin straight up, and run it through an apparatus to check its spin horizontally? Last I looked (quite some time ago), quantum random values were generally from radioactive decay.
It's publicly published content, and I can get a copy without depriving anyone of anything. Why shouldn't I watch it? Copyright is an artificial construct, unlike property rights, and copyright law has been abused by Disney in particular.
Slashdot Mirror
Classical liberals are, by modern terms, conservatives. They aren't left-wing by any standard.
As it should, according to right-wing ideology. Offended employees are less productive, and that's a bigger impact than allowing free and reasonable speech. Unless you believe that corporations have social responsibilities, the correct thing to do was to ignore free speech implications and minimize the number of people feeling offended.
Private citizens with guns will matter not at all in a civil war. A group of armed civilians, however brave, is not going to stop a military unit.
He described himself as a classic liberal, which is not left-wing nowadays by any standard. Classic liberals are a variety of conservative that I rather approve of. Things in the world have changed since classical liberals appeared.
What I normally don't see is conservatives and Republicans like they had when I was a kid. Although I never supported them, they were good to have around. The current variety disappoints me.
False premise - we are worried about the gender gap in nursing. There's a lot of attention paid to getting more men into nursing. I don't know about kindergarten teachers or flight attendants. We don't tend to notice it, because we're largely a bunch of techno-geeks who pay close attention to what happens in STEM fields and not nursing.
Trump was the wrong candidate. I'm open to arguments that there wasn't a right one, but Trump was definitely the wrong one.
I don't remember seeing anyone around here self-identifying as an SJW. I see it a lot being thrown around as an insult. It appears to me to be primarily used as an excuse for right-wingers to not have to think when arguing, like any ad hominem argument.
The whole "women make less money" is based on the fact that women make less money, and you can determine this through fairly simple research and objective arithmetic.
Women in general don't make much less than men within a particular job title, true, That doesn't mean women are not discriminated against, as "job title" is not a God-given characteristic branded on the forehead. What it means is that women don't get into higher-paid job titles as much as men.
Moreover, diversity may be a company goal. There's evidence that it improves productivity.
In an at-will state, there are certain specific things you can't get fired for. It's illegal to fire me because I'm a white, or male, or heterosexual, or between 40 and 65. Presenting is not in a legal protected class.
In this case, the reason would appear to be that they ticked off the boss, and that's something it's legal to fire them for. It's stupid, and it may hurt the company down the line, but it's almost certainly legal.
We're not guaranteed equal opportunity by the Constitution, although some amendments have moved us towards it.
Also, I've noticed that people have different definitions of "equal opportunity". Some people appear to think it means lack of legal barriers, but I don't think a black girl from a crap school has equal opportunity to a white boy getting a great education.
That's very situation-dependent. I've never been in trouble for criticizing my workplace, and I've been free about it at times. (Of course, I really could retire at any time, so I don't have that much to lose now.)
The women convicted of being witches were hanged by the neck until dead. This guy got fired on Monday, and has another good job offer now. There is a difference, I think between "dead" and "temporarily unemployed".
If I'm going to read nonsense, I think I'd rather stick to e. e. cummings.
At-will employment is not a leftist issue. I'd expect it to be more popular around the right wing. The idea that a corporation has social responsibilities is more left-wing.
So, I'm seeing people on the right say that the firing was socially irresponsible and Google shouldn't at-will fire a disruptive employee. The right is being burned by its own tools, also. Weird situation.
You'd find it really easy to find conservatives who don't believe that climate change is happening Whether you'd consider them "intelligent" is another question.
I'm cool with arguments about what we should do about it The predictions aren't all that good on details (and a lot of it depends on what we do anyway), the total economic impact is uncertain, and the decision about what to do is political.
First, the Declaration of Independence is a piece of revolutionary rhetoric that has no legal force in the US.
Second, the US and State governments routinely deprive people of liberty, sometimes of life, and interfere with the pursuit of happiness.
This is Slashdot. This is what we do.
The FBI viewed that case as a marketing opportunity to put public pressure on Apple not to be so secure. Their actions make no sense under any other hypothesis.
It was pretty clear that the phone wouldn't have anything useful, after the perps had wiped other information sources. Moreover, the FBI had had the ability to read the phone, and had ordered the agency it belonged to to destroy that ability. The FBI wasn't interested in the phone, the FBI was interested in being able to arbitrarily hack into iPhones without a warrant, and was using that phone as an excuse. If you remember, the FBI didn't just ask Apple to break into the phone, they asked Apple to break into the phone using a specific technique.
With the 5S, the security got tighter. If you don't know the access code, you're not going to get in. If there's an OS upgrade, a fingerprint won't open the phone without the access code. The security lives in a special piece of silicon, and an OS upgrade won't affect it. There may be ways to break into a 5S or later, but an OS update won't do it.
That's an interesting question, and one that TFS, at least, makes no attempt to answer. When a source tells you something that makes someone else look like they made an obviously wrong decision like this, you're not getting the whole story.
We can't know the results of experiments where we know the entire state. Take an electron. We make sure spin is up. We already know charge and mass, and are close enough on position. Run it through an apparatus to check left-right spin. The result is random, and various experiments have shown that there is no property of the electron that will determine the result.
Quantum theory where there are no local hidden variables? Take an electron with spin straight up, and run it through an apparatus to check its spin horizontally? Last I looked (quite some time ago), quantum random values were generally from radioactive decay.
It's publicly published content, and I can get a copy without depriving anyone of anything. Why shouldn't I watch it? Copyright is an artificial construct, unlike property rights, and copyright law has been abused by Disney in particular.