So, what you're saying is that it's difficult to increase the accountability in the system, since it's easier to hire accountable police officers if they're more trusted, and accountability raises public trust? We've already done that to some extend, with dash and body cams, and some changes to make it easier to prosecute police for crimes, and departments haven't quit en masse. I'd suspect that most police know that being held accountable for serious crimes isn't going to hurt them, since they won't commit such crimes.
I have confidence that the court will deliver a fair verdict most of the time. I still have incentive to file a lawsuit if wronged, but I don't want to be financially ruined in the unlikely prospect that I lose.
Suppose we play a gambling game. You roll a ten-sided die, and on anything but a 1 you get $10. If you pay me $10 or even $50 in case of a 1, your expected payout is positive. If you pay me $1000, your expected payoff is negative. Assuming it's a fair die, you should be 90% confident that you'll win, but you may not want to play it, depending on what happens on a 1.
I repeat: where do you get fear-mongering about ruining all arable land? Your quotes say that there will be lots of serious agricultural problems worldwide, with significant shortfalls in production, but nothing close to "ruining all arable land". Hint: If you cite stuff, you may want to make sure it supports your position.
As far as my reference to scientists go, they tend to stick to what they know, and they know a lot, so they're more reliable than any sort of journalist. I can find idiots who say all sorts of stupid things, and I've had some first-hand experience with journalism, so I usually don't pay much attention to what random idiots and/or journalists say.
So you're against anti-discrimination laws? That's a valid position, although one I think wrong, and I'm not sure you've thought this out thoroughly. In that case, your proper course of action is not to criticize the government for trying to enforce the law, but to criticize the government for having such laws. Your beef is not with the Executive Branch but the Legislative.
You also seem to be assuming that Asians are noncitizens. The Labor Department classification is not based on citizenship, but rather on how people look, or are normally classified socially. They will count someone of Chinese ancestry whose parents were born in the US. You're making some unsupported assumptions there.
Why would the government need actual proof of lawbreaking to file a lawsuit? Proof, in this case, is a legal concept, to be determined in court. Should the government be required to convict someone in a court of law without an actual lawsuit?
What the government has is strong evidence of illegal activity, and at some point the government does have to file a lawsuit or give up all pretense of enforcing the law.
1) What the Labor Department is doing is accusing Palantir and continuing its investigation. Once the lawsuit is filed, the government has more scope in investigating. There's no question of proof yet, as that will be determined in a court of law or settled between the government and Palantir.
2) The Labor Department very likely considered other bona fide hiring criteria. If not, it should be easy for Palantir to defend itself. Your proposal is nothing but baseless (if plausible) speculation, and doesn't provide any evidence that the Labor Department is doing anything wrong.
it's not like those people can't get good jobs in any other engineer-hungry Valley company.
So, you're saying that they're qualified, but Palantir doesn't want them. That sounds discriminatory to me.
And it does sound like if it was place where you mostly got hired by referrals where white guys would recommend mostly other white guys and occasional Asian friends
Except that the Labor Department looked at which qualified applicants were considered. It's easy to imagine a case where a company hires by referrals and gets pool of qualified applicants that's racially biased, but that's not what happened here. Palantir interviewed plenty of qualified Asians, but the actual hires had relatively few of them.
Companies can discriminate on citizenship provided it's a bona fide job requirement (some of our work is under ITAR, so certain positions require being a "US person"). Typically, they'll filter out applicants on the basis of citizenship early on, and presumably the Department of Labor examined that as part of being "qualified".
There's good strong evidence of racial discrimination here, which is to say good strong evidence of illegal actions. The only reason one would claim that it's wrong for the Labor Department to file suit would be that one doesn't think it should file suit in cases of illegal discrimination. If you don't like anti-discrimination laws, talk to your Congressional representatives. The administration here is prosecuting a probably case of lawbreaking.
Nobody's shown that the lawsuit is baseless. The Department of Labor claims that there's a large disparity between the racial composition of qualified applicants and those who get offers. If this is true, it's strong evidence of illegal racial discrimination.
At what point should the government intervene to enforce the law? This is more evidence than a lot of search warrants are based on, and a search warrant will cost someone time and stress and possibly money.
I'd suspect that, given wars between any group A and group B, A's accounts will talk about B's brutality, and B's accounts will talk about A's brutaility. In the early 1100s, as in pretty much every other period of history, Christians fought Christians at least as happily as they fought Muslims and pagans.
You seem to be saying that western civilization is better because it developed the scientific method, without actually examining what other cultures have done. Assuming you're completely correct, science developed once in the world, and it was in western Europe. This doesn't mean there's anything inherently special about western Europe; it's entirely possible that these Europeans chanced on a really good approach to learning things. Had western Europe developed things independent of and comparable to the scientific method multiple times, and no other civilization did, you'd have some evidence that this wasn't by chance.
You don't get that much agreement among scientists (always a quarrelsome lot) from a specific political agenda. If a solid majority of US climate scientists claimed we were going to have problems from AGW, that's localized enough that it could be a political agenda. Almost complete agreement among climate scientists all over the world means that there is very strong evidence that it's happening.
If we warmed up like this over a period of ten thousand years, it'd be fine. It's the extremely rapid changes (by geological standards) that are the problem.
Where do you get fear-mongering about ruining all arable land? It isn't from the scientists.
There will be good things caused by global warming. There will be bad things. Overall, even if the increased temperature will be advantageous, the process of getting there is going to suck big-time.
Heck, I have assets that could be liberally valued at over a billion dollars. I just have to stretch the word "liberally" enough. Now, I've entered Nanowrimo and gotten complete novels that really aren't all that bad twice. Value each as a half billion, toss in what I actually own in hard assets, which is greater than zero, and I'm worth more than a billion.
After you have paid for a package, the ISP can't change the terms unilaterally. They can cease to offer the plan you were on, and offer one that's worse for you.
Plenty of services offer a certain amount of service base, and charge for more use. It isn't paying double.
Sure, it's a monopoly. That's because it's really expensive to run last-mile internet to everybody's house, and so the barrier to entry is high. If Comcast is the only high-bandwidth game in town, then Comcast can abuse their customer base, because where are they going to go? If another company comes in and starts running fiber to everyone, they're spending a lot of money, and Comcast can drop their rates enough to make money on what they've already got, but to make the other company's capital investment unprofitable. Moreover, it's a big waste, since having two last-mile connections is not inherently better than one.
It's a natural monopoly, because the barriers to entry are really high compared with expected profit. Utilities are frequently these, since it makes no sense to run redundant gas and electricity to neighborhoods. Since these utilities are monopolies, and there's no way to stop them from being monopolies, the only way to keep them honest is government regulation.
One way to deal with this is to separate the fiber from the service. If there's a company that's paid to provide last-mile internet service, they can be regulated like the electric company. I don't know about anyone else, but I get nice, reliable, smooth power at a very reasonable price. It works.
With the last mile taken care of, anybody with some capital can set up an ISP, providing connectivity from the last-mile provider to the rest of the Net. At that point, we get enough competition so that we don't particularly need regulation.
Have you considered the possibility that Jackson is simply a better Nick Fury than anyone else they could get? I'm very much enjoying the Marvel Cinematic Universe without having read the comics, so I don't care who's a different race on the screen than in the comic?
Face it, the movies are going to appeal to the comics readers anyway, so they can take liberties that will annoy them somewhat, but they want to make the movie as appealing as possible to people who aren't serious comics fans.
No, that doesn't make age discrimination legal. It makes discrimination by looks legal, since that's relevant. The age of Anthony Hopkins is irrelevant, although it limits the number of roles he can effectively play.
Major League Baseball, to the best of my knowledge, has no age discrimination. It turns out that people in their late thirties are usually no longer able to play well enough to stay in MLB (particularly the ones who were never star quality), so MLB has mostly younger players without discriminating on anything except ability.
Who does IMDB have contracts with? If they have contracts with the actors that say they can't list the actors' ages, that's clearly enforceable for the actors that have these contracts. If the contracts are with the subscribers, then they're unlikely to specify that actors' ages can't be included, and then it's a matter of freedom of speech and the press. Within limits, you can sign away some of your own rights in a contract, but that doesn't mean a law can take your legal rights just because you signed one.
Landlord-tenant law is different, because it transfers control of physical property, and one of the people in the contract doesn't want the sign.
The matter isn't binary. Suppose I believe that I have a strong case, and that the court system delivers a just verdict most of the time. Therefore, I think I'm going to win, but I might be wrong for a large number of reasons. I need to know that losing is bearable before filing suit.
Even if my case appears to be stronger, there's lots of reasons I might lose. Clearly, having worse lawyers is a disadvantage, but I may also be interpreting the law differently from how the judge does, I may not know the facts on the other side, and there's plenty of room between "stronger intrinsic merit" and "open-and-shut case". My lawyer and I may simply have misjudged the case. Also, courts do screw up and deliver the wrong verdict from time to time.
With each side paying its own legal fees, the downside of a loss is that I'm out what I've spent. I can make sure that's bearable. With "loser pays", the downside of a loss is that I can be on the hook for millions of dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
So, what you're saying is that it's difficult to increase the accountability in the system, since it's easier to hire accountable police officers if they're more trusted, and accountability raises public trust? We've already done that to some extend, with dash and body cams, and some changes to make it easier to prosecute police for crimes, and departments haven't quit en masse. I'd suspect that most police know that being held accountable for serious crimes isn't going to hurt them, since they won't commit such crimes.
I have confidence that the court will deliver a fair verdict most of the time. I still have incentive to file a lawsuit if wronged, but I don't want to be financially ruined in the unlikely prospect that I lose.
Suppose we play a gambling game. You roll a ten-sided die, and on anything but a 1 you get $10. If you pay me $10 or even $50 in case of a 1, your expected payout is positive. If you pay me $1000, your expected payoff is negative. Assuming it's a fair die, you should be 90% confident that you'll win, but you may not want to play it, depending on what happens on a 1.
I repeat: where do you get fear-mongering about ruining all arable land? Your quotes say that there will be lots of serious agricultural problems worldwide, with significant shortfalls in production, but nothing close to "ruining all arable land". Hint: If you cite stuff, you may want to make sure it supports your position.
As far as my reference to scientists go, they tend to stick to what they know, and they know a lot, so they're more reliable than any sort of journalist. I can find idiots who say all sorts of stupid things, and I've had some first-hand experience with journalism, so I usually don't pay much attention to what random idiots and/or journalists say.
So you're against anti-discrimination laws? That's a valid position, although one I think wrong, and I'm not sure you've thought this out thoroughly. In that case, your proper course of action is not to criticize the government for trying to enforce the law, but to criticize the government for having such laws. Your beef is not with the Executive Branch but the Legislative.
You also seem to be assuming that Asians are noncitizens. The Labor Department classification is not based on citizenship, but rather on how people look, or are normally classified socially. They will count someone of Chinese ancestry whose parents were born in the US. You're making some unsupported assumptions there.
Why would the government need actual proof of lawbreaking to file a lawsuit? Proof, in this case, is a legal concept, to be determined in court. Should the government be required to convict someone in a court of law without an actual lawsuit?
What the government has is strong evidence of illegal activity, and at some point the government does have to file a lawsuit or give up all pretense of enforcing the law.
1) What the Labor Department is doing is accusing Palantir and continuing its investigation. Once the lawsuit is filed, the government has more scope in investigating. There's no question of proof yet, as that will be determined in a court of law or settled between the government and Palantir.
2) The Labor Department very likely considered other bona fide hiring criteria. If not, it should be easy for Palantir to defend itself. Your proposal is nothing but baseless (if plausible) speculation, and doesn't provide any evidence that the Labor Department is doing anything wrong.
So, you're saying that they're qualified, but Palantir doesn't want them. That sounds discriminatory to me.
Except that the Labor Department looked at which qualified applicants were considered. It's easy to imagine a case where a company hires by referrals and gets pool of qualified applicants that's racially biased, but that's not what happened here. Palantir interviewed plenty of qualified Asians, but the actual hires had relatively few of them.
Companies can discriminate on citizenship provided it's a bona fide job requirement (some of our work is under ITAR, so certain positions require being a "US person"). Typically, they'll filter out applicants on the basis of citizenship early on, and presumably the Department of Labor examined that as part of being "qualified".
There's good strong evidence of racial discrimination here, which is to say good strong evidence of illegal actions. The only reason one would claim that it's wrong for the Labor Department to file suit would be that one doesn't think it should file suit in cases of illegal discrimination. If you don't like anti-discrimination laws, talk to your Congressional representatives. The administration here is prosecuting a probably case of lawbreaking.
Nobody's shown that the lawsuit is baseless. The Department of Labor claims that there's a large disparity between the racial composition of qualified applicants and those who get offers. If this is true, it's strong evidence of illegal racial discrimination.
At what point should the government intervene to enforce the law? This is more evidence than a lot of search warrants are based on, and a search warrant will cost someone time and stress and possibly money.
I'd suspect that, given wars between any group A and group B, A's accounts will talk about B's brutality, and B's accounts will talk about A's brutaility. In the early 1100s, as in pretty much every other period of history, Christians fought Christians at least as happily as they fought Muslims and pagans.
You seem to be saying that western civilization is better because it developed the scientific method, without actually examining what other cultures have done. Assuming you're completely correct, science developed once in the world, and it was in western Europe. This doesn't mean there's anything inherently special about western Europe; it's entirely possible that these Europeans chanced on a really good approach to learning things. Had western Europe developed things independent of and comparable to the scientific method multiple times, and no other civilization did, you'd have some evidence that this wasn't by chance.
You don't get that much agreement among scientists (always a quarrelsome lot) from a specific political agenda. If a solid majority of US climate scientists claimed we were going to have problems from AGW, that's localized enough that it could be a political agenda. Almost complete agreement among climate scientists all over the world means that there is very strong evidence that it's happening.
If we warmed up like this over a period of ten thousand years, it'd be fine. It's the extremely rapid changes (by geological standards) that are the problem.
Where do you get fear-mongering about ruining all arable land? It isn't from the scientists.
There will be good things caused by global warming. There will be bad things. Overall, even if the increased temperature will be advantageous, the process of getting there is going to suck big-time.
FTFY. I'd have a touch more respect for the guy if he'd written it himself, even with a coauthor.
FIxed that for you. Fortunately for everyone involved, Republicans who vote in primaries aren't representative of the US in general.
Heck, I have assets that could be liberally valued at over a billion dollars. I just have to stretch the word "liberally" enough. Now, I've entered Nanowrimo and gotten complete novels that really aren't all that bad twice. Value each as a half billion, toss in what I actually own in hard assets, which is greater than zero, and I'm worth more than a billion.
After you have paid for a package, the ISP can't change the terms unilaterally. They can cease to offer the plan you were on, and offer one that's worse for you.
Plenty of services offer a certain amount of service base, and charge for more use. It isn't paying double.
The problem is that the ISPs build tubes too small to hold Oreos. If they were forced to build adequate tubes, Oreos would fit.
Sure, it's a monopoly. That's because it's really expensive to run last-mile internet to everybody's house, and so the barrier to entry is high. If Comcast is the only high-bandwidth game in town, then Comcast can abuse their customer base, because where are they going to go? If another company comes in and starts running fiber to everyone, they're spending a lot of money, and Comcast can drop their rates enough to make money on what they've already got, but to make the other company's capital investment unprofitable. Moreover, it's a big waste, since having two last-mile connections is not inherently better than one.
It's a natural monopoly, because the barriers to entry are really high compared with expected profit. Utilities are frequently these, since it makes no sense to run redundant gas and electricity to neighborhoods. Since these utilities are monopolies, and there's no way to stop them from being monopolies, the only way to keep them honest is government regulation.
One way to deal with this is to separate the fiber from the service. If there's a company that's paid to provide last-mile internet service, they can be regulated like the electric company. I don't know about anyone else, but I get nice, reliable, smooth power at a very reasonable price. It works.
With the last mile taken care of, anybody with some capital can set up an ISP, providing connectivity from the last-mile provider to the rest of the Net. At that point, we get enough competition so that we don't particularly need regulation.
W10 is flaky but mostly usable.
I have an Ubuntu desktop and a Windows laptop. They do different things, and I wouldn't want to get rid of either.
Have you considered the possibility that Jackson is simply a better Nick Fury than anyone else they could get? I'm very much enjoying the Marvel Cinematic Universe without having read the comics, so I don't care who's a different race on the screen than in the comic?
Face it, the movies are going to appeal to the comics readers anyway, so they can take liberties that will annoy them somewhat, but they want to make the movie as appealing as possible to people who aren't serious comics fans.
No, that doesn't make age discrimination legal. It makes discrimination by looks legal, since that's relevant. The age of Anthony Hopkins is irrelevant, although it limits the number of roles he can effectively play.
Major League Baseball, to the best of my knowledge, has no age discrimination. It turns out that people in their late thirties are usually no longer able to play well enough to stay in MLB (particularly the ones who were never star quality), so MLB has mostly younger players without discriminating on anything except ability.
Who does IMDB have contracts with? If they have contracts with the actors that say they can't list the actors' ages, that's clearly enforceable for the actors that have these contracts. If the contracts are with the subscribers, then they're unlikely to specify that actors' ages can't be included, and then it's a matter of freedom of speech and the press. Within limits, you can sign away some of your own rights in a contract, but that doesn't mean a law can take your legal rights just because you signed one.
Landlord-tenant law is different, because it transfers control of physical property, and one of the people in the contract doesn't want the sign.
The matter isn't binary. Suppose I believe that I have a strong case, and that the court system delivers a just verdict most of the time. Therefore, I think I'm going to win, but I might be wrong for a large number of reasons. I need to know that losing is bearable before filing suit.
Even if my case appears to be stronger, there's lots of reasons I might lose. Clearly, having worse lawyers is a disadvantage, but I may also be interpreting the law differently from how the judge does, I may not know the facts on the other side, and there's plenty of room between "stronger intrinsic merit" and "open-and-shut case". My lawyer and I may simply have misjudged the case. Also, courts do screw up and deliver the wrong verdict from time to time.
With each side paying its own legal fees, the downside of a loss is that I'm out what I've spent. I can make sure that's bearable. With "loser pays", the downside of a loss is that I can be on the hook for millions of dollars.