No. California has laws protecting employees from being fired for their "political activities". I didn't see anything overtly political about it.
Well then, you may want to see if your insurance covers artificial retinas. Everything in that memo has been a political topic since before you were born.
He needs to sue for violation of his civil rights.
He wasn't fired because of his race or gender. He was fired because of his opinions. Unless his employment contract says otherwise, his employment is "at will" and Google can fire him for any legal reason, or for no reason. It is generally legal to fire someone because you don't agree with them, and that happens all the time.
If you're buying a new CPU you're also going to want faster memory too. So that would mean... buying a new motherboard!
Me absolutely. It's been at least 20 years since I did anything but a full system upgrade. Other people need to ask them. I know people that upgrade their systems component by component. Right now I am 32gig of high end ram so I could see someone not wanting to make the purchase again.
So you're a software guy who thinks software guys should get more money... and using government coercion is a legitimate way to achieve that.
Hahaha laughable as always. Yep government coercion you mean a government that actually enforces it's borders and acts in the interests of its citizens. Quelle Horreur.
Here's a little math for you. A fast food restaurant typically has 33% food cost, 30-35% labor cost, 10% or so occupancy/other. There isn't money to double wages there. (that's all the way down to the mom and pop that uses family as labor)
You can triple developer salarys and not make a dent or even impact the CEO's bonus.
What's more a strange thing might happen, all those people being pushed into STEM might actually start getting work in the fields they struggled so hard to get degrees in.
There hasn't been much in the way of software that just does what you want it to, in a small clean package. Much thanks to the developers that kept this going as an alternative to Microsoft's pointless stupidity.
Science is in a no-win situation here. If we solve the problem and reduce emissions and no additional warming or catastrophic consequences occur, people like you will say the science was flawed and will be less likely to heed warnings in the future. If we continue along our present course, catastrophic consequences will almost certainly occur. If the latter happens at least us "greens" will be able to point to those consequences and say, "you should have listened", but you'll probably just tell us it's a natural cycle.
No the science says we are past the point of doing anything to change it.
So who cares ? Either you believe the B.S. and the problem is already solved or you don't and in that case you never believed there was a problem to begin with.
Personally if the greens want to declare victory and let the world get on with life absent them, they can have their parade.
Has transformed Twitter into a public forum with free speech protections
If they believe that they need to sue twitter and not the president. Since twitter is what is currently deciding what is and isn't acceptable use of their platform and what is and isn't objectionable speech. They didn't do that for the obvious reason that suing twitter is far less sexier and more likely to produce sound legal opinions than suing someone whose very mention triggers people.
Gee Comrade someone piss in your oats this morning ?
Given the makeup of Twitter's shareholders and users it's much more likely you'd have nasty little groups with attitudes like yours trying to silence whoever they hate most at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
I see you didn't read it
And you are going on, on a topic you know nothing about
He's attempting to substitute it for psychology and that hasn't been taken even remotely seriously since the 1930s
Glad to see you aren't breaking pattern
No. California has laws protecting employees from being fired for their "political activities". I didn't see anything overtly political about it.
Well then, you may want to see if your insurance covers artificial retinas. Everything in that memo has been a political topic since before you were born.
Except those laws were written to protect normal people instead of conservatives. No thinking person believes conservative speech should be protected.
Normal people ? Please go on. I have to hear what constitutes normal for you and just how many groups you can offend with that.
He needs to sue for violation of his civil rights.
He wasn't fired because of his race or gender. He was fired because of his opinions. Unless his employment contract says otherwise, his employment is "at will" and Google can fire him for any legal reason, or for no reason. It is generally legal to fire someone because you don't agree with them, and that happens all the time.
LOL Time for you to turn right to work bill.
http://www.shouselaw.com/emplo...
California has laws protecting employees for being fired over their opinions.
As long as your minority point of view is not racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory... by all means express away!
Come on, paradox of intolerance is not _that_ complicated to understand, is it?
The man is a biologist are you honestly asserting there are no biological differences between men and women ? That there are no mental differences ?
If that's the case what's with all the genders lately and transgenderism. Rather irreconcilable propositions there.
If you're buying a new CPU you're also going to want faster memory too. So that would mean... buying a new motherboard!
Me absolutely. It's been at least 20 years since I did anything but a full system upgrade. Other people need to ask them. I know people that upgrade their systems component by component. Right now I am 32gig of high end ram so I could see someone not wanting to make the purchase again.
Just a double whammy there. The new Intel CPUs aren't compatible with the old motherboards
http://www.pcgamer.com/intels-...
It looks like they are practically driving people AMD's way. Nice to see the shakeup though it's been far too long.
So ignorant so loud
http://csimarket.com/stocks/AD...
Gross revenue / employee Adobe, over 500K/employee. Yes they can pay more
Fight for 15 in the fast food industry and there is no fast food industry.
Hahaha laughable as always. Yep government coercion you mean a government that actually enforces it's borders and acts in the interests of its citizens. Quelle Horreur.
Here's a little math for you. A fast food restaurant typically has 33% food cost, 30-35% labor cost, 10% or so occupancy/other. There isn't money to double wages there. (that's all the way down to the mom and pop that uses family as labor)
Here's software company margins https://seekingalpha.com/artic...
You can triple developer salarys and not make a dent or even impact the CEO's bonus.
What's more a strange thing might happen, all those people being pushed into STEM might actually start getting work in the fields they struggled so hard to get degrees in.
He is actually doing less harm to the game than the publishers.
The publishers put in sections that are designed to be painful enough to make you pay to avoid them. All he does is provide the means.
so if people search for Amy Schumer they will get Tomi Lahren instead?
Ehh neither one is funny or informative.
To actually let the populace have.
21,000 liters ~5,000 gallons = 108,000 dollars of fuel ?
Yeah something is wrong with the story from the get go.
There hasn't been much in the way of software that just does what you want it to, in a small clean package. Much thanks to the developers that kept this going as an alternative to Microsoft's pointless stupidity.
The Jetsons had entire robot courts.
Particularly fond of the idea of the Jury VAC
second link should have been scientific american
https://www.scientificamerican...
Science is in a no-win situation here. If we solve the problem and reduce emissions and no additional warming or catastrophic consequences occur, people like you will say the science was flawed and will be less likely to heed warnings in the future. If we continue along our present course, catastrophic consequences will almost certainly occur. If the latter happens at least us "greens" will be able to point to those consequences and say, "you should have listened", but you'll probably just tell us it's a natural cycle.
No the science says we are past the point of doing anything to change it.
https://www.sciencealert.com/s...
https://www.sciencealert.com/s...
I love settled science
So what you are arguing for is making people more miserable than they supposedly will be any way.
https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
So who cares ? Either you believe the B.S. and the problem is already solved
or you don't and in that case you never believed there was a problem to begin with.
Personally if the greens want to declare victory and let the world get on with life absent them, they can have their parade.
They only use a small amount of toxic materials,
Yeah and the nuclear power people can't say exactly the same thing. CO2 is completely non toxi
No, I just read the article, and saw it was bullshit.
Pics or it didn't happen or at the very least citing problematic parts of the report not the article.
The technology uses toxic materials by the boatload. Nothing leaves the environment unless it's shot into space.
So you ignore the conservation laws, basic common sense, handwave away the article with ad hominem.
Be willing to bet you think you are open minded and rational as well.
Oh wait so many people actually did. They were just shouted down by fanatics.
I don't like paying taxes, so making it easier for the disabled to switch from public transportation to Uber sounds like a very good idea to me!
You must have just fallen off the turnip truck, if you think reducing the need for government will actually reduce your taxes.
Twitter FB etc would be legally barred from deleting posts from government employees ?
How interesting.
Has transformed Twitter into a public forum with free speech protections
If they believe that they need to sue twitter and not the president. Since twitter is what is currently deciding what is and isn't acceptable use of their platform and what is and isn't objectionable speech. They didn't do that for the obvious reason that suing twitter is far less sexier and more likely to produce sound legal opinions than suing someone whose very mention triggers people.
Gee Comrade someone piss in your oats this morning ?
Given the makeup of Twitter's shareholders and users it's much more likely you'd have nasty little groups with attitudes like yours trying to silence whoever they hate most at the moment.