If you're good at software development, and black, there's no shortage of companies that want you. Especially those that do business with the federal government. You'll easily be chosen over more qualified white males. You may want to consider working in a region that does lots of federal contracting.
First, we have constant articles on gender discrimination. Are we now going to get race discrimination articles? If we're all such white male racists here in Tech, why would women or black people even want to work here. These articles are getting so tiresome it almost feels like we're getting deliberately trolled.
It strikes me as click-baiting. It's abhorrent, but if you look at the numbers, something about the topic does keep us coming back for more, over and over.
Okay, but here's the thing. Your conclusion was that it happened because you're black. I think that's a hasty conclusion.
Not only are you black, but also you were dealing with a big, probably disorganized company. The larger the organization, the more moronic its hiring practices can be, and the more they can accidentally poop on candidates. I'm white, have a CS PhD, and have experienced similar things.
Also, even if you did actually run into racism, I suspect it's rarer than you expect. Running a software company is so difficult that one generally wants the most productive, high-quality software developers available. There's rarely enough wiggle room to accommodate personal bigotry. Most of us care a lot more about having our company succeed so we can be wealthy, than we do about skin color.
Also, you had one bad job interview experience, right out of school, and you quit the entire profession? I know that's discouraging, but seriously, you need to grow some backbone.
So let me get this straight: When I need to fire someone, I should never take skin color into account; however, if I'm hiring for a new position, I should always take skin color into account? OK, got it.
That's not quite right. You should never take skin color into account when hiring. However, you should take it into account when seeking people to hire, and you will be chastised if you don't end up with a particular racial mix in your workforce at all levels. But obviously, you have no reason to consider race when making hiring decisions.
It's a mistake to talk about "racial diversity" when that's not really the problem. It just distracts us by framing it as a problem of white people discriminating against non-whites.
To hell with white vs. non-white. I'm "offended" that my Irish and German ancestries are minimized my lumping me in with Scotts and Welshmen. This is extremely "insensitive" to my cultural heritage. Let alone lumping me in with Italians, given what the Romans did to my peoples about 1800 years ago.
I end up having effectively poor spelling or grammar in a lot of my posts. The truth is that in person, when speaking, I have very good grammar, and my spelling ability is at least average. When writing posts, however, I tend to go back and edit them heavily, and somehow I end up missing that I've left old words in sections I meant to delete, etc. I suspect it's due to my ADD problems, diagnosed only as an adult.
Anyway, my point is that someone having poor grammar in posts doesn't necessarily say much about his grammar in other contexts.
Considering how many people get screwed over by big corporations (oil companies, telecoms, etc.), I'm a little surprised we don't see more examples of unstable victims attempting serious, premeditated harm on the company execs and/or facilities.
Even if it's just 1 in 10,000,000 people who are that unstable, these companies have a lot of victims.
1. Why do we seriously need threats prison time to get people to knock off threating to rape and murder people, or threats of lawsuits to have people not forge the kind of libelous "evidence" that drives such hatred in the first place?"
2. What happens to those without the resources? I'm guessing most of those who suffer this kind of extreme harassment aren't rich enough to own game studios.
Oh please, Eric Holder has far bigger fish to fry. This woman had to fund it herself because she doesn't look like one of Obama's daughters.
My point was simply that reducing the development cost for an ALS drug may be irrelevant from the perspective of those who want the finished product. Unless it's the difference between the drug coming to market or not.
Of course, I'm just guessing at that, but I was trying to start a discussion.
Seems to me that drug makers will charge whatever maximizes their sales revenue, regardless of their development costs.
Lowering their development costs for them might affect whether or not they bring it to market. But if they do, they'll charge as much as they can get away with.
Actually, you know what? I think it sucks that Tom Magliozzi died the other day. In honor of him, my best impersonation of how he would have fielded this question:
"How the hell would we know?"
Losing Tom sucked. It's still the thing most on my mind.
What I'm getting is, if they take a bunch of particles together in the right combination, then they no longer emit or react to photons? A) huh? B) so invisibility cloak anyone?
I feel a car analogy is in order here.
Lacking a physics background, I'm not the right person to make it.
This being Slashdot, I will anyway. It's like you went to a car sales lot with 100 fully functional cars on display. You put them all into a (really) huge car compactor, and out comes a baseball-sided chunk of metal, plastic, and glass. Its brake-lights don't work.
Seriously, he heads an organization that carpet-bombs the 4th Amendment. He's a fucking traitor to the ideals of the republic. Why in the hell would we trust anything he says?
That implies there's a "right" number of kids sticking with science. Does the submitter mean that we need more eternal post-docs who can't get real funding?
#1. require salary info in the job posting. It's insulting and dishonest to allow employers to not even bother telling us what they're willing to pay until after the interview process.
It's annoying, but that doesn't change the fundamental reality that salaries are a negotiation. Anything that's categorically true of negotiations, therefore applies. Whichever party reveals its true salary range first is at a negotiating disadvantage. In a loose labor market, that puts pressure on applicants to buckle and reveal that info. In a tight market, the advantage for obtaining that info shifts more to the applicant.
One can't just wish away the game-theoretical aspects of negotiation, any more than he can wish away truths from economics, epidemiology, or political science.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, I was just going to post that same thing. I keep parsing it as "eat chocolate".
TCP over Postal System.
Low packet loss, but terrible latency.
I genuinely can't tell if you're being facetious.
If you're good at software development, and black, there's no shortage of companies that want you. Especially those that do business with the federal government. You'll easily be chosen over more qualified white males. You may want to consider working in a region that does lots of federal contracting.
First, we have constant articles on gender discrimination. Are we now going to get race discrimination articles? If we're all such white male racists here in Tech, why would women or black people even want to work here. These articles are getting so tiresome it almost feels like we're getting deliberately trolled.
It strikes me as click-baiting. It's abhorrent, but if you look at the numbers, something about the topic does keep us coming back for more, over and over.
Okay, but here's the thing. Your conclusion was that it happened because you're black. I think that's a hasty conclusion.
Not only are you black, but also you were dealing with a big, probably disorganized company. The larger the organization, the more moronic its hiring practices can be, and the more they can accidentally poop on candidates. I'm white, have a CS PhD, and have experienced similar things.
Also, even if you did actually run into racism, I suspect it's rarer than you expect. Running a software company is so difficult that one generally wants the most productive, high-quality software developers available. There's rarely enough wiggle room to accommodate personal bigotry. Most of us care a lot more about having our company succeed so we can be wealthy, than we do about skin color.
Also, you had one bad job interview experience, right out of school, and you quit the entire profession? I know that's discouraging, but seriously, you need to grow some backbone.
...to judge a person by his or her skin color.
So let me get this straight: When I need to fire someone, I should never take skin color into account; however, if I'm hiring for a new position, I should always take skin color into account? OK, got it.
That's not quite right. You should never take skin color into account when hiring. However, you should take it into account when seeking people to hire, and you will be chastised if you don't end up with a particular racial mix in your workforce at all levels. But obviously, you have no reason to consider race when making hiring decisions.
It's a mistake to talk about "racial diversity" when that's not really the problem. It just distracts us by framing it as a problem of white people discriminating against non-whites.
To hell with white vs. non-white. I'm "offended" that my Irish and German ancestries are minimized my lumping me in with Scotts and Welshmen. This is extremely "insensitive" to my cultural heritage. Let alone lumping me in with Italians, given what the Romans did to my peoples about 1800 years ago.
I end up having effectively poor spelling or grammar in a lot of my posts. The truth is that in person, when speaking, I have very good grammar, and my spelling ability is at least average. When writing posts, however, I tend to go back and edit them heavily, and somehow I end up missing that I've left old words in sections I meant to delete, etc. I suspect it's due to my ADD problems, diagnosed only as an adult.
Anyway, my point is that someone having poor grammar in posts doesn't necessarily say much about his grammar in other contexts.
Torrent please?
So basically, she does all that ballsy reporting, and you now want her to not get paid for it? Awesome.
Considering how many people get screwed over by big corporations (oil companies, telecoms, etc.), I'm a little surprised we don't see more examples of unstable victims attempting serious, premeditated harm on the company execs and/or facilities.
Even if it's just 1 in 10,000,000 people who are that unstable, these companies have a lot of victims.
1. Why do we seriously need threats prison time to get people to knock off threating to rape and murder people, or threats of lawsuits to have people not forge the kind of libelous "evidence" that drives such hatred in the first place?"
2. What happens to those without the resources? I'm guessing most of those who suffer this kind of extreme harassment aren't rich enough to own game studios.
Oh please, Eric Holder has far bigger fish to fry. This woman had to fund it herself because she doesn't look like one of Obama's daughters.
Because some people are so racist and blind they see it in everyone but themselves.
And does that include you?
I'm sorry about your wife.
My point was simply that reducing the development cost for an ALS drug may be irrelevant from the perspective of those who want the finished product. Unless it's the difference between the drug coming to market or not.
Of course, I'm just guessing at that, but I was trying to start a discussion.
Obama to SLAC's creators: "You didn't build that."
i'm so confused.
It's more about width than length.
I would say very much so, considering he's been dead for 73 years.
Or is it???
Damn I've netflix'ed too many zombie movies lately.
Seems to me that drug makers will charge whatever maximizes their sales revenue, regardless of their development costs.
Lowering their development costs for them might affect whether or not they bring it to market. But if they do, they'll charge as much as they can get away with.
Actually, you know what? I think it sucks that Tom Magliozzi died the other day. In honor of him, my best impersonation of how he would have fielded this question:
"How the hell would we know?"
Losing Tom sucked. It's still the thing most on my mind.
Actually, I think Lena Dunham lives in NYC.
Excuse the oversimplification here but....
What I'm getting is, if they take a bunch of particles together in the right combination, then they no longer emit or react to photons? A) huh? B) so invisibility cloak anyone?
I feel a car analogy is in order here.
Lacking a physics background, I'm not the right person to make it.
This being Slashdot, I will anyway. It's like you went to a car sales lot with 100 fully functional cars on display. You put them all into a (really) huge car compactor, and out comes a baseball-sided chunk of metal, plastic, and glass. Its brake-lights don't work.
Seriously, he heads an organization that carpet-bombs the 4th Amendment. He's a fucking traitor to the ideals of the republic. Why in the hell would we trust anything he says?
"Too many kids..."
That implies there's a "right" number of kids sticking with science. Does the submitter mean that we need more eternal post-docs who can't get real funding?
It's annoying, but that doesn't change the fundamental reality that salaries are a negotiation. Anything that's categorically true of negotiations, therefore applies. Whichever party reveals its true salary range first is at a negotiating disadvantage. In a loose labor market, that puts pressure on applicants to buckle and reveal that info. In a tight market, the advantage for obtaining that info shifts more to the applicant.
One can't just wish away the game-theoretical aspects of negotiation, any more than he can wish away truths from economics, epidemiology, or political science.