11 out of 13 for 'legacy'. Fine, let me shut down the automatic update system then because there is NO WAY I'm going to surf the web without all those extensions.
The word "neurotic" doesn't appear in the message, and the word "neuroticism" (which does appear) is in no way meant as an insult, but only as an explanation why women tend to not do as well as men in corporate environments. Indeed, the entire paragraph is about reasons why women don't tend to do well, and if you read an insult there, your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking. That's fine - slashdot is full of people who don't read anything, but since you step forward as a manager working at the company, and being in support of firing the guy, I would VERY MUCH expect you to have read his message properly. I find it unbelievable that you are, by your own admission, in a position where you could very well have been involved with his being fired, yet you haven't even bothered to properly read the text that would necessitate such a drastic step.
I find it similarly unbelievable that you are openly admitting, as a self-proclaimed Google manager, that Google is perfectly willing to prosecute people over their political opinion. Newsflash: we are no longer in the 19th century, where the boss told you what to go vote. That kind of behaviour from a company is COMPLETELY unacceptable. And making such a confident statement seems like a legally dangerous thing to do, if anyone ever gets fired over it.
There's also this: gender equality is a hot topic in a great many places, and subject of much debate. You cannot base significant company policies around such a topic, and then go and declare it "incredibly toxic and divisive" when someone disagrees with you. Disagreement is also not by itself in any kind of way or shape "incredibly toxic or divisive". And the act of disagreement should _never_ lead to such consequences, or you'll stifle all forms of debate (whether constructive or not). I can tell you this because I don't work at Google and don't have to fear your reaction or that of your peers. Unfortunately, you won't hear it from any of your colleagues, who at this point are too scared to voice any opinion away from the party line. Now there's a situation I'd call "incredibly toxic"...
The catch is any criticism has to be made in a way that does not make a large swath of employees feel unwelcome.
Bullshit. He couldn't have been less aggressive, and more polite and factual, had he tried.
Lovely example, but he did nothing of the kind. He suggested that there may be biological differences that are hard to overcome no matter how hard you try, and that 'positive discrimination' is still discrimination. He supported it all by lots of links. That is very, very, VERY far removed from the kind of statement you are making.
But it can free us from dependence on Russian gas.
That's funny, because I keep hoping the Russians will help free us from islamic oil... And I certainly don't want yet another energy dependency on that part of the world.
How is disagreeing, in a polite way, using a memo not intended for public consumption, "fucking up at work"? How do you think companies will survive if anyone who states disagreement immediately gets fired? No discussion, no debate about the validity of the point, just "you spoke against me so there's the door."
There was no aggression, no violence, no threats, just disagreement on a political point. Firing people for that may be in accordance with law, but it is a VERY fary cry from "don't be evil.", and it reeks very badly of political persecution - something a company most definitely shouldn't be doing.
What's next, is Google going to ban everybody who disagrees with them from their search engine or their email service or whatever?
What _else_ would people buy such CPUs for then, if not for "massive workloads"?
Also, somehow I'm feeling considerable distrust that the OS should be able to somehow 'fix' this. Probably by turning off features until it runs at a fraction of the speed, my guess is...
Anyway, yesterday I already sent out an email saying "don't buy Ryzen". First time I've ever done that, so well done, AMD.
I mean, firing people over an _opinion_, formulated without aggression and without attacking anyone - that's harsh. I'd be scared shitless in such an environment that I might accidentally say something that bothers the SJWs and be fired for my troubles. And it's a great demo how, once again, "diversity" means "you'll agree with me or I'll silence you."
An employer who acts like this is not worth working for.
It seems a fair question: the US has a long history of interference in the democratic processes and/or governments of literally DOZENS of other countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change). So why are people so upset if a foreign power plays that game on their own soil?
Nuclear power would be awesome if we could trust humans not to fuck it up but we can't.
So far we've had two Earth-shattering doomsday events played out with nuclear reactors. Turns out the Earth is still there, people are still alive, and at least one of the two has turned into a major wilderness area where nature thrives. I'd say we can use it - especially since the alternative is global warming on a scale that will make the entire planet unliveable.
Reactors can be built much safer with modern engineering. Hell, they can buill to burn thorium, a reaction which is not self-sustaining to begin with, and which results in only a tiny fraction of radioactive waste material. But is this even discussable? NO! (and why not? Because the word 'nu-cu-lar' is so scary?)
So here's the deal. The environmentalists embrace nuclear as the only viable option for modern society. And in return we'll take global warming seriously.
Solar and wind are simply not up to the task of powering the 21st century. We want to be able to use energy during the night as well, and we want to do it without dedicating vast swaths of the landscape to the creeping environmental disaster known as windmills. And you simply CANNOT demand that the world returns to a state of living that was ok in the pre-industrial society. You know, when we heated our houses by burning wood or coal, and obtained light from candles.
So far, the anti-nuclear movement has wrought FAR MORE damage on the planet than all the nuclear accidents combined. It has done so by stopping research into, and development of newer, safer reactors, by forcing power companies to keep using dirty, fossil-fuel based energy plants, and by ruining vast parts of the landscape with windmills.
The point of the outer space treaty is to avoid the situation where one country claims an entire planet or moon or asteroid for themselves, so that other countries no longer have access to its resources. The whole point is cathegorically not to make all of space off-limits to human use, including research and industrial uses.
In other words, you can go out there and mine asteroids, and you will be able to sell the minerals because you will own them. However, you cannot claim an entire asteroid, so if another country wants to set up shop on the same asteroid, they are free to do so.
Presumably, future treaties will need to work out how to deal with the inevitable conflict.
It's a different type of ADC, one that resets when it reaches saturation. So you can forget about using this 'new algorithm' in your existing equipment.
I'd just like to point out that your reaction is actually very similar to what happens when a Windows user decides to try this Linux thing. Those people are usually told to RTFM (for many this is also the point where they learn a life-long hatred of all things UNIX). I don't know, maybe the same advice could work for you?
You want to save a file, or open a file or whatever, and you want it on your D:\ drive. Does Windows actually _ever_ remember that? No, because Microsoft has this grand vision of 'libraries' of 'documents' that get replicated over network acounts and whatever, so it will always... always... ALWAYS... open on c:\users\yournamehere\documents\. I store precisely zero documents (or files of any kind, really) there, but it is still the default for EVERY file dialog box I have the misfortune to encounter.
People who contribute to open source projects tend to be the more enthousiastic programmers; they are willing to put in hours in their own time as well. That greater enthousiasm could very wel equate to a higher skill level as well (either through getting more practice, or through getting more constructive criticism, or because only people who are already competent at programming gravitate towards doing it as a hobby as well). And that greater competency translates into higher salary levels.
Well, that makes sense, at least... And if enough open source projects mandate spaces, that correlation would extend to the tabs vs. spaces thing as well.
Agricultural land is not "empty", even if it looks that way to your eyes. We kind of need that to avoid starving. And the fact that we might be able to use Tetris-like stacking to fit tens of billions of people into this planet, doesn't mean it is a good idea to try.
But ok, let's run with it. We approach 100 billion human beings alive simultaneously. Central France, North Africa, etc. are now as full as Tokyo today. Should we throttle back at that point? Or will we find an optimist who tells us we can easily live with 200 billion, do you recon? After all, we can just eat soylent green...
When will it be enough? When will measures of _any_ kind be an acceptable subject of discussion - preferably without some insecure asshole immediately suggesting you go kill yourself for trying to leave at least something of value to the generations that come after us?
I'm always amazed at the sheer violence of the reactions to this observation. Yes, we do have way too many people. Go travel the world for a bit, and have a look around - everywhere you go there are people crawling about. And the rest of the creatures inhabiting this world, not that they have any rights to OUR planet of course, have been relegated to tiny, tiny reserves - reserves that are under constant pressure because we need to fit in ever more people and nobody is willing to say "enough is enough". Indeed, politicians in Europe are telling us the opposite: we need MORE! We cannot possibly have a shrinking population, so we must bring in tens of millions of Africans.
And all those people need houses, food, roads, energy, cars, water, etc. Even if each one pollutes just a tiny bit, and uses absolutely minimal resources, it adds up to being too much. So what is your solution, then? Should we learn to live in cities of 100 million and more? Houses of four square meters, with strictly rationed energy / water / food, and stacked 500 stories tall? Or would you prefer us, as a species, to spread uniformly across the world: everybody in a nice house, and nothing but us, across the entire surface of the world?
Now, reducing the population doesn't mean gas chambers,as you seem to imply. We could also regulate the number of children people get - for example, by providing both education and means of birth control, especially in the countries with the highest population growth numbers. There is no need for people to "off themselves" for the good of the planet, and if that is the first thought in your mind then quite frankly you are a very sick individual.
Or maybe you are dreaming of a nice juicy war where all those people get killed off as a form of televised entertainment for you to enjoy? Tell us - let us know why you want overpopulation so badly. Because from where I'm standing it is _you_ and your absolutely shitty attitude to overpopulation who is destroying this planet.
Additionally, last time I checked, Japan has zero military bases in Muslim countries.
There are plenty of countries without military bases in muslim countries that get attacked regularly by islamic terrorists. That's because it has nothing to do with having military bases or not; it's all about the islamic conquest of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. He was fired because he asserted women were less capable of being engineers.
Quotation, please?
11 out of 13 for 'legacy'. Fine, let me shut down the automatic update system then because there is NO WAY I'm going to surf the web without all those extensions.
The word "neurotic" doesn't appear in the message, and the word "neuroticism" (which does appear) is in no way meant as an insult, but only as an explanation why women tend to not do as well as men in corporate environments. Indeed, the entire paragraph is about reasons why women don't tend to do well, and if you read an insult there, your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking. That's fine - slashdot is full of people who don't read anything, but since you step forward as a manager working at the company, and being in support of firing the guy, I would VERY MUCH expect you to have read his message properly. I find it unbelievable that you are, by your own admission, in a position where you could very well have been involved with his being fired, yet you haven't even bothered to properly read the text that would necessitate such a drastic step.
I find it similarly unbelievable that you are openly admitting, as a self-proclaimed Google manager, that Google is perfectly willing to prosecute people over their political opinion. Newsflash: we are no longer in the 19th century, where the boss told you what to go vote. That kind of behaviour from a company is COMPLETELY unacceptable. And making such a confident statement seems like a legally dangerous thing to do, if anyone ever gets fired over it.
There's also this: gender equality is a hot topic in a great many places, and subject of much debate. You cannot base significant company policies around such a topic, and then go and declare it "incredibly toxic and divisive" when someone disagrees with you. Disagreement is also not by itself in any kind of way or shape "incredibly toxic or divisive". And the act of disagreement should _never_ lead to such consequences, or you'll stifle all forms of debate (whether constructive or not). I can tell you this because I don't work at Google and don't have to fear your reaction or that of your peers. Unfortunately, you won't hear it from any of your colleagues, who at this point are too scared to voice any opinion away from the party line. Now there's a situation I'd call "incredibly toxic"...
The catch is any criticism has to be made in a way that does not make a large swath of employees feel unwelcome.
Bullshit. He couldn't have been less aggressive, and more polite and factual, had he tried.
Lovely example, but he did nothing of the kind. He suggested that there may be biological differences that are hard to overcome no matter how hard you try, and that 'positive discrimination' is still discrimination. He supported it all by lots of links. That is very, very, VERY far removed from the kind of statement you are making.
I don't want to trust my browser binary to a company which has a clear political slant.
It's not a browser binary, you insensitive clod. Browsers exist on a spectrum that ranges all the way from Internet Explorer 6 to Opera.
But it can free us from dependence on Russian gas.
That's funny, because I keep hoping the Russians will help free us from islamic oil... And I certainly don't want yet another energy dependency on that part of the world.
How is disagreeing, in a polite way, using a memo not intended for public consumption, "fucking up at work"? How do you think companies will survive if anyone who states disagreement immediately gets fired? No discussion, no debate about the validity of the point, just "you spoke against me so there's the door."
There was no aggression, no violence, no threats, just disagreement on a political point. Firing people for that may be in accordance with law, but it is a VERY fary cry from "don't be evil.", and it reeks very badly of political persecution - something a company most definitely shouldn't be doing.
What's next, is Google going to ban everybody who disagrees with them from their search engine or their email service or whatever?
What _else_ would people buy such CPUs for then, if not for "massive workloads"?
Also, somehow I'm feeling considerable distrust that the OS should be able to somehow 'fix' this. Probably by turning off features until it runs at a fraction of the speed, my guess is...
Anyway, yesterday I already sent out an email saying "don't buy Ryzen". First time I've ever done that, so well done, AMD.
I mean, firing people over an _opinion_, formulated without aggression and without attacking anyone - that's harsh. I'd be scared shitless in such an environment that I might accidentally say something that bothers the SJWs and be fired for my troubles. And it's a great demo how, once again, "diversity" means "you'll agree with me or I'll silence you."
An employer who acts like this is not worth working for.
Most of the extensions I have installed are there for the express purpose of improving my privacy: privacy badger, sharemenot, ublock, etc.
It seems a fair question: the US has a long history of interference in the democratic processes and/or governments of literally DOZENS of other countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change). So why are people so upset if a foreign power plays that game on their own soil?
Nuclear power would be awesome if we could trust humans not to fuck it up but we can't.
So far we've had two Earth-shattering doomsday events played out with nuclear reactors. Turns out the Earth is still there, people are still alive, and at least one of the two has turned into a major wilderness area where nature thrives. I'd say we can use it - especially since the alternative is global warming on a scale that will make the entire planet unliveable.
Reactors can be built much safer with modern engineering. Hell, they can buill to burn thorium, a reaction which is not self-sustaining to begin with, and which results in only a tiny fraction of radioactive waste material. But is this even discussable? NO! (and why not? Because the word 'nu-cu-lar' is so scary?)
So here's the deal. The environmentalists embrace nuclear as the only viable option for modern society. And in return we'll take global warming seriously.
Solar and wind are simply not up to the task of powering the 21st century. We want to be able to use energy during the night as well, and we want to do it without dedicating vast swaths of the landscape to the creeping environmental disaster known as windmills. And you simply CANNOT demand that the world returns to a state of living that was ok in the pre-industrial society. You know, when we heated our houses by burning wood or coal, and obtained light from candles.
So far, the anti-nuclear movement has wrought FAR MORE damage on the planet than all the nuclear accidents combined. It has done so by stopping research into, and development of newer, safer reactors, by forcing power companies to keep using dirty, fossil-fuel based energy plants, and by ruining vast parts of the landscape with windmills.
Islam is a religion that accepts conversion.
That's a partial truth at best. Converting _to islam_ is fine. Converting _from islam_ is punishable by death: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The point of the outer space treaty is to avoid the situation where one country claims an entire planet or moon or asteroid for themselves, so that other countries no longer have access to its resources. The whole point is cathegorically not to make all of space off-limits to human use, including research and industrial uses.
In other words, you can go out there and mine asteroids, and you will be able to sell the minerals because you will own them. However, you cannot claim an entire asteroid, so if another country wants to set up shop on the same asteroid, they are free to do so.
Presumably, future treaties will need to work out how to deal with the inevitable conflict.
It's a different type of ADC, one that resets when it reaches saturation. So you can forget about using this 'new algorithm' in your existing equipment.
I was talking about the overal experience, not just the name of the ethernet device.
And the error messages don't even tell you the problem in a comprehensible manner!
Is there even _one thing_ in Linux that fails with a comprehensible error message? Because I have yet to see one...
I'd just like to point out that your reaction is actually very similar to what happens when a Windows user decides to try this Linux thing. Those people are usually told to RTFM (for many this is also the point where they learn a life-long hatred of all things UNIX). I don't know, maybe the same advice could work for you?
Is it wrong that I feel amused that this is happening to Disney, after all Disney has done to ruin copyright law?
It's schadenfreude, and that is a perfectly legitimate form of entertainment.
You want to save a file, or open a file or whatever, and you want it on your D:\ drive. Does Windows actually _ever_ remember that? No, because Microsoft has this grand vision of 'libraries' of 'documents' that get replicated over network acounts and whatever, so it will always... always... ALWAYS... open on c:\users\yournamehere\documents\. I store precisely zero documents (or files of any kind, really) there, but it is still the default for EVERY file dialog box I have the misfortune to encounter.
People who contribute to open source projects tend to be the more enthousiastic programmers; they are willing to put in hours in their own time as well. That greater enthousiasm could very wel equate to a higher skill level as well (either through getting more practice, or through getting more constructive criticism, or because only people who are already competent at programming gravitate towards doing it as a hobby as well). And that greater competency translates into higher salary levels.
Well, that makes sense, at least... And if enough open source projects mandate spaces, that correlation would extend to the tabs vs. spaces thing as well.
Agricultural land is not "empty", even if it looks that way to your eyes. We kind of need that to avoid starving. And the fact that we might be able to use Tetris-like stacking to fit tens of billions of people into this planet, doesn't mean it is a good idea to try.
But ok, let's run with it. We approach 100 billion human beings alive simultaneously. Central France, North Africa, etc. are now as full as Tokyo today. Should we throttle back at that point? Or will we find an optimist who tells us we can easily live with 200 billion, do you recon? After all, we can just eat soylent green...
When will it be enough? When will measures of _any_ kind be an acceptable subject of discussion - preferably without some insecure asshole immediately suggesting you go kill yourself for trying to leave at least something of value to the generations that come after us?
No, the goal should be to buy condoms and build a time machine.
Not having to worry about sex is just one of the many advantages of the nerd lifestyle!
I'm always amazed at the sheer violence of the reactions to this observation. Yes, we do have way too many people. Go travel the world for a bit, and have a look around - everywhere you go there are people crawling about. And the rest of the creatures inhabiting this world, not that they have any rights to OUR planet of course, have been relegated to tiny, tiny reserves - reserves that are under constant pressure because we need to fit in ever more people and nobody is willing to say "enough is enough". Indeed, politicians in Europe are telling us the opposite: we need MORE! We cannot possibly have a shrinking population, so we must bring in tens of millions of Africans.
And all those people need houses, food, roads, energy, cars, water, etc. Even if each one pollutes just a tiny bit, and uses absolutely minimal resources, it adds up to being too much. So what is your solution, then? Should we learn to live in cities of 100 million and more? Houses of four square meters, with strictly rationed energy / water / food, and stacked 500 stories tall? Or would you prefer us, as a species, to spread uniformly across the world: everybody in a nice house, and nothing but us, across the entire surface of the world?
Now, reducing the population doesn't mean gas chambers,as you seem to imply. We could also regulate the number of children people get - for example, by providing both education and means of birth control, especially in the countries with the highest population growth numbers. There is no need for people to "off themselves" for the good of the planet, and if that is the first thought in your mind then quite frankly you are a very sick individual.
Or maybe you are dreaming of a nice juicy war where all those people get killed off as a form of televised entertainment for you to enjoy? Tell us - let us know why you want overpopulation so badly. Because from where I'm standing it is _you_ and your absolutely shitty attitude to overpopulation who is destroying this planet.
Additionally, last time I checked, Japan has zero military bases in Muslim countries.
There are plenty of countries without military bases in muslim countries that get attacked regularly by islamic terrorists. That's because it has nothing to do with having military bases or not; it's all about the islamic conquest of the world.