Closed as in finite (in comparison to the other services where anyone with any email address can use).
Your meaning is a bit opaque. You can sign up for gmail even if you have other email addresses, it doesn't cancel your existing email accounts.
To be able to use buzz, one needs to sign up for another email account, something not many people will do easily.
Why would they be less willing to do that than sign up for Facebook or whatever? I also don't see any evidence suggesting that people are reluctant to sign up for email accounts - look how successful hotmail was, for example. People will sign up for just about anything you put a username and password on.
Because taxing people with cap and trade taxes doesn't make them poorer? Because artificially raising the costs of energy doesn't make people poorer?
Well, to be poorer, you'd have to be poor in the first place, so no. The countries doing that stuff are generally very well off. The energy companies are hardly begging for money. Also, high taxes tend to correlate with wealth, so taxing people doesn't seem to make them poorer. To the contrary, taxes are used to provide public infrastructure and services, and tend to preserve quality of life.
What do YOU think it means when someone is telling you your lifestyle is unsustainable?
Maybe it means what they say? Why do you have to reduce your quality of life to be more sustainable?The two aren't that closely related. "A nicer car" can actually be more fuel efficient than ones that aren't so nice. And a car isn't necessarily a source of quality living - walking more tends to increase health and happiness, not driving. Many of the things one can do to improve their sustainability are actually free of cost, or save money.
Basically, you're erecting a giant strawman, claiming that becoming more sustainable means we can't have nice things or a fulfilling life. That's just not true.
This more appears to characterise the "warmies"/"AGW" lot. What the so called "climate scientists" have been doing looks very mich like "psudo-science".
Bullshit. Are you a scientist? You are nothing but an ignorant ranter, don't let facts get in your way.
Climate science is peer-reviewed, using proper scientific methodology. Claiming it is pseudo-science is a serious allegation that requires some evidence to back it up. If it were unscientific, there would be outrage in the scientific community about it.
Maybe we need to get that chip off your shoulder - it's hurting your reading comprehension skills.
What's wrong with my reading comprehension skills? You mentioned "underperformance" when that was never mentioned in the post you were replying to. Why do you assume that the hypothetical person was an under-performer?
I always thought if one was hiring based on skill set, the race, gender, religious belief, (all other non work related things) are not taken into consideration.
Yes, that's the idea.
Checking for racism should never even be done at all.
So, if some manager refuses to hire Asian people, even if they are the most highly qualified, and suitable for the job - that should not be investigated? You should just let him continue with his racist hiring policies?
During the interview your skill set should be tested. Your race does not matter.
Yes, when did I say otherwise? By "checking for racism" I mean you audit the hirers and the hiring process to make sure people aren't using race as a qualification.
Forcing companies to hire people based on race and not the ability to actually do the job is a bad thing.
Right. Now, when did I ever suggest that companies should do that? I suggested the exact opposite.
I didn't say weren't profitable, just barely profitable.
So, where did you get those figures from? Like I said (sigh) - citation needed.
but my point was ignoring business markets when making claims such as piracy means the PC software industry is not as successful as the app store is laughably ignorant.
That's good, because I never made that claim. Do you have any reading comprehension ability at all?
while the OP clearly stated certain groups, you tried to turn it into race. there are other groups of people denoted by other factors then race
Well, the article is about race, so it's not a stretch to assume that is what he was talking about. Doesn't really matter, as my comment apply equally to any other type of discrimination.
he also stated if they weren't being hired due to a lack of skills, then they should have training directed to them, you turned it into an assumption of them being interior, again based on race.
That's because he did assume inferiority, and didn't even consider that it might be the employer who is biased. If an employer rejected you for a job you were perfectly qualified for, but offered you remedial training, wouldn't you be somewhat offended?
I think people who push this EEO agenda are the ones hung up on race, not employers like google.
When did I say anything about Google? And what would make you think I was "hung up" on race, just because I admit that employers can be racist?
That may be true, or it may not be true. Either way, it would be foolish to just give IT a free pass because "everybody knows IT isn't racist." By the way, where do you get your data about racism in IT from? I certainly hear a lot of negative talk from IT employees about Indians.
If you'll take a moment to reread what I said, I made none of the assumptions you accuse me of.
But you did. You immediately assumed that not hiring a minority was due to "underperformance."
I was simply refuting your implication that there are no other injustices than the hiring process
I never implied any such thing.
and that anything else would just be "grand social experiments" based on the idea that some "races are inferior"
I never said any such thing. All I said was that it might be a good idea to check for racism before making broad assumption about races and their general competence.
Well being as the anti AGW folks are merely arguing against passing new laws and giving up an amount of sovereignty,
What the hell are you talking about? The "anti AGW folks" are doing a lot more than that, they are arguing against science, and denying reality. Most importantly, they are trying to sabotage honest discussion and debate. You are trying to make them sound much more benign than they really are.
Trillions of dollars, shifts to other fuels, huge geopolitical implications.
Even if "AGW" was false, don't you think that would be necessary anyway? Fossil fuels are in short supply - we don;t really have any option other than seeking new fuels, even if CO2 isn't an issue at all.
Just don't pull this cap and trade CO2 monitoring every time I breath out is an affront to gaia legislative stuff.
Yes, "carbon credits" are complete bullshit - but that has nothing to do with climate science, that's just politics as usual.
No one said anything about inferiority of races. Underperformance != Inherent Inferiority.
But why do you assume it's underperformance on behalf of the candidate, rather than bias in the hiring system?
The first step is to determine if there is any actual underperformance. You can't just assume that, as historically the hiring process has not been equitable in terms of performance.
You look for reasons in society's systems for racial under-performance because you start with the assumption that those races aren't inferior.
So, why do you assume the hiring process is just? Isn't that the first thing to evaluate?
No that's not what they are assuming, necessarily. While you're jumping to the conclusion that the answer must be one of *either* "they're not being hired because they're different" or "they're not being hired because they're genetically inferior"
I'm not jumping to either of those conclusions. I'm just saying that the first step is to check for racism - as that's a very inexpensive and efficient step to take, before investigating the other issues you mention. If it's not racism, then go ahead and deal with the socio-economic factors.
Rather than making unqualified individuals requirements due to quota, you try and work on finding out why certain segments are unqualified and work from the bottom up, eg. from the start of schooling.
You're assuming that the individuals from certain races are actually unqualified, as opposed to not being hired because of racism. Equal opportunity means that you check for racism first, before trying grand social experiments because of an assumption that certain races are inferior.
Slashdot Mirror
No, Google donating $2 million to Wikipedia doesn't even come close to upstaging the enormous philanthropy of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
But the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is not Microsoft, it's the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
With money?
Google must get huge revenue from searches like $WHATEVER wikipedia
Not from me. I use Wikipedia to find the Google homepage.
I don't complain about bullshit, just about LOADS of it.
Yes, and we're talking about Twitter. QED.
Yes. Retweeting is the fastest way to go to the point when I consider something is interesting for some reason,
So, a fast method for spreading loads of bullshit.
Closed as in finite (in comparison to the other services where anyone with any email address can use).
Your meaning is a bit opaque. You can sign up for gmail even if you have other email addresses, it doesn't cancel your existing email accounts.
To be able to use buzz, one needs to sign up for another email account, something not many people will do easily.
Why would they be less willing to do that than sign up for Facebook or whatever? I also don't see any evidence suggesting that people are reluctant to sign up for email accounts - look how successful hotmail was, for example. People will sign up for just about anything you put a username and password on.
* buzz has a userbase /ceiling/: the number of gmail users; the userbase may be large but it's closed and entry is a large hurdle for many
Gmail is closed? Since when? It's just as easy to sign up for as Facebook or any of the others, so how is entry a hurdle?
it's 140 characters limit is great to avoid loads of bullshit.
Wait, I thought we were talking about Twitter? Isn't bullshit mostly what it comprises of?
One of the greatest things of twitter is precisely that; it forces you to go to the point.
Have you even seen Twitter? "Getting to the point" is exactly the opposite of what people do. Page after page of "retweets" and textual back-slapping.
Because taxing people with cap and trade taxes doesn't make them poorer? Because artificially raising the costs of energy doesn't make people poorer?
Well, to be poorer, you'd have to be poor in the first place, so no. The countries doing that stuff are generally very well off. The energy companies are hardly begging for money. Also, high taxes tend to correlate with wealth, so taxing people doesn't seem to make them poorer. To the contrary, taxes are used to provide public infrastructure and services, and tend to preserve quality of life.
What do YOU think it means when someone is telling you your lifestyle is unsustainable?
Maybe it means what they say? Why do you have to reduce your quality of life to be more sustainable?The two aren't that closely related. "A nicer car" can actually be more fuel efficient than ones that aren't so nice. And a car isn't necessarily a source of quality living - walking more tends to increase health and happiness, not driving. Many of the things one can do to improve their sustainability are actually free of cost, or save money.
Basically, you're erecting a giant strawman, claiming that becoming more sustainable means we can't have nice things or a fulfilling life. That's just not true.
Get back to me when you grow up, and are capable of an adult conversation.
This more appears to characterise the "warmies"/"AGW" lot. What the so called "climate scientists" have been doing looks very mich like "psudo-science".
Bullshit. Are you a scientist? You are nothing but an ignorant ranter, don't let facts get in your way.
Climate science is peer-reviewed, using proper scientific methodology. Claiming it is pseudo-science is a serious allegation that requires some evidence to back it up. If it were unscientific, there would be outrage in the scientific community about it.
Maybe we need to get that chip off your shoulder - it's hurting your reading comprehension skills.
What's wrong with my reading comprehension skills? You mentioned "underperformance" when that was never mentioned in the post you were replying to. Why do you assume that the hypothetical person was an under-performer?
I always thought if one was hiring based on skill set, the race, gender, religious belief, (all other non work related things) are not taken into consideration.
Yes, that's the idea.
Checking for racism should never even be done at all.
So, if some manager refuses to hire Asian people, even if they are the most highly qualified, and suitable for the job - that should not be investigated? You should just let him continue with his racist hiring policies?
During the interview your skill set should be tested. Your race does not matter.
Yes, when did I say otherwise? By "checking for racism" I mean you audit the hirers and the hiring process to make sure people aren't using race as a qualification.
Forcing companies to hire people based on race and not the ability to actually do the job is a bad thing.
Right. Now, when did I ever suggest that companies should do that? I suggested the exact opposite.
And none of those people/organizations are telling people to be poorer, so I don't see what your point is.
I didn't say weren't profitable, just barely profitable.
So, where did you get those figures from? Like I said (sigh) - citation needed.
but my point was ignoring business markets when making claims such as piracy means the PC software industry is not as successful as the app store is laughably ignorant.
That's good, because I never made that claim. Do you have any reading comprehension ability at all?
while the OP clearly stated certain groups, you tried to turn it into race. there are other groups of people denoted by other factors then race
Well, the article is about race, so it's not a stretch to assume that is what he was talking about. Doesn't really matter, as my comment apply equally to any other type of discrimination.
he also stated if they weren't being hired due to a lack of skills, then they should have training directed to them, you turned it into an assumption of them being interior, again based on race.
That's because he did assume inferiority, and didn't even consider that it might be the employer who is biased. If an employer rejected you for a job you were perfectly qualified for, but offered you remedial training, wouldn't you be somewhat offended?
I think people who push this EEO agenda are the ones hung up on race, not employers like google.
When did I say anything about Google? And what would make you think I was "hung up" on race, just because I admit that employers can be racist?
If any industry isn't racist, it's IT.
That may be true, or it may not be true. Either way, it would be foolish to just give IT a free pass because "everybody knows IT isn't racist." By the way, where do you get your data about racism in IT from? I certainly hear a lot of negative talk from IT employees about Indians.
If you'll take a moment to reread what I said, I made none of the assumptions you accuse me of.
But you did. You immediately assumed that not hiring a minority was due to "underperformance."
I was simply refuting your implication that there are no other injustices than the hiring process
I never implied any such thing.
and that anything else would just be "grand social experiments" based on the idea that some "races are inferior"
I never said any such thing. All I said was that it might be a good idea to check for racism before making broad assumption about races and their general competence.
Way to avoid the question. Once again, who is "they"?
The people who want to tell everyone they have to be poorer -- to lead a less fulfilling life
Who would those people be, Jonothan McMadeUpPeople?
Well being as the anti AGW folks are merely arguing against passing new laws and giving up an amount of sovereignty,
What the hell are you talking about? The "anti AGW folks" are doing a lot more than that, they are arguing against science, and denying reality. Most importantly, they are trying to sabotage honest discussion and debate. You are trying to make them sound much more benign than they really are.
Trillions of dollars, shifts to other fuels, huge geopolitical implications.
Even if "AGW" was false, don't you think that would be necessary anyway? Fossil fuels are in short supply - we don;t really have any option other than seeking new fuels, even if CO2 isn't an issue at all.
Just don't pull this cap and trade CO2 monitoring every time I breath out is an affront to gaia legislative stuff.
Yes, "carbon credits" are complete bullshit - but that has nothing to do with climate science, that's just politics as usual.
When Phil Jones says there has been no warming for fifteen years, it doesn't mean anything.
That would be because it's not true. Why should anyone pay attention to bullshit lies?
No one said anything about inferiority of races. Underperformance != Inherent Inferiority.
But why do you assume it's underperformance on behalf of the candidate, rather than bias in the hiring system?
The first step is to determine if there is any actual underperformance. You can't just assume that, as historically the hiring process has not been equitable in terms of performance.
You look for reasons in society's systems for racial under-performance because you start with the assumption that those races aren't inferior.
So, why do you assume the hiring process is just? Isn't that the first thing to evaluate?
No that's not what they are assuming, necessarily. While you're jumping to the conclusion that the answer must be one of *either* "they're not being hired because they're different" or "they're not being hired because they're genetically inferior"
I'm not jumping to either of those conclusions. I'm just saying that the first step is to check for racism - as that's a very inexpensive and efficient step to take, before investigating the other issues you mention. If it's not racism, then go ahead and deal with the socio-economic factors.
Rather than making unqualified individuals requirements due to quota, you try and work on finding out why certain segments are unqualified and work from the bottom up, eg. from the start of schooling.
You're assuming that the individuals from certain races are actually unqualified, as opposed to not being hired because of racism. Equal opportunity means that you check for racism first, before trying grand social experiments because of an assumption that certain races are inferior.
It's kind of like the idea of having an OS within the OS. Now the sub-OS gets to run a browser.
That's so comforting.