"sexual orientation used a reason not to hire someone would be considered as discriminatory"
Actually, that's not quite true. Sexual orientation is not a federally protected class and therefore, unless your state / county / city prohibits it, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against someone because they're gay. In Philadelphia, for example, discrimination against gay people is totally legal.
The federally protected classes are: (1) Age over 40 (2) Disability (3) National Origin (4) Race (5) Color (6) Religion (7) Gender (8) Pregnancy (9) Vietnam Veterans. If it's not on this list, then discrimination is legal.
Given the choice between a house built by people who were paid to build it and do this for a living and one built by volunteers, I'd take the one built by people who are paid to do it.
I'm not saying my analogy works, but neither does yours.
Just because advertising hasn't worked in the past for this, doesn't mean it can't. What many companies have done is make the ads intrusive and untargeted (untarget -> a bit more annoying, and advertisers pay less). Do Google search ads annoy you? Probably not. And yet they make a lot of money off it. If there's one company that can make the ad model work, it's Google.
Or... you can just disable the chat part at the bottom of the screen.
Or... you can just sign off to the chat part.
Seriously, relax. If you don't want the chat part, you don't have to use it.
Re:The whole point of email is to avoid "instant"
on
Google Adds Chat To Gmail
·
· Score: 5, Informative
See bottom of screen - "Standard with Chat" vs "Standard without Chat". You can disable it entirely. Or, you can just sign off on the chat window.
One big difference - companies didn't truly understand the power of the search. Nowadays, we understand search to be basically people's door to the web. Everything is done through search it seems like. Back then, search was companies knew that they needed, but they didn't truly understand the power of it.
for those of you who think you would choose to be moral and not support censorship, I would love to see how fast you turn on those convictions if someone pulled up with a dumptruck of money.
Stop for a second and really, really think about it. Forget all the money associated with any particular decision. Then, ask yourself, is Google doing something immoral? It's a very tricky question.
Here's how I feel about it:
A.1 Google does not have the leverage in China to change China's free speech policy.
A.2 Regardless of Google's decision, Chinese people would not have the ability to access prohibit content (China has its own filters set up)
A.3 The Chinese people, at worst, can access the same content they could before. At best, they can access more.
A.4 Therefore, the net effect to the Chinese people is neutral or positive.
B Seriously, reliably searching content on the internet is not the biggest of their problems. This is just not that big of a deal
C.1 Suppose the US created a law that made google filter out child porn - this would not be unexpected
C.2 Now, suppose some Canadian search company tried to set up shop in the US. Would we not expect them to abide by the US laws?
Basically, Google did not have a choice about whether or not to deliver unfiltered content to the Chinese people. Overall, I think this created a better situation for the Chinese people, and isn't that what's important?
The only question here is this: should you stick to your ideals even if it creates a worse situation for everyone involved? Some may say yes, I say no.
As I recall, that "prediction" was not in fact a predication. It was simply a statement that it would make sense for Google to do this. Congrats - you found some guy who thinks Google should create a music store. If I find some guy who'll say that it makes sense for Google to create an OS, does that mean that they are? Oh, wait, that's probably how this rumor got started.
The prosecutor differentiated between someone who simply views an image
on the computer, which automatically stores the image in a temporary Internet file, and someone
who then burns or copies that image to another medium thereby making or producing more child
sexually abusive material.
The court is, in fact, distinguishing between automatic creation vs manually creating copies.
My point is that there's a lot of evidence suggesting that the fact that women don't seem interested in the field is more cultural than biological. If women genuinely, biologically didn't enjoy tech, then I'd say fine. But it seems to me to be cultural thing, which is why we should try to change it.
That's an interesting article - much bigger difference than I thought it was.
However, I'm not sure that you're correct in saying that your daughters will have more opportunities than your sons. The article seems to be saying that men - particuarly lower class men - are choosing not to college because they can make a decent living doing labor intensive jobs, where as women need to go to college because they can't earn a decent living otherwise. It seems to be that it's not that men are being discouraged from going to college, just that they don't need to.
I'm also not sure it's true that even if the male/female ratio in college grows to 25%/75% that that means that there are less opportunities for men. I'm not sure we've seen times (at least to my knowledge) where the gender ratio switches, so we don't know what the effect on stereotypes is. It's not necessarily inherently true that a lack of representation causes stereotypes (certainly makes it harder to fight them when they appear, but they may not cause it). For example, I don't think men who are teachers have fewer opportunities or men who are nurses.
You sure? 30 years ago, could you have set the same thing about law school? Law school is now mostly women, though it was traditionally thought of as being a man's field. Bioengineering, at my school, was 50% women, though it was traditionally thought of as a male field. Computer Science, however, has a fewer women than it did 20 years ago. Parts of Asia have 50% women in computer science. It looks to me like you could have 50% women, or at least we can't tell right now.
And black people don't want to be wealthy, because fewer black people are wealthy. Right? 30 years ago, women didn't want to be lawyers, because fewer women were lawyers. Right?
It sure is remarkable how the fundamental nature of women has changed over the past 30 years. Incidentally, parts of Asia have 50% women in tech. I guess Asian women must like tech just as much as Asian men. It must be that american women naturally don't want to do tech. Right?
It looks to me like it's not that women don't want to do tech - it's that they aren't encouraged, people kind of expect them to fail, they don't have the same role models, etc.
I am female and I'm in Computer Science. Just last night, I was at a bar and a friend of mine was asking me for tips about why his mac wasn't reading his usb camera. Someone came up to us, and said to me "are you trying to hit him up for free tech support at a bar?" Why did he think it was me asking him for tech support rather than other way around (which would have been correct)? At school, I walked into the Linux lab with a male friend, and someone made some comment about how it was inappropriate for him to have his girlfriend tag along with him to the lab. This person didn't know either of us, and had no reason to think that we were together, but assumed that I was his girlfriend and that I was "tagging along." Two months ago I found out that my manager's manager from a former job who had very little interaction with me or my work but thought I was a poor programmer (even though my direct manager though I was very talented) is known to be sexist. Things like this happen often - pretty much whenever I meet someone new.
I can't say for certain that any of this is because I'm a female, but at some point, you start to wonder...
My mother was an engineer, and I grew up knowing that this sort of stuff would happen - and knowing that I have it much better than her. I also grew up seeing women in engineering and being pushed in math and science. I have no doubt that this had a profound influence on my being motivated enough to get into technology. But what happens with other girls? How do this stereotyping influence them?
Shareholder's wealth is more important than human rights
People seem to have this knee-jerk reaction that free speech is a fundamental right simply by virtue of being a human. I disagree. It is a great, wonderful thing for a country to offer its people, and countries should absolutely offer it - but that doesn't meant that to not do so is a gross human rights violation. In the US, you can't own images of, say, child pornography because the government deems it harmful. In China, you can't acquire information about, for example, teen pregnancy. Both governments are restricting information that they think is harmful - China just has a much stricter definition of what's harmful. So should Google really walk in there, break their laws, and tell them "no, we know what's best for your citizens, so we're going to impose our values on you?" It's not even a possibility, but even if Google could, does that mean they should? Maybe, maybe not. It's a tough question where you have to balance your values against those of another country.
Furthermore, we have to remember this is not a question of filtering vs not-filtering. This is a question of should Google provide some access with appropriate warnings when stuff is filtered, or provide no access at all? It's great to take that moral stance that Google shouldn't provide any, but is that even what's best for the Chinese people?
Whether Google's there or not, the Chinese people will continue to lack free speech. There was already filtering, even before this - more, in fact, I believe. On Baidu, China's search engine, you actually get blocked for 30 minutes from searching for searching for something "inappropriate". I personally think that the Chinese people are benefited more by providing some Google access than providing none at all.
I think Google made the right choice here, regardless of what's making their shareholders money.
Fair use is for users, for people, not multi-billion dollar companies.
Actually, "fair use" is frequently used for quotes in books - Book A quotes Book B, and is allowed to because of fair use. So, fair use is applied to large, wealthy companies - all the time, actually. In fact, I think this is exactly what fair use is for.
Ok, I read that article. Two things to note: (1) this article never quotes Google. They appear to be asserting that Google is resisting on the grounds of privacy. (2) It's actually not even necessarily saying that Google is saying that this violates user privacy - rather, it says that Google may fear that users will think that their privacy is invaded.
Here's one quote I've found that's actually from Google:
Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and their demand for information overreaches
Looking into this case, you'll find a whole bunch of article referring to it as a case about "child pornography." I personally wouldn't believe something just because the New York times says it. I'll believe when they actually have a quote from Google.
What, you think Google didn't fight China's demands? The difference is that the US has a legal system to process such demands, and has a system of checks and balances.
As for the DoJ's demands, it was an inappropriate request for them to make. The DoJ was not saying "hey, we think John Smith committed a crime using your technology, and you have evidence for/against that. We need that evidence." Instead, DoJ said "We're trying to pass a law, and you have some data that would help us make our case. We don't want to do the research ourselves, so we need you to do it for us." Google's is not the DoJ's research assistant. Subpoenas are for gathering evidence about a specific crime by a specific, not for forcing a company to do research for the government.
Compare Google and Microsoft:
Microsoft: high switching costs to users. You want to use a Mac? Go for it, but: you'll be unfamiliar with how to use it, your machine at work will likely not be a Mac, not all your software will run, etc...
Google: low switchings costs to users. You want to use Yahoo? Go for it. You'll know how to use it already, and there are no compatibility issues.
Microsoft: doesn't need the trust of users.
Google: counts on the trust of its users - they need it for gmail, talk, etc.
So, you see, this "do no evil" thing is not just something the execs like to say - it's something that they need. Additionally, the larger a company grows, the more its culture is ingrained. Simply by Google starting off with a culture of "do no evil," it's much more likely to stay that way for a long time.
.Mac? No. It's not worth $100/year to me, but it is to some people.
I'd rather not have the cost of three years or so of.Mac service quietly rolled into every Mac purchase I make.
That doesn't follow really. First of all, the cost that they charge you is obviously not their actual cost. I'd bet that their actual cost is much, much lower.
Secondly, even if their cost is truly $100 per year, then it doesn't mean that they'd have to charge you $300 ($100 * 3 years) extra to make up for it. Let's say only 1/4 of customers (if that) make use of.Mac if they were given it for free, then they'd only have to carge you $75 extra.
Thirdly, what if providing.Mac for free actually promoted sales of macs? Then Apple could actually profit from providing a free service.
Slashdot Mirror
"sexual orientation used a reason not to hire someone would be considered as discriminatory"
Actually, that's not quite true. Sexual orientation is not a federally protected class and therefore, unless your state / county / city prohibits it, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against someone because they're gay. In Philadelphia, for example, discrimination against gay people is totally legal.
The federally protected classes are: (1) Age over 40 (2) Disability (3) National Origin (4) Race (5) Color (6) Religion (7) Gender (8) Pregnancy (9) Vietnam Veterans. If it's not on this list, then discrimination is legal.
Given the choice between a house built by people who were paid to build it and do this for a living and one built by volunteers, I'd take the one built by people who are paid to do it. I'm not saying my analogy works, but neither does yours.
Just because advertising hasn't worked in the past for this, doesn't mean it can't. What many companies have done is make the ads intrusive and untargeted (untarget -> a bit more annoying, and advertisers pay less). Do Google search ads annoy you? Probably not. And yet they make a lot of money off it. If there's one company that can make the ad model work, it's Google.
No, they already have it... it's just not being turned on on everyone's account immediately.
Or... you can just disable the chat part at the bottom of the screen. Or... you can just sign off to the chat part. Seriously, relax. If you don't want the chat part, you don't have to use it.
See bottom of screen - "Standard with Chat" vs "Standard without Chat". You can disable it entirely. Or, you can just sign off on the chat window.
Depends what you mean by "block". At the bottom of the screen, you can disable it.
One big difference - companies didn't truly understand the power of the search. Nowadays, we understand search to be basically people's door to the web. Everything is done through search it seems like. Back then, search was companies knew that they needed, but they didn't truly understand the power of it.
As I recall, that "prediction" was not in fact a predication. It was simply a statement that it would make sense for Google to do this. Congrats - you found some guy who thinks Google should create a music store. If I find some guy who'll say that it makes sense for Google to create an OS, does that mean that they are? Oh, wait, that's probably how this rumor got started.
My point is that there's a lot of evidence suggesting that the fact that women don't seem interested in the field is more cultural than biological. If women genuinely, biologically didn't enjoy tech, then I'd say fine. But it seems to me to be cultural thing, which is why we should try to change it.
That's an interesting article - much bigger difference than I thought it was. However, I'm not sure that you're correct in saying that your daughters will have more opportunities than your sons. The article seems to be saying that men - particuarly lower class men - are choosing not to college because they can make a decent living doing labor intensive jobs, where as women need to go to college because they can't earn a decent living otherwise. It seems to be that it's not that men are being discouraged from going to college, just that they don't need to. I'm also not sure it's true that even if the male/female ratio in college grows to 25%/75% that that means that there are less opportunities for men. I'm not sure we've seen times (at least to my knowledge) where the gender ratio switches, so we don't know what the effect on stereotypes is. It's not necessarily inherently true that a lack of representation causes stereotypes (certainly makes it harder to fight them when they appear, but they may not cause it). For example, I don't think men who are teachers have fewer opportunities or men who are nurses.
And black people don't want to be wealthy, because fewer black people are wealthy. Right? 30 years ago, women didn't want to be lawyers, because fewer women were lawyers. Right? It sure is remarkable how the fundamental nature of women has changed over the past 30 years. Incidentally, parts of Asia have 50% women in tech. I guess Asian women must like tech just as much as Asian men. It must be that american women naturally don't want to do tech. Right? It looks to me like it's not that women don't want to do tech - it's that they aren't encouraged, people kind of expect them to fail, they don't have the same role models, etc. I am female and I'm in Computer Science. Just last night, I was at a bar and a friend of mine was asking me for tips about why his mac wasn't reading his usb camera. Someone came up to us, and said to me "are you trying to hit him up for free tech support at a bar?" Why did he think it was me asking him for tech support rather than other way around (which would have been correct)? At school, I walked into the Linux lab with a male friend, and someone made some comment about how it was inappropriate for him to have his girlfriend tag along with him to the lab. This person didn't know either of us, and had no reason to think that we were together, but assumed that I was his girlfriend and that I was "tagging along." Two months ago I found out that my manager's manager from a former job who had very little interaction with me or my work but thought I was a poor programmer (even though my direct manager though I was very talented) is known to be sexist. Things like this happen often - pretty much whenever I meet someone new. I can't say for certain that any of this is because I'm a female, but at some point, you start to wonder... My mother was an engineer, and I grew up knowing that this sort of stuff would happen - and knowing that I have it much better than her. I also grew up seeing women in engineering and being pushed in math and science. I have no doubt that this had a profound influence on my being motivated enough to get into technology. But what happens with other girls? How do this stereotyping influence them?
Because it's a very, very small different. If colleges were 80% women, that'd be different.
Um, what?
What, you think Google didn't fight China's demands? The difference is that the US has a legal system to process such demands, and has a system of checks and balances. As for the DoJ's demands, it was an inappropriate request for them to make. The DoJ was not saying "hey, we think John Smith committed a crime using your technology, and you have evidence for/against that. We need that evidence." Instead, DoJ said "We're trying to pass a law, and you have some data that would help us make our case. We don't want to do the research ourselves, so we need you to do it for us." Google's is not the DoJ's research assistant. Subpoenas are for gathering evidence about a specific crime by a specific, not for forcing a company to do research for the government.
Compare Google and Microsoft: Microsoft: high switching costs to users. You want to use a Mac? Go for it, but: you'll be unfamiliar with how to use it, your machine at work will likely not be a Mac, not all your software will run, etc... Google: low switchings costs to users. You want to use Yahoo? Go for it. You'll know how to use it already, and there are no compatibility issues. Microsoft: doesn't need the trust of users. Google: counts on the trust of its users - they need it for gmail, talk, etc. So, you see, this "do no evil" thing is not just something the execs like to say - it's something that they need. Additionally, the larger a company grows, the more its culture is ingrained. Simply by Google starting off with a culture of "do no evil," it's much more likely to stay that way for a long time.
Actually it's jep-0153: http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0153.html
It will use jep-0153. The same one that iChat uses.