I work in Silicon Valley and have worked at several startups. I am also white. I am also the minority. In most of the companies where I have worked, the majority of the software people have been Indian or Asian. Other jobs in the companies seem to be predominantly white/American. Why do I think this is? Well, our education system and values are a good start. We have been trying to grow the company and have several head count to fill. Most candidates coming in the door are also Indian or Asian, have at *minimum* a Master's degree or PhD, and are very driven to succeed. We pick candidates solely based on their skill sets. If a green girl with tentacles came into the office and was a good technical and business culture fit, we would hire them. Want to get more African-American and Latinos in our doors? Make them better candidates. Period.

I work for a 28-person startup and we're pretty evenly distributed across the board.

Sounds like somebody got turned down by Facebook...

I am getting close to 40 (geez, really?) and have had no problem. Could it be that the people complaining simply don't have the skills necessary to compete? I think that it is more that these 20-year-olds turned CTO/CIO/CEO simply have no clue what they're doing, and are hiring people that are style over substance. However, I could be wrong. After all, if you cannot use the newest up-and-coming technology, what do you have to offer, anyway?

Obama? Pfft... it's the government officials that we *didn't* vote for that should scare you. While I agree with you, I think the point isn't that snatching people up off the streets happens. It is that allowing things like this just brings us one step closer to that reality.

It starts with.. "Hold my beer"

My comment was about the crazy assertion that, in the year 2014, when Twitter is omnipresent on every broadcast network, overlaid on many cable shows, and routinely quoted in online news, the most likely result of bringing up Twitter to a professional law enforcement officer would be that they so unexposed to the concept of Twitter that they would genuinely have no idea what the term meant and think the person was saying their bird was stolen.

Anything you have ascribed to me beyond that would not seem to be present in either my comment, or the comment I was replying to.

Are you living in a mid-2000s late night show skit? It may shock you, but in 2014 most people know what Twitter is. Incredibly, that includes law enforcement. Heck, many police departments have an official Twitter feed. I just checked the last three towns I've lived in, and they all have up to date Twitter feeds.

Far more than you would seem to appreciate a simple work of amusing text written on a forum as a morning jape. Let's see... do I understand headlines and have experience with people excited to do science? I have been running a newspaper and magazine services company for 17 years, and my wife is a research chemist who has "pretty data" pinned next to the bedroom bathroom mirror. (She thought it was funny too, when I read it to her before she left for work).

Yup. This is my wheelhouse. Now laugh at my funny, monkeyboy! You're the pink missing the point! Now off to run nude through the morning dew, free as a... holy hell it's cold! More coffee, and back to the heated indoors.

Seriously... did you really think that my little mock submission was anything other than silliness? If so, did you really think I was running outside naked as I typed the above? If so, I'm quite intrigued about your thought processes, and wish to study your life in detail. Also, judging by this pair of posts, I should probably cut back on the coffee, not add more. Either that or my flu medication is certainly doing something right.

In more calm seriousness: yes. I did understand the story itself. I was engaging in humor with my reply, riffing off the headline. There's a touch of pointed humor toward the end, but it really isn't directed at anything having to do with the submission, more the general topic of space exploration.

PersonFrom1420 submitted via church door nail, "The human body was not designed by God Almighty to live on the ocean in seafaring ships, and the longest any human has traveled has been close to coastlines. Without the protective cocoon of the coastal fish and shore leave, nautical travelers are subjected to Gout, Scurvy, and a malaise of the spirit that shall certainly result in dire consequence for any vessel attempting to find a new world to explore. In a Royal experiment, debtor's prisons are filled with scum of the streets, sealed away, and their outcome is surely the same as a nautical traveler who looks forward to a new life and possible riches from fruitful exploration. Also, if even one ship has a mutiny, NASA (the Nautical Authority of the Spanish Armada) should instantly force all manned sea faring traffic to halt for over a year, as various Royal Agencies, none of whom understand how to tie a knot, let alone sail a ship, confer over the loss, and consider halting this foolishness to focus on more incense swinging for the plague and merkin production at home. Certainly there is no profit to be gained in these new lands that are worth losing entire ships of human beings over, and there can be no future lands there that will ever be suitable for our children's children. May this missive find you in good health, Signed P.F.1420"

They have edited out a single black and white photograph from the original cut. Compare the first thirty seconds from the two versions:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-2...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

I wonder who asserted a copyright claim on a grainy seventy year old photograph to get this taken offline?

I grabbed a screenshot before it disappeared:

http://www.gastronomydomine.co...

Would be interesting to know why it was pulled.

I believe there still needs to be a reason to hold them. Often it is to confirm identity of indigent people with no ID (or an ID that clearly was not theirs, which is fairly common), but most of my experience is with the Public Defender's office (I used to work there in IT). At least in Florida, there were attorneys would happily go after and get released people who didn't have a clear reason to be held. IANAL, I just know they could get them released on the basis of no substantiated reason to hold them, and "gut feeling" would probably not suffice.

If you AAL, feel free to correct me; I'm uncertain about this, but it does fit what I've seen in practice in criminal situations.

Of course, we also dealt with a fair amount of abuse by law enforcement as well, including physical beatings. The butt of radios was a favored (and ruled unreasonable) weapon. I printed a number of large posters with photos of people's faces bearing the very distinct marks of their use: rectangles with charger dots.

He had brought spare glasses in the past, but having been there many times and already discussed the Glass with employees who had no problem with him wearing them at movies (as he had done so a few times already, after getting prescription lenses for them), he reasonably figured it would be okay to not carry the spare in. He even implies he has spares, but didn't bother with them as he had already talked about his Glass with employees at the theater and the employees knew he was wearing them as they sold and took his ticket on occasions in the past with no issues.

How many times would you carry a spare set actually on your person before you trust your new eyewear? Two weeks and three visits to the movie theater seems like a reasonable amount of time and visits to assume you don't need to worry any more.

Because he was being sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones who claimed he propositioned and then showed her his penis while he was governor. That case was settled out of court with a $850k settlement and then dismissed. It was during the deposition to that case that he committed perjury, and that case had nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky or anything William Clinton did in the office of the President. Monica was simply one of several women who were brought forth under subpoena to testify under oath if he had propositioned or had sex with them to establish a pattern of behavior. This is a fairly common thing to do in cases of sexual harassment. It was only later, when the physical evidence was presented (the "blue dress"), that it turned out that at least one of his denials was perjury.

There's more to it, of course. I'm only answering your specific question as to why the question even came up in a court of law. The nature of their sexual relations was asked of and about many women who had been in his employ or otherwise worked with him because he was being sued for harassment and exposing himself when he was governor. Monica just happened to be one who had physical evidence supporting her claims and refuting Clinton's denial on the stand.