No, this issue always existed. Why didn't the Japanese who were interned move away to a state that would project them? Why didn't gay people just move to another state in the 50's that would properly protect them? Why couldn't people who are in prison for drug usage move to another state where drug usage was legal?

Because nobody ever stood up for them, hence there was no place to go. Blaming "the federal government" is a cop out; rather than admit that the multiple states approach didn't work, because conservative Americans held (and still hold) very little sympathy for people who lead lives different from themselves, it's much easier to blame something as large and abstract as the federal government. When we talk about outsourced jobs, is it the federal government's fault, or that of the companies for willingly and knowingly sacrificing quality and employee welfare for a better bottom line?

I fail to recall a time period where HIV was a curable STD, and both Hepatitis A & B are incurable as well. In old times, the preventative measures (vaccines for the latter, PEP and PREP for the former) didn't exist at all, so... Yeah. An important thing to keep in mind is that back in your day is pretty susceptible to being romanticized.

I must admit that Aspbeeger's is funnier. Given the behavior of some of my party acquaintances who claim their self diagnosis of Aspbeerger's disease somehow makes them cooler, I might call it a better label than Aspberger's. But not in a workplace sensitive to "trigger words".

Damn, it's completely obvious what a racist tirade against multicuturalism has to do with a zero day involving a Unicode exploit. The next time a cow shits, is that going to be taken as an example of the failings of multiculturalism?

No, your parent CLEARLY states, and I quote, "Let's not do the same thing with browsers please.", in an implied response to supporting multiple languages. So not only is your position ridiculous for someone who supposedly knows three languages, a violation of your parent's claims, you didn't even bother to read his fucking message.

For what benefit? Why should the browser designers add in a layer to check for foreign localization, and store a setting, when the only possible impact is you seeing characters you don't understand? The end result is the same anyway - you'll get an effectively useless webpage. Do you not want to see Chinese characters because they'll steal your job and take your kids or what??? You're proposing a solution that just adds work for everyone else all so you don't have to see scary foreign characters, and it wouldn't even work at all for languages like French or German that use the same character set.

Alright. We are going to maintain an international IP address, which apparently we are supposed to update on our own time, to isolate you from the non-specified dangers of China, which means you will no longer be able to use any Amazon or Google instance located their. Oh, and I expect you think this should all be done by somebody else too. You are one of the most childishly self-centered assholes on this page, and a racist one at that (and yes, not wanting to see an African webpage because they're black is racist, and you are on the same level as a white southerner in the 1800's, citing the very same intelligent points - which is to say, none at all).

You would gain absolutely nothing. We as a community, however, would gain tremendously, because now we can simply post a Chinese character and we will never again have to worry about you wandering in here.

It pisses me off when people don't even bother to read the summary. What's missing from a lot of the modern world is a concept of understanding before you shout in caps, because it's stated quite clearly that it's entirely opt-in.

Like I said, the employees and leadership might be liberal in their personal beliefs, but it dilutes them being partisan. For example, although they currently support net neutrality, I'd bet my ass they're going to be the first in line if it gets repealed. A partisan group, like for example a lobbying company or whatever, wouldn't switch sides just because the government did - whereas I have no doubts Google will get into bed with the Republicans where it benefits them. I don't see how it's especially hypocritical, all companies are hypocritical. I'm astounded by how many people seem to think they have any purpose beyond enriching and serving themselves, because quite frankly, they don't. Not that that's even always a bad thing, but it is what it is.

No, the law does not say otherwise. Here's the reason why; the national act that says so, the Equal Employment and Opportunities Act of 1972, specifies that, "All employees ... shall be made free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." This applied at the time only to Federal employees and those who worked in interstate service jobs, like hotels and restaurants, but has been expanded over the years to encompass all businesses. What does"free from any discrimination" mean? Well, discrimination (in the context of employment) is defined as: "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." Perhaps now you see why; discrimination has absolutely nothing to do with numbers or statistics, it means you can't have a hiring process that favors or disfavors anyone from a protected category. Even if you treat all ethnicities fairly, there are far fewer black people in the IT industry; thus, a lower percentage of black employees isn't necessarily because they are discriminated against. Likewise, just because you have fantastic numbers on paper doesn't mean anything if you had to give people useless jobs just for a census count, or if you give all of your black employees low level service jobs and all of your white ones better paying management positions.

All right. You hardly speak for Americans, and in fact you don't align with my beliefs, but I understand setting the stage.

Yeah, and the problem with this is that it's not at all accurate. We have one of the most conservative courts in decades, and with Gorsuch on there, it now swerves even harder to the right. The thing about most people is that (surprisingly) they have absolutely no idea how the government actually works. There are 5 conservative judges and four liberal ones; that means that for every "liberal" decision, there has to be at least one conservative judge who agrees. Furthermore, Obama's name functions a bit like Republican-repellent; case in point, Obamacare. When he was in office, it was remarkably unpopular, and yet now, somehow, it's rocketed up in ratings. What magical things about it changed? Nothing, merely that people who were previously content to bitch about their government provided healthcare never realized that it was only possible through Obamacare. Lastly, I think it's worth a point that Congress and Trump are two of the most unpopular political entities of our time, and both are considered Republican (and conservative). If Americans really wanted a more conservative government, why would approval rates for their senators and representatives be so low? Why would many conservative stances, such as on repealing Obamacare and scaling back the EPA, be so unpopular? I don't think conservatives are what America wants at all.

It's a strong reason why REPUBLICANS voted for Trump, who have an advantage because low population states allow them to punch above their weight, and they still couldn't even win a majority. Are Democrats not people anymore???

This is uncited. Until you can provide some evidence to back this up, I am not really inclined to believe that they wouldn't positively answer a poll in favor of their candidate.

That is absolutely not true. There are cases where violence occurs on both sides, but only one side has a president who says "knock the crap out of him" when he sees a protester of the other party, only one hide hung up dolls of the opposing candidate and set them on fire, only one side promised to gather up their weapons and Allahu Akbar the capital if their candidate didn't win, and only one side refuses to say anything bad about domestic terrorism or other forms of violence directed at American citizens. And if you really think Republicans won't attack you, go outside, proclaim yourself a progressive liberal democrat, and watch what happens.

Google is a company, not a person. They support whoever's in charge, although their employees may be quite liberal overall.

I think your last sentence is wrong. At least when it comes to employees, that a fair process exists is far, far more important than whatever the statistics afterwards say. If Google massaged the numbers to make them look equal, that would be giving off a false appearance - likewise, I don't know why we'd punish a company for not having more engineers of a certain ethnicity, assuming they can show their hiring process isn't biased. Otherwise you get shit like gender quotas or such, which while I realize some people view them as necessary, I see them as both discriminatory and likely to produce worse employees. Honestly, a level of separation between the department that processes and accepts resumes and the one that evaluates whether or not employees are qualified would be nice, although I bet most companies don't want to deal with the extra overhead. This way, the guy who makes the deciding decision sees only their qualifications / personal letters - nothing else such as their name, ethnicity, gender, or anything else that is irrelevant.

I normally don't do this, but seeing as I am all out of mod points, this is all I can do to help. This is a really, really insightful comment, and effectively distills why people should be more wary of large corporations. Government can cause tyranny, but it's not the only form of tyranny, and at least in our country you can vote for your government officials. When people remember the good old days of the 50's, they are not remembering the lawless era of the gilded age, when there truly was very little government involvement for business; instead, they remember a more socialist time period the US - when taxes were high, the government ran an extensive set of public welfare programs from the depression era, we invested massively into infrastructure at the taxpayer's expense, and the difference between our richest and poorest was much, much lower. That simply isn't possible without regulation, because companies have no reason to want it - their job is to make themselves richer, and ensuring a middle class lifestyle for most is antithetical to that goal. Furthermore, in the rush to dismantle social programs so people can save a little more on their monthly paycheck, the Reagan and Bush eras massively destabilized our society, with the former encouraging profits at all costs while the latter encouraged as little oversight as possible at all costs. What we have now is an era where even many formerly middle class people can no longer effectively compete, and as our new president rushes to further cut restrictions and to further encourage more wealth and power to the top 1%, we are going to witness these problems become even more intense.

A mixture of both is what it takes to run a successful society, and a true mixture of both; moderates in the US, are not moderates on the scale in general. I think it's little surprise why most European countries enjoy a much better standard of living, and the reason for that is a much more balanced approach to the power of government vs corporations. Thank you for your insightful comment, and I hope somebody else is able to mod you up to the level you deserve to be at.

Wait a moment, I thought we were complaining because too many people don't have visas. Has the narrative changed again?

Because by encrypting everything, you A. prevent an attacker from knowing the layout and structure of the filesystem and B. prevent anybody from tampering with your binaries without knowing the password. For example, you don't have to worry a police agent alters /bin/ls or so behind your back, and nuking just the bootloader is much easier than trying to replace the entire unencrypted filesystem afterwards.

See, I don't really understand this. How the fuck is Donald Trump different from any other politician? He lies, check. He overpromises and underdeliveres, check. He's plagued by scandals, check. He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about 95% of the time, as opposed to the old standard of 60%. Check. The only new thing about him is that he steals from the treasury openly. What exactly about him is any different from Bush?

Ahh, blaming an enemy for his opponent's practices. If only the French were strong enough to defeat the Nazis, then we'd never have had world war II, so therefore France should pay for all of Germany's reparations. And then opposing a nutbag of conspiracy theories makes one partisan, which somehow ruins a republic, so you need to be partisan for my side so we're not partisan and lacking in integrity and somehow all of the problems in today's society will fix themselves without my dedicating an iota of thought.I love the acrobatic logic, truly.

Now, hmm. A moron of a president who doesn't know the first thing about politics, a chamber with a brand of conservatives dedicated to opposing the moderates in their own party, widespread differences in view with no interest in attempting any sort of reconciliation, occupying a number of incredibly unpopular views while making promises they know they can't keep, having lost the culture war 20 years ago and losing more each day, having virtually no sway with all of the increasing voter demographics, and being hopelessly out of touch with their own voters on topics such as healthcare, and uh, yeah. I am hugely afraid of all the stupid and damaging legislation that could be passed in the next 4 years. I am not at all worried they'll stay in power after that at the rate they're going, and if they keep shooting themselves in the foot by making policies that hurt their own voters the most, that might not even take four years.

The bigger question I have for you is, what about them makes you want to support them?