Maybe, but I think you're overestimating the power of the workers. In Mozilla's case, Eich stepped down voluntarily (at least that's the public story), because of all the bad press that was happening, and that was coming from the users and the general public, not from the employees. While his views on gay marriage obviously suck, he's probably a fairly decent guy otherwise and wanted what's best for Mozilla, something he's worked on for a very long time, so to him it was probably better that he remove himself from the situation so that Mozilla could thrive again.

But for other companies, they really don't care about the workers, and large numbers of workers are not going to leave because the CEO is a douche. We've seen this in countless companies. Look how long Steve Ballmer ran MS for instance. CEOs get kicked out when the board disagrees with them; that's the bottom line. It's usually over a disagreement in how to run the company (direction), or unhappiness with the choices they've made, but it can also be over the CEO's personal life making them look bad (scandal).

There's no card counting in Texas Holdem. The deck is reshuffled after each hand dealt. Only 7 cards are shown to a given player, and all of them can be read at any time. There's no advantage to card counting, because you don't need to count. They may have some other card game they beat, but it isn't holdem.

No, it isn't. Or at least, it isn't by looking for tells. You win money by analyzing their betting pattern on this hand, comparing it to what makes sense, and putting them on a range of possible hands. One of those possible hands is always a bluff. Then you see what you beat of those hands, what beats you, and what your drawing odds are to improve and make a choice off that information. That is definitely something a computer can do. But the question is never "is he bluffing" its "is my hand strong enough and with sufficient odds of winning to be worth paying at the pot and implied odds this gives me".

Those are things a computer definitely can do.

Curb the H1B problem, we probably will curb the recruiter spam problem

I disagree. These Indian recruiters all live in India, they aren't H1-B workers. Basically what's going on is a bunch of Indian companies have figured out that there's a good demand for engineers in the US, and that recruiting isn't exactly rocket science, you just have to have people who speak passable English and can sit on the phone for hours calling candidates and companies and matching them up. The recruiters don't even have to be very good, as long as they have an acceptable success rate to justify their pay. Since they're in India, they're not paid much relative to US salaries.

Please note that I didn't say anything at all about men not getting a fair shake.

I said that people would be rightly skeptical of an article that was written entirely by men claiming men were not getting a fair shake, regardless of the rest of the article's merits. The fact that it's coming from an all-male source would raise some eyebrows, and quite understandably. Now apply gender equality to that and ask why it's wrong that that should be true with all the genders reversed, as is the case here.

I also suggested that if a reviewer said, of such a hypothetical gender-swapped scenario, "maybe the reason why men aren't apparently aren't getting a fair shake isn't due to bias against them but just because men generally don't measure up in this area" -- suggesting an alternative hypothesis, as academic reviewers frequently do -- that would (and I think should) be considered a sound critique, something that at least should be addressed in the paper. Now flip the genders again and you get the second part of this story, and suddenly that's an atrocity?

It doesn't matter when it was done.

If Hobby Lobby's CEO used to act in gay porn movies years ago, and someone dug that up and posted it on the internet, he'd be fired too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

misandry exists and is real

but it is tiny compared to the systemic misogyny in the power structures and social norms in jobs and schools, especially STEM jobs and schools

so to ask for the false balance with the esoteric minor misandry, when examining the very strong and very real misogyny, is yet another example of someone, in this case you, just not fucking getting it, and being out of touch with the reality of pervasive misogyny

you are out of touch with reality

Most of us hold at least one opinion that is not the majority viewpoint

Irrelevant. The "majority viewpoint" doesn't matter, only the viewpoint of the Board of Directors of a company. If the CEO doesn't fit with that, then he's out. It doesn't matter if it's some progressive-politics-espousing company like Apple, or some conservative Christian company like Hobby Lobby; at either one, if the CEO get involved in some publicity that makes the company look bad to its preferred audience, he's out. At Apple, if he comes out as a homophobe, he'll be fired, whereas at Hobby Lobby they'd consider that a good thing, and would fire him if he came out in favor of gay marriage.

This is the whole problem here; all these conservative Christian Slashdotters are butt-hurt because someone got fired for being anti-gay-marriage, but they'd have no problem if some CEO at a conservative company got fired for being pro-gay-marriage.

no, wrong

women suffer from sexism far more than men in general society, and especially in STEM careers/ academia

this is actual reality

it's like says racism against whites by blacks balances racism against blacks by whites. completely ignoring history and reality of who actually suffers far, far worse effects

and of course there is misandry in this world, that's real, that exists

but it's the misogyny that is far, far more worse and embedded in social norms and power structures in jobs and schools, especially in STEM jobs and scholarly pursuits

that's reality. if you don't agree with that or understand that, you don't understand reality

the point is the bias is real and serious. if ridiculous drama like that reaction to the guy's t shirt exists, this is minor sideshow crap compared to the very real, very serious, very unfunny sexism

but in certain minds, the blowback over a t shirt is the "real" issue, and the actual sexism is unnoticed and invisible, or a reason to make jokes, on a topic which is not funny

revealing the bias and prejudice to be very real

So you're saying your work should be able to control your religious beliefs. Sure...

Yes, when you're CEO, it should and it does.

Will Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby hire a CEO who isn't Christian?

It doesn't matter.

If someone digs up some dirt on Chick-Fil-A's CEO and finds he used to do gay porn movies, he's going to get fired because that makes the company look bad to its customers (conservative Christians).

This is no different.

you are modded funny, and make a joke, when men ARE privileged

as proven by the story you are commenting other

yet everyone is laughing

so the problem is real, because everyone thinks the subject is a joke

it's like a story showing racism's bad effects, and people make racist jokes underneath

unexamined prejudice is alive and well in the slashdot comments

You're being idiotic.

Here's another example: the CEO of Chick-Fil-A has a change of heart and decides to become a Satanist, and makes public statements to this effect. Should Chick-Fil-A be allowed to fire him? Of course; they're an openly Christian company, and that CEO reflects poorly on that.

It doesn't matter what you think is OK or not. The only thing that matters is what the Board of Directors of a company thinks is OK; if the CEO is not aligned with that, then the BoD has every right to terminate him. It's right there in his employment contract; every CEO has a contract which says the company has the right to terminate him if they don't like the job he's doing or they don't think he's representing their company well. Companies which espouse progressive ideals have every right to fire CEOs who publicly hold non-progressive views. Similarly, companies which espouse conservative Christian ideals have every right to fire CEOs who don't uphold their values (ones who aren't also Christian, or ones who get caught in affairs and things like that).

You're right, the comma after the second parenthetical should have been a semicolon for improved readability.