I didn't come here to read what Dice wrote. I came here to read what you wrote.

For better or worse, slashdot attracts a collection of some very smart, and well-informed, and funny, people. And trolls, but hell, trolls are everywhere. Many places seem to only have trolls.

Knights. Huh. Not for me. I'm just a

shrubber

What hump?

So. How is life in a bubble?

That logic seems rather bizarre to me.

They send you a download. They DRM the file so that it's CRIMINAL for anyone else to make a player for that file type. And their music player deletes the file after playing it once.

So your argument is that DRM is ok because it's DRM'ed?

-

You seem to have made a typo. There's not supposed to be a "g" in "DRM'.

-

You don't believe me? Good grief, it's been illegal to consider all manner of things when hiring for years, all over the place. Not to mention there are questions you can't even ask.

I didn't do anything of the kind. I substituted an act for an act. I pointed out a general truth that applies across the board. That's all.

Seriously, it's like some of you never made it through English class.

Oh, FFS. Look. No matter *what* I chose, the point, which you completely missed, was that one malfeasance is in no way made less by the existence of others.

By concentrating on the particulars -- which named no one and drew no level of equivalence except withing the example, as without -- you failed.

The example is the same if it is stealing from the cookie jar or shoplifting -- or murder -- or twisting the truth. That's the WHOLE POINT. That's the whooshing sound you heard.

The slashdotter below you screws up and makes some dumb remark about my post, missing the point? Doesn't excuse you doing it at all. How's that? A little closer to home?

No it shouldn't. If gender is a predictor of ability then the probability distributions are BY DEFINITION not independent. If therefore you use the knowledge of gender after evaluating ability then you are treating them as independent variables when you combine them. This is mathematically bogus.

Actually, that's just mathematically simplistic. Here's what your reasoning does not account for: There are leanings, abilities and competencies that do not exist in isolation from other influences. Gender can be one of those. Therefore, to the extent that affect is possible, it is a valid consideration.

It could be a positive for either sex.

For instance, the air force has definitively determined that females are significantly better at maintaining more comprehensive situational awareness in complex aerial situations. This is because of a real world gender-based difference in information processing.

On the other hand, if one was hiring a bouncer, the competencies lean strongly the other way.

There will be outliers, of course, but that's why we need to think about these things rather than operate by rote. The law, unfortunately, but needfully (due to blind prejudice), specifies decision by rote. This is why many parts of the decision making process have gone missing from public view.

See here

What evil is Google perpetrating, exactly?

In this case (there are certainly others), they are using deceptive reporting to mislead people on the current state of affairs. Ask yourself why they would do this. The answer isn't "because they are angels."

What they should do is publish relevant and clear statistics on the issue instead of attempting to obfuscate the relevant issues at hand.

Try to keep up. It's really not that difficult.

Am I right, or am I right?

You seem fringe left to me. But hey, perhaps you're just trolling. Difficult to tell.

Comparing "murder" with "reporting the race of Google employees in a way you don't like" is a little hysterical, don't you think?

Sure it is. Why are you doing it?

Do you simply love the smell of straw in the morning? Is there a crow problem where you live? C'mon, give over. Inquiring minds want to know!