Yes, I understand. That doesn't contradict my message: I have to grant an easement to utility companies to set poles in my backyard. As a whole, this is a good thing since it prevents private entities (like a cranky neighbor) from blocking deployment of those utilities to everyone else.
In the exact same vein, I think it's unreal that AT&T - who owns that pole in the easement in my backyard - can block deployment of a utility that everyone wants to use. If I had to grant an easement to AT&T, I think it's completely fair that they should be forced to grant an easement to Google to use the pole for its intended purpose.
You and AC seem to think that I'm against utility easements when I said nothing of the sort.
So, how much does an artist make per single over-the-air play on a station with 550,000 listeners? If as many people listened to Spotify as to broadcast radio, half a million plays per month seems absolutely trivial.
Without knowing how Spotify's pay compares to radio, this sounds like little more than an emotional rant from Clear Channel.
And any new US innovations are routinely stolen by Chinese Gov't hackers and given to Chinese Companies.
I agree wholeheartedly, and that's compatible with my original position. There's nothing to be lost (other than a little time) by re-hearing the requests he denied, and everything to be gained by saying "let's play it safe and review these to see whether he acted properly".
Even if he hadn't made other comments that more clearly displayed a bias against the people in front of him, joking about any of it in public shows poor judgement on his part. That alone is enough to justify double-checking.
Those comments were infinitely more damning and indicative of actual bias. I really have no idea why people think I'm defending him when I'm absolutely not. My opening paragraph stated that he was unprofessional. When regarding a judge, that's pretty damning; we're supposed to hold them up as the epitome of professionality.
My whole point stopped at "joking about their font choice isn't necessarily prejudicial". The comments he made about the "pervs" are strong evidence supporting the case against him. Being flippant about Arial - in isolation - isn't.
If you're seriously equating race (and the reasons it's a protected class distinguisher) from choice of programming languages, you're fucked in the head. It's not even a matter of degree: they're totally different.
In most US states, you can fire someone for any non-protected reason. Don't like their shirt color? Best of luck with the job hunt! Joking about someone's technology decisions is in no way discriminatory in the same way that joking about someone's race would be.
If you're making jokes about your hiring practices -- particularly after you just did not hire somebody -- you're setting yourself up for a lawsuit.
By the books: of course you're right.
By reality: I'm walking to coffee with my coworker and saying outside the earshot of anyone else. People tell inappropriate jokes under these circumstances. And often times those jokes are self-deprecating, like "ewww, she went to a state school" (just like I did) or "what kind of nerd wears [same kind of glasses he and I both have]?" They're jokes, they're intended as jokes, and everyone does this.
This topic is a good example. How do we know he was joking? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. But somebody could claim he wasn't joking, and maybe even convince a judge or jury.
There's a time and place for everything. Laughing with a close coworker about something you both understand is not meant seriously is a world apart from shouting it from your Facebook timeline. The former is clearly OK, but the latter is an obvious lapse of, well, judgement.
This would seem to indicate that it's a personal bias, and not some kind of technical requirement.
Maybe, maybe not. It was certainly unprofessional; I won't argue that. But it's also the kind of thing I might say as a joke to a friend afterward without attaching any real meaning to it at all.
Suppose I interview an engineer and it goes badly. We have an up-or-down vote after his series of interviews and decide not to hire him. At that point, I could see telling jokes like "...and I'd never hire someone with Perl on their resume, anyway." We'd all laugh and move on to the next person. In fact, though, if the candidate was good then it would never come up again. It absolutely would *not* prevent us from hiring someone and wouldn't even remotely be a weighted factor.
I suspect it was a similar throwaway comment that didn't actually reflect the judge's true feeling, but was meant as something his coworkers would find amusing (even as they understood it was utterly lighthearted). It was obviously a bad idea to joke about it somewhere as public as Facebook, but doubt that it truly reflected any personal biases.