Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:State sponsored corporate spies (Score 1) 386

What part of "fair" don't you understand? I say they need to be fair when hiring, and you suggest a load of obviously unfair things.

I even told you how to make it fair. How can we discuss this when you ignore what I say and go off on a bizarre rant about these crazy ideas you have?

I thought you were one of the sane ones.

Comment Re:State sponsored corporate spies (Score 1) 386

Basically it comes down to having a responsibility to check for reasonable fairness and do something when it becomes apparent that there is an issue. That means collecting the stats and when you see something like this identifying the problem and taking steps to rectify it.

It looks like the issue is understood, the lawsuit cites the reason why it is happening, so really there isn't much excuse for not fixing it.

As to how to fix it, use less recommendations and more objective hiring.

It's got nothing to do with quotas, they are a bad way to address the issue. That's why the only people who suggest them are people who oppose diversity. They are not needed here.

Comment Re:What about the NBA? (Score 1) 386

Wikipedia doesn't make arguments, it simply summarises reliable sources. So yeah, it looks like an appeal to authority, because that's what Wikipedia is - a summary of authoritative sources.

So, you want some proof that IQ tests are not valid. Well, you could have read the Wikipedia article about them, but I'll save you the trouble. I created a new intelligence test just now that works by having the test subject blindfolded and told to throw darts at a dart board. I have a clever system that converts the numbers they hit into an IQ score with 100.02% reliability.

Prove to me that my method is not valid. I don't think you can.

Comment Re:We need a web of trust (Score 1) 109

How does that help identify when a web site is genuine? Currently when I go to my bank's web site I can confirm that the certificate belongs to them and that it was verified by a (hopefully) trustworthy third party. I'm fairly sure I'm not entering my details into a fake site.

What we need is two identity verification methods. One verifies the server for the purposes of setting up an encrypted link. The other verifies the identity of the site owner for the purposes of doing business or sharing secrets with them.

Comment Re:How to describe this to the non-technical... (Score 1) 207

To be fair, it costs them the same in terms of infrastructure if you watch 1 hour of TV a month or 700 hours. With internet service, there is additional cost the more people use it.

And to be completely fair, caps are still bullshit. The main cost is having enough infrastructure to cope with peak times. Everyone gets home and turns on Netflix or downloads patches for their games around the same time. The actual external bandwidth costs are mostly flat, in that they just pay for a peering arrangement and get as much traffic as they can ram down the pipe.

Comment Re:What about the NBA? (Score 2) 386

No, this has been widely debunked. There are many factors, including the tests themselves being biased towards certain cultures, access to education, general levels of health in populations and so forth that explain observed differences. Race itself is considered a social construct, not a biological or genetic one. The IQ test itself is somewhat dubious.

Wikipedia covers it in extensive detail.

The main supporters of the theory that race has a significant link to IQ are openly linked to white supremacist groups.

Comment Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score 1) 386

False dichotomy. Notice how certain sports that are dominated by certain races don't get sued for discrimination? That's because they hire based mostly on ability, which is fair and non-discriminatory.

To be clear I'm not saying that sport is free from discrimination, far from it, I'm saying that the requirement is to hire without discrimination against protected classes, not to reach some arbitrary statistical goal. Stats are only used as a basic measure of diversity, but when there is a non-discriminatory reason for skewed numbers it's fine.

Look at Trump's companies. They were found to have discriminated. There isn't really any doubt that they did, it's not just stats saying so, it's their actions and policies that were clearly designed to keep minorities away from his property because he thought that would keep rents higher. If you want to claim there is a conspiracy, you need to refute such evidence.

Comment Re:WOW, this is fucked (Score 1) 386

You are making some assumptions here. Chances are most of those Asian applicants were Americans, born in the US, lived there their whole lives. Chances of them being spies is fairly low, and being the kind of company that works with TLAs they could have had government background checks anyway if there was any concern.

So either there is an assumption that many of those people were foreign, or an assumption that being Asian makes them more likely to be disloyal or turned by foreign agencies. Of course, historically it was mostly white guys being turned by Russia.

The argument that people of [race] are more likely to be [problematic thing] is discriminatory. Legally, you have to treat everyone as an individual. If they can show that they did security checks and a lot of Asian applicants failed then fair enough, but I think it's pretty unlikely and if they could have they would have presented that evidence when being investigated.

Comment Re:State sponsored corporate spies (Score 2) 386

It's wrong if you start not hiring white people because statistically they are the most likely to commit fraud. In reality it's a tiny minority of white people that do, just like it's a tiny minority of Asians that are Chinese government spies, and more over it's morally wrong and illegal to tar everyone of a particular race with the same brush.

Just saying "I have a very slightly lower risk of being subjected to corporate espionage if I avoid Asians because most Chinese spies are Asian" is about as dumb as saying "I have a very slightly lower risk of being accidentally shot because most hunting accidents involve white people". In either case you could simply make some minimal effort to vet the person in question, rather than just applying dubious statistical biases.

And of course, that's not what's happening here anyway.

Comment Re:Name Calling (Score 1) 122

I dunno, he seems really easy to bait on Twitter and uses lots of easily discovered scams like pretending to be his own press officer. His constant use of hollow threats to sue doesn't help either.

If he were up against Putin or the EU, I don't think he would do very well. He is used to negotiating from a position of wealth, which won't help in international politics. Even if he can force other countries to do what he wants, like the wall, all it will do is create bad relations that screw him (or his successor) in the future.

Slashdot Top Deals

With your bare hands?!?