Posts by Mad Mike

Re: I need new glasses..

Whilst each persion will have their favourite(s) operating system(s), each has its pros and cons. Depending on the use case, some may be more suitable or better equipped to deal with things than others. Certainly Solaris had it's pros as well as some cons.

The issue here is where do we want to end up. In the hardware world, we're pretty much in a monopoly position. Intel has the majority of the market and can largely drive it. Other manufacturers (IBM, Oracle etc.) are very niche. It's lucky that ARM has come along to drive some competition in areas, but this is limited and each company is to some extent staying in its own territory, albeit with occasional raiding parties into the other.

Do we want the world of operating systems to become the same? With all these operating systems being stopped, are we likely to end up in a world with only RedHat and Windows as the operating systems for companies? Is this a good thing? Personally, I'd like to a healthy ecosystem of say 6 choices in each of hardware and software to choose from to ensure competition is strong and drive innovation. Once you're in a monopoly position, the need to innovate and enhance your software drops to some extent and you can just sit tight and harvest all the money.

I really don't like this choice shrinkage we're getting more and more at the moment.

Re: Interesting principles behind this

@goldcd

"Once we start trying cats for murder, then we can argue over their intellectual property - but until then.."

An interesting point, but we sort of do, but not with cats. Take a bear or lion for instance. If one killed a human, it wasn't uncommon to hunt it down and kill it. Now, is this not effectively finding it guilty of killing a human (murder) and then exacting a punishment (death row) just like if it was a human being?

"DNA bit is a bit of a red-herring - most of it. We share 60% of ours with a banana."

It's not a red herring as it's all about degrees. It doesn't matter if it's 60% or 99.9% commonality. Who or what decides that 99.9% the same DNA as a 'standard' human being gives rights to the law, whilst 99.8% does not or whatever the figures are.

Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

@AC.

"Boy, oh boy, you must be getting ulcers often..

Right. So, you're now telling me that it's OK to kill something for fun, as long as it is seen to be intelligent (however you measure that) than you? They haven't developed an internet or flown to the moon, so break out the machine guns and open fire?

No, I was looking at your comment that animals and humans are alike which is, um, worthy of making fun of, and I'll only stop that the moment a bear gets a driving license. I did not state that the difference enabled me to go and shoot things, that association and inference is exclusively of your own making. The only things I am inclined to shoot are clay pigeons and the occasional drone. As a matter of fact, you infer actually quite a lot from the fact that I disagreed with one of your statements, which, ironically, is a form of bullying used to quell dissent.

That is also why I told you to possibly step back from the discussion and regain sight of the bigger picture - the gentle assumption there was that your arguments got silly because you get too sucked in. I see now that, even on reflection, you remain rather silly. Oh well."

And in your reply, you absolutely prove my posting beautifully. You were saying in your posting that shooting animals for fun was not worthy of banning, yet you take issue with people suggesting others should be killed. I asked what the difference was between animals and humans and you basically said intelligence (I think that's questionable depending on type of intelligence, but that's another matter). Therefore, my deduction from your comments is absolutely spot on. Of course, you're now running from it, because you're beginning to see where you're heading and you don't like it.

So, you them revert to name calling and other defences used by people who can't answer the question.

I'll help you here. Anyone killing any sentient creature without good reason has no defence. I don't care what the creature is. Someone shooting a bear for fun is just as bad as shooting a human for fun. Both are sentient, both are aware, both have emotions, feel pain etc. Putting humans on a pedestal and assuming we have a different set of rules just because we're humans will one day be blown away by nature. It's a sign of our arrogance as a species. Why should anyone kill anything without good reason?

Also, as I've pointed out before, many murderers, especially mass murderers have a big history of killing and torturing animals for fun prior to becoming human killers. So, hunting for fun does seem to be a common precursor to murdering people. Something to think about. There's a world of difference between shooting something in self-defense and shooting something because you want its head above the mantlepiece. From a psychological perspective I mean and it says a lot about the people who do it.

Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

@AC

"You don't usually get a nice coat from it? (OK, in the early 70s there were illustrated fake book covers with titles such as "Hanging as a community project" and "101 uses for Human Skin" but -macabre as they were- they were just dark jokes)."

Although a little historical now, there are certainly examples of human skin being used right up to the end of the 19th century for things like book coverings etc.

"Here's a suggestion. The above statement suggests you best take a moment. Stop typing and just reacting because you're (a) getting awfully far from the original debate and (b) veering sharply into the ridiculous here. Get yourself a cup of coffee (I'd advise decaf as it appears you're getting a tad too excited) and re-read the original debate as well as your answers - give yourself time to think first."

Ah, so you don't have an answer. So, you resort to condascending speech. I'm actually very on target because I was talking about the core implication of effectively stopping these people having a voice. I'm saying there are plenty of other sites that preach very similar things or attitudes to both human beings and other animals. What I stated much earlier, is why should DS be effectively banned a voice, but not these others. I've never said they should or should not be banned, but am pointing out that plenty of other sites promote exactly the same sort of thing, but seem to avoid the same outcome.

So, where does effective censorship stop (by effective, I mean ends up stopping their voice, whether legally or court of public opinion or business needs)? We both hate DSs message. I 100% disagree with them, but if we effectively ban their message, I'm willing to look beyond that simple act and see all the other messages out there that are equally adhorrent in some way. I'm also not prepared to put people above other animals just because they're humans. That distinction is biologically ludicrous. There are plenty of humans I would consider significantly lower than most other animals (including Nazis), but does that mean killing them for no reason is OK?

You're looking at this very simply, not seeing the underlying issues ( principles being applied) and just reacting to the fact they're Nazis. A term that has a horrible historical implication. If Nazi is used to mean far right murderers, what about Communist (or choose another) to mean left wing murderers. Like I've said elsewhere, the extreme left has killed just as many as the extreme right, but who's screaming to take down extreme left websites? The reason is simple, but illogical. There isn't a perceived single catch all word to encompass them all and for some reason, left people (even the extreme) are seen as warm and cuddly to many.

Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

@AC

"I have, as yet not seen any primates develop an Internet or fly to the Moon. I know, the difference is trivial and the dolphins could probably do the above if they could be bothered, but it still IS a difference at present."

Right. So, you're now telling me that it's OK to kill something for fun, as long as it is seen to be intelligent (however you measure that) than you? They haven't developed an internet or flown to the moon, so break out the machine guns and open fire? If we're really that much more intelligent than them, shouldn't that put a greater onus on us rather than just giving us the right to wipe them out (as mankind has done to quite a few species in one way or another)?

To be fair, I probably didn't put the question quite right. We're talking about murder etc. which is about society and social issues. So, what's the difference between us and animals from a society and social perspective?

Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

@AC

"Usually a nice fur coat."

Or leather coat. Note, I haven't said what type of leather!!

Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

@Florida1920.

"I'm having a hard time believing I just read this."

So, you're really saying that someone should just be able to go out and kill another sentient being for no other reason than they want to. To provide something like food or warmth is one thing, but there's many who just kill them for trophies or whatever.

A human being is an animal, just the same as any other animal. If you believe otherwise, you clearly don't understand nature or biology. Like I said before, look at the statistics for how many killers actually started by needlessly killing animals and you can find a strong corrolation. Is it coincidence? Could be, but the strength of the correlation is very strong. Maybe moving from killing one sentinent animal to another is not much of a step? If so, pro hunting for fun websites could be a breeding ground for creating people who end up killing other people?

Human beings are no better than any other animal. We're all part of the same ecosystem and all live by the same rules....those created by nature. We may add our own on top, but that's the same as other animals as well, who create social rules etc as well. Do tell me what really separates us from say some of the higher primates, as the more we learn about them, the more we start looking like each other. The difference is they seem to have less inclination to go around killing each other, which might point people towards rethinking who's most evolved?

Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

@Florida1920.

"Most gun deaths in the U.S. are not the work of an amped-up Nazi devotee."

No, they're the work of people amped up about something else. Right to life (abortion for instance), gang warfare etc.etc. Is one better than the other? What about one gang puttings stuff up about killing members of another gang. Is that any better?

" Every murder is remarkable."

Totally agree. Ever murder should be remarkable, but unfortunately, in this world, that simply isn't so.

"I doubt you've spent much time reading through DS when it was available, before Charlottesville. Or after. I have, and it made me sick. Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities. Justifying someone's murder because she disagreed with your sick, twisted love affair with you-know-who is too much."

I've never supported anything they've said. I've just said there are plenty of other sites that promote murder (why does that have to be against another person rather than a sentient being?) in various ways, but are quite able to continue. Why? If you look into the statistics, you might find an interesting correlation between people who hunt animals for fun and murders......especially mass murder.

"If DS's problems were only the beginning of a wave of censorship, some of you might have a point. That hasn't happened and won't. DS was/is evil and is getting what it deserves."

How many times has this been said in history!! Read through history and it clearly shows you're wrong. Censorship only goes one way. More and more. In the 19th century, there was pretty close to no censorship, then look at the history of the 20th century and see more and more enacted. I bet those that implemented the first would have said exactly the same thing.

Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

@Florida1920.

"Are you seriously making an equivalence between hunting animals and Nazis?"

Firstly, let me say I'm not an animal rights devotee and I eat meat. However.....

You seem to be missing the similarity between them. The Nazis killed people. Millions of them. However, what's the difference between a human being needlessly killed and an animal being needlessly killed. Both are sentient creatures, both are a product of nature and both feel pain, have thoughts, emotions etc.etc. Separating ourselves from animals is simply demonstrating our arrogance as a species. Man made makes no more sense than lion made, gorilla made or anything else. We're an animal just like all the rest. Maybe more evolved in some ways (some might argue less depending on what you're comparing), but that is all.

So, hunters who kill animals and then proceed to eat them etc. That's part of nature and we all need to eat. Fair enough. However, there are plenty of people who go out to kill animals simply for the 'fun' (however you want to identify that) of doing so. Maybe it's the challenge, maybe they get pleasure out of it.....I don't know. What's the difference between killing a bear and killing a human? Both are animals, both sentient, both have emotions etc.etc. So, what's the difference? Now, there are plenty of websites that encourage etc. the killing of animals for reasons other than food etc. So, what's the difference?

So, if we oppose people who are peddling hate against other people because of their colour or sexual preference or whatever, why should we not oppose people who are peddling hate against bears for being bears? I bet there are far more people who kill animals for 'fun' than Nazis on the planet......

Your previous reply is a great example of a knee jerk based on preconceptions. Actually think of the underlying principles and points and differences. I'm not justifying DS or Nazis at all. I'm just saying there are plenty of other things that are very similar, but we accept as just being 'normal'.

Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:

@Florida1920.

"The problem is, a website is not only a place to speak; it may also serve as a means of instigating violence. DS has shown a predilection to do that. Of course, they're subtle, to avoid clearly breaking the law. But there are plenty of ways to drive the easily manipulated to violence. I think the nutjob who killed the protester in Charlottesville was one of the easily manipulated. The DS's response to the murder does nothing to change my mind. We should keep the situation of DS in its context."

Unfortunately, this could apply to all sorts of things. To take something very much at the USAs heart.....what about gun websites? Sale of guns, hunting websites etc.? It's a relatively short step to go from killing animals (bears, deer etc.) to maybe turning on somthing else (people) at times of stress. There's plenty of gunsites that actively promote violence (maybe not against people, but other living creatures). What makes them so different? I bet quite a lot of the gun mass murders of recent years visited these websites and maybe even became nuttier because of them. So, does the same sort of thing apply to them? Agreed the bloke in Charlottesville was a complete nutjob, but given the death rate (non-natural) in the USA today, it really was rather unremarkable on the scale of things....

Re: It beings.

@Dan 55.

"No it's not. The terrifying development is if they get into power.

The most sensible thing to would be to follow Germany's lead on how to deal with neo-Nazis/alt-right or whatever you want to call them, since they know a thing or two about their history and how they work.

I can't believe we're still having this debate about whether or not this ideology deserves free speech or not when history shows how it gains a foothold and what it does when it gets it.

You might defend their right to say it. They certainly wouldn't defend any of your rights."

I think you need to recheck your history and if you understand how the Nazis got into power, you might understand how some recent leaders have got into power as well. The chances of these people getting into power are fleetingly low given todays world and where we sit. Are you seriously suggesting the Nazis got into power because all the Germans were right wing murderous nutters? The truth is that Germans were desperate and in terrible econimic difficulties. Hitler used several well tried and tested methods to get people to support him (common enemy, great speeches, bully boys etc.). The number of genuinely hardcore Nazi nutters in Germany was actually quite low. The reality was, he was offering a route out of their problems for the remainder and he was the only way offering anything, so they went with it. Then, everybody gets swept up in it. Just look at any conflict and you will see how people can carry out the most evil acts through getting swept up in things.

Pol Pot persuaded the poor of Cambodia to again carry out all sorts of evil acts because he promised to make their lives better. This included killing anyone with an education!! Of course, it didn't work. Stalin murdered many times more people (directly or through working to death in gulags) than Hitler for all sorts of different reasons. Both these (and many others) were hard left, the supposed polar opposite of Hitler. But, they end up doing the same?

So, stop thinking of this as a Nazi issue. It isn't. It is much wider than that. It isn't a right or left thing either. They're as bad as each other when taken to extremes.

Re: This isn't censorship

It seems a lot of the commentators are knee jerk responding to the word 'Nazi' and loosing rational thought. Yes, everything these people stand for is abhorent. Absolutely spot on. However, they are simply one abhorent group amongst many. There are plenty of other groups around the world spreading hate and bile and even carrying it out. People are simply responding to the word as it has historical legacy from WWII.

In reality, there are many groups and organisations, whether extreme left, right or whatever that are just as bad. However, most (I won't say all as I can't guarantee that) still have domains registered. Take the BNP in Britain. They're a sort of slightly (only a bit) lighter version of these guys. They still have domain names. Think of all the governments around the world that are busy slaughtering their own or others citizens, yet they still have domain names. Think of the terrorist organisations (I know, depends on which side you're on....freedom fighter/terrorist etc.) that actually have domain names!!

If you believe that DS should be banned from having a domain name, whether by statute or the court of public opinion, you should also ban many, many other organisation, governments etc. as well. If the internet is to remain a reasonably free place, with access for ALL, the use of companies to run parts of it needs to stop. Companies whose concern is for profits, will always do things to protect their profits rather than for good in general, hence this. Domain names shouldn't be controlled by companies operating for profit. A simple registration service that takes no view at all should be implemented.

Also, when banning DS, have people thought of the downside of doing that? Whilst it's there, you can bet security services etc. are looking at every visitor and keeping an eye on some. The fact the website is there, allows them to find people who might do something. Taking it away doesn't stop these people. It just drives them use things less easily monitored. So, I bet the security services aren't in favour of this.

Whether you can blame a commercial company for doing this or not, it does in effect end up censoring someone or some groups opinion. This isn't about right wing nutters, as there are a lot of left wing nutters around as well and if you look through history, just has many have been killed through left wing ideology as right wing. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc.etc. The issue with censorship is not who should be censored. The issue is that when you start, like all projects, it's very open to scope creep. History shows us that censorship normally results in more and more restrictions, across areas never even considered when started. The issue is that it's all about opinions rather than fact or anything like that. Once you start down the road, it will eventually hit something you care about. It's just a matter of time.

Re: a necessary evil?

@AC

"If they all stopped, the products you help create would not get sold and you'd be out of a job. I'd laugh at that one."

The person you're responding to does have a point, albeit somewhat over simplified. In a world without salespeople, products would still be sold. People still need things and if there's nobody pushing them at you, you'd simply have to go looking for them. However, it wouldn't necessarily be your products they'd buy, but might be competitors. Depends on who they find first. Also, differences between products might not be understood, as it would be up to the buyer to determine and value them, rather than a salesperson tell them. Of course, this is an area where salespeople are often accused of overpromising etc. and getting a bad reputation. The reality is that unless you made it illegal to have salespeople, they would automatically spring up again, as companies naturally compete. Of course, in some economic systems, you only produce one type of each product and everybody buys that one. In that case, you don't need salespeople.

In any eventuality, whether it's salespeople or anybody else, the same principle applies to all jobs. They've signed a contract saying they'll get x for doing y. They do y and are then told they can't have x. Even worse, they may be fired if they don't agree to this. Whether it's salespeople or programmers or project managers or whoever, a company should be made to comply with their contract to them and pay what's due. Retrospective changes to contracts should in general be banned. It's too open to abuse, especially when the relationship is very lopsided, as in this case.

This always used to be the case with legislation, but over the last decade or so, governments have got very bad at introducing legislation that has a retrospective aspect. Take UK tax legislation as an example, where people are being pursued now for things that weren't illegal when they were done. It's all a very slippery slope with governments and corporations the only winners, as they have all the power.

Re: Sparc Emulator?

This is rather interesting, as a fully functioning SPARC emulator was available for a few years some time back from a company called Transitive. This was an offshoot of Manchester University. IBM bought them up and they disappeared from sight, although it was probably used for the x86 on Power offering for Power servers....PowerVM Lx86.

@phuzz

"One thing China are worried about is that they would likely bare the brunt of the refugee crisis if/when the NK state collapses."

That presupposes the Chinese have anything approaching morals. We all know most politicians are pretty lacking in morals and the Chinese more than many. If this really happened, I would expect to see the Chinese close the border and simply deal with it in North Korea. I can't imagine they'd allow millions of refugees across the border.

@AC

"Except that the moment the first American soldier steps into North Korea from the south, ten PLA soldiers will enter from the north-west - taking us all back to where we left off in 1953, except with nuclear arms all around."

Why would the PLA risk this? A direct confrontation. Do they need North Korea? Do they have any loyalty to the leadership or people of North Korea? No. They would simply bolster their border defenses on their side of the border and wait. If anything, a merging South/North Korea would hamper South Koreas economy and political leadership for several decades, much like with Germany. China don't need the land or anything else. Risking conflict with the USA would be for nothing China wants.

Chinese control

I think people are missing the point a bit about the relationship between North Korea and other countries, most notably China. In the past, China has exerted massive control over North Korea and has been able to use them as a deniable asset to do various things for them. This might just be generally keeping people on their toes, but also other stuff. What about cyber attacks. North Korean attacks are often traced back to China. This and other information implies a good deal of cooperation. For China, this means North Korea can do things for them (such as cyber warfare) and if things get a bit hot, they can simply be cut loose or sacrificed. Not so if the PLA are doing it.

However, the above only works if China has positive control of what goes on. In the past (prior glorious leaders), this always seemed to be the case. However, with this latest change of North Korean leadership, Chinese control seems to be waning. The glorious leader seems to be doing things that are annoying China and even directly against their wishes. In other words, China is loosing positive control of North Korea. At this point, North Korea becomes a significant issue to China and if anyone is going to invade North Korea, China is best placed to do so. They could even sell it as a humanitarian act.

Comments about China being worried about a US influenced state on their borders (if say South Korea invaded north or whatever) are really wide of the mark. China knows nobody is going to try and invade them. Their forces are so numerous that nobody stands any chance of victory and would be dragged into a massive war of attrition. So, China isn't worried at all about who's on that border. Even if it was a unified Korea with the USA standing behind them, it wouldn't worry Beijing.

North Korea is a handy puppet for China, but when they become too hard to control, China will deal with it, probably through leadership change. Be in no doubt about that.

Re: Cloud / Not Cloud

@Doogie Howser MD

It's all poor architecture. However, it can be very difficult when the salesmen are coming into the big wigs and claiming all sorts of things. Then, you put in a request for funding including things like resilience and DR and the big wigs say it's not necessary, as the salesmen said cloud solved everything and all their problems would go away.

It all comes down to doing a proper architecture/design job, but the salesmen being somewhat simplistic to say the least, doesn't help senior management actually understand what they are and are not buying.

@DuchessofDukeStreet.

I think the issue here isn't so much the fact they went down. I'm sure a lot of organisations would accept 24hrs of downtime on test and dev to reduce costs. The issue is that they don't seem to be recoverable. Like they never heard of backups......or paid for them.

Re: The reality of cloud

@Sergiu Panaite.

I think you're basically saying what I was. Just because it's a cloud, doesn't mean you don't need to architect it appropriately. Your second paragraph shows the misconception that people have with cloud and the idea that it sorts out problems for you. In some cases, it might, but not always. You still need to think of D/R. You still need to take backups (or risk loosing it all). With compute issues, it will normally self-heal within a location by bringing the VMs back up on other servers. If all the servers fail (unlikely), that's D/R, not cloud relocating you to another location. The issues with storage is that depending on how the storage is designed, it can make the data unavailable, hence bringing it up elsewhere is simply not possible. Unless, of course, part of the architecture is to replicate the data into another location.

Clouds run by other companies such as Fujitsu, Amazon, Microsoft etc. are no better than one you could setup in your own sites. It all needs to be architected properly, with allowance made for each component that can fail and understanding of how you resolve that, or (depending on cost v risk) accept it and go down.

Re: Now this is intersting

@lglethal

I get where you're coming from, but I find it unlikely. Surely, after such a high profile incident, anybody with satellite imagery would have a check to see if they have anything of potential use? I'd be pretty amazed if the US military didn't have stuff as well. I imagine they keep a significant proportion of the world under watch all the time to track ship movements etc.etc.

Re: Well..

@Potemkine!

"A company is no democracy, never was and never will be. That guy used company's board to publish an opinion contrary to the company policy, being fired for that is logical. Firing him would have been scandalous if he had posted his pamphlet on a public board and be fired for that, but it is not the case."

That would be fine if the company didn't actively ask for opinion and discussion, which it does. So, effectively what they've done now, is ask for opinion and discussion provided it doesn't disagree with their thinking. They are actively discouraging different thinking and opinions (which in most good businesses are considered a good thing) and acting against their own supposed policies.

Re: Well..

@Jeremy Puddleduck.

"You're conflating "thinking differently" with "the sexes natural traits", as did the idiot author of the brofesto. Your thoughts are a result of nurture and nature, that's the issue. And there biological differences in brains between genders have been shown to have a tiny impact compared with the nurture element."

Yes, I am, because one of the sexes natural traits is different ways of thinking. My thoughts are from many published studies in this area and nothing to do with nurture. I don't deny that nurture affects things as well, but the differences naturally present have been found to be quite large in studies. Women think slightly differently to men (google it....many studies etc.), which is actually a good thing. Whilst it may make the sexes slightly more adept at some jobs than others (in many it may not make the slightest difference), it is also useful in that men and women will often look at things very differently and from different angles, which in many case, is very useful.

The desire to make everyone equal (whether social standing, sex, race, religion etc.etc.) is actually very anti-nature and if successful, would produce a mindless soup of identical individuals. To succeed as a species, we need to utilise the differences rather than try and remove them and deny they exist. At the moment, schools are very bad at playing to the strengths of individual children and instead generally try and produce a standard child at the end. This leads to many going onto careers that do not get the best out of them or offer them the best opportunities. Of course, society doesn't help by valuing academic more than vocational etc., which needs to be stamped out.

Re: Well..

@streaky

"He's wrong in saying it's biological though "

Unfortunately, numerous peer reviewed university studies have shown that men and women DO think differently and DO have ability differences in various areas. Of course, this is all an average and is not specific to any specific person.

However, the Google chap was simply saying that because of the above, not all jobs will split 50/50. He wasn't saying you shouln't employ a woman coder or a male nurse or whatever. He was just saying that biologically, the sexes natural traits (as shown in studies) indicate abilities and desires will tend to push them towards certain jobs, hence the split will naturally vary from 50/50.

Of course, society does push and enhance this effect enourmously, but saying it isn't at least in part caused by biology is rather going against the science and studies showing differences do exist.

@Rob Gr.

It is a sad truth that people, whether deliberately or not, do discriminate. I guess it's built into us. However, swinging from one extreme to another (what seems to happen with positive discrimination) is not really any answer.

Re: The World Athletics men's 100m final

@sad_loser

"The World Athletics men's 100m final

Wasn't very diverse.

Where do I register my protest"

Sport always amuses me as the desire to be all hip and PC actually results in the very reverse. Why should there be mens and womens teams? Why not mixed teams, with the best and most able playing in them? Why should women have a 100m and men a 100m race? If we're really equal, everybody should compete on a level playing field, so they should all race together.

Also, there was that furore over the winners money at Wimbledon. It forced them to pay the mens and womens the same, even though the women spend less time on court, play less tennis (3 v 5 sets) etc. So, they're doing less 'work'. So, why should they get the same? Again, level playing field. Men and women all play 3 or all play 5 sets.

@AC.

"At Google, claiming that for biological reasons, women are on average less able than men to work in tech is enough."

Unfortunately for Google, this isn't what he said. He postulated that biological differences might lead to either better ability to do something or more of a desire to do something.

Now, university research has found that on average (bear in mind it's all averages and therefore doesn't apply to everyone in a given group) women are better at some tasks than men and vice versa. Men and womens brains operate slightly differently, which causes this. So, for instance, research has found that on average, men are more spatially aware than women. Similarly, women genuinely can multi-task better than men.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/articles/spatial_tests.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24645100

I know they're both BBC, but google and you'll find more.....

He then postulated that these changes might make the different sexes more suited (on average) for different jobs or change the want to do these jobs. This might then result in an uneven distribution for some jobs between the sexes. Given the evidence, I would think he has at least a point suitable for debate.

As I've said before, none of the above means you shouldn't hire women or men for given jobs. It just means don't be surprised if the demographic doesn't match the societal 'norm' you were expecting. Not every job will end up a 50/50 split between men and women.

@hnwombat

"P.S. Yes, I have a Ph.D. in social science. Business Administration, in fact (IS specialty), and teach and do research in a business school. This is relevant because, if we do in fact live in a meritocracy, then I must be an expert in the field, with a better understanding than that of the layman. My pronouncement that there is no meritocracy thus has a higher confidence value. If, on the other hand, you feel that my opinion is of less value, then you implicitly deny that we live in a meritocracy. I.e., the conclusion inescapably falls to "there is no meritocracy". And, in fact, I am white anglo-saxon recovered protestant first-born male from an upper-middle class family, whose father was a sociologist. Which probably provides significant explanation for my having my Ph.D. beyond my innate ability."

Unfortunately, it is becoming abundantly clear in todays world that qualifications do not equal merit in any meaningful way. I've met a lot of people who are qualified to the heavens in an area, but they knew almost nothing (these are technical fact based areas). So, whilst I may agree with your proposition that a true and pure meritocracy doesn't and probably can't exist, I think the idea that qualifications and education equal merit is somewhat wide of the mark.

@hnwombat.

"And no, firing an employee for sharing screeds detrimental to company performance and morale using company resources on company time is not "reducing diversity". "

By definition, it is reducing the diversity of opinion within the company. Given what's occurring round this, it could be argued that firing himis doing more to affect morale and company performance than just ignoring it. If ignored, it would have just disappeared with little fuss. Now, it's being heavily commented on, with a pretty large amount against Google. Also, what do you think is happening to morale in Google for the people who have something to say? Will anybody say anything even vaguely different to company line now?

Googles actions have affected themselves and morale considerably more than the original text and the sensible debate that should have followed. If it had gone that way, perhaps employees morale would have gone up, as would different opinions and sensible discussion of them?

@AC.

So, you mean having different physical exams for men and women applying for the same job? That's being done at the moment. How does giving women a lower physical exam not lower the bar?

I would have thought that's case proven?

@AC.

"Stating the stereotypes as truth, defending them, and claiming less women should be hired, because it lowers the bar."

If you read the paper, you'll find that is exactly what he wasn't saying.

Re: The guy's a bigot

@Destroy All Monsters.

"Affirmative-action success stories"?

Where are they then. For each 'success' you talk about is potentially a person who was discriminated against (failure) to create the success for someone else. Affirmative action is simply discrimination by another name. It is never a success and never positive. It simply perpetuates discrimination, just for a different grouping.

The inability to read, understand and maybe engage in dialogue with the person and the point he was trying to make shows Google in a very poor light. It's not like the person was just having a rant. It was a well written text, clearly with thought behind it. Doesn't make him right, but means dialogue is the best course forward, rather than just pulling the trigger........

Re: The guy's a bigot

@Day.

Unfortunately, you're largely wrong as the companies actions have really supported most of his arguments.

The man was expressing an opinion. As an opinion, he is neither right nor wrong. It's an opinion. Indeed, some of what he said is supported by biological reality. Trying to say men and women are equal in every way is the same as saying an apple and an orange are exactly the same. They're not. They are biologically different. Whether this has an impact on their ability to do a given job is a different matter though and that's where the opinion comes in.

By sacking him, Google have really rather proved that Google is a monoculture (no other opinions are allowed, you must obey the one message) and also that Goodle are 'encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies' (they sacked him for an opinion for gods sake). Whether you agree with his opinion or not, in western society most countries are based on the idea you can basically express that opinion. Yes, there are some limits, but what he wrote was really not that bad. Yes, it might have shown some potential sexist sentiments, but it was pretty mild. He was simply postulating whether inate biological differences might make women and men more suited to certain roles.

There is absolute prrof in reality that this is true in some areas. If it's a physical job, men, on average, carry more muscle mass and therefore tend to be more suited....on average. Not to say if you get a suitably strong (or whatever) womsn apply, you shouldn't employ her. Just don't expect it to be 50/50, as the number of women strong enough will be less than men because of simple biology and the way men and womens bodies are built.

Why is it that rather than embrace diversity and the fact that people are different and get the best from each person, we as a society are determined to try and bend everyone towards a single norm and take the diversity away. The fact that people, the sexes, races, ages etc. tend to have slightly different traits is actually a bonus, not a problem, if you use each to its best ability.

No positive discrimination

For there to be positive discrimination, there must be an equal amount of negative discrimination. If you discriminate in someones favour (for whatever reason), you are by definition discriminating against everyone else. So, the reality is that all discrimination is negative, regardless of how or why it is done.

The only option is to remove discrimination totally and simply employ (or whatever) by ability and nothing else. Within a relatively short period of time, the demographics of workforce etc. will start to change and within a couple of generations should be wherever it should be. Natural turnover and newcomers coming in etc. will sort that. If it doesn't change, it either means there was no discimination in the first place, or you've failed to get rid of the discrimination.

Problem is, some of the supposedly most PC environments are actually the most discriminatory. Take family courts as an example. Mostly biased against the father. Take politicians. Dianne Abbott, who has been racist, ageist and sexist in the past (she stated everything was the fault of middle aged, white men). Take industrial tribunals. The law in that case even has bias towards minority groups. Try raising a case for being discriminated against on the grounds of being white or a man!! Almost unheard of.