Slashdot Mirror

Define 'efficient'?

Whole industries have been created because of lax oversight by Medicare - like, for instance, the personal 'scooter' (chair) industry.

The fraud in Medicare is staggering, it is a multiple of the 'fraud, waste, and abuse' of even the worst 'for profit' insurance company.

For example, two people, over 7 years, committed $258M in Medicare fraud - http://www.miamiherald.com/new...

Even Planned Parenthood was charged with Medicare fraud:

Texas - http://online.wsj.com/articles...

Ad Naseaum...

Who Gets an Exemption From Obamacare?

How About a National Obamacare Waiver?

To date, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has approved 1,372 Obamacare waivers, covering 3.1 million Americans. Yesterday, The Daily Caller reported that among HHS’s most recent round of 204 Obamacare waivers, “38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.” That’s right: Nearly 20 percent of exemptions from Pelosi’s crowning health care achievement were doled out in her backyard.

If that’s not enough irony for you, try this waiver on for size: On Monday, the Las Vegas Sun reported that Nevada—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s home state—received a partial statewide Obamacare waiver, too. If you’re keeping score, Reid was Pelosi’s counterpart in the Senate fighting to get Obamacare passed into law. Now his state will be one of three to get a waiver from the law’s requirements, while the rest of America suffers.

Of course, it's just a coincidence that all these waivers are going out to coverage which meets or surpasses the general basic requirements of Obamacare, just as it is a total coincidence that leftish institutions offered health care plans which were generous.

ObamaCare's Secret Mandate Exemption

Secret in the sense that it was only reported by the Associated Press, Bloomberg News, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, Reuters, McClatchy Newspapers, USA Today, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, and, obviously, WSJ; but not reason.com or askheritage.org. Actually, I'm just guessing that it wasn't reported on the last two, maybe it was.

That only Republicans use FUD to get votes?

Democrats: Vote or we’ll kick your ass
http://nypost.com/2014/10/30/d...

VP Biden Says Republicans Are ‘Going to Put Y’all Back in Chains’
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po...

Democrats ‘Shame’ Voters With Mailers
http://online.wsj.com/articles...

http://online.wsj.com/articles/who-declares-senegal-free-of-ebola-disease-1413574405

The WHO declared Senegal, which shares a border with Guinea, clear of the disease. The agency made the assessment after Senegal went 42 days—twice Ebola’s incubation period—without finding a new case.

Who Gets an Exemption From Obamacare?

How About a National Obamacare Waiver?

To date, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has approved 1,372 Obamacare waivers, covering 3.1 million Americans. Yesterday, The Daily Caller reported that among HHS’s most recent round of 204 Obamacare waivers, “38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.” That’s right: Nearly 20 percent of exemptions from Pelosi’s crowning health care achievement were doled out in her backyard.

If that’s not enough irony for you, try this waiver on for size: On Monday, the Las Vegas Sun reported that Nevada—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s home state—received a partial statewide Obamacare waiver, too. If you’re keeping score, Reid was Pelosi’s counterpart in the Senate fighting to get Obamacare passed into law. Now his state will be one of three to get a waiver from the law’s requirements, while the rest of America suffers.

ObamaCare's Secret Mandate Exemption

He never said it was an "absolute".

Of course there are always exceptions to the "rule".

Let's take off the myopic glasses for a second and look at a few other fields ...

How many male (registered) nurses are there compared to women?
How many male hair stylists are there compared to women?
How many male baby sitters are there compared to women?

Conversely :

How many women are there in construction?
How many women are there in the NHL (hockey) or some other male dominated sport?
How many women are there in professional motorcycle/F1/Nascar racing?
How many women are firefighters?

Lastly one last question:

How many men give birth to children?

Hmm, I don't see too many men complaining that they can't give birth. Maybe, just _maybe_ there might be a slight biological basis that since women naturally become mothers and nurturing is a big part of being a mother that women might tend to favor jobs that favor compassion over things. Color me shocked!

Men tend to like either a) building things, or b) destroying things. Women tend to be more focused on human relationships. Calling the general trends & facts "stereotypes" is akin to sticking your head in the sand. Ignoring the data doesn't make it go away.

And before we forget, the first programmer was a Ada Lovelace.

We should be celebrating our differencesinstead of complaining that genetics + our social environment tends to favor stereotypes. In the western world a woman has lots of choices for whatever she does. Yet ironically the most important one, a mother caring for her children, is starting to change.

If only there had been a link in the summary describing how they judge critical-thinking skills, then we wouldn't need to discuss this baffling question.

Okay, we can all use Google, and clearly no-one is going to refute every link you posted. I'll just point out some bullshit in one of them though, so you can understand why simply reposting links you found on Bing isn't "research" and doesn't refute the GP.

WSJ article

This article mentions that unemployment rates are 1% higher for men, and then states that labour force participation for women is 12.1% lower. In other words, fewer women are out of work because they tend to simply drop out of the labour market. It also doesn't differentiate between type of work (part/full time, skill/wage level).

It then goes on to claim that men and women simply choose different types of work, so the differences in pay can be explained by that. We know that isn't true though, because firstly women tell us that they want to go into certain fields but are put off or leave due to sexism/harassment, and secondly because there are plenty of studies showing that equivalent work is often not paid the same when the job is dominated by one sex or the other.

Instead of spamming us with so many links why not make an argument with a few links to studies and data that support it?

The problem is that men are intimidated by the presence of women, according to the article. But in my experience, men are afraid to be in a "women's profession" because it makes them look feminine. Those are different issues, but it happened with nurses and teachers before.

Any male who is foolish enough to be a teacher today is considered a pedophile. You mean that kind of scaring away? These are not the male pigs saying this stuff: http://www.mamapedia.com/artic...

Read this stuff, including the links. These are women who are pre-declaring all males to be pedophiles Ther are women who are really concerned that their babysitter has teenage sons. And you say its because Men, find aspects of jobs too feminine? This is just as bigoted, as declaring you down't want to leave any white women around black males because you know, they'll all be raped. Bigotry knows no specific gender.

But oddly enough, this blatant in your face hatred of men and assumption that all males are pedos is just "smart mommying". We've been trained that way.

http://online.wsj.com/articles...

Dude was attacked by a women for rescuing two children from a burning car. A guy who was stalked and acosted by a woman for restocking little girls underwear. A guy who won't have contact with children not his own because of the presumption he is a pedo.

http://www.boston.com/communit... Just for general reading of the bigoted stereotyping and hatred directed towards males.

Once women are "allowed" in large numbers, the men run off.

Reading the above links perhaps it is not "feminine" jobs they are concerned about.. Who wants a job where so many women assume without any good reason, that you are a criminal? I suspect before too long that many women will be just as concerned about taking their dog to a male veternarian because.... well.... you know.

Egalitarianism

Wage gap myth:

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

Majors by Gender: Is It Bias or the Major that Determines Future Pay?

There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap

The Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth

Gender pay gap is not what activists claim

Equal pay statistics are bogus because they don’t compare like with like

Fair Pay Isn’t Always Equal Pay

Wage Gap Myth Exposed -- By Feminists

5 Feminist Myths That Will Not Die

The Wage Gap Myth

Don’t Blame Discrimination for Gender Wage Gap

The pay inequality myth: Women are more equal than you think

Women Now a Majority in American Workplaces

Labor force participation rate for men has never been lower.

Share of Men in Labor Force at All-Time Low

Women In Tech Make More Money And Land Better Jobs Than Men

Female U.S. corporate directors out-earn men: study

Female CEOs outearned men in 2009.

Women between ages 21 and 30 working full-time made 117% of men’s wages.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, single women between 22 and 30 years old earn an average of $27,000 a year. That’s 8% more than comparable men.

Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top

Young Women’s Pay Exceeds Male Peers

The 15 Jobs Where Women Earn More Than Men

Women aged between 22 and 29 earn over £10 per hour on average, compared to men their same age who earn just under this amount.

Young women now earn more than men in UK

Egalitarianism

Wage gap myth:

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

Majors by Gender: Is It Bias or the Major that Determines Future Pay?

There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap

The Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth

Gender pay gap is not what activists claim

Equal pay statistics are bogus because they don’t compare like with like

Fair Pay Isn’t Always Equal Pay

Wage Gap Myth Exposed -- By Feminists

5 Feminist Myths That Will Not Die

The Wage Gap Myth

Don’t Blame Discrimination for Gender Wage Gap

The pay inequality myth: Women are more equal than you think

Women Now a Majority in American Workplaces

Labor force participation rate for men has never been lower.

Share of Men in Labor Force at All-Time Low

Women In Tech Make More Money And Land Better Jobs Than Men

Female U.S. corporate directors out-earn men: study

Female CEOs outearned men in 2009.

Women between ages 21 and 30 working full-time made 117% of men’s wages.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, single women between 22 and 30 years old earn an average of $27,000 a year. That’s 8% more than comparable men.

Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top

Young Women’s Pay Exceeds Male Peers

The 15 Jobs Where Women Earn More Than Men

Women aged between 22 and 29 earn over £10 per hour on average, compared to men their same age who earn just under this amount.

Young women now earn more than men in UK

Look at Japan as well. Rape is barely even a blip.

It's clear that you haven't looked at Japan. It may well be one of the countries in which rape is most underreported.

There are a few websites/apps that have allow the user to opt out of being tracked.

Have ANY of these sites/apps actually respected the request of the user? Google certainly did not care, and neither do many others in Internet advertising.

I think his arguments that lower growth leads to greater wealth inequity are very persuasive. He has posted his very extensive research on his website

The difficulty with his argument (at least, that particular argument) has been the quality of his numbers. If his numbers are correct, then his argument follows naturally. However, getting the data has proven difficult. This one seems especially serious, imo. Tax returns are obviously not a good source for data on total wealth.

It got so bad that soon Piketty told people to disregard his own numbers, and use Zucman-Saez's numbers instead.

I think his arguments that lower growth leads to greater wealth inequity are very persuasive. He has posted his very extensive research on his website

The difficulty with his argument (at least, that particular argument) has been the quality of his numbers. If his numbers are correct, then his argument follows naturally. However, getting the data has proven difficult. This one seems especially serious, imo. Tax returns are obviously not a good source for data on total wealth.

It got so bad that soon Piketty told people to disregard his own numbers, and use Zucman-Saez's numbers instead.

I think his arguments that lower growth leads to greater wealth inequity are very persuasive. He has posted his very extensive research on his website

The difficulty with his argument (at least, that particular argument) has been the quality of his numbers. If his numbers are correct, then his argument follows naturally. However, getting the data has proven difficult. This one seems especially serious, imo. Tax returns are obviously not a good source for data on total wealth.

It got so bad that soon Piketty told people to disregard his own numbers, and use Zucman-Saez's numbers instead.

I think his arguments that lower growth leads to greater wealth inequity are very persuasive. He has posted his very extensive research on his website

The difficulty with his argument (at least, that particular argument) has been the quality of his numbers. If his numbers are correct, then his argument follows naturally. However, getting the data has proven difficult. This one seems especially serious, imo. Tax returns are obviously not a good source for data on total wealth.

It got so bad that soon Piketty told people to disregard his own numbers, and use Zucman-Saez's numbers instead.

From this article on the subject: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/20...

"While still uncommon, egg-freezing allows women to remove and store eggs when they are in their prime fertility window, which often overlaps with prime career-advancement years. The quality of a woman’s eggs declines as she gets older, putting many women in a bind about whether to have children in their 20s and 30s. Egg freezing allows women to stockpile healthy eggs while advancing their careers or waiting to meet a partner with whom they’d like to start a family.

But the procedure is expensive, costing approximately $10,000 per round, and many doctors recommend two rounds to ensure the best possible batch of cells. In general, health insurance plans don’t cover the elective procedure."

The last sentence is key. You can bet we are inching towards this $10,000 elective procedure being mandated by American health insurance, which means men will be the ones paying for it through taxes as demonstrated here:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/1...

The sheer fact Apple and facebook are doing this is a "slippery slope". Give feminists an inch, and they will take a mile, and then blame you for not giving two miles. And the idea of giving $10,000 to a man to start a family? Nahhhhhhhh.

If a couple decides to delay having kids and takes advantage of this benefit, doesn't the husband (a male most likely) save $10,000 as well?

And last I checked, women were taxpayers too. ;)

From this article on the subject:
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/20...

"While still uncommon, egg-freezing allows women to remove and store eggs when they are in their prime fertility window, which often overlaps with prime career-advancement years. The quality of a woman’s eggs declines as she gets older, putting many women in a bind about whether to have children in their 20s and 30s. Egg freezing allows women to stockpile healthy eggs while advancing their careers or waiting to meet a partner with whom they’d like to start a family.

But the procedure is expensive, costing approximately $10,000 per round, and many doctors recommend two rounds to ensure the best possible batch of cells. In general, health insurance plans don’t cover the elective procedure."

The last sentence is key. You can bet we are inching towards this $10,000 elective procedure being mandated by American health insurance, which means men will be the ones paying for it through taxes as demonstrated here:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/1...

The sheer fact Apple and facebook are doing this is a "slippery slope". Give feminists an inch, and they will take a mile, and then blame you for not giving two miles. And the idea of giving $10,000 to a man to start a family? Nahhhhhhhh.

Yeah this. I can't find a source for this claim. According to Wall Street Journal, AWS' revenue is only a $1.2billion per quarter. It would have to be losing at least $500mil/quarter to make a $2 billion/yr loss. In other words, for every dollar you spend on AWS, they're really losing $.50 or so.

And hospitals are already on the hook for uninsured patients due to the EMTALA laws.

No, the article said:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) of 1986 was enacted to prevent hospitals from refusing care to anyone needing urgent care and presenting at a hospital’s emergency room, regardless of insurance status. Unfortunately, EMTALA has sometimes been viewed as a mandate not funded by the federal government, and violations occur without reprisals or corrective actions.

It's even worse in Texas. They refused to implement Obamacare, fought it, and kicked people out of Medicaid. I think MedPage Today's KevinMD had a blog entry by a doctor at one of the charity clinics who said that the hospitals were referring uninsured people to them (after the hospitals kicked them out) even though the clinic didn't even have an x-ray machine.

Texas is a good example of the Republican health care plan -- you get sick, you die. http://online.wsj.com/articles... Legal Loophole Ensnares Breast-Cancer Patients; Shirley Loewe Chooses The Wrong Clinic And Starts Long Ordeal

I mean, seriously. I know a lot of people in the IT business and more than a few of them spend their life pretty much glued to a screen in some way or another. None of them ever took more than a cursory glance at ChromeOS. Is there anyone out there actually using this? And I mean for more than just "without it, my collection of Linux Distributions would not be complete".

Unfortunately, there are some school districts and colleges that are using these pieces of dung. So this is a non-trivial change. If our children are forced to put their lives in the cloud by this tech then they will becom e accustomed to it and desensitized to the effects doing that has on their privacy and security. It's a horrible, horrible idea to remove local storage capabilities from a computing device. No good will come from this action by Google and only shows how evil they are becoming. It would be one thing if this cloud stuff was really secure from anyone's eyes but the user/owner, but the reality is that once in the cloud your data is far more vulnerable to theft and exploitation than if stored on a local device. These schools are teaching these kids ridiculously bad habits all in the name of cost savings and convenience.

Given that the disease HASN'T spread outside of West Africa to any extent yet, that information that we all already know is worse than useless, it just spreads fear.

Why not forget your personal safety for a moment? The fact that this is spreading in a here-to-unforseen manner should be cause for alarm. Even if it remains confined to Africa this time, it's still a HUGE disaster in the making, and we don't know how bad it will get there. We just know that at this point in time it will get worse.

If I could go help, I would. Unfortunately, I don't have the required skills.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...

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

http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

I can assure you that have private insurance in no way means you are avoiding subsidizing others

Sure. Some of that subsidizing is enforced by the government, which prohibits insurers from "discriminating" on a variety of factors and mandates coverage of certain elective procedures (like gender changes).

But even besides that there are other things affecting the costs for the insurer, which it may not even know about (drug or alcohol abuse) and thus has to spread the costs evenly among higher and lower insured alike. True.

But, as long as the insurers compete with each other, there is a hope. When the Illiberal's goal of "single payer" insurance is achieved, there will be no competition...

I'm actually extremely well-informed on this topic. You really should look into it, however, since I think you're not understanding the situation. The regulations that have "prevented" Google from building out are regulations that other providers (i.e. cable and Telco) have long had to abide by. So, Google is saying they'll only build out if they get special treatment that wasn't available to the incumbents.

Google has explicitly said that they will only build out in areas that are willing to work with them, and that means (thus far) offer them concessions (right of way, street cabinet placement, waiver of requirement that they build the entire municipality) which haven't been available to the incumbents. For example, the second article below talks about the deal Google got in Kansas City, which includes the opportunity to place their street cabinets on public land at no cost (something AT&T & TWC can't do), and the ability to put fiber on city-owned poles for about half what TWC is paying, and no requirement for a citywide buildout.

http://online.wsj.com/news/art...
http://www.wired.com/2013/07/w...

Every official query. Agents are allowed to search through that data at their whim. This was detailed by Snowden.

False. That is categorically, 100% false.

Uh, LOVEINT? These are crimes of convenience. It's right there, a tool to use as part of their job. Or do you think that Agent Smith requisitioned a permit from his manager to see what his girlfriend was up to?

And most of the instances of them catching this sort of abuse has to be self-reported. Meaning that there's no system in place to catch them. If there are logs of what they search for, those logs are not checked.

So... 100% false? Really? And this is what I get for talking to a true believer. Nothing really has the power to penetrate that nice thick layer of TRUE BELIEF.

ANY government power "could" be abused. And?

AND this abuse has no system of checks or balance. The part of the government that was supposed to place a check on them, the judicial branch in the form of the FISA court, which performs no actual oversight. Via the Snowden and Glennwald: "As but one typical example, The Guardian has obtained an August 19, 2010, Fisa court approval from Judge John D. Bates which does nothing more than recite the statutory language in approving the NSA's guidelines."

If you know this, why don't you believe it?

For the rest of the government, except the CIA, there are checks and balances which... well... keep them in check. The fact that this abuse is free from any oversight and out of the public's view means that potential abuse, their half of the parallel construction, will not have any negative consequences. Ever trained a dog? If they get away with that shit, it's going to get worse.

Where, in the Constitution, does it say the government cannot have a CAPABILITY that COULD be used against Americans?

Nowhere, but recording all the communications IS a violation. This bullshit doublethink where it's not a seizure of personal papers if they never look at it is blatantly unconstitutional. The sort of shit we had out of Dick Cheney during the Bush admin. Kinda sad.

here is no way to have technical (or any) capabilities to collect against "only" the foreign targets without having the capability to collect against any target that is using the same systems, networks, and tools.

What?
"Hey Verizon, gimme everything you got for number X, we think he's a terrorist. Since you're on US soil, and we like to follow US law, here's the warrant detailing the exact place and information we hope to find."

Oh yeah, they're asking US firms on US soil for private information and the US firms have no real way to distinguish the nationality of the target.
At least, they WOULD be asking under the old conditions. Now it's a wholesale dragnet of all traffic. What's funny is that this is the crux of the warrant-less wiretapping controversy from 2007 that people like you vehemently dismissed the possibility of, but now it's just taken as obvious fact and must be perfectly legal.

You want to error on the side of catching those commie bastards, I want to error on the side of protecting the rule of law.

How about they only have a dragnet on the data that enters or exits US soil? You know, physically. It's one of those bullshit technicalities that doesn't really solve the problem, but at least it would limit their ability to spy on all of our politicians. It would make for a lot of largely meaningless work, but sillier things have been done in the name of legality. A compromise. What do you say?

Why the fuck did the US invade Iraq in 2003?

We resumed the hostilities suspended in 1992, because Saddam Hussein failed to fulfill his cease-fire obligations and our patience finally ran out. Yes, we should've done it earlier, but Bill Clinton was not the kind...

the US young service men and women I feel sorry for.

Yeah, the "sophisticated" (but impotent) Europe might be understanding it, but here in America we have a distinct dislike for mad dictators. Why, some of us even still subscribe to the doctrine of that previous adorable President from Chicago:

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

By withdrawing from Iraq too early, we failed the Iraqis. The fault, however, is not in invading in the first place, but in electing an incompetent "community organizer" to Presidency on account of his race — with a lunatic providing "foreign policy expertise"...

It is a shame, which Obama is finally beginning to rectify. Unfortunately, I doubt he'll succeed — not for lack of trying, but simply due to incompetence of a man, who never ran anything successful until his own election campaigns. Maybe, his spectacular failure will inoculate Americans against his kind of approach for a few decades — the way Jimmy Carter's presidency did in its time...

Sometimes that metric is correct. Sometimes government policy and the views of society are corrupt or evil and would strongly disapprove of various good deeds. See:

Underground Railroad
Hidden Children In France During the Holocaust*
Tour de France champ saved Jews in WWII

Sadly such measures may be needed again in the future to save Jews in Europe.

Antisemitism on rise across Europe 'in worst times since the Nazis'
Europe's Alarming New Anti-Semitism

I tried that. I don't think you have.

Maybe you should clear out some cookies... I also tried pasting the WSJ article title into Google News after clearing browser cookies, and it worked nicely. Here are two of the links it came up with: first, the WSJ article in full, even though I'm not a subscriber, and second, a NASDAQ verbatim copy of it.

apparently cotton subsidies.

http://online.wsj.com/articles...

short and long of it. complaint brought and won by brazil over US cotton subsidies in 2004. penalty of 800 million. Decided to go with 150 million a year.

Washington stopped paying during sequester last year. Brazil threatened to go to the WTO again, they settled for one more payment of 300 million.

so by my count that's 1.5 billion ish for an initial fine of 800 million.

Maybe an immigrant traveling back to the home country for a visit.

Maybe to attend a funeral.

android's marketshare is much more than 51%.. globally it's 85% of smart phones shipped, which is a near windows-like slice of pie.

this is WORSE than microsoft's cases involving internet explorer and media player, or even the antitrust issues concerning oem strong arm tactics...

android as shipped on virtually all devices is a closed ecosystem, windows is not. windows users have choice of program to run and dont have to jump through hoops to do so, most android devices require rooting or other tricks to run apps not sanctioned by google... and some jurisdictions consider rooting a mobile device to be illegally breaking its drm.

google is threatening reduction in capability and features for those who dont comply, which goes way beyond what microsoft has done to "convince" oems to bundle their software -- because the user ultimately has the choice, and oems have never been prevented by microsoft from installing a 3rd party browser or media player, nor have users... most android devices wont run any other operating system, either, so its not like the desktop -- its worse that way too.

You are rather backed by your opinions and guesses ABOUT science... Now those opinions might be reasonable and the guesses could be educated... but they are not science.

They are not "opinions" or "guesses". They are probabilities, backed by a great deal of evidence - like virtually everything in science. Higgs Boson existence? Probability. The Big Bang? Probability. Quantum mechanics? Yeah, a lot of that. To be scientific, a theory does not have to be a certainty at all; the probability just needs to be carefully quantified, and backed by observation and/or experiment.

...you have overstated your reasonable degree of confidence on issues for political gain. This has been done repeatedly which is why many of the IPCC reports have come under such savage criticism

Citation needed. The IPCC reports all state their conclusions in probabilities, which are carefully quantified, and are backed by citations of peer-reviewed studies at every stage. The vast majority of the evidence presented in the IPCC reports has proved under very close examination to be solid (NOT absolutely certain, but of sound scientific methodology). This is why they are accepted as, not the gospel truth, but the best information on the subject that we have, by every major scientific institution and government, as well as by the great majority of scientists (and nearly all climatologists).

It is THAT which is ultimately causing most of the controversy. Not the science but rather the political solution to the science.

I do agree that this is the source of the controversy. Solutions are indeed often political, but unfortunately all too often, peoples' political views about some of the solutions contaminate their views of the science, which usually leads to claims that the science itself is being politicised. I disagree with that.

Or you must sit down and talk about solutions we can all find palatable.

If only we could do that. Unfortunately, there are still far too many strident voices still trying to undermine the science, which blocks any reasonable discussion of solutions. If those voices actually had any peer-reviewed evidence of a quality that could convince a reasonable number of experts, that would be fine, but sadly these dissenting voices tend to rely on volume instead.

I'm also of the opinion that many people misunderstand the solutions that have been proposed (for example, see all the claims that a phased transition to a carbon-neutral economy would be a disastrous burden on society, whereas many economists are seeing it as an opportunity for actually reducing the many existing external costs of carbon emissions).

Here's what's happening in the real world.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

Germany's power production has gotten to be so unreliable that they are paying companies to shut down during
drops and add usage during surges. They are being paid up to 400 times the whole sale price.
Variable pricing is similarly done in the USA as well - offer variable prices during peak periods, and even paying industrial users if they shut down during extreme peak times, but it's nothing like what's happening in Germany. In the USA, it's done to hold down costs. In Germany it's being done to maintain stability of the grid, which is basing the grid's stability on faith, hope, and trust that those users will comply everytime it's needed.

So, the industrial users have found a way out: build their own generation
http://online.wsj.com/news/art...
"Every sixth company in Europe's largest economy now generates its own electricity, roughly 50% more than one year ago, according to Germany's Chamber of Commerce and Industry."

And damage to industrial equipment:
http://instituteforenergyresea...

He did this in 2008, http://online.wsj.com/articles..., an easy $500 million that no one else would be able to get.

Porn shrinks your brain

Lack of sleep shrinks your brain

Multi-tasking shrinks your brain

Religion shrinks your brain

Fat shrinks your brain

Elevated Blood Sugar shrinks your brain

Stress shrinks your brain

Aging shrinks your brain

Alcohol shrinks your brain

Vegetarianism shrinks your brain

Type 2 diabetes shrinks your Brain

Cell phones shrink your brain

I think medical fear mongering is shrinking our brains.

And yes, I did search for "Climate Change is shrinking our brains." No hits. So there you go MSM; a perfectly good theme that no one has used yet.

Save, save, save...

Welcome to America, sir. I hope your transition to our country's customs and traditions go smoothly.

http://online.wsj.com/articles...

Uh. Help me out here. You wrote:

The classic "wage gap" complaint has always been based on ignoring the "hours worked" gap.

and as evidence you pointed me to: http://online.wsj.com/articles...

which does not discuss this at all. How does the article back up your argument again? Would you like to find another article from a reputable source or a peer reviewed journal?

Also, you claim:

It's comparing equal pay for equal work and education.

and the article you are using as evidence says:

At every education level, from high-school dropouts to Ph.D.s, women continue to earn less than their male peers.

I am unable comprehend how you managed to read "equal pay for equal work and education" from "At every education level, from high-school dropouts to Ph.D.s, women continue to earn less than their male peers."

Thanks.

We all agree that women are paid less, all studies show it.

Not if they're working the same positions with the same hours, they aren't.

Someone did think of such and found the gap does not exist. Debunked here.

No, "jedidiah" is right. Debunked here.

As far as "inequality men face as well as women", are You saying She supports the "Mens Rights Movement"?

No, "jedidiah" is right. Debunked here.

False. Completely false. Why do you persist in this nonsense?
Women, in the same career field as a man, almost always makes less.

Not if she's working the same hours and has the same experience, she's not. Men get paid more because they work more.

Evidence. The classic "wage gap" complaint has always been based on ignoring the "hours worked" gap. Men work most overtime hours, whereas women hold most part time jobs. So in reality, the claimed goal of "equal pay for equal work" has been with us for quite some time.

Even among childless women there is a significant discrepancy in salaries for similar jobs.

Indeed - they make more money than their male colleagues.

skills-matched cohorts of male and female employees show a wage and career security discrepancy in favour of men in almost any study you care to mention

You mean an hours-worked discrepancy. Men put in the majority of overtime hours, and the vast majority of 60+ hour work weeks. The "76 cents on the dollar" canard is based on ignoring overtime and focusing on "skills" and "positions". If you're a woman, and you worked 10 hours more per week than a male colleague in the same position, you'd damn well expect to be paid more money as well.

but it conspicuously never flips around the other side

Another one gone
Another one gone
Another meme bites the dust

• In 2008, single, childless women between ages 22 and 30 were earning more than their male counterparts in most U.S. cities, with incomes that were 8% greater on average, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data released Wednesday by Reach Advisors, a consumer-research firm in Slingerlands, N.Y.

The winds are just moving the heat around a bit.

"Moving heat around a bit" has a tremendous impact on global climate. This is why ENSO in the south Pacific is so important: by moving heat around it changes global circulation patterns, which changes the overall energy balance of the Earth. This is why the simple achievement of getting reasonable agreement that anthropogenic CO2 is adding about 1.6 W/m^2 to the Earth's heat budget is such a huge scientific achievement, and while that conclusion is still subject to significant uncertainty: because adding heat changes the winds and currents which themselves influence the radiative balance. There are even (very unlikely) models in which adding sufficient heat causes global cooling due to increased transport of energy to the poles, where it radiates back into space more efficiently.

Climate is a non-linear, strongly coupled system. Treating it as if one could draw simple conclusions dismisses the complexity and difficulty of climate modelling. It also results in underestimating the uncertainties in models.

Any competent computational physicist (me, for example, but other people a lot smarter than me as well: http://online.wsj.com/articles...) will tell you that climate models are far less certain than their public, political proponents are claiming. This does not mean that "global warming is a hoax" or any such Denialist gibberish. It means that models are uncertain, and we should not get bowled over when they are subject to correction, even significant correction.

In the meantime, we can do some pretty universally agreeable things, like shift income and corporate taxes toward carbon taxes. After all, income and corporate taxes apply to something that is basically good--making butt-loads of money--while carbon taxes apply to something basically bad: burning irreplaceable fossil fuels and dumping garbage into the atmosphere. I guess anti-capitalist crusaders might oppose carbon taxes, but I can't think of any other reason to do so. If anyone is really in favour of keeping income and corporate taxes high, do feel free to make your case, though.

The market is fully capable of pricing the fact that Alibaba stockholders don't actually own a direct claim on Alibaba's Chinese assets and can't elect its board. Truth be told, shareholders don't "own" any company; they own whatever rights are specified in the share agreement........

True comfort for shareholders comes not from legal boilerplate, but from incentives. Alibaba founder Jack Ma could take the $22 billion raised Friday and stiff his foreign partners. That's a risk. But his self-interest is otherwise. He wants a strong stock as a currency for acquisitions. He wants stock options to motivate his increasingly global management team. He wants easy liquidity for himself and other insiders. .....

when investors begin to worry about the actual rights specified in a share agreement, it usually means something has already gone seriously wrong.

Alibaba is probably as good as any stock. If things go wrong, things go wrong.

What are you talking about? Do your research, iAd has been a huge failure for Apple, and accounts for a minuscule fraction of their revenue and the mobile ad market as a whole.

http://www.businessinsider.com...
http://www.businessinsider.com...
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/20...

Probably part of the reason it's not nearly as successful as Google is the very fact that they don't read all of your emails, messages, posts, pictures, etc. to target you.