As I re-read your post, I think I reacted too harshly -- two of your kids are halfway grown up, so they likely don't care as much about you being there as a younger kid might be.
Bingo. My kids understand that I'm not at every game or concert for work commitments or the fact that I can't be at a baseball game and a soccer match simultaneously. Hell sometimes I have things to do around the house and skip the ball game...they understand, and like you said, they actually kind of don't really care as much as younger kids.
In any case, my examples are more devil's advocate than anything. I don't miss any music events, but I do miss the occasional game. Concerts are twice a year, games are twice a week. I also don't play WoW instead of the Parent-Teacher conference. I actually don't play WoW because said 14 and 10 year old are monopolizing the account.
2. Or, she logged in and...wait for it...let somebody else in her house play and went to her kid's concert. So what if that's against the terms of the game...it doesn't mean she wasn't at her kid's concert, only that her account was logged in and somebody was playing. This is like issuing speeding tickets to a driver based on the license plate, without proof of who was driving it, which I am also opposed to. Similarly, this is like saying she was at the grocery store at 5:30 pm because somebody used her ATM card and withdrew cash. Without accompanying video evidence, it doesn't mean anything, other than SOMEBODY used an ATM card to withdraw money from her account at a specific time and place.
2. What if she logged in, pressed the num lock button (making her character run) and then walked away for two days? She'd still be logged in and the game would still be tracking her as "playing" but she isn't doing anything against the terms of agreement, and she likely could be at her kid's concert.
2. What if she hadn't logged into WoW in over two weeks (happens at my house a lot)? She'd have no way to know her account was hacked so she wouldn't report it.
3. I looked at the examples provided by the other poster, and none of the examples are as sinister as divorce attorneys subpoenaing Blizzard and tracking chat records to prove infidelity. I think the article was embellishing a bit for a more sensational story.
Wow, aren't you preachy. Nobody can tell me I'm "supposed to be out with the children" and "not at home doing X".
I have no legal obligation to go to my kids baseball game or swim meet. My wife and I take turns many times, because, surprise, we are a busy family. Sometimes neither of us go, and our kid goes with a teammate and his family.
It is inadmissible garbage logic to say a parent who doesn't go to every one of his or her child's school events is an unfit parent.
I have three children, 14, 10, and 1. If I want to stay home and play WoW, drink beer, watch PBS, sleep, whatever, and my kid is safely supervised by a capable adult at their Saturday morning soccer game, what's the problem again?
I think people who think like YOU are the ones that should "get that or don't have kids". You can't be everywhere at all times for all your kids.
The reason someone in that situation should delete their facebook page is not for all the "too much stuff that you don't want out there". It's because lawyers can twist the most innocent status or picture to give the perception you are doing something wrong. Reality doesn't matter, only perception--enter the lawyers.
In general, infidelity is a non-issue in divorce cases. I've been divorced twice, both times because of a cheating spouse. As I may have tried, none of the infidelity claims (with proof AND admission) was taken into account.
Subpoenaed evidence from the gaming site World of Warcraft tracks her there with her boyfriend at the precise time she was supposed to be out with the children.
First, citation please. Has Blizzard ever caved to such a warrant?
Second, who says SHE's playing.
Third, who says SHE's playing with her boyfriend?
Fourth, who determines when a parent is "supposed to be out with the children". As a parent, if I want to sit at home and play Warcraft, there's nothing wrong with that and that is no indictment of my parenting skills.
In short, this article is bunk. Most of this stuff is not admissible in court. Divorce cases generally don't care when one side is cheating on the other or if one side is a total slacker.
That is an excellent point. "One of" could mean the other is a girl, which makes the chances of the second one being a boy 0%.
I like this answer the best. I also have a BA in Liberal Arts, so of course I wouldn't even being to broach the math portion of the question. If you can kill the math part with English, then I'm all for it!
The slashdot summary got it all wrong, stating "What's the probability that my other child is a boy?".
This is completely different than:
"What's the probability that I have two boys?"
The Slashdot summary makes the logic puzzle much easier, by simplifying the combinations to two children, one of whom is a boy. The real question has no such limitation.
If I have exactly eight children, logic follows that "I have two children" as well. The problem doesn't not specifically state that there are exactly two children, only that there are two children, one of whom is a boy. What are the chances there are two boys? Well, we'd have to know how many children there are total.
I hate to be pedantic like this, but isn't that the entire point of a finely crafted puzzle like this?
The math logic can't be solved until the English logic is correctly understood first. I see this more as a language/logic question than a math question.
Oh, I forgot to add that I agree with the "right to work" sentiment that there is no requirement to pay two people the same. I don't think I ever said that, nor have I ever meant to imply that. I only disagree (with legal justification) that holding somebody's medical status against them for promotion IS discrimination, where it is clear you don't think it is. This may simply be the fact that you are thinking of yourself as a small employer, and I'm thinking of my situation (1 of 300 employees). Different rules for each scenario.
Well you are right and wrong. The Family Medical Leave Act applies to everyone who qualifies, regardless of other protected statuses like age, sex, nationality and religion. No State law or any "At Will" or "Right to Work" laws change this.
If you have more than 50 employees, you cannot discriminate against people who miss 12 or less weeks a year due to qualifying medical reasons outlined in the Family Medical Leave Act. That's why I said you'd be violating the law if bosses moved people down promotion lists for being out for medical reasons 12 weeks every year for 8 years straight.
I really do appreciate the discussion and opinions of the slashdot community, but just having an opinion about something like this doesn't make it lawful.
By "no education" I was referring to higher education, which I figured was a given for any western culture.
I earned an undergrad degree THEN joined the Army as an enlisted man. You have no idea how many of us there were, nor did our superior officers, unfortunately.
So I stand by my original point (flamebait?? Really?) that 45k a year is very good pay for somebody with no higher education and no experience. I only earned $47k a year AFTER four years of college and 12 years in the Army.
Honestly, this is not meant as flamebait, but when I was in the lower ranks, I NEVER considered any of us to be underpaid. I honestly believe the general public has no idea how well the military pays its lower ranking folks.
What does the average co-worker care if the "woman works until birth is close just to get the 3 months extra pay"?
She paid short-term disability for that right. It's not other people's right to complain about it. I'm not saying YOU are complaining. I am saying that lots of people are complaining about it. The fact you even brought it up is evidence of that.
If a guy missed work for 2-months in a row TWICE a year for 8 straight years, by labor law, you can't do anything about it. That's the whole point of labor laws...to protect people from a boss that "has to consider these factors, or he is negligent". Actually, if he DOES consider these factors, he's violating the law.
"People are who they are" is not an excuse. It's reality.
No, it's an excuse to justify unacceptable behavior to continue. Back to 'standing on the edge of enlightenment' analogy for you!
You either belong or you don't. What do you propose as a remedy?
If you "don't belong" because the group says so, you get the sort of institutionalized discrimination that you decry as "victimization". The remedy is to rid the world of black-and-white realities such as "you belong or you don't", for starters.
IT nerds give respect *when you know what you're doing*.
Spoken like the "sneering IT" person mentioned at the top of the thread. I only get respect from IT if IT thinks I'm good with technology? Maybe I don't need to be good with technology to do my job well (and maybe that's the only reason sneering IT guy has a job in the first place).
Egocentrism sucks. "Respecting" somebody only when they are good at what you want them to be sucks.
Basically, most of the factors that affect the pay gap are things done by choice.
Yes because female tennis players, although hugely popular by the tennis-viewing audience, make the same amount of money when the win as men. Oh wait, they don't. Must be their choice to be a woman?
Slashdot Mirror
As I re-read your post, I think I reacted too harshly -- two of your kids are halfway grown up, so they likely don't care as much about you being there as a younger kid might be.
Bingo. My kids understand that I'm not at every game or concert for work commitments or the fact that I can't be at a baseball game and a soccer match simultaneously. Hell sometimes I have things to do around the house and skip the ball game...they understand, and like you said, they actually kind of don't really care as much as younger kids.
In any case, my examples are more devil's advocate than anything. I don't miss any music events, but I do miss the occasional game. Concerts are twice a year, games are twice a week. I also don't play WoW instead of the Parent-Teacher conference. I actually don't play WoW because said 14 and 10 year old are monopolizing the account.
2. Or, she logged in and...wait for it...let somebody else in her house play and went to her kid's concert. So what if that's against the terms of the game...it doesn't mean she wasn't at her kid's concert, only that her account was logged in and somebody was playing. This is like issuing speeding tickets to a driver based on the license plate, without proof of who was driving it, which I am also opposed to. Similarly, this is like saying she was at the grocery store at 5:30 pm because somebody used her ATM card and withdrew cash. Without accompanying video evidence, it doesn't mean anything, other than SOMEBODY used an ATM card to withdraw money from her account at a specific time and place.
2. What if she logged in, pressed the num lock button (making her character run) and then walked away for two days? She'd still be logged in and the game would still be tracking her as "playing" but she isn't doing anything against the terms of agreement, and she likely could be at her kid's concert.
2. What if she hadn't logged into WoW in over two weeks (happens at my house a lot)? She'd have no way to know her account was hacked so she wouldn't report it.
3. I looked at the examples provided by the other poster, and none of the examples are as sinister as divorce attorneys subpoenaing Blizzard and tracking chat records to prove infidelity. I think the article was embellishing a bit for a more sensational story.
Wow, aren't you preachy. Nobody can tell me I'm "supposed to be out with the children" and "not at home doing X".
I have no legal obligation to go to my kids baseball game or swim meet. My wife and I take turns many times, because, surprise, we are a busy family. Sometimes neither of us go, and our kid goes with a teammate and his family.
It is inadmissible garbage logic to say a parent who doesn't go to every one of his or her child's school events is an unfit parent.
I have three children, 14, 10, and 1. If I want to stay home and play WoW, drink beer, watch PBS, sleep, whatever, and my kid is safely supervised by a capable adult at their Saturday morning soccer game, what's the problem again?
I think people who think like YOU are the ones that should "get that or don't have kids". You can't be everywhere at all times for all your kids.
Ok, that's good, but none of the examples provided say anything about helping authorities track the gaming habits of a reported cheating mother.
The reason someone in that situation should delete their facebook page is not for all the "too much stuff that you don't want out there". It's because lawyers can twist the most innocent status or picture to give the perception you are doing something wrong. Reality doesn't matter, only perception--enter the lawyers.
Yes, but "adultery" in biblical terms doesn't mean the same thing in modern terms.
I've been through it twice. Both times it cost less than $200. Both times took less than a week. Divorce is only as messy as the two parties make it.
In general, infidelity is a non-issue in divorce cases. I've been divorced twice, both times because of a cheating spouse. As I may have tried, none of the infidelity claims (with proof AND admission) was taken into account.
It's hard to sue an Anonymous Coward.
Not having damaging photos in the first place is even a better start.
How is this credible evidence?
Subpoenaed evidence from the gaming site World of Warcraft tracks her there with her boyfriend at the precise time she was supposed to be out with the children.
First, citation please. Has Blizzard ever caved to such a warrant?
Second, who says SHE's playing.
Third, who says SHE's playing with her boyfriend?
Fourth, who determines when a parent is "supposed to be out with the children". As a parent, if I want to sit at home and play Warcraft, there's nothing wrong with that and that is no indictment of my parenting skills.
In short, this article is bunk. Most of this stuff is not admissible in court. Divorce cases generally don't care when one side is cheating on the other or if one side is a total slacker.
Well shit, mod me redundant. I didn't see this post until I spent 30 minutes finely crafting what you just said.
Nice one!
That is an excellent point. "One of" could mean the other is a girl, which makes the chances of the second one being a boy 0%.
I like this answer the best. I also have a BA in Liberal Arts, so of course I wouldn't even being to broach the math portion of the question. If you can kill the math part with English, then I'm all for it!
I have never seen "DOES not disallow" in my entire life.
You haven't been watching the officiating during the World Cup.
Example: "The referee does not disallow goals that are scored fairly unless they are scored by the United States."
The slashdot summary got it all wrong, stating "What's the probability that my other child is a boy?".
This is completely different than:
"What's the probability that I have two boys?"
The Slashdot summary makes the logic puzzle much easier, by simplifying the combinations to two children, one of whom is a boy. The real question has no such limitation.
If I have exactly eight children, logic follows that "I have two children" as well. The problem doesn't not specifically state that there are exactly two children, only that there are two children, one of whom is a boy. What are the chances there are two boys? Well, we'd have to know how many children there are total.
I hate to be pedantic like this, but isn't that the entire point of a finely crafted puzzle like this?
The math logic can't be solved until the English logic is correctly understood first. I see this more as a language/logic question than a math question.
Oh, I forgot to add that I agree with the "right to work" sentiment that there is no requirement to pay two people the same. I don't think I ever said that, nor have I ever meant to imply that. I only disagree (with legal justification) that holding somebody's medical status against them for promotion IS discrimination, where it is clear you don't think it is. This may simply be the fact that you are thinking of yourself as a small employer, and I'm thinking of my situation (1 of 300 employees). Different rules for each scenario.
Well you are right and wrong. The Family Medical Leave Act applies to everyone who qualifies, regardless of other protected statuses like age, sex, nationality and religion. No State law or any "At Will" or "Right to Work" laws change this.
If you have more than 50 employees, you cannot discriminate against people who miss 12 or less weeks a year due to qualifying medical reasons outlined in the Family Medical Leave Act. That's why I said you'd be violating the law if bosses moved people down promotion lists for being out for medical reasons 12 weeks every year for 8 years straight.
I really do appreciate the discussion and opinions of the slashdot community, but just having an opinion about something like this doesn't make it lawful.
By "no education" I was referring to higher education, which I figured was a given for any western culture.
I earned an undergrad degree THEN joined the Army as an enlisted man. You have no idea how many of us there were, nor did our superior officers, unfortunately.
So I stand by my original point (flamebait?? Really?) that 45k a year is very good pay for somebody with no higher education and no experience. I only earned $47k a year AFTER four years of college and 12 years in the Army.
Honestly, this is not meant as flamebait, but when I was in the lower ranks, I NEVER considered any of us to be underpaid. I honestly believe the general public has no idea how well the military pays its lower ranking folks.
What does the average co-worker care if the "woman works until birth is close just to get the 3 months extra pay"?
She paid short-term disability for that right. It's not other people's right to complain about it. I'm not saying YOU are complaining. I am saying that lots of people are complaining about it. The fact you even brought it up is evidence of that.
If a guy missed work for 2-months in a row TWICE a year for 8 straight years, by labor law, you can't do anything about it. That's the whole point of labor laws...to protect people from a boss that "has to consider these factors, or he is negligent". Actually, if he DOES consider these factors, he's violating the law.
Careful there. Posting facts that are unpopular will get you modded "flamebait".
"People are who they are" is not an excuse. It's reality.
No, it's an excuse to justify unacceptable behavior to continue. Back to 'standing on the edge of enlightenment' analogy for you!
You either belong or you don't. What do you propose as a remedy?
If you "don't belong" because the group says so, you get the sort of institutionalized discrimination that you decry as "victimization". The remedy is to rid the world of black-and-white realities such as "you belong or you don't", for starters.
And a brilliant point it is (and freakin' hilarious analogy as well. Simon Cowell of slasdhot).
IT nerds give respect *when you know what you're doing*.
Spoken like the "sneering IT" person mentioned at the top of the thread. I only get respect from IT if IT thinks I'm good with technology? Maybe I don't need to be good with technology to do my job well (and maybe that's the only reason sneering IT guy has a job in the first place).
Egocentrism sucks. "Respecting" somebody only when they are good at what you want them to be sucks.
Basically, most of the factors that affect the pay gap are things done by choice.
Yes because female tennis players, although hugely popular by the tennis-viewing audience, make the same amount of money when the win as men. Oh wait, they don't. Must be their choice to be a woman?