Are you saying that you believe that women, in general, are attracted to the same sorts of incentives that men are?
If so, here are a couple of studies for you: http://commons.wikimannia.org/... https://www.jstor.org/stable/2...
This final one is not exactly related to employment, but shows that women, in general, make decisions based on different criteria from men:https://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-marketing-strategy-towards-men-women-15438.html
None of this says that the choices women make are inferior to the choices men make...they are just different.
Yeah, who wants to work with someone who recommends that we stop exclusively offering work incentives that studies have shown are valued more by men than by women and start offering the sorts of incentives which women value more in order to increase the number of women who work for our company?
That was more or less what I was going to post. By making the ipad thinner, Apple makes it so that you will need a case for it...like you do for the iphone. Of course, in order to make the phone, or tablet, as durable as previous, thicker versions you need to put a case on it which makes it thicker than those previous versions. And the case that makes it as durable as those previous versions with a case makes the new, thinner iphone as thick as those previous versions were in their cases.
Almost every public transport system in the U.S. is run by the government. Since they do not need to worry about a profit, they do not worry about providing a pleasant customer experience. Of course, the best part of public transit being run by the government is that congested roads mean that they can constantly claim they need more tax dollars in order to improve their service to reduce that congestion.
Ummm, this was not collusion between "large corporations". It was between the franchisees of specific chains (for example the owner of a McDonald's franchise on the east side of town would not hire someone who was currently working for a McDonald's franchise on the west side of town owned by someone else). It was still illegal, and the rest of what you wrote is correct.
BTW, it does not appear that a McDonald's franchise owner would not hire someone who worked for a Burger King franchise.
He's already charged and obtained guilty pleas from Americans in this investigation, just not in this particular indictment.
Interestingly enough, none of those indictments or guilty pleas have anything to do with the election or colluding with the Russians. As far as I am aware all of the guilty pleas are to "process crimes"...primarily, lying to the FBI about actions which were not crimes. Further, in one of those cases, the FBI agents who were supposedly lied to had concluded that the person had not lied.
Apparently you paid no attention to Zuckerberg's testimony before Congress, where he begged them to regulate social media companies...of course that was because he knows that government regulation always favors the larger company and usually favors the incumbent.
Google gives you the results it thinks you want, not what you're asking for.
No, Google gives you the results Google wants you to see, hoping they are close enough to what you were looking for that you do not realize the difference.
The problem here is that people generally mean an economy which follows free market principles when they use the word capitalism. One of the principles of a free market economic system is that the market be "well regulated", which, as another poster pointed out, does not mean government regulation (although those might play a role). One of the keys to well regulated markets is that information be allowed to flow freely and that those who commit theft and/or fraud be identified and punished.
In a truly free market, monopolies are exceedingly rare, and always short-lived. Even in the types of free markets we see in the real world, monopolies only last any length of time when the government intervenes in the market to protect them...and most monopolies came into existence in the first place because of government regulations. I only know of one monopoly which managed to form without government regulations which created the environment which led directly to its formation and even that one can be argued.
The movie was based on a short story by Arthur C. Clarke, who worked with Kubrick to write the screenplay. Clarke wrote the book at the same time that he and Kubrick were writing the screenplay.
Paul Ehrlich has been claiming something to that effect since the 1960s. You should look into the Simon-Ehrlich Wager to see how his predictions have worked out.
You apparently do not understand what happened to Native Americans. They did not lose because the technology carried by Europeans was superior. They lost out because the Europeans outnumbered them. This was primarily because the Europeans had developed immunity and resistance to many diseases which the Native Americans had not and when the Native Americans were exposed to those diseases they died off in vast numbers. It was not until approximately the Civil War that gunpowder was superior to bow and arrow in the context of North America (gunpowder gained superiority over bows and arrows in Europe much sooner because the nature of the nations and the geography of Europe).
If the 1% (and this article is talking about a much smaller group than that) try to treat the rest like the Native Americans were treated they will have an unpleasant surprise.
Apparently, you did not read about the guy who attempted to assassinate the Republican Congressional baseball team. And you're right, leftists don't hint at violence as much as right wingers...of course that is because they outright call for violence. No hinting in Peter Fonda's tweets.
You do not prove a scientific hypothesis. You fail to falsify it.
Finding evidence of another civilization wis one of the many ways in which hypothesis 1 can be falsified. Please provide me with what evidence would prove 2 or 3 false?
SO, they took a set of data which showed an apparent correlation. Then they used that data to create a model based on the correlation which they thought they saw. Then they modified the data in the model and, low and behold, the model behaved EXACTLY as they programmed it to behave. This does not actually prove that the real world works the way the model does.
I can think of two possible explanations for the observed data. The study does not actually test between them.
Explanation 1: When people fish in an area, fish which escape being caught tend to move deeper in the water. The more heavily fished an area is, the more this happens.
Explanation 2: When people fish in an area, fish which stay in shallower water are less likely to live to an old age than those which move to, or live in, deeper water.
Nothing in this study determines between whether the fish move to avoid the fishing, or the fish that stay in shallower water just do not survive as long.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would the Trump Administration do that? After all, Facebook is currently attempting to design a system whereby they can silence Trump supporters.
Oh no, everyone will get a chip. That is how they will determine, and locate, who goes into the concentration camps.
This has not been true in the U.S. for well over 10 years. I know that I used to believe that it was true, but I am not sure that it was.
This is no longer true...and has not been for over 10 years.
Except that Damore did not guess, he actually cited studies.
Are you saying that you believe that women, in general, are attracted to the same sorts of incentives that men are?
If so, here are a couple of studies for you: http://commons.wikimannia.org/...
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2...
This final one is not exactly related to employment, but shows that women, in general, make decisions based on different criteria from men:https://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-marketing-strategy-towards-men-women-15438.html
None of this says that the choices women make are inferior to the choices men make...they are just different.
Yeah, who wants to work with someone who recommends that we stop exclusively offering work incentives that studies have shown are valued more by men than by women and start offering the sorts of incentives which women value more in order to increase the number of women who work for our company?
That was more or less what I was going to post. By making the ipad thinner, Apple makes it so that you will need a case for it...like you do for the iphone. Of course, in order to make the phone, or tablet, as durable as previous, thicker versions you need to put a case on it which makes it thicker than those previous versions. And the case that makes it as durable as those previous versions with a case makes the new, thinner iphone as thick as those previous versions were in their cases.
And yet most people prefer to fly than to use those...well in Metro-North's case they drive.
Almost every public transport system in the U.S. is run by the government. Since they do not need to worry about a profit, they do not worry about providing a pleasant customer experience. Of course, the best part of public transit being run by the government is that congested roads mean that they can constantly claim they need more tax dollars in order to improve their service to reduce that congestion.
Venmo takes the privacy of its users seriously, and thinks it is a bad thing.
It depends on which two McDonald's. In the case of this story it is about two separate companies.
Ummm, this was not collusion between "large corporations". It was between the franchisees of specific chains (for example the owner of a McDonald's franchise on the east side of town would not hire someone who was currently working for a McDonald's franchise on the west side of town owned by someone else). It was still illegal, and the rest of what you wrote is correct.
BTW, it does not appear that a McDonald's franchise owner would not hire someone who worked for a Burger King franchise.
He's already charged and obtained guilty pleas from Americans in this investigation, just not in this particular indictment.
Interestingly enough, none of those indictments or guilty pleas have anything to do with the election or colluding with the Russians. As far as I am aware all of the guilty pleas are to "process crimes"...primarily, lying to the FBI about actions which were not crimes. Further, in one of those cases, the FBI agents who were supposedly lied to had concluded that the person had not lied.
Apparently you paid no attention to Zuckerberg's testimony before Congress, where he begged them to regulate social media companies...of course that was because he knows that government regulation always favors the larger company and usually favors the incumbent.
Google gives you the results it thinks you want, not what you're asking for.
No, Google gives you the results Google wants you to see, hoping they are close enough to what you were looking for that you do not realize the difference.
The problem here is that people generally mean an economy which follows free market principles when they use the word capitalism. One of the principles of a free market economic system is that the market be "well regulated", which, as another poster pointed out, does not mean government regulation (although those might play a role). One of the keys to well regulated markets is that information be allowed to flow freely and that those who commit theft and/or fraud be identified and punished.
In a truly free market, monopolies are exceedingly rare, and always short-lived. Even in the types of free markets we see in the real world, monopolies only last any length of time when the government intervenes in the market to protect them...and most monopolies came into existence in the first place because of government regulations. I only know of one monopoly which managed to form without government regulations which created the environment which led directly to its formation and even that one can be argued.
The movie was based on a short story by Arthur C. Clarke, who worked with Kubrick to write the screenplay. Clarke wrote the book at the same time that he and Kubrick were writing the screenplay.
Paul Ehrlich has been claiming something to that effect since the 1960s. You should look into the Simon-Ehrlich Wager to see how his predictions have worked out.
You apparently do not understand what happened to Native Americans. They did not lose because the technology carried by Europeans was superior. They lost out because the Europeans outnumbered them. This was primarily because the Europeans had developed immunity and resistance to many diseases which the Native Americans had not and when the Native Americans were exposed to those diseases they died off in vast numbers. It was not until approximately the Civil War that gunpowder was superior to bow and arrow in the context of North America (gunpowder gained superiority over bows and arrows in Europe much sooner because the nature of the nations and the geography of Europe).
If the 1% (and this article is talking about a much smaller group than that) try to treat the rest like the Native Americans were treated they will have an unpleasant surprise.
Apparently, you did not read about the guy who attempted to assassinate the Republican Congressional baseball team. And you're right, leftists don't hint at violence as much as right wingers...of course that is because they outright call for violence. No hinting in Peter Fonda's tweets.
You do not prove a scientific hypothesis. You fail to falsify it.
Finding evidence of another civilization wis one of the many ways in which hypothesis 1 can be falsified. Please provide me with what evidence would prove 2 or 3 false?
Of your three possibilities, only #1 is a scientific hypothesis because it is the only one of them which is falsifiable.
Well, then you just go out and buy a new one!
Or perhaps, Apple will have a service whereby you can take it to them and pay them to make it work again.
SO, they took a set of data which showed an apparent correlation. Then they used that data to create a model based on the correlation which they thought they saw. Then they modified the data in the model and, low and behold, the model behaved EXACTLY as they programmed it to behave. This does not actually prove that the real world works the way the model does.
I can think of two possible explanations for the observed data. The study does not actually test between them.
Explanation 1: When people fish in an area, fish which escape being caught tend to move deeper in the water. The more heavily fished an area is, the more this happens.
Explanation 2: When people fish in an area, fish which stay in shallower water are less likely to live to an old age than those which move to, or live in, deeper water.
Nothing in this study determines between whether the fish move to avoid the fishing, or the fish that stay in shallower water just do not survive as long.