You don't seem to understand the basics here. If 75% of the women take more time off work to care for family, it isn't surprising that 63% of them don't make as much money as others who do not, including the other 25% of the women.
Your own statement shows over 1/3 of the women are not paid less. Maybe you should look at differences between them and the ones who are, rather than all women versus all men.
No, that wasn't my point. Being promoted into a higher job brings more responsibilities and requirements, and well as giving more experience in that line of work. Generally speaking of course. Jobs that equate to 'slack off until it's time to go golf with the boss' aren't my focus.
If women aren't being promoted, they are not gaining the experience of the higher office, so they can't have the same experience. That part of the above comment doesn't make sense in that regard.
I'm not insisting that all promotions are done in a fair and unbiased manner, or that they should be, or even can be.
If women are not being promoted, for various reasons, how can they have the same experience and qualifications as the men? Either in the same job, or a higher position they are seeking?
I knew someone (younger guy) who was a movie critic. He basically said the same thing once. I tried to not rate along that theme, but knew that he did anyway.
I almost never look at reviews, and never base a movie decision on them. But i figured I would like to participate in this experiment. So I just went and looked up one of my favorite movies, Josie and the Pussycats. It has a critics score of 53%, and user score of 51%. The critic blurb says this gem:
Critics Consensus: This live-action update of Josie and the Pussycats offers up bubbly, fluffy fun, but the constant appearance of product placements seems rather hypocritical.
Talk about whooooosh. Might as well say that Austin Powers is full of cliches.
I'm signed up with LinkedIn. Every so often is spams me that someone else I know is also on LinkedIn, or asks me to spam other people I know to join LinkedIn.
Other than that, I have no idea what I'm supposed to do with it. I never have used it as any resource. I think it simply convinced a few people to sign up with them, and infected the internet from there.
That article is just more of what your first post's article had in it. And neither one is very meaningful until the laws are actually made.
Ah, good. Now we're getting to it. Read the summary for the article we're talking about. {OK, I just did.} It's also just a "proposed" law, but it apparently has caused much consternation among the commenters.
Maybe because such a law was recently implemented in Europe, and many commenters don't like the theory behind it. Not simply "a right to be forgotten", but "I have the right to censor what you write about me, eventually". Your articles are more about "don't block interstates and main streets with your Constitutionally protected protest". This law forces me to remove something I have put up: "and online speakers] shall remove content about such individual, "; and actually restricts my Constitutionally protected write by outlawing "replacing such removed content with any disclaimer [or] takedown notice.”
Don't you think we should also hold our fire on this new bill until the "law is actually made"?
No, I think all bad laws should be aired and fought before they're made. Waiting until later means someone has to go to court, maybe be arrested and convicted, before the bad law is overturned.
Or are you suggesting that when a Democratic state legislator proposes a bill it should be held to a different standard than when Republican legislators do it?
I'm glad I never said such a thing. Others might, of both parties, and not think it is wrong. That's humans for ya!
I am currently in a state (Texas) where state legislators are famous for proposing bills that are so stupid it would make your head spin. Their laws are overturned by the US Supreme Court as unconstitutional more often than just about any other state in the union.
Again, bad laws should be stopped early. But just going by numbers is misleading because of political prejudices of state legislators, state/federal judges, and supreme court justices.
No, my page shifts around in firefox. On my phone I get a full page ad inviting me to enter a contest that I can't make go away. I have to close my browser and come back to read slashdot. At first I thought I had malware of some sort but it only happened on slashdot.
The nice thing about running an adblocker (Ublock Origin) is that I had no idea this was happening until you guys started mentioning it. Seriously, there's an easy solution for this.
I have Adblock running in Chrome, and even tried Adblock Plus as well. Both could "see" the grey bar, and could make it go away, but could not make it stay away. It's similar with sidebar ads on the yahoo page.
I could use the script blockers, and have before. But they make reading or adding comments very difficult/annoying, so I gave up on them.
I will try Ublock Origin and see if the grey bar goes away. Thanks for the info.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't seem to understand the basics here. If 75% of the women take more time off work to care for family, it isn't surprising that 63% of them don't make as much money as others who do not, including the other 25% of the women.
Your own statement shows over 1/3 of the women are not paid less. Maybe you should look at differences between them and the ones who are, rather than all women versus all men.
No, that wasn't my point. Being promoted into a higher job brings more responsibilities and requirements, and well as giving more experience in that line of work. Generally speaking of course. Jobs that equate to 'slack off until it's time to go golf with the boss' aren't my focus.
If women aren't being promoted, they are not gaining the experience of the higher office, so they can't have the same experience. That part of the above comment doesn't make sense in that regard.
I'm not insisting that all promotions are done in a fair and unbiased manner, or that they should be, or even can be.
Your statement is untrue.
Gee, this is fun.
If women are not being promoted, for various reasons, how can they have the same experience and qualifications as the men? Either in the same job, or a higher position they are seeking?
How many teachers have had their arms ripped off? (and not by a Wookie)
Or just Purge the waste of biomass like any other cancer.
As long as one of them is a missionary, it should be OK.
There's only one "a" in "bestiality".
Not so far.
So black business owners can discriminate against white employees and customers, because historically it was only the other way?
There's ads on youtube?
I knew someone (younger guy) who was a movie critic. He basically said the same thing once. I tried to not rate along that theme, but knew that he did anyway.
I almost never look at reviews, and never base a movie decision on them. But i figured I would like to participate in this experiment. So I just went and looked up one of my favorite movies, Josie and the Pussycats. It has a critics score of 53%, and user score of 51%. The critic blurb says this gem:
Critics Consensus: This live-action update of Josie and the Pussycats offers up bubbly, fluffy fun, but the constant appearance of product placements seems rather hypocritical.
Talk about whooooosh. Might as well say that Austin Powers is full of cliches.
So, I'm glad I don't put power in reviews.
I'm signed up with LinkedIn. Every so often is spams me that someone else I know is also on LinkedIn, or asks me to spam other people I know to join LinkedIn.
Other than that, I have no idea what I'm supposed to do with it. I never have used it as any resource. I think it simply convinced a few people to sign up with them, and infected the internet from there.
Ublock has made the gray bar go away and stay away.
I am now using uBlock Origin, and the gray bar is gone. I had to specifically target it and remove it, but it stays gone. Thanks for the help.
Ah, good. Now we're getting to it. Read the summary for the article we're talking about. {OK, I just did.} It's also just a "proposed" law, but it apparently has caused much consternation among the commenters.
Maybe because such a law was recently implemented in Europe, and many commenters don't like the theory behind it. Not simply "a right to be forgotten", but "I have the right to censor what you write about me, eventually". Your articles are more about "don't block interstates and main streets with your Constitutionally protected protest". This law forces me to remove something I have put up: "and online speakers] shall remove content about such individual, "; and actually restricts my Constitutionally protected write by outlawing "replacing such removed content with any disclaimer [or] takedown notice.”
Don't you think we should also hold our fire on this new bill until the "law is actually made"?
No, I think all bad laws should be aired and fought before they're made. Waiting until later means someone has to go to court, maybe be arrested and convicted, before the bad law is overturned.
Or are you suggesting that when a Democratic state legislator proposes a bill it should be held to a different standard than when Republican legislators do it?
I'm glad I never said such a thing. Others might, of both parties, and not think it is wrong. That's humans for ya!
I am currently in a state (Texas) where state legislators are famous for proposing bills that are so stupid it would make your head spin. Their laws are overturned by the US Supreme Court as unconstitutional more often than just about any other state in the union.
Again, bad laws should be stopped early. But just going by numbers is misleading because of political prejudices of state legislators, state/federal judges, and supreme court justices.
That article is just more of what your first post's article had in it. And neither one is very meaningful until the laws are actually made.
Notice how they phrase it as well:
the then-CNN contributor had forwarded potential topics ahead of a town hall....
She actually furnished exactly worded questions, but the article makes it seem like she only mentioned 'potential topics' of interest.
Another poster above mentioned that one. I will try it and see what I get. Thanks.
No, my page shifts around in firefox. On my phone I get a full page ad inviting me to enter a contest that I can't make go away. I have to close my browser and come back to read slashdot. At first I thought I had malware of some sort but it only happened on slashdot.
The nice thing about running an adblocker (Ublock Origin) is that I had no idea this was happening until you guys started mentioning it. Seriously, there's an easy solution for this.
I have Adblock running in Chrome, and even tried Adblock Plus as well. Both could "see" the grey bar, and could make it go away, but could not make it stay away. It's similar with sidebar ads on the yahoo page.
I could use the script blockers, and have before. But they make reading or adding comments very difficult/annoying, so I gave up on them.
I will try Ublock Origin and see if the grey bar goes away. Thanks for the info.
So now Slashdot has to have ads everywhere, even across the page as I scroll down.
Actually, it's just a grey bar, because the adblocker stops the actual content. But I still have a grey bar that I don't want.
So long slashdot. It's been nice knowing you over the last 16 years.
How big was your span originally?
How detailed do you want me to be when replying to a four sentence posting that ends with "Why is it you and other republicans lie so much?"?
Well it would help if you didn't post blatant lies.
???
Less need for a detailed reply to tht question really. But tell you what, here's how you accurately reply:
"Yes, oops, sorry I posted incorrect things about climate science and I retract my comment"
Try that for size.
Maybe if I was the AC that meglon responded to, but it was not me. I simply posted my interpretation of his insulting comments.
Do you want my interpretation of your insulting comments?
Thanks for your support. :^)