You seem to think that work is the only important thing in the world. Maybe you don't have anything else in your life, and if that's the case, I feel a bit sorry for you.
Do you have arguments in your head with people? I'm 40 years married, and retired at 55 to be livin the dream, Raised a responsible successfil son. So much for your narrative.
Those mental health days, menstrual leave, or three months off won't mean a thing when they retire.
They sure as fuck will.
Nah. Only people with mental issues need mental health days. Then they should see a professional.
Working yourself to the point of death and retiring just before it happens also means something when you retire.
Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, the people my age that didn't retire when I did will be working an extra 22,000 hours.
Work is only horrible and onerous if you want it to be. Too many people have been trained to look at work as something that they should apply themselves to as little as possible. I don't mind working, even though I know that working is not the end game all by itself.
Quality of life is a real thing that most people value. You don't seem to.
I have many hobbies, I ride my motorcycle as often as the weather permits. I am leaving for the shore in a few days, and will be going to Florida for two, maybe three months right after Christmas. Might take an impromptu couple week trip to the Grand Canyon before Thanksgiving. My money that I was paid for my hard work is now funding my lifestyle. My wife who retired at the same time as I did, doesn't have a problem with our quality of life either. That was one of my concerns since she's a good deal younger than me.
But to spend hours of your time arguing that it's not a thing that other people should value seems really odd to me.
I merely point out some of the counterproductive things that people do. And a lot of you get pretty upset by it, to the point of turning me into some sort of strawman that I'm not.
Family relationships are a real thing that most people value. You don't seem to. And that's the point of leave like this. You get time to bond as a family.
What is more important. 3 months of an extra 8 yours a day of this bonding, or the greater than 50 percent chance that you are going to get divorced and break up your family? I've been married over 40 years, but tell me is that three months of bonding more important than being a full time father to my son, and a full time husband?
And back to retirement, if you're a stranger to your family because you didn't bother to build those relationships, what are you going to do for the rest of your life? Try to make up for those last 35+ years? The retired folks that I know who had a good work-life balance have a much better retirement than those who didn't. Why? Because they have a strong family that they love to hang out with, and their health, including mental health, is much better.
Flarg. More of the arguments in your head, I would think. When our parents were alive, we visited one or both at least once every week.We lived in the same town I took care of my father the last few years of his life. My son and I get together for road trips and other fun stuff very often, and holidays are a very busy time. Don't think for a moment that a busy career and family are diametrically opposed.
You make bad assumptions, and know a whole lot less than you think you do. But I suspect you are young, and perhaps can learn. If not, then very good luck to you sir.
... a single male isn't likely going to take paternity leave.
So, you're saying if a male is single now, they will remain single always? If they don't have children now, they never will? Because, in my experience, approximately 100% of fathers were at one point or another single males.
Sir, no I'm not. You can't be certain about any hire. But you can play the odds. Your logic is compelling. Since every person on earth was an infant at one time, it does not mean that everyone is an infant. Think before you post silly stuff.
But for the fathers? That's 3 months for exactly what? Moral support?
I assume you don't have kids, because if you did, you would understand just how much work a baby is in those first three months. And if you did, the kid's mother would smack you upside the head for assuming that the only role a father has at that point is "moral support".
I remember fondly the days when I breast fed my son.
Yes, I have a son. No, my wife didn't think that I had to be there every moment. Funny how people seem to have a far right wing "This must be like this! All people must be like this! And if you are not like this, you must conform or be cast out!" thing going on, when the entire concept of the man having to be there 24/7 is most certainly a left leaning thing. Go figure, amirite?
Y'all have a dictatorial idea of what a good father does. We perhaps did a little differently. But his mother and I did not get divorced like over 50 percent of modern loving parents do, so I was around as a full time parent from birth to leaving home at 19. I participated in his schooling, I participated in his sports. Everything. So I suppose it's better to take that 3 month leave and get divorced and see your children part time than to do what I did. You want to make for better parenting experiences, try solving the over 50 percent divorce rate, which affect children and their parents for many years.
I can't remember any time he noted that he missed those first three months because I was only around for 16 hours of the day. I was around for his entire youth rather than the 24 hours a day for 3 months that y'all seem to think are a reason to call child protective services for being a neglectful parent if they don't do it.
"Let us say for the purposes of discussion, you have three candidates of equal qualifications before you, all applying for a job that is on a multi year project with a tight deadline. Your boss has told you that the sucessful completion is creitical to the companies, his, and your career's. The job is lead engineer. One is a woman of childbearing age. You cannot ask her any questions. Another is a man who is married to a woman of childbearing age. Candidate number three is a bachelor who because men don't have questions that may not be asked, tells you that he is not getting married, and is willing to see the project through, come hell or high water."(sic)
Actually, your legal analysis is wrong. Asking ANY candidate about potential children or marriage is a violation of EEO laws (at least in the US). You would be discriminating on the basis of sex and/or parental status. hence the questions about such are illegal for all candidates. The potential savings you seem to expect from hiring the single male with no children (who could actually lie and/or adopt---note in the article, it mentions for both natural birth and adoption as being eligible for the leave).will be offset by the legal costs for defending your actions (may be hard to do and/or the settlements you'll pay to resolve the case before a jury award bankrupts the company.
You realize of course, that only makes the situation worse. Which makes the single male or the post menopausal woman the better candidate.
Ok, there's been a disconnect here somewhere. I wasn't trying to imply that YOU were a socialist SJW (I've no idea what you believe in).
FWIW, I am a pragmatist- (perhaps shorthand for being politically unreliable?) Which means I tend to think about things before deciding my position. So some of my concepts seem a tad left, and others shockingly right wing.
Which is to say that I support universal health care, and do not like Social Justice Warriors at all - as an example. I believe in equal rights for women and men, but think that third wave feminism is a cancer. And yup - I manage to piss off most people, so I really avoid politics at parties.
I latched onto the keyword "agenda" and went from there. When I said "but far more often the "solution" is just a green cloak meant to hide the proposer's socialist SJW motives.",
Oh yes, there are left wing idiots who think we are going to kill all life on earth, or that we are some other thing that simply isn't science. There are people on the right wing side that apparently have a massive hardon for science, possibly an extension of their biblical leanings. Both are idiots, and one of my vices is ridiculing them.
But we have this weird thing going on where those lefties are right about the concept, if wrong about the details. They do need to be called out, and no doubt. But you have to start from a different setting than with people who don't believe at all, and use political tactics to attempt to debunk it. I always like to call it the "Michal Mann is an asshole" tactic. Where both Michael Mann is not an asshole at all, and they hate him both for his stance on AGW, and his willingness to fight them in a manner which they understand. In any event, the physics doesn't care about what either group thinks.
As for fusion, I think it will be a great gig if we can get it. But damn, just the amount of energy to confine it is making that 20 years moving prediction soooo damn difficult. I'm certain that that was in jest. I'm not a nucE, and I'm going to have to take a look at what happens if the containment fails on a fusion Power source.
Who are you going to hire to lead your critical project?
Most certainly not the Bachelor.
Interesting. My experience has been different.
Second best probably would be the woman, as you imply she has a better education or more experience than "the bachelor".
If you hire the bachelor for a life and death project: you are an idiot.
Perhaps. Not that I am in a hiring position any more, but your concept of the weak unreliable bachelor kinda went out the window some years ago. But hey, you want to brand me an idiot, by all means do. Looks like you've reached the condescension stage. Peace out.
It is called "parental leave" for a reason. Otherwise it would be called "mothers leave"...
Am I in discussions with Captain Obvious here?
The father can take leave and the mother can.
And because some people in hiring positions are to "anti social" it is exactly the reason why it applies to both parents.
The existence of such a thing is hardly my point. My point is in professional work, the availability of the employee is kinda important.
Doesn't have a thing to do with being anti-social either. I have a task, and a certain amount of money, and a certain amount of time to do it in.
What is your solution to having critical people take off for three months? It isn't a matter of being irreplaceable, it is a matter of wrecking schedules and budgets. Or am I arguing with a McDonald's worker mindset? Where everyone can do all of the different jobs because they are all very simple? That isn't a problem for the people doing those jobs.
So he has a distinct advantage of not taking three months off.
And what would be that advantage?
Unless a person's job is sitting around doing nothing, that will be three months that he is working, and getting paid for it. Unless a person is working a job where they simply plug one person into another person's job, you have to spend time training the replacement.
Certainly at my career, the others who had the same job qualifications would not travel, and it was almost impossible to get them to stay late or come in early. They were afraid of the suits as well. Taking a day off was difficult to do. Not complaining now, I was compensated very well, and the maxxed out vacation and sick leave checks at retirement made a nice deposit in my TDA.
For as much as people on slashdot bitch and moan about poor financial options, they also go nuts when I try to explain how a large part of that is their fault. Those mental health days, menstrual leave, or three months off won't mean a thing when they retire.
Not trying to be cruel or anything, just noting that if you can't work, there is someone willing to do your work.
If the time off in case of pregnancy is not equal for both genders then we have the (current) situation where a male is slightly preferred for a position as they require less pain time off. Over an entire population, that preference is seen in the average salaries offered.
Of that, there is no doubt. But what are you going to do about that single guy that has no children and doesn't plan to? Or me. After a attempted week, my wife didn't want me at home all day with her and the child.I'm one of those poor souls who is better liked and loved from afar. Now it is true that I got several calls a day with one panic or another. But sitting around the house all day didn't add muuch value on my part. I'm not very good at breast feeding.
I wonder, does the new setup force time off for men? There is no way that I ever could or would take off three weeks. As I noted, so much depends on what the job is. I know our lady engineers wouldn't If not forced, people will use their not demanding that time off as an advantage.
That's an advantage for me, and advantage for single guys, and an advantage for post menopausal women.
So since I have a cock, I can go fuck myself if I want to have some time off to spend with my new baby in a way that doesn't cost me all my yearly vacation time? Spoken like an ignorant asshole who doesn't have kids. Good, stay that way.
U mad Bro? Sorry but I'm married and have one kid. The whole way from birth through high school I spent a lot of time with him. Look - I'm not even saying you have to work. I'm not saying that you cant take a year off, or become a stay at home dad. By golly, it's a free country, amirite?
But know this. Taking three months off of a job as often as once a year for a number of years might work for a job at McDonald's, or if you are part of a whole herd of programmers all doing the same thing.
But if you can take that much time off from a critical job even once - you weren't working a critical job. Some of my co-workers weren't real big on doing anything like traveling, staying late, or dealing with highly placed people. I would. Now there were demands on my time and energy that were not on theirs. That's probably why I was paid more than triple what they were paid, and despite being the highest paid person in teh department, they were the ones shitcanned when there were budget problems. . Before you feel too sorry for me, I retired at 55, and they are looking at several more years.
But if you must have that paid time off, by all means do it. My point is that it will have an effect.
Now... I guess you're pointing out here that a single father is likely likely to be involved with his children's upbringing than a single mother, and so would be less likely to take the leave. That's probably true. But that's another thing which should probably change, and giving him the opportunity to be involved in that upbringing is one part of that.
Allow me to try once again, I must be really poor at communicating tonight.
A man who is not married and has no children will not take 3 months of leave. He has no children, therefore no paternity leave applies.
Why might this be an advantage? A person who does not take as many as 3 mandated months off every year for a number of years is probably going to be available to come into work during the time a new father or new mother is taking that three months off. Now is this person taking the leave time going to do that? I would have said no at one time, but I saw exactly that in one case.
Now back to my quixotic quest to make you understand.
Let us say for the purposes of discussion, you have three candidates of equal qualifications before you, all applying for a job that is on a multi year project with a tight deadline. Your boss has told you that the sucessful completion is creitical to the companies, his, and your career's. The job is lead engineer. One is a woman of childbearing age. You cannot ask her any questions. Another is a man who is married to a woman of childbearing age. Candidate number three is a bachelor who because men don't have questions that may not be asked, tells you that he is not getting married, and is willing to see the project through, come hell or high water.
You have one candidate who is very likely to need maternity leave, perhaps more than one over the life of the project. But you are not allowed to ask any questions that might help you gauge that possibility. You have another who might. And a third one who assures you that he is dedicated to seeing the project through.
Who are you going to hire to lead your critical project?
These are important questions because important projects do not care about the sex of a person. They do have to have someone there to lead it. You don't have people in the wings that you just plug in as the lead.
These are important questions that are not allowed to even be discussed (I can now because I'm retired) except perhaps at a bar or other offsite with a very trusted colleague. But the issue is there, and won't go away because the law says it doesn't exist.
So anyhow, remember you lose your job if the project doesn't go out on time. Who do you hire that you have the best possibility of seeing the job through?
They are only saying this as a pretextual excuse to try to convince lawmakers they need even more laws or statutory authority to punish "those evil hackers".
Cool story bro. But the Justice department is on your side, unlike the FBI and the intel services. They serve at the direction of the President.
This is part of the point of paternity leave. Since both parents are getting the same time off, there is no advantage.
I'm not certain if you didn't read that right or not, but a single male isn't likely going to take paternity leave. So he has a distinct advantage of not taking three months off.
So is this leave forced or something? There is no way I could take off three months.
"Sorry, but the lead person on the project just had a baby, so your project is going to be delayed by three months at least. I'm certain that you understand!"
And no, not all jobs can have anyone in the office or a temp replace them.
I always tried to keep the office at 50:50 regarding gender.
Differently Justin Trudeau has a Slashdot account. Sexist twat bending over backwards to try and not look sexist.
Nope. The field most of the office worked in had a lot of women candidates. So there were going to be qualified women. My experience was that if there was few women compared to men, they would tend to feel overwhelmed, and oppressed. If there were a large majority of women, there was a remarkable amount of infighting with each other. This was over some 30 years, and no doubt serviscope_minor and Animojo will chime in to call me a sexist male along with you calling me Justin Trudeau.
I'm curious about the eight additional weeks for physical recovery. I can certainly picture it taking eight weeks to recover physically, at least in some cases with more complicated births, but that's not what we're talking about here. Maybe the first twelve weeks weren't set aside for physical recovery, but that's what happens anyway during that period. So now we're up to twenty weeks, and that's a long time.
I'm not against time off for mothers. It's nice to have some time at home with the baby, and in some cases after a C-Section it really make sense.
But for the fathers? That's 3 months for exactly what? Moral support?
So here we have a person getting 3 months off of every year that she decides to have a child, and then an extra 12 days of leave every year that she doesn't.
Folks, we really need to look at the reality of the situation. This sort of thing tends to be well meaning, but eventually backfires. So you have a young woman of childbearing age and a young man interviewing for the same job. They are both similarly qualified. By law, you cannot ask her many questions. I had a big list of verboten questions, and often had to ride herd over a co-worker who tried to sneak them in.
Who are you going to hire?
It is actually an important question, especially for demanding positions that require a lot of training. If, as one of the women where I worked had several children over a short period of time, her replacements were putting in more time than she was for several years. Side note - every time she came back to work at her guaranteed job, another woman - the replacement - lost her job.
I wonder though if Microsoft's demand includes paid maternity leave for the replacement workers filling in while the first worker is out on maternity leave.
But back to that question of how much time off is to be expected, it will come into question, because there will be a tendency to hire the person who is going to cost your company less. Single men will have a big advantage.
another note: several women candidate interviewees would quickly blurt out their marital status, and that they didn't intend to have children or already did, so that they could sidestep the issue of our not being allowed to ask anything of the sort. Interestingly enough, they tended to be more qualified and worked out well when hired. Seems like the understood that workplace omertà wasn't working in their favor. third note. I always tried to keep the office at 50:50 regarding gender.
I skipped over this article and only later found it on Twitter. Yes, it's good that MS is making a stand to demand reasonable parental leave of its partners, using it substantial economic power to help this happen... but it's quite significant that they're demanding twelve weeks of paid parental leave for all partners, even landscapers, janitors, and cafeteria workers.
I think it's called Windows, Maternity Edition.
And could you imagine hiring the Duggars? 3 lost months from each person every year.
My issue is that few of the proposed "solutions" seem to be based on science. I see the occasional discussion of carbon sequestration and that sort of thing, but far more often the "solution" is just a green cloak meant to hide the proposer's socialist SJW motives.
I kinda wonder where exactly I fit in with your politically based ideology. I hate SJW's and am of mixed feelings about socialism, but please explain - why am I a SJW and a socialist because I believe that solar power and wind powert are getting better all of the time.
But righty away, you perfom the basic mistake that so many pro-nuc people do.
You come out and insult anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you. That's the make friends by telling them they are really stupid tactic. How's that workin out for ya?
Give me the science that proves that the so called Greenhouse effect as well as the anti-greenhouse effect fail on a global scale, that the 800 Terawatts of radiative forcing are not real, then we can talk.
But your political screeds are exposing that you don't have that science based evidence - you have ideology. And make no mistake, you are exactly a denialist. You haven't given us one bit of science. And don't bitch about me calling you a denialist - you started it with the insults.
Now change my opinion, show me the evidence that the energy retention effect of an atmosphere based on the composition of the gases in it don't exist, or that human release of sequestered Carbon Dioxide are somehow different.
That really should be quite easy after all. Did you want me to remind you?
Geologically perilous? Houston hasn't had anything over a 4.0 in the last 30 years from what I can tell.
Geologically was about the best choice of wording. Earthquakes are not the issue, but subsidence. Houston is sinking - some places at a 2 inch per year rate. https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
Right off the Gulf of Mexico and with rapid subsidence is not a good scenario. I surely wouldn't buy land there.
We have the videos from the studio where the fake moon landings were filmed by Stanley Kubrick.
I saw that one.
I love the part where the lunar module lands on the moon, and you see the astronaut get out and plant the Russian flag.
Then you see the astronaut take his helmet off and it's Trump!
Bigly!
Did you hear the one about how they hired Kubrick to make the fake moon landing videos, but he was such a perfectionist that they had to go to the moon so he could film it?
The aganda here is not what many think. The agenda is to get you to stop paying attention because you are tired of hearing about it, so you'll demand we start burning coal. Peace out.
While I agree with your sentiment about paying attention, coal is going away because of natural gas.
Natural gas is a fine transition fuel, and I whole heartedly approve of it's use.
So, when had you planned on removing yourself from the Earth?
For myself, whenever there isn't much point in living any longer.
Or is it "those people" that there are too many of? I suppose we could set up special camps for them, to make it easier to get rid of them....
Your final solution idea is a possible scenario, but one of the less likely ones IMO. You're a bit of a shit for even suggesting that was something I espouse.
More likely is warfare and starvation, or warfare followed by starvation. Resources aren't increasing, Nature based issues can add to the likely problem.
There are even some groups that really want the warfare aspect to occur, and at present, they are the base of the party that is kowtowing to a president that wants to use nucs for his own agenda. Gog and Magog are waiting with baited breath, ready to bring the prophecies to fruition.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to think that work is the only important thing in the world. Maybe you don't have anything else in your life, and if that's the case, I feel a bit sorry for you.
Do you have arguments in your head with people? I'm 40 years married, and retired at 55 to be livin the dream, Raised a responsible successfil son. So much for your narrative.
Those mental health days, menstrual leave, or three months off won't mean a thing when they retire.
They sure as fuck will.
Nah. Only people with mental issues need mental health days. Then they should see a professional.
Working yourself to the point of death and retiring just before it happens also means something when you retire.
Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, the people my age that didn't retire when I did will be working an extra 22,000 hours.
Work is only horrible and onerous if you want it to be. Too many people have been trained to look at work as something that they should apply themselves to as little as possible. I don't mind working, even though I know that working is not the end game all by itself.
Quality of life is a real thing that most people value. You don't seem to.
I have many hobbies, I ride my motorcycle as often as the weather permits. I am leaving for the shore in a few days, and will be going to Florida for two, maybe three months right after Christmas. Might take an impromptu couple week trip to the Grand Canyon before Thanksgiving. My money that I was paid for my hard work is now funding my lifestyle. My wife who retired at the same time as I did, doesn't have a problem with our quality of life either. That was one of my concerns since she's a good deal younger than me.
But to spend hours of your time arguing that it's not a thing that other people should value seems really odd to me.
I merely point out some of the counterproductive things that people do. And a lot of you get pretty upset by it, to the point of turning me into some sort of strawman that I'm not.
Family relationships are a real thing that most people value. You don't seem to. And that's the point of leave like this. You get time to bond as a family.
What is more important. 3 months of an extra 8 yours a day of this bonding, or the greater than 50 percent chance that you are going to get divorced and break up your family? I've been married over 40 years, but tell me is that three months of bonding more important than being a full time father to my son, and a full time husband?
And back to retirement, if you're a stranger to your family because you didn't bother to build those relationships, what are you going to do for the rest of your life? Try to make up for those last 35+ years? The retired folks that I know who had a good work-life balance have a much better retirement than those who didn't. Why? Because they have a strong family that they love to hang out with, and their health, including mental health, is much better.
Flarg. More of the arguments in your head, I would think. When our parents were alive, we visited one or both at least once every week.We lived in the same town I took care of my father the last few years of his life. My son and I get together for road trips and other fun stuff very often, and holidays are a very busy time. Don't think for a moment that a busy career and family are diametrically opposed.
You make bad assumptions, and know a whole lot less than you think you do. But I suspect you are young, and perhaps can learn. If not, then very good luck to you sir.
... a single male isn't likely going to take paternity leave.
So, you're saying if a male is single now, they will remain single always? If they don't have children now, they never will? Because, in my experience, approximately 100% of fathers were at one point or another single males.
Sir, no I'm not. You can't be certain about any hire. But you can play the odds. Your logic is compelling. Since every person on earth was an infant at one time, it does not mean that everyone is an infant. Think before you post silly stuff.
But for the fathers? That's 3 months for exactly what? Moral support?
I assume you don't have kids, because if you did, you would understand just how much work a baby is in those first three months. And if you did, the kid's mother would smack you upside the head for assuming that the only role a father has at that point is "moral support".
I remember fondly the days when I breast fed my son.
Yes, I have a son. No, my wife didn't think that I had to be there every moment. Funny how people seem to have a far right wing "This must be like this! All people must be like this! And if you are not like this, you must conform or be cast out!" thing going on, when the entire concept of the man having to be there 24/7 is most certainly a left leaning thing. Go figure, amirite?
Y'all have a dictatorial idea of what a good father does. We perhaps did a little differently. But his mother and I did not get divorced like over 50 percent of modern loving parents do, so I was around as a full time parent from birth to leaving home at 19. I participated in his schooling, I participated in his sports. Everything. So I suppose it's better to take that 3 month leave and get divorced and see your children part time than to do what I did. You want to make for better parenting experiences, try solving the over 50 percent divorce rate, which affect children and their parents for many years.
I can't remember any time he noted that he missed those first three months because I was only around for 16 hours of the day. I was around for his entire youth rather than the 24 hours a day for 3 months that y'all seem to think are a reason to call child protective services for being a neglectful parent if they don't do it.
Good luck, Mr. Gorsky!
spasibo!
"Let us say for the purposes of discussion, you have three candidates of equal qualifications before you, all applying for a job that is on a multi year project with a tight deadline. Your boss has told you that the sucessful completion is creitical to the companies, his, and your career's. The job is lead engineer. One is a woman of childbearing age. You cannot ask her any questions. Another is a man who is married to a woman of childbearing age. Candidate number three is a bachelor who because men don't have questions that may not be asked, tells you that he is not getting married, and is willing to see the project through, come hell or high water."(sic)
Actually, your legal analysis is wrong. Asking ANY candidate about potential children or marriage is a violation of EEO laws (at least in the US). You would be discriminating on the basis of sex and/or parental status. hence the questions about such are illegal for all candidates. The potential savings you seem to expect from hiring the single male with no children (who could actually lie and/or adopt---note in the article, it mentions for both natural birth and adoption as being eligible for the leave).will be offset by the legal costs for defending your actions (may be hard to do and/or the settlements you'll pay to resolve the case before a jury award bankrupts the company.
You realize of course, that only makes the situation worse. Which makes the single male or the post menopausal woman the better candidate.
Ok, there's been a disconnect here somewhere. I wasn't trying to imply that YOU were a socialist SJW (I've no idea what you believe in).
FWIW, I am a pragmatist- (perhaps shorthand for being politically unreliable?) Which means I tend to think about things before deciding my position. So some of my concepts seem a tad left, and others shockingly right wing.
Which is to say that I support universal health care, and do not like Social Justice Warriors at all - as an example. I believe in equal rights for women and men, but think that third wave feminism is a cancer. And yup - I manage to piss off most people, so I really avoid politics at parties.
I latched onto the keyword "agenda" and went from there. When I said "but far more often the "solution" is just a green cloak meant to hide the proposer's socialist SJW motives.",
Oh yes, there are left wing idiots who think we are going to kill all life on earth, or that we are some other thing that simply isn't science. There are people on the right wing side that apparently have a massive hardon for science, possibly an extension of their biblical leanings. Both are idiots, and one of my vices is ridiculing them.
But we have this weird thing going on where those lefties are right about the concept, if wrong about the details. They do need to be called out, and no doubt. But you have to start from a different setting than with people who don't believe at all, and use political tactics to attempt to debunk it. I always like to call it the "Michal Mann is an asshole" tactic. Where both Michael Mann is not an asshole at all, and they hate him both for his stance on AGW, and his willingness to fight them in a manner which they understand. In any event, the physics doesn't care about what either group thinks.
As for fusion, I think it will be a great gig if we can get it. But damn, just the amount of energy to confine it is making that 20 years moving prediction soooo damn difficult. I'm certain that that was in jest. I'm not a nucE, and I'm going to have to take a look at what happens if the containment fails on a fusion Power source.
Who are you going to hire to lead your critical project? Most certainly not the Bachelor.
Interesting. My experience has been different.
Second best probably would be the woman, as you imply she has a better education or more experience than "the bachelor".
If you hire the bachelor for a life and death project: you are an idiot.
Perhaps. Not that I am in a hiring position any more, but your concept of the weak unreliable bachelor kinda went out the window some years ago. But hey, you want to brand me an idiot, by all means do. Looks like you've reached the condescension stage. Peace out.
It does not matter whom you hire.
It is called "parental leave" for a reason. Otherwise it would be called "mothers leave" ...
Am I in discussions with Captain Obvious here?
The father can take leave and the mother can.
And because some people in hiring positions are to "anti social" it is exactly the reason why it applies to both parents.
The existence of such a thing is hardly my point. My point is in professional work, the availability of the employee is kinda important.
Doesn't have a thing to do with being anti-social either. I have a task, and a certain amount of money, and a certain amount of time to do it in.
What is your solution to having critical people take off for three months? It isn't a matter of being irreplaceable, it is a matter of wrecking schedules and budgets. Or am I arguing with a McDonald's worker mindset? Where everyone can do all of the different jobs because they are all very simple? That isn't a problem for the people doing those jobs.
So he has a distinct advantage of not taking three months off. And what would be that advantage?
Unless a person's job is sitting around doing nothing, that will be three months that he is working, and getting paid for it. Unless a person is working a job where they simply plug one person into another person's job, you have to spend time training the replacement.
Certainly at my career, the others who had the same job qualifications would not travel, and it was almost impossible to get them to stay late or come in early. They were afraid of the suits as well. Taking a day off was difficult to do. Not complaining now, I was compensated very well, and the maxxed out vacation and sick leave checks at retirement made a nice deposit in my TDA.
For as much as people on slashdot bitch and moan about poor financial options, they also go nuts when I try to explain how a large part of that is their fault. Those mental health days, menstrual leave, or three months off won't mean a thing when they retire.
Not trying to be cruel or anything, just noting that if you can't work, there is someone willing to do your work.
If the time off in case of pregnancy is not equal for both genders then we have the (current) situation where a male is slightly preferred for a position as they require less pain time off. Over an entire population, that preference is seen in the average salaries offered.
Of that, there is no doubt. But what are you going to do about that single guy that has no children and doesn't plan to? Or me. After a attempted week, my wife didn't want me at home all day with her and the child.I'm one of those poor souls who is better liked and loved from afar. Now it is true that I got several calls a day with one panic or another. But sitting around the house all day didn't add muuch value on my part. I'm not very good at breast feeding.
I wonder, does the new setup force time off for men? There is no way that I ever could or would take off three weeks. As I noted, so much depends on what the job is. I know our lady engineers wouldn't If not forced, people will use their not demanding that time off as an advantage.
That's an advantage for me, and advantage for single guys, and an advantage for post menopausal women.
So since I have a cock, I can go fuck myself if I want to have some time off to spend with my new baby in a way that doesn't cost me all my yearly vacation time? Spoken like an ignorant asshole who doesn't have kids. Good, stay that way.
U mad Bro? Sorry but I'm married and have one kid. The whole way from birth through high school I spent a lot of time with him. Look - I'm not even saying you have to work. I'm not saying that you cant take a year off, or become a stay at home dad. By golly, it's a free country, amirite?
But know this. Taking three months off of a job as often as once a year for a number of years might work for a job at McDonald's, or if you are part of a whole herd of programmers all doing the same thing.
But if you can take that much time off from a critical job even once - you weren't working a critical job. Some of my co-workers weren't real big on doing anything like traveling, staying late, or dealing with highly placed people. I would. Now there were demands on my time and energy that were not on theirs. That's probably why I was paid more than triple what they were paid, and despite being the highest paid person in teh department, they were the ones shitcanned when there were budget problems. . Before you feel too sorry for me, I retired at 55, and they are looking at several more years.
But if you must have that paid time off, by all means do it. My point is that it will have an effect.
Now... I guess you're pointing out here that a single father is likely likely to be involved with his children's upbringing than a single mother, and so would be less likely to take the leave. That's probably true. But that's another thing which should probably change, and giving him the opportunity to be involved in that upbringing is one part of that.
Allow me to try once again, I must be really poor at communicating tonight.
A man who is not married and has no children will not take 3 months of leave. He has no children, therefore no paternity leave applies.
Why might this be an advantage? A person who does not take as many as 3 mandated months off every year for a number of years is probably going to be available to come into work during the time a new father or new mother is taking that three months off. Now is this person taking the leave time going to do that? I would have said no at one time, but I saw exactly that in one case.
Now back to my quixotic quest to make you understand.
Let us say for the purposes of discussion, you have three candidates of equal qualifications before you, all applying for a job that is on a multi year project with a tight deadline. Your boss has told you that the sucessful completion is creitical to the companies, his, and your career's. The job is lead engineer. One is a woman of childbearing age. You cannot ask her any questions. Another is a man who is married to a woman of childbearing age. Candidate number three is a bachelor who because men don't have questions that may not be asked, tells you that he is not getting married, and is willing to see the project through, come hell or high water.
You have one candidate who is very likely to need maternity leave, perhaps more than one over the life of the project. But you are not allowed to ask any questions that might help you gauge that possibility. You have another who might. And a third one who assures you that he is dedicated to seeing the project through.
Who are you going to hire to lead your critical project?
These are important questions because important projects do not care about the sex of a person. They do have to have someone there to lead it. You don't have people in the wings that you just plug in as the lead.
These are important questions that are not allowed to even be discussed (I can now because I'm retired) except perhaps at a bar or other offsite with a very trusted colleague. But the issue is there, and won't go away because the law says it doesn't exist.
So anyhow, remember you lose your job if the project doesn't go out on time. Who do you hire that you have the best possibility of seeing the job through?
They are only saying this as a pretextual excuse to try to convince lawmakers they need even more laws or statutory authority to punish "those evil hackers".
Cool story bro. But the Justice department is on your side, unlike the FBI and the intel services. They serve at the direction of the President.
The far-right tends to see immigrant labor as labor being stolen from natives, when in fact the extra labor is needed to fill demand.
This is called Schrödinger's Immigrant.
Simultaneously doing nothing but collecting welfare and stealing your job at the same time.
Single men will have a big advantage.
This is part of the point of paternity leave. Since both parents are getting the same time off, there is no advantage.
I'm not certain if you didn't read that right or not, but a single male isn't likely going to take paternity leave. So he has a distinct advantage of not taking three months off.
So is this leave forced or something? There is no way I could take off three months.
"Sorry, but the lead person on the project just had a baby, so your project is going to be delayed by three months at least. I'm certain that you understand!"
And no, not all jobs can have anyone in the office or a temp replace them.
I always tried to keep the office at 50:50 regarding gender.
Differently Justin Trudeau has a Slashdot account. Sexist twat bending over backwards to try and not look sexist.
Nope. The field most of the office worked in had a lot of women candidates. So there were going to be qualified women. My experience was that if there was few women compared to men, they would tend to feel overwhelmed, and oppressed. If there were a large majority of women, there was a remarkable amount of infighting with each other. This was over some 30 years, and no doubt serviscope_minor and Animojo will chime in to call me a sexist male along with you calling me Justin Trudeau.
Slashdot is funny that way.
You would be amazed at what NASA can figure out from small measures of thrust.
That's what the wife always says.
There may be more leaks. Someone needs to go outside and brush soapy water over the whole station.
Well played sir! Love it.
I'm curious about the eight additional weeks for physical recovery. I can certainly picture it taking eight weeks to recover physically, at least in some cases with more complicated births, but that's not what we're talking about here. Maybe the first twelve weeks weren't set aside for physical recovery, but that's what happens anyway during that period. So now we're up to twenty weeks, and that's a long time.
And don't forget that next on the docket is paid Menstrual leave. https://www.self.com/story/pai... .
I'm not against time off for mothers. It's nice to have some time at home with the baby, and in some cases after a C-Section it really make sense.
But for the fathers? That's 3 months for exactly what? Moral support?
So here we have a person getting 3 months off of every year that she decides to have a child, and then an extra 12 days of leave every year that she doesn't.
Folks, we really need to look at the reality of the situation. This sort of thing tends to be well meaning, but eventually backfires. So you have a young woman of childbearing age and a young man interviewing for the same job. They are both similarly qualified. By law, you cannot ask her many questions. I had a big list of verboten questions, and often had to ride herd over a co-worker who tried to sneak them in.
Who are you going to hire?
It is actually an important question, especially for demanding positions that require a lot of training. If, as one of the women where I worked had several children over a short period of time, her replacements were putting in more time than she was for several years. Side note - every time she came back to work at her guaranteed job, another woman - the replacement - lost her job.
I wonder though if Microsoft's demand includes paid maternity leave for the replacement workers filling in while the first worker is out on maternity leave.
But back to that question of how much time off is to be expected, it will come into question, because there will be a tendency to hire the person who is going to cost your company less. Single men will have a big advantage.
another note: several women candidate interviewees would quickly blurt out their marital status, and that they didn't intend to have children or already did, so that they could sidestep the issue of our not being allowed to ask anything of the sort. Interestingly enough, they tended to be more qualified and worked out well when hired. Seems like the understood that workplace omertà wasn't working in their favor. third note. I always tried to keep the office at 50:50 regarding gender.
I skipped over this article and only later found it on Twitter. Yes, it's good that MS is making a stand to demand reasonable parental leave of its partners, using it substantial economic power to help this happen ... but it's quite significant that they're demanding twelve weeks of paid parental leave for all partners, even landscapers, janitors, and cafeteria workers.
I think it's called Windows, Maternity Edition.
And could you imagine hiring the Duggars? 3 lost months from each person every year.
My issue is that few of the proposed "solutions" seem to be based on science. I see the occasional discussion of carbon sequestration and that sort of thing, but far more often the "solution" is just a green cloak meant to hide the proposer's socialist SJW motives.
I kinda wonder where exactly I fit in with your politically based ideology. I hate SJW's and am of mixed feelings about socialism, but please explain - why am I a SJW and a socialist because I believe that solar power and wind powert are getting better all of the time.
But righty away, you perfom the basic mistake that so many pro-nuc people do.
You come out and insult anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you. That's the make friends by telling them they are really stupid tactic. How's that workin out for ya?
Give me the science that proves that the so called Greenhouse effect as well as the anti-greenhouse effect fail on a global scale, that the 800 Terawatts of radiative forcing are not real, then we can talk.
But your political screeds are exposing that you don't have that science based evidence - you have ideology. And make no mistake, you are exactly a denialist. You haven't given us one bit of science. And don't bitch about me calling you a denialist - you started it with the insults.
Now change my opinion, show me the evidence that the energy retention effect of an atmosphere based on the composition of the gases in it don't exist, or that human release of sequestered Carbon Dioxide are somehow different.
That really should be quite easy after all. Did you want me to remind you?
Geologically perilous? Houston hasn't had anything over a 4.0 in the last 30 years from what I can tell.
Geologically was about the best choice of wording. Earthquakes are not the issue, but subsidence. Houston is sinking - some places at a 2 inch per year rate. https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
Right off the Gulf of Mexico and with rapid subsidence is not a good scenario. I surely wouldn't buy land there.
We have the videos from the studio where the fake moon landings were filmed by Stanley Kubrick.
I saw that one. I love the part where the lunar module lands on the moon, and you see the astronaut get out and plant the Russian flag. Then you see the astronaut take his helmet off and it's Trump! Bigly!
Did you hear the one about how they hired Kubrick to make the fake moon landing videos, but he was such a perfectionist that they had to go to the moon so he could film it?
The aganda here is not what many think. The agenda is to get you to stop paying attention because you are tired of hearing about it, so you'll demand we start burning coal. Peace out.
While I agree with your sentiment about paying attention, coal is going away because of natural gas.
Natural gas is a fine transition fuel, and I whole heartedly approve of it's use.
So, when had you planned on removing yourself from the Earth?
For myself, whenever there isn't much point in living any longer.
Or is it "those people" that there are too many of? I suppose we could set up special camps for them, to make it easier to get rid of them....
Your final solution idea is a possible scenario, but one of the less likely ones IMO. You're a bit of a shit for even suggesting that was something I espouse.
More likely is warfare and starvation, or warfare followed by starvation. Resources aren't increasing, Nature based issues can add to the likely problem.
There are even some groups that really want the warfare aspect to occur, and at present, they are the base of the party that is kowtowing to a president that wants to use nucs for his own agenda. Gog and Magog are waiting with baited breath, ready to bring the prophecies to fruition.