I did. In fact I read your post a few times. Essentially what you've done is said "your argument amounts to X" without making any connection between X and my argument. That's called a strawman argument, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and a chance to actually make the argument you skipped.
To quote you:
While most of what you've said here is correct, none of that is relevant to this discussion
I hit Enter too soon.
I thought we were talking about "Companies like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T" as stated in TFA, though I realize GP did mention T-Mobile specifically (why?)... but really I'm talking specifically about the philosophy of zero-rating specifically. I certainly didn't mention T-Mobile, why are you talking to me about them?
I don't believe we shouldn't abolish speed limits based on the idea that most people will drive a safe speed. Likewise, I don't think we should avoid regulation based on the idea that one service provider or even most wouldn't abuse what is so easy to abuse.
I'm struggling to find the argument for network neturality here
I'll help.
A company decides to give people unlimited data use on preferred, highly popular services. Services that those same communities really, really want.
A company decides to limit customer's access to the internet, while giving unlimited access to their business partners. This is done so that the companies can make more money. The term for this type of business practice is called racketeering. "Racketeering is the act of offering of a dishonest service (a 'racket') to solve a problem that wouldn't otherwise exist without the enterprise offering the service.
The companies benefiting from zero rating are also engaging in a business practice which is an attempt to keep their own income higher than they would be in an unrestricted market. The consumer is the one who has the least control of the situation and is thus the one most harmed.
So by that logic, if Comcast want's to offer their own streaming video without caps while counting the data usage of Netflix toward the caps, that's acceptable.
Believe it or not, I'm okay with that. I just want to make sure that the customer isn't accessing Comcast's own services through the Internet connection. If you're selling Internet access, then everything you sell over the Internet service connection should count the same.
Therein lies the problem though. Internet service provider companies want to use the same service they're using to provide internet and pretend that the signal used for their own services is special and different. From the provider's side it may look true, but from the customer's side, it is obviously false. If we don't want the internet sliced into silos where you only get the section of the internet your town government is okay with then we need legislative oversight on how the internet is offered. Zero rating is a direct challenge to an open internet.
I'm a sysadmin and the only things that aren't automated tasks are the ones that haven't happened twice and the ones I don't understand well enough to automate yet. A good bit of my time is fixing the automated tasks that stop working right for some reason.
I don't believe the current designs are perfect, but I do believe the current designs benefit from thousands to millions of users constantly exposing weaknesses and problems.
It's probably not for me either. I'd be interested if they were making something that might improve my life as a system admin or even as a home user in the foreseeable future, but right now that's hard to see from where I stand.
First, thank you, your responsiveness impresses me. I don't know how you manage to keep up. The changes are good choices for big impact fast.
Second, I saw a discussion about making moderations public earlier. I think that's a bad idea unless it's handled very, very carefully. Some people tend to be quite passionate about their comments and perceived friends and enemies. Rational and thoughtful people may be the most prevalent here, but it only takes a small percentage of jerks to ruin something. If I make somebody terribly angry by moderating their post down, I don't want to worry that they'll come to my house to get even.
Third, you'd asked previously for APK examples and I'm sort of glad to see them back in this discussion. https://meta.slashdot.org/comm... (Glad because it gives an example of what issues are real problems.) I've given it some thought and I think it would be dangerous to set up something as an authority driven blocking mechanism. Rather I'd like the option to block comments with text or regular expressions that I enter for myself. If you want to go a step further you could give people the option to subscribe to lists, perhaps lists created by other users and give us an option to make our list public, or perhaps subscribe to a list of "top ten most popular blocking rules on slashdot" as an example.
I love the internet and the web in particular. In all of history's inventions, I'd put it at number three; first fire, then kissing, then the web. This ability to share information, emotions, beauty, tragedy and all the little parts of ourselves that make us human, this web, is one of the best things to ever happen to our species. But advertising is a cancer on that beautiful thing. It is a cancer that needs to be burned out, no matter the cost to the tissue it infests.
If the poor web advertisers have no income, not only does it not bother me, it amuses me. If it means every, single website that can't exist without running advertisements dies, I can live with that. Do not assume that I need a particular website, I am older than the internet, let alone the web, and I remember how to live without it.
It didn't have to be this way. There are plenty of advertisements that don't bother me, in all sorts of media. This situation with ad-blocking on the web was caused by the advertisers. They are the ones that brought you pop-ups, pop-unders and pages that couldn't be closed! A complete failure of their business model is too good for them.
"The advertising business is completely screwy now. You know they’ve reintroduced the death penalty for advertising company directors?”
“Really?” said Arthur. “No, I didn’t. For what offence?”
Trillian frowned.
“What do you mean, offence?”
“I see."
This, plus the fact that a lot of the people still driving seem to have turned their brains off as well.
I'm a freakin amazingly good driver if you look at my record or ride with me, but I know how often I've nearly been in a wreck. I know how many times I've done something stupid. I always check my blind spot, but not always before putting my signal on and starting to drift toward the lane I'm moving into, and I can recall all too clearly seeing someone there I was drifting toward, not once but twice (twice!!) in the last year.
A month ago, I was exhausted but drove anyway.
I'm a courteous, thoughtful, attentive, law abiding driver who has a good record, great reflexes, good habits and a healthy sense of mortality. But I'm also self aware enough to say, please, please, please get even people who think they are great drivers off the road. People suck at paying attention 100% of the time. People suck always remembering to follow laws. People kill each other by accident all the time and that sucks.
In 2014, there were 32,675 people who were killed in fatal car accidents. That's 32,675 people who won't pay car insurance fees pay taxes or vote. Some estimates put one in seven cars on the road as uninsured.
People don't care for taxes but people prefer them over jail. What car insurance companies like is premiums paid without having to pay out. There is already a legal trend to hold the manufacturer of a self driving car responsible for insurance, which means that it is likely to become more and more expensive to insure a human driver while it becomes cheaper and cheaper to be a passenger in a self driving car.
People may not prefer it, but when the insurance bill is ten times what they've ever paid before in order to drive themselves, compared to being almost free to be a passenger, I expect many people will choose to ride.
Ever ridden a packed subway? People aren't there because they want to be. They're there because it costs less than the alternatives and it works.
That would be an interesting question. In fact I think the FBI should be creating the firmware they're wanting loaded in this case. It would significantly weaken Apple's argument of compelled speech.
Of course, I trust you're aware that this isn't a firmware image provided by the FBI, but instead the Department of Justice wants to compel Apple to create software.
A backdoor is a system deliberately installed so that someone can access something in a way it was not intended. What you're describing isn't a backdoor. If Apple kept the actual encryption keys, or had a way to recover the key intentionally, that would be a backdoor. If someone creates software to break into a system which is designed to prevent access of that type, that's cracking or hacking, depending on who you ask, but certainly not a backdoor.
Even if we ignore the wrong term, you're still wrong.
Apple cannot remotely enroll the phone. Even if Apple does create the cracking software necessary to modify the security features (possible in a three year old phone, not possible in newer phone) they won't be able to remotely install it. It can be loaded only by physically attaching the device to a computer with update software and putting the phone into recovery mode.
The iCloud backup is an interesting issue, even if not the way you describe. It is possible, if you have physical possession of the unlocked phone, to set it up for automatic iCloud backup. Apple can and will provide those to law enforcement. If you don't choose to use it, it can't be provided, but this phone actually was enrolled for automatic backup. Then, after the FBI got the phone, somebody changed the apple account password. That stops the automatic backup from happening and Apple can't undo that.
If you're looking for the million minus one other ways, you should stop. You're sounding a lot like McAfee, somebody who thinks they understand how security works but hasn't actually done the research. The FBI has done the research and they can't break into the phone. What they could do is demand Apple's private signing keys and build the hacking software they need, but that would take a long time, and it wouldn't accomplish what they really want, which is the ability to bully software companies into making hacking tools the companies don't want to create or forcing software companies into creating actual backdoors.
To promote me? I'm hardly willing to take ownership of such responsibility, but thank you for believing I could handle it.
To refer to me as "they" as in a group to show wisdom that only more than one person can contribute is more credit than I deserve, or to refer to me as "they" as a gender neutral person implying I might have the equanimity of a woman willing to handle the minority status and flack that comes with such status? Either is more credit than I deserve.
I'm not worthy of such, but I do try to pay attention, thanks for noticing.
Hahahaha! I see what you did there. Bonus: When SCOTUS made that ruling, I was incredulous too.
But when SCOTUS rules, regardless of how inconsistent I personally find it with the Constitution, or what insane repercussions I think it may have, I have decided that's the law of the country we live in. Don't get me wrong, I still argue, post and vote my conscience, but I no longer pretend the truth is otherwise.
The DOJ wants Apple to create a modified iOS update that disables security built into the normal iOS system, sign it with Apple's keys and force a software update from recovery mode with the phone getting the update via USB connection.
I hope you're right, but SCOTUS says money is speech and people are still compelled to pay money.
The issue of compelled speech is not completely settled either. The courts have ruled both that it can be and that it can't be depending on circumstances.
It's still unclear; does the FBI want to give the phone to Apple so they can break in, or do they want apple to give them the tools to do it themselves?
The order clearly states that Apple is not required to provide the software created. Many people, including myself, believe that there is an unspoken motivation in this case to have a precedent which allows law enforcement to force software companies to produce software to enable access to encrypted systems, but it is a supposition not substantiated by the court documents.
The court documents compel Apple to create software which will make it easy for the DOJ to break in, but not that Apple do the final step of actually breaking in.
If it's the former, then Apple should get it done, then destroy the tools and cal it a day.
Which Apple probably would have done if the DOJ had made the request under seal to keep it secret, as Apple requested. However, the government made it a public request, which supports the idea that the government wants either a legal precedent or an excuse to ask Congress to change the laws so they can force software companies to create hacking software.
What is clear is that getting the data from the phone is not secondary to the Us vs Them bullshit going on now.
I think that must be a typo. It is clear that this debate is not about this case, but rather what the DOJ can successfully force software companies to do, or an excuse to get new legislation so they can force hacking by software companies.
"First we thought the PC was a calculator. Then we found out how to turn numbers into letters with ASCII â" and we thought it was a typewriter. Then we discovered graphics, and we thought it was a television. With the World Wide Web, we've realized it's a brochure." - Douglas Adams
That kid may have been innocent, but his father is an Islamic activist trying to intimidate anyone who has any concerns about Islamic activism.
It is perfectly acceptable to condemn a father's actions and still also condemn unreasonable actions taken by a school and police officers. It is even possible for a reasonable person to condemn the opinions of a person and still defend the rights of the person to express those opinions.
I don't know much about the dad, nor do I honestly know much about the kid, but the fact is that a kid was arrested at school when he obviously presented no harm or danger to anyone then held and questioned without a guardian or attorney present. The facts condemn the actions of the authorities and it is perfectly reasonable to demand that people who abuse power be held accountable.
Thank you, you are absolutely right. I suspect most IT jobs have security as one important aspect of a much broader list of responsibilities. (My job certainly considers security of extreme importance, but I'd say I spend maybe ten minutes of my average work day directly on security.)
And look at the means! Systems security has become battle #1 for many, many IT people
That's true, because of course there are many jobs in IT just about security, but that's not the same as saying it is the primary battle of most IT people or even saying it is the primary battle of a significant percentage. If there are a hundred thousand IT people with security as battle #1, that's "many, many!" Nobody cares though, because that's only 1.5% of of the 6,500,000 IT employees in the US.
Vague claims are usually true, and useless.
The more I think about this, the more it irritates me. There are people who educate themselves about risks and mitigation options and build very secure systems within their areas of expertise. I'm in that category. Then some butt-fedora comes along yelling about how things need to be more secure and I then get to explain to my bosses and their oversight organizations why said butt-fedora commentary doesn't apply. I mean, on the one hand, it points out something I'm competent at, but on the other hand, it's a waste of time, because rarely do the oversight people or bosses actually know the difference between what I'm saying and the butt-fedora guy is saying.
A few years ago, I realized that I had been valuing other people and myself on a flawed scale. In an nutshell I had placed more value on intelligence than compassion and kindness. I started deliberately trying to think of the world I perceive through a new perspective and it changed me.
This emphasis on income is every bit as invalid. People seem to care a lot about making sure wages are equal, but they don't ask "how worthwhile is the work" when comparing the work of women to men. Women are more likely to be home parents, teachers, health care workers, medical scientists, financial managers, veterinarians, and psychologists to name just a few. All those things I mentioned are about helping other people directly.
I think women are more likely to place the value of their work above the income for their work and frankly I'm a little irritated every time someone breaks out the wage argument like that's all that matters.
You know what else we're probably looking at wrong? We're probably looking at gifted student programs wrong. We're probably looking at the numbers of kinds by race in the end results rather than looking at the things that are successful in transitioning kids from non-achievers to achievers.
Slashdot Mirror
I did. In fact I read your post a few times. Essentially what you've done is said "your argument amounts to X" without making any connection between X and my argument. That's called a strawman argument, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and a chance to actually make the argument you skipped.
To quote you:
While most of what you've said here is correct, none of that is relevant to this discussion
I hit Enter too soon. I thought we were talking about "Companies like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T" as stated in TFA, though I realize GP did mention T-Mobile specifically (why?) ... but really I'm talking specifically about the philosophy of zero-rating specifically. I certainly didn't mention T-Mobile, why are you talking to me about them?
I don't believe we shouldn't abolish speed limits based on the idea that most people will drive a safe speed. Likewise, I don't think we should avoid regulation based on the idea that one service provider or even most wouldn't abuse what is so easy to abuse.
It does? How does my argument amount to that?
I'm struggling to find the argument for network neturality here
I'll help.
A company decides to give people unlimited data use on preferred, highly popular services. Services that those same communities really, really want.
A company decides to limit customer's access to the internet, while giving unlimited access to their business partners. This is done so that the companies can make more money. The term for this type of business practice is called racketeering. "Racketeering is the act of offering of a dishonest service (a 'racket') to solve a problem that wouldn't otherwise exist without the enterprise offering the service.
The companies benefiting from zero rating are also engaging in a business practice which is an attempt to keep their own income higher than they would be in an unrestricted market. The consumer is the one who has the least control of the situation and is thus the one most harmed.
So by that logic, if Comcast want's to offer their own streaming video without caps while counting the data usage of Netflix toward the caps, that's acceptable.
Believe it or not, I'm okay with that. I just want to make sure that the customer isn't accessing Comcast's own services through the Internet connection. If you're selling Internet access, then everything you sell over the Internet service connection should count the same.
Therein lies the problem though. Internet service provider companies want to use the same service they're using to provide internet and pretend that the signal used for their own services is special and different. From the provider's side it may look true, but from the customer's side, it is obviously false. If we don't want the internet sliced into silos where you only get the section of the internet your town government is okay with then we need legislative oversight on how the internet is offered. Zero rating is a direct challenge to an open internet.
Why be a jerk?
I'm a sysadmin and the only things that aren't automated tasks are the ones that haven't happened twice and the ones I don't understand well enough to automate yet. A good bit of my time is fixing the automated tasks that stop working right for some reason.
Debian and Ubuntu?
I don't believe the current designs are perfect, but I do believe the current designs benefit from thousands to millions of users constantly exposing weaknesses and problems.
It's probably not for me either. I'd be interested if they were making something that might improve my life as a system admin or even as a home user in the foreseeable future, but right now that's hard to see from where I stand.
First, thank you, your responsiveness impresses me. I don't know how you manage to keep up. The changes are good choices for big impact fast.
Second, I saw a discussion about making moderations public earlier. I think that's a bad idea unless it's handled very, very carefully. Some people tend to be quite passionate about their comments and perceived friends and enemies. Rational and thoughtful people may be the most prevalent here, but it only takes a small percentage of jerks to ruin something. If I make somebody terribly angry by moderating their post down, I don't want to worry that they'll come to my house to get even.
Third, you'd asked previously for APK examples and I'm sort of glad to see them back in this discussion. https://meta.slashdot.org/comm... (Glad because it gives an example of what issues are real problems.) I've given it some thought and I think it would be dangerous to set up something as an authority driven blocking mechanism. Rather I'd like the option to block comments with text or regular expressions that I enter for myself. If you want to go a step further you could give people the option to subscribe to lists, perhaps lists created by other users and give us an option to make our list public, or perhaps subscribe to a list of "top ten most popular blocking rules on slashdot" as an example.
I love the internet and the web in particular. In all of history's inventions, I'd put it at number three; first fire, then kissing, then the web. This ability to share information, emotions, beauty, tragedy and all the little parts of ourselves that make us human, this web, is one of the best things to ever happen to our species. But advertising is a cancer on that beautiful thing. It is a cancer that needs to be burned out, no matter the cost to the tissue it infests.
If the poor web advertisers have no income, not only does it not bother me, it amuses me. If it means every, single website that can't exist without running advertisements dies, I can live with that. Do not assume that I need a particular website, I am older than the internet, let alone the web, and I remember how to live without it.
It didn't have to be this way. There are plenty of advertisements that don't bother me, in all sorts of media. This situation with ad-blocking on the web was caused by the advertisers. They are the ones that brought you pop-ups, pop-unders and pages that couldn't be closed! A complete failure of their business model is too good for them.
"The advertising business is completely screwy now. You know they’ve reintroduced the death penalty for advertising company directors?”
“Really?” said Arthur. “No, I didn’t. For what offence?”
Trillian frowned.
“What do you mean, offence?”
“I see."
(Misquoted from Mostly Harmless.)
This, plus the fact that a lot of the people still driving seem to have turned their brains off as well.
I'm a freakin amazingly good driver if you look at my record or ride with me, but I know how often I've nearly been in a wreck. I know how many times I've done something stupid. I always check my blind spot, but not always before putting my signal on and starting to drift toward the lane I'm moving into, and I can recall all too clearly seeing someone there I was drifting toward, not once but twice (twice!!) in the last year.
A month ago, I was exhausted but drove anyway.
I'm a courteous, thoughtful, attentive, law abiding driver who has a good record, great reflexes, good habits and a healthy sense of mortality. But I'm also self aware enough to say, please, please, please get even people who think they are great drivers off the road. People suck at paying attention 100% of the time. People suck always remembering to follow laws. People kill each other by accident all the time and that sucks.
In 2014, there were 32,675 people who were killed in fatal car accidents. That's 32,675 people who won't pay car insurance fees pay taxes or vote. Some estimates put one in seven cars on the road as uninsured.
People don't care for taxes but people prefer them over jail. What car insurance companies like is premiums paid without having to pay out. There is already a legal trend to hold the manufacturer of a self driving car responsible for insurance, which means that it is likely to become more and more expensive to insure a human driver while it becomes cheaper and cheaper to be a passenger in a self driving car.
People may not prefer it, but when the insurance bill is ten times what they've ever paid before in order to drive themselves, compared to being almost free to be a passenger, I expect many people will choose to ride.
Ever ridden a packed subway? People aren't there because they want to be. They're there because it costs less than the alternatives and it works.
That would be an interesting question. In fact I think the FBI should be creating the firmware they're wanting loaded in this case. It would significantly weaken Apple's argument of compelled speech.
Of course, I trust you're aware that this isn't a firmware image provided by the FBI, but instead the Department of Justice wants to compel Apple to create software.
How I wish the question asked had been "Should Apple be forced to write software to enable government hacking?"
A backdoor is a system deliberately installed so that someone can access something in a way it was not intended. What you're describing isn't a backdoor. If Apple kept the actual encryption keys, or had a way to recover the key intentionally, that would be a backdoor. If someone creates software to break into a system which is designed to prevent access of that type, that's cracking or hacking, depending on who you ask, but certainly not a backdoor.
Even if we ignore the wrong term, you're still wrong.
Apple cannot remotely enroll the phone. Even if Apple does create the cracking software necessary to modify the security features (possible in a three year old phone, not possible in newer phone) they won't be able to remotely install it. It can be loaded only by physically attaching the device to a computer with update software and putting the phone into recovery mode.
The iCloud backup is an interesting issue, even if not the way you describe. It is possible, if you have physical possession of the unlocked phone, to set it up for automatic iCloud backup. Apple can and will provide those to law enforcement. If you don't choose to use it, it can't be provided, but this phone actually was enrolled for automatic backup. Then, after the FBI got the phone, somebody changed the apple account password. That stops the automatic backup from happening and Apple can't undo that.
If you're looking for the million minus one other ways, you should stop. You're sounding a lot like McAfee, somebody who thinks they understand how security works but hasn't actually done the research. The FBI has done the research and they can't break into the phone. What they could do is demand Apple's private signing keys and build the hacking software they need, but that would take a long time, and it wouldn't accomplish what they really want, which is the ability to bully software companies into making hacking tools the companies don't want to create or forcing software companies into creating actual backdoors.
You flatter me good sir.
To promote me? I'm hardly willing to take ownership of such responsibility, but thank you for believing I could handle it.
To refer to me as "they" as in a group to show wisdom that only more than one person can contribute is more credit than I deserve, or to refer to me as "they" as a gender neutral person implying I might have the equanimity of a woman willing to handle the minority status and flack that comes with such status? Either is more credit than I deserve.
I'm not worthy of such, but I do try to pay attention, thanks for noticing.
Hahahaha! I see what you did there. Bonus: When SCOTUS made that ruling, I was incredulous too.
But when SCOTUS rules, regardless of how inconsistent I personally find it with the Constitution, or what insane repercussions I think it may have, I have decided that's the law of the country we live in. Don't get me wrong, I still argue, post and vote my conscience, but I no longer pretend the truth is otherwise.
... what is Apple supposed to do exactly?
The DOJ wants Apple to create a modified iOS update that disables security built into the normal iOS system, sign it with Apple's keys and force a software update from recovery mode with the phone getting the update via USB connection.
I hope you're right, but SCOTUS says money is speech and people are still compelled to pay money.
The issue of compelled speech is not completely settled either. The courts have ruled both that it can be and that it can't be depending on circumstances.
http://www.firstamendmentcente...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.researchgate.net/p...
Wrong.
It's still unclear; does the FBI want to give the phone to Apple so they can break in, or do they want apple to give them the tools to do it themselves?
The order clearly states that Apple is not required to provide the software created. Many people, including myself, believe that there is an unspoken motivation in this case to have a precedent which allows law enforcement to force software companies to produce software to enable access to encrypted systems, but it is a supposition not substantiated by the court documents.
The court documents compel Apple to create software which will make it easy for the DOJ to break in, but not that Apple do the final step of actually breaking in.
If it's the former, then Apple should get it done, then destroy the tools and cal it a day.
Which Apple probably would have done if the DOJ had made the request under seal to keep it secret, as Apple requested. However, the government made it a public request, which supports the idea that the government wants either a legal precedent or an excuse to ask Congress to change the laws so they can force software companies to create hacking software.
What is clear is that getting the data from the phone is not secondary to the Us vs Them bullshit going on now.
I think that must be a typo. It is clear that this debate is not about this case, but rather what the DOJ can successfully force software companies to do, or an excuse to get new legislation so they can force hacking by software companies.
"First we thought the PC was a calculator. Then we found out how to turn numbers into letters with ASCII â" and we thought it was a typewriter. Then we discovered graphics, and we thought it was a television. With the World Wide Web, we've realized it's a brochure." - Douglas Adams
That kid may have been innocent, but his father is an Islamic activist trying to intimidate anyone who has any concerns about Islamic activism.
It is perfectly acceptable to condemn a father's actions and still also condemn unreasonable actions taken by a school and police officers. It is even possible for a reasonable person to condemn the opinions of a person and still defend the rights of the person to express those opinions.
I don't know much about the dad, nor do I honestly know much about the kid, but the fact is that a kid was arrested at school when he obviously presented no harm or danger to anyone then held and questioned without a guardian or attorney present. The facts condemn the actions of the authorities and it is perfectly reasonable to demand that people who abuse power be held accountable.
Thank you, you are absolutely right. I suspect most IT jobs have security as one important aspect of a much broader list of responsibilities. (My job certainly considers security of extreme importance, but I'd say I spend maybe ten minutes of my average work day directly on security.)
And look at the means! Systems security has become battle #1 for many, many IT people
That's true, because of course there are many jobs in IT just about security, but that's not the same as saying it is the primary battle of most IT people or even saying it is the primary battle of a significant percentage. If there are a hundred thousand IT people with security as battle #1, that's "many, many!" Nobody cares though, because that's only 1.5% of of the 6,500,000 IT employees in the US.
Vague claims are usually true, and useless.
The more I think about this, the more it irritates me. There are people who educate themselves about risks and mitigation options and build very secure systems within their areas of expertise. I'm in that category. Then some butt-fedora comes along yelling about how things need to be more secure and I then get to explain to my bosses and their oversight organizations why said butt-fedora commentary doesn't apply. I mean, on the one hand, it points out something I'm competent at, but on the other hand, it's a waste of time, because rarely do the oversight people or bosses actually know the difference between what I'm saying and the butt-fedora guy is saying.
A few years ago, I realized that I had been valuing other people and myself on a flawed scale. In an nutshell I had placed more value on intelligence than compassion and kindness. I started deliberately trying to think of the world I perceive through a new perspective and it changed me.
This emphasis on income is every bit as invalid. People seem to care a lot about making sure wages are equal, but they don't ask "how worthwhile is the work" when comparing the work of women to men. Women are more likely to be home parents, teachers, health care workers, medical scientists, financial managers, veterinarians, and psychologists to name just a few. All those things I mentioned are about helping other people directly.
I think women are more likely to place the value of their work above the income for their work and frankly I'm a little irritated every time someone breaks out the wage argument like that's all that matters.
You know what else we're probably looking at wrong? We're probably looking at gifted student programs wrong. We're probably looking at the numbers of kinds by race in the end results rather than looking at the things that are successful in transitioning kids from non-achievers to achievers.