In fairness the men in prison are there mostly because men tend to commit crimes with greater frequency and when they do they tend to commit more serious ones.
It is important to be fair so that when you pass judgement it has meaning.
If you judge impulsively or unfairly then your judgment is of diminished value.
Keep that in mind and keep your comments fair.
The homeless comment is fair. The prison comment is not.
This notion that someone is automatically being overpaid simply because of seniority.
You don't know that. Just because the company replaces someone that is paid X with someone else that is being paid X/2 does not mean that the person replacing them is doing the same work or quality of work as the previous employee. You really don't know.
Go look at a job listing and you'll see they tend to all say "DOE" under the wage/salary section.
That stands for "Depending on experience". Which means practically every job listing scales the pay based on the experience of the worker they are hiring.
That means companies obviously do appreciate experience. They pay more for it internally and they pay new hires that have more of it.
If you have less experience you get less money.
And if you took ten years off for some reason then you're going to have less experience then someone that didn't... male or female. This is not a gender issue. It is a work experience issue.
If a man takes ten years off work to go find himself in Tibet then when he comes back he is not going to be making as much as the man or woman that didn't leave.
Just what is... complaining about that is trying to eat your cake and have it too. Which is the aspiration of a crazy person.
As to your conclusions... these are non-proofread comments on an internet forum. Put your grammar nazi dick back in your pants. No one wants to see that.
This is a casual environment and I'm not going to suffer getting brow beaten by people making observations a word processor would flag as if they're revealing the mysteries of the fucking universe.
If that comes off overly hostile... i'm been dealing with more than my fair share of idiots on this board lately and I have a low tolerance for the spelling and grammar corrections. Give us all a break, cupcake.
I'm just amused that they're calling their voice recognition system Cortana and they're apparently calling their browser the Spartan.
These are both references to the game Halo. The AI assistant to the Master Chief was known as Cortana and the Master Chief was some kind of cyborg military super soldier that was referred to as a "spartian".
I can't wait for them to name something "the flood"... I have to keep my eyes open for any further references. The whole thing is pretty funny.
The biggest source of these fake papers appears to be phd papers. And given that we're producing more phds than ever before, maybe we should reform the way we do that. Because in requiring that they actually discover or examine something new the chances are that they're going to lie about something.
If we had fewer phds maybe they wouldn't do that so much. But the issue is that there are so many papers that no one can read them. And that means trying to audit this stuff is impractical.
The solution of having robots audit the papers is interesting but for that to be really effective, I think the papers need to be optimized for that sort of scan.
Less prose for example outside of the abstract. More data, more equations, more graphs... more things an expert system could take apart.
Here is my real beef with this idea... i'm pretty sure I could cheat just as easily with this system as I could right now. I think the only thing that would change is that the people reading my work would feel less of a need to check my work and just trust the robot. But if I know how to fool the robot then I automatically win.
Robots are stupid guys. I've never met a machine I couldn't outsmart.
... none of which matters because it has nothing to do with sexual discrimination.
Next issue.
You show sexual discrimination... that is discrimination that is not correlative with other factors but caused directly by gender or you have nothing.
The issue is that when women have children their careers get put on hold which means their male peers make more money at the end of their careers than women do that took large portions of their career off.
That is what happens.
It is not sexual discrimination and there is no gender pay gap. This has been known since the 1970s. As of the 1970s, excluding the effects of child birth, the difference between male and female pay is less then 2 percent.
This has been known since then and with almost no research you can pull that up. And yet the same tired myth is spread around that there is this gender pay gap.
Why? Politics. No one wants women exploited and anyone that wants to exploit the gullible, ignorant, and idle will throw this shit around to stir up as many stupid people as they possible can to intimidate anyone else into giving them whatever they want or they'll turn the fucking stupid peasants loose on everyone else.
We can be better than that. The fact that you're making excuses for this shit is probably the most disturbing part of this conversation for me. there is no excuse. A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie is a lie. And the people that push that shit are liars that lie and coming up for reasons why it is okay for liars to lie about lying is only going to turn you into some flavor of liar yourself.
Just stop. Separate the bullshit from the truth. It is less slippery and shit covered ground.
As to something getting people upset on slashdot, that is not evidence that it is a good topic. Especially since most of the comments are "oh this shit again".
You know those sad attempts by Dice to insert job advertisements into the news stream? They get the exact same response. "oh this shit again."
So no. The fact that it is getting a negative reaction is not evidence of it being a something important that we need to talk about.
As to people lacking introspection, in what way has what I PERSONALLY have said lacked introspection? I'm sure you can find someone on the board that has said something stupid and I have no control or interest in that comment.
You commented to ME. You are implying that I personally lack introspection. Alright... how?
As to this notion that I should accept something from YOU that is not open to examination or "I" am arrogant, maybe it is you that should get the fuck over yourself.
Who the fuck are you that you can expect me to accept something you say that is not open to examination?
I wouldn't expect you to accept anything from me on that basis and you expect me to accept such from you?
Your comment is baffling either in its ignorance or arrogance.
I'm assuming ignorance because I don't think you're that fucking arrogant. Let me clue you in, when you have a discussion you need to provide sound reasoning for why you hold a position if you want anyone else to take your position seriously. And if you're offering evidence, then that has to be something people can check out.
Lacking either of those you're just shit posting and I'm entirely justified in judging your post to be of no constructive value and ignoring it.
So... did you want to try again? Please do... I'm sure with all sincerity that you have something useful to contribute. But if you don't make an effort to share it, then all anyone else is going to see is the bullshit you posted above.
Not literally every government official, but all high government officials should have all their orders tracked. The literal execution of their power should require putting it in writing. At the very fucking least they should have a wax seal and put their chop on whatever document they want obeyed.
This notion that "we don't get recorded if we don't use email" is offensive. No subordinate government official should accept an order that is not duly recorded. State or federal.
Anything out of a mayor's office should get recorded. Governors, cabinet ministers, heads of departments, heads of bureaus, etc. That ay if there is wrong doing, a court can peel the records open and audit when the orders were given.
Fine... we'll play the epicycles game a bit longer. When we're both in Hell, and the mysteries of the universe crack wide... We can see which of us was right.
I think this might be a thing were they play with it for a few more generations and then realize they had made some simple core assumption that was wrong. And by inverting that assumption everything else falls into place.
But what do I know... dark matter dark energy dark mathematics with dark chocolate and dark stormy nights.
Your comment made no effort to back up your argument and is therefore null.
Do you have a point to make? So far, all I see you doing is sputtering and posturing. You also don't understand how to make a logical argument... which renders your claims to greater education or sophistication idiotic.
Knowing how to form an argument is MORE fundamental than knowing how to read.
You don't know how to do that... so you are therefore profoundly ignorant. From that position, you don't get to judge anyone else's education.
As to why the woman takes care of the children... I need to take some deep breaths here... *calms down*
Okay, first responsibility and rights go hand in hand. For women to share responsibility they must share rights... over the child. If they are doing that, then their male sperm shooting buddy will probably be sharing that responsibility.
Second, even if the guy has no rights over the child, he generally has to pay child support. Which renders your whole comment about why men don't help out completely silly.
Third, the attractiveness and value of men is tied to their utility to the family and their ability to "nest build" for women. This is why rich dudes marry poor women with big tits and poor men are not as often married by rich old women. It doesn't really happen. We're sexually dimorphic. To further address your point, if a man stops working when his wife has a child and says "I'll take care of the baby" it puts more strain on their marriage than if he keeps working and she stops working. What is more, many women literally prefer to take the time off to spend with their child. And guess what, that has career consequences... Get the fuck over it.
Fourth, what makes your statement about men abandoning women so mind numbingly painful to listen to is that there are instances of women literally drugging men, tying them up, raping them, the man reporting the rape, nothing happening to his rapist, her giving birth, and then him having to pay child support for her rape baby. That has literally happened. Another fun example, some lesbians asked a guy to donate sperm so they could have a baby. The understanding was that he would not be responsible for the baby. He either shot it in a cup or has sex with one of them until she got pregnant. After birth, the other lesbian abandoned her partner and her partner went on welfare. Then the people at the welfare office said she had to declare the father for paper work reasons. Then the welfare office demanded child support from the guy that donated his sperm to the lesbians. And from this you conclude that men are just let off the fucking hook?
I don't want to live on this planet anymore... there are far too many retards.
Given that they've never seen it or directly detected it and that it has only been assumed to exist at intergalactic distances due to unexplained gravitational discrepancies... yeah, that is my understanding.
Do you have further information or can I just expect vague shit posts and trolling from you?
Offer something constructive to the discussion or eat all the dicks.
I'm not demeaning people smarter than myself. I'm demeaning people more myopic and pedantic than myself.
I found nothing in your post but baseless insults... do you have even a thought worth contributing or was that all you were able to offer? Because any halfwit child could muster that much.
If I were handing out funding grants, I'd be less interested in doing it on the dark matter energy research and more interested in throwing the money at seeing if there isn't a model that doesn't require such "constructs".
The whole thing reads like epicycles to me. Those curly cue micro orbits that they used to think our planets traveled in to explain their movement.
And that only went away when they realized the earth wasn't the center of the solar system but rather it was the sun itself.
I'm not an astrophysicist... but I have actually had education in astrophysics. I mean, I could personally calculate all the orbits of the planets using raw observational data. I know the equations and how to use them. I also know the history of that science.
And all this dark matter/energy stuff just sounds like epicycles all over again.
Both dark matter and energy are more than a construct. It radically effects the nature of the model.
The model cannot explain why the galaxies are spinning around so fast which leads them to believe "dark matter" and then they don't know why the galaxies are ACCELERATING away from each other and so they say "dark energy".
That's more than a construct. That is GALAXIES spinning around faster and galaxies accelerating away from each other. That's huge.
discovering a discrepancy like that should result in a complete reevaluation of the entire model... not just saying "well, the orbits of the planets go along these little curly cue orbits for no reason".
We have not fought a single particle of dark matter. They're saying in some reports that 70 percent of the mass in the universe is dark matter. And we haven't got our hands on so much as a speck of it? How likely is that?
I don't think dark matter or energy are answers to the question.
It is just an admission that they don't know why the galaxies are spinning around that fast and they don't know why they are accelerating away from each other.
That's it.
Nothing more.
Just that.
And so dark matter/energy is no answer. It is of no significance.
There's no stigma against working women with children. The stigma is against an employee not showing up for work for ANY reason. Ultimately the employer doesn't pay you to take care of your children. They pay you to do your job. You do that well and you're more valuable to the company and will be paid more. You do it worse and you're less valuable to the company and will be paid less.
That isn't discrimination.
There is a big problem with people conflating "equality of outcome" with "equality of opportunity".
Equal opportunity does not mean you're going to make the same as anyone else. It means you "COULD" have made the same.
If you make choices that reduce your earning power that isn't anyone else's fault. It isn't a civil rights issue. It isn't discrimination.
Its like blaming your employer for not hiring you to be a doctor even though you don't have a medical degree. You COULD have gotten one but you chose not to go to school for 8 years to get it. And as a result... you're not a doctor and they're not employing you as one.
This whole "equally skilled women are being paid less than equally skilled men" doesn't take into consideration years worked on the job. Which means it can't possibly evaluate if the people being hired or paid are actually equally skilled. All they're doing is looking at what people studied in college. If you studied the same thing in college and passed... those statistics consider you "equally skilled" which completely ignores so many fucking things it is beyond retarded.
No one is forgetting that. But why is the employer responsible for it either?
You want to take ten years off and then come back and earn the same as the man OR woman that didnt' leave? How is that fair?
The best way to track the effect of children on the earning power of a woman is is to compare the earning power of women that don't have children versus the ones that do.
The women that do not have children earn almost the exact same amount as men.
That was how the gender cap statistic was first debunked. They just removed all the women that have children and the gap vanished.
Now you say we need kids? No disagreement. But that is a different issue from gender discrimination or a wage gap.
All you're asking for now is maternity welfare. Which already exists. Nearly all the public subsidy money for healthcare etc goes to women. Roughly 90 percent goes to women.
So... you're being paid. And the next time you want to talk about how hard it is being a woman, lets look at the gender imbalance in homeless people. Nearly all homeless people are men.
This issue is bullshit. It needs to be cut in to little pieces, dosed with holy water, and then buried on opposing sides of a church on holy ground. Otherwise known as another fun way to deal with vampires.
I don't mean the article but this gender bias issue which is almost entirely factious and where not factious almost always radical hyperbole.
The gender wage game since the 1970s has been less then TWO percent not 30 percent WHEN you factor in years on the job. Nearly every comparison between men and women that cite a large gender pay game ignores that the women often take as many as ten years off while they raise children. To compare that person's value to the company against someone that didn't take those ten years off is either gross incompetence or calculated deceit. And that was in the 1970s and that is only when factoring for a SINGLE additional variable.
There are other variables that can easily account for the remaining 2 percent and then some.
Subject this garbage to the cold light of reality and it evaporates into nothing.
By all means, contradict me... but if you do, provide some logic and if you cite evidence, expect it to be audited.
I will accept nothing from anyone that isn't open to examination.
Here some someone with a propeller beanie on his head will tell me that dark matter must exist because "math"... which is fine only "math" is not actually evidence of something being there absent emperical evaluation because even if the numbers add up a certain way so do orbital epicycles.... and they were bullshit.
A pitfall of the "math" argument is that if you have some very clever people come up with some very clever theories they can confuse Tolken-like world building with "reality".
The justification for dark matter is unexplained gravity. And the gravity is something we know exists because we are seeing the speed at which galaxies spin around and there shouldn't be enough mass to explain that speed. And that extra mass because we can't find it is called "dark matter"...
Well, that's great... only that doesn't mean dark matter exists. It could mean our theories of gravitation are wrong or any number of other things.
same thing with "Dark energy"... which in so far as I've figured out only exists because galaxies are accelerating away from each other and we have no idea what could cause every galaxy to propel itself at speeds like that except some other unexplained energy and that's what is dark energy.
In both cases it just sounds like they don't have enough observational data to really have a valid cosmological model. And I would much rather them make that admission then talk to me about "dark" whatever.
That is... as brief as it can possibly be to accomplish the stated goal. Very simple.
I also like it when the code is commented properly so that every operation is broken down and and annotated to explain what it is doing.
This lets me go through the whole program and see what it is doing and the way it is doing it very quickly.
The code that makes me crazy is the rube goldberg code that does some thing very simple in the most elaborate way possible, has no annotations so I have no idea what the actual point of the code is, and then to make things worse various parts of the code will randomly switch between doing different things for no reason.
THAT code I hate. I see that shit and I delete it and write over myself.
Part of the problem is that people don't know how to do somethings. They understand the language but they haven't memorized the really short code snippets that are the ideal way of getting from point A to point B. And that's just something a programmer should either have memorized or stored somewhere for recall.
Using those code snippets tends make the code far more elegant and much more readable because you can see beyond the annotations what they're doing because you recognize that snippet.
If they never use them, that is fine too... just so long as they don't make their code look like that breakfast making machine from Chitty Chitty bang bang. If they do that, I will murder them all.:-D
Slashdot Mirror
In fairness the men in prison are there mostly because men tend to commit crimes with greater frequency and when they do they tend to commit more serious ones.
It is important to be fair so that when you pass judgement it has meaning.
If you judge impulsively or unfairly then your judgment is of diminished value.
Keep that in mind and keep your comments fair.
The homeless comment is fair. The prison comment is not.
This is false equivalency.
This notion that someone is automatically being overpaid simply because of seniority.
You don't know that. Just because the company replaces someone that is paid X with someone else that is being paid X/2 does not mean that the person replacing them is doing the same work or quality of work as the previous employee. You really don't know.
Go look at a job listing and you'll see they tend to all say "DOE" under the wage/salary section.
That stands for "Depending on experience". Which means practically every job listing scales the pay based on the experience of the worker they are hiring.
That means companies obviously do appreciate experience. They pay more for it internally and they pay new hires that have more of it.
If you have less experience you get less money.
And if you took ten years off for some reason then you're going to have less experience then someone that didn't... male or female. This is not a gender issue. It is a work experience issue.
If a man takes ten years off work to go find himself in Tibet then when he comes back he is not going to be making as much as the man or woman that didn't leave.
Just what is... complaining about that is trying to eat your cake and have it too. Which is the aspiration of a crazy person.
You're not crazy... so you don't want to do that.
Case closed
*slaps gavel down*
Next issue.
The employer is in no way responsible for either of those things.
Your employer is not your liege lord, you fucking filthy peasant. :D
You are in a contractual relationship where the employer provides a set wage or salary in return for a set service.
They are not responsible to take care of your children if you die unless they somehow caused your death.
What is more, your point doesn't address the fact that you are conceding a difference in the value of work between group A and group B.
It is merely your contention that it is "need" which should determine compensation and not "WORK".
Corporations are not run on communist or feudal lines. Your entire point is bizarre and I don't know how to really address it in detail.
No, it was a typo... I meant fallacious.
As to your conclusions... these are non-proofread comments on an internet forum. Put your grammar nazi dick back in your pants. No one wants to see that.
This is a casual environment and I'm not going to suffer getting brow beaten by people making observations a word processor would flag as if they're revealing the mysteries of the fucking universe.
If that comes off overly hostile... i'm been dealing with more than my fair share of idiots on this board lately and I have a low tolerance for the spelling and grammar corrections. Give us all a break, cupcake.
I'm just amused that they're calling their voice recognition system Cortana and they're apparently calling their browser the Spartan.
These are both references to the game Halo. The AI assistant to the Master Chief was known as Cortana and the Master Chief was some kind of cyborg military super soldier that was referred to as a "spartian".
I can't wait for them to name something "the flood" ... I have to keep my eyes open for any further references. The whole thing is pretty funny.
The biggest source of these fake papers appears to be phd papers. And given that we're producing more phds than ever before, maybe we should reform the way we do that. Because in requiring that they actually discover or examine something new the chances are that they're going to lie about something.
If we had fewer phds maybe they wouldn't do that so much. But the issue is that there are so many papers that no one can read them. And that means trying to audit this stuff is impractical.
The solution of having robots audit the papers is interesting but for that to be really effective, I think the papers need to be optimized for that sort of scan.
Less prose for example outside of the abstract. More data, more equations, more graphs... more things an expert system could take apart.
Here is my real beef with this idea... i'm pretty sure I could cheat just as easily with this system as I could right now. I think the only thing that would change is that the people reading my work would feel less of a need to check my work and just trust the robot. But if I know how to fool the robot then I automatically win.
Robots are stupid guys. I've never met a machine I couldn't outsmart.
... none of which matters because it has nothing to do with sexual discrimination.
Next issue.
You show sexual discrimination... that is discrimination that is not correlative with other factors but caused directly by gender or you have nothing.
The issue is that when women have children their careers get put on hold which means their male peers make more money at the end of their careers than women do that took large portions of their career off.
That is what happens.
It is not sexual discrimination and there is no gender pay gap. This has been known since the 1970s. As of the 1970s, excluding the effects of child birth, the difference between male and female pay is less then 2 percent.
This has been known since then and with almost no research you can pull that up. And yet the same tired myth is spread around that there is this gender pay gap.
Why? Politics. No one wants women exploited and anyone that wants to exploit the gullible, ignorant, and idle will throw this shit around to stir up as many stupid people as they possible can to intimidate anyone else into giving them whatever they want or they'll turn the fucking stupid peasants loose on everyone else.
We can be better than that. The fact that you're making excuses for this shit is probably the most disturbing part of this conversation for me. there is no excuse. A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie is a lie. And the people that push that shit are liars that lie and coming up for reasons why it is okay for liars to lie about lying is only going to turn you into some flavor of liar yourself.
Just stop. Separate the bullshit from the truth. It is less slippery and shit covered ground.
As to something getting people upset on slashdot, that is not evidence that it is a good topic. Especially since most of the comments are "oh this shit again".
You know those sad attempts by Dice to insert job advertisements into the news stream? They get the exact same response. "oh this shit again."
So no. The fact that it is getting a negative reaction is not evidence of it being a something important that we need to talk about.
As to people lacking introspection, in what way has what I PERSONALLY have said lacked introspection? I'm sure you can find someone on the board that has said something stupid and I have no control or interest in that comment.
You commented to ME. You are implying that I personally lack introspection. Alright... how?
As to this notion that I should accept something from YOU that is not open to examination or "I" am arrogant, maybe it is you that should get the fuck over yourself.
Who the fuck are you that you can expect me to accept something you say that is not open to examination?
I wouldn't expect you to accept anything from me on that basis and you expect me to accept such from you?
Your comment is baffling either in its ignorance or arrogance.
I'm assuming ignorance because I don't think you're that fucking arrogant. Let me clue you in, when you have a discussion you need to provide sound reasoning for why you hold a position if you want anyone else to take your position seriously. And if you're offering evidence, then that has to be something people can check out.
Lacking either of those you're just shit posting and I'm entirely justified in judging your post to be of no constructive value and ignoring it.
So... did you want to try again? Please do... I'm sure with all sincerity that you have something useful to contribute. But if you don't make an effort to share it, then all anyone else is going to see is the bullshit you posted above.
Yes, this is slashdot. Welcome to the party. :-)
Not literally every government official, but all high government officials should have all their orders tracked. The literal execution of their power should require putting it in writing. At the very fucking least they should have a wax seal and put their chop on whatever document they want obeyed.
This notion that "we don't get recorded if we don't use email" is offensive. No subordinate government official should accept an order that is not duly recorded. State or federal.
Anything out of a mayor's office should get recorded. Governors, cabinet ministers, heads of departments, heads of bureaus, etc. That ay if there is wrong doing, a court can peel the records open and audit when the orders were given.
Fine... we'll play the epicycles game a bit longer. When we're both in Hell, and the mysteries of the universe crack wide... We can see which of us was right.
I think this might be a thing were they play with it for a few more generations and then realize they had made some simple core assumption that was wrong. And by inverting that assumption everything else falls into place.
But what do I know... dark matter dark energy dark mathematics with dark chocolate and dark stormy nights.
Your comment made no effort to back up your argument and is therefore null.
Do you have a point to make? So far, all I see you doing is sputtering and posturing. You also don't understand how to make a logical argument... which renders your claims to greater education or sophistication idiotic.
Knowing how to form an argument is MORE fundamental than knowing how to read.
You don't know how to do that... so you are therefore profoundly ignorant. From that position, you don't get to judge anyone else's education.
fuck off. ;)
As to why the woman takes care of the children... I need to take some deep breaths here... *calms down*
Okay, first responsibility and rights go hand in hand. For women to share responsibility they must share rights... over the child. If they are doing that, then their male sperm shooting buddy will probably be sharing that responsibility.
Second, even if the guy has no rights over the child, he generally has to pay child support. Which renders your whole comment about why men don't help out completely silly.
Third, the attractiveness and value of men is tied to their utility to the family and their ability to "nest build" for women. This is why rich dudes marry poor women with big tits and poor men are not as often married by rich old women. It doesn't really happen. We're sexually dimorphic. To further address your point, if a man stops working when his wife has a child and says "I'll take care of the baby" it puts more strain on their marriage than if he keeps working and she stops working. What is more, many women literally prefer to take the time off to spend with their child. And guess what, that has career consequences... Get the fuck over it.
Fourth, what makes your statement about men abandoning women so mind numbingly painful to listen to is that there are instances of women literally drugging men, tying them up, raping them, the man reporting the rape, nothing happening to his rapist, her giving birth, and then him having to pay child support for her rape baby. That has literally happened. Another fun example, some lesbians asked a guy to donate sperm so they could have a baby. The understanding was that he would not be responsible for the baby. He either shot it in a cup or has sex with one of them until she got pregnant. After birth, the other lesbian abandoned her partner and her partner went on welfare. Then the people at the welfare office said she had to declare the father for paper work reasons. Then the welfare office demanded child support from the guy that donated his sperm to the lesbians. And from this you conclude that men are just let off the fucking hook?
I don't want to live on this planet anymore... there are far too many retards.
Given that they've never seen it or directly detected it and that it has only been assumed to exist at intergalactic distances due to unexplained gravitational discrepancies... yeah, that is my understanding.
Do you have further information or can I just expect vague shit posts and trolling from you?
Offer something constructive to the discussion or eat all the dicks.
Every last one.
I'm not demeaning people smarter than myself. I'm demeaning people more myopic and pedantic than myself.
I found nothing in your post but baseless insults... do you have even a thought worth contributing or was that all you were able to offer? Because any halfwit child could muster that much.
Do better.
If I were handing out funding grants, I'd be less interested in doing it on the dark matter energy research and more interested in throwing the money at seeing if there isn't a model that doesn't require such "constructs".
The whole thing reads like epicycles to me. Those curly cue micro orbits that they used to think our planets traveled in to explain their movement.
And that only went away when they realized the earth wasn't the center of the solar system but rather it was the sun itself.
I'm not an astrophysicist... but I have actually had education in astrophysics. I mean, I could personally calculate all the orbits of the planets using raw observational data. I know the equations and how to use them. I also know the history of that science.
And all this dark matter/energy stuff just sounds like epicycles all over again.
Both dark matter and energy are more than a construct. It radically effects the nature of the model.
The model cannot explain why the galaxies are spinning around so fast which leads them to believe "dark matter" and then they don't know why the galaxies are ACCELERATING away from each other and so they say "dark energy".
That's more than a construct. That is GALAXIES spinning around faster and galaxies accelerating away from each other. That's huge.
discovering a discrepancy like that should result in a complete reevaluation of the entire model... not just saying "well, the orbits of the planets go along these little curly cue orbits for no reason".
We have not fought a single particle of dark matter. They're saying in some reports that 70 percent of the mass in the universe is dark matter. And we haven't got our hands on so much as a speck of it? How likely is that?
I don't think dark matter or energy are answers to the question.
It is just an admission that they don't know why the galaxies are spinning around that fast and they don't know why they are accelerating away from each other.
That's it.
Nothing more.
Just that.
And so dark matter/energy is no answer. It is of no significance.
Actually I said that if you contradicted me, I wanted some logic or reasoning behind your position.
Many people will just say "I disagree" and not provide any kind of rational for it which isn't constructive.
I further said that IF IF IF IF IF you cited evidence it would be audited.
That is what I said. Nowhere in my post did I demand citations.
Read it again and then apologize to me.
There's no stigma against working women with children. The stigma is against an employee not showing up for work for ANY reason. Ultimately the employer doesn't pay you to take care of your children. They pay you to do your job. You do that well and you're more valuable to the company and will be paid more. You do it worse and you're less valuable to the company and will be paid less.
That isn't discrimination.
There is a big problem with people conflating "equality of outcome" with "equality of opportunity".
Equal opportunity does not mean you're going to make the same as anyone else. It means you "COULD" have made the same.
If you make choices that reduce your earning power that isn't anyone else's fault. It isn't a civil rights issue. It isn't discrimination.
Its like blaming your employer for not hiring you to be a doctor even though you don't have a medical degree. You COULD have gotten one but you chose not to go to school for 8 years to get it. And as a result... you're not a doctor and they're not employing you as one.
This whole "equally skilled women are being paid less than equally skilled men" doesn't take into consideration years worked on the job. Which means it can't possibly evaluate if the people being hired or paid are actually equally skilled. All they're doing is looking at what people studied in college. If you studied the same thing in college and passed... those statistics consider you "equally skilled" which completely ignores so many fucking things it is beyond retarded.
No one is forgetting that. But why is the employer responsible for it either?
You want to take ten years off and then come back and earn the same as the man OR woman that didnt' leave? How is that fair?
The best way to track the effect of children on the earning power of a woman is is to compare the earning power of women that don't have children versus the ones that do.
The women that do not have children earn almost the exact same amount as men.
That was how the gender cap statistic was first debunked. They just removed all the women that have children and the gap vanished.
Now you say we need kids? No disagreement. But that is a different issue from gender discrimination or a wage gap.
All you're asking for now is maternity welfare. Which already exists. Nearly all the public subsidy money for healthcare etc goes to women. Roughly 90 percent goes to women.
So... you're being paid. And the next time you want to talk about how hard it is being a woman, lets look at the gender imbalance in homeless people. Nearly all homeless people are men.
This issue is bullshit. It needs to be cut in to little pieces, dosed with holy water, and then buried on opposing sides of a church on holy ground. Otherwise known as another fun way to deal with vampires.
The issue is bullshit. Nuke it from orbit.
I don't mean the article but this gender bias issue which is almost entirely factious and where not factious almost always radical hyperbole.
The gender wage game since the 1970s has been less then TWO percent not 30 percent WHEN you factor in years on the job. Nearly every comparison between men and women that cite a large gender pay game ignores that the women often take as many as ten years off while they raise children. To compare that person's value to the company against someone that didn't take those ten years off is either gross incompetence or calculated deceit. And that was in the 1970s and that is only when factoring for a SINGLE additional variable.
There are other variables that can easily account for the remaining 2 percent and then some.
Subject this garbage to the cold light of reality and it evaporates into nothing.
By all means, contradict me... but if you do, provide some logic and if you cite evidence, expect it to be audited.
I will accept nothing from anyone that isn't open to examination.
Here some someone with a propeller beanie on his head will tell me that dark matter must exist because "math"... which is fine only "math" is not actually evidence of something being there absent emperical evaluation because even if the numbers add up a certain way so do orbital epicycles.... and they were bullshit.
A pitfall of the "math" argument is that if you have some very clever people come up with some very clever theories they can confuse Tolken-like world building with "reality".
The justification for dark matter is unexplained gravity. And the gravity is something we know exists because we are seeing the speed at which galaxies spin around and there shouldn't be enough mass to explain that speed. And that extra mass because we can't find it is called "dark matter"...
Well, that's great... only that doesn't mean dark matter exists. It could mean our theories of gravitation are wrong or any number of other things.
same thing with "Dark energy"... which in so far as I've figured out only exists because galaxies are accelerating away from each other and we have no idea what could cause every galaxy to propel itself at speeds like that except some other unexplained energy and that's what is dark energy.
In both cases it just sounds like they don't have enough observational data to really have a valid cosmological model. And I would much rather them make that admission then talk to me about "dark" whatever.
You're doing it again. That isn't how a discussion or an argument works. You don't just say you're right and then refuse to explain why.
You need to provide reasons for your conclusion or your comment has to be taken as void.
That is how discussions work. You either play by the rules or you forfeit.
You're basically just saying "I'm right" and then walking away. That's not credible.
The US is the exception to many rules... usually in our favor.
That is... as brief as it can possibly be to accomplish the stated goal. Very simple.
I also like it when the code is commented properly so that every operation is broken down and and annotated to explain what it is doing.
This lets me go through the whole program and see what it is doing and the way it is doing it very quickly.
The code that makes me crazy is the rube goldberg code that does some thing very simple in the most elaborate way possible, has no annotations so I have no idea what the actual point of the code is, and then to make things worse various parts of the code will randomly switch between doing different things for no reason.
THAT code I hate. I see that shit and I delete it and write over myself.
Part of the problem is that people don't know how to do somethings. They understand the language but they haven't memorized the really short code snippets that are the ideal way of getting from point A to point B. And that's just something a programmer should either have memorized or stored somewhere for recall.
Using those code snippets tends make the code far more elegant and much more readable because you can see beyond the annotations what they're doing because you recognize that snippet.
If they never use them, that is fine too... just so long as they don't make their code look like that breakfast making machine from Chitty Chitty bang bang. If they do that, I will murder them all. :-D
That works too. I don't need to use it though.
I suspect a dictionary attack will go through that faster than your calculation would suggest.