The pay gap has been reduced over time exactly because of my economic argument. If it keeps being reduced and eventually becomes zero it is a sign that both sexes are equally productive and therefore equally desired. It remains to be seen. Either way it is not a problem. The market will always stabilize in a fair point where professionals are rewarded accordingly with their relative values. If it does stabilize in a point where women earn less than men it is because they do deserve to earn less. If it stabilizes in a point where they earn more it is because they do deserve to earn more. Simple as that.
And although the idealized free market does not exist and have never truly existed, the employment market is as near to it as we have ever got.
Paying for an employee that is not working is a penalty to a company by any meaningful definition of the term and paternity leaves are much shorter, as they should.
I assume results are rational, that there is a strong relation between employee performance/cost ratio and a company's success. Managers irrationality is irrelevant here.
And that is exactly why the study means nothing. Offers only reflect what employers expectations, which may very well be accurate and based on their experience. The difference in offers does not in any way proves that there is irrational bias. Actually if you consider the market as I said, it points to a well founded rational bias.
Sexism is a very overused and consequently meaningless term these days. Apparently anything that puts women in an unfavorable position is "sexist" by the definition of people like you no matter how truthful it may be. You want so badly for things to be like you think they should that you willingly choose to blatantly ignore reality around you whenever it brings you unfavorable data.
But that makes things even worse. If you hire an employee for a couple years and this employee is unable to perform its role for a few months you are being considerable more affected than if you hire such an employee for a 10 years period. That obviously assuming that most people won't have anything like 5 consecutive pregnancies nowadays.
Exactly. If they are irrational they will be paying more than the competition for similar results, and you can't stay in business for long if your competition is more efficient.
Bias cannot exist for long in a free market. If females produce results as good as males or better for lower salaries, the companies that hire then have a significant competitive advantage and will likely succeed. Companies will start to hire more women, and there will be more demand than offer for female employees. Consequently women salaries will rise. Simple as that.
If women earn less it is because their results are lacking. I won't risk on the motives of that, but that is an undeniable fact.
US is far from being the reasonable superpower you preach. Most terrorism US face is a consequence of the meddling it did in middle East putting figureheads dictators in place when it suited your interests and abandoning the countries to their luck when the interest was lost. That has been happening for for more than five decades now.
But that is besides the point. The main victims of the over reaction to a very small threat are the US citizens. You are forfeiting your civil rights and individual liberties to feel a little safer against a threat that is considerably less significant than bad drivers.
No you shouldn't wait until your citizens are killed before taking action, but the action should be proportional to the threat and its results shouldn't be worse than what would happen if such action was not taken. That is not the case here. You have people arbitrarily entering non-flying lists and people being arrested without a formal accusation and for undetermined time just to cite a couple of examples. This is far more dangerous than anything a terrorist could do to your country, rest assured.
The chances where still lower before the US was taking "effective" measures against it, my friend. Open your eyes. It is not as if the terrorist threat increased tenfold in the last 10 years, but, on the other hand, the measures against it did.
And, really, the Iraqis wouldn't have bombings in their soil if US hadn't made them the favor of invading their country to take down a dictator US itself had previously put there.
The chances of a person being killed by a terrorist attack are by far lower than the chances of dying from a traffic accident or a heart attack. Actually they are far less than the chances of an innocent person to die accidentally shot by a police officer.
Taking extreme actions against vaporous threats is the best way of turning a democracy into an authoritarian regimen, and if you feed enough fear to the population you may even have general support in the process, until it is too late.
The damage the government is doing to individual freedoms and civil rights both within US and abroad by trying to "protect" its people from evil terrorists is by far worse than anything the terrorists could have done.
Brazilian judges, like the judges of all countries in this world, are pluripotent tyrants who answer for very little. They are also completely unable to understand that in practice they hold no power over the information flow in the Internet. Someone should teach them about the Streisand effect...
What I meant is that if that is really the case Apple should have taken the necessary time or invested the necessary amount of resources to have a good alternative solution. I highly doubt that Google's terms were anywhere as bad as you describe, though. Google has a long history of allowing other to license the use of its technologies, unlike Apple.
I should warn you that at least a good part of those people, especially in a place like this, do not think exactly like your oversimplified model of them thinks they do. More often than not the incoherence appears more due to a flaw in the method of analysis than in the subject being analyzed.
I understand how it works exactly. It makes easier for right holders with money to directly prosecute people without as much money that happen to incur in the obvious crime of fair use. It is more often than not abused to take out basically anything one wishes on the fear of the media service to be prosecuted by not complying.
Youtube, being backed by a huge corporation and all is certainly more resistant to DCMA bullying, but any small guy will bow to a RIAA or MPAA request, regardless of any real right they might or might not have over the work.
Oh there are people who think like this. I am one of them, by the way. But I am coherent. I think always like this, including in the case stated here. There is nothing wrong in believing information should be free. It is a valid opinion even if you disagree with it. There is nothing wrong in opinions like these to be modded up, especially when they are presented with good arguments, which is often the case.
On the other hand, like I said, this is not the opinion of most Slashdotters, but what I stated in my previous post certainly is.
Those kind of "Slashdotters" are usually a lot more coherent than "Slashdotters haters Slashdotters" like you.;)
That said, most slashdotters are not against copyright per se, but against the abuse of copyright by corporations, the use of public money to defend their rights while the common citizen have to bankrupt himself to have any chance of having justice made, and the erosion of fair use promoted by those same big corporations.
Your limited capacity of understanding these concepts is what brings you to perceive their opinions as something paradoxical.
That is a typical example that shows that DCMA is only useful for big corporations. If you had dared to use a few chords of a copyrighted song and RIAA decided to remove your videos it would be done very quickly, rest assured.
I am not really sure about that. The powers that are tend to do everything in their power to keep any potential competition disorganized and they have been successful at that for a long time.
Slashdot Mirror
The pay gap has been reduced over time exactly because of my economic argument. If it keeps being reduced and eventually becomes zero it is a sign that both sexes are equally productive and therefore equally desired. It remains to be seen. Either way it is not a problem. The market will always stabilize in a fair point where professionals are rewarded accordingly with their relative values. If it does stabilize in a point where women earn less than men it is because they do deserve to earn less. If it stabilizes in a point where they earn more it is because they do deserve to earn more. Simple as that.
And although the idealized free market does not exist and have never truly existed, the employment market is as near to it as we have ever got.
Paying for an employee that is not working is a penalty to a company by any meaningful definition of the term and paternity leaves are much shorter, as they should.
Things seldom are as they "should". Things are as they are. Pregnant employees are a penalty to any company, and sex do matter.
I assume results are rational, that there is a strong relation between employee performance/cost ratio and a company's success. Managers irrationality is irrelevant here.
And that is exactly why the study means nothing. Offers only reflect what employers expectations, which may very well be accurate and based on their experience. The difference in offers does not in any way proves that there is irrational bias. Actually if you consider the market as I said, it points to a well founded rational bias.
Sexism is a very overused and consequently meaningless term these days. Apparently anything that puts women in an unfavorable position is "sexist" by the definition of people like you no matter how truthful it may be. You want so badly for things to be like you think they should that you willingly choose to blatantly ignore reality around you whenever it brings you unfavorable data.
But that makes things even worse. If you hire an employee for a couple years and this employee is unable to perform its role for a few months you are being considerable more affected than if you hire such an employee for a 10 years period. That obviously assuming that most people won't have anything like 5 consecutive pregnancies nowadays.
Exactly. If they are irrational they will be paying more than the competition for similar results, and you can't stay in business for long if your competition is more efficient.
The employment market is one of the few markets that still is as much a free market as possible.
No, my friend, you believe in "blind" tests no matter how fishy they are if they are consistent with what you want to believe.
Bias cannot exist for long in a free market. If females produce results as good as males or better for lower salaries, the companies that hire then have a significant competitive advantage and will likely succeed. Companies will start to hire more women, and there will be more demand than offer for female employees. Consequently women salaries will rise. Simple as that.
If women earn less it is because their results are lacking. I won't risk on the motives of that, but that is an undeniable fact.
US is far from being the reasonable superpower you preach. Most terrorism US face is a consequence of the meddling it did in middle East putting figureheads dictators in place when it suited your interests and abandoning the countries to their luck when the interest was lost. That has been happening for for more than five decades now.
But that is besides the point. The main victims of the over reaction to a very small threat are the US citizens. You are forfeiting your civil rights and individual liberties to feel a little safer against a threat that is considerably less significant than bad drivers.
No you shouldn't wait until your citizens are killed before taking action, but the action should be proportional to the threat and its results shouldn't be worse than what would happen if such action was not taken. That is not the case here. You have people arbitrarily entering non-flying lists and people being arrested without a formal accusation and for undetermined time just to cite a couple of examples. This is far more dangerous than anything a terrorist could do to your country, rest assured.
The chances where still lower before the US was taking "effective" measures against it, my friend. Open your eyes. It is not as if the terrorist threat increased tenfold in the last 10 years, but, on the other hand, the measures against it did.
And, really, the Iraqis wouldn't have bombings in their soil if US hadn't made them the favor of invading their country to take down a dictator US itself had previously put there.
The chances of a person being killed by a terrorist attack are by far lower than the chances of dying from a traffic accident or a heart attack. Actually they are far less than the chances of an innocent person to die accidentally shot by a police officer.
Taking extreme actions against vaporous threats is the best way of turning a democracy into an authoritarian regimen, and if you feed enough fear to the population you may even have general support in the process, until it is too late.
The damage the government is doing to individual freedoms and civil rights both within US and abroad by trying to "protect" its people from evil terrorists is by far worse than anything the terrorists could have done.
Brazilian judges, like the judges of all countries in this world, are pluripotent tyrants who answer for very little. They are also completely unable to understand that in practice they hold no power over the information flow in the Internet. Someone should teach them about the Streisand effect...
What I meant is that if that is really the case Apple should have taken the necessary time or invested the necessary amount of resources to have a good alternative solution. I highly doubt that Google's terms were anywhere as bad as you describe, though. Google has a long history of allowing other to license the use of its technologies, unlike Apple.
Then they would have invested more in a better alternative before forcibly implementing it.
I should warn you that at least a good part of those people, especially in a place like this, do not think exactly like your oversimplified model of them thinks they do. More often than not the incoherence appears more due to a flaw in the method of analysis than in the subject being analyzed.
I understand how it works exactly. It makes easier for right holders with money to directly prosecute people without as much money that happen to incur in the obvious crime of fair use. It is more often than not abused to take out basically anything one wishes on the fear of the media service to be prosecuted by not complying.
Youtube, being backed by a huge corporation and all is certainly more resistant to DCMA bullying, but any small guy will bow to a RIAA or MPAA request, regardless of any real right they might or might not have over the work.
Oh there are people who think like this. I am one of them, by the way. But I am coherent. I think always like this, including in the case stated here. There is nothing wrong in believing information should be free. It is a valid opinion even if you disagree with it. There is nothing wrong in opinions like these to be modded up, especially when they are presented with good arguments, which is often the case.
On the other hand, like I said, this is not the opinion of most Slashdotters, but what I stated in my previous post certainly is.
Those kind of "Slashdotters" are usually a lot more coherent than "Slashdotters haters Slashdotters" like you. ;)
That said, most slashdotters are not against copyright per se, but against the abuse of copyright by corporations, the use of public money to defend their rights while the common citizen have to bankrupt himself to have any chance of having justice made, and the erosion of fair use promoted by those same big corporations.
Your limited capacity of understanding these concepts is what brings you to perceive their opinions as something paradoxical.
That is a typical example that shows that DCMA is only useful for big corporations. If you had dared to use a few chords of a copyrighted song and RIAA decided to remove your videos it would be done very quickly, rest assured.
If only you had had a similar fear of posting and having your posts unlawfully copied this would be a better world.
I am not really sure about that. The powers that are tend to do everything in their power to keep any potential competition disorganized and they have been successful at that for a long time.
It has been so for a few quarters already. Maybe Apple will get ahead for a quarter or two when iPhone5 comes, but then again maybe not.
Samsung alone sells more high end smartphones than Apple, in the World market. Apple only has a lead in US market.