I can probably think of a whole lot more than you because, as a truck driver, (and general working-class dude), I've had the opportunity to see a lot of different industries, first-hand.
Some of those power tools are quite heavy. A jackhammer comes to mind. But there are many jobs, using both powered, and simple tools, that are harder for women than men. Construction comes to mind, where you may have the benefit of a powered drill, and maybe a nail gun, but you still have to do a lot of heavy lifting. You also have to have a mechanical inclination. I don't, so I don't apply for those types of jobs.
I can recall one incident from my own experience, back in the late seventies. A woman was hired for a position in a paint plant where I worked, the same position I had. The job mostly consisted of adding small amounts of liquid pigment to paint batches, per the shader's instructions. But, sometimes you had to add large amounts of talc to a batch, (to make flat paint). These bags were one-hundred pounds, and had to be lifted to shoulder height. She could not do this so, obviously, I had to do that for her. I couldn't help feeling this was a little unfair, as it wasn't that easy for me either. Is that equality?
I don't see how not getting a job you can't do equals discrimination, (in the social sense). I also don't think that "everyone is equal" means "everyone is the same". That's a ridiculous notion on the face of it, so I don't understand how it's gotten so much traction among some people. I believe that, if you can do the job, it should be open to you.
Here's the thing, though: placebos can be quite effective. As effective as certain classes of actual drugs, for certain maladies. But yes, homeopathy is ridiculous.
Perhaps they tried it, and found they didn't like it? I just watched the video that antiperimetaparalogo referenced, (and linked to, above), and they talk about how, when women have more freedom to choose, they choose what interests them. This, as opposed to poorer countries, where women will make choices based on what will get them out of poverty. I don't know why some people think "equality" means everybody is the same. Women simply don't have all the same interests as men, and don't have the muscle mass to do certain other jobs. What needs to change is, the perception that female-dominated professions are less valuable than male-dominated professions.
Right. There seems to be a denial from certain sectors of society that boys and girls are different. It's as if you can't have equality if you were to admit this. But boys and girls are different, and in so many ways. Perhaps the most important difference is testosterone. I don't think most people really understand what slaves we are to hormones, and how profoundly they affect our brains, (which is to say, the way we think). If we're to have true equality, we have to acknowledge these differences, rather than trying to make one gender behave as the other, or pretending these differences don't exist.
The writer, Nadia Drake (as listed in the byline at Wired.com), doesn't explicate until almost the end of the article: it's not that FB is misinterpreting her actual name as overly exotic, nor is she using a stage or business name, but her account is registered as "Nads N. Nads".
She comes to it in the third or fourth paragraph. It's not exactly buried, or at the end, and comes before any mention of Native American names. Then, it seems you were modded up by people who didn't RTFA at all.
I don't see why her reasons for pseudonymity are any less legit than anyone else's. Everyone on FB ought to be using a pseudo, simply because of the whole spy game FB is running. Then, there are all the other reasons.
In [another] study, the experimenter belittled the peer group of the participants, who then...came up with 39 percent fewer creative ideas during a brainstorming task focused on how they might use a brick.
And can you point to an example of someone who's actually robbed $15 million and not faced criminal prosecution?
I guess you missed the whole banking/mortgage/housing/securities thing a few years back, or maybe didn't understand it. Of course, no violence was threatened. It was more along the lines of a scam. But a lot of people think scams are a form of theft.
Now? I don't see what's changed, aside from public opinion. Of course, most join because they cannot afford education, or simply don't know what else to do at eighteen, and some have bought into the Terrorism Scare.
Monster is looking more and more like a bargain these days. There are companies selling and, presumably, idiots buying, cables for five figures. This has become such a problem, that it took me a lot of searching before I could find simple, well-made audio cable for a reasonable price. But yes, Monster started it.
What they're complaining about is that they never heard back from Apple at the end of the six months. I'm sure that if Apple rang them up and said, "Hey, we're still working on a fix", that they'd have been willing to continue withholding publication. No mention of whether the researchers tried to contact Apple again at that time.
It's much better practice to allow a company to close a hole, than to inform users, who, in most instances, could do fuck all with that knowledge, anyway. On the other hand, there are other people who could make use of that knowledge, and that's who you want to keep in the dark, if at all possible.
Well, now that we have the right not to smell things we don't like, please stop driving your car in public. I hate that smell. And, please, refrain from using perfumed products like soap, detergent, dryer sheets, deodorant, and especially, perfume and cologne if you plan on being in a public place. Scented dryer sheets should be banned altogether, because I can smell the dryer exhaust from two houses away. Use unscented products, because I sure as hell don't want to smell your body odor, either. Also, we have the right to not see things we don't like, and your activities offend me and my children. Now, I believe I am owed another trophy!
The comments quoted all point to the fact that Harvard doesn't need the money. It's already the richest school in the US, by far and away, with an endowment fund of twenty-six billion, (it was thirty-some billion, but they lost part of it, guess how?). There are more deserving schools, to whom four-hundred million wouldn't be a drop in the bucket.
Not knocking the skill, just not sure sport is the right word
That's always a good excuse to consult the dictionary! The OED, for instance, has an extensive entry on this word. TL;DR: It's the right word. If you're gonna make up your own definitions, you're always gonna have to qualify them everytime you use words in your own idiosyncratic way.
[He] is the best player in StarCraft and has won everything in this field and is still going strong
i mean thats cool and all...but button mashing is now a sport???
I'm not sure why that was modded "Troll" but, any activity, certainly any game, that people are willing to spectate will be called a "sport". From the OED:
sport, n.1 [Aphetic form of disport n.]
I. 1.I.1 a.I.1.a Pleasant pastime; entertainment or amusement; recreation, diversion.
It's only recently (last hundred years) that we've come to associate the word "sport" more with physical exertion, as in team sports and Olympic-type sports.
This is primarily due to laws aimed at combating money laundering and financing criminal and terrorist groups.
That may have been the intention of the law, but it has become quite a cash cow for law enforcement through abuses of the statute. These laws flip the Constitution on its head because you are guilty until you can prove your innocence. That's not always easy with cash. There are cases where they've literally taken the life savings of little old ladies.
Lying to a law enforcement officer is always illegal.
No. There's a law against lying to Federal agents, and Michigan recently passed such a law, but it varies by state. Cops, of course, can lie their ass off to you.
Obviously I don't know what the prosecutors are planning but I'm pretty sure there is a good reason.
Yeah, don't count on it. This law, and similar state laws, have been abused to such an extent that many legislators are now trying to pass reform laws. The most recent story I've read, concerns a convenience store owner whose assets were seized because his cash deposits, his daily receipts, were often in excess of $10k. His bank advised him to make smaller deposits, else they had to report them. He did that, and that's when the Feds swooped in and cleaned him out. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Google something like: "forfeiture abuses" to see many, many more egregious cases.
It's a bit more complicated here. There are sentencing guidelines, and, (unfortunately, in my opinion), mandatory minimum sentences. It is the prosecutor who requests the sentence, and the prosecutor always leans toward the draconian. Indeed, if you have the temerity to insist on your right to a jury trial, you can be sure the prosecutor will throw the book at you. It seems to me you want some judicial discretion, hopefully leaning towards mercy.
One difference from a regular drug dealer on the street is that he wasn't dealing drugs. No more than Pierre Omidyar is dealing Hummel figurines. Very much like eBay, he created a web site where sellers could reach buyers, and vice-versa.
...don't get to choose what goes on your black market if you turn a blind eye...
That's the thing about black markets. No one gets to choose what goes on them. Well, I guess the government that creates them, by banning items, gets to choose what goes on them. These markets are created whenever a government decides to ban, or prohibit, anything the public desires. Silk Road at least had a modicum of control. DPR brought some of the benefits of regulation to what is otherwise a completely unregulated market. The thing about unregulated markets is that they always engender violence, simply because the actors have no other way to resolve disputes. The illicit nature of the business requires secrecy, resulting in an inability to trust anyone. Police are very fond of exploiting this inability to develop trust, just as they did in this case. It quickly becomes a crime-creating feedback loop. Prohibition simple doesn't work.
Well, why did they need a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol? The Federal government has gotten into the habit of interpreting the Commerce Clause to give themselves the power to do anything. It's gotten ridiculous, and really needs to be reined in.
Drug prohibition is only about seventy ~ eighty years old. The US used its coercive powers to get other countries to adopt it, and many eventually embraced it. The idea that you can prohibit plants, or tell people what they can't ingest, is a new one. There's a reason we have drug prohibition. It's not the default position.
Slashdot Mirror
I can probably think of a whole lot more than you because, as a truck driver, (and general working-class dude), I've had the opportunity to see a lot of different industries, first-hand.
Some of those power tools are quite heavy. A jackhammer comes to mind. But there are many jobs, using both powered, and simple tools, that are harder for women than men. Construction comes to mind, where you may have the benefit of a powered drill, and maybe a nail gun, but you still have to do a lot of heavy lifting. You also have to have a mechanical inclination. I don't, so I don't apply for those types of jobs.
I can recall one incident from my own experience, back in the late seventies. A woman was hired for a position in a paint plant where I worked, the same position I had. The job mostly consisted of adding small amounts of liquid pigment to paint batches, per the shader's instructions. But, sometimes you had to add large amounts of talc to a batch, (to make flat paint). These bags were one-hundred pounds, and had to be lifted to shoulder height. She could not do this so, obviously, I had to do that for her. I couldn't help feeling this was a little unfair, as it wasn't that easy for me either. Is that equality?
I don't see how not getting a job you can't do equals discrimination, (in the social sense). I also don't think that "everyone is equal" means "everyone is the same". That's a ridiculous notion on the face of it, so I don't understand how it's gotten so much traction among some people. I believe that, if you can do the job, it should be open to you.
Here's the thing, though: placebos can be quite effective. As effective as certain classes of actual drugs, for certain maladies. But yes, homeopathy is ridiculous.
Perhaps they tried it, and found they didn't like it? I just watched the video that antiperimetaparalogo referenced, (and linked to, above), and they talk about how, when women have more freedom to choose, they choose what interests them. This, as opposed to poorer countries, where women will make choices based on what will get them out of poverty. I don't know why some people think "equality" means everybody is the same.
Women simply don't have all the same interests as men, and don't have the muscle mass to do certain other jobs. What needs to change is, the perception that female-dominated professions are less valuable than male-dominated professions.
Right. There seems to be a denial from certain sectors of society that boys and girls are different. It's as if you can't have equality if you were to admit this. But boys and girls are different, and in so many ways. Perhaps the most important difference is testosterone. I don't think most people really understand what slaves we are to hormones, and how profoundly they affect our brains, (which is to say, the way we think).
If we're to have true equality, we have to acknowledge these differences, rather than trying to make one gender behave as the other, or pretending these differences don't exist.
The writer, Nadia Drake (as listed in the byline at Wired.com), doesn't explicate until almost the end of the article: it's not that FB is misinterpreting her actual name as overly exotic, nor is she using a stage or business name, but her account is registered as "Nads N. Nads".
She comes to it in the third or fourth paragraph. It's not exactly buried, or at the end, and comes before any mention of Native American names. Then, it seems you were modded up by people who didn't RTFA at all.
I don't see why her reasons for pseudonymity are any less legit than anyone else's. Everyone on FB ought to be using a pseudo, simply because of the whole spy game FB is running. Then, there are all the other reasons.
In [another] study, the experimenter belittled the peer group of the participants, who then...came up with 39 percent fewer creative ideas during a brainstorming task focused on how they might use a brick.
I have an idea what to do with the brick...
And can you point to an example of someone who's actually robbed $15 million and not faced criminal prosecution?
I guess you missed the whole banking/mortgage/housing/securities thing a few years back, or maybe didn't understand it. Of course, no violence was threatened. It was more along the lines of a scam. But a lot of people think scams are a form of theft.
Now? I don't see what's changed, aside from public opinion.
Of course, most join because they cannot afford education, or simply don't know what else to do at eighteen, and some have bought into the Terrorism Scare.
Monster is looking more and more like a bargain these days. There are companies selling and, presumably, idiots buying, cables for five figures. This has become such a problem, that it took me a lot of searching before I could find simple, well-made audio cable for a reasonable price. But yes, Monster started it.
What they're complaining about is that they never heard back from Apple at the end of the six months. I'm sure that if Apple rang them up and said, "Hey, we're still working on a fix", that they'd have been willing to continue withholding publication. No mention of whether the researchers tried to contact Apple again at that time.
It's much better practice to allow a company to close a hole, than to inform users, who, in most instances, could do fuck all with that knowledge, anyway. On the other hand, there are other people who could make use of that knowledge, and that's who you want to keep in the dark, if at all possible.
Well, now that we have the right not to smell things we don't like, please stop driving your car in public. I hate that smell. And, please, refrain from using perfumed products like soap, detergent, dryer sheets, deodorant, and especially, perfume and cologne if you plan on being in a public place. Scented dryer sheets should be banned altogether, because I can smell the dryer exhaust from two houses away. Use unscented products, because I sure as hell don't want to smell your body odor, either. Also, we have the right to not see things we don't like, and your activities offend me and my children.
Now, I believe I am owed another trophy!
The biggest obstacle in creating the water computer was figuring out a way to develop a clock mechanism.
Water Clock
So, I believe all you have to do is ask an "intelligent design" person why God is creating drug-resistant [viruses]...
You obviously never attended Catholic school. It is to punish Man for his sins, and his arrogance. Also: mysterious ways. Next question?
The comments quoted all point to the fact that Harvard doesn't need the money. It's already the richest school in the US, by far and away, with an endowment fund of twenty-six billion, (it was thirty-some billion, but they lost part of it, guess how?). There are more deserving schools, to whom four-hundred million wouldn't be a drop in the bucket.
Not knocking the skill, just not sure sport is the right word
That's always a good excuse to consult the dictionary! The OED, for instance, has an extensive entry on this word. TL;DR: It's the right word.
If you're gonna make up your own definitions, you're always gonna have to qualify them everytime you use words in your own idiosyncratic way.
[He] is the best player in StarCraft and has won everything in this field and is still going strong
i mean thats cool and all...but button mashing is now a sport???
I'm not sure why that was modded "Troll" but, any activity, certainly any game, that people are willing to spectate will be called a "sport". From the OED:
sport, n.1
[Aphetic form of disport n.]
I. 1.I.1 a.I.1.a Pleasant pastime; entertainment or amusement; recreation, diversion.
It's only recently (last hundred years) that we've come to associate the word "sport" more with physical exertion, as in team sports and Olympic-type sports.
This is primarily due to laws aimed at combating money laundering and financing criminal and terrorist groups.
That may have been the intention of the law, but it has become quite a cash cow for law enforcement through abuses of the statute. These laws flip the Constitution on its head because you are guilty until you can prove your innocence. That's not always easy with cash. There are cases where they've literally taken the life savings of little old ladies.
Lying to a law enforcement officer is always illegal.
No. There's a law against lying to Federal agents, and Michigan recently passed such a law, but it varies by state. Cops, of course, can lie their ass off to you.
Obviously I don't know what the prosecutors are planning but I'm pretty sure there is a good reason.
Yeah, don't count on it. This law, and similar state laws, have been abused to such an extent that many legislators are now trying to pass reform laws. The most recent story I've read, concerns a convenience store owner whose assets were seized because his cash deposits, his daily receipts, were often in excess of $10k. His bank advised him to make smaller deposits, else they had to report them. He did that, and that's when the Feds swooped in and cleaned him out. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
Google something like: "forfeiture abuses" to see many, many more egregious cases.
Psilocybin is also supposed to be helpful. Unfortunately, people experience euphoria as a side-effect, so it must be banned.
It's a bit more complicated here. There are sentencing guidelines, and, (unfortunately, in my opinion), mandatory minimum sentences. It is the prosecutor who requests the sentence, and the prosecutor always leans toward the draconian. Indeed, if you have the temerity to insist on your right to a jury trial, you can be sure the prosecutor will throw the book at you. It seems to me you want some judicial discretion, hopefully leaning towards mercy.
One difference from a regular drug dealer on the street is that he wasn't dealing drugs. No more than Pierre Omidyar is dealing Hummel figurines. Very much like eBay, he created a web site where sellers could reach buyers, and vice-versa.
...don't get to choose what goes on your black market if you turn a blind eye...
That's the thing about black markets. No one gets to choose what goes on them. Well, I guess the government that creates them, by banning items, gets to choose what goes on them. These markets are created whenever a government decides to ban, or prohibit, anything the public desires. Silk Road at least had a modicum of control. DPR brought some of the benefits of regulation to what is otherwise a completely unregulated market.
The thing about unregulated markets is that they always engender violence, simply because the actors have no other way to resolve disputes. The illicit nature of the business requires secrecy, resulting in an inability to trust anyone. Police are very fond of exploiting this inability to develop trust, just as they did in this case. It quickly becomes a crime-creating feedback loop. Prohibition simple doesn't work.
The Commerce Clause? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Well, why did they need a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol? The Federal government has gotten into the habit of interpreting the Commerce Clause to give themselves the power to do anything. It's gotten ridiculous, and really needs to be reined in.
Drug prohibition is only about seventy ~ eighty years old. The US used its coercive powers to get other countries to adopt it, and many eventually embraced it. The idea that you can prohibit plants, or tell people what they can't ingest, is a new one. There's a reason we have drug prohibition. It's not the default position.
I've gotta headline for you!
Thousands of Scientists Fool Millions of People with Non-Reproducable Studies
You don't find it odd that a bogus, minority-held theory is the top result? How else would it be there, if not through manipulation?