Get a copy of Colin Powell's audiobook "It Worked For Me", read by Colin Powell. When he gets to the Iraq War, note his voice. Powell was still upset over being used to spread false information.
Here's another real-life example: I'm really really good at math, and you do NOT want to put me behind the wheel when backing up a trailer. Is this non-coincidental?
We're not in general talking about computer scientists here, we're talking about software developers.
It's not easy to tell who's good at software development and who isn't. It requires multiple skills. Basic social skills are a must (we've all read about the toxic individuals that trash morale and productivity). How good is it to have someone with good social skills? That person might be keeping the team running smoothly, even while not contributing as much individually.
>> they are often punished for being "bossy" or "shrill"
So you are saying that women are *too afraid* to negotiate higher salaries because they don't want to be labeled?
Salary negotiations depend partly on the impression you're giving your boss during the negotiations. Being labeled as "bossy" or "shrill" is likely to get you less money than being labeled "forceful" and "aggressive".
I don't know, how much of that is biological and how much is cultural?
In general, women do a disproportionate share of the housework, which means they'd be worse affected by long days at work. Is this biological, or cultural? AmiMoJo says that women get blamed for neglecting their families when they work the same long hours that men are often expected to. Househusbands don't seem to be accepted in housewife circles. There's a lot of cultural influence going on here. There's enough social pressure to explain a lot of the difference, possibly most of it.
It's not fair to put social pressure on women to conform to societal standards and then pay them less because of their conformance.
Oh, and working employees sixty hours a week is generally a bad idea in any case.
Um, Sanders was an Independent, and less likely to win in the general election than Clinton, best I can tell. He had a darn good run. It's normal to expect him to endorse the nominee, not for religious reasons, but for strategic purposes. Similarly, the Republican candidates were expected to line up behind Trump when he got the nomination. It's party politics, which is never all that clean.
The really weird thing was Trump's Evangelical fans, who mostly decided that Trump was a really good Christian (the others were mostly appalled). I think that's going to cost the Evangelicals significant influence in the long run.
Shortly before WWII, Eisenhower was tasked with leading a road convoy across the US, just to see how well it worked. It worked pretty badly, all things considered. I suspect that's one big reason Eisenhower was interested in the Interstate system.
We evolved as hunter-gatherers, and that's actually a pretty healthy lifestyle. What happened is that farming could support many more people per square mile, so the hunter-gatherers got pushed into places that were bad for agriculture.
The market does a crap job of pricing the relative value of various sorts of work. It prices replacement value.
It's easier to find someone who can clean the rest rooms than to find someone who can write useful software, so the software developer has a higher market value. That doesn't say anything about their relative value. It may be that we could get by with fewer developers a lot easier than fewer janitors.
When aircraft fly simulated bombing runs, they're not hurting anything (at least when they do it correctly). When a SIGINT aircraft is around a metro area, it's probably practicing its intelligence-gathering capabilities, because anything else can be done elsewhere. If the data it picks up isn't destroyed, it's the US military invading the privacy of US civilians. That does have the capability to harm civilians.
If speech doesn't have consequences, then it has no significance, and speech is useless. We want speech to be as free as practical from government interference, but if we want any speech to mean anything there has to be consequences.
Moreover, there's a difference between discrimination based on things easy to change versus discrimination based on things inherent, or mostly inherent.
If everyone could do what they wanted to do and were suited for, it's reasonable to expect that we'd see more women in software development. There are biological differences between the sexes, but there are also cultural differences between the sexes, and sexist treatment. I would expect choice of occupation to be affected by all three.
What I often see is people arguing that the current system allows people to do what they want, and therefore is fine. I don't think we're at any sort of optimum cultural environment, and there are fields that are sexist to a greater or lesser degree, so I don't think the differences in gender preferences in occupations are all biologically based. Arguing that it's all or mostly biological seems to me to come from people who are emotionally set on the subject and who aren't easily reasoned with. (The same is true of people arguing it's all or mostly cultural, but people around here seem to correctly recognize those people as idiots.)
The Apple II was not going to keep Apple going indefinitely, so the Mac/Lisa project was Apple's main hope. I read some cases where Apple didn't improve the II in certain ways to avoid cannibalizing sales of Apple IIIs. (If you're thinking "Apple whats?", you've got a good grasp on its overall success).
When the Lisa was introduced, Epson introduced (IIRC) the QX-10, which was an attempt at a Macintosh interface using a Z80A instead of an M68000. It was not, in fact, a success.
The first GPL clause says that you lose your license under certain conditions, but everyone who already has a license is fine. The second one could be construed as applying to legal distribution only. The SFLC quote, while more definite, is the SFLC's interpretation, and the SFLC does not represent all Linux contributors. I don't think there's any case law here (and would be fascinated to be corrected).
Therefore, it's very possible that GRsecurity is violating the GPL and hence does not have a valid license, and the courts might rule that they can't transfer a license (disagreeing with the SFLC), and there's any number of people who could sue for statutory damages, so I'd say there's a risk. I'm not a lawyer, and this isn't even illegal advice, so if this matters to you please consult a real lawyer.
The official exchange rate is a government-set figure, which they might or might not intend to support (and may or may not follow through with their intentions). If the real exchange rate differs significantly from the official exchange rate, you know the government isn't supporting its exchange rate. If the government were, arbitrage (what you describe in your second sentence) would bring the real exchange rate into line. Bear in mind that some institutions that practice arbitrage when they can are well equipped and have lots of money they can throw at it, so the real exchange rate will not stray far or long from the official.
The exception, I suppose, would be when currency conversion is otherwise restricted. The Soviet government made it very hard to its citizens to get Western currency, and controlled the conversion as best they could so the official exchange rate was about 1 ruble = 1.1 dollars, although the real exchange rate was maybe half that. When I was there, I was accosted by a guy in a red, white, and blue sweater who spoke English as well as I do pushing rubles for dollars, offering four for the dollar. If I'd accepted, I'd have been on the next plane home.
Oh, and if something goes wrong you have people stranded 500 feet down. There have to be good measures for quick evacuation. If, due to a disaster, I had to climb 500 feet of stairs reasonably quickly, I have no confidence that I'd reach the surface alive, and I'm not tremendously unhealthy.
Slashdot Mirror
Get a copy of Colin Powell's audiobook "It Worked For Me", read by Colin Powell. When he gets to the Iraq War, note his voice. Powell was still upset over being used to spread false information.
It can be a subsidy for people using the roads.
Anyone who believes in climate predictions that precise, or that far out, is an idiot.
There's obvious differences between men and women. Figuring out which are biological and which are cultural is really, really hard.
Here's another real-life example: I'm really really good at math, and you do NOT want to put me behind the wheel when backing up a trailer. Is this non-coincidental?
We're not in general talking about computer scientists here, we're talking about software developers.
It's not easy to tell who's good at software development and who isn't. It requires multiple skills. Basic social skills are a must (we've all read about the toxic individuals that trash morale and productivity). How good is it to have someone with good social skills? That person might be keeping the team running smoothly, even while not contributing as much individually.
Maybe they need more acceptance in other positions. When HR is considered women's work, there will be a disproportionate number of women in it.
Or, for us old D&D players, lowers the AC. It ran from plate and shield (2) to unarmored (9).
Got one where employees were fired for stating that they liked and voted for Trump?
It can be awfully hard to tell the difference from the outside. Some organizations will get punitive, some people will get upset.
Fired is not in the same category as imprisoned or shot, which are government actions. Blacklisting is generally considered unfair.
Salary negotiations depend partly on the impression you're giving your boss during the negotiations. Being labeled as "bossy" or "shrill" is likely to get you less money than being labeled "forceful" and "aggressive".
I don't know, how much of that is biological and how much is cultural?
In general, women do a disproportionate share of the housework, which means they'd be worse affected by long days at work. Is this biological, or cultural? AmiMoJo says that women get blamed for neglecting their families when they work the same long hours that men are often expected to. Househusbands don't seem to be accepted in housewife circles. There's a lot of cultural influence going on here. There's enough social pressure to explain a lot of the difference, possibly most of it.
It's not fair to put social pressure on women to conform to societal standards and then pay them less because of their conformance.
Oh, and working employees sixty hours a week is generally a bad idea in any case.
The next question is why? Is this biological? Cultural? Under what circumstances would that generalization fail?
Um, Sanders was an Independent, and less likely to win in the general election than Clinton, best I can tell. He had a darn good run. It's normal to expect him to endorse the nominee, not for religious reasons, but for strategic purposes. Similarly, the Republican candidates were expected to line up behind Trump when he got the nomination. It's party politics, which is never all that clean.
The really weird thing was Trump's Evangelical fans, who mostly decided that Trump was a really good Christian (the others were mostly appalled). I think that's going to cost the Evangelicals significant influence in the long run.
Shortly before WWII, Eisenhower was tasked with leading a road convoy across the US, just to see how well it worked. It worked pretty badly, all things considered. I suspect that's one big reason Eisenhower was interested in the Interstate system.
One of AAA's more popular services. Apparently, it was expensive, as they told their members it was strictly for trips the member was on.
The company has to agree to having some of your work going into open source projects. Not all will.
We evolved as hunter-gatherers, and that's actually a pretty healthy lifestyle. What happened is that farming could support many more people per square mile, so the hunter-gatherers got pushed into places that were bad for agriculture.
The market does a crap job of pricing the relative value of various sorts of work. It prices replacement value.
It's easier to find someone who can clean the rest rooms than to find someone who can write useful software, so the software developer has a higher market value. That doesn't say anything about their relative value. It may be that we could get by with fewer developers a lot easier than fewer janitors.
When aircraft fly simulated bombing runs, they're not hurting anything (at least when they do it correctly). When a SIGINT aircraft is around a metro area, it's probably practicing its intelligence-gathering capabilities, because anything else can be done elsewhere. If the data it picks up isn't destroyed, it's the US military invading the privacy of US civilians. That does have the capability to harm civilians.
If speech doesn't have consequences, then it has no significance, and speech is useless. We want speech to be as free as practical from government interference, but if we want any speech to mean anything there has to be consequences.
Moreover, there's a difference between discrimination based on things easy to change versus discrimination based on things inherent, or mostly inherent.
If everyone could do what they wanted to do and were suited for, it's reasonable to expect that we'd see more women in software development. There are biological differences between the sexes, but there are also cultural differences between the sexes, and sexist treatment. I would expect choice of occupation to be affected by all three.
What I often see is people arguing that the current system allows people to do what they want, and therefore is fine. I don't think we're at any sort of optimum cultural environment, and there are fields that are sexist to a greater or lesser degree, so I don't think the differences in gender preferences in occupations are all biologically based. Arguing that it's all or mostly biological seems to me to come from people who are emotionally set on the subject and who aren't easily reasoned with. (The same is true of people arguing it's all or mostly cultural, but people around here seem to correctly recognize those people as idiots.)
The Apple II was not going to keep Apple going indefinitely, so the Mac/Lisa project was Apple's main hope. I read some cases where Apple didn't improve the II in certain ways to avoid cannibalizing sales of Apple IIIs. (If you're thinking "Apple whats?", you've got a good grasp on its overall success).
When the Lisa was introduced, Epson introduced (IIRC) the QX-10, which was an attempt at a Macintosh interface using a Z80A instead of an M68000. It was not, in fact, a success.
The first GPL clause says that you lose your license under certain conditions, but everyone who already has a license is fine. The second one could be construed as applying to legal distribution only. The SFLC quote, while more definite, is the SFLC's interpretation, and the SFLC does not represent all Linux contributors. I don't think there's any case law here (and would be fascinated to be corrected).
Therefore, it's very possible that GRsecurity is violating the GPL and hence does not have a valid license, and the courts might rule that they can't transfer a license (disagreeing with the SFLC), and there's any number of people who could sue for statutory damages, so I'd say there's a risk. I'm not a lawyer, and this isn't even illegal advice, so if this matters to you please consult a real lawyer.
The official exchange rate is a government-set figure, which they might or might not intend to support (and may or may not follow through with their intentions). If the real exchange rate differs significantly from the official exchange rate, you know the government isn't supporting its exchange rate. If the government were, arbitrage (what you describe in your second sentence) would bring the real exchange rate into line. Bear in mind that some institutions that practice arbitrage when they can are well equipped and have lots of money they can throw at it, so the real exchange rate will not stray far or long from the official.
The exception, I suppose, would be when currency conversion is otherwise restricted. The Soviet government made it very hard to its citizens to get Western currency, and controlled the conversion as best they could so the official exchange rate was about 1 ruble = 1.1 dollars, although the real exchange rate was maybe half that. When I was there, I was accosted by a guy in a red, white, and blue sweater who spoke English as well as I do pushing rubles for dollars, offering four for the dollar. If I'd accepted, I'd have been on the next plane home.
Oh, and if something goes wrong you have people stranded 500 feet down. There have to be good measures for quick evacuation. If, due to a disaster, I had to climb 500 feet of stairs reasonably quickly, I have no confidence that I'd reach the surface alive, and I'm not tremendously unhealthy.