If a fully qualified black woman who is a perfect match for a given job will get paid 75% of a while male why the hell aren't all businesses hiring black woman and telling white men to pound sand?
Because hiring decisions are very frequently not rational. Some studies have sent out resumes that were functionally identical, except that some had white-sounding names and some had black-sounding. The ones with the white-sounding names got significantly better responses, despite being exactly as qualified.
Again, finding out why the wage gap exists is complicated.
Women work fewer hours per day, per week, per year, take more days off, are more likely to use their vacation time,
This suggests to me that women in the US should be more productive than men, because less burnt out. Are you actually saying that using vacation time should be grounds for lower pay?
If women aren't promoted because they're women, that would be a gender-based reason for part of the wage gap that could easily be missed in a study. Figuring out exactly why we have a wage gap gets real complicated. Heck, if there's discouragement of women in a field to the point that the average woman who applies is better than the average man that applies, having equal pay could indicate gender-based discrimination.
There is a gender-based wage gap. Economists have looked at the reasons behind it, and found that it's not simply male vs. female. This study also looked at the wage gap as it specifically affects black and Latina women, and I don't know about any studies trying to figure out the reasons for that.
That may be a good solution for you, but there's plenty of people who want to use some software that's Windows-only and not available on Linux. Also, there's plenty of people who aren't going to reinstall an operating system, so they'll stick with the one on the computer they buy, and not every computer is easy to install Linux on.
It would appear that you read across the spectrum from science to propaganda. The Warming Cultists, as you call us, believe in things like thermometer readings. We also notice things like summer Arctic ice extent. I'm curious what people like you believe in, since it sure isn't evidence.
the view that government is incapable of having meaningful, long-term positive impact on the economy has been the primary message of free market economists since Adam Smith.
And it's nonsense. The free market cannot exist without some method of enforcing deals and suppressing crime, and in groups too large to have effective reputation deterrents and social coercion that means a government. Government is also useful in internalizing economic externalities, such as pollution. Without government intervention, the economy would suffer from more sick workers, and it would take more money to achieve the same subjective quality of life.
In this case, a revenue-neutral fossil carbon tax would slant the economy against producing CO2. Since this would work as a market incentive, it would do so efficiently rather than requiring clumsy government regulation. (The free market is extremely effective at some things, and fails completely at others.)
As far as the issues go: 1) We're warming up. The evidence for this is direct and unmistakable. 2) More CO2 in the air is expected to produce global warming, all other things being equal, and the isotopic composition of CO2 in the atmosphere shows that we put it there (fossil carbon is C-12 without C-14, while carbon in the usual cycle has some C-14). Nobody has found an alternative explanation for (1) that agrees with the observations, and nobody has found a reason why our CO2 production wouldn't affect the climate that agrees with the observations.
3) Exactly how much we'll warm up and how fast is partly a matter of speculation because climate is tricky, and partly because it depends on what we do. Simple thermodynamics predicts more temperature rise, at a rate that's incredibly fast on a geological scale, and nobody's come up with a reason why it wouldn't. 4) There are policies we can adopt to reduce fossil fuel use, and hence reduce future warming. There are also possible ways to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth, although those may have other consequences. I've seen speculation on taking CO2 out of the air and sequestering it, but that would require more non-fossil-fuel power. 5) Warming will have numerous effects. Some are going to be beneficial. Winters where I live are less stressful on humans than winters when I was young, since extreme cold is much less common. Winters where I live are also going to have different effects on plants which may be harmful. The IPCC report has a list of effects and how confident the IPCC is about them. Overall, it's going to be bad. For example, plants have evolved and been bred to grow well in the areas they are in now, and warming and precipitation changes are going to disrupt them. Since plants depend on other things, like day length, just moving agriculture around isn't going to make up for that.
Everybody in the field pays attention to the Sun. We know when Solar output varies. Currently, it isn't varying significantly, so the temperature increases are from some other cause or causes. So far, the only one to account for them is the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuel.
Humans will survive. We're pretty darn good at surviving. Of course, some of us would like to have things like civilization without massive wars and famines to go along with our survival.
Science happens by consensus. How else do you tell if the science is good? We look for a lot of smart people who have studied the subject. When most of them agree, we're pretty confident in the science. Of course, someone can always come along and upset the applecart, but that doesn't happen all that often, and so far nobody's done it in climate science.
Unless, of course, we spend lots of money to support the policies and programs of the people funding the research.
Which people are those? Do you think that all scientific research, worldwide, is controlled by a cabal for political purposes? Heck, Exxon was convinced of AGW a long time ago, although their interests dictated that they not tell anyone.
Control Data Corporation printers could print 136 characters (not counting the control character). I figured it was to make it hard to move away from CDC, as it would have required reformatting a lot of reports.
I remember BAL/370 as having a particularly rich set of macros and variables and such, making it fairly easy to turn it into a slightly higher-level language.
There's no automatic promotion into the Vice Presidency. In event of Trump's removal for whatever reason, Pence would nominate a Vice President for Senatorial approval. He could pick Ryan, but he wouldn't have to.
As an example, five guys with handguns are quite sufficient to take everything I have, and my only protection is the governmental legal and criminal justice system. Most countries can afford to hire five guys, give them handguns, and train them.
Simple. If you believe in the equality of the sexes, they stop you from coming in. If they have doubts, they ask you to grab the pussy of the closest woman in the line behind you.
The idea behind these questions that appear brain-dead is to get the tourist or immigrant to say something on official forms. Just lying on the forms is justification for deportation. If we ask "Are you a terrorist?" and the incoming person answers "No", then if that person is found to be a terrorist they're out of the country without the need to find a specific US law they broke.
Those "socialist states" comprise a large amount of the US population and economy. It would appear that your idea of a more perfect union involves less per capita income.
The US did plenty of meddling in the Middle East, including supporting Israel through pretty much everything they did. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was at least partly a failure of US diplomacy, in that Saddam had a very mistaken opinion on what the US would do, after asking the appropriate US diplomat.
Some of us on this side of the pond have been wondering when you folks would finally figure out what that "special relationship" is. It should have become pretty clear in 1956 with the Suez Crisis, and that was over sixty years ago.
I don't actually need most of the stuff that I have. I have it because I want it. That being said, I see a lot of people giving reasons why they don't want smart devices, and projecting to conclude that nobody else should have them either. I understand not wanting things personally, but I don't project my preferences onto everybody else.
Almost anything, in fact. Money is useless except as a way to acquire goods and services. Spending money on A is not so much a decision that the buyer prefers A over money, but a decision that A now is better than something in the future and that A now is better than B (of the same price) now.
One problem with licensing software developers is that the profession is relatively new, and the tools change rapidly. It's also a creative process. The result is that it's hard to come up with a good licensing test.
Doctors are tested on knowing stuff about the human body, and we've been running with the same model since before we had doctors. Lawyers are tested on the law, and that changes slowly. In both cases, the testing is primarily of knowledge, perhaps with some apprenticeship. There is no large body of knowledge that is really necessary to be a developer.
I've sometimes thought about how I'd look in a movie. Sitting there, staring at the screen, maybe moving my mouse wheel. Occasional bursts of typing. Sometimes flipping through different text displays. Staring at the screen some more. No visible results.
Slashdot Mirror
Because hiring decisions are very frequently not rational. Some studies have sent out resumes that were functionally identical, except that some had white-sounding names and some had black-sounding. The ones with the white-sounding names got significantly better responses, despite being exactly as qualified.
Again, finding out why the wage gap exists is complicated.
This suggests to me that women in the US should be more productive than men, because less burnt out. Are you actually saying that using vacation time should be grounds for lower pay?
If women aren't promoted because they're women, that would be a gender-based reason for part of the wage gap that could easily be missed in a study. Figuring out exactly why we have a wage gap gets real complicated. Heck, if there's discouragement of women in a field to the point that the average woman who applies is better than the average man that applies, having equal pay could indicate gender-based discrimination.
There is a gender-based wage gap. Economists have looked at the reasons behind it, and found that it's not simply male vs. female. This study also looked at the wage gap as it specifically affects black and Latina women, and I don't know about any studies trying to figure out the reasons for that.
I've seen people saying that the H-1B idea is good, but the general opinion is that as practiced it is bad.
That may be a good solution for you, but there's plenty of people who want to use some software that's Windows-only and not available on Linux. Also, there's plenty of people who aren't going to reinstall an operating system, so they'll stick with the one on the computer they buy, and not every computer is easy to install Linux on.
It would appear that you read across the spectrum from science to propaganda. The Warming Cultists, as you call us, believe in things like thermometer readings. We also notice things like summer Arctic ice extent. I'm curious what people like you believe in, since it sure isn't evidence.
And it's nonsense. The free market cannot exist without some method of enforcing deals and suppressing crime, and in groups too large to have effective reputation deterrents and social coercion that means a government. Government is also useful in internalizing economic externalities, such as pollution. Without government intervention, the economy would suffer from more sick workers, and it would take more money to achieve the same subjective quality of life.
In this case, a revenue-neutral fossil carbon tax would slant the economy against producing CO2. Since this would work as a market incentive, it would do so efficiently rather than requiring clumsy government regulation. (The free market is extremely effective at some things, and fails completely at others.)
As far as the issues go: 1) We're warming up. The evidence for this is direct and unmistakable. 2) More CO2 in the air is expected to produce global warming, all other things being equal, and the isotopic composition of CO2 in the atmosphere shows that we put it there (fossil carbon is C-12 without C-14, while carbon in the usual cycle has some C-14). Nobody has found an alternative explanation for (1) that agrees with the observations, and nobody has found a reason why our CO2 production wouldn't affect the climate that agrees with the observations.
3) Exactly how much we'll warm up and how fast is partly a matter of speculation because climate is tricky, and partly because it depends on what we do. Simple thermodynamics predicts more temperature rise, at a rate that's incredibly fast on a geological scale, and nobody's come up with a reason why it wouldn't. 4) There are policies we can adopt to reduce fossil fuel use, and hence reduce future warming. There are also possible ways to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth, although those may have other consequences. I've seen speculation on taking CO2 out of the air and sequestering it, but that would require more non-fossil-fuel power. 5) Warming will have numerous effects. Some are going to be beneficial. Winters where I live are less stressful on humans than winters when I was young, since extreme cold is much less common. Winters where I live are also going to have different effects on plants which may be harmful. The IPCC report has a list of effects and how confident the IPCC is about them. Overall, it's going to be bad. For example, plants have evolved and been bred to grow well in the areas they are in now, and warming and precipitation changes are going to disrupt them. Since plants depend on other things, like day length, just moving agriculture around isn't going to make up for that.
Everybody in the field pays attention to the Sun. We know when Solar output varies. Currently, it isn't varying significantly, so the temperature increases are from some other cause or causes. So far, the only one to account for them is the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuel.
Humans will survive. We're pretty darn good at surviving. Of course, some of us would like to have things like civilization without massive wars and famines to go along with our survival.
Science happens by consensus. How else do you tell if the science is good? We look for a lot of smart people who have studied the subject. When most of them agree, we're pretty confident in the science. Of course, someone can always come along and upset the applecart, but that doesn't happen all that often, and so far nobody's done it in climate science.
Which people are those? Do you think that all scientific research, worldwide, is controlled by a cabal for political purposes? Heck, Exxon was convinced of AGW a long time ago, although their interests dictated that they not tell anyone.
Control Data Corporation printers could print 136 characters (not counting the control character). I figured it was to make it hard to move away from CDC, as it would have required reformatting a lot of reports.
The boxes were very useful, also, once the paper had been printed and removed from them.. I've still got a few.
I remember BAL/370 as having a particularly rich set of macros and variables and such, making it fairly easy to turn it into a slightly higher-level language.
There's no automatic promotion into the Vice Presidency. In event of Trump's removal for whatever reason, Pence would nominate a Vice President for Senatorial approval. He could pick Ryan, but he wouldn't have to.
As an example, five guys with handguns are quite sufficient to take everything I have, and my only protection is the governmental legal and criminal justice system. Most countries can afford to hire five guys, give them handguns, and train them.
Simple. If you believe in the equality of the sexes, they stop you from coming in. If they have doubts, they ask you to grab the pussy of the closest woman in the line behind you.
The idea behind these questions that appear brain-dead is to get the tourist or immigrant to say something on official forms. Just lying on the forms is justification for deportation. If we ask "Are you a terrorist?" and the incoming person answers "No", then if that person is found to be a terrorist they're out of the country without the need to find a specific US law they broke.
Those "socialist states" comprise a large amount of the US population and economy. It would appear that your idea of a more perfect union involves less per capita income.
The US did plenty of meddling in the Middle East, including supporting Israel through pretty much everything they did. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was at least partly a failure of US diplomacy, in that Saddam had a very mistaken opinion on what the US would do, after asking the appropriate US diplomat.
Some of us on this side of the pond have been wondering when you folks would finally figure out what that "special relationship" is. It should have become pretty clear in 1956 with the Suez Crisis, and that was over sixty years ago.
I don't actually need most of the stuff that I have. I have it because I want it. That being said, I see a lot of people giving reasons why they don't want smart devices, and projecting to conclude that nobody else should have them either. I understand not wanting things personally, but I don't project my preferences onto everybody else.
Almost anything, in fact. Money is useless except as a way to acquire goods and services. Spending money on A is not so much a decision that the buyer prefers A over money, but a decision that A now is better than something in the future and that A now is better than B (of the same price) now.
One problem with licensing software developers is that the profession is relatively new, and the tools change rapidly. It's also a creative process. The result is that it's hard to come up with a good licensing test.
Doctors are tested on knowing stuff about the human body, and we've been running with the same model since before we had doctors. Lawyers are tested on the law, and that changes slowly. In both cases, the testing is primarily of knowledge, perhaps with some apprenticeship. There is no large body of knowledge that is really necessary to be a developer.
I've sometimes thought about how I'd look in a movie. Sitting there, staring at the screen, maybe moving my mouse wheel. Occasional bursts of typing. Sometimes flipping through different text displays. Staring at the screen some more. No visible results.