Assume we have a husband and a wife, both with full-time jobs. The husband makes 40% more than the wife. It seems desirable to keep one home to take care of the kids. Which one will have a greater effect on the finances, now, and in the future?
I'm not actually trying to prove anything here. I'm showing that the situation is more complicated than GP seemed to think.
Your philosophy is deficient. There are lots of workable and rational moral frameworks that don't involve religion. Plenty of atheists, agnostics, and liberal Protestants are highly moral people. Morality isn't limited to only the people whose religion you approve of.
Anyone can say anything they like about rights that aren't legal rights. Clearly, governments in general (including the US government) do not believe that life and liberty are inalienable rights, since they alienate them.
For the libertarians among you, "gay rights" and "abortion rights" are fundamentally the right to keep the government out of what people want to do. We had laws forbidding same-sex couples from being married like everyone else.
You mention a morality of "social responsibility, self-control, personal integrity" and don't seem to notice that Trump's party is making a mockery of those things by the legislation they pass and the actions they take.
The majority of people in developed countries want to pay for each others' medical care, and typically college education, and social safety nets, etc. The US is way out of line with the rest of the world here.
It's legal to resume discrimination against people for being 65 or older. Personally, I think the cutoff should be full Social Security retirement age.
Speaking as a leftist here, I wasn't real impressed by Damore's conclusions, but it read to me like someone who is trying to express an opinion and back it up. It seemed legit to me. Apparently, if it had been limited to the audience Damore intended, it wouldn't have caused a problem. I think the person who leaked it to a larger audience should have been fired, personally, rather than Damore.
Thanks for the legal quote. Does that mean "conservatives" are a protected class? Being conservative isn't an activity. I don't know if it's an affiliation, like being a Republican or Democrat or Pirate. It seems more like a description. It isn't a political decision per se.
Clearly, Google can't discriminate against Republicans, or people who actually advocate conservative positions or campaign for them. I'm not sure if the class Damore has in mind qualifies.
Even here on/. which is usually full of trolling Trump supporters you can't find an opinion against NN.
I've seen some. They seem to believe that there's enough meaningful competition between ISPs for the market to handle it. (I'm not completely sure that there are no unicorns. I know for a fact that there isn't enough such competition. Therefore, I'm more likely to believe in unicorns than in these people's ideas.)
This is politics. There is value in making each individual legislator commit one way or another, because some people care, and anything can be made into a campaign issue.
The FCC had the authority to enforce NN, and now has decided not to. This is a case where Congress should decide one way or another.
The thing about a real market economy, is that if you could end up paying women whatever % less than men, you'd hire more women, everything else being equal.
That's an ideal rational market economy. In fact, if people can run a business the way they want, and make enough money, they won't normally optimize profit. We've seen enough cases of people doing things the same old way in business, and other people finding new ways to do them. Remember the middle-management-stuffed businesses of the 1960s? Pretty much everybody was doing that, until some businesses got rid of a lot of middle management and made more money.
In other words, you're complaining about the crappiest US unions, attributing their failings to all unions, and claiming that anyone disagreeing with you is practicing groupthink.
In 1939, Denmark controlled Iceland. In 1940, the Germans overran Denmark with so little resistance that the Allies didn't know whether to consider Denmark a conquered country or an ally of Germany. That left Iceland in a really dubious diplomatic position, and indeed the Allies invaded it or occupied it or something (they sent troops).
The gender pay gap does not exist these days. For example in Germany, if you actually do the statistic honestly, you end up at something like 2%, which is below the margin of error.
That involves controlling for some factors, not others. (Typically, this is controlled for hours worked, not productivity., for example.) There's also the possibility that the factors controlled for are skewed by gender.
First, when we've seen inequality of outcome we have often (not always) found some sort of inequality of opportunity. I want as much equality of opportunity as we can get.
Second, people benefiting from the status quo will tend to defend it, regardless of its merits.
Third, there is sex discrimination and racial discrimination in the US. This means that the status quo is skewed from optimum by those. The status quo is not the best possible status quo.
Fourth, we simply don't know how important fundamental biological differences are, since they're mixed in with cultural factors and discrimination. Maintaining that the status quo is because of such differences begs the question, and is at least partly false.
Sure. How does that apply to salaries? If there's more men than woman in a high-paying field, is it because women generally don't want to be in that field, or because women are discouraged from being in the field (or some of both)? We don't live in a perfect world, so the status quo is almost certainly not perfect. If we want to improve the world, we can't assume that it's the best of all possible worlds.
Except they don't. Particular groups work longer hours than others, take less vacation time and fewer sick days,
But does that make particular groups any more productive? Do we have one group tiring themselves out and spreading disease in the office and another getting their work done during normal working hours and keeping their germs to themselves?
Sure. If there is no provided copy of the installation medium, it's an extra step to take that might not be convenient at the time. Most people run without backups, because they're a pain.
There's a difference between "brain-dead" and "not computer savvy".
Why would blame go to Intel here? Intel CPUs have gained a bit of performance from something that recently turned out to be excessively risky, OK. Microsoft needs to send out a patch, OK. Microsoft has lots of security issues. Microsoft forces the patch on everyone, bricking some people's computers. That's Microsoft's decision to create and issue that particular patch, along with Microsoft's decision to make blocking patches as difficult as they can make it.
Slashdot Mirror
Global warming tends to make weather extreme, including extreme cold on occasion. It's more complicated than just a global rise in temperature.
Wasn't it the red-state lovers who said that reducing taxes is not a subsidy or entitlement?
Where did you get the list of my goals? I never got the memo.
You mean I get a veto over whether people move out of the city? Cool!
Assume we have a husband and a wife, both with full-time jobs. The husband makes 40% more than the wife. It seems desirable to keep one home to take care of the kids. Which one will have a greater effect on the finances, now, and in the future?
I'm not actually trying to prove anything here. I'm showing that the situation is more complicated than GP seemed to think.
Your philosophy is deficient. There are lots of workable and rational moral frameworks that don't involve religion. Plenty of atheists, agnostics, and liberal Protestants are highly moral people. Morality isn't limited to only the people whose religion you approve of.
Anyone can say anything they like about rights that aren't legal rights. Clearly, governments in general (including the US government) do not believe that life and liberty are inalienable rights, since they alienate them.
For the libertarians among you, "gay rights" and "abortion rights" are fundamentally the right to keep the government out of what people want to do. We had laws forbidding same-sex couples from being married like everyone else.
You mention a morality of "social responsibility, self-control, personal integrity" and don't seem to notice that Trump's party is making a mockery of those things by the legislation they pass and the actions they take.
The majority of people in developed countries want to pay for each others' medical care, and typically college education, and social safety nets, etc. The US is way out of line with the rest of the world here.
It's legal to resume discrimination against people for being 65 or older. Personally, I think the cutoff should be full Social Security retirement age.
Speaking as a leftist here, I wasn't real impressed by Damore's conclusions, but it read to me like someone who is trying to express an opinion and back it up. It seemed legit to me. Apparently, if it had been limited to the audience Damore intended, it wouldn't have caused a problem. I think the person who leaked it to a larger audience should have been fired, personally, rather than Damore.
Thanks for the legal quote. Does that mean "conservatives" are a protected class? Being conservative isn't an activity. I don't know if it's an affiliation, like being a Republican or Democrat or Pirate. It seems more like a description. It isn't a political decision per se.
Clearly, Google can't discriminate against Republicans, or people who actually advocate conservative positions or campaign for them. I'm not sure if the class Damore has in mind qualifies.
No, this is just fine. The FCC was doing what it was authorized to do by Congress. Of course, to make this permanent, we do need Congressional action.
TFS says Markey can bring it to the floor for a vote. I don't know enough about the Senate rules to know if that's correct, but I wouldn't dismiss it.
I've seen some. They seem to believe that there's enough meaningful competition between ISPs for the market to handle it. (I'm not completely sure that there are no unicorns. I know for a fact that there isn't enough such competition. Therefore, I'm more likely to believe in unicorns than in these people's ideas.)
This is politics. There is value in making each individual legislator commit one way or another, because some people care, and anything can be made into a campaign issue.
The FCC had the authority to enforce NN, and now has decided not to. This is a case where Congress should decide one way or another.
That's an ideal rational market economy. In fact, if people can run a business the way they want, and make enough money, they won't normally optimize profit. We've seen enough cases of people doing things the same old way in business, and other people finding new ways to do them. Remember the middle-management-stuffed businesses of the 1960s? Pretty much everybody was doing that, until some businesses got rid of a lot of middle management and made more money.
In other words, you're complaining about the crappiest US unions, attributing their failings to all unions, and claiming that anyone disagreeing with you is practicing groupthink.
In 1939, Denmark controlled Iceland. In 1940, the Germans overran Denmark with so little resistance that the Allies didn't know whether to consider Denmark a conquered country or an ally of Germany. That left Iceland in a really dubious diplomatic position, and indeed the Allies invaded it or occupied it or something (they sent troops).
That involves controlling for some factors, not others. (Typically, this is controlled for hours worked, not productivity., for example.) There's also the possibility that the factors controlled for are skewed by gender.
As a progressive, I've noticed a few things.
First, when we've seen inequality of outcome we have often (not always) found some sort of inequality of opportunity. I want as much equality of opportunity as we can get.
Second, people benefiting from the status quo will tend to defend it, regardless of its merits.
Third, there is sex discrimination and racial discrimination in the US. This means that the status quo is skewed from optimum by those. The status quo is not the best possible status quo.
Fourth, we simply don't know how important fundamental biological differences are, since they're mixed in with cultural factors and discrimination. Maintaining that the status quo is because of such differences begs the question, and is at least partly false.
Sure. How does that apply to salaries? If there's more men than woman in a high-paying field, is it because women generally don't want to be in that field, or because women are discouraged from being in the field (or some of both)? We don't live in a perfect world, so the status quo is almost certainly not perfect. If we want to improve the world, we can't assume that it's the best of all possible worlds.
But does that make particular groups any more productive? Do we have one group tiring themselves out and spreading disease in the office and another getting their work done during normal working hours and keeping their germs to themselves?
How much of women doing more child-related activities is a result of the woman being paid less, so it's less expensive to have her do it?
Delaying the patches? Nice if you can get it to work. I bought Windows 10 Pro primarily to delay patches, and it doesn't.
Sure. If there is no provided copy of the installation medium, it's an extra step to take that might not be convenient at the time. Most people run without backups, because they're a pain.
There's a difference between "brain-dead" and "not computer savvy".
Why would blame go to Intel here? Intel CPUs have gained a bit of performance from something that recently turned out to be excessively risky, OK. Microsoft needs to send out a patch, OK. Microsoft has lots of security issues. Microsoft forces the patch on everyone, bricking some people's computers. That's Microsoft's decision to create and issue that particular patch, along with Microsoft's decision to make blocking patches as difficult as they can make it.