SWA may do fine as a business, but it doesn't do any better than other US carriers in terms of product or value for the customer.
If you compare US airlines to foreign airlines, foreign airlines (excluding Europe) have far better soft product (food, service, etc) because they are not saddled with the costs of an American labor force.
but of the people I know have been through a robbery in most cases it was so quick that beyond the initial moment of shock it's not something that affects their day to day lives
You're experiencing selection bias. It's hard to meet people who have been killed in robberies.
If you cause a violent confrontation, there is real risk someone gets seriously hurt or killed. They could certainly be injured in a manner that costs society far more than $2.8 million in medical treatment costs over the life of the victim.
If you steal some equipment, there's a financial loss, but no one is going to get hurt.
Discouraging people from creating violent situations is far more important than discouraging people from stealing from companies with insufficient controls.
I'm far more worried about a guy who might point a gun at my head when I'm trying to pick up some milk than I am a guy who is going to steal some hardware when I'm not looking.
She's a billionaire, and is the 913th richest person on the planet [forbes.com]. I don't think she's in it for money. It's probably more of a hobby. Maybe that's a good thing?
That's still 912 places short of #1. She's just trying to level-up like the rest of us.
I'm not sure how "Will make people whose parole conditions include not using the internet worry about using the internet" is a chilling effect on free speech.
It's hard to become a productive member of society while in prison. I would thus advise not becoming a criminal.
Apparently you're not familiar with the definition of likely.
We could think he's unlikely to harm people, especially if he's not using the internet or false names.
But if he is using the internet or false names, we may then think it's far more likely he might harm someone.
So we say, hey, we don't think you're likely to harm anyone, so we're going to let you out. But if you do things that indicate our original judgement was incorrect, then we'll have to put you back in prison.
There are plenty of people who earn parole, abide by their conditions of parole, and do no harm. There are some that don't. Should we put in place a standard that we don't let anyone on parole unless we're 100% certain they will cause no harm? Then no one would ever go out on parole.
So we strike a balance.
And the fact that he consented absolutely matters, because he was given a choice: The choice was, "Defraud other people and be sent to prison, or don't defraud other people." He chose defraud other people, and got sent to prison. Then, after being sent to prison, he was given a second choice, which was, "Agree to these conditions and we'll let you out of prison." He could have chosen to stay in prison. Unfortunately he already chose to commit fraud, so he didn't have access to the same choices as someone who was not a convicted felon.
There's a difference between there being dual-income households and women staying at home. There's no reason the man can't stay at home (assuming heterosexual parents).
But, whichever party decides to spend part of their career running the house can't also expect the same compensation in their career as the party who doesn't take time out from their career to mind the home.
If he were to defraud people out of money, I'd be fine with punishing him for it.
Exactly!
However, just because the guy committed a crime on the internet or using an alias, I don't see why that is reason to bar him from doing those very generic and completely legal activities.
Wait, what huh?
This guy ALREADY used the internet and fake names to defraud people, got caught and was convicted. He was sentenced to a few years in prison as punishment for his crimes.
Before the end of his prison sentence, the government gave him the option to finish out his sentence on parole instead of in prison. BUT, as a condition of being able to be on parole and out of prison instead of staying in prison for the rest of his sentence, he had to agree not to use the internet and not use fake names.
Those prohibitions were in place because he was still serving his sentence for the original crime.
Remember, this isn't your average person, nor is it even someone who was previously committed for a crime. He's a convicted felon who has NOT completed his prison sentence yet. He was given the option to complete his sentence outside of prison under certain conditions, he didn't honor those conditions, so he gets to complete his original sentence in prison instead.
Remember, he's not being given any additional penalty for his latest actions; he's just being required to serve out the ORIGINAL penalty in prison since he wasn't willing to abide by the conditions of his parole. Put another way, the government never took away his ability to post on the internet or use fake names in a (non-criminal) manner. HE agreed not to do those things in exchange for not having to stay in prison for the whole sentence.
IN THE STUDY, qualification level DID NOT correlate with gender.
The whole point of the study was to have an applicant pool where qualification level was not correlated with gender. Gender bias in pay persisted, despite qualifications being equal.
Now, in the real world, it's quite possible that qualification correlates with gender. But even if it does, it's still sexist to say "Well, on average, women are less qualified than men, and you are a woman, therefore you will be paid less." On the other hand, it's not sexist to determine that an individual is less qualified so they are paid less, and if one gender is, on average, less qualified than the other, you will end up with a gender pay disparity, even if no sexism exists.
This the point of the study: Present applications of equally qualified groups, label one group male and one group female, and if there is a gender pay disparity in the study (there was) you have shown that compensation decisions are not being made on the individual qualifications of the candidate, but on their gender, which is sexist.
But you're still not spending the money on the most qualified scientists.
There is money to be spent. It can be spent on helping the most qualified potential scientists get an education, or it can be spent on the most qualified potential scientists WITH VAGINAS getting an education.
If your goal is to get the most qualified scientists, then you need to go with the former. If your goal is to create category parity in an attribute unrelated to being a good scientist, then go ahead and spend the money only on scientists with vaginas.
But you have to accept that determining resource allocation by sex is, by definition, sexist.
He's a felon on parole. There are conditions to that parole. If a felon offered parole doesn't want to agree to the conditions of his release, he is welcome to stay in prison, where he can continue to say whatever he would like.
Being on parole and violating the conditions of your parole in a spectacular manner and NOT expecting to be put back in prison as a result is ridiculously dumb.
For example, one of the conditions of his parole that he not use the internet unsupervised.
If he goes to the library and uses the internet unsupervised, likely no one notices and nothing happens.
If he goes to the library and uses the internet to start a blog claiming Mitt Romney is a polygamist, and it gets picked up by the media, he's going back to prison.
Parolees should not violate parole. Parolees who do not want to go back to prison should definitely not get CAUGHT violating parole.
You don't get a free pass just because you say something extremely objectionable while violating your parole.
I have run into plenty of men who are paid far less than another man with similar experience in a similar position simply because one guy is always looking for ways to get a raise (find competitive offers, threaten to jump ship, etc) while the other isn't.
Well, women CAN get pregnant from time to time, if a woman so chooses.
But a woman is perfectly capable of NOT getting pregnant. Unfortunately, since we've made it illegal to ask about marital status or birth control use or child bearing plans, all women suffer a lower employment value instead of just the ones who want to choose to have children.
You don't know how to be successful.
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 2
And who knew the world wasn't fair? Go figure. Sometimes you just have to work harder.
Nobody gets rich by working harder. Sure, you can pick up double hours, but at best that just doubles your income.
You get rich by working EVILER, or in a smaller number of cases, smarter.
Part of the problem is expectations, and choices women make as a result.
When a boy is growing up, no one tells him that he's going to get married and his wife will pay all the bills.
When a girl is growing up, there is a lot of messaging telling her that she will get married and her husband will pay all the bills.
This leads girls/young women to make choices based on that expectation. Why pay attention in math class when your husband is going to earn all the money anyway?
For many women, getting married is the career path, and it just happens that marital pay (i.e. share of husband's income "earned" by the woman in the job of wife) is unaccounted for.
Slashdot Mirror
SWA may do fine as a business, but it doesn't do any better than other US carriers in terms of product or value for the customer.
If you compare US airlines to foreign airlines, foreign airlines (excluding Europe) have far better soft product (food, service, etc) because they are not saddled with the costs of an American labor force.
Any business that operated the way the US govt does would declare bankruptcy and be forced to sell off all it's assets after a year.
Any government that operates the way a business does would execute the disabled at birth.
One would not care to have a government run like a business any more than they would care to have a business run like a government.
So can I assume your sudden desire to talk about the most effective way to rehabilitate criminals is acceptance that this isn't a free speech issue?
Next time he's getting some oral favors, he should scream, "OH MY GOD YOU'RE EATING MEAT!"
He'll have to dump her after that, but sometimes there's a price for victory.
In some areas of the country, bull shit is more readily available.
I'll take zero violence and double property theft any day of the week.
You can always buy more stuff. Death is permanent.
Verizon called. They want their boobs back.
If you have an extra $10,000, buy your girlfriend new boobs.
If you have an extra $1,000,000, get a hotter girlfriend.
but of the people I know have been through a robbery in most cases it was so quick that beyond the initial moment of shock it's not something that affects their day to day lives
You're experiencing selection bias. It's hard to meet people who have been killed in robberies.
If you cause a violent confrontation, there is real risk someone gets seriously hurt or killed. They could certainly be injured in a manner that costs society far more than $2.8 million in medical treatment costs over the life of the victim.
If you steal some equipment, there's a financial loss, but no one is going to get hurt.
Discouraging people from creating violent situations is far more important than discouraging people from stealing from companies with insufficient controls.
I'm far more worried about a guy who might point a gun at my head when I'm trying to pick up some milk than I am a guy who is going to steal some hardware when I'm not looking.
She's a billionaire, and is the 913th richest person on the planet [forbes.com]. I don't think she's in it for money. It's probably more of a hobby. Maybe that's a good thing?
That's still 912 places short of #1. She's just trying to level-up like the rest of us.
I'm not sure how "Will make people whose parole conditions include not using the internet worry about using the internet" is a chilling effect on free speech.
It's hard to become a productive member of society while in prison. I would thus advise not becoming a criminal.
MetroPCS is about to be T-Mobile, so not really a separate option.
Apparently you're not familiar with the definition of likely.
We could think he's unlikely to harm people, especially if he's not using the internet or false names.
But if he is using the internet or false names, we may then think it's far more likely he might harm someone.
So we say, hey, we don't think you're likely to harm anyone, so we're going to let you out. But if you do things that indicate our original judgement was incorrect, then we'll have to put you back in prison.
There are plenty of people who earn parole, abide by their conditions of parole, and do no harm. There are some that don't. Should we put in place a standard that we don't let anyone on parole unless we're 100% certain they will cause no harm? Then no one would ever go out on parole.
So we strike a balance.
And the fact that he consented absolutely matters, because he was given a choice: The choice was, "Defraud other people and be sent to prison, or don't defraud other people." He chose defraud other people, and got sent to prison. Then, after being sent to prison, he was given a second choice, which was, "Agree to these conditions and we'll let you out of prison." He could have chosen to stay in prison. Unfortunately he already chose to commit fraud, so he didn't have access to the same choices as someone who was not a convicted felon.
There's a difference between there being dual-income households and women staying at home. There's no reason the man can't stay at home (assuming heterosexual parents).
But, whichever party decides to spend part of their career running the house can't also expect the same compensation in their career as the party who doesn't take time out from their career to mind the home.
I will probably go to work again in couple weeks as labor for a cheese factory,
Do they have an employee discount? It will come in handy when you'd like something to pair with your whine.
If he were to defraud people out of money, I'd be fine with punishing him for it.
Exactly!
However, just because the guy committed a crime on the internet or using an alias, I don't see why that is reason to bar him from doing those very generic and completely legal activities.
Wait, what huh?
This guy ALREADY used the internet and fake names to defraud people, got caught and was convicted. He was sentenced to a few years in prison as punishment for his crimes.
Before the end of his prison sentence, the government gave him the option to finish out his sentence on parole instead of in prison. BUT, as a condition of being able to be on parole and out of prison instead of staying in prison for the rest of his sentence, he had to agree not to use the internet and not use fake names.
Those prohibitions were in place because he was still serving his sentence for the original crime.
Remember, this isn't your average person, nor is it even someone who was previously committed for a crime. He's a convicted felon who has NOT completed his prison sentence yet. He was given the option to complete his sentence outside of prison under certain conditions, he didn't honor those conditions, so he gets to complete his original sentence in prison instead.
Remember, he's not being given any additional penalty for his latest actions; he's just being required to serve out the ORIGINAL penalty in prison since he wasn't willing to abide by the conditions of his parole. Put another way, the government never took away his ability to post on the internet or use fake names in a (non-criminal) manner. HE agreed not to do those things in exchange for not having to stay in prison for the whole sentence.
IN THE STUDY, qualification level DID NOT correlate with gender.
The whole point of the study was to have an applicant pool where qualification level was not correlated with gender. Gender bias in pay persisted, despite qualifications being equal.
Now, in the real world, it's quite possible that qualification correlates with gender. But even if it does, it's still sexist to say "Well, on average, women are less qualified than men, and you are a woman, therefore you will be paid less." On the other hand, it's not sexist to determine that an individual is less qualified so they are paid less, and if one gender is, on average, less qualified than the other, you will end up with a gender pay disparity, even if no sexism exists.
This the point of the study: Present applications of equally qualified groups, label one group male and one group female, and if there is a gender pay disparity in the study (there was) you have shown that compensation decisions are not being made on the individual qualifications of the candidate, but on their gender, which is sexist.
He can speak freely out of prison, so long as speaking freely didn't involve lying about his identity or using the internet.
The US has a due process for taking rights away from people. If you commit crimes, you're going to lose some of your rights.
Irregular movement.
If you FTL into the system three light-minutes away from me, I won't see you until 3 minutes later.
But by the time you get to where I was, I would be 3 minutes away from there.
Of course, you could argue that irregular movement in space is hard, but, well, so are FTLs.
But you're still not spending the money on the most qualified scientists.
There is money to be spent. It can be spent on helping the most qualified potential scientists get an education, or it can be spent on the most qualified potential scientists WITH VAGINAS getting an education.
If your goal is to get the most qualified scientists, then you need to go with the former. If your goal is to create category parity in an attribute unrelated to being a good scientist, then go ahead and spend the money only on scientists with vaginas.
But you have to accept that determining resource allocation by sex is, by definition, sexist.
He's a felon on parole. There are conditions to that parole. If a felon offered parole doesn't want to agree to the conditions of his release, he is welcome to stay in prison, where he can continue to say whatever he would like.
Being on parole and violating the conditions of your parole in a spectacular manner and NOT expecting to be put back in prison as a result is ridiculously dumb.
For example, one of the conditions of his parole that he not use the internet unsupervised.
If he goes to the library and uses the internet unsupervised, likely no one notices and nothing happens.
If he goes to the library and uses the internet to start a blog claiming Mitt Romney is a polygamist, and it gets picked up by the media, he's going back to prison.
Parolees should not violate parole. Parolees who do not want to go back to prison should definitely not get CAUGHT violating parole.
You don't get a free pass just because you say something extremely objectionable while violating your parole.
I have run into plenty of men who are paid far less than another man with similar experience in a similar position simply because one guy is always looking for ways to get a raise (find competitive offers, threaten to jump ship, etc) while the other isn't.
Well, women CAN get pregnant from time to time, if a woman so chooses.
But a woman is perfectly capable of NOT getting pregnant. Unfortunately, since we've made it illegal to ask about marital status or birth control use or child bearing plans, all women suffer a lower employment value instead of just the ones who want to choose to have children.
And who knew the world wasn't fair? Go figure. Sometimes you just have to work harder.
Nobody gets rich by working harder. Sure, you can pick up double hours, but at best that just doubles your income.
You get rich by working EVILER, or in a smaller number of cases, smarter.
Part of the problem is expectations, and choices women make as a result.
When a boy is growing up, no one tells him that he's going to get married and his wife will pay all the bills.
When a girl is growing up, there is a lot of messaging telling her that she will get married and her husband will pay all the bills.
This leads girls/young women to make choices based on that expectation. Why pay attention in math class when your husband is going to earn all the money anyway?
For many women, getting married is the career path, and it just happens that marital pay (i.e. share of husband's income "earned" by the woman in the job of wife) is unaccounted for.