That argument falls on deaf ears with the IRS. If I buy you a cup of coffee you are supposed to report it. That said, the IRS didn't have established procedures for declaring Bitcoin gains and losses in 2015 or even a set standard. Was it capital gains? Was it additional income? Exactly how did one report it? There likely were quite a few people who picked other methods and would be able to show it if audited.
"It's a strong indication that Bitcoin is mostly used for criminal activity."
Hardly. By that logic everyone using cash are mostly engaged in criminal activity. Day-to-day people just aren't thinking about everything in terms of taxes. Ted buys Joe lunch, it never even crosses Joe's mind to log the lunch and the amount so he can pay taxes on it later.
This is akin to the IRS announcing they've bought software to perform forensic analysis of lunch purchases because less than 300 people reported income from lunch gains in 2015. Hell, the IRS didn't even have rules that told you HOW to report Bitcoin as such in 2015 a lot of people who did some significant amount of trade likely did report but declared it via some other mechanism like capital gains or business income.
Yes and no, they then know who had that particular wallet true, they don't know who owned the last wallet up the chain or after which may or may not have been the same person. Of course the IRS has a habit of putting the burden of proving everything on the individual years after the fact when that individual had no reasonable expectation they'd have to account for something... even when they have explicitly not had to account for something decades prior.
A dirty little secret of forensic accounting is that it makes assumptions regarding similar sized transactions and what looks likely numerically, by definition the conclusions sound good but are not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
It did happen. The inflation didn't take the form of additional cash in the stream, it took the form of debt erasure. Not even the base amounts of the debt but billions in erased outstanding interest. It is much harder to see but if you think erasing billions of dollars in interest from the books isn't going to have an impact.
Also, the way the inflation rate is calculated was deliberately changed to hide inflation from mortgage interest erasure.
"In specific, the Software sends to Us, the version of the Software you are running, the Operating System and version which it is installed on, as well as the technical environment and setup of the Software."
The OS/libs/and settings. I don't think that is the data most of us take issue with. But even that data should be opt-in.
Over a long enough term it can realistically only go up. It is deflationary after all. Bitcoin is used to actually transact and exchange value and every day there is less actual bitcoin in circulation as people throw away temperatory wallets with small bits left on them and lose passwords and hard drives, etc. That doesn't prevent speculation bubbles that soar and pop though. People who bought during the last bubble at $1200 were hurting when it crashed back down to $600 and didn't recover until a few months ago. They are kicking themselves if they "took a loss" now. People panic, or they need those funds to be accessible in the event of an emergency. The risk of a life situation forcing you to sell an investment at an inopportune moment is almost never factored into the risk but is real for normal humans.
Will bitcoin be worth more in 6 months? I could be worth 25% of what it is today. Will it be worth more at some point in the next 10 years? It is a near certainly it will be worth double the current price at some point in that timeframe.
"I would however not put him up for promotion since he would have a high bar to prove that he would be able to work with all others without bias."
Why? His argument is sound. Nobody seems to have offered up any logic to support it.
"Then just assign him to always work for a woman... who was proven to be better than him"
It seems unlikely they'd find one. Given that over 90% of tech workers are men and Google hires only from the top 5% of tech workers a very tiny sliver of people who actually deserve to be there are statistically going to have vaginas. I fail to see why that particularly matters unless they are trying to establish a breeding pool. But given that only 80% of their staff are male it suggests they've heavily favored lowering standards to acquire more vaginas. More than that, in that sort of culture it is going to require far more justification to fire females and minorities for poor work performance... hell if there is a trend of poor performance in these groups you have to deliberately look the other way because rooting it out like you'd do with anyone else looks like discrimination on paper meaning if this is your job you can't do it. Because of all the people who had to work that much harder to get hired in spite of the fast and easy lane for minorities and vaginas are going to look around and generally see relatively speaking underperformers, underachievers, and the generally lazy. You know the difference between a hard worker and a lazy person? Either is what they are after 6 months in position because they have to be or can be. All people are innately lazy, if you create a protected class in the labor force they will always take advantage of it.
Also of nationality, that is very important. Basically anything that promotes a bigger potential labor pool and drives down the salaries of workers there is no actual shortage of.
It's worth noting that while you are quick to assault his argument with generalizations use large words as slander, unlike him you provide absolutely no logical support for your assertions.
"that he feels violated in his rights because people are striving for more equal rights"
You can't eliminate violence with violence, racism with racism, sexism with sexism, and you can never achieve equality by declaring some "more equal" than others. There is no such thing as a fast lane without putting others in a slow lane.
"We are biologically different."
Someone having used biological difference in an argument for something bad once hardly discounts it as a valid argument on other topics. You are ignoring the fact that when the slavers made that argument it was also most educated viewpoint of the day and the consensus of science. Hell, even the Eugenics underlying the Nazi views was the science of the day it was the criteria they used for selection that was totally without merit. Scientists dropped Eugenics like a hot poker for political reasons after that but the general idea of breeding for behavior is still practiced and more or less proven in animal breeding.
Men and women ARE biologically different by definition. Leaving aside psychological gender definitions and the so rare they might as well not exist oddball chromosome combinations your junk defines your gender it is a biological difference. Gender roles and the biological differences that go with them are certainly seen in nature. Men remain fertile until an older age do not become encumbered by impregnating a female. FMRI studies show significant differences in brain structure between men and women. There are differences in the typical hormone levels between the genders. There are differences in terms of social intelligence and physical strength.
By all means go on pretending there are no biological differences and ignoring them to justify discrimination and put one gender in the slow lane in order to create a fast lane for another. It's about as sensible as fighting for equal numbers of Mexicans in the Anglo Texan dominated reach things on the top shelf profession. There are tall Mexicans, there are short Anglo Texans, but to suggest there isn't typical disparity is deliberately obtuse. Suggesting that because there is no disparity there shouldn't be a wage gap between larger samples of the two is also obtuse.
Have you read the paper? https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf He was right in more than that. Sadly he will lose any support he would have gotten at the word "neurotic" which he uses correctly, unfortunately just like "ignorant" people see the word as inflammatory and insulting even if used correctly.
That is because he can't debunk the conclusions. At least not with sound logic and fact, the only retort would be loaded with rhetoric and fallacy.
The underlying reasons for Google's programs are flooding the workforce to weaken bargaining positions of staff and lower local market salaries and to avoid legal attack under sexist government policies. Arguing these positions as a company executive results in a very sound and objective viewpoint but admitting even a hint of it would undermine the effort and even draw public attention to the laws/policies Google is trying to buy in Washington.
It is actually very well thought out and well stated. I disagree with his choice of the word neurotic though, it is going to hit hard in the same way calling someone ignorant does.
The same could be said of most of the programming on FOX. Sadly a huge majority of millennials do look to these shows as legitimate news sources with a comedic style delivery that allows them to be more honest. In fairness, in some cases that does come through. In other cases it does not. For instance the John Oliver show covered a range of topics that would be unpopular with the status quo, the secret treaties, attacks on net neutrality, pointing out problems with the insurance and healthcare industries, etc. But since Trump has been elected each and every episode has been largely focused on mocking Trump.
In a story on gerrymandering a blatantly gerrymandered district in the NE was pointed out with the implication that the hidden truth was a minority group would be marginalized if it weren't districted in this way... remind me again how that isn't gerrymandering for the benefit of the party that group typically votes for and additionally a racist effort to disproportionately raise the voice a racial minority? John Oliver (show writers) know that full well, the delivery begged the question intentionally and that sort of rhetoric is designed to manipulate the opinions of those watching. That is the essence of fake news, whether it is Nancy Grace, Bill Mahr, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Tracy Maddock, Geraldo, Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, or John Oliver makes no difference. It's all fake news and propaganda (including strawman support points for the side you aren't supposed to take).
Google cares about tapping foreign workers and the 60% of the population that have female genetals to flood the labor pool and weaken the bargaining position of their technical staff. The same reason they pretend there is a talent shortage in technology.
No, they listed a rationale. The why is to present an credibility equivalence between the sources they've declared as fake news and the well known parody site.
There is a bias evident in the sites not listed there but those are certainly fake news sites. Slashdot is user submitted links to other sources so not really a fake news site. CNN, FOX, and NBC should all be listed. They aren't sites per say but factual and deliberately misrepresented news would include the Daily Show and The John Oliver show.
The integrity of these shows ranks right up there with Ancient Aliens and UFO related shows on the History channel. Events and words presented may have actually taken place but they slice and dice them like a movie trailer to tell any story they want.
These were ridiculously obsolete by the time I had one. The first Pentium chips were already in the world by that point. But my grandfather was an auction barn fanatic, when I said I wanted a computer he brought me a TRS-80. It had the power adapter and nothing else. The next week he brought me a couple C64's with power and floppy drives. Somewhere in there was a book on BASIC for neither one.
I remember not knowing how to even save and load programs to disk, especially since I didn't have that option on the TRS-80. I wrote my first programs with pen and paper and meticulously typed them in for every run. Later a friend gave me the BASIC guide for the C64 and I essentially stopped messing with the TRS-80. It blew my mind, suddenly I had subs not just goto, I had sprites and graphics character codes, and though it took a bit longer to find their beauty I had the peek and poke commands for probing and manipulating memory. Of course, I still had no applications written by others but I did write a word processor (I couldn't print the output of course) and I wrote some "cool" graphics applications. I even figured out how to use the memory on that second floppy drive as a sort of hard drive. Eventually I even got a manual on C64 assembler when the local library became part of a state wide exchange.
At some point my mother saved up and got me "a real computer" with Windows 95 which I broke and repaired on a seemingly daily basis. In poor rural Illinois word spread that I "knew computers" and living up to that reputation quickly meant learning to rebuild 386, 486, and even Pentium systems with all the quirks that came with the assorted hardware, dealing with IRQ conflicts, the evils of Packard Hell, DOS 6.22 and Win 3.11. I started in on old Macintosh systems and Amigas. Of course I also discovered Pascal, C, and brought my ASM knowledge with me finding there were always insights into the languages and how they worked that gave me an advantage. By the late 90's I was 'l33t' with a solid Linux CLI understanding, using javascript to hack yahoo chat in netscape, and a contact list in ICQ filled with Russian and eastern European reverse engineer contacts that supported my warez hobby with cracks and keygens for EVERYTHING. Warez were essential for a poor kid from the middle of nowhere who wanted no limits to what he could do with his computers.
Of course, as I grew older I realized how far from 'l33t' I was. Over twenty years later and I've yet to run out of new areas of technology to explore and learn or things to hack on (which has nothing to do with cracking).
It isn't a matter of trust. A woman can be wrong or simply unsure. There is even an intense biological drive clouding their judgement that could lead to making wrong decisions in this department. It's anecdotal but I based on conversations I've had with women but I don't think they view this as being as serious and terrible as it is. Instead of viewing it as akin to a lifetime of repeated rape they adopt a "what he doesn't know won't hurt him and he gets the joy of a child" kind of attitude. This kind of mentality may come from a sort of common hormonally driven maternal instinct like that behind the "boys will be boys" attitude that was adopted by men with regard to date rape because even men who never did such a thing can sympathize with losing intense testosterone driven impulse.
The issue isn't really trust, the consequences of an error with regard to paternity are far too high to leave something like that to chance when a simple blood screen can settle the issue as early as six weeks in. They already perform this procedure to screen for genetic defects and gender, optionally for low risk pregnancies and as standard practice for at risk pregnancies with women in the 30's and later. This is simple due diligence. Both for the father's sake and for the sake of a child. Anything else risks not having a true medical history for the child, not knowing their true father, and having someone they thought of as a father leaving their world when they find out at some later date.
Keep in mind we are society with an overpopulation problem, not an under population problem. We have no reason to encourage pregnancies to go to term at this point.
Methods of birth control are only tangentially related to my argument. Currently a woman is allowed to abort any responsibility she has for the outcome of a sex act but men are denied the same right. If we set aside how the choice is implemented for a moment, we have to recognize a woman has no more or less ethical right to avoid a responsibility than the a man.
Picking back up implementation it requires taking a medication, undergoing a routine outpatient procedure, or signing away one's legal rights to another party. For a woman all three carries some risk, although in a typical case minimal, health risk. For a man there simply is no justification for denying the right to sign away his legal rights to the woman. This paves the way for her to do any of the above, including keep her rights, without infringing on the mans, legally speaking.
Some of us would feel an obligation to a child no matter what the law said. Actually preventing a child from being born would require infringing minimally on the mothers rights by requiring her to accept the minimal near term health risks (with a doctor having an opportunity to object in high risk cases of course) of those risks being outweighed by the significant and reasonably certain lifelong consequences to fathers.
I personally support both but I can't see how anyone can logically not support fathers having a right to "put the child up for adoption" legally speaking by passing rights to the father.
Slashdot Mirror
But really, lets start using these to shrink our ham radio rigs.
That argument falls on deaf ears with the IRS. If I buy you a cup of coffee you are supposed to report it. That said, the IRS didn't have established procedures for declaring Bitcoin gains and losses in 2015 or even a set standard. Was it capital gains? Was it additional income? Exactly how did one report it? There likely were quite a few people who picked other methods and would be able to show it if audited.
"It's a strong indication that Bitcoin is mostly used for criminal activity."
Hardly. By that logic everyone using cash are mostly engaged in criminal activity. Day-to-day people just aren't thinking about everything in terms of taxes. Ted buys Joe lunch, it never even crosses Joe's mind to log the lunch and the amount so he can pay taxes on it later.
This is akin to the IRS announcing they've bought software to perform forensic analysis of lunch purchases because less than 300 people reported income from lunch gains in 2015. Hell, the IRS didn't even have rules that told you HOW to report Bitcoin as such in 2015 a lot of people who did some significant amount of trade likely did report but declared it via some other mechanism like capital gains or business income.
Yes and no, they then know who had that particular wallet true, they don't know who owned the last wallet up the chain or after which may or may not have been the same person. Of course the IRS has a habit of putting the burden of proving everything on the individual years after the fact when that individual had no reasonable expectation they'd have to account for something... even when they have explicitly not had to account for something decades prior.
A dirty little secret of forensic accounting is that it makes assumptions regarding similar sized transactions and what looks likely numerically, by definition the conclusions sound good but are not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
It did happen. The inflation didn't take the form of additional cash in the stream, it took the form of debt erasure. Not even the base amounts of the debt but billions in erased outstanding interest. It is much harder to see but if you think erasing billions of dollars in interest from the books isn't going to have an impact.
Also, the way the inflation rate is calculated was deliberately changed to hide inflation from mortgage interest erasure.
"In specific, the Software sends to Us, the version of the Software you are running, the Operating System and version which it is installed on, as well as the technical environment and setup of the Software."
The OS/libs/and settings. I don't think that is the data most of us take issue with. But even that data should be opt-in.
I should hope they are making the same commitment to content from shared libraries. Also, it should be opt-in not opt-out, shame on you Plex.
Over a long enough term it can realistically only go up. It is deflationary after all. Bitcoin is used to actually transact and exchange value and every day there is less actual bitcoin in circulation as people throw away temperatory wallets with small bits left on them and lose passwords and hard drives, etc. That doesn't prevent speculation bubbles that soar and pop though. People who bought during the last bubble at $1200 were hurting when it crashed back down to $600 and didn't recover until a few months ago. They are kicking themselves if they "took a loss" now. People panic, or they need those funds to be accessible in the event of an emergency. The risk of a life situation forcing you to sell an investment at an inopportune moment is almost never factored into the risk but is real for normal humans.
Will bitcoin be worth more in 6 months? I could be worth 25% of what it is today. Will it be worth more at some point in the next 10 years? It is a near certainly it will be worth double the current price at some point in that timeframe.
"I would however not put him up for promotion since he would have a high bar to prove that he would be able to work with all others without bias."
Why? His argument is sound. Nobody seems to have offered up any logic to support it.
"Then just assign him to always work for a woman... who was proven to be better than him"
It seems unlikely they'd find one. Given that over 90% of tech workers are men and Google hires only from the top 5% of tech workers a very tiny sliver of people who actually deserve to be there are statistically going to have vaginas. I fail to see why that particularly matters unless they are trying to establish a breeding pool. But given that only 80% of their staff are male it suggests they've heavily favored lowering standards to acquire more vaginas. More than that, in that sort of culture it is going to require far more justification to fire females and minorities for poor work performance... hell if there is a trend of poor performance in these groups you have to deliberately look the other way because rooting it out like you'd do with anyone else looks like discrimination on paper meaning if this is your job you can't do it. Because of all the people who had to work that much harder to get hired in spite of the fast and easy lane for minorities and vaginas are going to look around and generally see relatively speaking underperformers, underachievers, and the generally lazy. You know the difference between a hard worker and a lazy person? Either is what they are after 6 months in position because they have to be or can be. All people are innately lazy, if you create a protected class in the labor force they will always take advantage of it.
Also of nationality, that is very important. Basically anything that promotes a bigger potential labor pool and drives down the salaries of workers there is no actual shortage of.
It's worth noting that while you are quick to assault his argument with generalizations use large words as slander, unlike him you provide absolutely no logical support for your assertions.
"that he feels violated in his rights because people are striving for more equal rights"
You can't eliminate violence with violence, racism with racism, sexism with sexism, and you can never achieve equality by declaring some "more equal" than others. There is no such thing as a fast lane without putting others in a slow lane.
"We are biologically different."
Someone having used biological difference in an argument for something bad once hardly discounts it as a valid argument on other topics. You are ignoring the fact that when the slavers made that argument it was also most educated viewpoint of the day and the consensus of science. Hell, even the Eugenics underlying the Nazi views was the science of the day it was the criteria they used for selection that was totally without merit. Scientists dropped Eugenics like a hot poker for political reasons after that but the general idea of breeding for behavior is still practiced and more or less proven in animal breeding.
Men and women ARE biologically different by definition. Leaving aside psychological gender definitions and the so rare they might as well not exist oddball chromosome combinations your junk defines your gender it is a biological difference. Gender roles and the biological differences that go with them are certainly seen in nature. Men remain fertile until an older age do not become encumbered by impregnating a female. FMRI studies show significant differences in brain structure between men and women. There are differences in the typical hormone levels between the genders. There are differences in terms of social intelligence and physical strength.
By all means go on pretending there are no biological differences and ignoring them to justify discrimination and put one gender in the slow lane in order to create a fast lane for another. It's about as sensible as fighting for equal numbers of Mexicans in the Anglo Texan dominated reach things on the top shelf profession. There are tall Mexicans, there are short Anglo Texans, but to suggest there isn't typical disparity is deliberately obtuse. Suggesting that because there is no disparity there shouldn't be a wage gap between larger samples of the two is also obtuse.
Google is a piece of paper, it doesn't have views. People who work at Google and own shares of Google stock have views.
Have you read the paper? https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf He was right in more than that. Sadly he will lose any support he would have gotten at the word "neurotic" which he uses correctly, unfortunately just like "ignorant" people see the word as inflammatory and insulting even if used correctly.
That is because he can't debunk the conclusions. At least not with sound logic and fact, the only retort would be loaded with rhetoric and fallacy.
The underlying reasons for Google's programs are flooding the workforce to weaken bargaining positions of staff and lower local market salaries and to avoid legal attack under sexist government policies. Arguing these positions as a company executive results in a very sound and objective viewpoint but admitting even a hint of it would undermine the effort and even draw public attention to the laws/policies Google is trying to buy in Washington.
Valid perspectives? The memo from the female was sexist, inflammatory, and resorted to namecalling and that was just the subject line.
Well said.
It is actually very well thought out and well stated. I disagree with his choice of the word neurotic though, it is going to hit hard in the same way calling someone ignorant does.
http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320
The same could be said of most of the programming on FOX. Sadly a huge majority of millennials do look to these shows as legitimate news sources with a comedic style delivery that allows them to be more honest. In fairness, in some cases that does come through. In other cases it does not. For instance the John Oliver show covered a range of topics that would be unpopular with the status quo, the secret treaties, attacks on net neutrality, pointing out problems with the insurance and healthcare industries, etc. But since Trump has been elected each and every episode has been largely focused on mocking Trump.
In a story on gerrymandering a blatantly gerrymandered district in the NE was pointed out with the implication that the hidden truth was a minority group would be marginalized if it weren't districted in this way... remind me again how that isn't gerrymandering for the benefit of the party that group typically votes for and additionally a racist effort to disproportionately raise the voice a racial minority? John Oliver (show writers) know that full well, the delivery begged the question intentionally and that sort of rhetoric is designed to manipulate the opinions of those watching. That is the essence of fake news, whether it is Nancy Grace, Bill Mahr, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Tracy Maddock, Geraldo, Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, or John Oliver makes no difference. It's all fake news and propaganda (including strawman support points for the side you aren't supposed to take).
Google cares about tapping foreign workers and the 60% of the population that have female genetals to flood the labor pool and weaken the bargaining position of their technical staff. The same reason they pretend there is a talent shortage in technology.
No, they listed a rationale. The why is to present an credibility equivalence between the sources they've declared as fake news and the well known parody site.
There is a bias evident in the sites not listed there but those are certainly fake news sites. Slashdot is user submitted links to other sources so not really a fake news site. CNN, FOX, and NBC should all be listed. They aren't sites per say but factual and deliberately misrepresented news would include the Daily Show and The John Oliver show.
The integrity of these shows ranks right up there with Ancient Aliens and UFO related shows on the History channel. Events and words presented may have actually taken place but they slice and dice them like a movie trailer to tell any story they want.
They have people and would probably be thrilled at the free access this would give them.
These were ridiculously obsolete by the time I had one. The first Pentium chips were already in the world by that point. But my grandfather was an auction barn fanatic, when I said I wanted a computer he brought me a TRS-80. It had the power adapter and nothing else. The next week he brought me a couple C64's with power and floppy drives. Somewhere in there was a book on BASIC for neither one.
I remember not knowing how to even save and load programs to disk, especially since I didn't have that option on the TRS-80. I wrote my first programs with pen and paper and meticulously typed them in for every run. Later a friend gave me the BASIC guide for the C64 and I essentially stopped messing with the TRS-80. It blew my mind, suddenly I had subs not just goto, I had sprites and graphics character codes, and though it took a bit longer to find their beauty I had the peek and poke commands for probing and manipulating memory. Of course, I still had no applications written by others but I did write a word processor (I couldn't print the output of course) and I wrote some "cool" graphics applications. I even figured out how to use the memory on that second floppy drive as a sort of hard drive. Eventually I even got a manual on C64 assembler when the local library became part of a state wide exchange.
At some point my mother saved up and got me "a real computer" with Windows 95 which I broke and repaired on a seemingly daily basis. In poor rural Illinois word spread that I "knew computers" and living up to that reputation quickly meant learning to rebuild 386, 486, and even Pentium systems with all the quirks that came with the assorted hardware, dealing with IRQ conflicts, the evils of Packard Hell, DOS 6.22 and Win 3.11. I started in on old Macintosh systems and Amigas. Of course I also discovered Pascal, C, and brought my ASM knowledge with me finding there were always insights into the languages and how they worked that gave me an advantage. By the late 90's I was 'l33t' with a solid Linux CLI understanding, using javascript to hack yahoo chat in netscape, and a contact list in ICQ filled with Russian and eastern European reverse engineer contacts that supported my warez hobby with cracks and keygens for EVERYTHING. Warez were essential for a poor kid from the middle of nowhere who wanted no limits to what he could do with his computers.
Of course, as I grew older I realized how far from 'l33t' I was. Over twenty years later and I've yet to run out of new areas of technology to explore and learn or things to hack on (which has nothing to do with cracking).
It isn't a matter of trust. A woman can be wrong or simply unsure. There is even an intense biological drive clouding their judgement that could lead to making wrong decisions in this department. It's anecdotal but I based on conversations I've had with women but I don't think they view this as being as serious and terrible as it is. Instead of viewing it as akin to a lifetime of repeated rape they adopt a "what he doesn't know won't hurt him and he gets the joy of a child" kind of attitude. This kind of mentality may come from a sort of common hormonally driven maternal instinct like that behind the "boys will be boys" attitude that was adopted by men with regard to date rape because even men who never did such a thing can sympathize with losing intense testosterone driven impulse.
The issue isn't really trust, the consequences of an error with regard to paternity are far too high to leave something like that to chance when a simple blood screen can settle the issue as early as six weeks in. They already perform this procedure to screen for genetic defects and gender, optionally for low risk pregnancies and as standard practice for at risk pregnancies with women in the 30's and later. This is simple due diligence. Both for the father's sake and for the sake of a child. Anything else risks not having a true medical history for the child, not knowing their true father, and having someone they thought of as a father leaving their world when they find out at some later date.
Keep in mind we are society with an overpopulation problem, not an under population problem. We have no reason to encourage pregnancies to go to term at this point.
Methods of birth control are only tangentially related to my argument. Currently a woman is allowed to abort any responsibility she has for the outcome of a sex act but men are denied the same right. If we set aside how the choice is implemented for a moment, we have to recognize a woman has no more or less ethical right to avoid a responsibility than the a man.
Picking back up implementation it requires taking a medication, undergoing a routine outpatient procedure, or signing away one's legal rights to another party. For a woman all three carries some risk, although in a typical case minimal, health risk. For a man there simply is no justification for denying the right to sign away his legal rights to the woman. This paves the way for her to do any of the above, including keep her rights, without infringing on the mans, legally speaking.
Some of us would feel an obligation to a child no matter what the law said. Actually preventing a child from being born would require infringing minimally on the mothers rights by requiring her to accept the minimal near term health risks (with a doctor having an opportunity to object in high risk cases of course) of those risks being outweighed by the significant and reasonably certain lifelong consequences to fathers.
I personally support both but I can't see how anyone can logically not support fathers having a right to "put the child up for adoption" legally speaking by passing rights to the father.