The majority of the poor in the US are obese, not starving.
They are obese because they have no choice but to eat shit food that is full of sugar and few nutrients. Decent food costs money.
I'm going to have to call bullshit on this. Meat might be relatively expensive but there are lots and lots and lots of foods that are both inexpensive and good for you. On the other hand they aren't full of sugar and they require both knowledge and time to prepare. Which is to say they aren't compatible with being lazy and just wanting to whip out a box of something and call it "food".
Speaking from my own experience of crossing the border *a lot* I can't say I've ever seen or experienced even the slightest interest in my laptop or drives. Maybe they have more time at the land borders than they do at the airports I can't say. I haven't crossed at one of those in years but at the airports there's simply no time to deal with such things.
There appears coincidentally to be a connection between the Nobel and this so-called World Food Prize. The Nobel awards were started by the man who invented dynamite. The Food Prize, according to the NY Times, "was started in 1987 by Norman E. Borlaug, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for bringing about the Green Revolution, which vastly increased grain output, and who thought there should be a Nobel Prize for agriculture". One may well argue that dynamite contributed to world peace in the same way the Green Revolution, with its focus on massive crop monocultures, contributed to global food production.
A Monsanto executive winning this award shouldn't be surprising, even without the allegations of financial "compensation". The Green Revolution was all about increasing the supply of food, never mind the quality, or the ecological or social side effects. At who knows what cost, there's no question Monsanto technology helps increase food output.
Did you save more than a billion people from starvation? Did you prevent untold suffering and and social problems by ensuring sufficient food for a growing population? No. No you didn't. You know who did? Norman Borlaug.
I agree with Woz. Nobody owns anything. Everything digitally is licensed. Even when you hold a physical copy in your hands it's on loan for 60$. You ever actually read a EULA? With the NSA spying on you on everything not only don't you own anything nothing is private anymore.. welcome to the new America! Welcome to the New World... I hope you enjoy your stay and by the way ignore that 4th amendment only the 2nd one kinda counts....
And I'm going to have to disagree here. One might be able to argue that we don't 'own' enough in the digital realm vice it being licensed, but isn't that at least in part what is supposed to be so great about Linux and related bits?
In any case the comparison to Soviet Russia immediately falls on its face. I own my house, I own my business, I own my car and dozens of other things. It is annoying when people try and make comparisons between things when very superficially they are similar but they aren't even remotely close in scale or severity.
This isn't to excuse the NSA thing and related things as they are inexcusable. But to say that we've become Communist Russia because of digital licensing and such shows either profound ignorance or at least faulty logic. Communism has killed some 100 million people throughout history. How many people have been killed by EULAs?
Every time this type of question comes up someone pipes up with this kind of statement.
It always makes me wonder if I'm the only one that has zero problems with sound? Or pretty much anything? Am I just that lucky and skillful and freaking awesome in selecting hardware?
For other desktop uses I again must just be some kind of freak outlier. The only time I've had problems using Linux in the office was when I worked at places that were outright Linux (really "non-Windows") hostile and would actively prevent you from using anything else or at best just didn't help a lick. If it wasn't that kind of place I had no problems doing everything everyone else was doing. Maybe it was just that my job didn't require me to be some fancy Excel jockey or something.
How is trying to find out how our elected officials are beholden to wealthy contributors the same thing as our government snooping through all our crap?
For the most part it isn't, but then again I didn't say it was. The person I was replying to asked where in the Constitution is there a right to privacy which showed they were falling into the classic trap of presuming that if there isn't an enumerated right to something then that right doesn't exist which isn't true.
Or to rephrase the problem another way, they were looking at the world as if Government must give them permission to do things as oppose to the way it is supposed to be which is that we gave Government permission to exist.
Where in the Constitution is there a right to privacy for individuals?
4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, and the 9th Amendment which clearly says that just because a set of rights are enumerated doesn't mean those are the only ones you have, and the 10th Amendment which says that the only powers the Federal government has are those delegated to it, and that all others are reserved to the States (where not prohibited) or the People.
So, the real question which you should have asked is where in the Constitution was the government given the power to snoop through all your crap in the first place.
Really strange - the lefts HATRED of brothers promoting freedom with their own money.
For the record - did you know that the Koch Brothers support:
Decriminalizing drugs, Legalizing gay marriage, Repealing the Patriot Act, Ending the police state, Cutting defense spending.
They call this being way right wing?
The problem is that even though they support Freedom and Liberty they don't support Liberalism. They're against big government, heavy taxes and heavy regulation. They tend to be individualists and not collectivists, ergo they are right wing extremists (or something).
Assange has become a parody of tin-foil-hat anti-US tripe.
What do you mean "become"? He's always struck me as far more motivated by anti-US hate than any desire for openness and such. His 'releases' and such seemed to target the US far more than anyone else as if no other country has secrets far more terrible to expose. They however get ignored because... well... I don't know just because?
I would be very hard to convince me that he's never been handed leaks from China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela or any of a number of places and yet (so far as I know) he/wikileaks has never released any significant material from any such place and certainly never made a multi-month big deal of them.
Look at the bright side: even a modest PC could run the newest games well, because those games were designed for the modest hardware of consoles.
I suppose there is that. Of course, what bothers me more is the retardation of game design. Since everything is developed for consoles and console players we end up with basically the same games over and over again just with slightly different characters and tweaked story lines.
In the end, it is QTEs and chest high walls as far as the eye can see with only a rare exception.
Well, as currently (granted the Next Gen of consoles is around the corner) all the games on the market are made for the Xbox 360 & PS3, and then ported to the PC...
This right here is one of the saddest things of the last 15 years or so. How much has gaming been held back and stunted by this one fact.:(
Or maybe it's just because the US does, in actual fact, act like a complete dick.
I'm sure there are many nice individuals in America, but as a collective... It has nothing to do with being cool or arrogance (hah! from America!), it has to do with things like your lack of universal healthcare and minimal benefits, use of the death penalty, Guantanamo, various foreign wars, the CIA meddling in everyone else's business, electing one of the dumbest leaders in history twice, insisting on using Imperial units, your world-leading obesity epidemic, saying one thing and doing another etc.
Of course no country is perfect, but America does actually act like a total dick. Not evil, not the great Satan or anything like that, just a "jerk" as you guys would say.
So, basically you're saying that you dislike US foreign policy post 9/11 (I don't care for it either) but the biggest thing that seems to get on your tits is that the US isn't Europe.
Fair sure the US is quite happy not being Europe.
From my perspective the US has elected Presidents somewhere between very bad to worse four times now. Not sure what to make of that really.
If that's your "argument" against gun control, there'd never be any point banning anything, would there?
Matter of fact, you're right. There is little point in banning things vice actions. In generally it matters not what I own it matters what I do with it.
On the face of it it doesn't seem outside the realms of possibility that bringing in gun control might also make it easier (possible) to seize those weapons and prosecute those who own them.
One would have to see the prosecution of those who merely own something, vice those who do something bad with what they own, as a good thing to see that as an advantage. Unsurprisingly, I don't see that as a good thing.
Did Australian gun control increase or decrease gun crime/murders?
I do not know. I also don't find the question particularly useful or interesting. A more useful or interesting question would be what was the impact on over all crime. I've never understood the desire to treat gun crime as special in these things. As if a person assaulted or murdered with a gun is more harmed than one assaulted or murdered with a lead pipe or knife.
If gun crime did go down but overall crime went up is that a victory or a defeat? This also leaves aside questions of the right of self defense and the right to own the tools to exercise that right.
It seems like a simple message: the Police don’t want you killing people (duh), but moreso, Police don’t want you to kill yourself.
As for gangs, they only get a passing mention:
Sydney has a massive problem with illegal firearms and gangland shootings, that much we already know.
Which clearly is a lie, since they passed strict gun control down there in Oz and all the guns disappeared. What? Oh, only the law abiding people's guns went away? Nuts.
The problem with a high-deductible plan is that it disincentives being healthy.
So much as looking at a scalpel is going to cost damned near 5 grand (1200 deductable, the 80% coverage to 5k out of pocket).
I may as well not have health insurance at that point. Or only emergency coverage. Yes the point is to save, and everyone wins, but in 15 -25 years, when my cohort reaches middle age, and we haven't been going to the doctor as things crop up, it's going to suck for those left with the bill.
I'm not sure why this is the case. Are you saying that since such a plan makes it theoretically more expensive to go for routine checkups and what not that people wouldn't do so and therefore would be less healthy? I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that even high deductible plans usually cover such routine things as it is in their best interest to do so.
A high deductible plan is no better or worse for those who plan. Can I pay the out of pocket? Sure, should I have too? No, that was not the fucking deal when I was hired.
Because it was part of the deal when they hired me. If you want to remove benefits I want a new deal.
Well, bully for you that wasn't the deal when you were hired. If situations change and you don't like it you're free to go somewhere else, no?
A high deductible plan is ideal for those who are capable of planning for the future and with generally good health. It isn't ideal for those who are incapable of planning for the future or have health issues which means they are likely to be using their insurance at a greater rate. This is rather simple logic.
A single illness can change that, or a single broken limb. Granted it depends on how high the deductible is and what your total out of pocket is. Never forget that many of these plans only pay 80% even after the deductible is reached until you have spent a good bit of change.
A high deductible plan is good if you're in reasonably good health and can plan and save like an adult. If on the other hand you want to make sure that others will take care of you then not so much.
There was once a time when health insurance was exactly that, insurance. It was there to cover those things that were beyond the average person's ability to pay in a reasonable period of time. Just like home and car insurance. Over time it's been morphed into something that's supposed to pay for everything from the sniffles to major heart surgery to mental issues and anything else people want. Then they're shocked when it costs a bloody fortune.
On top of that why does your employer owe you health insurance in the first place? That also used to be something that was a fringe benefit that people then started to expect and demand like it was owed to them.
Well, according to TFA, 29% of people surveyed didn't think people should be allowed to own 3D printers at all!
There are way too many luddites out there.
It's hardly surprising though. The kind of people who are so concerned with what you may own, vice what you do with it, also tend to be kind of people who would want to regulate everything else about what you own and don't own. The overlap is hardly surprising.
What's funny is we routinely see news articles where farmers are talked to and almost without exception they all say climate change is real and if you don't believe it, ask a farmer. Considering the conservative nature of most farmers, one would highly doubt they would be saying such things if they didn't believe it.
Yeah, but you're forgetting the selection bias of the media who generally whole heartily believe in anthropocentric global warming. They are far less likely to put a farmer on that says that climate change might be happening but he doesn't believe humans are the cause.
Surely they had no issue with the enhanced audits if they had nothing to hide.
Not sure if funny or insightful.
Neither given the implication that Tea Party members would somehow be in favor of intrusive government action in other areas, which they are not in general.
Doubly so if the allusion was towards TSA 'enhanced' stuff, support of which would seem to be nigh incompatible with Tea Party philosophy.
Good analogy. So, let's put the same restrictions on guns like we do on automobiles here in the U.S. You know, registration is required, licenses are required, insurance is required. In some states, an inspection is required. How does all that work for you?
And I can buy any gun I can afford and not have to pass any background check or hear about how my gun is too "deadly" and has too many "assault features"? The same as I can buy a 1000HP super car if I have the money, right?
So, if we treat guns like we treat cars yes you might have to register (to carry in public places as car registration isn't required merely to own) have a license (also to carry in public places as you don't need a license to drive on private property) and perhaps insurance (again, only required to carry in public as I don't have to insure my car sitting in the drive way). I can also buy a.50 heavy machine gun on a cash and carry basis along with whatever else I can afford.
Somehow I doubt very much that's the direction you want this analogy to go, no?
So you're saying that the process of giving birth is equally traumatic, both physically and mentally, to both mother and father, so they should both get the same amount of time off?
I'm saying one cannot call for equal rights and gender blind policies and then immediately turn around and call for unequal rights and gender based policies. It is either one or the other as they are mutually exclusive. It's the same really with 'affirmative action' or anything else which seeks to determine policy based race, sex, creed, sexual preference or anything related. Either you want a world in which those things do not matter as much as the character of the person or you don't. Either everyone competes and is treated equally regardless of those factors or they are not.
One can argue all they want that child birth is harder on women and that they therefore should get more time off, but if they do then they never ever get to argue again for 'equal rights' or 'gender blind policies'. Further, when that logic is accepted don't be shocked when someone comes along and says that they should be able to refuse to hire women, because they're women, because they'll end up costing them more money and harming productivity.
Slashdot Mirror
They are obese because they have no choice but to eat shit food that is full of sugar and few nutrients. Decent food costs money.
I'm going to have to call bullshit on this. Meat might be relatively expensive but there are lots and lots and lots of foods that are both inexpensive and good for you. On the other hand they aren't full of sugar and they require both knowledge and time to prepare. Which is to say they aren't compatible with being lazy and just wanting to whip out a box of something and call it "food".
Speaking from my own experience of crossing the border *a lot* I can't say I've ever seen or experienced even the slightest interest in my laptop or drives. Maybe they have more time at the land borders than they do at the airports I can't say. I haven't crossed at one of those in years but at the airports there's simply no time to deal with such things.
If your technical job requires a TS or above clearance...
ABOVE Top Secret?
Yes... that's a thing.
There appears coincidentally to be a connection between the Nobel and this so-called World Food Prize. The Nobel awards were started by the man who invented dynamite. The Food Prize, according to the NY Times, "was started in 1987 by Norman E. Borlaug, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for bringing about the Green Revolution, which vastly increased grain output, and who thought there should be a Nobel Prize for agriculture". One may well argue that dynamite contributed to world peace in the same way the Green Revolution, with its focus on massive crop monocultures, contributed to global food production.
A Monsanto executive winning this award shouldn't be surprising, even without the allegations of financial "compensation". The Green Revolution was all about increasing the supply of food, never mind the quality, or the ecological or social side effects. At who knows what cost, there's no question Monsanto technology helps increase food output.
Did you save more than a billion people from starvation? Did you prevent untold suffering and and social problems by ensuring sufficient food for a growing population? No. No you didn't. You know who did? Norman Borlaug.
I agree with Woz. Nobody owns anything. Everything digitally is licensed. Even when you hold a physical copy in your hands it's on loan for 60$. You ever actually read a EULA? With the NSA spying on you on everything not only don't you own anything nothing is private anymore.. welcome to the new America! Welcome to the New World... I hope you enjoy your stay and by the way ignore that 4th amendment only the 2nd one kinda counts....
And I'm going to have to disagree here. One might be able to argue that we don't 'own' enough in the digital realm vice it being licensed, but isn't that at least in part what is supposed to be so great about Linux and related bits?
In any case the comparison to Soviet Russia immediately falls on its face. I own my house, I own my business, I own my car and dozens of other things. It is annoying when people try and make comparisons between things when very superficially they are similar but they aren't even remotely close in scale or severity.
This isn't to excuse the NSA thing and related things as they are inexcusable. But to say that we've become Communist Russia because of digital licensing and such shows either profound ignorance or at least faulty logic. Communism has killed some 100 million people throughout history. How many people have been killed by EULAs?
You really put over a million records into a single excel spreadsheet and this was a good thing?
Just cause you have a hammer doesn't actually mean all the world is nails.
Every time this type of question comes up someone pipes up with this kind of statement.
It always makes me wonder if I'm the only one that has zero problems with sound? Or pretty much anything? Am I just that lucky and skillful and freaking awesome in selecting hardware?
For other desktop uses I again must just be some kind of freak outlier. The only time I've had problems using Linux in the office was when I worked at places that were outright Linux (really "non-Windows") hostile and would actively prevent you from using anything else or at best just didn't help a lick. If it wasn't that kind of place I had no problems doing everything everyone else was doing. Maybe it was just that my job didn't require me to be some fancy Excel jockey or something.
Am I really alone in that?
How is trying to find out how our elected officials are beholden to wealthy contributors the same thing as our government snooping through all our crap?
For the most part it isn't, but then again I didn't say it was. The person I was replying to asked where in the Constitution is there a right to privacy which showed they were falling into the classic trap of presuming that if there isn't an enumerated right to something then that right doesn't exist which isn't true.
Or to rephrase the problem another way, they were looking at the world as if Government must give them permission to do things as oppose to the way it is supposed to be which is that we gave Government permission to exist.
Where in the Constitution is there a right to privacy for individuals?
4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, and the 9th Amendment which clearly says that just because a set of rights are enumerated doesn't mean those are the only ones you have, and the 10th Amendment which says that the only powers the Federal government has are those delegated to it, and that all others are reserved to the States (where not prohibited) or the People.
So, the real question which you should have asked is where in the Constitution was the government given the power to snoop through all your crap in the first place.
Really strange - the lefts HATRED of brothers promoting freedom with their own money.
For the record - did you know that the Koch Brothers support:
Decriminalizing drugs,
Legalizing gay marriage,
Repealing the Patriot Act,
Ending the police state,
Cutting defense spending.
They call this being way right wing?
The problem is that even though they support Freedom and Liberty they don't support Liberalism. They're against big government, heavy taxes and heavy regulation. They tend to be individualists and not collectivists, ergo they are right wing extremists (or something).
This right here.
No shit.
Assange has become a parody of tin-foil-hat anti-US tripe.
What do you mean "become"? He's always struck me as far more motivated by anti-US hate than any desire for openness and such. His 'releases' and such seemed to target the US far more than anyone else as if no other country has secrets far more terrible to expose. They however get ignored because... well... I don't know just because?
I would be very hard to convince me that he's never been handed leaks from China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela or any of a number of places and yet (so far as I know) he/wikileaks has never released any significant material from any such place and certainly never made a multi-month big deal of them.
Look at the bright side: even a modest PC could run the newest games well, because those games were designed for the modest hardware of consoles.
I suppose there is that. Of course, what bothers me more is the retardation of game design. Since everything is developed for consoles and console players we end up with basically the same games over and over again just with slightly different characters and tweaked story lines.
In the end, it is QTEs and chest high walls as far as the eye can see with only a rare exception.
Well, as currently (granted the Next Gen of consoles is around the corner) all the games on the market are made for the Xbox 360 & PS3, and then ported to the PC...
This right here is one of the saddest things of the last 15 years or so. How much has gaming been held back and stunted by this one fact. :(
Or maybe it's just because the US does, in actual fact, act like a complete dick.
I'm sure there are many nice individuals in America, but as a collective... It has nothing to do with being cool or arrogance (hah! from America!), it has to do with things like your lack of universal healthcare and minimal benefits, use of the death penalty, Guantanamo, various foreign wars, the CIA meddling in everyone else's business, electing one of the dumbest leaders in history twice, insisting on using Imperial units, your world-leading obesity epidemic, saying one thing and doing another etc.
Of course no country is perfect, but America does actually act like a total dick. Not evil, not the great Satan or anything like that, just a "jerk" as you guys would say.
So, basically you're saying that you dislike US foreign policy post 9/11 (I don't care for it either) but the biggest thing that seems to get on your tits is that the US isn't Europe.
Fair sure the US is quite happy not being Europe.
From my perspective the US has elected Presidents somewhere between very bad to worse four times now. Not sure what to make of that really.
If that's your "argument" against gun control, there'd never be any point banning anything, would there?
Matter of fact, you're right. There is little point in banning things vice actions. In generally it matters not what I own it matters what I do with it.
On the face of it it doesn't seem outside the realms of possibility that bringing in gun control might also make it easier (possible) to seize those weapons and prosecute those who own them.
One would have to see the prosecution of those who merely own something, vice those who do something bad with what they own, as a good thing to see that as an advantage. Unsurprisingly, I don't see that as a good thing.
Did Australian gun control increase or decrease gun crime/murders?
I do not know. I also don't find the question particularly useful or interesting. A more useful or interesting question would be what was the impact on over all crime. I've never understood the desire to treat gun crime as special in these things. As if a person assaulted or murdered with a gun is more harmed than one assaulted or murdered with a lead pipe or knife.
If gun crime did go down but overall crime went up is that a victory or a defeat? This also leaves aside questions of the right of self defense and the right to own the tools to exercise that right.
It seems like a simple message: the Police don’t want you killing people (duh), but moreso, Police don’t want you to kill yourself.
As for gangs, they only get a passing mention:
Sydney has a massive problem with illegal firearms and gangland shootings, that much we already know.
Which clearly is a lie, since they passed strict gun control down there in Oz and all the guns disappeared. What? Oh, only the law abiding people's guns went away? Nuts.
The problem with a high-deductible plan is that it disincentives being healthy.
So much as looking at a scalpel is going to cost damned near 5 grand (1200 deductable, the 80% coverage to 5k out of pocket).
I may as well not have health insurance at that point. Or only emergency coverage. Yes the point is to save, and everyone wins, but in 15 -25 years, when my cohort reaches middle age, and we haven't been going to the doctor as things crop up, it's going to suck for those left with the bill.
I'm not sure why this is the case. Are you saying that since such a plan makes it theoretically more expensive to go for routine checkups and what not that people wouldn't do so and therefore would be less healthy? I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that even high deductible plans usually cover such routine things as it is in their best interest to do so.
A high deductible plan is no better or worse for those who plan. Can I pay the out of pocket? Sure, should I have too? No, that was not the fucking deal when I was hired.
Because it was part of the deal when they hired me.
If you want to remove benefits I want a new deal.
Well, bully for you that wasn't the deal when you were hired. If situations change and you don't like it you're free to go somewhere else, no?
A high deductible plan is ideal for those who are capable of planning for the future and with generally good health. It isn't ideal for those who are incapable of planning for the future or have health issues which means they are likely to be using their insurance at a greater rate. This is rather simple logic.
A single illness can change that, or a single broken limb. Granted it depends on how high the deductible is and what your total out of pocket is. Never forget that many of these plans only pay 80% even after the deductible is reached until you have spent a good bit of change.
A high deductible plan is good if you're in reasonably good health and can plan and save like an adult. If on the other hand you want to make sure that others will take care of you then not so much.
There was once a time when health insurance was exactly that, insurance. It was there to cover those things that were beyond the average person's ability to pay in a reasonable period of time. Just like home and car insurance. Over time it's been morphed into something that's supposed to pay for everything from the sniffles to major heart surgery to mental issues and anything else people want. Then they're shocked when it costs a bloody fortune.
On top of that why does your employer owe you health insurance in the first place? That also used to be something that was a fringe benefit that people then started to expect and demand like it was owed to them.
Watch out for the guy printing a pointed stick...
Well, according to TFA, 29% of people surveyed didn't think people should be allowed to own 3D printers at all!
There are way too many luddites out there.
It's hardly surprising though. The kind of people who are so concerned with what you may own, vice what you do with it, also tend to be kind of people who would want to regulate everything else about what you own and don't own. The overlap is hardly surprising.
What's funny is we routinely see news articles where farmers are talked to and almost without exception they all say climate change is real and if you don't believe it, ask a farmer. Considering the conservative nature of most farmers, one would highly doubt they would be saying such things if they didn't believe it.
Yeah, but you're forgetting the selection bias of the media who generally whole heartily believe in anthropocentric global warming. They are far less likely to put a farmer on that says that climate change might be happening but he doesn't believe humans are the cause.
Not sure if funny or insightful.
Neither given the implication that Tea Party members would somehow be in favor of intrusive government action in other areas, which they are not in general.
Doubly so if the allusion was towards TSA 'enhanced' stuff, support of which would seem to be nigh incompatible with Tea Party philosophy.
Good analogy. So, let's put the same restrictions on guns like we do on automobiles here in the U.S. You know, registration is required, licenses are required, insurance is required. In some states, an inspection is required. How does all that work for you?
And I can buy any gun I can afford and not have to pass any background check or hear about how my gun is too "deadly" and has too many "assault features"? The same as I can buy a 1000HP super car if I have the money, right?
So, if we treat guns like we treat cars yes you might have to register (to carry in public places as car registration isn't required merely to own) have a license (also to carry in public places as you don't need a license to drive on private property) and perhaps insurance (again, only required to carry in public as I don't have to insure my car sitting in the drive way). I can also buy a .50 heavy machine gun on a cash and carry basis along with whatever else I can afford.
Somehow I doubt very much that's the direction you want this analogy to go, no?
So you're saying that the process of giving birth is equally traumatic, both physically and mentally, to both mother and father, so they should both get the same amount of time off?
I'm saying one cannot call for equal rights and gender blind policies and then immediately turn around and call for unequal rights and gender based policies. It is either one or the other as they are mutually exclusive. It's the same really with 'affirmative action' or anything else which seeks to determine policy based race, sex, creed, sexual preference or anything related. Either you want a world in which those things do not matter as much as the character of the person or you don't. Either everyone competes and is treated equally regardless of those factors or they are not.
One can argue all they want that child birth is harder on women and that they therefore should get more time off, but if they do then they never ever get to argue again for 'equal rights' or 'gender blind policies'. Further, when that logic is accepted don't be shocked when someone comes along and says that they should be able to refuse to hire women, because they're women, because they'll end up costing them more money and harming productivity.