Yup, and everyone who locks their car or puts locks on their house is also a thief.
Well lets see, you would be place a restriction on the use of a resource that was at one point taken by force from someone else. Yes, your house is built from resource that came from stolen land. Your has exists on top of stolen land. You car is also made from resource from stolen land. If I steal your house, turn it into something else, sell it to someone else and they proceed to lock you out of the resource that is rightfully yours, then they are indeed a thief.
Or are you so bold as to think the property you now own was never once forcefully taken from someone else without their fully knowledgeable consent?
The law... target(s) the type of immigration violations that Mexicans are most likely to commit and not the most common types of immigration violations.
This does not make it racist. This is no more racist than saying that hate crime laws are racist toward whites, or organized crime laws are racist toward Italians, or that homicide laws are racist toward African-Americans. Just because one group is more likely to commit a certain crime does not mean that a law that targets that crime is inherently racist. But clearly when you go looking for racism, you will find it, wether it is there or not.
I specifically stated that there are more immigration violations that are from documented than undocumented aliens, so addressing illegal immigration should start with the easier and more common documented cases.
Yes you have stated this, but that neither makes it true, nor specifically applicable to the state of Arizona. As I have stated many times, there are already multiple ways that law enforcement can address the issue of documented yet illegal immigrants. The fact that we do not enforce the procedures is an issue, but that does not make SB 1070 any less important or viable. Don't confuse the issues.
You've stated it's purposefully crafted to ignore the largest number of immigration violations, and aim for the version that is dominated by Mexicans.
So by your reasoning, if I got together with a couple million other people of my race and started violating a certain law, lets say rape, so that my racial group would have a significantly disproportionately higher occurrence of committing this crime, that the legislature would have no right to amend the legal statute pertaining to this crime because it would disproportionately target my race. If that's the case we might as well abolish all laws because I'm willing to bet that there is no crime where in all races violate the law equally. Unlike you, luckily, most americans will not excuse one group from committing crime just because they are the most likely group to be committing them.
So a cop that beats every black person they see and no white people isn't racist unless he calls someone a nigger?
I don't recall saying any such thing. It would depend entirely on why the cop was beating people. If it happens that the cop was working a very high crime neighborhood populated entirely by black people and it happens that he was attempting to intercept multiple crimes in progress then it would not be racist in anyway. On the other hand, if he was targeting black people because of their skin color then he certainly is being racist. But in neither case does this have anything to do with the law, unless you have a law that says "cops can beat black people (and only black people) indiscriminately". Cops can be racist regardless of law, last I checked racial profiling was still pretty prolific around the country, but again that has nothing to do with the legislation, it has to do with individual's actions.
But again I will reiterate, please point out the lines in SB 1070 that are racist in nature, without including your own personal racist bias.
Just because demand is low doesn't mean the price must go up, and just because demand is high doesn't mean the price must go down. In fact, that goes against the whole concept of supply and demand.
It appears this way only because you are looking at the wrong variables in your equation. The demand in this case is not for sheet music, it's for a talented composer. The fact that the composer has chosen to release his talents in a tangible form does not make the demand for that tangible form. So though the demand for talented composers is low, the supply is far lower. So where there can be multiple recordings of a score, there can be only one composer of that score.
You misunderstand the law and it's intention. The law is not attempting to stop people from overstaying a legal visa. People who come to this country legally through any one of our many immigration options are already in a system which is able to track their status. A person on an H1B for example has their employer well documented, and tracking the person down would be a very simple task. There is no need to add another legislation to handle immigrates that have fallen out of legal status.
The law is targeting Undocumented Immigrants. Those immigrants are far harder to track and otherwise bring to appropriate justice according to the law.
Now you can disagree with legislation, and wether or not we should be targeting undocumented aliens, that's certainly your prerogative. To claim that they legislation choice in accepted identification does not address the issue is clearly not the case. To claim that the legislation is racist, is wholly unfounded. Feel free to make points that show otherwise, but I'm certain you will find no mentioning of race in the legislation and no clear allusion to race.
I think you are missing the point of the legislation. The purpose is to curtail the illegal immigration of undocumented aliens. It's an important clarification because curtailing people from overstaying their legally issued visas is very easy. When a person who is here on a visa provides law enforcement any legal identification, the agent can check their current legal status. If it turns out that they have over stayed the visa then the agent can take the appropriate action.
The ability to track a persons legal status in the country is not available on undocumented aliens. The only thing this law is saying is if, in the course of a legal encounter with a person in the state of arizona, an agent has reason to believe that the person may be in violation of federal immigration laws, the agent is authorized to request identification and detain the person until their legal status can be affirmed.
This law is not specifically targeting Mexicans, other than by the virtue that the vast majority of undocumented aliens in the state of AZ are from the Mexican country (and other Latin American Countries).
Drivers licenses don't include citizenship status, do they?
This depends on the state. To be fair, the Law in question does state very specifically that only Identification which requires proof of citizenship to obtain will be accepted. Some states require proof of citizenship to obtain a drivers license, Arizona is one of them, some do not. So yes in the relationship to the actual law and accepted Id, a Drivers license may include proof of citizenship.
Here is the important line from the bill
"A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY..IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION."
Just wanted to clarify that it is not any divers license. It must be a drivers license from a state that verifies citizenship before issuing a drivers license.
Yes there are many things you can do in programming without a formal education, and I'm all for rewarding people who want to make an effort. But by not studying theory they are missing out on all those giants whose shoulders they could be standing on. This will lead to wasted effort as they reinvent everything from the wheel to Unix badly.
I know it's just anecdotal and all, but in my experience only those who think they understand computer theory are likely to reinvent the wheel. Those that are used to more practical work realize it's usually better to use an existing solution than write anything at all.
Wouldn't this equate to asking if you turned off the internet connection, say possibly your modem or how ever you are connected to the internet. I mean we often say phrases like "turn out the light" though in reality we turn off the power to the light. So to imply someone is not tech savvy because they as if you had "turned off the internet" is a little disingenuous at best.
I'm also not sure that being tech savvy has anything to do with playing farmville, I would just think that one would need a "real life" to avoid farmville.
I detest examples such as this. They imply that you only need privacy if you're doing something wrong. Privacy isn't your right to get away with illegal or immoral behavior.
Actually what the summary is suggesting you actually do is the immoral part. Talking to an ex is not immoral. Intentionally hiding it from your spouse is.
There are countless examples of where doing the right thing has negative repercussions if the wrong people find out about it.
Could you please provide at least one, because you have not done so yet.
Sorry for incorrect use of the word higher when I obviously meant hire. Though the pedantic men on this sight might disagree, it's probably just due to the male brains limited verbal skills in comparison to the equivalent female.
A 2% disparity in ability does not justify a 13% disparity in compensation based on ability.
How can you say this is not justified. You look at such narrow statistics and expect to be able to make such a claim. If you have a job that will require 100 people and there are 100 men and 60 women able to do the job and the men are 2% more productive than the women, why would you pay any women at all? if you higher 99 men you would then have to higher 2 women to get the amount of productivity you need. To keep the total cost the same then you would need to pay the women 50% of what you pay the men (unless you think it's fair that the men get shafted because of your poor decision to higher less skilled workers). If you happen to higher all 60 women you would still need to higher 46 men which is 6% more total workforce that you would have needed higher just men. So if you ask me, and it can be proven that women are 2% less skilled than men at a specific job, I would say those women should be counting there blessing that they even have a job, let alone getting paid almost as much as their more skilled counter parts.
First, the fields of law, medicine, and accounting all have significant and growing representation of women in them, and no apparent disparity in aptitude between the genders.
You can not compare law, medicine ad accounting to a technical or engineering field. The practice of Law is primary a social skill, and using those social skills to express a specific interpretation of things derived from rote learning. Medicine is not a single field, as there is a big difference between the technician that does the sampling and analysis of a medical case, and the Dr. that has to interface with the patient. Good Drs. tend toward greater social skills than technical skills, and know how to rely upon, and chose, very skilled technicians. Accounting is basic math and rote learning. If you can add both positive and negative numbers and are able to memorize a set of rules, all be it a large set of rules, you can do accounting. Now being an "accountant" is really a sales position first and an accounting position last.
By analogy, the fact that men have better spatial reasoning abilities than women doesn't translate to women getting lost more when driving--men and women compensate for the deficiencies and exploit their strengths in different ways to achieve the same results.
Sure and it doesn't translate into men having better oral hygiene, or men being better at anything else that has very little to do with spatial reasoning. But oddly enough it does add to our understanding of why men are better race car drivers, but that would actually have more to do with spatial reasoning than reading street signs and maps, and being willing to ask for directions.
Your comparisons and analogies have been fatally flawed through out this entire topic. You seem to really believe in what you are trying to express. If you happen to be right then I hope you find a much better way of showing it because so far you have been somewhere in left field.
I think Occam's Razor tells me that the obvious reason for women to be under-represented and underpaid in the workforce is sexism.
I didn't realize that Occam's Razor can now be used to justify a belief in a mass scale global conspiracy. For women to be underpaid based purely on a social bias that is vehemently denied by all those accused, then you would have to believe the mass conspiracy theory (In locations and times when women really were being oppressed there was no question about it, it is very clearly documented). On the other hand the idea that the specific Women in the work force are not expressing the same level of talent as the men in the work force, is a far easier to explain answer to wage disparity. But they again I happen to be knowledgeable enough to know what Occam's Razor actually is, so maybe I'm statistical outlier.
You're pointing to very low-level differences in brain structure to explain very complex phenomena that are undoubtedly the result of many different factors.
These are very significant differences in brain structure, not something that can just be tossed aside because it doesn't fit the equality world view. Men have nearly 10% more brain mass on average, and 33% more synapses of cerebral cortex. Men have 6 times the Grey Matter and 1/10th the white matter as women. If this is not a significant and contributing factor, then I'm not sure what is. And this is when looking at averages, which doesn't come close to looking at the top end since Men and women have a different statistical curve, with Men having a more flat curve (more men are on the very high and very low end than women you tend to closer more toward the average).
That's not to say that the methods would be identical or the virtues the same, but I see no reason to think that ultimately, a man on average cannot be as effective as an average woman at traditionally female dominated roles.
When talking about the physical differences between men and women there is rarely an argument. Men are on average and by and large at the high end, notably stronger and faster than Women. Women are without a doubt better fit for child birth and infant care (women can actually feed a child without additional technological help, which would be a little difficult for a man). These we take as a given, and rarely is their an argument that women are just as strong, but they are being help back by a global conspiracy. But try stand up for the statistically apparent assertion that Men are better suited for work involving technical, mathematic or spacial skills and people will come out of the word work to make the most absurd claims.
...some (alot) of employee's that have not earned a raise, hell even some that have "earned" themselves a pay decrease because their performance isnt where it should be considering the experience they are supposed to have.
So use the union and employer agreed upon metrics to track the employees performance, and when they are not meeting the minimum standards them boot them out the door. Contrary to popular belief, unions do not product employees that are not living up to expectation. There is no benefit to the members of the union to protect those that underperform.
Unfortunately, this isn't easy - employees with children will bring, on average, less value than similar employees without children.
That is not backed by any actual facts. What is a fact is that Married employees are highly valued, which is shown in the fact that they receive higher average pay. Employees with families and other dependents are highly valued because they are actually more motivated to do what is necessary to retain their job and to improve their compensation. Married employees and those with children show better overall relationship skills which translates well in all lines of work.
We (those with children) deal with it.
If you don't feel that your employer values you then you have two things you need to look at. Either why your employer does not value your time, or why you don't value there's.
Typically, dad's job pays more, so the lesser paid takes more risk by taking time off. This is a cultural issue
Before someone tries to say that this is because women get paid less, they need to look at the age difference in married couples (sorry that is US specific, but it is similar in other first world countries). Men tend to be older than their wives, which does not necessarily mean more experienced in their careers, but would give them more opportunity to be more experienced. Though I haven't been able to dig up the statistics on this, I would be willing to place good money on the bet that Men tend to enter the workforce younger than women, it almost also enter careers younger (Mind you I accept that this could be because of the sexist nature of parents and the lack of freedoms provided to girls and younger women). So yes it is cultural, but not as heavily weighted toward women being paid less for equal skill and experience as one might want to imply.
If a man wants to be a stay at home dad, he absolutely can.
Sure if all other conditions were equal. But here is the thing. First of all a man can not give birth. No man has ever been known to have a "difficult" pregnancy. Though this is a choice in a family, men are not able to breast feed. Though even those events can take days, weeks months or even years out of a mothers life, they are still facts that need to be part of the equation.
More importantly you have to look at the fact that having a child is a women's prerogative. The women that would make this choice are, by and large, not the women that are highly career oriented. Most women that chose to be mothers would also rather be with their children, raising them, than away from them. Men on the other hand do not have the same drive to nurture.
Lastly women in IT are probably very likely to attract more economically successful men, capable of being the sole provider of the family. Having had more opportunities to meet such men. Women in other careers may not find that as much.
So yes, a man can be a stay at home dad, as my best friend is, but that requires a very rare occurrence where the women is interested in having children but not driven to stay at home, and where the women actually has substantially higher earning potential than the man.
As a sysadmin for a school district, I don't give a flying fsck about "someone's data". My job is to implement our filtering policy. As we can't tell if SSL-encrypted search pages contain banned content, we block them.
If you don't care about someone's data then why are you filtering it. I mean seriously if you didn't care then you would be blocking it. And you could blocking it you weren't scanning the content (even if you are only looking at the content of the URL, you are still looking at "someone's data"). Never mind the fact that in most cases you are only annoying the legit users, because the one's that want to misuse your network, can and will find a way around the blocks.
People wouldn't steal to get money to buy heroin if... heroin addicts were allowed to work legitimate jobs.
Look, I am totally against drug testing, but I would not support forcing employers to employ Addicts, be it drugs, alcohol or what ever. Right now a Heroin addict can most certainly find a legitimate job. Plenty of Jobs do not include any form of drug testing. The problem is that the heroin addict is, in general, a poor choice to employ. Just the nature of being an addict, heroin or what ever, is a sign of a person incapable of making affective choices.
I don't support the outlawing of drug use, but even if it were legal, I would not want an addict on my team (and as far as I am aware there are not casual heroin users though I could be wrong.)
Libertarians are against government getting into economics and into freedoms management through things like morality laws etc.
If only that part were actually true, though it it were we would be talking anarchy not (Neo-)Libertarian. The big L Libertarian party wants the government to enforce contracts which interferes with economic freedom, and they want they government to do so by force. By the fact that Libertarians want a "punishment system" they are by definition looking to the government to impose moral judgements. Libertarians want no more freedom than any other form of government, they just want their freedoms rather than someone else's.
Apple controls the *ONLY* way to reach your customer base (no, buying a dev account for every hundred customers isn't a possibility) and their rules change pretty much every day.
This is not at all true, unless you accept that you have chosen that your customer base is only Apple customers. This is the exact same that as artificially deciding that your customer base is only Walmart customers.
And stop trying to use their customers as ammunition against Google, for God's sake.
You are asking apple to carry a competitors product. That would be like Cosco carrying Member's Mark or Sam's Club carrying Kirkland (or more accurately Sam's Club carrying your product which happens to include Kirkland products in it's bundle). Or for that matter any store stocking and selling another stores brand. No one seems to complain about that, yet you are willing to complain that Apple won't carry Google products.
How is this any different than any other new product? Ever new product has risks, and that risk is that your consumer will not be interested in your product. In the case of consumer products this often means that distributors have to take interest in your product as distributors are the real consumer of the manufacturer. In this case Apple has to take interest in your product since they are the only consumer for developers of iPhone applications. If you wrote an application and neither walmart or best by would distribute it, you would be in a very similar position. If you wrote a Console game and the console licensor would not accept it (as is the case with all adult rated games in the US) then you would be in the exact same position.
Creating new products is a risk. If you don't want to take that risk, then stay out of the business of creating new products and leave that to people that are a little less risk adverse.
Slashdot Mirror
And I will file yours under "it doesn't matter how much blood was spilled to acquire my diamonds, I just bought the things."
The funny part is that you equate anything I would say to pro piracy.
Yup, and everyone who locks their car or puts locks on their house is also a thief.
Well lets see, you would be place a restriction on the use of a resource that was at one point taken by force from someone else. Yes, your house is built from resource that came from stolen land. Your has exists on top of stolen land. You car is also made from resource from stolen land. If I steal your house, turn it into something else, sell it to someone else and they proceed to lock you out of the resource that is rightfully yours, then they are indeed a thief.
Or are you so bold as to think the property you now own was never once forcefully taken from someone else without their fully knowledgeable consent?
The law... target(s) the type of immigration violations that Mexicans are most likely to commit and not the most common types of immigration violations.
This does not make it racist. This is no more racist than saying that hate crime laws are racist toward whites, or organized crime laws are racist toward Italians, or that homicide laws are racist toward African-Americans. Just because one group is more likely to commit a certain crime does not mean that a law that targets that crime is inherently racist. But clearly when you go looking for racism, you will find it, wether it is there or not.
I specifically stated that there are more immigration violations that are from documented than undocumented aliens, so addressing illegal immigration should start with the easier and more common documented cases.
Yes you have stated this, but that neither makes it true, nor specifically applicable to the state of Arizona. As I have stated many times, there are already multiple ways that law enforcement can address the issue of documented yet illegal immigrants. The fact that we do not enforce the procedures is an issue, but that does not make SB 1070 any less important or viable. Don't confuse the issues.
You've stated it's purposefully crafted to ignore the largest number of immigration violations, and aim for the version that is dominated by Mexicans.
So by your reasoning, if I got together with a couple million other people of my race and started violating a certain law, lets say rape, so that my racial group would have a significantly disproportionately higher occurrence of committing this crime, that the legislature would have no right to amend the legal statute pertaining to this crime because it would disproportionately target my race. If that's the case we might as well abolish all laws because I'm willing to bet that there is no crime where in all races violate the law equally. Unlike you, luckily, most americans will not excuse one group from committing crime just because they are the most likely group to be committing them.
So a cop that beats every black person they see and no white people isn't racist unless he calls someone a nigger?
I don't recall saying any such thing. It would depend entirely on why the cop was beating people. If it happens that the cop was working a very high crime neighborhood populated entirely by black people and it happens that he was attempting to intercept multiple crimes in progress then it would not be racist in anyway. On the other hand, if he was targeting black people because of their skin color then he certainly is being racist. But in neither case does this have anything to do with the law, unless you have a law that says "cops can beat black people (and only black people) indiscriminately". Cops can be racist regardless of law, last I checked racial profiling was still pretty prolific around the country, but again that has nothing to do with the legislation, it has to do with individual's actions.
But again I will reiterate, please point out the lines in SB 1070 that are racist in nature, without including your own personal racist bias.
Just because demand is low doesn't mean the price must go up, and just because demand is high doesn't mean the price must go down. In fact, that goes against the whole concept of supply and demand.
It appears this way only because you are looking at the wrong variables in your equation. The demand in this case is not for sheet music, it's for a talented composer. The fact that the composer has chosen to release his talents in a tangible form does not make the demand for that tangible form. So though the demand for talented composers is low, the supply is far lower. So where there can be multiple recordings of a score, there can be only one composer of that score.
You misunderstand the law and it's intention. The law is not attempting to stop people from overstaying a legal visa. People who come to this country legally through any one of our many immigration options are already in a system which is able to track their status. A person on an H1B for example has their employer well documented, and tracking the person down would be a very simple task. There is no need to add another legislation to handle immigrates that have fallen out of legal status.
The law is targeting Undocumented Immigrants. Those immigrants are far harder to track and otherwise bring to appropriate justice according to the law.
Now you can disagree with legislation, and wether or not we should be targeting undocumented aliens, that's certainly your prerogative. To claim that they legislation choice in accepted identification does not address the issue is clearly not the case. To claim that the legislation is racist, is wholly unfounded. Feel free to make points that show otherwise, but I'm certain you will find no mentioning of race in the legislation and no clear allusion to race.
I think you are missing the point of the legislation. The purpose is to curtail the illegal immigration of undocumented aliens. It's an important clarification because curtailing people from overstaying their legally issued visas is very easy. When a person who is here on a visa provides law enforcement any legal identification, the agent can check their current legal status. If it turns out that they have over stayed the visa then the agent can take the appropriate action.
The ability to track a persons legal status in the country is not available on undocumented aliens. The only thing this law is saying is if, in the course of a legal encounter with a person in the state of arizona, an agent has reason to believe that the person may be in violation of federal immigration laws, the agent is authorized to request identification and detain the person until their legal status can be affirmed.
This law is not specifically targeting Mexicans, other than by the virtue that the vast majority of undocumented aliens in the state of AZ are from the Mexican country (and other Latin American Countries).
Drivers licenses don't include citizenship status, do they?
This depends on the state. To be fair, the Law in question does state very specifically that only Identification which requires proof of citizenship to obtain will be accepted. Some states require proof of citizenship to obtain a drivers license, Arizona is one of them, some do not. So yes in the relationship to the actual law and accepted Id, a Drivers license may include proof of citizenship.
Here is the important line from the bill "A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY..IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION."
Just wanted to clarify that it is not any divers license. It must be a drivers license from a state that verifies citizenship before issuing a drivers license.
Yes there are many things you can do in programming without a formal education, and I'm all for rewarding people who want to make an effort. But by not studying theory they are missing out on all those giants whose shoulders they could be standing on. This will lead to wasted effort as they reinvent everything from the wheel to Unix badly.
I know it's just anecdotal and all, but in my experience only those who think they understand computer theory are likely to reinvent the wheel. Those that are used to more practical work realize it's usually better to use an existing solution than write anything at all.
Wouldn't this equate to asking if you turned off the internet connection, say possibly your modem or how ever you are connected to the internet. I mean we often say phrases like "turn out the light" though in reality we turn off the power to the light. So to imply someone is not tech savvy because they as if you had "turned off the internet" is a little disingenuous at best. I'm also not sure that being tech savvy has anything to do with playing farmville, I would just think that one would need a "real life" to avoid farmville.
I detest examples such as this. They imply that you only need privacy if you're doing something wrong. Privacy isn't your right to get away with illegal or immoral behavior.
Actually what the summary is suggesting you actually do is the immoral part. Talking to an ex is not immoral. Intentionally hiding it from your spouse is.
There are countless examples of where doing the right thing has negative repercussions if the wrong people find out about it.
Could you please provide at least one, because you have not done so yet.
Sorry for incorrect use of the word higher when I obviously meant hire. Though the pedantic men on this sight might disagree, it's probably just due to the male brains limited verbal skills in comparison to the equivalent female.
A 2% disparity in ability does not justify a 13% disparity in compensation based on ability.
How can you say this is not justified. You look at such narrow statistics and expect to be able to make such a claim. If you have a job that will require 100 people and there are 100 men and 60 women able to do the job and the men are 2% more productive than the women, why would you pay any women at all? if you higher 99 men you would then have to higher 2 women to get the amount of productivity you need. To keep the total cost the same then you would need to pay the women 50% of what you pay the men (unless you think it's fair that the men get shafted because of your poor decision to higher less skilled workers). If you happen to higher all 60 women you would still need to higher 46 men which is 6% more total workforce that you would have needed higher just men. So if you ask me, and it can be proven that women are 2% less skilled than men at a specific job, I would say those women should be counting there blessing that they even have a job, let alone getting paid almost as much as their more skilled counter parts.
First, the fields of law, medicine, and accounting all have significant and growing representation of women in them, and no apparent disparity in aptitude between the genders.
You can not compare law, medicine ad accounting to a technical or engineering field. The practice of Law is primary a social skill, and using those social skills to express a specific interpretation of things derived from rote learning. Medicine is not a single field, as there is a big difference between the technician that does the sampling and analysis of a medical case, and the Dr. that has to interface with the patient. Good Drs. tend toward greater social skills than technical skills, and know how to rely upon, and chose, very skilled technicians. Accounting is basic math and rote learning. If you can add both positive and negative numbers and are able to memorize a set of rules, all be it a large set of rules, you can do accounting. Now being an "accountant" is really a sales position first and an accounting position last.
By analogy, the fact that men have better spatial reasoning abilities than women doesn't translate to women getting lost more when driving--men and women compensate for the deficiencies and exploit their strengths in different ways to achieve the same results.
Sure and it doesn't translate into men having better oral hygiene, or men being better at anything else that has very little to do with spatial reasoning. But oddly enough it does add to our understanding of why men are better race car drivers, but that would actually have more to do with spatial reasoning than reading street signs and maps, and being willing to ask for directions.
Your comparisons and analogies have been fatally flawed through out this entire topic. You seem to really believe in what you are trying to express. If you happen to be right then I hope you find a much better way of showing it because so far you have been somewhere in left field.
I think Occam's Razor tells me that the obvious reason for women to be under-represented and underpaid in the workforce is sexism.
I didn't realize that Occam's Razor can now be used to justify a belief in a mass scale global conspiracy. For women to be underpaid based purely on a social bias that is vehemently denied by all those accused, then you would have to believe the mass conspiracy theory (In locations and times when women really were being oppressed there was no question about it, it is very clearly documented). On the other hand the idea that the specific Women in the work force are not expressing the same level of talent as the men in the work force, is a far easier to explain answer to wage disparity. But they again I happen to be knowledgeable enough to know what Occam's Razor actually is, so maybe I'm statistical outlier.
You're pointing to very low-level differences in brain structure to explain very complex phenomena that are undoubtedly the result of many different factors.
These are very significant differences in brain structure, not something that can just be tossed aside because it doesn't fit the equality world view. Men have nearly 10% more brain mass on average, and 33% more synapses of cerebral cortex. Men have 6 times the Grey Matter and 1/10th the white matter as women. If this is not a significant and contributing factor, then I'm not sure what is. And this is when looking at averages, which doesn't come close to looking at the top end since Men and women have a different statistical curve, with Men having a more flat curve (more men are on the very high and very low end than women you tend to closer more toward the average).
That's not to say that the methods would be identical or the virtues the same, but I see no reason to think that ultimately, a man on average cannot be as effective as an average woman at traditionally female dominated roles.
When talking about the physical differences between men and women there is rarely an argument. Men are on average and by and large at the high end, notably stronger and faster than Women. Women are without a doubt better fit for child birth and infant care (women can actually feed a child without additional technological help, which would be a little difficult for a man). These we take as a given, and rarely is their an argument that women are just as strong, but they are being help back by a global conspiracy. But try stand up for the statistically apparent assertion that Men are better suited for work involving technical, mathematic or spacial skills and people will come out of the word work to make the most absurd claims.
...some (alot) of employee's that have not earned a raise, hell even some that have "earned" themselves a pay decrease because their performance isnt where it should be considering the experience they are supposed to have.
So use the union and employer agreed upon metrics to track the employees performance, and when they are not meeting the minimum standards them boot them out the door. Contrary to popular belief, unions do not product employees that are not living up to expectation. There is no benefit to the members of the union to protect those that underperform.
Unfortunately, this isn't easy - employees with children will bring, on average, less value than similar employees without children.
That is not backed by any actual facts. What is a fact is that Married employees are highly valued, which is shown in the fact that they receive higher average pay. Employees with families and other dependents are highly valued because they are actually more motivated to do what is necessary to retain their job and to improve their compensation. Married employees and those with children show better overall relationship skills which translates well in all lines of work.
We (those with children) deal with it.
If you don't feel that your employer values you then you have two things you need to look at. Either why your employer does not value your time, or why you don't value there's.
Typically, dad's job pays more, so the lesser paid takes more risk by taking time off. This is a cultural issue
Before someone tries to say that this is because women get paid less, they need to look at the age difference in married couples (sorry that is US specific, but it is similar in other first world countries). Men tend to be older than their wives, which does not necessarily mean more experienced in their careers, but would give them more opportunity to be more experienced. Though I haven't been able to dig up the statistics on this, I would be willing to place good money on the bet that Men tend to enter the workforce younger than women, it almost also enter careers younger (Mind you I accept that this could be because of the sexist nature of parents and the lack of freedoms provided to girls and younger women). So yes it is cultural, but not as heavily weighted toward women being paid less for equal skill and experience as one might want to imply.
If a man wants to be a stay at home dad, he absolutely can.
Sure if all other conditions were equal. But here is the thing. First of all a man can not give birth. No man has ever been known to have a "difficult" pregnancy. Though this is a choice in a family, men are not able to breast feed. Though even those events can take days, weeks months or even years out of a mothers life, they are still facts that need to be part of the equation.
More importantly you have to look at the fact that having a child is a women's prerogative. The women that would make this choice are, by and large, not the women that are highly career oriented. Most women that chose to be mothers would also rather be with their children, raising them, than away from them. Men on the other hand do not have the same drive to nurture.
Lastly women in IT are probably very likely to attract more economically successful men, capable of being the sole provider of the family. Having had more opportunities to meet such men. Women in other careers may not find that as much.
So yes, a man can be a stay at home dad, as my best friend is, but that requires a very rare occurrence where the women is interested in having children but not driven to stay at home, and where the women actually has substantially higher earning potential than the man.
Software "Engineer" doesn't count.
Why the quotes, and why don't they count?
As a sysadmin for a school district, I don't give a flying fsck about "someone's data". My job is to implement our filtering policy. As we can't tell if SSL-encrypted search pages contain banned content, we block them.
If you don't care about someone's data then why are you filtering it. I mean seriously if you didn't care then you would be blocking it. And you could blocking it you weren't scanning the content (even if you are only looking at the content of the URL, you are still looking at "someone's data"). Never mind the fact that in most cases you are only annoying the legit users, because the one's that want to misuse your network, can and will find a way around the blocks.
People wouldn't steal to get money to buy heroin if... heroin addicts were allowed to work legitimate jobs.
Look, I am totally against drug testing, but I would not support forcing employers to employ Addicts, be it drugs, alcohol or what ever. Right now a Heroin addict can most certainly find a legitimate job. Plenty of Jobs do not include any form of drug testing. The problem is that the heroin addict is, in general, a poor choice to employ. Just the nature of being an addict, heroin or what ever, is a sign of a person incapable of making affective choices.
I don't support the outlawing of drug use, but even if it were legal, I would not want an addict on my team (and as far as I am aware there are not casual heroin users though I could be wrong.)
Libertarians are against government getting into economics and into freedoms management through things like morality laws etc.
If only that part were actually true, though it it were we would be talking anarchy not (Neo-)Libertarian. The big L Libertarian party wants the government to enforce contracts which interferes with economic freedom, and they want they government to do so by force. By the fact that Libertarians want a "punishment system" they are by definition looking to the government to impose moral judgements. Libertarians want no more freedom than any other form of government, they just want their freedoms rather than someone else's.
Apple controls the *ONLY* way to reach your customer base (no, buying a dev account for every hundred customers isn't a possibility) and their rules change pretty much every day.
This is not at all true, unless you accept that you have chosen that your customer base is only Apple customers. This is the exact same that as artificially deciding that your customer base is only Walmart customers.
And stop trying to use their customers as ammunition against Google, for God's sake.
You are asking apple to carry a competitors product. That would be like Cosco carrying Member's Mark or Sam's Club carrying Kirkland (or more accurately Sam's Club carrying your product which happens to include Kirkland products in it's bundle). Or for that matter any store stocking and selling another stores brand. No one seems to complain about that, yet you are willing to complain that Apple won't carry Google products.
How is this any different than any other new product? Ever new product has risks, and that risk is that your consumer will not be interested in your product. In the case of consumer products this often means that distributors have to take interest in your product as distributors are the real consumer of the manufacturer. In this case Apple has to take interest in your product since they are the only consumer for developers of iPhone applications. If you wrote an application and neither walmart or best by would distribute it, you would be in a very similar position. If you wrote a Console game and the console licensor would not accept it (as is the case with all adult rated games in the US) then you would be in the exact same position.
Creating new products is a risk. If you don't want to take that risk, then stay out of the business of creating new products and leave that to people that are a little less risk adverse.