Aspergers is not a learning disability, it is a learning advantage. I am an Aspie. Aspies can tune out distractions, and focus on learning and absorbing knowledge far better than neuro-normals. I have little difficulty memorizing copious quantities of information. I could crush any opponent at Trivial Pursuit, back when people still played it. When coding, I can remember the calling convention of every library routine. I can learn a new language in a weekend well enough to debug other people's programs. I seem to be able to juggle information in my mind better than my coworkers, and when I pair program they often ask me to type slower so they can keep up.
We may be at a social disadvantage, and we may be at a disadvantage in jobs that require social skills, but we generally do not have a problem learning technical skills or performing jobs with objective requirements, and those tend to be the jobs that pay well.
If they used a 'completely objective method, independent of gender', and they find a systematic difference, then they must not be equally qualified.
If that "systematic difference" is objectively related to their ability or qualifications to perform their jobs, it is legal. Otherwise it is not.
Workplace discrimination is a civil offence, not a criminal offense. That means that cases are decided on the preponderance of the evidence, and not on "beyond a reasonable doubt", and there is no ban on self-incrimination during civil discovery. So if you think you can justify your policies to a judge or jury as nondiscriminatory, then go for it. Just keep really detailed records (something Google apparently didn't do) and either study the relevant law, or talk to an employment law attorney.
destroying his presidency, which will serve the national, indeed international good.
I don't think so. There are people in the CIA that hate Trump, but there are also people in the CIA that support him. Now that the precedent is set that is okay for individuals in the CIA to go rogue and leak intelligence to destroy democratically elected leaders, the knife will cut both ways.
What if a company determines salary by a completely objective method, independent of gender, that results in a systematic difference between men and women ?
If your hiring process results in a systematic difference in pay between equally qualified men and women, then you are breaking the law.
The process does not make it illegal. The end result does.
If that is based on objective criteria, it is legal. Pay can differ based on performance and qualifications. If cannot systematically differ FOR ANY OTHER REASON.
Does the law say that if one person gets a raise, that everybody else with the same job description should get an identical raise ?
No. But if your policy of "give anyone a raise if and only if they ask for one" results in systematically different pay for equally qualified men and women, you are breaking the law.
If men are more assertive about asking for raises, then you either need to learn to say "no" or you need to give equal raises to similarly qualified women, whether they ask or not.
Can you just say, "we paid the people more who asked for more"?
No. It doesn't matter what you "say". It only matters what you "do". If you systematically pay men and women differently on any basis other than their ability to do their job, they you are breaking the law.
Men negotiate more aggressively than women. Whites negotiate more aggressively than blacks. White unemployment in America is about 4%. Black unemployment is about 8%. So blacks are more desperate for the job, and more willing to accept a "take it or leave it" offer. That doesn't make it legal to discriminate.
And why would they need a secret backdoor to Russia?
Because Trump doesn't trust the official channels. The CIA has leaked damaging information about him, and it is clear that there are people in the "deep state" that don't like Trump and want to see him fail.
I want to see him fail too. But engineering presidential failure is not the job of the CIA. Our intelligence agencies should not be partisan organizations.
Impeachment is initiated by the House of Representatives, and decided by the Senate. Both of these are firmly in Republican control, and likely to stay that way through the 2018 election. Trump is still popular with the Republican base, and Republicans in Congress would gain nothing by going after him. He is not going to be impeached, at least for anything that has surfaced so far.
It is illegal to systematically pay equally qualified men and women differently. Unless they are being hired as a negotiator, negotiating skills are not relevant to their job, and is not a valid reason to pay them differently. You can't just say "We paid the men more because they asked for more."
The average density of the sun is 1410 kg/m^3 and the outer layers are much less dense than that. The density of iron is 7870 kg/m^3. So I don't think so.
Is it? What is a "normal" amount of die off? TFA gives no context for these numbers. A quick google search indicates that the natural lifetime of a queen bee is about 5 years. So that would mean a 20% die off under natural conditions.
Indeed. I got my first job in the 1970s. I clearly remember many of my co-workers constantly complaining about being broke. Financial incompetence is nothing new and I have seen no evidence that it is worse with millennials.
Rice's Theorem is a corollary of the Halting Problem. Both are commonly misunderstood. It is true that there is no procedure for determining if an arbitrary program halts (or does almost anything), but that isn't true for all programs. If a program is designed to be proven correct, and carefully written, then its behavior can be determined.
In practice these constraints are so onerous that almost no one outside of the tallest ivory towers thinks that "proofs of correctness" are a realistic path to more reliable software.
Donald Knuth once sent a program to a colleague with a warning "Beware: I have proven it correct but not tested it."
Fewer revenues will mean higher allocation of the costs to the existing customers.
Businesses set their prices to maximize profit, not to "cover their costs". Their marginal cost to provide the service just sets a price floor. In a competitive market, any profit surplus will be squeezed out, to the benefit of consumers, but cable companies are mostly local monopolies. So if they could make more money by raising prices they would already be doing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Aspies are not a legally protected class.
They are in the UK. It's a learning disability.
Aspergers is not a learning disability, it is a learning advantage. I am an Aspie. Aspies can tune out distractions, and focus on learning and absorbing knowledge far better than neuro-normals. I have little difficulty memorizing copious quantities of information. I could crush any opponent at Trivial Pursuit, back when people still played it. When coding, I can remember the calling convention of every library routine. I can learn a new language in a weekend well enough to debug other people's programs. I seem to be able to juggle information in my mind better than my coworkers, and when I pair program they often ask me to type slower so they can keep up.
We may be at a social disadvantage, and we may be at a disadvantage in jobs that require social skills, but we generally do not have a problem learning technical skills or performing jobs with objective requirements, and those tend to be the jobs that pay well.
If they used a 'completely objective method, independent of gender', and they find a systematic difference, then they must not be equally qualified.
If that "systematic difference" is objectively related to their ability or qualifications to perform their jobs, it is legal. Otherwise it is not.
Workplace discrimination is a civil offence, not a criminal offense. That means that cases are decided on the preponderance of the evidence, and not on "beyond a reasonable doubt", and there is no ban on self-incrimination during civil discovery. So if you think you can justify your policies to a judge or jury as nondiscriminatory, then go for it. Just keep really detailed records (something Google apparently didn't do) and either study the relevant law, or talk to an employment law attorney.
destroying his presidency, which will serve the national, indeed international good.
I don't think so. There are people in the CIA that hate Trump, but there are also people in the CIA that support him. Now that the precedent is set that is okay for individuals in the CIA to go rogue and leak intelligence to destroy democratically elected leaders, the knife will cut both ways.
What if a company determines salary by a completely objective method, independent of gender, that results in a systematic difference between men and women ?
If your hiring process results in a systematic difference in pay between equally qualified men and women, then you are breaking the law.
The process does not make it illegal. The end result does.
Why make an exception for women ?
Because the law says so. Gender is a protected class.
Why don't the non-assertive men get a raise too ?
Because they are not a legally protected class. If you want to change that, write your congressperson. Good luck.
What if you give a raise to anybody who performs exceptionally well, and that happens to result in more men getting a raise ?
If you can back up that claim with objective evidence, it is legal.
You means besides demonstrating they still have decency, character, and a backbone?
No. I mean getting re-elected, where all of those characteristics are at best irrelevant, and more likely an impediment.
As a general rule, that kind of transparent sophistry doesn't go over well in court.
if you do nothing, but a difference in the aggregate world is indirectly observable through your aggregate behaviour, you have still done nothing.
Whether is is "wrong" is subjective.
Whether is is "legal" is not.
Salary discrimination by gender is against the law, and the judge isn't going to give a crap about your rationalizations.
It could simply be that the man performed better
If that is based on objective criteria, it is legal. Pay can differ based on performance and qualifications. If cannot systematically differ FOR ANY OTHER REASON.
Does the law say that if one person gets a raise, that everybody else with the same job description should get an identical raise ?
No. But if your policy of "give anyone a raise if and only if they ask for one" results in systematically different pay for equally qualified men and women, you are breaking the law.
If men are more assertive about asking for raises, then you either need to learn to say "no" or you need to give equal raises to similarly qualified women, whether they ask or not.
I'm not familiar with US law, but does it really say that it's illegal to negotiate about salaries ?
No. Negotiating is legal, as long as it doesn't lead to systematic bias.
They are sworn to defend the US from all enemies.
Illegal leaks to the press are not a "duty" of the CIA.
Can you just say, "we paid the people more who asked for more"?
No. It doesn't matter what you "say". It only matters what you "do". If you systematically pay men and women differently on any basis other than their ability to do their job, they you are breaking the law.
Men negotiate more aggressively than women. Whites negotiate more aggressively than blacks. White unemployment in America is about 4%. Black unemployment is about 8%. So blacks are more desperate for the job, and more willing to accept a "take it or leave it" offer. That doesn't make it legal to discriminate.
One sub-group that gets really screwed: aspies.
Aspies are not a legally protected class.
And why would they need a secret backdoor to Russia?
Because Trump doesn't trust the official channels. The CIA has leaked damaging information about him, and it is clear that there are people in the "deep state" that don't like Trump and want to see him fail.
I want to see him fail too. But engineering presidential failure is not the job of the CIA. Our intelligence agencies should not be partisan organizations.
Trump is being impeached.
Impeachment is initiated by the House of Representatives, and decided by the Senate. Both of these are firmly in Republican control, and likely to stay that way through the 2018 election. Trump is still popular with the Republican base, and Republicans in Congress would gain nothing by going after him. He is not going to be impeached, at least for anything that has surfaced so far.
women just negotiate less often than men.
It is illegal to systematically pay equally qualified men and women differently. Unless they are being hired as a negotiator, negotiating skills are not relevant to their job, and is not a valid reason to pay them differently. You can't just say "We paid the men more because they asked for more."
Good thing that's not how court orders work.
It is not a court order. It is an administrative request from the DoL.
Nuh uh! It has a solid iron surface just below the photosphere. http://www.thesurfaceofthesun....
The average density of the sun is 1410 kg/m^3 and the outer layers are much less dense than that. The density of iron is 7870 kg/m^3. So I don't think so.
2) What's the cause of the decline in the decline?
Most likely restrictions and better education on the use of neonicotinoid pesticides.
30-40% is pretty drastic
Is it? What is a "normal" amount of die off? TFA gives no context for these numbers. A quick google search indicates that the natural lifetime of a queen bee is about 5 years. So that would mean a 20% die off under natural conditions.
The honey bee is an invasive species in North America.
So are humans.
Unless these people are actually cancelling their accounts, why should Comcast care? How are they hurt by "lower satisfaction"?
Indeed. I got my first job in the 1970s. I clearly remember many of my co-workers constantly complaining about being broke. Financial incompetence is nothing new and I have seen no evidence that it is worse with millennials.
It isn't going to touch the Sun; it won't get anywhere near the surface...
The sun is a ball of gas. It does not have a "surface" in any meaningful sense.
They're going at night?
From TFS: first mission to fly directly into our sun's atmosphere during an event at 11 a.m. EDT Wednesday, May 31
11am is not "at night".
Rice's theorem hates your guts.
Rice's Theorem is a corollary of the Halting Problem. Both are commonly misunderstood. It is true that there is no procedure for determining if an arbitrary program halts (or does almost anything), but that isn't true for all programs. If a program is designed to be proven correct, and carefully written, then its behavior can be determined.
In practice these constraints are so onerous that almost no one outside of the tallest ivory towers thinks that "proofs of correctness" are a realistic path to more reliable software.
Donald Knuth once sent a program to a colleague with a warning "Beware: I have proven it correct but not tested it."
Fewer revenues will mean higher allocation of the costs to the existing customers.
Businesses set their prices to maximize profit, not to "cover their costs". Their marginal cost to provide the service just sets a price floor. In a competitive market, any profit surplus will be squeezed out, to the benefit of consumers, but cable companies are mostly local monopolies. So if they could make more money by raising prices they would already be doing it.