Oh great, in 50 years, we'll have the green technology we need to prevent global warming — 50 years too late.
Have you read my post before replying? Solar is reaching residential grid parity as early as _2015_. Wind is very close too. Then there is next-generation nuclear. And regarding geo-engineering, we have several options*, so it is likely that at least one of them will be economically viable in the near term.
You know what is the far most biggest problem to the environment? It is not AGW, it is the exponential population growth. There are already several billion too many of us.
There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.
The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1] Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]
The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]
Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].
And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away. And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.
Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]
African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.
Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.
Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.
Yes, AGW is a serious problem, and denying it makes it costlier. However, the world is not ending. Green(tm) energy is getting cheaper and cheaper. It is predicted that solar will reach residential grid parity as early as 2015*. Not to mention next-generation nuclear. And, in a few decades, nuclear fusion. And if reducing emissions is not enough, we can cool Earth by increasing solar reflection** or by sequestering carbon*** or through some other action.
Also, how can people have such ridiculous short memories? The world was supposed to end in the 1970s though mass famines caused by overpopulation. Then the doomsayers changed their minds and predicted water wars. Then peak oil. Then the ozone layer hole (remember that?). Then acid rain. Then we very closely avoided Armageddon in 2000, due to the Y2K bug. Remember that? The mass societal disruptions, the nuclear wars that would be started because some digital nuclear weapon system misfired due to Y2K? Phew, that was close! But we survived.
Recently, we survived the Apocalypse in 21 May 2011, then 21 October 2011.
Now, of course, all the headlines are about climate change.
Do you know what is the single greatest cause of climate-change denialism? You. Doomsayers. Because you predict the Apocalypse every 5 years, people stopped listening.
Want to help the environment? Start talking straight.
But why did the USA not offer reasonable terms of surrender? The Japanese held their Emperor as a divine being. By the words of Potsdam, it looked like the Emperor could be deposed, and possibly even executed for war crimes. That, to the Japanese, was unthinkable.
USA should have offered decent terms of surrender, and perhaps blow a nuke in Japan's shore, so as to kill few or no people, but let everyone see the mushroom cloud.
In other words, the American government didn't try hard enough to avoid the mass civilian deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Actually in the overwhelming majority of cases both the aggressor and the victim is Muslim, but that's also just a current snapshot. The history of Europe right up until the disarmament of the IRA (and there's probably still other conflicts going on) is one of Christian religious strife. The separation of church and state wasn't inspired by Christianity, it was a deliberate attempt to avoid becoming a Christian theocracy!
Trying to avoid a theocracy does not mean it was not inspired by the Bible. It did not happen on Europe by accident.
And if you want to know why Christian nations have become less aggressive I'd claim that it's largely because they became less Christian.
By what logic? Atheist Marxist countries were __extremely__ aggressive. Muslim countries are very aggressive. Some Buddhist countries oppress religious minorities. There is no reason to believe that less Christianity equals less aggression. Also, you forgot the Second Vatican Council.
If you don't make it clear you aren't planning on having a baby you won't get picked for any position that can't easily cope with a sudden unplanned absence of up to a year.
Iranian nukes? Only an idiot can believe that they would attack Israel with a nuke, directly or by proxy.
I don't know if the government of Iran will directly nuke Israel. But I fear they will allow their technology to fall in bad hands. Pakistan has already leaked nuke technology to North Korea.
Now, even North Korea is less crazy than bin Laden. If terrorists get nukes, then things get ugly.
Separation of Church and State does not mean that religious people cannot have their voices heard. While a theocratic country is oppressive, an ideological atheist country is oppressive too. Freedom lies in the middle. See http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html
Don't forget that this was also the Romanization of Christianity.
There is nothing wrong with adopting some Roman styles. Now, it can be argued that some churchmen actually adopted Roman ideas (such as theocratic government) which were contrary to authentic Christianity, but this did not eclipse Christianity. And the last vestiges of caesaropapism were removed during the Second Vatican Council.
Two of the first actions when the Empire became Christian were the Council of Nicaea [wikipedia.org] which tried to establish common Christian doctrine (if you don't agree you're no longer part of the church)
It is very hard to be part of the Church when you do not believe in it, yes? The Church is a doctrinal organization. Her top priorities are preaching sound doctrine, and administering the sacraments. She must allow people to get out (or refrain from getting in), so people have freedom of religion. But it is not reasonable to expect the Church to dilute her teaching so everyone is in.
Hasn't ended to this day? How so?
When have the Abrahamic religions ever been at peace even with variants of themselves?
Except that the situation is not symmetrical. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the aggressor is Muslim, and the victim is either Christian or Jew.
Where one could check and see that while the Christianity arrived in the Middle East at about the same time as Islam, [wikipedia.org] it is the later which spread across North Africa and further East in the following 100 years. [wikipedia.org]
Christianity arrived earlier, even if it covered little of the Middle East.
AFTER WHICH the golden age and the scientific revolution [wikipedia.org] started in the Islamic world, lasting for 500 years.
At that time, a significant percentage of the population in the most advanced Islamic countries was still Christian.
You know what is that period referred to as in the Christian world? 6th to 13th century? The Dark Ages.
Maybe it had something to do with the barbaric chaos caused by the end of the Roman Empire?
Pretty much exactly, yes. Those things you mention are extreme reactions against a largely puritanical society (well, the high STD [and teen pregnancy] rates are a result of poor-to-nil sex education because Sex Is Evil).
If there is promotion of chastity in America, it is not among the elites. The cultural elites are overwhelmingly pro-pornography. See what passes on TV and cinema.
Second, I have never seen a Christian say that sex is evil. Precisely the opposite: they say that sex is sacred.
An interesting position. You seem to be trying to impute some kind of hypocrisy to such people.
I don't say they are hypocrites. I say they are inconsistent.
Personally, I don't think bans on hard pornography are going to be at all effective in the modern age
A ban would not abolish hard pornography, but it would send a message that it is socially unacceptable behavior. It would also make it slightly harder to find (so kids would not bump into it so easily).
What's more, I don't deny that men and women are different; I say that the difference is vastly overrated, and its existence is not a moral argument.
The point is that feminists have unrealistic expectations. They yell "MISOGYNY" everywhere, even when women are simply making choices (such as having large families, or putting their careers in the backseat) that feminists hate.
Generalizations. Fun when you are on the right side of the divide.
Straw man. I specifically said "With a brush of the same breadth,". The moment you blame Christians for what bin Laden did, you lose your right to complain when someone blames atheists for what Karl Marx did.
That's because the real religion of the USA these days is money. You can say whatever you want as long as you don't criticize those with the money levers. Start criticizing Wall Street and the big banks and out come the shock troops with the batons, tear gas, and rubber bullets.
That very rarely happens (only when some stupid cop exaggerates his duties) when people are legitimately protesting. However, certain people will invade public buildings, block traffic in an important avenue without authorization, hurl Molotov cocktails, and otherwise engage in "please, please, please arrest me so I can claim to be a victim" tactics.
The Roman's were very open about Religion, look at the hubbub about a Mormon running for office, now consider this Emperor [wikipedia.org] deciding to rewrite the Roman religion and add his god to the top of pantheon.
They were "open" to religion as long as everyone worshiped Caesar as a god. This was an unacceptable violation of human rights.
The only thing Romans really cared about was that whatever religion you were you gave the Emperor a blessing, the Jews got harsh treatment since their monotheistic religion caused them to denounce other gods, the Christians got it worse because they had the same incompatibility as the Jews, but they didn't have the excuse of following their ancestors religion and the Romans considered them a cult.
I haven't studied enough history, but I would imagine that another reason for anti-Christian hatred is that Christians proselytize.
But if you want to look at the history of religious strife, intolerance, and state-sponsored persecution, look to the Christianization of the Roman empire. That's the point at which all of Rome's conflicts, external and internal, start taking on a big religious tone
Let's skip this part because my History of the Roman Christianization is poor.
It's a hell of a leap to go from observed distributions to finding that that means that everything is OK.
I just mean that it is not natural to expect the gender distribution to be 50/50 everywhere.
And you still haven't mentioned the pay gap within professions or explained why women are overwhelmingly concentrated in lower paid professions with no career structure.
When feminists mention "pay gap", they usually cite studies that compare men and women of similar education. However, there is more to a worker than his/her education.
Men are very career-focused. They focus on moving to more prestigious positions and increasing their salary, even if they have to work 70 hours per week. Women are, on average, more family-focused. When they negotiate their job positions, they prefer to work* less and have more time for their families.
Because of this, even if women were to apply for the same positions as men (which they don't, because they don't want to work as hard as men), their curriculum would be, on average, poorer, because she worked less.
In short: the "pay gap" is explained by women having, on average, poorer curriculum than men, and because they don't focus solely on money and prestige when they negotiate their careers.
* Of course, by "work" I mean "work outside of home". The work a woman does in her home is extremely important. Raising a new person is about the most wonderful thing a human can do.
You seem to have glossed over the fact that this whole concept that women are just different and can't handle all that sciencey stuff is belied by the story we're discussing here.
Straw man. I did not say that women cannot handle science. It just said that, on average (there are exceptions), women prefer to be a doctor, a teacher, a nurse, or a psychologist, than being a combat soldier. Denying this is denying reality. You might as well deny that the sky is blue.
By the way, notice that I mentioned "combat soldier" as a manly profession. I did not mention "mathematician" or "scientist".
The "sexism" that women suffer in certain workplaces is not of the "women cannot handle this" kind. This kind of sexism is almost dead. What women face is objectification: rude talk, and even strict sexual harassment.
However, the same people who promote radical feminism (and deny that women and men are different) tend to also defend hard pornography as "free speech". And when men are exposed to hard pornography (99% of which consists of men horribly humiliating women) since age 11, it is little wonder that they think of women as objects.
It is simply dishonest to call the Holy See a "totalitarian theocracy", when it is a _tiny_ city with no maternity wards. No one was born there. If you have a Vatican passport then you also have another passport and it is trivial to leave. In fact, I think no private person one even owns property in the Vatican.
But it is a state, and there is a totalitarian leader. It just allows it's citizens to leave (while entering is subject to the approval of the government). Is a strong border keeping citizens in necessary for a totalitarian regime to exist?
Let's honestly compare the two situations. 1) John was born in Iran, from Muslim parents. He converts to Christianity. If he practices Christianity in Iran, he can be executed. If he decides to leave, then 1.1) He must find a country that allows him in. 1.2) He must learn a new language, a new culture (including new laws), validate his diploma (assuming it is even possible). 1.3) He must find a new job 1.4) He must leave his friends, his family, his career, his property (including his house).
On the other hand,
2) Jack was born in Rome, from Catholic parents, and decided to work in the Vatican. However, Jack lost his Faith and decided to run an NGO that promotes euthanasia. But the Vatican will not allow such an NGO to operate in its territory! So Jack needs to: 2.1) Move 1 kilometer away, and open his NGO in Rome 2.2) Possibly, find a new job.
If you cannot see the enormous difference, you have been blinded by ideology.
Also: demanding the "right" to attack the Catholic Faith (say, by promoting euthanasia) while working at the Vatican is like demanding the "right" to promote deforestation while working as the spokesperson of Greenpeace. It simply makes no sense.
The proposed ERA is a bit too extreme. For example, it would mandate paternity leave to be equal to maternity leave, which makes little sense. It would force the Navy SEAL to accept women. Depending on the interpretation of the judge, it could force the army to put women and men in the same bedrooms. In fact, it could even make separated _bathrooms_ unconstitutional.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you read my post before replying? Solar is reaching residential grid parity as early as _2015_. Wind is very close too. Then there is next-generation nuclear.
And regarding geo-engineering, we have several options*, so it is likely that at least one of them will be economically viable in the near term.
You pulled "50 years" out of thin air.
There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.
The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]
The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]
Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].
And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.
Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]
African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.
Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.
Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.
1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.co
See http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3073583&cid=41133135
Yes, AGW is a serious problem, and denying it makes it costlier. However, the world is not ending. Green(tm) energy is getting cheaper and cheaper. It is predicted that solar will reach residential grid parity as early as 2015*. Not to mention next-generation nuclear. And, in a few decades, nuclear fusion. And if reducing emissions is not enough, we can cool Earth by increasing solar reflection** or by sequestering carbon*** or through some other action.
Also, how can people have such ridiculous short memories? The world was supposed to end in the 1970s though mass famines caused by overpopulation. Then the doomsayers changed their minds and predicted water wars. Then peak oil. Then the ozone layer hole (remember that?). Then acid rain. Then we very closely avoided Armageddon in 2000, due to the Y2K bug. Remember that? The mass societal disruptions, the nuclear wars that would be started because some digital nuclear weapon system misfired due to Y2K? Phew, that was close! But we survived.
Recently, we survived the Apocalypse in 21 May 2011, then 21 October 2011.
Now, of course, all the headlines are about climate change.
Do you know what is the single greatest cause of climate-change denialism? You. Doomsayers. Because you predict the Apocalypse every 5 years, people stopped listening.
Want to help the environment? Start talking straight.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot/
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity
** http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/08/putting-the-breaks-on-climate-change-with-diamonds/
*** http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/08/25/2359234/a-modest-proposal-for-sequestration-of-co2-in-the-antarctic
North Korea is about the closest regime to 1984.
Can you please answer http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3059955&cid=41130865 ?
But why did the USA not offer reasonable terms of surrender?
The Japanese held their Emperor as a divine being. By the words of Potsdam, it looked like the Emperor could be deposed, and possibly even executed for war crimes. That, to the Japanese, was unthinkable.
USA should have offered decent terms of surrender, and perhaps blow a nuke in Japan's shore, so as to kill few or no people, but let everyone see the mushroom cloud.
In other words, the American government didn't try hard enough to avoid the mass civilian deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Trying to avoid a theocracy does not mean it was not inspired by the Bible. It did not happen on Europe by accident.
By what logic? Atheist Marxist countries were __extremely__ aggressive. Muslim countries are very aggressive. Some Buddhist countries oppress religious minorities. There is no reason to believe that less Christianity equals less aggression.
Also, you forgot the Second Vatican Council.
One exception does not disprove the rule.
I don't know if the government of Iran will directly nuke Israel. But I fear they will allow their technology to fall in bad hands. Pakistan has already leaked nuke technology to North Korea.
Now, even North Korea is less crazy than bin Laden. If terrorists get nukes, then things get ugly.
Separation of Church and State does not mean that religious people cannot have their voices heard.
While a theocratic country is oppressive, an ideological atheist country is oppressive too. Freedom lies in the middle.
See http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html
I have never heard Christians defending that. You must be referring to some very, very wacky fringe. Not very honest.
There is nothing wrong with adopting some Roman styles.
Now, it can be argued that some churchmen actually adopted Roman ideas (such as theocratic government) which were contrary to authentic Christianity, but this did not eclipse Christianity. And the last vestiges of caesaropapism were removed during the Second Vatican Council.
It is very hard to be part of the Church when you do not believe in it, yes?
The Church is a doctrinal organization. Her top priorities are preaching sound doctrine, and administering the sacraments. She must allow people to get out (or refrain from getting in), so people have freedom of religion. But it is not reasonable to expect the Church to dilute her teaching so everyone is in.
Except that the situation is not symmetrical. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the aggressor is Muslim, and the victim is either Christian or Jew.
Christianity arrived earlier, even if it covered little of the Middle East.
At that time, a significant percentage of the population in the most advanced Islamic countries was still Christian.
Maybe it had something to do with the barbaric chaos caused by the end of the Roman Empire?
Yes, Americans have diverse views. But those with pornographic tastes dominate TV and cinema.
If there is promotion of chastity in America, it is not among the elites. The cultural elites are overwhelmingly pro-pornography. See what passes on TV and cinema.
Second, I have never seen a Christian say that sex is evil. Precisely the opposite: they say that sex is sacred.
Third: American kids do get "sex education". And it is pornographic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7XR9yH2ETk
I don't say they are hypocrites. I say they are inconsistent.
A ban would not abolish hard pornography, but it would send a message that it is socially unacceptable behavior.
It would also make it slightly harder to find (so kids would not bump into it so easily).
The point is that feminists have unrealistic expectations. They yell "MISOGYNY" everywhere, even when women are simply making choices (such as having large families, or putting their careers in the backseat) that feminists hate.
Straw man. I specifically said "With a brush of the same breadth,".
The moment you blame Christians for what bin Laden did, you lose your right to complain when someone blames atheists for what Karl Marx did.
That very rarely happens (only when some stupid cop exaggerates his duties) when people are legitimately protesting.
However, certain people will invade public buildings, block traffic in an important avenue without authorization, hurl Molotov cocktails, and otherwise engage in "please, please, please arrest me so I can claim to be a victim" tactics.
They were "open" to religion as long as everyone worshiped Caesar as a god. This was an unacceptable violation of human rights.
I haven't studied enough history, but I would imagine that another reason for anti-Christian hatred is that Christians proselytize.
Let's skip this part because my History of the Roman Christianization is poor.
Hasn't ended to this day? How so?
I just mean that it is not natural to expect the gender distribution to be 50/50 everywhere.
When feminists mention "pay gap", they usually cite studies that compare men and women of similar education. However, there is more to a worker than his/her education.
Men are very career-focused. They focus on moving to more prestigious positions and increasing their salary, even if they have to work 70 hours per week.
Women are, on average, more family-focused. When they negotiate their job positions, they prefer to work* less and have more time for their families.
Because of this, even if women were to apply for the same positions as men (which they don't, because they don't want to work as hard as men), their curriculum would be, on average, poorer, because she worked less.
In short: the "pay gap" is explained by women having, on average, poorer curriculum than men, and because they don't focus solely on money and prestige when they negotiate their careers.
* Of course, by "work" I mean "work outside of home". The work a woman does in her home is extremely important. Raising a new person is about the most wonderful thing a human can do.
Straw man. I did not say that women cannot handle science.
It just said that, on average (there are exceptions), women prefer to be a doctor, a teacher, a nurse, or a psychologist, than being a combat soldier. Denying this is denying reality. You might as well deny that the sky is blue.
By the way, notice that I mentioned "combat soldier" as a manly profession. I did not mention "mathematician" or "scientist".
The "sexism" that women suffer in certain workplaces is not of the "women cannot handle this" kind. This kind of sexism is almost dead. What women face is objectification: rude talk, and even strict sexual harassment.
However, the same people who promote radical feminism (and deny that women and men are different) tend to also defend hard pornography as "free speech". And when men are exposed to hard pornography (99% of which consists of men horribly humiliating women) since age 11, it is little wonder that they think of women as objects.
Let's honestly compare the two situations.
1) John was born in Iran, from Muslim parents. He converts to Christianity. If he practices Christianity in Iran, he can be executed. If he decides to leave, then
1.1) He must find a country that allows him in.
1.2) He must learn a new language, a new culture (including new laws), validate his diploma (assuming it is even possible).
1.3) He must find a new job
1.4) He must leave his friends, his family, his career, his property (including his house).
On the other hand,
2) Jack was born in Rome, from Catholic parents, and decided to work in the Vatican. However, Jack lost his Faith and decided to run an NGO that promotes euthanasia. But the Vatican will not allow such an NGO to operate in its territory! So Jack needs to:
2.1) Move 1 kilometer away, and open his NGO in Rome
2.2) Possibly, find a new job.
If you cannot see the enormous difference, you have been blinded by ideology.
Also: demanding the "right" to attack the Catholic Faith (say, by promoting euthanasia) while working at the Vatican is like demanding the "right" to promote deforestation while working as the spokesperson of Greenpeace. It simply makes no sense.
He was probably referring to the 19th Amendment.
The proposed ERA is a bit too extreme. For example, it would mandate paternity leave to be equal to maternity leave, which makes little sense.
It would force the Navy SEAL to accept women.
Depending on the interpretation of the judge, it could force the army to put women and men in the same bedrooms.
In fact, it could even make separated _bathrooms_ unconstitutional.