And yet it seems that numerous such studies have been conducted, and concluded the precise opposite of what you just asserted:

Using Current Population Survey (CPS) data for 1979 and 1995 and controlling for education, experience, personal characteristics, parental status, city and region, occupation, industry, government employment, and part-time status, Yale University economics professor Joseph G. Altonji and the United States Secretary of Commerce Rebecca M. Blank found that only about 27% of the gender wage gap in each year is explained by differences in such characteristics.

[...]

Similarly, a comprehensive study by the staff of the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that the gender wage gap can only be partially explained by human capital factors and "work patterns." The GAO study, released in 2003, was based on data from 1983 through 2000 from a representative sample of Americans between the ages of 25 and 65. The researchers controlled for "work patterns," including years of work experience, education, and hours of work per year, as well as differences in industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure. With controls for these variables in place, the data showed that women earned, on average, 20% less than men during the entire period 1983 to 2000. In a subsequent study, GAO found that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Labor "should better monitor their performance in enforcing anti-discrimination laws."

More examples abound, with references and sources, at that link. Perhaps you have some counterexamples to offer which show that all of the disparity can be adequately explained by non-discriminatory factors? Other than blanket assertions, I mean?

Not all that much different than an underpowered smartphone with voice commands, strapped to your head.

Well when you put it like that, it's hard to see any way that Google Glasses could possibly be a failure in the market!

I'm sold.

Half right. It doesn't say "the checksum doesn't change" - it points out that cPanel doesn't use a packaging system to install apache - and so rpm -V won't detect changes made to files that weren't installed by rpm in the first place.

Tripwire (or other similar admin tools) can easily detect changes to the binary since a known-good baseline was taken, and report those out to you, as well.

rpm -V also checks the MD5 sum of the file - if it's been modified, it should flag a difference in checksums, even if every other bit of metadata is the same.

That said, it's quite easy to believe that lots of people aren't running "rpm -V httpd" regularly on their Linux servers, so all the people responding "DUH, NOOBZ" just sound like dicks. Next time, they should probably try showing off their deep knowledge of rpm by helpfully suggesting "rpm -V will find this, and you should be running this on all your systems regularly," rather than shitting up the comment thread with "I'm not vulnerable, anybody who is must be a fucking idiot."

Those drugs are the primary influences that are resulting in drug resistant bacteria and viruses.

You do realize that the non-drug resistant bacteria and viruses will kill you just as easily as the drug resistant ones - right? Plenty of non-resistant bacteria killed plenty of people in the LONG years before the development of antibiotics. These weren't "completely harmless" bacteria that decided to go on a killing spree after we started using antibiotics. To be sure, MRSA is a much trickier bacteria to eliminate than a plain old staph infection, but either one can kill you just as easily if you don't treat it.

Interesting how you neglected where I pointed out the fact that without your allotment of bacteria you would soon die

Yeah, except where I wrote, "In some cases, they do so in a symbiotic relationship that is not harmful to either us or the bacteria," you're right - I totally ignored that point.

But it's interesting to me how you neglected where I pointed out the fact that many bacteria out there are not symbiotes, and will easily kill a person if left untreated, as they did in the literal millennia before the development of antibiotics.

Even more interesting is how you neglect to understand that even E. coli, one of the most common bacteria in the human gut, will kill you dead as a motherfucker if it gets out of your gut and into other parts of your body and goes untreated, too.

No violence, just the birth and death rate would be more in-line with the local food, water, and predator supply.

I never said you wanted "violent" genocide. I said you wanted "genocide." Restricting access to life-saving medications, in the hopes that the bacteria won't continue infecting us like they did for thousands of years before antibiotics were developed for human use is certainly a kinder, gentler genocide - but make no mistake about it, what you've proposed IS a genocide. Those people with limited access to clean water & proper sanitary technique, proper nutrition, and modern medicine (what few medicines you've decided are still 'allowable') will be the ones killed by your proposal.

If the net effect of your proposal is to send billions of poor people to their deaths because you're really really upset about animal testing and the medical advances they've produced, well - a genocide by any other name still smells the same. If you don't like your words being characterized that way, maybe you should consider the logical consequences (and the practical implementation) of what you're proposing.

that's why I proposed curtailing the chemical assault and conditions which lead to their further evolution.

Antibiotics and other therapeutic drugs certainly contribute a strong evolutionary pressure, but they are FAR from the only evolutionary force acting on bacteria, viruses, and other pathogens. Bacterial conjugation, random mutation, and other environmental pressures all contribute a significant amount of pressure.

These organisms aren't "happy to coexist with us" in any way - they are not sentient, they have no emotions or feelings as we know them. They simply - grow and reproduce. In some cases, they do so in a symbiotic relationship that is not harmful to either us or the bacteria. In other cases, they do so in a harmful pathogenic manner, and the only response is to kill them, or die. Diseases were around a long time before antibiotics, suggesting that we simply stop using pharmaceuticals basically says "I'm okay with millions dying to preventable disease."

The poor would have agreed to have reduced their population to a sustainable level too, if corporatoins weren't only too happy to destroy their aboriginal way of life and supply them with cheap carbohydrates and sugar in the name of charity and progress.

I love the mild, passive way you suggest killing off (or "reducing to a sustainable level") billions of people! Tell me, were you born with a thirst for genocide, or did it develop over time?

After reading your posts, it's truly amazing - absolutely shocking! - to me that people would conclude many animal rights activists are actually misanthropes who care more about killing off humans than they do about saving animals.

Instructive. Perhaps the animal rights terrorists- errr, vandals - could learn from your example of peaceful advocacy!

If you have a moral objection to it, perhaps you should break into his workplace and vandalize it, in order to coerce him into doing what you want!

Oh shit, have the bacteria and viruses agreed to stop evolving, too?

I mean, they've signed on this "we'll always remain susceptible to antibiotics developed before 1993" thing, right?

And have the poor agreed to die of starvation and malnutrition because they can't afford the costs of doing away with modern agricultural practices?

I'm so glad to hear you've solved all our problems, friend. I look forward to the delightful new world you've designed for us!

Also, when the pictures were finally released, crowdsourcing SUCCEEDED brilliantly!

Yeah, succeeded in brilliantly mis-identifying one of the suspects as missing Brown student Sunil Tripathi, and the other as somebody named Mike Mulugeta, after "somebody heard that name on a scanner."

And before that, it was "blue robe guy." And before that, it was "blue tracksuit guy" and his suspicious friend. And before that (and still), "those two guys from Craft International, conducting an obvious false flag." And before that, anybody else who happened to be pictured anywhere along the marathon route matching any of these criteria:
-- "vaguely brown"
-- looking at or holding a cell phone
-- wearing or carrying a bag or a backpack
-- happened to be looking in a different direction than most of the crowd in the split-second that the photo was taken;
-- happened to simply look like someone who some guy on reddit once had an argument with.

No, the "crowd" engaged in ridiculous histrionics, and it rapidly devolved into a travesty: a game of "Telephone" conducted in an echo chamber.

Were this shutdown isolated to a single neighborhood, I would have no qualm.

It was - the massive police presence was localized to an approximately 20 block area in Watertown, just west of Cambridge. The "shutdown" that affected the rest of Boston was a result of people following the *recommendation* that they stay home, so they weren't out on the streets making it difficult for law enforcement to move around, and possibly being mistaken for the suspect & reported - drawing police resources *away* from the area he was almost certainly cornered.

I'm only putting the words in your mouth that your invocation of "Keep Calm and Carry On" suggests.

But with that said, I'll agree with your follow-on point:

I still hold that the original post I responded to (holding that debating the point at all would be hurtful to those seriously impacted by the event) was full of it.

While I think there are ways to debate it in a way that's hurtful to the people affected by it, I do agree that it's absolutely important to have the discussion. That said, I don't think the police response was unreasonable, given the situation that unfolded Thursday evening and through the day on Friday. For all the people worrying about their civil liberties being infringed, it's not the 18 hour police response that they should be concerned about: it's the ultimately well-meaning but misguided law-makers who will try to use this to push through all kinds of new legislation that probably WILL grant the police broader powers. That's the debate they should be having, not a bunch of "Chicken Little" nonsense over a focused & short (remember, the whole thing happened in less than 24 hrs) manhunt for a dangerous fugitive somehow resulting in a tank and an infantry squad with machine guns on every corner of Boston.

1) The point is all your chest thumping about how you'd "refuse the search" and "these searches are violations of peoples' rights" is complete nonsense. It is not a violation of anybody's rights unless we ignore several centuries of case law (making the conduct of the searches Friday a slippery slope with an apparent slope of 0), and for all your noise about refusing the search - you would have had no legal standing to do so. In other words: you are ignorant of how the law functions, and how your rights are applied, as you have quite capably demonstrated.

2) "Hot pursuit" would be a TYPE of exigent circumstance, it need not be present in every case where the officers conduct a search or pursue a suspect. The only requirement for exigent circumstances to exist is "immediate threat" - a clear threat to public safety, the risk of a suspect evading capture, the destruction of evidence.

3) No, you go back and read again. The reason it was disallowed is because the "reasonable suspicion" would not have been enough for the issuance of a warrant, and "exigent circumstances" do not allow you to waive the conditions for a warrant, and search whatever you damn well please. They had probable cause to believe a shooter and a gun would be in the apartment they entered, because the bullet that hit the man in the apartment below *originated there.* They had no probable cause to believe that the stereos were stolen, merely 'reasonable suspicion.' The officer went in, and conducted a search NOT COVERED by the narrow circumstances of the exigent circumstance (the shooting) which allowed him to enter the apartment, and all the evidence gathered was thrown out because he conducted a search NOT related to the reason that allowed him to enter the apartment without a warrant in the first place.

4) An armed & desperate man, who engaged in a series of gun battles with police across Watertown on Thursday evening and Friday morning, who was throwing bombs around in a residential neighborhood - a man wanted in connection with 4 murders, and about 200 counts of assault with a deadly weapon - was at large within the area they were searching in on Friday. This presents a clear threat to public safety, and a clear and immediate risk that not continuing the search would result in him evading capture. Please explain how this does not fall within the definition of exigent circumstances?

You keep making broad assertions about these searches, but you're only making it clear that you have vast misapprehensions about how the law governs warrantless searches, and a vast ignorance of the scenario in Boston that led to them in the first place. It's cool to have opinions, but have you ever considered doing the most basic of research into the facts of the situations you're drawing conclusions about? It'd spare you a lot of this embarrassment, surely.

You're seriously comparing two criminals running around (using, admittedly, significant ordinance) to having enemy bombers overhead?

You're the one who suggested we should treat them equivalently by "keeping calm and carrying on." The British people did so by:
1) Blacking out their city after dark - at the behest of the government.
2) Staying in hiding in basements and bomb shelters during the (often-nightly) attacks - at the behest of the government.
3) Pitching in to help stop fires, and aid the wounded afterwards - at the behest of the government (and common-fucking-decency).

Again, do you really think "keep calm and carry on" was intended to tell them, "get out to the pubs, boys, don't let those germans stop you from having a pint"? The insistence that a police request to "stay inside, stay out of the way of police while we find the guy who did this and bring him into custody" constitutes some sort of "civil panic" is so farcical it's hard to believe you're serious.

Taking reasonable precautions is certainly appropriate during a known attack. Shutting down the city because there might be some further incident is an entirely dissimilar category.

Only if you define "during a known attack" so narrowly that the only time the Germans were conducting a "known attack" was when the bombs actually impacted the streets of London, and the few seconds afterwards until the sound of the explosion died away.

This entire series of events in Boston transpired in less than 24 hours. A cop was murdered at MIT, a man was carjacked, and the police responding to the carjacking were shot at, and had bombs thrown at them as they chased the suspects through the city. They shot one and took him into custody, the other was cornered in hiding in the neighborhood where they conducted the searches during the day Friday. Would you really have preferred they just told people, "Hey guys, don't worry about it, this guy's wanted in connection to the murders of 4 people & the maiming of 200 or so, he's armed, desperate, and hiding in your neighborhood, but we're all going to just go home and get a good night's sleep, and we'll keep looking for him tomorrow night, or well, he's bound to turn up at some point, we'll get him then, I guess! Keep calm and carry on!"

1) I'm willing to bet fairly good money that nearly every search conducted on Friday was done with the full voluntary consent of the property owners. Furthermore, there is legal precedent which allows the police to enter and search property without a warrant, and without the voluntary consent of the property owners anyway, so your talk about objecting is rather silly. The situation on Friday certainly fell within the definition of exigent circumstances. The point is: NO search conducted Friday was illegal or a violation of anybody's rights, and your claim that you would have refused such a search is probably moot - your attempt to refuse would have been (legally) overridden by police, and if you attempted to prevent them from entering your property, you probably could have been arrested for doing so.

2) You say, "it's not just limited to hot pursuit," when earlier you said "apply during hot pursuit, not just pursuit." If you concede it's applicable during hot pursuit, and call what happened on Friday "hot pursuit," why are you arguing the point at all?

2b) A simple, cursory examination of any of the literal reams of newsprint that have been consumed by journalists writing about the events in Boston would have told you that the area where the searches were conducted was a small section of Watertown. In the future, please don't offer opinions on matters you're ignorant of, and you'll spare yourself the embarrassment of being completely wrong.

2c) You wrote, "Those residences in the immediate vicinity of the suspects last known location are permissible to search. The whole of Boston? No." The searches occurred in a very small portion of Boston, and you've conceded they were completely reasonable. The so-called "lockdown" was a "request" that people stay inside, and had nothing to do with any constitutional issue, because they did not have the weight of any law behind them. The police made a request. That was the only thing that affected "the whole of Boston."

3) You are WRONG - exigent circumstance entry & searches must be "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation", as in the linked case. If your defense attorney were competent, he'd know this, and file a motion to suppress all evidence gathered during that search. Your argument that "anything an officer sees can be held against you" applies in searches conducted under the auspices of a search warrant. It does not hold true in cases where exigent circumstances justify the search.

4) I'm sorry, do you prefer "ignorant mouth-movings," "whining," or some other term to describe your chest thumping about how the police state is coming, and you're ready to stand against it? NOTHING new happened on Friday. No "step down a slippery slope." No "chipping away at our constitutional freedoms by police intent on stealing our freedom like they want to steal our guns." No "violations of fundamental constitutional rights." All that happened was a bunch of police officers conducted a search and an investigation using procedures and legal standards that have long standing precedents.

1) It's very arguable whether you'd have any legal standing to refuse such a search, under long-established case law.

2a) Exigent circumstances are most certainly not limited to "hot pursuit." Go read up on it before you spout off with inane assertions that are demonstrably false. Here's a appeals court decision specifically related to whether or not "exigent circumstances" existed for the police to make an arrest - based on them observing a sawed off shotgun in a home through an open door, when they went to a house to ask the owner some questions. There was no hot pursuit; the appeals court vacated the suppression of the shotgun as evidence, and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings.

2b) The affected area of searches was limited to an ~20 block area where the suspect was chased to, cornered, and hiding. The searches did not occur "across the whole of Boston." The searches WERE confined to the "immediate vicinity of the suspects' last known location.

2c) The suggestion that "people stay home" was not a "search and seizure" in any way. if you want to be taken seriously, don't try to conflate the issues in an attempt to make the situation sound worse than it was.

3) Such evidence is trivially suppressed in court by any competent defense attorney. Their discovery of your dimebag was in no way associated with the exigent circumstances that would have allowed them to come in and search your property against their will. Motion to suppress, granted, case dismissed.

4) So you're saying that all your shouting about restrictions on freedoms are moot, since no freedoms were restricted?