Right up until the point where they use authentication to prevent it from working. Like Dell with their power adapters. (Oh, you didn't pay the dell power supply tax, so your 19.5V can't be allowed to charge the battery!)

There are good reasons for authentication--it's very hard to find USB cables that are actually up to spec. It has cost these companies probably millions of dollars in development time to hunt down bugs related to USB cables that are below spec.

But the solution isn't authenticated cables--it's having a robust cable testing protocol. Authenticated cables are fine and can be helpful, so long as they don't *disable* non-authenticated cables, but on their own they don't solve the underlying problem.

Um... no. Women are a class of people who it costs more to employ in many jobs, because they take more leave. Congress didn't make that happen. Biology and social pressures did.

Yes, the theory is that it is a moral good to pay women equally for the same job, even though they take more leave on average. There may be some substantial second-order economic benefits, but the primary imperative was a normative decision.

Yes, fairness and equality are inherently words subject to nearly infinite malleability. But your sources of priorities are limited in your example--the priorities may actually be the priorities of the people who elect legislators. "Government" is not some disembodied evil.

So you would prefer your taxes go up and your female employees get a subsidy from government?

I didn't admit it was "unfair" to employers, I admitted it was unfair to men. It's a choice we've made as a society that you don't agree with and that taxes men by forcing wage parity (which increases women's salaries and decreases men's salaries, assuming a competitive market). If you don't like it, you are free to try to change the law.

The Canadian Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over activities by the United States government in the United States. At the most it is a persuasive authority under International Law and principles of comity; it has no binding authority. If Canada failed to attach reservations to the treaty, then Canada's international law obligations can even be in conflict with its own Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If only we had something we could call "assault" we could arrest people for. Or "jobs" that we could fire people from.

Um, no. Or at least, not only that.

Human beings learn from modelling, from environment, from role models. While insecurity can be a part of what feeds an insult, an insult can also just be "this is how I learned to interact with people." Sometimes it was from an environment where the insult was considered friendly (and yes, insults can be intended and taken in a friendly way), and sometimes it was from an environment where that was the only way a boss knew how to get through to people, and sometimes it was from an environment where some other person learned it from someone who was abusive toward them, and sometimes...

Blaming this all on insecurity is inaccurate at best. At worst, it's more a strategy to urge people to be polite based on shaming them. And while shame can be an effective motivator, it's also a really insulting motivator to use.

1. I believe you, but you are also not knowing the name of the thing you are talking about, and he can't find it on Google, so there's no evidence that it exists except for your memory of a news report of a couple of years ago. While Canadian news is often better (and is certainly funnier) than American news, that's like remembering the time a chimpanzee told you that your dog was up to something. Maybe you're right, but between the flying poop and the time that's passed chances are information got lost.

2. The closest treaty google pops up info about is this information sharing treaty, related to immigration and databases of people who come from neither country. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/d...

3. International treaties are not necessarily (as a practical or legal matter) subject to the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms when being interpreted or implemented in the United States. In addition, in non self-executing treaties, domestic implementing law may differ from international treaty, and US courts tend to be hesitant to bring in international law, even though it is technically part of the law of the United States under something called the Charming Betsy doctrine.

Or maybe even Comcast is unwilling to deal with their own customer service.

Sure--but you'd still be breaking the law.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/type...

Know your history. Believe it or not, Congress knew and understood very clearly when they passed the Equal Pay Act that it cost businesses more to employ women because of Pregnancy, for example. They had statistics on it, they understood that a purely economic decision would have taken that into account.

And they decided to pass the equal pay act anyway. Because there are social goals that we are willing to pay money for and make the economy less efficient to achieve. That's why we don't allow slavery. That's why we don't allow child labor. That's why we allow antidiscrimination lawsuits around race.

It's not perfectly fair to men, of course--it necessarily means that men are cross-subsidizing women and getting paid less. But it's still something we've decided is desirable. If you want to change it, elect a new Congress.

True. "Worst" is a charged word with an implicit normative value judgment.

"lowest" is a word of measurement that denotes being at one end of a measurement. There is not necessarily normative judgment implicit in it, although people may hear a normative judgment in it depending on what it is measuring.

If I note you are the child with the worst height, I am being cruel; if I note you are the child who is shortest, I am being factual.

if P(getting the job) is much lower for an equally qualified woman, then ExpV(being a professional in the job) is much lower for a woman. For the set of all people qualified, the women get less money because they're less likely to get hired.

Antidiscrimination isn't just about individual salaries of the people who happen to make it--it's about whether you're prejudicing the wages of an entire class of people for a discriminatory reason that society has decided it is not okay to use for discrimination.

In fifteen years, when they write the two paragraphs in the 8th grade history books about this election, do you think Donald Trump will even be mentioned?

Try getting a job while obviously pregnant. Good luck with that.

So one of the problems with modern depth sensors is handling sunlight. Blackbody radiation can cause all kinds of noise in the signal that is bounced back at the camera from a laser. This makes it harder, not easier, for a lot of depth perception tech to work in good lighting conditions.

Driving at night should, for the most part, be easier for many systems than driving during the day.

Or understand the word "left" in a political context.

There is something like a slashdot party line, without a party--there are a lot of core groupthink ideas you come across here. Open Source Good, Microsoft Bad, People (Other than us) Stupid, Anyone trying to tell other people what to do bad, Social Justice bad, Overt racism bad, cool tech toys good, Star Trek good, Lorf of the Rings (the book) good, etc...

It's still OK (you won't get booted) to challenge any of those positions with logic and reason, but you generally have to make a much more cogent post and still risk more downmodding.

But that line is WAY out-of-sync with the extreme political left, and there's no "party" leadership or organization coordinating talking points and power struggles.