White roofs? Really? That's the closest you could get to insulation? You've got a long way to troll before you troll, troll.

"But sir, that's the old wheel with a fresh coat of paint."
"Right, giant hammer for you then!"

It was an April Fools prank taken waaaay too far.

In this context, Germany is not a state. In the USA (remember, Slashdot is a US web site, it's in the FAQ) you say "country" when referring to a foreign entity. Germany is a country. California is a state.

That would piss Dors off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

With a little more insulation than usual, you can do that pretty much anywhere in the USA. Oddly, California has higher standards for insulation than pretty much anywhere in the USA. We would very much like the rest of you to catch up sometime.

Right, just the majority of available coal. We've used up the most convenient deposits of it, just like everything else.

Which suggests the question, is that actually that wonderful? Also, whether it's being collected. Maybe in Germany. Not in the USA or China, though.

...make poisonous drywall out of it, as they have done in China?

Assuming you believe those figures.

You can mostly thank our massive population. There are more people living in and around Los Angeles alone than the population of at least half the states in the nation — probably far more if you count illegals correctly, something the census can never possibly accomplish.

Indeed, California is 49th in per capita energy use, no doubt due in large part to having the largest population in the nation.

You don't know the reason for the behavior. And absent a "why" you can't cite bigotry or prejudice.

Nope. Case in point: I don't need to know why someone says "all men are smelly violent thugs who will rape women given the opportunity" to know that they're a bigoted fool.

The "why" is critical. And without that you can't speak to the motivations of anyone making any of those choices

I wasn't speaking about the motivations. You are the only one doing that.

The allegation is sexual discrimination. You don't know that. You know that decisions are being made on a single variable but you don't know WHY.

No, I don't know why, but the actual reason is of cold comfort if you're being discriminated against. For example, when women were denied the vote by virtue of being female, the ultimate motives for the denial are immaterial.

The fact that both sexes are making the same choice suggests that it is not discrimination.

Nope. Plenty of women disagreed with universal sufferage. Most people like to stick with the status quo.

But this is typical of you: first you try to deny the existence of discrimination. Once it's been shown to exist beyone any reasonable argument you insist that it's all invalid unless you know the motivation of the people involved.

The disaster at Fukushima Daiichi clearly demonstrated that containment buildings are all but worthless.

Well no because the containment building at TMI demonstrated that they can work. That underwent full meltdown, but the containment building kept all but a very small amount of radation within.

I was wron about concrete: it was a steel vessle designed to act as a heat sink after dilution and it worked perfectly.

Mixed: in some senses the design of the control room was poor and a better design would probably have prevented the meltdown. But the layers and layers and layers of failsafing, was brilliant. I think the final layer was that in the event of a meltdown, the core was designed to melt through part of the reactor thereby diluting itself to the point of noncriticality then spread out on a big chunk of concrete to cool off.

If you're going to make a Star*-themed April 1st, that's fine by me, but at least try to get some sense of chronology.

By the way: I'll probably stop replying soon because It's nearly reached the bottom of my list of comments, and when it drops off the bottom it will be hard to find. Nonetheless, given past history, I figure we can continue where we leave off in another thread in future :)

As to the article's proof, I provided a variaty of reasons for it. And really, your disinterest in the reasons and motivations of the female employers is disturbing. It displays an incurious mentality.

Nope. You have no evidence to support any of those conclusions either. The reason for their behaviour is interesting, but I don't know what it is, nor do I have any information about it. Also, the reason for their behaviour does not alter what the behaviour actually is.

But you always do this: you try to change it from an argument about actual facts to speculation about motivations. Ultimately the only thing with any effect is people's actions, not their motivations. With motivations you might be able to better effect a change, but it doesn't alter the facts.

As to your assertion that attacking a theory is inherently ad hominem... that's not what those words mean. You say I'm not offering reasons? They don't have evidence. The whole thing is at best a pseudo science. That is not an insult. That is a challenge of the the discipline's credibility.

So, basically attacking the discipline by calling it "pseudoscience", but not providing any argument as to why it's pseudoscience, or alternative actual science is essentially ad-homenim. So again: you're arguing via insults not reason.

I cited that related theories have been debunked quite intensely and the only reason subconscious bias survives at all is because the concept is so nebulous that it is like trying to attack smoke.

Firstly, you claimed it was debunked, you didn't give evidence. Second, debunking one theory doesn't make the whole discpline bad. Plhogiston has been deunked, but chemistry carries on fine (better actually).

You apply it outside of that context and YOU are taking it out of context.

Except I didn't. You claimed a general truth which was that the ONLY reason women had lower salaries was fewer years on the job. I provided an example where that is not true.

Therefore your claim is false and needs to be fixed.

Good day.

Catch you in another thread then. Until then, all the best.