We're told all the time about how hard it is for women to get ahead in STEM. One would think that women if anything would look out for the interests of other women and try to help them out knowing that it is harder for them? Right?

[citation needed]

You're just speculating about psychology here. Since you love providing alternative exoanations to me, I shall provide one to you: if there is a systematic societial bias, one would expect both genders to pick up on it.

Besides, there's a whole field of study called unconscious bias.

The study itself is likely suspect. I don't know how but it doesn't make any sense.

You appear to not like the results on an emotional level. I can't argue against that because you're not bringing anything of substance ot the table.

As to difference in wages? I only concede that the Academic Gender Wage Hire Gap appears to be real. Your study is highly contextual and you can't associate that study with the wider society absent those variables.

Yes you can because academia is part of the wider world. For instance, it disproves your claim that the ONLY reason for wage gaps is the number of years served on the job. Next time you make that claim, be sure to exclude academia from your claim, and allow for the possibility that the results from academia may apply more widely.

It is only referring to what people are paid at hire. And it does not in any way reflect what anyone is paid even a week after they take the job.

Ok so in magic Karmashock land, wages are renegotiated within the first week of employment, because that's a good way to "debunk" the study. Back in the real world, I've never met anyone in academia who renegotiated salary week into a job.

Regardless, I'm happy to cite the statistics if you like.

Sure, but only if your statistics meet the same rigorous auditing that you're demanding from mine, otherwise you are showing very strong double standards.

what male AND FEMALE managers

Why do you keep bringing that up? What has that got to do with anything? Or do you believe that women are incapable of holding biases?

Okay, I'll give that to you for the sake of argument. You win that.

Ah so you do conceed then that the difference in wages is not solely due to time served on the job? I'll bookmark this so I can point to your admission next time you make the claim.

I can't parse your meaning here. I can't tell whether I'm just not getting your criteria or if you're being a jackass

I'm being a jackass in that I'm requiring that you meet your own standards.

This whole "equally skilled women are being paid less than equally skilled men" doesn't take into consideration years worked on the job.

You said exactly that. I've provided you a nice example where years worked on the job was controlled for.

You are citing a different study which is unrelated to what I was saying.

Nope.

That study, just as any study, is going to have to be audited using the contextually relevant factors relevant to that specific study.

Unlike your claims which require no auditing, nor any evidence at all!

As to my claim being crap? Which claim?

Your memory is short. The one you made in this thread.

Do you want me to show you wage gap statistics that are filtered for child birth?

Only if they've been "audited using contextually relevant factors".

Are you seriously going to hang your entire position on that one paper or can we have a rational discussion?

That's more than you've hung your position on. Your position was that womn are paid less because of fewer years on the job. I provided an example where that is not true. You still appear to cling with desperation to your original position, and try all sorts of sophistry to try to trip me up.

Because that one paper isn't enough for you to do anything but justify further investigation.

It's more than you have.

I like how you ignored the fact that you made up stuff about what I've said and go straight for simply insulting my arguments without attempting to rebut them. Cunning.

What is your position and what do you think you have established in regards to the discussion?

My position is that your claim is crap.

As tYou're advocating to what is and is not sexism, correlation and causation. Very simple concepts. Many things correlate with sex but if they are not caused by sex then it is not a gender issue but rather specific to that correlative variable.

You seem to be confused over what "sexism" means. Everyone who is sexist has reasons for it. They believe gender correlates with all sorts of things like rational thought or brainpower. You are advocating disciminating based on gender because you believe it correlates with other things.

And that requires you to be dropping those universal truths.

And what universal truth would that be? I lookforwards to hearing about your hallucination on this one.

This is basic logic.

Dictionary defintions are based on usage, not logic, as language is arbirtary. If you attempt to redefine a word using logic, you are doing nothing but demonstrating your lack of understanding of such.

As to not having the right to not be offended, okay... but that means that neither you nor these women have that right either. Their offense or uncomfortableness with something is therefore irrelevant. This works to my favor again.

I'm at a loss as to where or why you ever brought this up, then. So far all that's happened is you've played the offence card, I called you on it and you somehow now claim this is to your advantage. You seem to be basing that claim on the assumption that I have played the ofence card. Let me assure you that all your "logical" reasoning in the world won't actually work if you don't read the arguments you're responding to.

I am very much more comfortable working in an environment where offense is irrelevant then is your position. Your position will inherently demand rights and concessions from mine on this basis. Since you don't have a right to not be offended anymore, that argument can no longer be used by you.

It wasn't. You know when one is trying to debate something, the logical thing to do is to actually read your opponents argument. Actually scratch that: since you're doing this for entertainment, the logical thing to do is whatver pleases you. So if it pleases you to do so, by all means argue about stuff you've hallucinated that I said.

Do you feel the ratchet tightening?

Not really because your pawl snapped right off.

We'll see if you have any rational rebuttals or if you're just going to fully devolve into meaningless insults.

It's not an insult if it's true.

FYI, when you do that... I win.

lol!

Was thinking the same. Plus a fully loaded 1U quad socket AMD server is pretty cheap now as those things go.

In 2018 the MPEG2 patents including AAC end, which I think will make AAC the de facto codec for lossy audio.

I doubt that. Vorbis is at least as good as AAC and very popular: I think just about every game out there now encodes audio in Vorbis format and it's patent and royalty free and yet MP3 is still king. The thing is MP3 is good enough:

http://listening-test.coresv.n...

If you're prepared to spend 30% extra on storage space (and a bit less on decoding power), MP3 is as good as the better codecs. Storage space is increasing year on year, audio perception stays the same. There are always a few people who have vast audio collections, but most of us don't. IOW, it's mostly passed the point where that 30% matters, which is why MP3 seems to be entrenched for the long haul.

Google announced they would start 18-month release cycles for major VPx codec revisions after 10. That creates a Chrome-like effect on the mindshare of early adopters, so it should be interesting.

I'm skeptical that that is a good thing: video encoding is a closed, well defined task compared to web browsing. It's also reached the stage where the changes are somewhat incremental. HEVC is a step on from H.264, but the gains aren't immense for instance. Also, modern codecs are encoder heavy which means that given the decoder algorithm there is a lot of leeway to improve the encoding by working on the encoder. By way of example, look how much the lowly MP3 128kbit/s MP3 improved over the years as encoders got better.

What this means is there's not all that mch advantage to changig the codec every 18 months. In fact, there are a lot of disadvantages. Time was unless you wrre targeting Linux (which had/has FFMPEG), getting a video to play on a random platform was an exercise in frustration, especially if Windows and MacOS were involved.

Eventually everyone settled on MP4. I can now create an MP4, and it will play almost anywhere, on any PC operating system, on any mobile one, including "ancient" versions of android which are still common in the wild, a Raspberry PI, a web browser, with or without a flash plugin. Oh actually even random set-top boxes and TVs will play MP4s from a USB memory device.

An 18 month release cycle for codecs will not allow for that kind of ubuquity.

I think there's also the other thing: MP3 is still really common. It's not the best audio codec, and there's a suite of others which handily outperform it in listening tests. However, unless you have golden ears and excellent headphones, MP3 is nearly perfect now at 128kbit/s. Storage has also been increasing, and since our ears haven't been improving it's reached the stage where the comibnation of quality, size and storage capacity means there's not much motivation to change something so ubiquitous.

I think the same will happen to H.264. Encoders will improve to squeeze the most out of it. Ultimately, quality is tailing off: in many cases you can get good quality on the majority of screens without insane storage costs. As storage increases, the motivation to switch codecs will diminish.

Tha's not to say new codecs won't have their place. It's just that I think H.264 has hit the point where entrenchment is possible (previous ones were severely lacking) so newer codecs will always be somewhat limited to niches.

A social justice warrior is...

[citation needed]

SJW is a term meaning "shit I hate on the internet", and is wielded as an insult by various people. As such is wildly inconsistent. If, however you look at people, real or imagined, that actually fight for social justice, then the picture is quite different.

It is entertaining that you try to blandly state universal truths without so much as a shred of evidence, but when I post counter examples, the onus is suddenly on me to prove that I'm disproving you.

Then you wall 'o text me a hundred reasons why sexism is justified and why it's not sexism because it's justified. Here's a clue for you bucko, it doesn't matter whether it's justified or not, this is literally the dictionary definition of sexism:

prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

Notice how the word "unjustified" never enters into is. What you're doing is strenuously arguing that discrimination based on gender is justified. You should stop being a coward and simply admit you're sexist, and then try to defend that, rather than tying yourself in knots trying to redefine a perfectly well defined word.

And this attempt to call pretty much all of society bigoted is offensive.

Here's how many shits I give about being offensive: .

You don't have a right not to be offended. Get over it.

As to bringing up gender all the time... Okay, all topics of gender are now forbidden then... We'll just shut this topic down and any like it ever again.

Ah taking words intentionally out of context. The lowest of the low. The quality of an argument has nothing to dowith the gender of the person making it. You tried to use the person's gender as a factor in the argument.

Yet another example of where you make value judgements based on gender.

I am intensely logical.

Well, I argue on the internet for entertainment. You have not disappointed me today :)

Yep, it was about academia, but it demonstrates that your claim that wage gaps is only due to years served is not universally true.

There was also no follow up to find out why any of that happened. The could be correlative problems associated with female applications.

So in other words, they're judging based on something other than their skills and experience but it's OK because reasons? A clue: whether or not it's OK it's still judging based on gender. That is more or less the definition of sexism. You're therefore not arguing that it's not sexist, you're arguing that sexism is OK.

That's a perfectly valid point to argue, even if I disagree with it, but I do wish you'd be honest about what you're actually arguing.

This recent lawsuit by a woman against a company has already been noted BY professional women to be damaging to women because it increases the RISK of hiring women.

Surely a logically made point wellsupported by evidence ought to be independent of gender? Why do you insist on bringing gender into things all the time?

You can't damn our entire society using that one flimsy study as evidence.

Again, you're obsessed with bringing in unrelated things such as wild claims about "everything". I'm simply debunking your claim that wage differences are only due to years served by finding an example where that's not true.

It is. E-mail is automatically backed up and leaves an electronic trail.

No it's not. It's only backed up if you make your mail server actually make backups. There is nothing in the email protocol which implies backups are made. In fact sorting out backups is something you have to deal with if you run a mail server.

Ah, so Martin Luther King and Gandhi are assholes and douchebags!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Well, if I have to be lumped together with those, well, that's a quite amazing complement and one I'm not sure I deserve, but what the hell!

This whole "equally skilled women are being paid less than equally skilled men" doesn't take into consideration years worked on the job.

Yes it does. I'm yet again going to crank out that PNAS argument that we argued over before. Last time you eventually conceded that the article was valid, yet here you are denying the same facts.

For those of you new to this: they made fake CVs with identical experience and the ones with female names attached were routinely rated as less competent and routinely offered less money. There is no way the women had "less years on the job" because the women and men in the study were all fake and otherwise identical.

I said to her, "Women often say they have trouble with unacceptable male attention." She told me, "They ask for it!" (Exact quote)

Nope, there's no problem at all with generalising what one woman said to 50% of the population. Nosiree, no stereotyping there at all. Anyway, I can duel with anecdotes and find women to say exactly the opposite.

Hell, I've observed exactly the opposite at a computer science.

One female presenter being followed round by a gaggle of lost puppies including one guy who waited for about 10 minutes[*] outside the toilet. Now that's some serious creeper stalking. How was that wanted exactly?

She always dressed in a way that made people respect her.

Oh yes the slutty harlot was dressed in jeans or possibly trousers and a shirt or t-shirt, just like everyone else.

[*] toiled was quite near the buffet, so I had the opportunity to observe him while I was talking to other people. He was still there when I wandered off about 10 minutes later, so he could have waited considerably longer.