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.

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.

And, frankly that was an improvement: some even earlier aircraft had the engineer wing-walking to get to the engine. I can't remember which ones off hand, and my google-fu is weak today.

The 747 dreamlifter has a much larger cargo volume, but it's got the same wingspan and same empennage so the height, width and length is the same.

Not sure about the A380, except that it's wings are too short because of airport limitations. It ought to be bigger, but non aerodynamic practicalities got in the way.

It's the failure modes that are problematic.

They're also astonishingly rare. Of all the major accidents, we have:

Chernobyl: a crazy design with a strongly positive void coefficient. No one else has ever made such designs, even before Chernobyl because it was always known to be dangerous.

Fukishima: Germany is just not prone to natural disasters on that scale. It's geologically stable and free from hurricanes and tornadoes.

Three Mile Island: an excellent design from a fail safe point of view because despite a full core meltdown, it released almost no radioactivity.

Windscale: wasn't a powerplant for a start. Also a design which was known to be batshit at the time but was done in a screaming hurry for national security reasons. Even so, it's been cleaned up and the effects are basically gone.

If you look at Europe's record on nuclear stuff it is excellent. If you winnow that down and include only operational powerplants and reprocessing facilities (so ignore things like the plutonium cooker at windscale and experimental plants) the record is almost spotless.

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

Why aren't men systematically biased against men? Explain this to me?

I have to give you pshchological insight in order to explain statistics now?

Your whole premise requires systemic bias of men and women against women. That is a tall order to prove.

And yet that article showed it within its scope.

You're pushing junk science.

Ah so all of psychology is junk science according to you? If you can't argue logic, resort to ad-homenim.

And not actually a logical fallacy.

Yes it is because you're not using logic, reason or evidence. You're just hurling insults at it and expecting me to agree.

As to whether I'm an academic, so you're NOW saying that your study can't be applied outside of academia?

Good to see you can't read, or perhaps you're quoting out of context intentionally. I'm saying your claim that maybe the salary went up in the first week is pure junk. That's not how things work in academia. So that point of yours can be completely dismissed as "false".

blah blah

Ah so you never even tried to audit the statistics. You dismiss them as "not auditable" and yet you've present no evidence. If you contact the authors and they refuse, I might believe you (depending on how you make the contact).

It's entertaining to watch you twist and squirm and yet fail so miserably.

A talented actor doesn't guarantee a movie will be good. On the other hand a bad or mediocre movie doesn't mean the actors are bad. For instance, on seemed to realise that Jean Claude van-Damme could act until he did JCVD. Evidence says he can act, even if he only ever got case in poe-faced bet-em-up roles.

He's a Conservative. There's probably some angle in there, where either him or his friends stand to benefit.

Well that's totally unlike Labour who generally have some angle where they or their friends benefit.

Hopefully we're moving to a more multi-party parliament this time.

The second triogy was weak at best.
The material gave the actors little to work with. There performances like the movies are forgettable.

Forgettable? FORGETTALBE?? Mate, I WISH I coluld forget Jar-Jar Binks.

Actors only appear as good as the writers write them,

Explain "the Patrick Stewart show" er, I mean ST:TNG. There was some pretty ropey writing in there at times. I mean really pretty ropey indeed. Patrick Stewart was much, much more capable in carrying even terribly writing than any of his co-stars.

He crtainly acted far better than the writing in some episodes, but nonetheless despite the writing he was still able to carry the role.

Another nugget is that many big-name stars (say, Tom Cruise) are ditzes extraordinaire with very little talent.

The hell he's not talented. I actuallt realised this watching the credits of "tropic thunder" and saw his name and it took me a while to figure out who it was. If an actor can hide his presence when he's right in front of you (it was not a tiny role), then they have talent. He also has excellent comic timing.

Don't confuse "bad films", "roles I don't like" and "IRL personality I don't like (seriously he's batshit)" with "bad actor".

No, no they should compare it to the H4!

Or they could use any since they're all about the same size anyway.

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

The fear at hydrogen airships was well founded, the Hindenburg wasn't even the worst airship disaster, that only killed 36, the worst disaster was the R101 which killed 48.

I think this statement is taking things very far out of context: in the context of modern or even vaguely recent air travel, that was not a good thing. In the context of 1936, it was barely a blip. Air travel in 1936 was primitive and dangerous: the classic planes like the DC3 were just introduced contemporarily with the Hindenburg. What was common at the time was things like th Ford Trimotor. Long range planes had many engines partly because the engines simply lacked the reliability due to pushing the technology so far: it was routine to lose one engine in a long flight and mechanical problems frequently caused planes to land early. It wasn't long since planes were designed to allow in-flight engine maintainance.

Additionally, crack porpagation and metal fatigue were very poorly understood and as planes transitioned from wood and linen to aluminium in the 30s, this was the cause of some parts flat-out falling off in flight (things like wings).

The main problem with the hindenburg was that it was large and grand and a film crew witnessed it's demise.