I suspect that evolution is involved. Those who have power in society are making the decisions and thus NEED the larger brains. Those whose grandfathers were ditch diggers and under 99% of the societies ever designed would be ditch diggers themselves, didn't need big brains and in fact were better able to survive without them.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
The women can work as secretaries, receptionists, etc. until they get a new gig. The men? They won't even think of applying.
That's bollocks, because men will end up working manual labour in the same situation if money is tight. You won't get hired as a secretary or receptionist as a man, because... well let's be honest, most men aren't eyecandy and for secretary and receptionists jobs that is a job requirement. It is, don't deny it.
So, no I wouldn't apply for those positions, but I would apply for a bus driver or truck driver job. Men will chose the harder jobs over jobs that handle humans... which brings us to...
Just look at the ratio of male to female nurses as another example. A job where the extra strength of a man is an advantage, but they avoid it like the plague. Why? Fear. Fear of what other people will think.
I don't think it's fear. I wholly lack the empathy to care for people. I would be more than wrong on that place and I share this *mental* state with most other men. That's exactly what you've been saying: there is a mental difference and the nursing job simply doesn't match what men like to do. If I can avoid people and get machines instead, I will take that option every single time. Even if it's worse paid and more physicals. Humans are disgusting, humans are vile, interaction with them in undesirable.
I think you're too much of a victim to see these things clearly. Men, do not like jobs where you have to handle humans. Only in highly paid positions, they accept that burden. That's why a project manager is paid more than a good programmer, while doing much less for the project.
You won't find those exact words; however, you will find this:
but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
If there was a state religion, or if religion were not required to be separate from the state, there would, indeed, be religious tests applicable.
Of course, the Constitution also still contains provisions on how to count slaves for purposes of allocating Congress.
Water features also provide significant air quality benefits, especially if you aerate them. There's just lots of good reasons to implement them. Trees, as well; I cringe when I see posts permanently erected for vehicle control. Removable or sinking bollards, certainly. They have their purpose. But fixed ones?
So you truly have no comprehension of what makes sports popular do you? It's PRECISELY the fact that people think of these teams as "their team".
I like motorsports because I like motorsports, I don't care about any particular team. It's thrilling just to see it. That's what's great about stuff like world rally.
Why? Seriously, why? What does that have to do with the outcome of the race?
What does the outcome of the race have to do with the enjoyment? You're not racing. What do you care who wins? They're doing it completely and totally without you. Same for sports. That's not your team. You just bought some of their marketing crap.
A moat is still a good idea. It can be an attractive feature, if done correctly, and someone entering the moat is a flag that they may be able to jump the fence.
Or if a man says something to a woman at work and she takes it the wrong way, another lawsuit.
Perhaps that is a cultural problem. I have, in my career, never shunned perverted jokes, sexual innuendos, compliments ("sexy dress today, Jane"), etc. The worst I had was a little talk because on one I made a girl turn totally red and she complained to her superior (Blowjob joke, but damn, if you're kneeling in front of a coworker you're deserving that.). I merely, got a little stern talk about behaving a bit better -not around women- but around uptight PriceWaterHouseCooper consultants.
I have a cute dataminer sitting next to me at work, the rest of us are neckbeard developers and/or sysadmins. Male-jokes get made and she just laughs with us. It is not a problem. Now, it were different, if I'd be touching her inappropriately, but I'm not and I wouldn't want to.
Other example, my sister is a roadie/sound-engineer. That is pretty much a physical job and she is the only female. She handles well and her nickname is "pittbull". A women in these jobs just has to take up the culture, because it's just that: a culture and it's not against women, it's just in good fun. So, yes, she gets teased that she'll be sent in a pink dress to the client to make better sales, but she quips back hard and everything is in good fun.
Sueing? So North-American. Try "forgiving" and "adapting".
It is very simple, you are free to say that -let's say- black people and inferior people. Totally free in my eyes to say that. You'd be an idiot, but freedom allows you to be an idiot.
What you can't do is enforce your beliefs, because that is the actual discrimination.
The laws are there to protect minorities, not from vile speech, but from actual harm. However, even discrimination laws have their limits. Especially regarding to gender, because there *are* actual physical difference between men and women (feminists will never allow this to be true, but it's pretty much scientific fact). So, I can understand that an employer wouldn't hire a female truck driver, because in the event of a flat tire, she wouldn't be able to help herself because changing the tire would be too heavy. Of course, this would depend on the candidate. I know very physically strong women, but that is not how feminists think. That said, they're not battling for women to become truck drivers, but for women to get so called white collar jobs in management.
So, no, discrimination is not equal to political correctness. I am not politically correct, because I'm not afraid to say what I think even if it is contrary to popular beliefs, but I do not discriminate (at least, I try not to... it is apparently impossible not to discriminate at all)
Actually, I have seen several reports which indicate that Big Oil gives more money to scientists supporting AGW than they do to scientists opposing it.
Classic all-time backfires; much of the time, even trying to prove that it's okay to pollute is going to show the opposite, because duh.
Let's reword that... The people who make a living off this stuff disagree with you(him). Weird, right?
The money is in agreeing with you. Big Oil and the like are happy to pay scientists for studies which say that they can continue raping our ma.
I thought I'd never see you write those words. You are completely correct, of course..
The reason for the crushing of liberty is the cash cow. Profit first, politics later.
If that's all the variable is used for, won't the compiler optimize it out of existence anyway? Or is that too fancy yet?
I think a lot of people don't really understand how the compiler actually works. Not even at a basic level.
Well, no, I don't. That's why I asked. It sounds like the answer to my question is yes?