Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Astroturfing Trolls (Score 1) 892

The amount of Anonymous Cowards posting the same couple lines makes it obvious. This thread is being astroturfed.

Women are making more money than men for the same job and same amount of work today, especially in cities. Stop reading a bogus 30 year old paper crafted for a narrative and check current reports. or This or This or This and of course This Interestingly most of these are LEFT leaning sites, not Right/Conservative.

PolitiFact has given you the nuts and bolts about the 77 cents statistic -- you can read the two most important works in this area here and here. Basically, there is a wage gap, but it tends to disappear when you compare women and men in the exact same jobs who have the same levels of experience and education. (emphasis mine)

The wage gap gets smaller when you control for job and experience, it doesn't disappear. And it's not certain you should be controlling for those things.

The stat about unmarried women in the 22-30 range earning more is part of it. For one those articles are from 2008-2012 when uneducated males were probably the hardest hit demographic, I'm not sure that stat would be true today.

Also, as they get older that gap is likely to reverse as men move out of apprenticeship positions (in labour or medicine) and as they start moving into management.

Do men get promoted into management because women make different career choices, or because we tend to view men as leaders? The answer to that question affects whether you view the wage gap as legitimate.

Just like 60% of all College students are women, 56% of all College graduates with advanced degrees are women. Yet we continue to hear that we need more women in college.

I'm an egalitarian, not a MRA. I also happen to believe in Socrates' definition of Philosopher, who must seek truth even at their own peril. Sadly the left avoids all truth and distorts everything they can for division and agenda.

More women in College isn't necessarily a sign of equality, women need degrees because uneducated women don't have the same job opportunities as uneducated men in skilled and unskilled labour. I think Iran, hardly an example of gender equality, also has more women in University.

Besides, you're arguing a straw man. The thing you actually year is not "we need more women in college", it's "we need more women in technical fields". There are a lot of well paying fields like software and engineering that women don't pursue, that's also responsible for part of the wage gap. It also leads to the creation of hostile dysfunctional workplaces like the one described in this article.

Comment Re:CTR was NEVER a good metric (Score 3, Insightful) 129

Time spent on a page or how deeply I scroll down an article is no indication of how likely that corporation is to separate me from some of my money.

I think the advertisers would disagree with you on that. A big goal of advertising is simple brand-recognition. The longer they can keep their brand in front of your eyes, the better. I believe that they believe this works.

Comment Re:Go visit Mar-a-Lago and complain (Score 1) 505

I'm not saying that Clinton was perfect, I'm saying she was a normal politician.

You claimed the Clintons didn't profit personally. You were astoundingly wrong about that and turned a blind eye when cited evidence was provided.

I meant they didn't profit personally while in office. I figured this distinction was obvious since every high profile politician makes a ton of money after office, and some of that is surely influence peddling.

since she was trying to get rid of super PACs

Give me a break. The Clintons didn't give a shit about the corrupting influence of money in politics. They unabashedly played that game their whole career and profited immensely from it, both politically and personally.

Not everyone who plays the game but says they'll try to end the game in office is lying.

Clinton wasn't great on this regard, I don't think she really felt that the money was a big problem, but she said she'd try to get rid of the PACs I don't see any reason to doubt her.

really do think there was a subtext of sexism

What's sexist is playing the gender card.

When the playing field is slanted it's not discrimination to give a hand.

Comment Re:Go visit Mar-a-Lago and complain (Score 1) 505

I'm not saying that Clinton was perfect, I'm saying she was a normal politician. All the things she's accused of are completely typical in US politics, elected she would have been no worse than a typical politician, if anything she might be slightly better since she was trying to get rid of super PACs and the Bernie camp would have had some influence to push the system.

The thing that pisses me off about it is that people only really seemed to care about this stuff once it applied to Hillary. I really do think there was a subtext of sexism, I think people felt that for a guy to play the game it was a normal ambitious guy thing to do, but for a woman to do the same somehow became sinister.

That doesn't mean anyone who criticizes her was sexist, not remotely. But there were a lot of sexist people passionately pushing the narratives that destroyed her image.

Comment Re:Simple answer. Dont use SAP. (Score 1) 123

SAP cant scale worth shit, we recently added 4000 people in the call center and it took SAP 8 months to "scale" the stupid garbage pile they call software to handle it.

Then when we wanted to put in a system in the RMA database to track repair RMA data, the SAP experts said it was impossible, so one of the IT guys wrote the system we needed in PHP with a Open source SQL backend. he has a MITM box that will grab info from SAP and then spit it to the RMA server. when you do a query on the RMA page you get the full history of the device from manufacture date, to ship date, to who, to all repairs and even Tech support calls on the device.

SAP was unable to deliver this. Because SAP is really shitty.

Comment Re:Go visit Mar-a-Lago and complain (Score 1) 505

The Clintons never personally profited from the Clinton Foundation

They used it as a slush fund to pay their cronies and assistants, including Bill Clinton Inc.

So the Clinton's go to some city to do some charity work and to give some paid speeches. How should they do that?

Should they use two different staffs? That's a lot of extra money and hassle.

Should they personally pay their staff to work for the charity? Sure, but they're spending a lot of their own money.

Or they could do what they did, have the charity pay for the same staff when that staff is working for the charity.

Sure they could have done it differently, but that doesn't seem fundamentally wrong.

Promises were also made and broken when she was given the Secretary of State position.

I don't know the full story of who was responsible for allowing those donations when she was Secretary of State. But if she was President they'd be completely detached from the foundation, there would be no opportunity for someone to donate to a Clinton charity because there would be none.

Oh, really? Strange how much money the Clintons made then peddling access then back when Hillary was still a power player. How much do you think she or Bill are getting for speaking fees now?

A "power player" is not a government official, former politicians cashing in is not new, even if the politician might return to a position of power.

The difference is that Trump is currently President.

Comment Re:Go visit Mar-a-Lago and complain (Score 1) 505

Just then the reverend wheeled about to face the singers, his back now to the congregation, and continued his sermon—oblivious as the choir mouthed back to him, in silent unison, "Whoosh."

Were there hypocrites who supported Clinton? Of course.

Is it hypocrisy to have defended Clinton on the claims I set out while criticizing Trump now? Absolutely.

I'm a realist who accepts that people always commit some level of influence peddling, and don't always follow the rules as they should. But Trump what Trump is doing fundamentally different.

Comment Re:Go visit Mar-a-Lago and complain (Score 0) 505

> Your original source is a video by a guy who is famous for dishonestly editing videos... and yet you keep going back to him as a primary source.

There's a bunch of evidence that corroborates it, unless you don't believe the FEC pay stubs or the independent YouTube videos of her lying to the cops?

You don't believe the DC police arrest records?

The evidence speaks for itself. I don't need to consider them credible.

So what? Even if the evidence is right all it means is someone who is passionate about politics to work for a PAC is also passionate enough to engage in underhanded tactics.

As I said, even if your evidence is true, it's irrelevant.

Comment Re:Just another mindless attack (Score 1) 505

He has tweeted at a time he was scheduled to be in a Top Secret meeting. Either he's not attending his meetings, or he's tweeting during them. Either is gross negligence, so which gross negligence is it today?

Just to be clear since some people might have misread your comment as merely accusing Trump of not paying attention.

If he brought his phone into those meetings he was potentially carrying a remote listening device.

Comment Re:Go visit Mar-a-Lago and complain (Score 3, Insightful) 505

> Why would I believe

Because when the PV videos on staging violence came out, we found evidence that Zulema Rodriguez was employed by MoveOn to be in Arizona, we have a video of her blocking the road and lying to cops, and that corroborates the video?

Your original source is a video by a guy who is famous for dishonestly editing videos... and yet you keep going back to him as a primary source.

I have absolutely zero confidence that you know how to determine if a piece of evidence is true or relevant.

Comment Re:Go visit Mar-a-Lago and complain (Score 1, Insightful) 505

It's funny that all of this stuff wasn't a big deal to you hyper-partisans when Clinton was accused of them, but they suddenly are a big deal when Trump is doing them.

Your rah-rah-my-team bullshit is fucking up our world. It's a big deal when both teams do it. (And I'm calling you out, Ami, because you were defending Clinton for these very same things.)

It's perfectly valid to point out and criticize hypocracy, regardless of whether one personally agrees or disagrees with the underlying position.

But not all claims of hypocrisy are valid.

1) A tonne of people would have know about Clinton's private email server for years and virtually none of them thought anything of it, only once the GOP got a hold of it did it suddenly become a scandal. Meanwhile everyone is telling Trump his android has to go.

2) The Clintons never personally profited from the Clinton Foundation, and they planned to fully divest themselves from the foundation after the election (and the foundation would change it's name). Trump still owns all the Trump Org stuff.

3) The cash stream from foreign entities, via speaking fees, had already stopped during the campaign and would not have resumed for her term. Trump is still receiving foreign cash through his businesses.

4) Pay-for-access is a sin committed by all politicians, Clinton more than most but that's at least partially because of her profile. But pay-for-access is about pay to the campaign or the party, not the individual. Trump is selling access that personally profits him.

It's a false equivalence, comparing Trump and Clinton scandals is comparing mountains with molehills.

Comment Re: Go visit Mar-a-Lago and complain (Score 1) 505

The Trump trademark was granted several months ago, when the majority of news sources still put him at a huge disadvantage in the polls. There was a 3 month period where you could dispute the trademark which ended last week.

Making up stories does nothing good to the press, it only makes people distrust them more.

Not quite

China's trademark review board announced in September it had invalidated a rival claim for the Trump trademark, clearing the way for Trump to move in. In November, soon after the election, it awarded the trademark to the Trump Organization. The trademark was officially registered this week after a three-month notice period for objections expired.

Of course it could just be coincidence... but yeah, China was trying to curry favour and/or giving Trump something they could later threaten to take away.

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTRAN is a good example of a language which is easier to parse using ad hoc techniques. -- D. Gries [What's good about it? Ed.]

Working...