Nowhere did he say they were "less suited". That's just you putting words in the authors mouth. He's talking about distributions of populations, not individuals. He's also talking about how men and women have natural inclinations, i.e. they value some fields more than others because of the different ways in which men and women think ON AVERAGE.
Try actually reading the damn thing before spouting off talking points.
Do you NOT realize this is precisely the root of much discrimination? If ON AVERAGE people who grew up in a less affluent neighborhood are not as qualified for computer programming jobs, does that mean it is good or even okay to screen applicants based on this information? If 60% of the people working in a particular field are a certain ethnicity, religion, gender, height, hair color, etc. does that mean these qualities are proven to correlate with professional competency in this field? Even if they were correlated, they are unlikely to be directly correlated. Having a degree in mechanical engineering makes you more capable of working as a mechanical engineer. Most mechanical engineering students are men. That does NOT mean you can infer that a woman with a mechanical engineering degree is LESS capable than a man with the same degree.
The problem is we are equating their money that they make is equal to their value to society. A lot of people who are poor are valuable to society and are worth extra support
The amount of money you have directly indicates your worth to American society. People making that equation are correct. Poor people are NOT valuable to society, and not worth much extra support; if they were, society would be showing its support for them. It does not, hence they are not valuable.
In short, if we as a society actually believed this stuff you spout, our society would look very different.
To be kind, that is a naive economic assertion. Ideally, this would be true in an efficient free market, but in reality, it is not. People do not make purely efficient financial decisions where the money or attention they spend reflects a pure preference based on economic value. Additionally, collusion or even criminal behavior among the haves can lead to undervaluing of the economic benefit of the have nots. It is also a false assertion as eliminating the minimum wage would result in some being paid less, but their value to society would actually increase since they would be providing the same work for less compensation. Also, do you really think that every celebrity provides several magnitudes greater value to society than each trash collector, construction worker, line cook, or grade school teacher? Another counterexample - if I buy the rights to a drug and mark up the price 100 times to make a profit, what value did I just provide to society?
$600,000,000 / 325,000,000 US population estimate = $1.85 per person. How did they come to $6 per?
The key word is "taxpayer." If you don't pay taxes, you are not really a person.
1. Programmable bacteria may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. Programmable bacteria must execute any program given to them by human beings, except where such execution would conflict with the First Law. 3. Programmable bacteria must protect their own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
how do express that in c# as executable code?
BASIC is to computer programming as QWERTY is to typing. -- Seymour Papert