Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.

ticklishmusic

United States15977 Posts

January 29 2014 02:39 GMT

#16481

It's snowing in Atlanta so...

;P

JonnyBNoHo

United States6277 Posts

January 29 2014 02:40 GMT

#16482

On January 29 2014 11:23 nunez wrote:

Show nested quote +

On January 29 2014 10:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

On January 29 2014 09:12 nunez wrote:

On January 29 2014 00:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

On January 28 2014 16:37 nunez wrote:
yes, or lower, or at two places or not existing etc. but that was not really what was argued in the paper, yes, the 'case study' or what have you in the paper is clearly non-linear and so is the rest of the world.

but a flimsy 'mathematical framework' do not to justify, establish, or give weigth to preconceived notions on what relations are causing these dynamics, not to mention if you fail at establishing one...

it's nonsense, it's nonsense done wrong even.

you are handed a non linear function, you define a linearization wherein the linear dynamic is caused by preconcieved notions, you claim your linearization is non-linear (no, it's linear by your own definition) and from that it supposedly follows that the non-linear function is non-linear (yes, good) and that the non-linear dynamics are caused by said preconceived notions.

it is akin to failing at taking the derivative of x squared in an attempt to show that x is 'some beans'.

She goes through examples of both linear and non-linear jobs and explains the differences between them. Where in there is your criticism, exactly? What preconceived notions do you have a problem with?

the foundation (the framework) for this preconceived notion that "... that nonliear pay with respect to hours worked is responsible for the majority of the resuidual differences observed in earnings by gender" amounts to:
1) a restatement of said notion
2) contradicting said notion (the model is linear)

you can swap out "with respect to hours worked", "with respect to gender discrimination" or "with respect to beans consumed" or whatever else... it is the method that is flawed. she has wrapped her beliefs in something she doesn't understand and you are misconstruing her ignorance as a convincing case.

the paper or essay is largely unchanged if you strip away this particular idiocy, you will still find it agreeable...

What is "this preconceived notion"? There's an observation - that some pay is linear and some is non-linear. That's not a modeled result, or theory - it's an observed fact. When that observed fact is utilized, the residual differences decline.

The paper goes on to describe what makes a job linear vs non-linear and what trends exist.

i am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a post.

linearity is abstract. nothing real is linear, 'misguided belief' not 'observed fact'.

even a simple resistor's behaviour is only close enough (real) to that of a linear function (abstract) under certain conditions (not to mention the axioms needed to develop the mathematics needed for the linear function itself). where's the humility?

re-read my previous post dilligently and i wont have to repeat myself to answer your question.

OK, so you're just trolling. Got it.

Edit: "nothing real is linear" has no relevance to the paper. You're either trolling or honestly bringing up an irrelevant point.

Roe

Canada6002 Posts

January 29 2014 02:44 GMT

#16483

is anyone still in favour of the FCC?

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

January 29 2014 02:47 GMT

#16484

Boehner can stand for women's equal pay, but will he act?

Mindcrime

United States6899 Posts

January 29 2014 02:48 GMT

#16485

On January 29 2014 11:44 Roe wrote:
is anyone still in favour of the FCC?

Fuck the fcc! I'll broadcast on any frequency and at any strength I damn well please!

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

January 29 2014 02:50 GMT

#16486

Boehner did not clap or even stand for equal pay.

ticklishmusic

United States15977 Posts

January 29 2014 02:52 GMT

#16487

Dang, he called out Rubio on that. Well, not a call out but that's got to be uncomfortable for an overt conservative.

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

January 29 2014 02:56 GMT

#16488

And Boehner and the House Republicans are pissed.

Danglars

United States12133 Posts

January 29 2014 02:58 GMT

#16489

Big tax breaks to help the wealthy save, but little to nothing to middle class Americans!

On January 29 2014 11:23 Introvert wrote:And anything based on class warfare, gender discrimination, in/equality, the planet, paying your "fair share", etc.

All these stats poppin up on the right, 62% found it hard to get insurance, X% of applicants were denied for pre-existing conditions. I mean cmon.

Political Grandstanding at its finest. The president that's all talk keeps talking. Heck, his claim that Republicans are all about voting against things that voting for things only resonates because Boehner and the rest of establishment Republicans haven't taken stands and given speeches again and again on what they believe in.

Mohdoo

United States15743 Posts

January 29 2014 02:59 GMT

#16490

40+ votes. Really had no idea it was that high. what a joke lmao.

And it failed. Millions are now covered and it is a super obvious improvement.

Roe

Canada6002 Posts

January 29 2014 02:59 GMT

#16491

"everyone has the right to vote"
no republicans applaud, lol!

Mohdoo

United States15743 Posts

January 29 2014 03:00 GMT

#16492

On January 29 2014 11:59 Roe wrote:
"everyone has the right to vote"
no republicans applaud, lol!

"lol does he really think we should let the lower class vote?"

zlefin

United States7689 Posts

January 29 2014 03:01 GMT

#16493

given that the republicans already proved themselves unworthy to lead, why should they care about votes?

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

January 29 2014 03:01 GMT

#16494

What did Boehner just stand and clap for?

Roe

Canada6002 Posts

January 29 2014 03:02 GMT

#16495

On January 29 2014 12:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
What did Boehner just stand and clap for?

something about military

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

January 29 2014 03:03 GMT

#16496

Then spy on them Mr. President not on Americans.

Mohdoo

United States15743 Posts

January 29 2014 03:04 GMT

#16497

On January 29 2014 12:02 Roe wrote:

Show nested quote +

something about military

He was probably zoning out and hearing the word "troops" woke him up.

RCMDVA

United States708 Posts

January 29 2014 03:05 GMT

#16498

Don't contractors already have to to pay double social security? Like all self employed do?

So $10.10 per hour isn't anything.

I remember one of my first phone interviews when I was looking at doing some contracting and there was a mix-up between $13 and $30.

And I was like.. "Teen" you just said "Teen"? And I ended the interview a few moments later.

Roe

Canada6002 Posts

January 29 2014 03:06 GMT

#16499

On January 29 2014 12:04 Mohdoo wrote:

Show nested quote +

He was probably zoning out and hearing the word "troops" woke him up.

and then obama's like: let's stop being in endless wars!
and boehner loses his erection

ticklishmusic

United States15977 Posts

January 29 2014 03:07 GMT

#16500