More to the point, what things specifically would disqualify someone from buying guns or ammo? Should bipolar people not have the right to self defense? Depressed people? Where do you draw the line?
Why don't you go and ask a mental health professional? But for starters... If you're in therapy for anything that would include keeping you away from sharp objects - you shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns or ammo. If you're taking prescription medication for mental issues - you shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns or ammo. If you're a person with a history of suicide attempts - you shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns or ammo. If you're a person who suffers from paranoia - you most certainly shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns or ammo. Feel free to buy a large dog, a tazer, several cans of mace, a large stick and a katana - or a reinforced door. But not something that you could accidentally, or in the fit of delusion, fire through your window (or wall) at other people.
When a significant number of those deaths starts happening due to mental issues... sure.
Until then just suspend and take away driving permissions of people for willfully lowering their own driving abilities through drug use. Repeated and willful offenders should be jailed. Hey! Whaddayakno! That's exactly what's being done! And deaths have been going down since the 1940s! From ~25 per 100k in 1940 - to ~10.25 per 100k in 2014.
But boy did those numbers start falling down as seat belt legislation started coming in. It's almost as if education, fines and penalties CAN reduce fatalities. And yes, it IS fatalities - including drivers and passengers, not just people being run over that you are quoting.
Now just imagine the same for guns! Legislation that would prevent, fine and penalize people using guns irresponsibly. Like, while they are mentally ill.
Soldiers on all military installations, including Fort Hood, are not armed while on post, nor are they permitted to carry any privately owned firearms. Only law enforcement and security personnel are allowed to have weapons on post.
Any soldier on a check point or on guard duty is a part of said security personnel. And that's disregarding the fact that commanders can issue out guns in case of an attack such as that.
Military bases are full of trained armed men. And guns. And trained, armed men with guns. They even have their own police force. With guns. Think about that for a while. It'll come to you eventually.
Did you hear about the mass killing by 2 muslim extremists at an art exhibit in TX, with hundreds dead, and more wounded
Did you hear about those 2 mass shootings on the same military base in Texas, that never happened on account of the base being literally full of highly trained people with guns? No - because they DID happen.
One of them wasn't even a mentally disturbed Muslim. Just a mentally disturbed trained killer. The one who was Muslim was even a base psychiatrist. One would think that when a shrink goes nuts and shoots up a place, killing 13 and injuring 30 - that mental health issues would be taken more seriously at such an establishment. Nope. Second guy's psych just prescribed him pills for his sleeping issues.
Second guy even bought his murder toy in the same shop as the first guy. Maybe they have a special discount for disgruntled military personnel with mental issues.
"It's woefully ignorant to blame all religion for a few nutjobs and murderous assholes."
Just as valid: It's woefully ignorant to blame all gun-owners for a few nutjobs and murderous assholes
Not quite.
Mostly on account that a religious moderate can't kill you two blocks away by accidentally dropping his magic book on the floor - while a gun owner can. Similarly, no special precaution should be taken if religious person's home catches on fire. Them religious books sure ain't gonna start exploding and whizzing around the neighborhood. Nor will a kid shoot another kid with dad's book he found hidden in the closet.
Even most religious nutcases will just stand on the corner, waiving their little black books in the air, yelling about the impeding end of the world, or they will go door to door trying to convert people. A gun-nut waiving his or her little black thing in the air is a run for cover kind of situation. And if you see one coming to your door with it - call the cops immediately.
Obligatory mental heath checkup for purchase of guns and ammo would sure reduce the sales of murder toys to people with mental issues WHILE detecting untreated cases of mental illness. Like... you know... people who go out and buy an AR-15 days before they go on a murder spree.
False. Fast food workers aren't the only people with jobs. Did you really just argue that all U.S. jobs are fast food?
No. That's what you argued when you decided to present a raise in operating costs of fast food industry as "1.3 million U.S. jobs lost".
You do realize you imagined those "1.3 million U.S. jobs lost" out of "21.66 billion dollars" you calculated as a part of "the total U.S. fast food industry revenue"? Not shoe industry. Not lollipop industry. "Total U.S. fast food industry."
Which you've argued will lose 1.3 million jobs. Out of 1.6 million total jobs in said industry.
In other words: this year, $12 trillion are spent; if we raise minimum wage, $12 trillion are *still* spent, but somebody is receiving a bigger chunk of that--and somebody else is getting a smaller chunk. The cost of products has to adjust to factor that increased wage cost in, so those products which are supported by people whose wages increased are now more expensive, and the purchase of those precludes the purchase of some other product. Whoever's job supported those lost purchases is now no longer supportable, and that person becomes the "somebody else getting a smaller chunk"--as in UNEMPLOYED.
Blah-blah-blah all jobs are digging ditches with bare hands so the entire cost of product is pure manual labor blah-blah-blah. Which isn't true even with handjobs.
You are ignoring the fact that manual labor is a tiny part of the overall product price - while you're busy trying to prove that people making more money will actually be making less. Which is not only immensely stupid as it is basically the argument that rich people are poor. It is, again, proven wrong by your very numbers.
Even in your imaginary scenario the supposed cost increase is about 11.34% - while the wages of 1.3 million NEARLY DOUBLE. I.e. Cost of life (i.e. cost of products and services) increases by less than 12% - while income jumps up by 81%. Plus it's an instant injection of money into economy cause those people are already living on payday loans and working several jobs just to make ends meet.
Try to imagine what happens when a person working three jobs suddenly manages to live on "only" two jobs. Will they keep slaving for that extra dollar because greed - or will they go "Holy shit! I can now sleep 8 hours a day AND see my kids - while paying all the bills and making more money. Is this that fabled American dream?" What if they quit that third job? Will the business simply close their doors cause there's no one to sweep the floors? Or will they hang a sign saying "Floor sweeper wanted"?
When the industry is paying wages which are below the poverty line for a single parent with two kids, then that parent MUST work two jobs for them to survive. When that same parent is paid ABOVE the poverty line for a family of five - he/she doesn't need that extra job. That job then does not get lost - it becomes a job opening.
That only makes sense if Tesla doesn't invest in further charging locations. Which, from everything seen so far and from where it is all going is not gonna happen.
When your business revolves around selling batteries on wheels and plunking down chargers for those batteries everywhere in order to (pre)sell electricity - you're not in the car business, you're in electricity distribution business.
They are already franchising "destination charging" and the car's system already informs you of nearest charging spots. Monitored charging spots. For monitored cars. Where the company knows where is who charging what and for how much longer - and who is coming down the road to charge there.
It's a distribution system which can be micromanaged at no additional cost to create substantial additional profit - either through presold electricity or through charging for charging.
Status quo has a half-life of a generation. Voter demographics changes completely every 18 years, with yearly changes taking place as people age into it and die out of it.
The whole voter registration shenanigans that Republicans are pulling to keep brown people from voting and the enthusiasm of Bernie Sanders fans - and even Trump and his supporters are a living sign of those two forces clashing. So were the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements. Even Hillary ended up promising to get the big money out of politics.
There is no such thing as status quo. It only seems so cause we count our time in seconds and minutes - while societies and governments count it in decades and centuries.
BTW... Your nick... Battle Angel Alita or Blue Oyster Cult?
14% of $191 billion is $26.74 billion. Multiply that by 1.81 and you get $48.40 billion. That's a difference of $21.66 billion dollars, or 1.3 million U.S. jobs lost.
You do realize that you've just argued that if "U.S. fast food industry" was "forced" to pay minimum wage of $15 - they would have to let go 1.3 million of their 1.6 million employees?
Which would be a bit tricky, cause then they would have to do the same job with only about 19% of their workforce. So... not only are you arguing that they would have to fire most of their employees - they would also have to close shop. End of fast food. Just so they would not be "forced" to continue to have the same growth in revenue, which would cover most of the $21.66 billion difference ($19.19 billion of it) by the far and distant future of - 2018.
And that's NOT including increased purchasing power OR higher growth due to positive publicity.
SEC. 1707. ENFORCEABILITY AND LEGAL EFFECT OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS.
Electronic records submitted or maintained in accordance with procedures developed under this title, or electronic signatures or other forms of electronic authentication used in accordance with such procedures, shall not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability because such records are in electronic form.
Scroll further for charging times. It's 170 miles range for 30 minutes charging. With ranges from 237 to 294 miles per charge. Up to 403 miles at 50 mph.
I.e. Your 400 mile trip is either the same 8 hours at same 50 mph you used OR less than 6 hours at 70 mph, including a full 30 minute stop though less would be needed.
A small fire... Plant personnel had the fire out by the time firefighters got there.
It's a non-story. But boy... Doesn't "WORLD'S LAAAAAAAARGEST SOLAR PLANT !!!TORCHED!!! ITSELF! OMG! LOL! BBQ!" sound sooo much better? Gawkerism at its best.
Clearly a bad "brick" joke, relying on the reader catching the "redheads" bit, recognizing/knowing that there are larger numbers of redhead people in Scotland, then conflating that with the rest of the post about TV shows and finally transposing that conflated idea of Scotland as a place where statistics are much more favorable for otherwise rare traits, genetic or otherwise.
TLDR: Redhead stats are similar to female nerd stats. There are more redheads in Scotland than anywhere else. ??? Profit.
To be fair... Cosmos and Planet Earth are kinda aimed at a rather preselected audience. So the pool of fans of that show WILL be smaller to begin with.
Compared to e.g. Game of Thrones, with its 965509 votes, Cosmos (2014) with 54092 votes, Planet Earth with 97487, and Cosmos (1980) with 20951 votes... simply aren't popular. It's 1 in 10 viewers TOTAL, and that's when comparing Planet Earth to Game of Thrones. Selecting from those sets... it's like looking for a natural redhead. 1 to 2% of the entire population. Then again... you could go to Scotland to increase your chances... or wherever it is that people who are into those shows hang out.
BTW... Game of Thrones and Planet Earth do show something else too. Game of Thrones has some 206452 votes that are not declared as either male or female. Planet Earth has 20076. Sex and the City has 11459. Out of 78529. That's 14.5% votes. Yet... it's not even hinted that THOSE viewers might be skewing the scowe.
Also, that bit with ST: Enterprise being the "most male-heavy"? By 0.1 points. 7.5 to 7.4, male to female. DS9? 7.9 to 7.8. TOS? 8.4 to 8.4. TNG? 8.6 to 8.7. VOY? 7.7 to 8.0. Not cherry picked and misrepresented examples at all.
On a side note... I get a feeling that a Star Trek convention might look a lot like Scotland.
Well, it's all from TFA. But with less agendas, tugging at heart strings, and dropping almost all of the human element from the story. I.e. Stuff that is there to catch people's attention and get them to actually read an article which is taking a broader look at the economy and politics - which MIGHT just concern them. At least it's an informative article.
Wait until it starts gnawing on you that "dehydrating and rehydrating" is another way of describing hibernation.
I.e. Not only do those cataclysmic events DO NOT interrupt the progress of science (which is something Niven and Pournelle also figured out how to prevent, decades ago) - Trisolarans have an innate ability which allows them to colonize the galaxy at their leisure. They should have been on both a much higher scientific level AND they should have already spread everywhere across the galaxy.
And forget about the protons. Even as they are sending their ships towards Earth, and folding and unfolding protons, they still only realize that a Chaotic Era is starting when it already starts. Not to mention that most their problems in previous Chaotic Eras, before they became capable of space flight, would have been solved by digging holes - not by building pyramids.
Cause its audience is supposedly up to 15% female. And that's shocking. Cause it is clearly a show "aimed at males". So women have nothing to do with such a show, and apparently, should avoid it in favor for shows "made for women".
What? Strong female what? Characters? You mean Starbuck is a girl? And president is a girl? And a bunch of cylons are girls, one of them portrayed by Xena? Ah! But I forgot. It is SciFi! Which means it's automagically "for boys" and not "for girls".
Good job explaining that there. Women shouldn't meddle in things that are not their concern. Stick with soap operas about shopping and finding Mr. Right. Or Mr. Big. Or the right shoes. And let's just disregard the fact that apart from "Ballers" and "Blue Mountain State", which are both not shows for men but for sportsball jocks, and which both have quite a lower rating both by men and women - women grade "male shows" similarly to how men do.
In fact... "Ballers" is the only show mentioned that women like less than "Private Practice". Barely. By 0.2 points. They more like every other "male show" mentioned. They like "Gossip Girl" less than any Batman show. And none of them have "girl" in the title. And they are all CARTOONS. From two decades ago. And women only like "Batman Beyond" (out of animated Batman shows) LESS than "Sex and the City". By 0.1 points.
Could it be that this is the case of cherry picking?
"Female shows", male votes, male score; female votes, female score, score difference: Gilmore Girls - Males 17130 7.3; Females 34638, 8.5, 1.2 Scandal - Males 15678, 7.3; Females 23146, 8.3, 1.0 Grey's Anatomy - Males 52515, 6.9; Females 79175, 8.3, 1.4 Sex and the City - Males 27631, 5.8; Females 39410, 8.1, 2.3 One Tree Hill - Males 19575, 7.1; Females 28637, 8.1, 1.0 Gossip Girl - Males 31125, 6.7; Females 64088, 7.8, 1.1 Private Practice - Males 4634, 5.7; Females 11156, 7.1, 1.4
"Male shows", male votes, male score; female votes, female score: Battlestar Galactica - Males 84715 , 8.8; Females 15521, 8.7, 0.1 Batman: The Animated Series - Males 38196, 9.0; Females 4032, 8.6, 0.4 Justice League - Males 19039, 8.6; Females 2228, 8.3, 0.3 The Shield - Males 41769, 8.8; Females 4737, 8.1, 0.7 The League - Males 27117, 8.3; Females 3577, 8.0, 0.3 Batman Beyond - Males 13466, 8.1; Females 1375, 8.0, 0.1 Blue Mountain State - Males 29078, 8.5; Females 2631, 7.6, 1.1 Star Trek: Enterprise - Males 21473, 7.5; Females 3427, 7.4, 0.1 Ballers - Males 10309 7.5; Females 1201, 6.9, 0.6
But wait. What about arguably THE manliest shows ever?
Band of Brothers - Males 164067, 9.6; Females 16053, 9.5, 0.1 The Pacific - Males 53467, 8.3; Females 4193, 8.4, 0.1 The Sopranos - Males 134921, 9.3; Females 18200, 8.8, 0.5 The A-Team - Males 18727, 7.6; Females 2869, 7.4, 0.2
What about simply the bestest shows evar?
Band of Brothers - Males 164067, 9.6; Females 16053, 9.5, 0.1 Planet Earth - Males 70632, 9.5; Females 9958, 9.5, 0.0 Breaking Bad - Males 559396, 9.5; Females 104158 9.3, 0.2 Game of Thrones - Males 596473, 9.5; Females 162356 9.4, 0.1 The Wire - Males 135691, 9.4; Females 16281, 9.0, 0.3 Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey - Males 38626, 9.3; Females 4978, 9.4, 0.1 "Cosmos - Males 14761 9.3; Females 1519, 9.2, 0.1 etc. etc.
Hmm... is it just me... or is there a much lower number of women voting on imdb, even on shows they like, whenever it is not a "female show"? Also... Looks to me that women tend to like "male shows" more or as much as they like "female shows". While those average male votes are IN THE WORST CASE only 2.3 points lower. ~1.2 - 1.3 points on average. That does not look like much of a male conspiracy to !SABOTAGE! "female shows"... or even trying that hard to dislike.
He has a story called "The Circle" in there, which he redid for Three Body Problem later. It's about the emperor of China and his lead sage and building a computer made out of people. Same thing happens at one point in the TBP... while the original story suffers from the same "Why is everyone acting stupid?" issues. If you don't mind that story, you'll get through the books too.
He DOES have interesting ideas... but the reasoning behind how and why it all takes place is often strained.
...the nation's most capable business leaders abruptly disappearing, leaving their industries to failure. The most recent of these is Ellis Wyatt, the sole founder and supervisor of Wyatt Oil, who leaves his most successful oil well spewing petroleum and fire into the air (later named "Wyatt's Torch"). Each of these men remains absent despite a thorough search by politicians. While economic conditions worsen and government agencies enforce their control on successful businesses, the citizens are often heard repeating "Who is John Galt?", in response to questions to which the individual has no answer.
...
Eventually, this search reveals the reason of business-leaders' disappearances, when Dagny pursues a scientist to 'Galt's Gulch', where the character John Galt is leading an organized "strike" of business leaders against the government.
Draw your own conclusions about how that fits into OP's reply to a post asking about what would happen if 0.01%-ers were "removed" from the planet. And what kind of a "fantasy" works of Ayn Rand are supposed to be.
Slashdot Mirror
More to the point, what things specifically would disqualify someone from buying guns or ammo? Should bipolar people not have the right to self defense? Depressed people? Where do you draw the line?
Why don't you go and ask a mental health professional?
But for starters...
If you're in therapy for anything that would include keeping you away from sharp objects - you shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns or ammo.
If you're taking prescription medication for mental issues - you shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns or ammo.
If you're a person with a history of suicide attempts - you shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns or ammo.
If you're a person who suffers from paranoia - you most certainly shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns or ammo.
Feel free to buy a large dog, a tazer, several cans of mace, a large stick and a katana - or a reinforced door.
But not something that you could accidentally, or in the fit of delusion, fire through your window (or wall) at other people.
When a significant number of those deaths starts happening due to mental issues... sure.
Until then just suspend and take away driving permissions of people for willfully lowering their own driving abilities through drug use.
Repeated and willful offenders should be jailed.
Hey! Whaddayakno! That's exactly what's being done! And deaths have been going down since the 1940s!
From ~25 per 100k in 1940 - to ~10.25 per 100k in 2014.
But boy did those numbers start falling down as seat belt legislation started coming in.
It's almost as if education, fines and penalties CAN reduce fatalities.
And yes, it IS fatalities - including drivers and passengers, not just people being run over that you are quoting.
Now just imagine the same for guns!
Legislation that would prevent, fine and penalize people using guns irresponsibly. Like, while they are mentally ill.
They weren't allowed to carry firearms on base.
Nope.
Soldiers on all military installations, including Fort Hood, are not armed while on post, nor are they permitted to carry any privately owned firearms.
Only law enforcement and security personnel are allowed to have weapons on post.
Any soldier on a check point or on guard duty is a part of said security personnel.
And that's disregarding the fact that commanders can issue out guns in case of an attack such as that.
Military bases are full of trained armed men. And guns. And trained, armed men with guns.
They even have their own police force. With guns.
Think about that for a while. It'll come to you eventually.
In fact, had he known he would see resistance there, he would likely have gone elsewhere.
He wanted to go out in a blaze of glory. He called for cops to come and get him.
Concealed carry only works in heroic fantasies. Not when a mental case wants to get martyred by police.
Did you hear about the mass killing by 2 muslim extremists at an art exhibit in TX, with hundreds dead, and more wounded
Did you hear about those 2 mass shootings on the same military base in Texas, that never happened on account of the base being literally full of highly trained people with guns?
No - because they DID happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
One of them wasn't even a mentally disturbed Muslim. Just a mentally disturbed trained killer.
The one who was Muslim was even a base psychiatrist.
One would think that when a shrink goes nuts and shoots up a place, killing 13 and injuring 30 - that mental health issues would be taken more seriously at such an establishment.
Nope. Second guy's psych just prescribed him pills for his sleeping issues.
Second guy even bought his murder toy in the same shop as the first guy.
Maybe they have a special discount for disgruntled military personnel with mental issues.
"It's woefully ignorant to blame all religion for a few nutjobs and murderous assholes."
Just as valid: It's woefully ignorant to blame all gun-owners for a few nutjobs and murderous assholes
Not quite.
Mostly on account that a religious moderate can't kill you two blocks away by accidentally dropping his magic book on the floor - while a gun owner can.
Similarly, no special precaution should be taken if religious person's home catches on fire. Them religious books sure ain't gonna start exploding and whizzing around the neighborhood.
Nor will a kid shoot another kid with dad's book he found hidden in the closet.
Even most religious nutcases will just stand on the corner, waiving their little black books in the air, yelling about the impeding end of the world, or they will go door to door trying to convert people.
A gun-nut waiving his or her little black thing in the air is a run for cover kind of situation. And if you see one coming to your door with it - call the cops immediately.
Technological fix? No.
Obligatory mental heath checkup for purchase of guns and ammo would sure reduce the sales of murder toys to people with mental issues WHILE detecting untreated cases of mental illness.
Like... you know... people who go out and buy an AR-15 days before they go on a murder spree.
False. Fast food workers aren't the only people with jobs. Did you really just argue that all U.S. jobs are fast food?
No.
That's what you argued when you decided to present a raise in operating costs of fast food industry as "1.3 million U.S. jobs lost".
You do realize you imagined those "1.3 million U.S. jobs lost" out of "21.66 billion dollars" you calculated as a part of "the total U.S. fast food industry revenue"?
Not shoe industry. Not lollipop industry. "Total U.S. fast food industry."
Which you've argued will lose 1.3 million jobs. Out of 1.6 million total jobs in said industry.
In other words: this year, $12 trillion are spent; if we raise minimum wage, $12 trillion are *still* spent, but somebody is receiving a bigger chunk of that--and somebody else is getting a smaller chunk. The cost of products has to adjust to factor that increased wage cost in, so those products which are supported by people whose wages increased are now more expensive, and the purchase of those precludes the purchase of some other product. Whoever's job supported those lost purchases is now no longer supportable, and that person becomes the "somebody else getting a smaller chunk"--as in UNEMPLOYED.
Blah-blah-blah all jobs are digging ditches with bare hands so the entire cost of product is pure manual labor blah-blah-blah.
Which isn't true even with handjobs.
You are ignoring the fact that manual labor is a tiny part of the overall product price - while you're busy trying to prove that people making more money will actually be making less.
Which is not only immensely stupid as it is basically the argument that rich people are poor.
It is, again, proven wrong by your very numbers.
Even in your imaginary scenario the supposed cost increase is about 11.34% - while the wages of 1.3 million NEARLY DOUBLE.
I.e. Cost of life (i.e. cost of products and services) increases by less than 12% - while income jumps up by 81%.
Plus it's an instant injection of money into economy cause those people are already living on payday loans and working several jobs just to make ends meet.
Try to imagine what happens when a person working three jobs suddenly manages to live on "only" two jobs.
Will they keep slaving for that extra dollar because greed - or will they go "Holy shit! I can now sleep 8 hours a day AND see my kids - while paying all the bills and making more money. Is this that fabled American dream?"
What if they quit that third job? Will the business simply close their doors cause there's no one to sweep the floors?
Or will they hang a sign saying "Floor sweeper wanted"?
When the industry is paying wages which are below the poverty line for a single parent with two kids, then that parent MUST work two jobs for them to survive.
When that same parent is paid ABOVE the poverty line for a family of five - he/she doesn't need that extra job.
That job then does not get lost - it becomes a job opening.
That only makes sense if Tesla doesn't invest in further charging locations.
Which, from everything seen so far and from where it is all going is not gonna happen.
When your business revolves around selling batteries on wheels and plunking down chargers for those batteries everywhere in order to (pre)sell electricity - you're not in the car business, you're in electricity distribution business.
They are already franchising "destination charging" and the car's system already informs you of nearest charging spots.
Monitored charging spots. For monitored cars.
Where the company knows where is who charging what and for how much longer - and who is coming down the road to charge there.
It's a distribution system which can be micromanaged at no additional cost to create substantial additional profit - either through presold electricity or through charging for charging.
Well... that's clearly discriminatory against roadkill jerky.
Status quo has a half-life of a generation.
Voter demographics changes completely every 18 years, with yearly changes taking place as people age into it and die out of it.
The whole voter registration shenanigans that Republicans are pulling to keep brown people from voting and the enthusiasm of Bernie Sanders fans - and even Trump and his supporters are a living sign of those two forces clashing.
So were the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements.
Even Hillary ended up promising to get the big money out of politics.
There is no such thing as status quo.
It only seems so cause we count our time in seconds and minutes - while societies and governments count it in decades and centuries.
BTW... Your nick... Battle Angel Alita or Blue Oyster Cult?
14% of $191 billion is $26.74 billion. Multiply that by 1.81 and you get $48.40 billion. That's a difference of $21.66 billion dollars, or 1.3 million U.S. jobs lost.
You do realize that you've just argued that if "U.S. fast food industry" was "forced" to pay minimum wage of $15 - they would have to let go 1.3 million of their 1.6 million employees?
Which would be a bit tricky, cause then they would have to do the same job with only about 19% of their workforce.
So... not only are you arguing that they would have to fire most of their employees - they would also have to close shop. End of fast food.
Just so they would not be "forced" to continue to have the same growth in revenue, which would cover most of the $21.66 billion difference ($19.19 billion of it) by the far and distant future of - 2018.
And that's NOT including increased purchasing power OR higher growth due to positive publicity.
Create online petition.
Provide a print_out-sign-fax_in form.
???
Profit.
Also, shouldn't stuff like GPEA make sure that electronic signatures are treated equally as ones made on paper?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
SEC. 1707. ENFORCEABILITY AND LEGAL EFFECT OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS.
Electronic records submitted or maintained in accordance with
procedures developed under this title, or electronic signatures or other
forms of electronic authentication used in accordance with such
procedures, shall not be denied legal effect, validity, or
enforceability because such records are in electronic form.
You don't like team building?
Sounds like someone needs to achieve some positive engagement benefits!
Scroll down for map of free charging stations.
Click here for another map of locations with chargers.
Scroll further for charging times. It's 170 miles range for 30 minutes charging.
With ranges from 237 to 294 miles per charge. Up to 403 miles at 50 mph.
I.e. Your 400 mile trip is either the same 8 hours at same 50 mph you used OR less than 6 hours at 70 mph, including a full 30 minute stop though less would be needed.
A small fire... Plant personnel had the fire out by the time firefighters got there.
It's a non-story.
But boy... Doesn't "WORLD'S LAAAAAAAARGEST SOLAR PLANT !!!TORCHED!!! ITSELF! OMG! LOL! BBQ!" sound sooo much better?
Gawkerism at its best.
Nuclear plants, when running normally, do not kill 28,000 birds a year.
Neither do dogs.
And still people keep those murder machines around the house, post pictures of them, pet them, lick them...
Won't someone please think of the birds?
but the single women won't be interested in you if you work in defense).
Well... you can always say you're just doing it for the money.
Or waiting for your Snowden opportunity.
What's the percentage of single female pole dancers/ballerinas out there anyway?
Clearly a bad "brick" joke, relying on the reader catching the "redheads" bit, recognizing/knowing that there are larger numbers of redhead people in Scotland, then conflating that with the rest of the post about TV shows and finally transposing that conflated idea of Scotland as a place where statistics are much more favorable for otherwise rare traits, genetic or otherwise.
TLDR:
Redhead stats are similar to female nerd stats.
There are more redheads in Scotland than anywhere else.
???
Profit.
To be fair... Cosmos and Planet Earth are kinda aimed at a rather preselected audience.
So the pool of fans of that show WILL be smaller to begin with.
Compared to e.g. Game of Thrones, with its 965509 votes, Cosmos (2014) with 54092 votes, Planet Earth with 97487, and Cosmos (1980) with 20951 votes... simply aren't popular.
It's 1 in 10 viewers TOTAL, and that's when comparing Planet Earth to Game of Thrones.
Selecting from those sets... it's like looking for a natural redhead. 1 to 2% of the entire population.
Then again... you could go to Scotland to increase your chances... or wherever it is that people who are into those shows hang out.
BTW... Game of Thrones and Planet Earth do show something else too.
Game of Thrones has some 206452 votes that are not declared as either male or female.
Planet Earth has 20076.
Sex and the City has 11459. Out of 78529. That's 14.5% votes.
Yet... it's not even hinted that THOSE viewers might be skewing the scowe.
Also, that bit with ST: Enterprise being the "most male-heavy"? By 0.1 points.
7.5 to 7.4, male to female.
DS9? 7.9 to 7.8.
TOS? 8.4 to 8.4.
TNG? 8.6 to 8.7.
VOY? 7.7 to 8.0.
Not cherry picked and misrepresented examples at all.
On a side note... I get a feeling that a Star Trek convention might look a lot like Scotland.
Well, it's all from TFA.
But with less agendas, tugging at heart strings, and dropping almost all of the human element from the story.
I.e. Stuff that is there to catch people's attention and get them to actually read an article which is taking a broader look at the economy and politics - which MIGHT just concern them.
At least it's an informative article.
Wait until it starts gnawing on you that "dehydrating and rehydrating" is another way of describing hibernation.
I.e. Not only do those cataclysmic events DO NOT interrupt the progress of science (which is something Niven and Pournelle also figured out how to prevent, decades ago) - Trisolarans have an innate ability which allows them to colonize the galaxy at their leisure.
They should have been on both a much higher scientific level AND they should have already spread everywhere across the galaxy.
And forget about the protons.
Even as they are sending their ships towards Earth, and folding and unfolding protons, they still only realize that a Chaotic Era is starting when it already starts.
Not to mention that most their problems in previous Chaotic Eras, before they became capable of space flight, would have been solved by digging holes - not by building pyramids.
The whole thing is VERY contrived.
Cause its audience is supposedly up to 15% female. And that's shocking.
Cause it is clearly a show "aimed at males". So women have nothing to do with such a show, and apparently, should avoid it in favor for shows "made for women".
What? Strong female what? Characters? You mean Starbuck is a girl? And president is a girl?
And a bunch of cylons are girls, one of them portrayed by Xena?
Ah! But I forgot. It is SciFi!
Which means it's automagically "for boys" and not "for girls".
Good job explaining that there. Women shouldn't meddle in things that are not their concern.
Stick with soap operas about shopping and finding Mr. Right. Or Mr. Big. Or the right shoes.
And let's just disregard the fact that apart from "Ballers" and "Blue Mountain State", which are both not shows for men but for sportsball jocks, and which both have quite a lower rating both by men and women - women grade "male shows" similarly to how men do.
In fact... "Ballers" is the only show mentioned that women like less than "Private Practice". Barely. By 0.2 points.
They more like every other "male show" mentioned.
They like "Gossip Girl" less than any Batman show. And none of them have "girl" in the title. And they are all CARTOONS. From two decades ago.
And women only like "Batman Beyond" (out of animated Batman shows) LESS than "Sex and the City". By 0.1 points.
Could it be that this is the case of cherry picking?
"Female shows", male votes, male score; female votes, female score, score difference:
Gilmore Girls - Males 17130 7.3; Females 34638, 8.5, 1.2
Scandal - Males 15678, 7.3; Females 23146, 8.3, 1.0
Grey's Anatomy - Males 52515, 6.9; Females 79175, 8.3, 1.4
Sex and the City - Males 27631, 5.8; Females 39410, 8.1, 2.3
One Tree Hill - Males 19575, 7.1; Females 28637, 8.1, 1.0
Gossip Girl - Males 31125, 6.7; Females 64088, 7.8, 1.1
Private Practice - Males 4634, 5.7; Females 11156, 7.1, 1.4
"Male shows", male votes, male score; female votes, female score:
Battlestar Galactica - Males 84715 , 8.8; Females 15521, 8.7, 0.1
Batman: The Animated Series - Males 38196, 9.0; Females 4032, 8.6, 0.4
Justice League - Males 19039, 8.6; Females 2228, 8.3, 0.3
The Shield - Males 41769, 8.8; Females 4737, 8.1, 0.7
The League - Males 27117, 8.3; Females 3577, 8.0, 0.3
Batman Beyond - Males 13466, 8.1; Females 1375, 8.0, 0.1
Blue Mountain State - Males 29078, 8.5; Females 2631, 7.6, 1.1
Star Trek: Enterprise - Males 21473, 7.5; Females 3427, 7.4, 0.1
Ballers - Males 10309 7.5; Females 1201, 6.9, 0.6
But wait. What about arguably THE manliest shows ever?
Band of Brothers - Males 164067, 9.6; Females 16053, 9.5, 0.1
The Pacific - Males 53467, 8.3; Females 4193, 8.4, 0.1
The Sopranos - Males 134921, 9.3; Females 18200, 8.8, 0.5
The A-Team - Males 18727, 7.6; Females 2869, 7.4, 0.2
What about simply the bestest shows evar?
Band of Brothers - Males 164067, 9.6; Females 16053, 9.5, 0.1
Planet Earth - Males 70632, 9.5; Females 9958, 9.5, 0.0
Breaking Bad - Males 559396, 9.5; Females 104158 9.3, 0.2
Game of Thrones - Males 596473, 9.5; Females 162356 9.4, 0.1
The Wire - Males 135691, 9.4; Females 16281, 9.0, 0.3
Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey - Males 38626, 9.3; Females 4978, 9.4, 0.1
"Cosmos - Males 14761 9.3; Females 1519, 9.2, 0.1
etc. etc.
Hmm... is it just me... or is there a much lower number of women voting on imdb, even on shows they like, whenever it is not a "female show"?
Also... Looks to me that women tend to like "male shows" more or as much as they like "female shows".
While those average male votes are IN THE WORST CASE only 2.3 points lower. ~1.2 - 1.3 points on average.
That does not look like much of a male conspiracy to !SABOTAGE! "female shows"... or even trying that hard to dislike.
Meanwhile, women on average dislike "male
Look up Carbide Tipped Pens.
He has a story called "The Circle" in there, which he redid for Three Body Problem later.
It's about the emperor of China and his lead sage and building a computer made out of people.
Same thing happens at one point in the TBP... while the original story suffers from the same "Why is everyone acting stupid?" issues.
If you don't mind that story, you'll get through the books too.
He DOES have interesting ideas... but the reasoning behind how and why it all takes place is often strained.
...the nation's most capable business leaders abruptly disappearing, leaving their industries to failure.
The most recent of these is Ellis Wyatt, the sole founder and supervisor of Wyatt Oil, who leaves his most successful oil well spewing petroleum and fire into the air (later named "Wyatt's Torch").
Each of these men remains absent despite a thorough search by politicians. While economic conditions worsen and government agencies enforce their control on successful businesses, the citizens are often heard repeating "Who is John Galt?", in response to questions to which the individual has no answer.
...
Eventually, this search reveals the reason of business-leaders' disappearances, when Dagny pursues a scientist to 'Galt's Gulch', where the character John Galt is leading an organized "strike" of business leaders against the government.
Draw your own conclusions about how that fits into OP's reply to a post asking about what would happen if 0.01%-ers were "removed" from the planet.
And what kind of a "fantasy" works of Ayn Rand are supposed to be.