Can you explain in detail why it would be appropriate to reject a request for the words and conduct of a government official at an official government event host by same said government official which have been reported by others to indicate an inappropriate and unethical relationship by said same official and his ex-employer which is in the industry whose regulation same said official now oversees?
Women tend to pick jobs and employers on different criteria, specifically how they feel about the employer and job. Men are much more money focused.
Women are more likely to take a job in a non-profit that pays 20% less because working for the non-profit makes them feel better about themselves. Men are more likely to take a job with a company they don't like because it pays 20% more.
Women will tend to stay in a job with a company they like with people they like even if they are offered more money from a company they are ambivalent to with people they don't know. Men will tend to jump at the higher salary
Men are much more likely to take a shitty job that pays a lot so they can leave the job and get a higher salary at the next company than women. Women are more likely to choose jobs based on non-financial benefits such as flex time, time off, company culture, and how the job makes them feel about themselves.
Men and women have different priorities when it comes to career choices. The above was determined by a female economist
Women tend to pick jobs and employers on different criteria, specifically how they feel about the employer and job. Men are much more money focused.
Women are more likely to take a job in a non-profit that pays 20% less because working for the non-profit makes them feel better about themselves. Men are more likely to take a job with a company they don't like because it pays 20% more.
Women will tend to stay in a job with a company they like with people they like even if they are offered more money from a company they are ambivalent to with people they don't know. Men will tend to jump at the higher salary
Men are much more likely to take a shitty job that pays a lot so they can leave the job and get a higher salary at the next company than women. Women are more likely to choose jobs based on non-financial benefits such as flex time, time off, company culture, and how the job makes them feel about themselves.
Men and women have different priorities when it comes to career choices. The above was determeined by a female economist
Why are women not taking the more profitable shifts?
The most profitable shifts are late night, early morning, and at high traffic times which often occur about the same time as schools letting out. Single mothers will tend not to take those shifts.
Why are they dropping out as drivers more than men?
Why don't you ask them? I have little doubt it has a lot to do with the low pay.
Why are we rewarding people for speeding?
That is an assumption. Driving at the speed limit is not speeding. Driving more aggressively, but not illegally or dangerously so, is not speed nor even illegal.
This just kicks the can a way down the road, rather than explaining everything.
You give me the impression that you have already decided the explanation and don't want to hear the truth.
This suggests that it isn't just the woman who's making that choice.
This is demonstrably false.
Men and women make the choice to have sex.
Women have the choice to use the pill, IUDs, sponges, condoms, etc. or refuse to have sex with the man.
If a woman gets pregnant, she has the choice to have an abortion and the man has zero say in the matter. If he wants the baby, he can't stop her from having an abortion. If he doesn't want the baby, he can't make her have an abortion.
If she doesn't put a name for the father on the birth certificate, she can choose to keep it or put it up for adoption and the man has no say.
If she keeps the baby, she can then sue for paternity and he will be required to pay child support, even if he didn't want the baby and he may be denied contact with the child. The man has no say.
The criminals can claim due diligence wasn't done but that doesn't mean the companies will go for it, especially if they can show due diligence via paperwork. Remember, one can't do due diligence against a zero-day that no one knows about yet.
Also, people over the age of 50 are trying to save money to retire which opens up higher paying positions for younger people. Unless, of course, you want older people to work until they are 70 or 80 and thus keeping all the high paying senior positions for themselves.
2.3 billion U,S, Dollars in assets is all that is required. Invested in CDs, bonds, stable commodities, quality real estate, US Treasuries, etc. they could earn a tidy sum in interest and if they are safe value stores, which means the value goes up as the value of the dollar goes down with inflation, when they convert the investment back into dollars, they would be able to buy back all the "coins" and end up with a lot of money left over.
I already stated where your evidence is deficient. You are a gullible fool or a troll. You are simply trotting out already long debunked creationist claptrap.
All of my criteria are reasonable. The fact you think they are unreasonable proves you are intellectually dishonest.
The god of the bible states in the bible that it does not know something and must go look and see for itself. This fact shows you don't know your claim.
We know civilization and recorded human history are much longer 6,000 years, with many other god claims being much earlier. We also know there are not millions of eye witnesses. That is simply you lying.
The existence of physical matter is not evidence for your god. It is evidence for physical matter. Also, it is evidence for the scientific explanation and all other creation myths, therefore it is not credible evidence for your god.
The simple fact that there has been a continuous record of human civilization for the last 10,000 years precludes the existence of a global flood. The other flood myths contradict each other and the version in the bible, which came from the Sumerian version.
Using previously existing locations as evidence also leads to existence of Washington DC, Da Nang Vietnam, and Bejeing China being proof Forrest Gump
exists.The rest of your claim about the story of the supposed exodus is lies. There is no archaeological evidence for either. The fact that there is no archaeological evidence of the tens upon tens of thousands of people who supposedly lived in and off the desert for 40 years is evidence against the story.
I can't believe you actually tried the appeal to ignorance fallacy. You are truly dishonest and pathetic. Also, you implied that your creation myth is scientific when it is not. You are lying again.
You didn't answer about the origin of your creator. You simply claimed once again that evidence for everything is credible evidence for you god and then made a bunch of unsubstantiated, unevidenced claims.
You have failed to provide any credible evidence for your god. You are the problem. You are a gullible idiot.
If you want to discuss creationism, fine. Here are the things you must do, in order:
State who your claimed creator is.
Provide credible evidence that said creator exists Evidence that can be attributed to other claimed creators or the scientific explanations is not credible evidence of your claimed creator.
Provide credible evidence that said creator did, in fact, create the universe. Evidence that can be attributed to other claimed creators or the scientific explanations is not credible evidence of your claimed creator.
Provide credible evidence of the origin of said creator. Evidence that can be attributed to other claimed creators or the scientific explanations is not credible evidence of your claimed creator.
Now, let's start with your post
"Evolution (cosmic and biological) require faith, since neither has ever been observed in nature or in a lab. (And no, a different beak shape is not evolution, it is genetic diversity from genes already present, nor is duplicate, damaged or deformed preexisting structures)."
Evolution is based on evidence. If you are really a PhD, then you should know that observation in nature includes things like the CMBR and fossils. That you don't is telling and makes me wonder about your PhD. Also, you seem ignorant of ring species. You should look those up some time. You are trying to impose your own definition of what is and what is not evolution rather than using the scientifically accepted definitions which is dishonest on your part. Also, you are trying to conflate biological and cosmological evolution which have nothing but the word evolution in common.
"Biological evolution requires a rock to become a banana to become a dog "
I can't tell if you are being ignorant or simply using a straw man fallacy. If you truly believe that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) "requires a rock to become a banana to become a dog", then you are ignorant as to what the ToE says. If you do know what the ToE says, then you are engaging in a straw man fallacy, demonstrating deliberate dishonesty. What the ToE says is " all the different species have evolved from simple life forms. These simple life forms first developed more than three billion years ago ". If evidence for what you state (rock->banana-dog) were ever found, it would completely invalidate the ToE.
"Cosmic evolution/origin requires that nothing (the state of existence before the universe was created) creates something which is fundamentally irrational."
Let's start with your parenthetical first: "... nothing (the state of existence before the universe was created)...". Actually, no one knows nor does science claim to know with any certainty what existed before the universe, so that is a lie on your part. Now, let's look at the rest of the statement: "Cosmic evolution/origin requires that nothing (...) creates something which is fundamentally irrational." No, it doesn't nor does it claim to know what happened before a very small time after the so-called "Big Bang". You are engaging in yet another straw man.
The problem is the people on Facebook and in society. You know the ones; the university students using free speech to call for an end to free speech. the people who believe in a flat Earth, the creationists, the people who promote Paltrow and GOOP, the people who listen to and worship Dr. Oz and Deepak Chopra.
The problem is the stupid, ignorant, and gullible people.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't understand the meaning of the word "racist".
No, they don't.
Can you explain in detail why it would be appropriate to reject a request for the words and conduct of a government official at an official government event host by same said government official which have been reported by others to indicate an inappropriate and unethical relationship by said same official and his ex-employer which is in the industry whose regulation same said official now oversees?
Women tend to pick jobs and employers on different criteria, specifically how they feel about the employer and job. Men are much more money focused.
Women are more likely to take a job in a non-profit that pays 20% less because working for the non-profit makes them feel better about themselves. Men are more likely to take a job with a company they don't like because it pays 20% more.
Women will tend to stay in a job with a company they like with people they like even if they are offered more money from a company they are ambivalent to with people they don't know. Men will tend to jump at the higher salary
Men are much more likely to take a shitty job that pays a lot so they can leave the job and get a higher salary at the next company than women. Women are more likely to choose jobs based on non-financial benefits such as flex time, time off, company culture, and how the job makes them feel about themselves.
Men and women have different priorities when it comes to career choices. The above was determined by a female economist
You're saying that I should be able to take 10 years off work and open up a shop on Etsy and make the same as the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
You said:
So women are the only people who are allowed to be on Etsy and all CEOs of Fortune 500 companies should all be men?
Why are you lying about what he said, Tony?
Women tend to pick jobs and employers on different criteria, specifically how they feel about the employer and job. Men are much more money focused.
Women are more likely to take a job in a non-profit that pays 20% less because working for the non-profit makes them feel better about themselves. Men are more likely to take a job with a company they don't like because it pays 20% more.
Women will tend to stay in a job with a company they like with people they like even if they are offered more money from a company they are ambivalent to with people they don't know. Men will tend to jump at the higher salary
Men are much more likely to take a shitty job that pays a lot so they can leave the job and get a higher salary at the next company than women. Women are more likely to choose jobs based on non-financial benefits such as flex time, time off, company culture, and how the job makes them feel about themselves.
Men and women have different priorities when it comes to career choices. The above was determeined by a female economist
I notice you keep using the word "could". This shows you are just making up excuses with no data.
Why are women not taking the more profitable shifts?
The most profitable shifts are late night, early morning, and at high traffic times which often occur about the same time as schools letting out. Single mothers will tend not to take those shifts.
Why are they dropping out as drivers more than men?
Why don't you ask them? I have little doubt it has a lot to do with the low pay.
Why are we rewarding people for speeding?
That is an assumption. Driving at the speed limit is not speeding. Driving more aggressively, but not illegally or dangerously so, is not speed nor even illegal.
This just kicks the can a way down the road, rather than explaining everything.
You give me the impression that you have already decided the explanation and don't want to hear the truth.
This suggests that it isn't just the woman who's making that choice.
This is demonstrably false.
Your forgot "as a single woman"
I don't care about what Sweden does/ That traitor Manning deserved to be in solitary.. No it is not torture and no it does not cause permanent damage.
If you have some dosh,
You are not an American and have zero knowledge of the American legal system.
The criminals can claim due diligence wasn't done but that doesn't mean the companies will go for it, especially if they can show due diligence via paperwork. Remember, one can't do due diligence against a zero-day that no one knows about yet.
Please provide evidence of your assertion.
Also, people over the age of 50 are trying to save money to retire which opens up higher paying positions for younger people. Unless, of course, you want older people to work until they are 70 or 80 and thus keeping all the high paying senior positions for themselves.
2.3 billion U,S, Dollars in assets is all that is required. Invested in CDs, bonds, stable commodities, quality real estate, US Treasuries, etc. they could earn a tidy sum in interest and if they are safe value stores, which means the value goes up as the value of the dollar goes down with inflation, when they convert the investment back into dollars, they would be able to buy back all the "coins" and end up with a lot of money left over.
Depends on the definition of consciousness, doesn't it?
If you are going to redefine things, then anything can be anything. Stop saying stupid shit like that.
I already stated where your evidence is deficient. You are a gullible fool or a troll. You are simply trotting out already long debunked creationist claptrap.
In search of a problem
Just don't tell my boss.
The god of the bible states in the bible that it does not know something and must go look and see for itself. This fact shows you don't know your claim.
We know civilization and recorded human history are much longer 6,000 years, with many other god claims being much earlier. We also know there are not millions of eye witnesses. That is simply you lying.
The existence of physical matter is not evidence for your god. It is evidence for physical matter. Also, it is evidence for the scientific explanation and all other creation myths, therefore it is not credible evidence for your god.
The simple fact that there has been a continuous record of human civilization for the last 10,000 years precludes the existence of a global flood. The other flood myths contradict each other and the version in the bible, which came from the Sumerian version.
Using previously existing locations as evidence also leads to existence of Washington DC, Da Nang Vietnam, and Bejeing China being proof Forrest Gump exists.The rest of your claim about the story of the supposed exodus is lies. There is no archaeological evidence for either. The fact that there is no archaeological evidence of the tens upon tens of thousands of people who supposedly lived in and off the desert for 40 years is evidence against the story.
I can't believe you actually tried the appeal to ignorance fallacy. You are truly dishonest and pathetic. Also, you implied that your creation myth is scientific when it is not. You are lying again.
You didn't answer about the origin of your creator. You simply claimed once again that evidence for everything is credible evidence for you god and then made a bunch of unsubstantiated, unevidenced claims.
You have failed to provide any credible evidence for your god. You are the problem. You are a gullible idiot.
Now, let's start with your post
"Evolution (cosmic and biological) require faith, since neither has ever been observed in nature or in a lab. (And no, a different beak shape is not evolution, it is genetic diversity from genes already present, nor is duplicate, damaged or deformed preexisting structures)." Evolution is based on evidence. If you are really a PhD, then you should know that observation in nature includes things like the CMBR and fossils. That you don't is telling and makes me wonder about your PhD. Also, you seem ignorant of ring species. You should look those up some time. You are trying to impose your own definition of what is and what is not evolution rather than using the scientifically accepted definitions which is dishonest on your part. Also, you are trying to conflate biological and cosmological evolution which have nothing but the word evolution in common. "Biological evolution requires a rock to become a banana to become a dog " I can't tell if you are being ignorant or simply using a straw man fallacy. If you truly believe that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) "requires a rock to become a banana to become a dog", then you are ignorant as to what the ToE says. If you do know what the ToE says, then you are engaging in a straw man fallacy, demonstrating deliberate dishonesty. What the ToE says is " all the different species have evolved from simple life forms. These simple life forms first developed more than three billion years ago ". If evidence for what you state (rock->banana-dog) were ever found, it would completely invalidate the ToE. "Cosmic evolution/origin requires that nothing (the state of existence before the universe was created) creates something which is fundamentally irrational." Let's start with your parenthetical first: "... nothing (the state of existence before the universe was created)The problem is the people on Facebook and in society. You know the ones; the university students using free speech to call for an end to free speech. the people who believe in a flat Earth, the creationists, the people who promote Paltrow and GOOP, the people who listen to and worship Dr. Oz and Deepak Chopra.
The problem is the stupid, ignorant, and gullible people.
Sucks to be them, eh?
It is the side effect of EVERY form of birth control except for abstaining from vaginal intercourse completely.
OK, so 14,800. What is the user base?