People have been saying this same garbage for well over 200 years. It's like a doomsday cult.
220 years ago, 90% of people worked on farms. Today 2% of the population works on farms. Last I checked, we do not have 88% unemployment.
Where do you think the government is getting the resources to pay those "subsidies"? By taxing or inflating it out of the economy. The government is breaking people's legs and you're standing there wondering what would happen if the government stopped giving out crutches. Your time would be much better spent trying to get the government to stop crippling people in the first place
Don't forget about, by the governments own studies, the $10,000+ per worker per year in regulatory compliance costs. All that government spending depresses the rate of economic growth and depresses wages.
Human wants and desires are unlimited. The only way that there is sustained high unemployment is because government either intervenes in the economy where it shouldn't, or doesn't protect private property rights and contracts where it should.
"You load sixteen tons and what do you get Another day older and deeper in debt Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go I owe my soul to the company store"
Presentism; noun. An uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.
Guess what? What you complain about has nothing to do with capitalism. Poverty is the DEFAULT state for humanity, with the average person working 12-16 hour days 6 days a week just to survive. Capitalism in those days merely inherited what existed before it. Technology was primitive, productivity was low and therefore wages were low. It was through their hard work and sacrifice that we have what we have today and via ours that the people of the future have what they have.
Yes working in a coal mine sucked big time in those days. It also sucked working as a feudal serf 200 years before that and it sucked pretty much all the way back to the beginning of human history. People worked 12 hour days in a coal mine and factory because it was better working conditions and better pay than 14-16 hour days on a farm. You will find NOBODY protesting poverty in 1700 for the same reason you won't find people protesting old age today. What's the point in protesting something that there is no solution to?
If you can't even understand the past you have no hope in forming useful thoughts about the future.
1. Even IF the Wunderwaffe worked, it's real world performance isn't enough of an advantage to justify the cost and resources.
2. Often times, using older and mature tech as a foundation lets you incorporate advanced features in specific points. Take the M4 Sherman, all the desktop generals lament the fact that it couldn't take an 88mm round and trips over themselves over the Firefly Sherman. All the while ignoring some pretty basic stuff that made the 75mm Sherman outstanding.
With the base design going back to the M2, the US army knew what parts tended to break and made those parts easy to replace. Transmissions in pretty much every WW2 tanks needed to be replaced in the field. The M4 transmission design, having been in development for so long, was among the most reliable and long lasting. On top of this, while pretty much every tank required major disassembly of the tank to replace the transmission, like removing the turret, the M4 had a removable front lower glacis/transmission housing. A competent maintenence crew could reportedly replace a transmission in a Sherman in 2 hours. A Panther required 10 hours and took a larger crew and more equipment, as the turret had to be removed to get to the transmission.
Having figured out the base design, the US army could focus on ergonomics. The M4 Sherman has pretty much the best ergonomics of any tank from that era. The driver could easily and comfortably drive the tank with the seat raised and lowered, reducing driver fatigue. The tank hatches in later variants allowed crewmen to quickly bail out of the tank in an emergency. The gunner had his own 1x periscope to allow him to quickly rough-in the gun before switching to his telescopic sight, requiring much less involvement from the commander to walk the gunner onto the target. The loader had plenty of room to work, resulting in a higher practical rate of fire. The commanders position was effective with the hatch open or buttoned up. The Tiger, Panther, and even Cromwell couldn't even get things like "Put the hatch for the driver directly above the seat". The Sherman firefly was a nightmare for the crew. The gunners position required gorilla arms to work the elevation and traverse at the same time. The loader had barely enough room to even get the round into the breech, making for a low rate of fire. It also lacked an effective HE shell.
With the base design sorted out, designers could incorporate some specific features that were incredibly advanced. No other tank had a vertical stabilizer as standard, the Sherman did. This allowed the gunner to line up the shot much more quickly once they came to a stop. Unfortunately, this feature was so advanced and secret that the army failed to properly train tankers how to use and maintain it. As as result, most of the time it wasn't used by crews. Units that took the time to find out how to use and maintain the vertical stabilizer absolutely loved it. The Germans made great efforts to capture working vertical stabilizers from Shermans, while M4 crews were ordered to destroy it before bailing out. The Germans never had vertical stabilizers that were ready for mass production.
The armor, while unable to withstand an 88mm shell, was effectively invulnerable to the far more common 37mm and 50mm AT guns. A 75mm might penetrate, but could still bounce if the impact angle was bad. So while not impenetrable, it was good enough that only a limited number of weapons could disable or destroy it at range. These weapons that could were also larger, heavier, and more expensive. Designing a weapon that is invulnerable to 90% of an enemies weapons can often be a far better option than one that is invulnerable to 100% of them.
The M4 design was incredibly versatile in terms of engines. Engine production was and is a HUGE bottleneck for vehicles. The M4 Sherman design could be powered by obsolete aircraft engine designs, whose production facilities were already online. It could use the multibank, little more than six c
I can imagine what the nuclear option will look like. My bet is a combination "command loss timer" combined with a "Two-man rule" type setup.
You get 2-4+ major contributors together and write up an ultimatum declaring that unless the new SJW CoC, and whatever else, is permanently done away with by X-date, lets say they give them 30 days, the copyright for their code is revoked for the Linux Kernel. Then plaster it everywhere.
Put the ball in the SJWs court and the pressure on them.
The SJWs can bully, dox, and ban all they want. The ultimatum is in writing and will "launch" with no further intervention from the copyright holders. It also requires all participating devs in order to completely "disarm". Even if they get one or two to recant, the rest can just go dark and let their nukes fly when the countdown hits zero.
Oh the Pedos have always been a big part of the LGBT lobby. Why do you think they spent so much time to promote teaching children in school to be accepting of everything LGBT? Makes it a lot easier for the older men to pluck a ripe 12-17 year old when the school has already done all the grooming for them. Hell, Hollywood is making and throwing awards at films glorifying sexual predators.
The sad, but obvious, consequence of this is that the HIV/AIDS rate in teens and young adults has skyrocketed since this nonsense first started getting phased in around 2001. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/...
They know full well that "Born that way" is bullshit. It's just an excuse used to deflect criticism. Pretty much everyone has quietly given up looking for the "Gay gene" because they just aren't finding anything. (Imagine if they actually did find a "Gay Gene" and they could test for it like Downs Syndrome? The LGBT community would become pro-life literally overnight.) The best they've been able to do is show their might be a small biological influence, but that still means it's mostly nurture and not nature. Anyone that has done enough church counseling work will have run across someone who "used to be gay". Chewed up and spit out once they were no longer useful. Pretty much all of them want to get on with their lives and have zero interest in painting a target on them by challenging the propaganda.
The fatal flaw in all of this, of course, is that a lie can't sit still. It always has to keep moving and keep getting bigger. The cognitive dissonance of the far left at this point is getting quite amusing to watch and pushing more people to the center and right. How far will things swing? We'll just have to wait and find out.
Pretty much. People who have spent their whole lives on the left are finding themselves under brutal attack for simply asking some very reasonable questions about some of the things the left is advocating.
The LGBT movement is tearing itself apart right now and taking much of the left with it. People I knew 5+ years ago who were die-hard pro-gay marriage are now jumping ship. They look at the Masterpiece Cake Shop case and say, "This isn't what I signed up for." They wanted "Live and let live", not "Agree with us or be destroyed, heretic".
An increasing number of them are hitting "Peak Trans". They are at the point of the Orwell novel where the left is demanding them accept that 2+2=5. They are being made to accept that a man can become a women because they say so. That pumping children full of off-label drugs, whose long term health effects are unknown, to suppress puberty, sterilizing them permanently, is perfectly okay. They are looking at the left and saying, "Yea, perhaps marriage really is between a man and a woman for the benefit of the children raised in that manage. See ya." and running as fast as they can to the right and center. To where they can at least have a discussion without being doxed and bullied into silence.
Your recent post about leftists being pushed right by transgender activism and gender identity politics was laughed at by a lot of commenters who think a hyper-liberal woman is unlikely to turn conservative. Well, the joke is on them, because I am one and I am far, far from alone.
I was as far left as you can get without being a full-on Marxist. I thought prostitution was empowering, polyamory was fine, witchcraft was a positive spirituality, and that men who identify as transgender were my sisters. I voted Greens and Democrats all the way...
...My friends and I went from sharing articles by Olbermann and Maddow to following Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. Our female role models became academics like Dr. Deborah Savage who actually acknowledge biological reality in their examination of gender...
So keep an eye out, the "T" is probably gonna get lopped off "LGBT" before too long. The entire movement is beginning to collapse under it's contradictions. Much like the Soviet Union or the day-care sex-abuse hysteria of the 80s, it will be here one day and gone the next.
This is why I am SO looking forward to discovery in the Damore case. The stuff in Damore's court filings is probably just the beginning of the shenanigans going on inside Google. What are advertizers going to say when it becomes undeniable that Google doesn't target their customers ads to the target market?
What happens if Black and Female conservatives are found to have been discriminated against?
Don't get me wrong, EVERYONE discriminates. It's physically impossible to go through life without discriminating in some form or another, which is why anti-discrimination laws are BS. They can NEVER be equally applied. In a free society, the only organisation where discrimination should not be allowed is government, since all must be equal under the law in order for society to function. Other than that, people have the right to associate with whoever they want. HOWEVER, I feel that you should have to be OPEN about your discrimination. Discriminating while saying you don't, as Google does, is clearly a form of fraud. Just like telling someone that the car you are selling was well maintained when you know it hasn't been.
Catholic school only wants to hire Catholic teachers? Knock yourself out.
Gay bar only wants to hire LGBT? Go ahead.
Mexican restaurant only wants to hire Hispanics who speak Spanish? Fine by me.
Asian owned motel only wants Asian housekeeping? Why not.
Black landlord only wanting to rent to fellow blacks? No skin off my back.
Just make sure you say that is what you are looking for so people who don't meet those criteria don't waste their time. If you don't, that's fraud in my book. You associate with who you want to and I'll associate with who I want to. Lets be honest about reality instead of pretending it doesn't exist.
I'm still running an i7-920 from 2008. Yea it takes a bit of power to run, but you price out a new system and it just makes sense to use this till it dies. Upgrade the GPU and spinning rust to SSD for OS/programs as needed.
Tesla is in absolutely no position to produce even 10% of those numbers. Their production methods and facilities are too obsolete and too small to pull that off. Just more bluster from a crony capitalist.
You need an energy gradient, a solvent, and the right mix of chemicals. Life is the arrangement of chemicals that uses the energy gradient to perform the work necessary for self replication.
This statement would have held water in the year 1910. In the year 2017, no.
Life is a HELL of a lot more than "The arrangement of chemicals" Life involves the reading, processing, and self replication of INFORMATION. A self-replicating software program encoded in DNA in every living cell.
The first replicator forms by chance then makes more of itself. Over time imperfections in the copying process lead to diversity among the replicators and scarcity of resources leads to competition which imposes selective pressure favoring more optimal adaptations to the enviroment and eventualy an ecosystem.
This is an unproven article of faith on your part. There is not even a theoretical model of how you go from simple self-replicating chemical reactions to a self contained cell controlled by DNA programming.
What we haven't managed is artificial abiogenesis (ie, manufacturing life in a lab), but that is likely a matter of scale. No one actually wants to set up a multi cubic kilometer proto-life vat and let it run for a million years to see what happens (let alone several). And we have every reason to believe that it took considerably more time and space than that when it happened on Earth.
The math on this has been done many times and the conclusion is the same: There is not enough time or matter in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE to get, by chance, the information required to run even the simplest single celled organism. The Infinite monkey theorem is dead as an explanation in this subject.
The chemistry of several intermediate steps has been replicated in a lab. It's just the whole "pile o' non living chemicals in, unambiguously alive thing out" process that hasn't been done or even attempted at anything approaching a nontrivial scale.
No it has not. The Miller-Urrey Experiment is dead as far as being useful to origin of life studies. It was groundbreaking for its time, but the science has passed it by. Getting amino acids gets you as close to life as smelting pig iron gets you to the empire state building. Less so, in fact.
There are no other "intermediate steps" that I am aware of done in the lab that would be relevant, aside from attempts at self-replicating RNA strands that have yet to be fully replicating.
Science need evidence, not Just-So children's stories. Continuing to believe in fairy tails on this subject does nothing but hold us back.
It's not a manifesto, the only people doing that are those who haven't actually read the memo. It's a document that discusses Googles hiring practices and culture within the company.
You seem to misunderstand the concept of workplace discrimination.
In the statement, "I believe men and women are equal" there is no discrimination going on. It is like saying, "I believe red and blue are both colors." It has no weight at all when viewed from the perspective of state anti-discrimination laws and the requirement that employers provide a non-hostile workplace.
"I believe men and women are equal" is not discriminatory? By whose standards? You have CLEARLY never interacted with a radical feminist if you think there aren't places where statement won't get your ass in trouble.
Where? He says that the population of women is more neurotic than the population of men. He links to the Wikipedia article which has links to two studies backing his claim. Are you arguing that he shouldn't discuss scientific findings because it might disturb the lady folk? That's fucked up.
Just wait until they find out that women are more likely to get breast cancer. They will demand that advertisements directed at women for breast cancer screenings be discontinued. They will claims that this is to "protect women".
You don't have to be a conservative to be in trouble. Not liberal enough, or even attempting to question the PC group think is enough.
Exactly, the author is NOT a conservative. He, as best I can find, identifies as a classical liberal. The left is shooting their own and then wondering why Trump is president.
1) Don't realize how much of a minority they are. When push comes to shove, a lot of liberals are simply not gonna go out of their way to back them.
2) Don't realize just how uncivil things really get during a civil war. War becomes a lot less cool when you can't post selfies to facebook after the battle and have to cook a dog you caught over a burning tire for dinner.
I see two likely explanations: either the claim is being made that any person who disagrees with central liberal beliefs is a white nationalist, or the word "alt-right" describes a much larger group of people that might include libertarians, classical-liberals, TERF feminists, and so on. What do you mean when you say "alt-right"?
They're using it because "Racist", "Nazi", and "Bigot" have lost any significance.
They've called Ben Shapiro "alt-right", a devout Jew who has gotten more anti-Semitic hate from the real "alt-right" in the last year than any black commentator on TV has in their lives.
Perhaps if you work for a government approved "to big to fail" firm. That's not at all how it works in successful small businesses.
My employer has only a couple dozen employees at most. Several times I've seen a problem, spoken up about it after looking into it to make sure it is a problem, and we've discussed solutions. Sometimes my solution fits the problem perfectly, but often it gets modified once we get further input.
Successful businesses are interested in making money for the lowest costs. I could probably earn more money working elsewhere in town, but my boss respects my input, is flexible with employees, and is fair about assigning blame for mistakes. As long as I am not stealing from the company, I will always have a job with him. So I trade higher wages for job security and an environment where I feel respected and my efforts valued. He has to spend less in payroll to keep us around and all he has to do is not be the kind of boss people write horror stories about.
Meanwhile, we kick the pants off our national competitors and are ahead of them technologically in several significant areas with a fraction of the resources. (With patents to smack them with if they try to steal our crap.)
Slashdot Mirror
It's called the "Communist News Network" where I live, though the Clinton version was popular during 2016.
Check out how much energy it takes to make a glass bottle. That's why sodas don't use use them anymore. It's incredibly energy intensive.
People have been saying this same garbage for well over 200 years. It's like a doomsday cult.
220 years ago, 90% of people worked on farms. Today 2% of the population works on farms. Last I checked, we do not have 88% unemployment.
Where do you think the government is getting the resources to pay those "subsidies"? By taxing or inflating it out of the economy. The government is breaking people's legs and you're standing there wondering what would happen if the government stopped giving out crutches. Your time would be much better spent trying to get the government to stop crippling people in the first place
Don't forget about, by the governments own studies, the $10,000+ per worker per year in regulatory compliance costs. All that government spending depresses the rate of economic growth and depresses wages.
Human wants and desires are unlimited. The only way that there is sustained high unemployment is because government either intervenes in the economy where it shouldn't, or doesn't protect private property rights and contracts where it should.
Again, they were told it was a hostage situation. Who gets sent to the door? One of the hostages to be bait or a verbal relay to the BG inside.
Had it been a real hostage situation we would be hearing a story of where police shot a hostage.
There's really no way for the cops to look good in this situation.
"You load sixteen tons and what do you get Another day older and deeper in debt Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go I owe my soul to the company store"
Presentism; noun. An uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.
Guess what? What you complain about has nothing to do with capitalism. Poverty is the DEFAULT state for humanity, with the average person working 12-16 hour days 6 days a week just to survive. Capitalism in those days merely inherited what existed before it. Technology was primitive, productivity was low and therefore wages were low. It was through their hard work and sacrifice that we have what we have today and via ours that the people of the future have what they have.
Yes working in a coal mine sucked big time in those days. It also sucked working as a feudal serf 200 years before that and it sucked pretty much all the way back to the beginning of human history. People worked 12 hour days in a coal mine and factory because it was better working conditions and better pay than 14-16 hour days on a farm. You will find NOBODY protesting poverty in 1700 for the same reason you won't find people protesting old age today. What's the point in protesting something that there is no solution to?
If you can't even understand the past you have no hope in forming useful thoughts about the future.
On top of that:
1. Even IF the Wunderwaffe worked, it's real world performance isn't enough of an advantage to justify the cost and resources.
2. Often times, using older and mature tech as a foundation lets you incorporate advanced features in specific points. Take the M4 Sherman, all the desktop generals lament the fact that it couldn't take an 88mm round and trips over themselves over the Firefly Sherman. All the while ignoring some pretty basic stuff that made the 75mm Sherman outstanding.
With the base design going back to the M2, the US army knew what parts tended to break and made those parts easy to replace. Transmissions in pretty much every WW2 tanks needed to be replaced in the field. The M4 transmission design, having been in development for so long, was among the most reliable and long lasting. On top of this, while pretty much every tank required major disassembly of the tank to replace the transmission, like removing the turret, the M4 had a removable front lower glacis/transmission housing. A competent maintenence crew could reportedly replace a transmission in a Sherman in 2 hours. A Panther required 10 hours and took a larger crew and more equipment, as the turret had to be removed to get to the transmission.
Having figured out the base design, the US army could focus on ergonomics. The M4 Sherman has pretty much the best ergonomics of any tank from that era. The driver could easily and comfortably drive the tank with the seat raised and lowered, reducing driver fatigue. The tank hatches in later variants allowed crewmen to quickly bail out of the tank in an emergency. The gunner had his own 1x periscope to allow him to quickly rough-in the gun before switching to his telescopic sight, requiring much less involvement from the commander to walk the gunner onto the target. The loader had plenty of room to work, resulting in a higher practical rate of fire. The commanders position was effective with the hatch open or buttoned up. The Tiger, Panther, and even Cromwell couldn't even get things like "Put the hatch for the driver directly above the seat". The Sherman firefly was a nightmare for the crew. The gunners position required gorilla arms to work the elevation and traverse at the same time. The loader had barely enough room to even get the round into the breech, making for a low rate of fire. It also lacked an effective HE shell.
With the base design sorted out, designers could incorporate some specific features that were incredibly advanced. No other tank had a vertical stabilizer as standard, the Sherman did. This allowed the gunner to line up the shot much more quickly once they came to a stop. Unfortunately, this feature was so advanced and secret that the army failed to properly train tankers how to use and maintain it. As as result, most of the time it wasn't used by crews. Units that took the time to find out how to use and maintain the vertical stabilizer absolutely loved it. The Germans made great efforts to capture working vertical stabilizers from Shermans, while M4 crews were ordered to destroy it before bailing out. The Germans never had vertical stabilizers that were ready for mass production.
The armor, while unable to withstand an 88mm shell, was effectively invulnerable to the far more common 37mm and 50mm AT guns. A 75mm might penetrate, but could still bounce if the impact angle was bad. So while not impenetrable, it was good enough that only a limited number of weapons could disable or destroy it at range. These weapons that could were also larger, heavier, and more expensive. Designing a weapon that is invulnerable to 90% of an enemies weapons can often be a far better option than one that is invulnerable to 100% of them.
The M4 design was incredibly versatile in terms of engines. Engine production was and is a HUGE bottleneck for vehicles. The M4 Sherman design could be powered by obsolete aircraft engine designs, whose production facilities were already online. It could use the multibank, little more than six c
I can imagine what the nuclear option will look like. My bet is a combination "command loss timer" combined with a "Two-man rule" type setup.
You get 2-4+ major contributors together and write up an ultimatum declaring that unless the new SJW CoC, and whatever else, is permanently done away with by X-date, lets say they give them 30 days, the copyright for their code is revoked for the Linux Kernel. Then plaster it everywhere.
Put the ball in the SJWs court and the pressure on them.
The SJWs can bully, dox, and ban all they want. The ultimatum is in writing and will "launch" with no further intervention from the copyright holders. It also requires all participating devs in order to completely "disarm". Even if they get one or two to recant, the rest can just go dark and let their nukes fly when the countdown hits zero.
If it doesn't run where you need it, when you need it, it might as well be 100% destroyed.
If a person is serious about being prepared for a disaster of any kind, they will have a reasonable supply of cash and physical gold/silver on-hand.
Oh the Pedos have always been a big part of the LGBT lobby. Why do you think they spent so much time to promote teaching children in school to be accepting of everything LGBT? Makes it a lot easier for the older men to pluck a ripe 12-17 year old when the school has already done all the grooming for them. Hell, Hollywood is making and throwing awards at films glorifying sexual predators.
The sad, but obvious, consequence of this is that the HIV/AIDS rate in teens and young adults has skyrocketed since this nonsense first started getting phased in around 2001. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/...
They know full well that "Born that way" is bullshit. It's just an excuse used to deflect criticism. Pretty much everyone has quietly given up looking for the "Gay gene" because they just aren't finding anything. (Imagine if they actually did find a "Gay Gene" and they could test for it like Downs Syndrome? The LGBT community would become pro-life literally overnight.) The best they've been able to do is show their might be a small biological influence, but that still means it's mostly nurture and not nature. Anyone that has done enough church counseling work will have run across someone who "used to be gay". Chewed up and spit out once they were no longer useful. Pretty much all of them want to get on with their lives and have zero interest in painting a target on them by challenging the propaganda.
The fatal flaw in all of this, of course, is that a lie can't sit still. It always has to keep moving and keep getting bigger. The cognitive dissonance of the far left at this point is getting quite amusing to watch and pushing more people to the center and right. How far will things swing? We'll just have to wait and find out.
Pretty much. People who have spent their whole lives on the left are finding themselves under brutal attack for simply asking some very reasonable questions about some of the things the left is advocating.
...My friends and I went from sharing articles by Olbermann and Maddow to following Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. Our female role models became academics like Dr. Deborah Savage who actually acknowledge biological reality in their examination of gender...
The LGBT movement is tearing itself apart right now and taking much of the left with it. People I knew 5+ years ago who were die-hard pro-gay marriage are now jumping ship. They look at the Masterpiece Cake Shop case and say, "This isn't what I signed up for." They wanted "Live and let live", not "Agree with us or be destroyed, heretic".
An increasing number of them are hitting "Peak Trans". They are at the point of the Orwell novel where the left is demanding them accept that 2+2=5. They are being made to accept that a man can become a women because they say so. That pumping children full of off-label drugs, whose long term health effects are unknown, to suppress puberty, sterilizing them permanently, is perfectly okay. They are looking at the left and saying, "Yea, perhaps marriage really is between a man and a woman for the benefit of the children raised in that manage. See ya." and running as fast as they can to the right and center. To where they can at least have a discussion without being doxed and bullied into silence.
http://www.theamericanconserva...
Your recent post about leftists being pushed right by transgender activism and gender identity politics was laughed at by a lot of commenters who think a hyper-liberal woman is unlikely to turn conservative. Well, the joke is on them, because I am one and I am far, far from alone.
I was as far left as you can get without being a full-on Marxist. I thought prostitution was empowering, polyamory was fine, witchcraft was a positive spirituality, and that men who identify as transgender were my sisters. I voted Greens and Democrats all the way...
So keep an eye out, the "T" is probably gonna get lopped off "LGBT" before too long. The entire movement is beginning to collapse under it's contradictions. Much like the Soviet Union or the day-care sex-abuse hysteria of the 80s, it will be here one day and gone the next.
But we are gonna go back to the dark days of 2014 when nobody had internet and you had to pay $20 to do a google search.
Gonna be funny watching NN proponents get more and more desperate as the world doesn't end.
Spot on.
This is why I am SO looking forward to discovery in the Damore case. The stuff in Damore's court filings is probably just the beginning of the shenanigans going on inside Google. What are advertizers going to say when it becomes undeniable that Google doesn't target their customers ads to the target market? What happens if Black and Female conservatives are found to have been discriminated against?
Don't get me wrong, EVERYONE discriminates. It's physically impossible to go through life without discriminating in some form or another, which is why anti-discrimination laws are BS. They can NEVER be equally applied. In a free society, the only organisation where discrimination should not be allowed is government, since all must be equal under the law in order for society to function. Other than that, people have the right to associate with whoever they want. HOWEVER, I feel that you should have to be OPEN about your discrimination. Discriminating while saying you don't, as Google does, is clearly a form of fraud. Just like telling someone that the car you are selling was well maintained when you know it hasn't been.
Catholic school only wants to hire Catholic teachers? Knock yourself out.
Gay bar only wants to hire LGBT? Go ahead.
Mexican restaurant only wants to hire Hispanics who speak Spanish? Fine by me.
Asian owned motel only wants Asian housekeeping? Why not.
Black landlord only wanting to rent to fellow blacks? No skin off my back.
Just make sure you say that is what you are looking for so people who don't meet those criteria don't waste their time. If you don't, that's fraud in my book. You associate with who you want to and I'll associate with who I want to. Lets be honest about reality instead of pretending it doesn't exist.
I'm still running an i7-920 from 2008. Yea it takes a bit of power to run, but you price out a new system and it just makes sense to use this till it dies. Upgrade the GPU and spinning rust to SSD for OS/programs as needed.
Tesla is in absolutely no position to produce even 10% of those numbers. Their production methods and facilities are too obsolete and too small to pull that off. Just more bluster from a crony capitalist.
We have a pretty good idea how life forms.
You need an energy gradient, a solvent, and the right mix of chemicals. Life is the arrangement of chemicals that uses the energy gradient to perform the work necessary for self replication.
This statement would have held water in the year 1910. In the year 2017, no.
Life is a HELL of a lot more than "The arrangement of chemicals" Life involves the reading, processing, and self replication of INFORMATION. A self-replicating software program encoded in DNA in every living cell.
The first replicator forms by chance then makes more of itself. Over time imperfections in the copying process lead to diversity among the replicators and scarcity of resources leads to competition which imposes selective pressure favoring more optimal adaptations to the enviroment and eventualy an ecosystem.
This is an unproven article of faith on your part. There is not even a theoretical model of how you go from simple self-replicating chemical reactions to a self contained cell controlled by DNA programming.
What we haven't managed is artificial abiogenesis (ie, manufacturing life in a lab), but that is likely a matter of scale. No one actually wants to set up a multi cubic kilometer proto-life vat and let it run for a million years to see what happens (let alone several). And we have every reason to believe that it took considerably more time and space than that when it happened on Earth.
The math on this has been done many times and the conclusion is the same: There is not enough time or matter in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE to get, by chance, the information required to run even the simplest single celled organism. The Infinite monkey theorem is dead as an explanation in this subject.
The chemistry of several intermediate steps has been replicated in a lab. It's just the whole "pile o' non living chemicals in, unambiguously alive thing out" process that hasn't been done or even attempted at anything approaching a nontrivial scale.
No it has not. The Miller-Urrey Experiment is dead as far as being useful to origin of life studies. It was groundbreaking for its time, but the science has passed it by. Getting amino acids gets you as close to life as smelting pig iron gets you to the empire state building. Less so, in fact.
There are no other "intermediate steps" that I am aware of done in the lab that would be relevant, aside from attempts at self-replicating RNA strands that have yet to be fully replicating.
Science need evidence, not Just-So children's stories. Continuing to believe in fairy tails on this subject does nothing but hold us back.
When I was 7 years old I wanted to be a WW1 fighter pilot. The fact that WW1 had been over for 70 years at the time did not dissuade me.
Nowadays I would probably be getting flight lessons and instructions on how to un-jam a Maxim machine gun from a cockpit...
It's not a manifesto, the only people doing that are those who haven't actually read the memo. It's a document that discusses Googles hiring practices and culture within the company.
You seem to misunderstand the concept of workplace discrimination.
In the statement, "I believe men and women are equal" there is no discrimination going on. It is like saying, "I believe red and blue are both colors." It has no weight at all when viewed from the perspective of state anti-discrimination laws and the requirement that employers provide a non-hostile workplace.
"I believe men and women are equal" is not discriminatory? By whose standards? You have CLEARLY never interacted with a radical feminist if you think there aren't places where statement won't get your ass in trouble.
Where? He says that the population of women is more neurotic than the population of men. He links to the Wikipedia article which has links to two studies backing his claim. Are you arguing that he shouldn't discuss scientific findings because it might disturb the lady folk? That's fucked up.
Just wait until they find out that women are more likely to get breast cancer. They will demand that advertisements directed at women for breast cancer screenings be discontinued. They will claims that this is to "protect women".
He wrote this as an INTERNAL DOCUMENT. He didn't have any intention of making it public. Someone else did that. Blame them.
You don't have to be a conservative to be in trouble. Not liberal enough, or even attempting to question the PC group think is enough.
Exactly, the author is NOT a conservative. He, as best I can find, identifies as a classical liberal. The left is shooting their own and then wondering why Trump is president.
Completely agree. Especially bad are those who don't keep their bumper stickers current. There are still people locally with Obama 2012 stickers.
The irony is that these SJWs on the left;
1) Don't realize how much of a minority they are. When push comes to shove, a lot of liberals are simply not gonna go out of their way to back them.
2) Don't realize just how uncivil things really get during a civil war. War becomes a lot less cool when you can't post selfies to facebook after the battle and have to cook a dog you caught over a burning tire for dinner.
I see two likely explanations: either the claim is being made that any person who disagrees with central liberal beliefs is a white nationalist, or the word "alt-right" describes a much larger group of people that might include libertarians, classical-liberals, TERF feminists, and so on. What do you mean when you say "alt-right"?
They're using it because "Racist", "Nazi", and "Bigot" have lost any significance.
They've called Ben Shapiro "alt-right", a devout Jew who has gotten more anti-Semitic hate from the real "alt-right" in the last year than any black commentator on TV has in their lives.
Perhaps if you work for a government approved "to big to fail" firm. That's not at all how it works in successful small businesses.
My employer has only a couple dozen employees at most. Several times I've seen a problem, spoken up about it after looking into it to make sure it is a problem, and we've discussed solutions. Sometimes my solution fits the problem perfectly, but often it gets modified once we get further input.
Successful businesses are interested in making money for the lowest costs. I could probably earn more money working elsewhere in town, but my boss respects my input, is flexible with employees, and is fair about assigning blame for mistakes. As long as I am not stealing from the company, I will always have a job with him. So I trade higher wages for job security and an environment where I feel respected and my efforts valued. He has to spend less in payroll to keep us around and all he has to do is not be the kind of boss people write horror stories about.
Meanwhile, we kick the pants off our national competitors and are ahead of them technologically in several significant areas with a fraction of the resources. (With patents to smack them with if they try to steal our crap.)