Since the bulk of the Comcast reps on the other end of the line are doing little more than entering the customer's comments and choosing from a list of pre-made responses, this truly is a bot vs. bot conversation. I've designed and built call centers for companies like American Express. The humans in the call centers are glorified text-to-speech engines with almost no knowledge or expertise on what they're discussing. They follow scripts and don't know how to deviate very far from their loops.
The administration sold it on lies and misinformation, and a lot of people bought it.
Speaking as someone who was not only alive at the time but actively serving in the military at the time, you seem to forget Saddam himself was being conned by his own scientists who feared for their lives if they reported failure. Furthermore, the CIA believed they had WMD's, and the head of the CIA advised the Bush administration that WMD's were present.
So here you are, the President, sitting in the Oval Office. You've got a murderous thug of a dictator, someone who has shown no compunction about using WMD's against his own people when it suits him. His own services report having WMD's. Your own intelligence services confidently say he has WMD's. What do you do? Ignore all that?
Put this way, if you go to three different doctors and they all diagnose you with cancer, are you gonna say "nah, I feel fine, these guys don't know what they're talking about"? Or are you going to get treatment for cancer as if you actually HAVE cancer? And if afterwards when the chemo has made you sick as hell and all your hair falls out you discover you didn't really have cancer, are you going to blame yourself for making the decision to get treatment? Or are you going to blame those that wrongly advised you?
Based on your above comments, you'd have to blame yourself and hold those who wrongly diagnosed you as completely innocent. Not that that makes any fucking sense, but that's what you're doing.
You can't say that because it's racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, evidence of white privilege, and means you hate puppies and want unicorns to die. You monster.
Like I said, anything remotely offensive is branded racist...or, in your case, bigoted. Can't say anything critical about certain politically-protected groups, now, can we? Even when it's true, speaking it aloud gets you the PC equivalent of the scarlet letter.
Please, find me something incorrect in the poster's statement regard the central tenets of Islam? Homosexuality is a deadly sin, repression of women, religious indoctrination...if this were called "Christianity" instead of "Islam" you'd be calling them backwards, knuckle-dragging, inbred hillbillies who are stupidly worshiping a sky fairy. Alas, bashing Christians is in vogue, just as defending Muslims is in vogue.
Gotta love progressives. Hypocrisy, doublethink, and cognitive dissonance are so entertaining to watch.
To this generation, anything vaguely hinting of duty and authority is immediately branded fascist. Anything remotely offensive is immediately branded racist whether race is actually involved at all (for example, being against Islamic extremism is frequently called "racist" despite the fact that Islam is a religion, not a race). We've raised an entire generation of hyper-sensitive, easily-offended, thin-skinned "citizens" who are utterly repelled at the concepts espoused in Heinlein's "Starship Troopers." All this despite such a generation absolutely requiring a cadre of protectors dedicated to the very principles they abhor in order to shield them from the ramifications of their naivety.
“2006: Expect Another Big Hurricane Year Says NOAA”—headline, MongaBay.com, May 22, 2006
“NOAA Predicts Above Normal 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration press release, May 23, 2007
“NOAA Increases Expectancy for Above-Normal 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, gCaptain.com, Aug. 7, 2008
“2006: Expect Another Big Hurricane Year Says NOAA”—headline, MongaBay.com, May 22, 2006
“NOAA Predicts Above Normal 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration press release, May 23, 2007
“NOAA Increases Expectancy for Above-Normal 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, gCaptain.com, Aug. 7, 2008
If you dig into this deeply enough, you'll see the utility very likely contributed a great deal of money to one or more elected officials responsible for approving such behavior.
Find who it is. Vote them out. Doesn't matter if there's a D or an R (or even an I) in front of their name. Vote the fuckers out. Corruption is what allows such things. Companies who deal in it are symptoms of the problem but not the problem itself. Blaming the company for gaming the system is like blaming bacteria for rapidly growing in a nutrient-rich solution. Find the corrupt bastard who's feeding the colony and cut them out of the situation. Every will self-correct afterwards.
But that doesn't mean there aren't good reasons to stop polluting.
Please, find me someone who's desperately screaming "yes, I want polluted air, land, and water! I want to see wildlife drowning in crude oil! I want barren deserts instead of forests! I want the seas to rise and inundate the coasts! I want weather Armageddon!"
No reasonable person is opposing curbs on pollution. That is a strawman. Reasonable people ARE, however, opposing needless, pointless, EXPENSIVE curbs that do little or nothing to improve things but do much to line the pockets of "climate change" proponents like Al Gore and his "carbon credits" crowd.
We need ALL NATIONS to drop their emissions TOGETHER.
And that's the humorous part. When it's the UN clamoring for the US to cut emissions, everybody's piling on the bandwagon saying it's a good idea, no a GREAT idea!
When they're asked to curb their own emissions, suddenly it's a really, really bad idea.
It's almost like it's not about climate change or emissions or anything real and only about taking the US economy down several pegs so other nations can take advantage of it.
Never forget, in years where hurricane activity is low, we hear "weather isn't climate! It doesn't mean anything!" Yet in years with lots of hurricane activity "see? See? SEE? We told you global warming is real! This proves it!"
If it rains too little it's due to climate change. If it rains too much it's due to climate change. If it rains just right "we told you weather isn't climate! It means nothing!"
You can't have it both ways guys. Obviously doesn't stop you from trying though.
Clearly the users are talking into it wrong. First they couldn't hold it right, then they couldn't stop bending it...sigh...will Apple customers never learn how to conform to Apple's expectations?
Excellent point and well made. People who are coming out saying the drone operators are perfectly fine obviously haven't though more than six inches in front of their face. Short-sighted idiots, they can't envision a situation because they refuse to think about it from the "how could a bad guy misuse this" perspective.
I wonder how you'd feel if someone parked a drone over your back yard with a camera watching your comings and goings, what time you went to bed and woke up, what kind of property you leave out, who visits your house and when, how many kids you have and what ages they are, and so forth. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Someone WILL eventually do that, most likely a LOT of someones, because there are some fucked up people in this world. A law that says it's perfectly alright for someone to fly a drone in close proximity to your home would enable this exact behavior.
And please don't go with the "so what, I have nothing to hide" defense. Even if you didn't mind a private citizen doing it, I'm willing to bet you'd be out of your mind upset if the government did it. If it's not good for one to be doing it, it's not good for either to be doing it.
"It's encouraging to see people take control of their own health."
It's also encouraging to see the free market in action rather than hearing the usual whining about how government regulation is the only way to fix the situation.
10% of us—probably the poorest people who can least afford to pay for the infrastructure improvements to bring their speeds up to snuff—will be 1000x behind.
I'm still missing the part where this is somehow my problem and I'm required to pay higher taxes to fix it.
Live in a rural area with shitty service because it's unprofitable for the ISP to run millions of dollars of fiber to service fifty customers? Too bad. Move. Or get satellite. Or deal with slower speeds. You're there by choice. Nobody's stopping you from moving somewhere that offers fiber to the curb for $75/month if that's what you really want.
Can't afford faster service? Again, not my fucking problem. Get a job. Or if you have a job but it pays shitty, too fucking bad. You chose poorly when it came to selecting careers. Still not my fucking problem.
If this sounds cold-hearted, too bad. You have no right to anything I've earned through my own hard work just because you've made choices that put you in a bad position. You want charity? Fine. Ask for it through charity. But the moment you suggest the government should forcibly confiscate my earnings to fund your Internet is the moment we become enemies.
It's quite astonishing that spastics haven't worked out that every fucking cunt knows free means free at the point of use, no cunt in the whole of fucking Europe is labouring under any other understanding
And thus the Orwellian mangling of language becomes so commonplace it's accepted as the new norm. Let me re-acquaint you with the actual meaning of "free" as it pertains to payment for good or services: it means you don't pay anything. Period.
The usage of "free" in the context of this article is completely false. The proper term would be "taxpayer subsidized" but nobody likes that term. Thus "free" is appropriated, misused, and defended by the likes of you.
Let's be pragmatic here. She didn't decide the logistics of her email server and how to secure it or delete emails. Her IT intern did this.
Let's be realistic here. She didn't tell her IT guy what tools to use. She didn't have to. Someone -- and it doesn't take too much intelligence to guess who -- gave a directive to make that server and all its contents disappear Jimmy Hoffa style. That directive was given only after the existence of the server became public knowledge and its contents were requested. Can guilt be proven by such an action? No. But can anyone make any remotely plausible, intelligent, cohesive argument as to why someone running for POTUS would knowingly put themselves in such an awkward, damaging position?
Clinton is no fool. She knew wiping the server after it was discovered would leave her open to charges of hiding things. The most plausible explanation of why she'd do this was because there were things on the server that were even more awkward and damaging.
Whether the secure wipe was used as a simple matter of Best Practice, or was done for Nefarious reasons, is not known. So when the article makes judgements such as "When you're using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see." it becomes a political mudslinging story.
What exactly is the purpose of BleachBit? As described on its own web page, BleachBit "tirelessly guards your privacy." It doesn't matter if it was wiped because of "best practices" (something rather laughable given that Sec. Clinton was violating the "best practices" of the very department she was head of according to the head of IT at SecState) or to hide nefarious activities. The main purpose of BleachBit is to preserve privacy by "obfuscating forensic evidence." The OP's statement was completely correct and made no judgments whatsoever about the guilt or innocence of Sec. Clinton. You're calling it mudslinging because you don't like the idea of people questioning her motives and wish to deflect attention.
Here's a radical idea: why don't we do a decent job of educating early teens of what fields are hiring out there and how rewarding they are, then leave them the hell alone and let them choose what they want to do? This whole "diversity is our goal" crap is morphing into a grand social engineering project where young girls are going to be told "you must be an engineer so you can better represent females!" and young men are going to be told...well, I'm not sure other than "you represent oppression and the male patriarchy and must be punished."
What I see is that women who are very smart get hired, average and dumb women don't get hired. However average and dumb men do get hired. Just look around and see all the idiots you have to work with and ask yourself if those idiots are more qualified than every woman or minority who wanted those jobs.
Given that hiring an unknown is always something of a gamble, wouldn't this outcome be the EXPECTED outcome when there's an oversupply of male candidates and relative scarcity of female candidates? By Jove, yes it is! The scarcity of female candidates virtually guarantees the vast majority of them are in the field because it is a passion for them. The overabundance of males also virtually guarantees many are there because "I need the money" and have no real interest in what they do. Certainly there are outliers in each category but they are, after all, outliers; they make the exception, not the rule.
The hiring managers have no incentive to do anything other than pick the candidate they think is best.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the point of hiring one candidate over another, because one of them is the better candidate?
Put another way, if you're about to have life-saving brain surgery and you're given the choice between a highly-skilled, top-of-his-field, well-paid neurosurgeon and a diversity hire who made it in to fill a quota, who are you going to choose? High-flying ideals are all fine and dandy when it's someone else's skin on the line, but they crumple when made to apply to those same idealists.
What does lidar give you that radar doesn't? Serious question.
Far better resolution, for one thing. Radar is limited to the resolution obtainable by the radar frequency which, no matter how high it is, is lower than that of lidar. All things being equal, higher frequency means higher resolution. It also usually means less range and greater reflection vs. absorption.
Even if they did get in (nice proof by intimidation you have there), how likely is it that there were REAL gems there?
So you're going with the "I broke the law, but it's OK because nothing bad happened" defense? Try that next time you get pulled over and fail a breathalyzer. "Hey officer, I'm drunk as a skunk but nobody got hurt so you can't charge me!" Tell me how that works out for you, the common citizen.
The laws Hillary broke did not require intent or damage to occur in order to be prosecuted. Go read the statute. Comey invented the whole "intent" thing out of thin air. She got a pass because her last name is "Clinton." Any other person would, at the least, be fired and banned for life from Federal service. At the worst, they'd be in jail already.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the bulk of the Comcast reps on the other end of the line are doing little more than entering the customer's comments and choosing from a list of pre-made responses, this truly is a bot vs. bot conversation. I've designed and built call centers for companies like American Express. The humans in the call centers are glorified text-to-speech engines with almost no knowledge or expertise on what they're discussing. They follow scripts and don't know how to deviate very far from their loops.
The administration sold it on lies and misinformation, and a lot of people bought it.
Speaking as someone who was not only alive at the time but actively serving in the military at the time, you seem to forget Saddam himself was being conned by his own scientists who feared for their lives if they reported failure. Furthermore, the CIA believed they had WMD's, and the head of the CIA advised the Bush administration that WMD's were present.
So here you are, the President, sitting in the Oval Office. You've got a murderous thug of a dictator, someone who has shown no compunction about using WMD's against his own people when it suits him. His own services report having WMD's. Your own intelligence services confidently say he has WMD's. What do you do? Ignore all that?
Put this way, if you go to three different doctors and they all diagnose you with cancer, are you gonna say "nah, I feel fine, these guys don't know what they're talking about"? Or are you going to get treatment for cancer as if you actually HAVE cancer? And if afterwards when the chemo has made you sick as hell and all your hair falls out you discover you didn't really have cancer, are you going to blame yourself for making the decision to get treatment? Or are you going to blame those that wrongly advised you?
Based on your above comments, you'd have to blame yourself and hold those who wrongly diagnosed you as completely innocent. Not that that makes any fucking sense, but that's what you're doing.
You can't say that because it's racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, evidence of white privilege, and means you hate puppies and want unicorns to die. You monster.
Like I said, anything remotely offensive is branded racist...or, in your case, bigoted. Can't say anything critical about certain politically-protected groups, now, can we? Even when it's true, speaking it aloud gets you the PC equivalent of the scarlet letter.
Please, find me something incorrect in the poster's statement regard the central tenets of Islam? Homosexuality is a deadly sin, repression of women, religious indoctrination...if this were called "Christianity" instead of "Islam" you'd be calling them backwards, knuckle-dragging, inbred hillbillies who are stupidly worshiping a sky fairy. Alas, bashing Christians is in vogue, just as defending Muslims is in vogue.
Gotta love progressives. Hypocrisy, doublethink, and cognitive dissonance are so entertaining to watch.
To this generation, anything vaguely hinting of duty and authority is immediately branded fascist. Anything remotely offensive is immediately branded racist whether race is actually involved at all (for example, being against Islamic extremism is frequently called "racist" despite the fact that Islam is a religion, not a race). We've raised an entire generation of hyper-sensitive, easily-offended, thin-skinned "citizens" who are utterly repelled at the concepts espoused in Heinlein's "Starship Troopers." All this despite such a generation absolutely requiring a cadre of protectors dedicated to the very principles they abhor in order to shield them from the ramifications of their naivety.
“2006: Expect Another Big Hurricane Year Says NOAA”—headline, MongaBay.com, May 22, 2006
“NOAA Predicts Above Normal 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration press release, May 23, 2007
“NOAA Increases Expectancy for Above-Normal 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, gCaptain.com, Aug. 7, 2008
“Forecasters: 2009 to Bring ‘Above Average’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CNN.com, Dec. 10, 2008
“NOAA: 2010 Hurricane Season May Set Records”—headline, Herald-Tribune (Sarasota, Fla.), May 28, 2010
“NOAA Predicts Increased Storm Activity in 2011 Hurricane Season”—headline, BDO Consulting press release, Aug. 18, 2011
“2012 Hurricane Forecast Update: More Storms Expected”—headline, LiveScience.com, Aug. 9, 2012
“NOAA Predicts Active 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, NOAA press release, May 23, 2013
“A Space-Based View of 2015’s ‘Hyperactive’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CityLab.com, June 19, 2015
“The 2016 Atlantic Hurricane Season Might Be the Strongest in Years”—headline, CBSNews.com, Aug. 11, 2016
“NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major Hurricane Strike”—headline, CNSNews.com, Oct. 24, 2016
And you AGW proponents wonder why people don't take your "the sky is falling!" rhetoric seriously.
“2006: Expect Another Big Hurricane Year Says NOAA”—headline, MongaBay.com, May 22, 2006
“NOAA Predicts Above Normal 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration press release, May 23, 2007
“NOAA Increases Expectancy for Above-Normal 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, gCaptain.com, Aug. 7, 2008
“Forecasters: 2009 to Bring ‘Above Average’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CNN.com, Dec. 10, 2008
“NOAA: 2010 Hurricane Season May Set Records”—headline, Herald-Tribune (Sarasota, Fla.), May 28, 2010
“NOAA Predicts Increased Storm Activity in 2011 Hurricane Season”—headline, BDO Consulting press release, Aug. 18, 2011
“2012 Hurricane Forecast Update: More Storms Expected”—headline, LiveScience.com, Aug. 9, 2012
“NOAA Predicts Active 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, NOAA press release, May 23, 2013
“A Space-Based View of 2015’s ‘Hyperactive’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CityLab.com, June 19, 2015
“The 2016 Atlantic Hurricane Season Might Be the Strongest in Years”—headline, CBSNews.com, Aug. 11, 2016
drum roll please....
“NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major Hurricane Strike”—headline, CNSNews.com, Oct. 24, 2016
And you AGW proponents wonder why people don't take your "the sky is falling!" rhetoric seriously.
If you dig into this deeply enough, you'll see the utility very likely contributed a great deal of money to one or more elected officials responsible for approving such behavior.
Find who it is. Vote them out. Doesn't matter if there's a D or an R (or even an I) in front of their name. Vote the fuckers out. Corruption is what allows such things. Companies who deal in it are symptoms of the problem but not the problem itself. Blaming the company for gaming the system is like blaming bacteria for rapidly growing in a nutrient-rich solution. Find the corrupt bastard who's feeding the colony and cut them out of the situation. Every will self-correct afterwards.
But that doesn't mean there aren't good reasons to stop polluting.
Please, find me someone who's desperately screaming "yes, I want polluted air, land, and water! I want to see wildlife drowning in crude oil! I want barren deserts instead of forests! I want the seas to rise and inundate the coasts! I want weather Armageddon!"
No reasonable person is opposing curbs on pollution. That is a strawman. Reasonable people ARE, however, opposing needless, pointless, EXPENSIVE curbs that do little or nothing to improve things but do much to line the pockets of "climate change" proponents like Al Gore and his "carbon credits" crowd.
We need ALL NATIONS to drop their emissions TOGETHER.
And that's the humorous part. When it's the UN clamoring for the US to cut emissions, everybody's piling on the bandwagon saying it's a good idea, no a GREAT idea!
When they're asked to curb their own emissions, suddenly it's a really, really bad idea.
It's almost like it's not about climate change or emissions or anything real and only about taking the US economy down several pegs so other nations can take advantage of it.
Nah, that's just crazy talk.
Never forget, in years where hurricane activity is low, we hear "weather isn't climate! It doesn't mean anything!" Yet in years with lots of hurricane activity "see? See? SEE? We told you global warming is real! This proves it!"
If it rains too little it's due to climate change. If it rains too much it's due to climate change. If it rains just right "we told you weather isn't climate! It means nothing!"
You can't have it both ways guys. Obviously doesn't stop you from trying though.
Clearly the users are talking into it wrong. First they couldn't hold it right, then they couldn't stop bending it...sigh...will Apple customers never learn how to conform to Apple's expectations?
Excellent point and well made. People who are coming out saying the drone operators are perfectly fine obviously haven't though more than six inches in front of their face. Short-sighted idiots, they can't envision a situation because they refuse to think about it from the "how could a bad guy misuse this" perspective.
It is just kids having fun.
I wonder how you'd feel if someone parked a drone over your back yard with a camera watching your comings and goings, what time you went to bed and woke up, what kind of property you leave out, who visits your house and when, how many kids you have and what ages they are, and so forth. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Someone WILL eventually do that, most likely a LOT of someones, because there are some fucked up people in this world. A law that says it's perfectly alright for someone to fly a drone in close proximity to your home would enable this exact behavior.
And please don't go with the "so what, I have nothing to hide" defense. Even if you didn't mind a private citizen doing it, I'm willing to bet you'd be out of your mind upset if the government did it. If it's not good for one to be doing it, it's not good for either to be doing it.
"It's encouraging to see people take control of their own health."
It's also encouraging to see the free market in action rather than hearing the usual whining about how government regulation is the only way to fix the situation.
10% of us—probably the poorest people who can least afford to pay for the infrastructure improvements to bring their speeds up to snuff—will be 1000x behind.
I'm still missing the part where this is somehow my problem and I'm required to pay higher taxes to fix it.
Live in a rural area with shitty service because it's unprofitable for the ISP to run millions of dollars of fiber to service fifty customers? Too bad. Move. Or get satellite. Or deal with slower speeds. You're there by choice. Nobody's stopping you from moving somewhere that offers fiber to the curb for $75/month if that's what you really want.
Can't afford faster service? Again, not my fucking problem. Get a job. Or if you have a job but it pays shitty, too fucking bad. You chose poorly when it came to selecting careers. Still not my fucking problem.
If this sounds cold-hearted, too bad. You have no right to anything I've earned through my own hard work just because you've made choices that put you in a bad position. You want charity? Fine. Ask for it through charity. But the moment you suggest the government should forcibly confiscate my earnings to fund your Internet is the moment we become enemies.
It's quite astonishing that spastics haven't worked out that every fucking cunt knows free means free at the point of use, no cunt in the whole of fucking Europe is labouring under any other understanding
And thus the Orwellian mangling of language becomes so commonplace it's accepted as the new norm. Let me re-acquaint you with the actual meaning of "free" as it pertains to payment for good or services: it means you don't pay anything. Period.
The usage of "free" in the context of this article is completely false. The proper term would be "taxpayer subsidized" but nobody likes that term. Thus "free" is appropriated, misused, and defended by the likes of you.
Let's be pragmatic here. She didn't decide the logistics of her email server and how to secure it or delete emails. Her IT intern did this.
Let's be realistic here. She didn't tell her IT guy what tools to use. She didn't have to. Someone -- and it doesn't take too much intelligence to guess who -- gave a directive to make that server and all its contents disappear Jimmy Hoffa style. That directive was given only after the existence of the server became public knowledge and its contents were requested. Can guilt be proven by such an action? No. But can anyone make any remotely plausible, intelligent, cohesive argument as to why someone running for POTUS would knowingly put themselves in such an awkward, damaging position?
Clinton is no fool. She knew wiping the server after it was discovered would leave her open to charges of hiding things. The most plausible explanation of why she'd do this was because there were things on the server that were even more awkward and damaging.
Whether the secure wipe was used as a simple matter of Best Practice, or was done for Nefarious reasons, is not known. So when the article makes judgements such as "When you're using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see." it becomes a political mudslinging story.
What exactly is the purpose of BleachBit? As described on its own web page, BleachBit "tirelessly guards your privacy." It doesn't matter if it was wiped because of "best practices" (something rather laughable given that Sec. Clinton was violating the "best practices" of the very department she was head of according to the head of IT at SecState) or to hide nefarious activities. The main purpose of BleachBit is to preserve privacy by "obfuscating forensic evidence." The OP's statement was completely correct and made no judgments whatsoever about the guilt or innocence of Sec. Clinton. You're calling it mudslinging because you don't like the idea of people questioning her motives and wish to deflect attention.
Here's a radical idea: why don't we do a decent job of educating early teens of what fields are hiring out there and how rewarding they are, then leave them the hell alone and let them choose what they want to do? This whole "diversity is our goal" crap is morphing into a grand social engineering project where young girls are going to be told "you must be an engineer so you can better represent females!" and young men are going to be told...well, I'm not sure other than "you represent oppression and the male patriarchy and must be punished."
What I see is that women who are very smart get hired, average and dumb women don't get hired. However average and dumb men do get hired. Just look around and see all the idiots you have to work with and ask yourself if those idiots are more qualified than every woman or minority who wanted those jobs.
Given that hiring an unknown is always something of a gamble, wouldn't this outcome be the EXPECTED outcome when there's an oversupply of male candidates and relative scarcity of female candidates? By Jove, yes it is! The scarcity of female candidates virtually guarantees the vast majority of them are in the field because it is a passion for them. The overabundance of males also virtually guarantees many are there because "I need the money" and have no real interest in what they do. Certainly there are outliers in each category but they are, after all, outliers; they make the exception, not the rule.
The hiring managers have no incentive to do anything other than pick the candidate they think is best.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the point of hiring one candidate over another, because one of them is the better candidate?
Put another way, if you're about to have life-saving brain surgery and you're given the choice between a highly-skilled, top-of-his-field, well-paid neurosurgeon and a diversity hire who made it in to fill a quota, who are you going to choose? High-flying ideals are all fine and dandy when it's someone else's skin on the line, but they crumple when made to apply to those same idealists.
What does lidar give you that radar doesn't? Serious question.
Far better resolution, for one thing. Radar is limited to the resolution obtainable by the radar frequency which, no matter how high it is, is lower than that of lidar. All things being equal, higher frequency means higher resolution. It also usually means less range and greater reflection vs. absorption.
Even if they did get in (nice proof by intimidation you have there), how likely is it that there were REAL gems there?
So you're going with the "I broke the law, but it's OK because nothing bad happened" defense? Try that next time you get pulled over and fail a breathalyzer. "Hey officer, I'm drunk as a skunk but nobody got hurt so you can't charge me!" Tell me how that works out for you, the common citizen.
The laws Hillary broke did not require intent or damage to occur in order to be prosecuted. Go read the statute. Comey invented the whole "intent" thing out of thin air. She got a pass because her last name is "Clinton." Any other person would, at the least, be fired and banned for life from Federal service. At the worst, they'd be in jail already.
Why does Hillary always claim some sort of big conspiracy every time she gets caught doing something?
Because legions of her supporters will believe anything she says, no matter how absurd or self-serving.