You're making very broad statements here, and not providing any support for them. Your complaint about the Golden Age of Islam appears to be that " that society was formed by conquering, and that non-Muslims were second-class citizens [wikipedia.org]." without telling me in what way that differed from any other society of the period.
Hint: you need something better than repetition to win arguments. Another hint: you need something better than repetition to win arguments.
And yet Sanders would have wiped his clock, no matter what Trump or the Russians would have done.
How can you know that? I know he was doing better than Clinton in polls, but the Republicans had been attacking Clinton for decades, and had not been attacking Sanders. Sanders was a self-declared socialist, and you may have noticed there are people here who think that socialism is effectively Leninism. The Republicans would have attacked fast, hard, and dirty.
I subcaucused for him at my state Senate district convention (which is more significant than voting in a primary), but I'm trying to be realistic here. I think he'd have been a worse candidate than Clinton, and I don't think he'd have been as effective a President. I liked his policies better.
Lawsuits are not to be entered into lightly. They're expensive, uncertain, and slow. While they're sucking the plaintiff's money, time, and energy, the plaintiff still has to pay rent and eat.
Nobody guaranteed me a job, just as nobody guaranteed there'd be Mountain Dew in the vending machine. However, if I get a can of Dew from the vending machine, there are laws in place to make sure it's really Dew and not something even worse for me. Nobody guaranteed me a car, but I have legal assurance that it will be free of serious manufacturer's defects or the manufacturer or dealer will fix it. I see no point in offering jobs or anything else that are intentionally illegal in a market, except for markets that deal with illegal things (drugs, for example).
Not everyone is cut out to run their own company. It's a good way out for some people, not everyone.
According to someone upthread, the amount of energy needed to hit Earth is not much greater than the amount needed to escape the Moon. Obviously there's nothing on the Moon that we should mine and send to Earth, but mining stuff for use in space might be reasonable sometime.
Suppose we're interested in mining the moon for materials to be used elsewhere. Then we want some effective means of getting those things off the moon, and it isn't immediately clear to me that a very large mass driver is a bad idea for that.
If we're doing any serious mining on the moon, we will need a cheap and effective way to get stuff out of the Moon's gravity well, and from there it's not that much extra delta-vee to hit Earth.
Randomly committing sexual assault in the hope that the victim will like it isn't a particularly good idea. Almost all women will find that objectionable, whether or not they feel it's safe to object. If they do, and there's witnesses, it's a gross misdemeanor in my state, punishable by up to a year in jail. Committing acts on people that are punishable by a year in jail is generally interpreted as being contemptuous.
Pussy-grabbing in the context of a relationship is a different thing. There are times when my wife would be pleased if I were to grab her there, but not if anyone else were to. That's not what Trump was talking about, though.
Also, in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, the Loonies were deliberately avoiding doing serious damage with their rocks. The bombardment was to make it clear that they could wipe out cities if sufficiently threatened.
If I were a manager in my company, and hit on a woman working for me on her first day, I'd expect to be in deep trouble. There are three things that may constitute sexual harassment, and making employment decisions contingent on sexual favors is one of them. Hitting on a subordinate is likely enough to trigger that, even if there is no explicit threat or promise. A manager who harasses an employee is a liability for their employer, and propositioning a new employee seems like a reasonable firing offense to me.
In the case you're talking about, the woman went to HR, which is a reasonable response. HR said she should expect retaliation, and lied to her by claiming it was a first offense. That's also probably illegal.
Lawsuits are expensive, uncertain, and may have other unpleasant consequences. Moreover, there's a good chance that there will be no findings, since if the company is guilty it will probably settle and pay the plaintiff money in exchange for the plaintiff never talking about it.
I wouldn't take one or two blogs as convincing, but multiple ones can establish a pattern.
It tends to go with power. If a woman I don't have to care about treats men like dirt, it won't really bother me. If one I have to work with, or has some authority over me, treats men like dirt, I have a problem.
Clinton and the DNC's machinations were the deciding factor in Trump's election, not the Russians, by a vast margin.
Nobody knows the extent of the Russian intervention currently.
Moreover, Trump did not win by much of a margin. He lost the popular vote decisively, and a small number of changed votes would have changed the results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania and gotten Clinton elected. Like in 2000, there's lots of things that could have gone differently and changed the outcome of the election. In 2000, Gore would have won without the butterfly ballot in that one county (it's obvious that more people were confused and voted for Robertson by mistake than Bush's margin of victory in Florida).
So, if anyone tries explaining anything, it can be ignored because of Islam's "beating black heart"?
I know some Muslims around here who have no desire to install Sharia law. In the US, I'm much more worried about fundamentalist Christians who want to impose their authoritarian beliefs which they claim were drawn from the bible.
Moreover, I do know some history, and there was a time when the most vibrant and very tolerant society was Muslim. The practice of Islam has changed since then, but it shows that Islam is not inherently evil or backward.
My son did have a taste for sweets, but easily satisfied. For a while, every Halloween he'd go out and get candy, and eat some when he got home and put the rest in his room, so we'd take last year's candy from his room, mostly intact, and throw it away. As a kid, I couldn't do that. It would tempt me until it was gone.
I'm going to take a largely ignorant leap into evolution here.
The diet we evolved to live on had foods that were easier to get and foods that were harder to get, relative to the amount we needed. The easier-to-get foods would taste okay, nothing special, and we'd eat them mostly due to hunger. The harder-to-get foods would taste good, to provide incentive to go get them. We would normally live on mostly the okay-tasting food, with supplements of the good-tasting stuff. The ideal diet would be to have mostly okay food and some tasty food, probably more tasty food than our ancestors would usually eat.
Since then, we've developed the ability to produce most kinds of food in abundance, including foods that weren't around for most of our evolution. We developed a strong taste for sweet, and now we can make food incredibly sweet at little cost. This means that we're looking at okay-tasting food more or less like our ancestors ate (most of the veggies they ate are drastically changed by now), good-tasting meat which we tend to eat too much of, and good-tasting stuff that's basically bad for us.
Slashdot Mirror
None. There are lots of headers that are in C++ and not C, but most C90 programs are valid C++ programs.
"We" is the NSA. You're thinking of the CIA.
Nice excuse, but I don't know that that's the real reason.
You're making very broad statements here, and not providing any support for them. Your complaint about the Golden Age of Islam appears to be that " that society was formed by conquering, and that non-Muslims were second-class citizens [wikipedia.org]." without telling me in what way that differed from any other society of the period.
Hint: you need something better than repetition to win arguments. Another hint: you need something better than repetition to win arguments.
How can you know that? I know he was doing better than Clinton in polls, but the Republicans had been attacking Clinton for decades, and had not been attacking Sanders. Sanders was a self-declared socialist, and you may have noticed there are people here who think that socialism is effectively Leninism. The Republicans would have attacked fast, hard, and dirty.
I subcaucused for him at my state Senate district convention (which is more significant than voting in a primary), but I'm trying to be realistic here. I think he'd have been a worse candidate than Clinton, and I don't think he'd have been as effective a President. I liked his policies better.
Lawsuits are not to be entered into lightly. They're expensive, uncertain, and slow. While they're sucking the plaintiff's money, time, and energy, the plaintiff still has to pay rent and eat.
Nobody guaranteed me a job, just as nobody guaranteed there'd be Mountain Dew in the vending machine. However, if I get a can of Dew from the vending machine, there are laws in place to make sure it's really Dew and not something even worse for me. Nobody guaranteed me a car, but I have legal assurance that it will be free of serious manufacturer's defects or the manufacturer or dealer will fix it. I see no point in offering jobs or anything else that are intentionally illegal in a market, except for markets that deal with illegal things (drugs, for example).
Not everyone is cut out to run their own company. It's a good way out for some people, not everyone.
According to someone upthread, the amount of energy needed to hit Earth is not much greater than the amount needed to escape the Moon. Obviously there's nothing on the Moon that we should mine and send to Earth, but mining stuff for use in space might be reasonable sometime.
Suppose we're interested in mining the moon for materials to be used elsewhere. Then we want some effective means of getting those things off the moon, and it isn't immediately clear to me that a very large mass driver is a bad idea for that.
If we're doing any serious mining on the moon, we will need a cheap and effective way to get stuff out of the Moon's gravity well, and from there it's not that much extra delta-vee to hit Earth.
Randomly committing sexual assault in the hope that the victim will like it isn't a particularly good idea. Almost all women will find that objectionable, whether or not they feel it's safe to object. If they do, and there's witnesses, it's a gross misdemeanor in my state, punishable by up to a year in jail. Committing acts on people that are punishable by a year in jail is generally interpreted as being contemptuous.
Pussy-grabbing in the context of a relationship is a different thing. There are times when my wife would be pleased if I were to grab her there, but not if anyone else were to. That's not what Trump was talking about, though.
Also, in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, the Loonies were deliberately avoiding doing serious damage with their rocks. The bombardment was to make it clear that they could wipe out cities if sufficiently threatened.
If it existed before you joined the company, bring it up in contract negotiations and get it recorded there.
It may be that Cubans are better at it. The Cubans were also probably not in positions of power over the tourists, and likely backed off when told to.
If I were a manager in my company, and hit on a woman working for me on her first day, I'd expect to be in deep trouble. There are three things that may constitute sexual harassment, and making employment decisions contingent on sexual favors is one of them. Hitting on a subordinate is likely enough to trigger that, even if there is no explicit threat or promise. A manager who harasses an employee is a liability for their employer, and propositioning a new employee seems like a reasonable firing offense to me.
In the case you're talking about, the woman went to HR, which is a reasonable response. HR said she should expect retaliation, and lied to her by claiming it was a first offense. That's also probably illegal.
So, if a company is doing illegal things to its workers, the workers should just quit instead of expecting employment law to be enforced?
Lawsuits are expensive, uncertain, and may have other unpleasant consequences. Moreover, there's a good chance that there will be no findings, since if the company is guilty it will probably settle and pay the plaintiff money in exchange for the plaintiff never talking about it.
I wouldn't take one or two blogs as convincing, but multiple ones can establish a pattern.
It tends to go with power. If a woman I don't have to care about treats men like dirt, it won't really bother me. If one I have to work with, or has some authority over me, treats men like dirt, I have a problem.
Trump is, as far as I can tell, racist as well. Whether this has anything to do with his dislike of Islam is an open question.
Nobody knows the extent of the Russian intervention currently.
Moreover, Trump did not win by much of a margin. He lost the popular vote decisively, and a small number of changed votes would have changed the results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania and gotten Clinton elected. Like in 2000, there's lots of things that could have gone differently and changed the outcome of the election. In 2000, Gore would have won without the butterfly ballot in that one county (it's obvious that more people were confused and voted for Robertson by mistake than Bush's margin of victory in Florida).
So, if anyone tries explaining anything, it can be ignored because of Islam's "beating black heart"?
I know some Muslims around here who have no desire to install Sharia law. In the US, I'm much more worried about fundamentalist Christians who want to impose their authoritarian beliefs which they claim were drawn from the bible.
Moreover, I do know some history, and there was a time when the most vibrant and very tolerant society was Muslim. The practice of Islam has changed since then, but it shows that Islam is not inherently evil or backward.
So, why did Trump use that particular list?
The list was a rider on an appropriations bill that Obama had to sign. Have you any evidence that Obama had anything to do with it other than that?
My son did have a taste for sweets, but easily satisfied. For a while, every Halloween he'd go out and get candy, and eat some when he got home and put the rest in his room, so we'd take last year's candy from his room, mostly intact, and throw it away. As a kid, I couldn't do that. It would tempt me until it was gone.
I'm going to take a largely ignorant leap into evolution here.
The diet we evolved to live on had foods that were easier to get and foods that were harder to get, relative to the amount we needed. The easier-to-get foods would taste okay, nothing special, and we'd eat them mostly due to hunger. The harder-to-get foods would taste good, to provide incentive to go get them. We would normally live on mostly the okay-tasting food, with supplements of the good-tasting stuff. The ideal diet would be to have mostly okay food and some tasty food, probably more tasty food than our ancestors would usually eat.
Since then, we've developed the ability to produce most kinds of food in abundance, including foods that weren't around for most of our evolution. We developed a strong taste for sweet, and now we can make food incredibly sweet at little cost. This means that we're looking at okay-tasting food more or less like our ancestors ate (most of the veggies they ate are drastically changed by now), good-tasting meat which we tend to eat too much of, and good-tasting stuff that's basically bad for us.
How do you apply the radioactives to the bacteria without irradiating the patient?