As far as I can tell, two houses 5m apart could have seriously different plus codes if a large area border ran between them, so it looks like the plus codes don't consistently provide similar codes for nearby areas. It simply can't. It's mapping a 2d surface onto a 1d representation (the code itself), and it's impossible to do that while preserving proximity.
What these things are is basically base 20 encoding of longitude and latitude, with alternating digits of longitude and latitude.
Are you really going to pretend that the Soviet Union was so typical of socialism that we can make general statements about socialism from its behavior?
The big philosophical problem with Social Darwinism is that it takes a natural process (evolution) and makes it a moral issue. Darwin wrote about evolution as it was, essentially as it pretty much had to be; Spencer wrote that we should deliberately emulate it as social policy, where we have a choice of possible policies.
First, you said that unions give their members a massive boost in quality of life. Then you said that unions have outgrown their usefulness. You seem to think that fair pay is what non-union jobs pay, not what union jobs pay, when the union pay rates have to be low enough to keep the company profitable. You talk about "excessive" benefits in the same way. Pensions. Why don't you have one? Presumably because you're not unionized.
What you really need to do is to stop trying to tear others down for their relative success. Instead, form a union and grab the goodies for yourself.
Name one CEO that came out of the SUNY or CUNY systems.
I have no doubt that there's lots of them in small companies. However, CEOs of large companies tend to get there by being part of the elite to begin with, and tend to go to more prestigious schools in the first place.
You know, if I search history back centuries, I can find horrors from any religion you'd care to name (and also horrors not supported by religion). As for your second link, while I abhor the Muslim penalties for apostasy, they don't apply to non-Muslims, and I can find lots of death penalties in the past for relatively small crimes. As far as a biased web site goes, that's not going to convince anybody.
Look, I don't like Islam, and I don't like current Muslim governments, but Islam is not nearly as bad as some people claim.
The question is not whether it can be used to commit crimes, the question is whether it has substantial non-criminal uses or perhaps whether there's criminal intent. In the cases you mentioned, Facebook didn't commit a crime, but rather criminals used it.
Except that you're making those people up, by and large. To those of us who are reasonable, it's obvious that there were things that hindered Clinton's campaign (one of them, of course, being that she isn't charismatic like Bill), and that things like Comey's October semi-revelation and Russian meddling were improper.
It was a close election, so changing one of those could have changed the outcome. (Heck, one of the reasons Gore lost in 2000 was a bipartisan decision to have an illegal "butterfly" ballot, which confused voters into voting for Pat Robertson instead of Gore.)
It is your fucking responsibility to fuck responsibly. If you can't read non-verbal signals, ask. And try to make sure you're not intimidating the woman into not being forthright.
Yeah, and my morning commute could have gone far worse for me. Lots of people get killed that way. Picking out individual worst cases is not usually helpful.
Having said that, just to check - as you say you've been on harassment seminars: It would be considered wrong for guys in the office to wear hats / t-shirts/etc. asking their female coworkers or managers to marry them, right?
Nothing like that came up at any harassment training I ever attended. You wouldn't want a supervisor wearing a T-shirt proposing to a subordinate, but this is not an exploitation of a power relationship. It would be necessary to establish that the T-shirts constituted a hostile environment, and that seems like a real stretch.
Of course the lawyer representing the women would say that. A lawyer's initial claim is not the same as a court judgment. To win the case, the lawyer is going to have to back up his or her claim with evidence.
You can show, perhaps, that women who complained faced some sort of retaliation. People can investigate and find out things about what really happened. It's almost certain that some women did not report some sexual harassment, so it's reasonable to talk about the complaints not filed. We just don't know how many.
You gave a correlation. That doesn't imply causation. Moreover, US fathers did not tell their daughters what job to take about 1988.
One possibility is that patriarchal countries tend to impose codes of conduct that may stop bad behavior, so there's less informal discrimination and harassment. I don't think you really know what women will choose, given a level playing field.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I can tell, two houses 5m apart could have seriously different plus codes if a large area border ran between them, so it looks like the plus codes don't consistently provide similar codes for nearby areas. It simply can't. It's mapping a 2d surface onto a 1d representation (the code itself), and it's impossible to do that while preserving proximity.
What these things are is basically base 20 encoding of longitude and latitude, with alternating digits of longitude and latitude.
Mario a Mario?
If you see a flying object, and can confirm that it's an alien spacecraft, it's no longer a UFO.
You're doing the wrong experiments, then.
Are you really going to pretend that the Soviet Union was so typical of socialism that we can make general statements about socialism from its behavior?
The big philosophical problem with Social Darwinism is that it takes a natural process (evolution) and makes it a moral issue. Darwin wrote about evolution as it was, essentially as it pretty much had to be; Spencer wrote that we should deliberately emulate it as social policy, where we have a choice of possible policies.
Sit down and reread what you wrote.
First, you said that unions give their members a massive boost in quality of life. Then you said that unions have outgrown their usefulness. You seem to think that fair pay is what non-union jobs pay, not what union jobs pay, when the union pay rates have to be low enough to keep the company profitable. You talk about "excessive" benefits in the same way. Pensions. Why don't you have one? Presumably because you're not unionized.
What you really need to do is to stop trying to tear others down for their relative success. Instead, form a union and grab the goodies for yourself.
I have no doubt that there's lots of them in small companies. However, CEOs of large companies tend to get there by being part of the elite to begin with, and tend to go to more prestigious schools in the first place.
You know, if I search history back centuries, I can find horrors from any religion you'd care to name (and also horrors not supported by religion). As for your second link, while I abhor the Muslim penalties for apostasy, they don't apply to non-Muslims, and I can find lots of death penalties in the past for relatively small crimes. As far as a biased web site goes, that's not going to convince anybody.
Look, I don't like Islam, and I don't like current Muslim governments, but Islam is not nearly as bad as some people claim.
The question is not whether it can be used to commit crimes, the question is whether it has substantial non-criminal uses or perhaps whether there's criminal intent. In the cases you mentioned, Facebook didn't commit a crime, but rather criminals used it.
That might last a week or even a month before it's just Troll Central. That's a fate Facebook has to avoid to remain something close to profitable.
Except that you're making those people up, by and large. To those of us who are reasonable, it's obvious that there were things that hindered Clinton's campaign (one of them, of course, being that she isn't charismatic like Bill), and that things like Comey's October semi-revelation and Russian meddling were improper.
It was a close election, so changing one of those could have changed the outcome. (Heck, one of the reasons Gore lost in 2000 was a bipartisan decision to have an illegal "butterfly" ballot, which confused voters into voting for Pat Robertson instead of Gore.)
Not necessarily, depending on how HR or management reacts to complaints. In any case, this will come out in investigation and discovery.
It is your fucking responsibility to fuck responsibly. If you can't read non-verbal signals, ask. And try to make sure you're not intimidating the woman into not being forthright.
Being treated sexually by a manager is considerably different than being treated sexually by a cow-orker. Look at the power relationships.
My limited experience suggests that men sexualize women more than women sexualize men. So, if you were to tell me that, I'd ask for a source.
Yeah, and my morning commute could have gone far worse for me. Lots of people get killed that way. Picking out individual worst cases is not usually helpful.
HR can be hostile to sexual harassment complaints, and given evidence of that I don't think the EEOC would require it.
Nothing like that came up at any harassment training I ever attended. You wouldn't want a supervisor wearing a T-shirt proposing to a subordinate, but this is not an exploitation of a power relationship. It would be necessary to establish that the T-shirts constituted a hostile environment, and that seems like a real stretch.
Which strongly suggests that there's lots of cases that are not being reported. We don't know how many, but that invites investigation.
Of course the lawyer representing the women would say that. A lawyer's initial claim is not the same as a court judgment. To win the case, the lawyer is going to have to back up his or her claim with evidence.
You can show, perhaps, that women who complained faced some sort of retaliation. People can investigate and find out things about what really happened. It's almost certain that some women did not report some sexual harassment, so it's reasonable to talk about the complaints not filed. We just don't know how many.
You gave a correlation. That doesn't imply causation. Moreover, US fathers did not tell their daughters what job to take about 1988.
One possibility is that patriarchal countries tend to impose codes of conduct that may stop bad behavior, so there's less informal discrimination and harassment. I don't think you really know what women will choose, given a level playing field.
Wrong. There's been plenty of programs to get more men into nursing, at least. I don't know about other female-dominated fields.
It is also interesting that anything less than preferential treatment is "discrimination" to evangelicals/white men.