How is winding up with an almost all-white cast "treating everyone as equals"? I'd bet on inequality showing up somewhere in the progression of events leading up to it.
Unequal results don't prove unequal opportunity, but we've found it to be a very good place to look to find unequal opportunity.
In secondary roles, if they exist. Wong (Dr. Strange's supporter) is Chinese. The TV series Marvel's Agents of Shield does some better. One of the continuing main characters is Asian, one of the people with special powers is Hispanic, and the big black guy is clearly religious.
Similarly, in the MCU, Falcon's black, but he's a secondary hero that goes around with Captain America. Nick Fury is black, and plays a larger part in the stories.
I saw a clip some time later of Indy going after the sword guy with his whip, so I don't know how much work Harrison Ford got out of there. There was also the scene in the second movie where he's confronted by a swordsman, reaches for his holster, and finds it empty.
This is the free market in action. If you like a movie, pay to see it. If you don't, avoid it. People can complain about other people's tastes, but enough people like the Marvel Cinematic Universe to keep it going.
The Russians were involved in trying to affect the 2016 election. That's clear now. The MSM got that right. There will probably be other indictments in Mueller's investigation, so we're going to have to wait and see.
Actually, if we backed up a century or two he'd have a good case. Nowadays, women can earn their own money and support themselves, so they don't have to put up with a guy just for money.
It's not the inefficient and stagnant economy of Soviet Russia, they're much closer to Hitler's Germany. A regime that almost forced the capitulation of the whole of Europe, if it wasn't for the English channel, if they had pushed forward at Dunkirk, if Turing hadn't broken Enigma, if they didn't redirect the bombing of military targets to destroy London... there's a fair chance Britain would have capitulated and D-day would never have happened. In fact it took the combined might of two future superpowers and a whole bunch of others to bring him down.
You're assuming that Britain would have developed the same way without the English Channel. With it, there was no way they were going to invade Britain successfully. Dunkirk was a complicated decision, and even if the Germans had pushed on (and weakened the June 1940 campaign in France) it would only have limited Britain's offensive capability. Breaking Enigma was useful, but not essential. Despite how it looked at the time, the Battle of the Atlantic was never as close as some people think. If the Luftwaffe had continued bombing airfields, the RAF would have pulled north. It wouldn't have been pleasant for the people of southern England, but it would have kept the RAF in being. Britain was in it to win eventually, and Churchill merely confirmed that choice.
You do realize that the "inefficient and stagnant economy" of the Soviet Union was instrumental in defeating the German army, right? It provided weapons of all sorts to go to the front, and supported the most basic needs of the civilians. When Stalin said "Quantity has a quality all his own", he wasn't just talking about the manpower of the Red Army, but its equipment.
China makes a decision, and then does it. The US tends to make more smaller decisions. In China, if the top people make a smart decision, great. If they make a stupid decision (Great Leap Forward), the country can suffer for a long time. In the US, there's usually somebody making a smart decision, and even in government smart decisions are tested against stupid ones every two years.
There is no single progression line you can put every country on. Different countries do different things. I'm not going to defend the Chinese government's human rights record, but China has been very successful in economic and technological development. It's useful to know how the Chinese do in technology. It's useful to know how they do in human rights. These are two separate subjects.
GP was exposed to two different points of view, and had to learn to reconcile the accounts. That's one of the most important lessons about history you can learn, that it is written from points of view, and no point of view is perfect. It hardly matters what the actual history is that's being learned as long as that lesson is taught.
The real question is whether it's easier to be a crappy programmer then or now. Becoming a good programmer requires more knowledge than it used to, but if you become a crappy programmer you might well have the incentive to become a good one.
The ability to type fast is way overrated. The ability to think and have typing come out of the fingers without further mental ado is extremely useful.
We deal in stuff subject to ITAR. It's easiest to hire US citizens, although we have some people with other qualifications (basically, people who are legally defined as US persons).
There's another thing I'd like to point out. Money.
Through the 1990s, I paid for development system after development system. Macintosh Common Lisp was great, not cheap. Unless I wanted to use the Macintosh Programmer's Workshop, when Apple finally made it free of charge, I paid for C compilers, then C++ compilers.
The result was that I had to be pretty sure I was going to use a language system before I had real experience with it, and I spent a lot more money than a modern teenager is likely to have. Currently, I can get high-quality development systems for a tremendous array of languages without spending a penny.
If you wanted to learn assembly language on the CoCo (and the 6809 was sweet compared to any other 8-bit CPU of the time), you got the single best manual I have ever seen for getting into assembly. I was already fluent in three or four assembly languages by then, so I didn't need such a good manual, but I did appreciate it.
There is no US educational system. There are many systems with some commonalities. The instances I am familiar with rewarded intelligent thinking. I don't know where you live, so I can't comment on the schools there.
I've been getting by with C++, Perl, and Common Lisp as my favorite languages for a long time. If I have to learn another language for a particular purpose, I can.
There's a lot of things that have happened in the last century. One thing that happened is that we got very good at curing diseases and avoiding injuries that would kill people before they got old enough to get cancer (which is predominantly an old person's disease). You name a lot of things in modern diets, but you don't mention a host of additional changes that may influence the cancer rate. You also don't provide any links with anything you said and cancer. It's likely that some of those have some influence on cancer rates, but there's no indication of which.
Slashdot Mirror
How is winding up with an almost all-white cast "treating everyone as equals"? I'd bet on inequality showing up somewhere in the progression of events leading up to it.
Unequal results don't prove unequal opportunity, but we've found it to be a very good place to look to find unequal opportunity.
In secondary roles, if they exist. Wong (Dr. Strange's supporter) is Chinese. The TV series Marvel's Agents of Shield does some better. One of the continuing main characters is Asian, one of the people with special powers is Hispanic, and the big black guy is clearly religious.
Similarly, in the MCU, Falcon's black, but he's a secondary hero that goes around with Captain America. Nick Fury is black, and plays a larger part in the stories.
I saw a clip some time later of Indy going after the sword guy with his whip, so I don't know how much work Harrison Ford got out of there. There was also the scene in the second movie where he's confronted by a swordsman, reaches for his holster, and finds it empty.
This is the free market in action. If you like a movie, pay to see it. If you don't, avoid it. People can complain about other people's tastes, but enough people like the Marvel Cinematic Universe to keep it going.
"If you're not with us, you're against us" is famously from the President Bush of this century. I never regarded him as an SJW or leftist.
Thank you very much. There's still lots of things we disagree on, but I appreciate the calm and thoughtful answer.
The Russians were involved in trying to affect the 2016 election. That's clear now. The MSM got that right. There will probably be other indictments in Mueller's investigation, so we're going to have to wait and see.
That would be it. The CoCo back then had problems, but I loved the CPU.
Actually, if we backed up a century or two he'd have a good case. Nowadays, women can earn their own money and support themselves, so they don't have to put up with a guy just for money.
Not for long, anyway.
Precisely like the "Made in Japan" phobia. That was overcome.
The Chinese are discovering our tech secrets and infringing on our tech IP Better?
You're assuming that Britain would have developed the same way without the English Channel. With it, there was no way they were going to invade Britain successfully. Dunkirk was a complicated decision, and even if the Germans had pushed on (and weakened the June 1940 campaign in France) it would only have limited Britain's offensive capability. Breaking Enigma was useful, but not essential. Despite how it looked at the time, the Battle of the Atlantic was never as close as some people think. If the Luftwaffe had continued bombing airfields, the RAF would have pulled north. It wouldn't have been pleasant for the people of southern England, but it would have kept the RAF in being. Britain was in it to win eventually, and Churchill merely confirmed that choice.
You do realize that the "inefficient and stagnant economy" of the Soviet Union was instrumental in defeating the German army, right? It provided weapons of all sorts to go to the front, and supported the most basic needs of the civilians. When Stalin said "Quantity has a quality all his own", he wasn't just talking about the manpower of the Red Army, but its equipment.
China makes a decision, and then does it. The US tends to make more smaller decisions. In China, if the top people make a smart decision, great. If they make a stupid decision (Great Leap Forward), the country can suffer for a long time. In the US, there's usually somebody making a smart decision, and even in government smart decisions are tested against stupid ones every two years.
There is no single progression line you can put every country on. Different countries do different things. I'm not going to defend the Chinese government's human rights record, but China has been very successful in economic and technological development. It's useful to know how the Chinese do in technology. It's useful to know how they do in human rights. These are two separate subjects.
GP was exposed to two different points of view, and had to learn to reconcile the accounts. That's one of the most important lessons about history you can learn, that it is written from points of view, and no point of view is perfect. It hardly matters what the actual history is that's being learned as long as that lesson is taught.
The real question is whether it's easier to be a crappy programmer then or now. Becoming a good programmer requires more knowledge than it used to, but if you become a crappy programmer you might well have the incentive to become a good one.
The ability to type fast is way overrated. The ability to think and have typing come out of the fingers without further mental ado is extremely useful.
We deal in stuff subject to ITAR. It's easiest to hire US citizens, although we have some people with other qualifications (basically, people who are legally defined as US persons).
There's another thing I'd like to point out. Money.
Through the 1990s, I paid for development system after development system. Macintosh Common Lisp was great, not cheap. Unless I wanted to use the Macintosh Programmer's Workshop, when Apple finally made it free of charge, I paid for C compilers, then C++ compilers.
The result was that I had to be pretty sure I was going to use a language system before I had real experience with it, and I spent a lot more money than a modern teenager is likely to have. Currently, I can get high-quality development systems for a tremendous array of languages without spending a penny.
If you wanted to learn assembly language on the CoCo (and the 6809 was sweet compared to any other 8-bit CPU of the time), you got the single best manual I have ever seen for getting into assembly. I was already fluent in three or four assembly languages by then, so I didn't need such a good manual, but I did appreciate it.
There is no US educational system. There are many systems with some commonalities. The instances I am familiar with rewarded intelligent thinking. I don't know where you live, so I can't comment on the schools there.
I've been getting by with C++, Perl, and Common Lisp as my favorite languages for a long time. If I have to learn another language for a particular purpose, I can.
There's a lot of things that have happened in the last century. One thing that happened is that we got very good at curing diseases and avoiding injuries that would kill people before they got old enough to get cancer (which is predominantly an old person's disease). You name a lot of things in modern diets, but you don't mention a host of additional changes that may influence the cancer rate. You also don't provide any links with anything you said and cancer. It's likely that some of those have some influence on cancer rates, but there's no indication of which.