"Diversity hire" isn't a "liberal" term. It's a Conservative term to oppress minorities, implying any employed minority is inferior to the Master Race.
Note that in this thread, the first to use "diversity hire" was a race-hater I was replying to. I didn't start using it, but used the same words as him to show it's a stupid term. Apparently you are liberal, as you are agreeing with someone that you imply is liberal (wherein both think the term is silly and shouldn't be used).
I use electric for heating and cooling (no natural gas or anything else), and I never pay $200 in heating or cooling. Even in Alaska, heating was less than $370 a month.
When I went for the only elective surgery I had (the two emergency ones were done by the "best sugeon in the world", as he was the only surgeon in the room when I would otherwise have died), I shopped. The two most prolific surgeons in the state were well above the rest, with public records, and multiple patients of each that I knew personally. So I asked around, looked at their records, and didn't know the gender or race of either until after I made my selection. I ended up with the #2, because #1 was not practicing at the time I needed it, due to a DUI (license suspended until trial, probably re-instated after, but I didn't follow it closely). I didn't shop out of the state because insurance didn't pay for travel when a local option was available.
So you are happier that you have no women in your department. So if you were presented two candidates and asked your recommendation, and they were equal, except one being a woman, based on what you said, you'd pick the man over the woman for "team fit".
I must just be too old. I remember the resurgence in "tough on crime" in the '80s under Reagan. I lived it. 3-strikes, life for an ounce of weed, and other things were pushed through as "tough on crime", and anyone that pushed for the "more policing, less punishment" schemes were liberals who were accused of being "soft on crime".
Opera solved it 10 years ago. That you are dumb doesn't mean anyone else is. Back takes you back. Forward again from there re-fills the fields previously filled in.
typing "u" in a pull down or text box is a zero-loss event. If you type "USA" at a country pull down and end up selecting antigua, it is trivial to try again. If you hit backspace and go back a page, you have lost data. That's not a trivial error on the part of the program.
If you are in a text box, the application may take "Enter" as a carriage return or Submit, and you won't know until you try it.
As for why, when I flip to another application, then come back, I'll focus on where I was, not whether I have clicked in the correct text box again. Especially when copy-pasting lots, you'll end up changing application quite frequently, and you may not be in a text field when you think you are.
The whole gamergate thing was predicated on an effort to stop the production of 'male oriented' games.
Nope. It was started by a man (a misogynist man, at that). A man started making a huge stink because he was dumped by his girlfriend, and accused her of sleeping with everyone to get good reviews for her woman-aimed games. The MRA misogynists all hopped on the band wagon, siding with the lying ex, and woman came to rally for the game designer who was slandered.
Are you sure we are talking about the same gamergate?
No debris found indicates no catastrophe. A bomb at altitude spreads massive debris everywhere. A failure that has the plane low-speed crash in a failed attempt at a sea landing (or successful landing with a sinking after) will have no debris. There is no debris found so far, so the less debris found, the more likely it wasn't catastrophic at altitude. For violent catastrophic. All the engines falling off, losing primary backup and all systems would allow a controlled descent and little to no debris, but would be considered "catastrophic" by most.
The longer it goes without debris found, the more likely it's not an explosion at altitude.
How is that relevant? Has anyone ever in the history of plane attacks (and there have been many) planted a bomb that was designed to go off on any flight but the next? If so, how many were successful? I've not heard of any, and Google didn't find any for me. Theoretically possible, but seems overly complicated, and thus irrelevant to the question of how this plane was brought down.
That's the quote I objected to. And so far, everyone has agreed with me, but some in a disagreeable manner. You must still breathe or you will feel out of breath. I never said anything about comfort. Please read the thread and quote the line that indicates I indicated it would be "uncomfortable". I was correcting an incorrect statement about the metabolism, not commenting on comfort.
Define Recidivism. "the chance a single person will re-offend" is your definition, but is not used. The statistic is aggregated and averaged over the entire population. So if recidivism overall increases from 20% to 50% with the use of a death penalty, you'd still say that recidivism drops because the dead guy isn't doing the re-offending?
Also, when you define "recidivism" as a per-person statistic, why would you assert the the death penalty decreases recidivism more than life without parole?
I never claimed it was. You are arguing that your misinterpretation of what I never said could be construed as wrong. Take a deep breath, and try reading the thread again. What did I say that was so objectionable that you needed to argue about it?
A generalization doesn't mean "all". But your take is quite rare. Most supporters of the death penalty want to use it as much as possible. Go read the posts here. I've seen more than one person indicate they would like to see it used against *everyone* caught selling drugs (often a quite minor crime), and other crimes one may think minor.
No, it increases recidivism. Yes, I know that the dead person won't offend again, but it doesn't decrease crime, and may actually increase serious crime, because if you are up for the death penalty, you might as well go out with a bang.
Slashdot Mirror
Affirmative action *never* requires hiring a lower qualified minority. Those that say it does are race-hating bigots.
"Diversity hire" isn't a "liberal" term. It's a Conservative term to oppress minorities, implying any employed minority is inferior to the Master Race.
Note that in this thread, the first to use "diversity hire" was a race-hater I was replying to. I didn't start using it, but used the same words as him to show it's a stupid term. Apparently you are liberal, as you are agreeing with someone that you imply is liberal (wherein both think the term is silly and shouldn't be used).
Wow, irrational hate much?
I use electric for heating and cooling (no natural gas or anything else), and I never pay $200 in heating or cooling. Even in Alaska, heating was less than $370 a month.
When I went for the only elective surgery I had (the two emergency ones were done by the "best sugeon in the world", as he was the only surgeon in the room when I would otherwise have died), I shopped. The two most prolific surgeons in the state were well above the rest, with public records, and multiple patients of each that I knew personally. So I asked around, looked at their records, and didn't know the gender or race of either until after I made my selection. I ended up with the #2, because #1 was not practicing at the time I needed it, due to a DUI (license suspended until trial, probably re-instated after, but I didn't follow it closely). I didn't shop out of the state because insurance didn't pay for travel when a local option was available.
The best in the field is still considered a "diversity hire" by bigots.
Any non-(white straight male) is a "diversity hire" to anyone who would use the term "diversity hire", regardless of qualifications.
Yeah, 'cause when people did that after sony's issues, they've since closed, as the boycott by 0.01% of DRM haters has such an effect.
You are a racist bigot when you assume the diversity hire *isn't* the best surgeon available.
So you are happier that you have no women in your department. So if you were presented two candidates and asked your recommendation, and they were equal, except one being a woman, based on what you said, you'd pick the man over the woman for "team fit".
And you wonder why there are zero women around.
Funny, cars have come a long way in 50 years, but turn signals still work. Nope, your excuses seem lame and quite silly.
I must just be too old. I remember the resurgence in "tough on crime" in the '80s under Reagan. I lived it. 3-strikes, life for an ounce of weed, and other things were pushed through as "tough on crime", and anyone that pushed for the "more policing, less punishment" schemes were liberals who were accused of being "soft on crime".
Opera solved it 10 years ago. That you are dumb doesn't mean anyone else is. Back takes you back. Forward again from there re-fills the fields previously filled in.
typing "u" in a pull down or text box is a zero-loss event. If you type "USA" at a country pull down and end up selecting antigua, it is trivial to try again. If you hit backspace and go back a page, you have lost data. That's not a trivial error on the part of the program.
If you are in a text box, the application may take "Enter" as a carriage return or Submit, and you won't know until you try it.
As for why, when I flip to another application, then come back, I'll focus on where I was, not whether I have clicked in the correct text box again. Especially when copy-pasting lots, you'll end up changing application quite frequently, and you may not be in a text field when you think you are.
The whole gamergate thing was predicated on an effort to stop the production of 'male oriented' games.
Nope. It was started by a man (a misogynist man, at that). A man started making a huge stink because he was dumped by his girlfriend, and accused her of sleeping with everyone to get good reviews for her woman-aimed games. The MRA misogynists all hopped on the band wagon, siding with the lying ex, and woman came to rally for the game designer who was slandered.
Are you sure we are talking about the same gamergate?
No debris found indicates no catastrophe. A bomb at altitude spreads massive debris everywhere. A failure that has the plane low-speed crash in a failed attempt at a sea landing (or successful landing with a sinking after) will have no debris. There is no debris found so far, so the less debris found, the more likely it wasn't catastrophic at altitude. For violent catastrophic. All the engines falling off, losing primary backup and all systems would allow a controlled descent and little to no debris, but would be considered "catastrophic" by most.
The longer it goes without debris found, the more likely it's not an explosion at altitude.
How is that relevant? Has anyone ever in the history of plane attacks (and there have been many) planted a bomb that was designed to go off on any flight but the next? If so, how many were successful? I've not heard of any, and Google didn't find any for me. Theoretically possible, but seems overly complicated, and thus irrelevant to the question of how this plane was brought down.
you never feel out of breadth
That's the quote I objected to. And so far, everyone has agreed with me, but some in a disagreeable manner. You must still breathe or you will feel out of breath. I never said anything about comfort. Please read the thread and quote the line that indicates I indicated it would be "uncomfortable". I was correcting an incorrect statement about the metabolism, not commenting on comfort.
Define Recidivism. "the chance a single person will re-offend" is your definition, but is not used. The statistic is aggregated and averaged over the entire population. So if recidivism overall increases from 20% to 50% with the use of a death penalty, you'd still say that recidivism drops because the dead guy isn't doing the re-offending?
Also, when you define "recidivism" as a per-person statistic, why would you assert the the death penalty decreases recidivism more than life without parole?
I never claimed it was. You are arguing that your misinterpretation of what I never said could be construed as wrong. Take a deep breath, and try reading the thread again. What did I say that was so objectionable that you needed to argue about it?
So, as long as you are breathing, you'll not need to breathe. That's an illogical catch 22. If you breathe a little too slow, you'll get the urge.
A generalization doesn't mean "all". But your take is quite rare. Most supporters of the death penalty want to use it as much as possible. Go read the posts here. I've seen more than one person indicate they would like to see it used against *everyone* caught selling drugs (often a quite minor crime), and other crimes one may think minor.
No, it increases recidivism. Yes, I know that the dead person won't offend again, but it doesn't decrease crime, and may actually increase serious crime, because if you are up for the death penalty, you might as well go out with a bang.
As well as a blown engine damaging a wing, causing a fuel fire, or other structural fire.
The (non-pilot) man-caused failures are limited.