This is why Brexit happened. Instead of making the case for the UK to remain in the EU, the people running the "remain" campaign tried (unsuccessfully, I might add) to paint the other side as "xenophobes and racists". People who voted to leave are neither, and the name calling just makes you look small.
They were even reasonably close in the degree of warming predicted.
No, that's just not true.
The rest of your post is just nonsense. Well, I guess that makes the whole thing nonsense. You're projecting your idea of what you think I believe onto me.
The earth has been warmer (and cooler) in the past, before humans even existed. If it takes fossil fuels to make it this warm, who was burning coal back then?
CO2 has been known to have the properties it does for over one hundred fucking years. There is absolutely nothing fucking controversial about increasing PPM of CO2 leading to increased trapping of energy (heat) in the lower atmosphere and surface of the planet.
That's true. The problem is climate is a complicated system, and nobody knows how dominant that effect is, or even if it's dominant. Comparing predictive results of climate models to actual measurements shouldn't give anybody the warm fuzzies that climate scientists have any idea what's going on.
The survey of more than 19,000 participants around the world finds that women have higher levels of education than men, with 51 percent holding a master's degree or higher, compared to 45 percent of men. Yet despite out qualifying them...
I guess Google doesn't work where you are. Well, let me start off, then:
There is no gender gap in wages among men and
women with similar family roles. Comparing the wage gap between women and men
ages 35-43 who have never married and never had a child, we find a small observed gap
in favor of women, which becomes insignificant after accounting for differences in skills
and job and workplace characteristics
The wage gape is entirely explainable by the choices people make. It's not teh sexism, which is why no matter how hard the government cracks down on employers it will never go away.
If women are paid less because they work less hours so they can take care of their kids more, that doesn't somehow mean women aren't paid less after all.
No, it means they are paid less due to their own life choices and not teh sexism.
I'm okay with people getting paid less due to their own life choices. As long as women can make as much as their male counterparts (it's actually more, but who's counting) when they make the same choices, it's not a problem that needs to be addressed by the government. It isn't, in fact, a problem at all.
You're proceeding from a false assumption. There's no sexism in the difference between what men and women get paid. It's entirely explainable by the choices individuals make.
Kids are a big financial penalty for both parents, and other people don't have a moral obligation to step in and help ease the burden of personal choices.
On a serious note, if you make employers legally responsible for the personal problems of their employees, they will seek to hire employees with the fewest personal problems.
More to the point, it passes the common sense test. So much so, that I cannot imagine any scenario where Trump didn't have a sex party in a room opposite the FSB headquarters without FSB recording it for future use.
Your common sense test passes the tinfoil hat test.
Nothing is completely impossible, but this issue has been studied to death. Billions of people use cellphones. If there was an issue it would have shown up in epidemiological data long ago.
Not only has this been studied to death, but if was studied to death when mobiles were less power efficient. If we were going to see EM damage we would have seen it in the analog era.
When Americans think about deaths from guns, we tend to focus on homicides. But the problem of gun suicide is inescapable: More than 60 percent of people in this country who die from guns die by suicide.
It's not a problem for people who aren't suicidal.
The problem is that they look good until the economy tumbles and you get caught in that round of layoffs.
When the economy "tumbles" interest rates go down. That's when you want an ARM. As to layoffs... doesn't really matter what kind of mortgage you have if you lose your job.
The risk of an ARM is actually the opposite - the economy goes into a bubble and interest rates go up.
Not only that, but corporate taxes are the easiest to dodge for international concerns using offset pricing schemes, inversions, and employment leverage ("I'll bring 2000 jobs to your country if you give me a 20 year tax break"). All that gives international corporations a big advantage over local firms, and big companies don't need yet more advantages.
I haven't proven your point. Neither have you. If I can filter out someone who's claiming, but doesn't actually have, an expertise I'm looking for in thirty seconds or so, I'm going to ask that question. If he fails I don't need to waste any more time. Interview over.
I'm getting the impression you've never actually done this. A good test for candidates is one in which I can ascertain whether that candidate is the person I want to hire in the minimum amount of time. If you're starting our association by lying to me, I don't want you regardless of the technical skillset you do have.
They test for liars. If you've actually been doing Python full time for the last five years you can't possibly not remember how to find the length of a string.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why Brexit happened. Instead of making the case for the UK to remain in the EU, the people running the "remain" campaign tried (unsuccessfully, I might add) to paint the other side as "xenophobes and racists". People who voted to leave are neither, and the name calling just makes you look small.
No, that's just not true.
The rest of your post is just nonsense. Well, I guess that makes the whole thing nonsense. You're projecting your idea of what you think I believe onto me.
Different atmosphere composition... without human intervention, right?
The earth has been warmer (and cooler) in the past, before humans even existed. If it takes fossil fuels to make it this warm, who was burning coal back then?
But they don't match. All we can say for sure is the earth is warming. But it's been both warmer and cooler in the past.
That's true. The problem is climate is a complicated system, and nobody knows how dominant that effect is, or even if it's dominant. Comparing predictive results of climate models to actual measurements shouldn't give anybody the warm fuzzies that climate scientists have any idea what's going on.
That's quite a leap.
The wage gape is entirely explainable by the choices people make. It's not teh sexism, which is why no matter how hard the government cracks down on employers it will never go away.
No, it means they are paid less due to their own life choices and not teh sexism.
I'm okay with people getting paid less due to their own life choices. As long as women can make as much as their male counterparts (it's actually more, but who's counting) when they make the same choices, it's not a problem that needs to be addressed by the government. It isn't, in fact, a problem at all.
No, the evidence is pretty clear on this point.
You're proceeding from a false assumption. There's no sexism in the difference between what men and women get paid. It's entirely explainable by the choices individuals make.
Yes they are. Companies don't leave free money on the table like that.
Hahahahah. That's not what they want. They just want to be paid as if they were working more and in higher paying jobs.
Kids are a big financial penalty for both parents, and other people don't have a moral obligation to step in and help ease the burden of personal choices.
This may have last been true in 1960 or so.
So being females is a disability now?
On a serious note, if you make employers legally responsible for the personal problems of their employees, they will seek to hire employees with the fewest personal problems.
Your common sense test passes the tinfoil hat test.
Not only has this been studied to death, but if was studied to death when mobiles were less power efficient. If we were going to see EM damage we would have seen it in the analog era.
It's not a problem for people who aren't suicidal.
When the economy "tumbles" interest rates go down. That's when you want an ARM. As to layoffs... doesn't really matter what kind of mortgage you have if you lose your job.
The risk of an ARM is actually the opposite - the economy goes into a bubble and interest rates go up.
Why not? If super efficient machines make us wealthier as a society, we'll be able to afford it.
Not only that, but corporate taxes are the easiest to dodge for international concerns using offset pricing schemes, inversions, and employment leverage ("I'll bring 2000 jobs to your country if you give me a 20 year tax break"). All that gives international corporations a big advantage over local firms, and big companies don't need yet more advantages.
I haven't proven your point. Neither have you. If I can filter out someone who's claiming, but doesn't actually have, an expertise I'm looking for in thirty seconds or so, I'm going to ask that question. If he fails I don't need to waste any more time. Interview over.
I'm getting the impression you've never actually done this. A good test for candidates is one in which I can ascertain whether that candidate is the person I want to hire in the minimum amount of time. If you're starting our association by lying to me, I don't want you regardless of the technical skillset you do have.
They test for liars. If you've actually been doing Python full time for the last five years you can't possibly not remember how to find the length of a string.
Oh, you're so clever!