It is way off. I believe they decided to use 1982 data for rent in SF. "Cheap" rent on a 1 bedroom apartment is 2.5K/mo, and a 2 bedroom is 3-3.5K/mo. The only place I can think of with a rent of 775.45/mo might be a cot in one of those wood burning stoves^W^W^Wold warehouses
Your brainstorming works because while you have not figured out the exact script, you understand the method and concepts to complete the task. This is what I believe would be common among all people who brainstorm successfully as individuals. They use the Socratic method to interrogate the process they have in mind and come up with the best solution.
In a group, brainstorming can work if you have the right set of people with the intellectual capacity to debate and question (Socratic Method), and similar to the individual, knowledge of the concepts and methods needed to complete the task.
Then we have "Corporate" brainstorming, which unfortunately lacks those same principles. Lacking the basics, people and groups hang out in quiet (AKA "Safe") spaces and "brainstorm". Those sessions are not usually eventful. In the occasion where an idea comes out of the session, it's quite horrible.
If you point out facts that harm leftism, you can only be a troll. The left is the group attempting to silence and censor speech. Please continue to prove the point so that your ideology dies a horrific death.
Facebook and Google already did that, trying to censor Republican concerns and promoting Hillary and the Progressive movement. I have zero faith that they will change their behavior, and believe they are part of the same leftist agenda as most media in the US.
I'll also add that today most young people are not taught about the US Constitution or History in general that does not favor progressivism. They are not trained in rhetoric, and not trained in the Socratic method. (You may be, but the generalization is correct that a large percentage is not). This means that they fall prey to propaganda much easier than someone older who has some ability to recognize and ignore the propaganda. The least educated among us are not necessarily the best people to vote. Those type of person vote one way, and it is never Conservative/Republican.
Judge shopping is not restricted to just Patents. The courts need a complete overhaul, as the 9th Circuit Court (Lawyers call it the 9th Circus) proves.
Jesus Christ, so I have to present you with my fucking medical records? Fuck you, asshole.
Sounds like someone was caught in a lie which explains the total lack of explanation when presented with facts that your situation does not match others with the same medical condition and the personal attack.
Medical history? No. Honesty? Yes.
I realize that truth and honesty are way too much to ask from a leftist.
Yet another flat out lie. The cuts would have been the expansions that the ACA put in, which gave 38% of the Middle Class free healthcare through the program.
I think you have misunderstood what is happening here. YouTube is not removing these videos, it is simply preventing adverts from these companies from appearing next to them. That generally means that the content creator can't earn revenue through YouTube any more, but the videos are not being censored or removed.
This has actually been happening for ages due to copyright issues. For example, a lot of Mario players on Twitch also post clips to YouTube, but they can't be monetized because Nintendo won't allow it and will file copyright claims if you try to. So they make their money from Twitch and Patreon and merchandise, rather than YouTube ads.
Sucks but you can't really force advertisers to give you money.
While the first part is true what you omit is that if people can not monetize videos they won't make them. You can be the best bread maker in the world, but if nobody pays you to make bread you are out of business and working for someone else as a shoe maker.
It's also a selective process. A person like Blaire White who happens to be a transgender women with the wrong political view is demonetized, but a person who does nothing but copy CNN videos and label them with extremist anti-Trump titles makes 100-200K a month from Youtube. That goes against Fair Use laws, in addition to being selective bias.
Perform a search for people who fly to the US for treatment from the UK, France, Canada, Spain, Denmark, Finland, all because their Healthcare is either not as good or takes months to get an appointment. Nobody is racing to Denmark for dental care, nobody is racing to Sweden for heart surgery, nobody is racing to France for cancer treatment, and nobody is racing to China or Germany for things like limb replacements. The only time people in the US leave is because the FDA does not approve treatments they consider to be experimental.
As I stated before there are problems with Health care but mainly related to Malpractice suits, Tort, and insane regulation. Fix those and costs go down. Instead of even touching those valid issues, you decided to just lie. You are a disgusting person.
Strange, because I have 3 relatives with epilepsy and they all get covered by the Government because they don't work normal jobs due to their conditions. Not a single one was ever turned down at the Hospital, not refused medication, not refused an ambulance when needed, and not refused care for medical reasons. Those three relatives are in 2 different States, so it's not a State doing something the Feds won't with Medicaid. Either you are an extremely well off person, or you are not telling the whole story.
The Free Market medical system produced the best Medical practices in the world. Why do you think all of the people wealthy enough to fly to the US from all of those great places you mention do so when they needed Medical care? But hey, if you think China's care is so great why don't you go live there and become a citizen. How about France or Denmark? Oh yeah, none of them would take you (go ahead and apply for citizenship so I can laugh at you).
Malpractice and it's insurance, tort, and other regulations have been the problem with our Health system. Those are all problems due to Government, not "free market".
Prior to massive regulations insurance was affordable. Competition ensured that it was. Blue Cross was the "primary" and best employer insurance, but not the only game in town. Pricing led to HAP and others gaining popularity as a cheaper alternative for people to get through their employers. I paid less than 500.00 a year for a policy during college since my employer didn't provide insurance. It wasn't great insurance, but I didn't need great insurance. I needed something to cover me if something bad happened. You know, the whole point of paying for this thing called insurance.
Once I finally got a job with insurance, my monthly contribution was triple what I paid for catastrophic, but still affordable. Until ACA, I was never employed at a place that didn't have at least 2 choices of provider. Today, even at the large companies you have 1 (except for CA where you can choose Kaiser).
Private insurance meant competition. you know, that thing that is totally lacking in the ACA where most areas have been reduced to 1 provider with no competition. Policies can't be formulated by providers now, the Government mandates everything in them. Catastrophic coverage does not exist.
If competition was allowed, people could simply receive vouchers for plans with competing agencies. Just like employers had. Choose the provider you like the best and the Government picks up the tab instead of the Government stifling competition for the whole market.
I believe an important distinction is that Gitmo was not closed after 8 years of promises and the President leaving office without it getting done. President Trump has been in officer for a hair over 60 days. First try failed, and probably for the better. The replacement Bill put forth by Ryan was horrible.
Do you think President Obama tried only once to get Gitmo closed? It was a broken promise because he never got it done after numerous tries. People claiming doomsday for President Trump are foolish. If he does not get it done during his Presidency we can re-evaluate.
Fox is wrong as much as the other guys. Sean Hannity was out telling everyone Ryan's healthcare was good. His saving grace is that he also pointed out some of the problems with how it was planned and rolled out. Trying to be in the middle should not be the goal, being right should be the goal. RINOs pushing the bill were not right, and the Democrats putting their heads in the sand and doing nothing except cheerleading after the bill could not get off the ground were not right. Working to fix a horrible bill would have been right.
The answer is something Trump said a couple weeks ago. The Federal Government should never have gotten involved in health insurance. The answer is quite simple really, but I doubt his advisers would begin to do the right thing. Answer: GTFO of healthcare and provide vouchers to people who can't afford it on their own. Let the market set the rates, not the Government.
The Democrats passed the ACA on a line of bullshit. People needing assistance is not a reason for the Government to take over a complete line of business as they did with ACA. The arguments were a false choice. One should notice key changes in rhetoric, like calling Government Assistance of all forms "entitlements" instead of what they are, and arguing that health insurance is a right. The latter is bullshit. People should be able to get healthcare when needed, but that is not the same thing as health insurance.
You are still wrong and simply demonstrating that you have an irrational position based on complete ignorance. Reading your other posts in the thread it's obvious that you have the same position as the other SJWs, denying any fact that counters that position and providing none of your own.
The prophetic nature of the book is not the main issue. The issue I pointed out is that there are a large number of people happy to express an opinion which is devoid of facts claiming that their non-factual fantasy is real.
You have put an exclamation point on that fact, demonstrating that you are happy to be one of the ignorant masses.
You didn't read the book either. Don't attempt to critique me on things I never wrote. There is no character Digby in "Atlas Shrugged." Yes, I know Fountainhead too, but it was an earlier work not as fully developed.
How do I know you didn't read it? Because you are not even near the mark on my comment regarding a delusional person claiming reality is false and their fantasy is real. It's about 1200 pages, and I highly recommend it. I have read Heinlein too, but he's was not a Philosopher.
You did miss the last 100 years of history. In fact you just missed history in general.
Communism does not make the people the owners of the fruits of their labors, it makes the bureaucrats the owners of the fruits of people's labor. Straight from the manifesto you find 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs' People are incentivized to be lazy and complacent, and just yell about how much stuff they need. Working harder than your neighbor does not get you more stuff and inventing new technology does not get you new stuff. Those two things can make you an enemy of your neighbors and get you jailed or killed.
Both Russia and China moved to a controlled form of a market economy. Stealing technology was not enough to keep them afloat, so they had to do something to incentivize people. The partial market is still the suck for people that live there, because if you do too well you are killed and the Government just takes your stuff anyway.
Discrimination in the workplace has been illegal since I was a kid in the 70s. This includes discrimination against women.
Oh I see, it's illegal so it doesn't ever happen. That's why I also never see anyone going over the speed limit. True story.
What a moronic statement. What It means that there should be plenty of court cases proving that discrimination exists if it was true. You see, those cases with guilty verdicts would be something we call facts. Facts are used to form valid opinions, and of course debate a position. The more fact you have, the better your opinion and the better one can debate their position.
In the case of people speeding, we do have these things called facts. Millions upon millions of tickets are on record proving that speeding happens. Do you notice the difference between Speeding tickets and Sexual harassment in the STEM workplace? I agree it would be harder to prove sexual harassment, but people like you who claim it's so common should be able to easily justify your opinion with a reasonable number of _facts_. Those would be guilty verdicts in discrimination cases.
It is quite remarkable that you believe, without any facts, that nasty men are all out to abuse women in the workplace. Even worse, when asked to present facts you hide, and ignore any fact that runs contrary to your fantasy. Sane people work differently. When presented with facts they perform research and adjust their opinions based on new information.
People like you walk around claiming that reality is false and your fantasy is reality. The more people like you I read the more I am amazed at how prophetic Ayn Rand was with "Atlas Shrugged". No, you never read it so don't bother with more lies. Yes, I was correct stating that you were not sane. (unless you are a shill being paid to spread the delusion, which I highly doubt.)
Your second and third sentences have no basis in reality. There was a massive push to social welfare programs to assist women with College in the later 80s and 90s. This includes assistance with child care so that Single Moms (a massively grown demographic) could go to College and not worry about their kids. Hence the disparity we have today which has 61% of all College students being women. You can't be so delusional that you believe moving women up to 61% of all college students is the result of a year, or even a few years. Then again, it seems like you really can be that delusional.
Nearly 80% of the field is women. Men report being ridiculed by both patients and their female coworkers. Since women practice hypergamy men are not seen as much more than dating toys by most women in the field. Citations can easily be found.
"Any more" is a complete misnomer. When people claim the "good ole days" they neglect the fact that most women were busy at home raising families. The majority could not afford to work, or could not afford to work full time. Single and wealthy women worked full time, not usually women with families.
The State was not the primary path for raising kids in the 70s and early 80s, parents were. Due to both social pressure to put women into the workplace and another fine program pushing self happiness as the number one consideration in your actions (both social engineering) that is no longer true. A majority of people today are being raised by the State, but that's not the same as the good ole days you claim was so great.
There are countless factors involved in people's choices of careers, and society has changed drastically since the 70s and 80s.
So what is your expectation in an answer? Nothing you could provide as a rational explanation is simple. Meaning, the simple explanation of sexism is also wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
It is way off. I believe they decided to use 1982 data for rent in SF. "Cheap" rent on a 1 bedroom apartment is 2.5K/mo, and a 2 bedroom is 3-3.5K/mo. The only place I can think of with a rent of 775.45/mo might be a cot in one of those wood burning stoves^W^W^Wold warehouses
Your brainstorming works because while you have not figured out the exact script, you understand the method and concepts to complete the task. This is what I believe would be common among all people who brainstorm successfully as individuals. They use the Socratic method to interrogate the process they have in mind and come up with the best solution.
In a group, brainstorming can work if you have the right set of people with the intellectual capacity to debate and question (Socratic Method), and similar to the individual, knowledge of the concepts and methods needed to complete the task.
Then we have "Corporate" brainstorming, which unfortunately lacks those same principles. Lacking the basics, people and groups hang out in quiet (AKA "Safe") spaces and "brainstorm". Those sessions are not usually eventful. In the occasion where an idea comes out of the session, it's quite horrible.
If you point out facts that harm leftism, you can only be a troll. The left is the group attempting to silence and censor speech. Please continue to prove the point so that your ideology dies a horrific death.
Facebook and Google already did that, trying to censor Republican concerns and promoting Hillary and the Progressive movement. I have zero faith that they will change their behavior, and believe they are part of the same leftist agenda as most media in the US.
I'll also add that today most young people are not taught about the US Constitution or History in general that does not favor progressivism. They are not trained in rhetoric, and not trained in the Socratic method. (You may be, but the generalization is correct that a large percentage is not). This means that they fall prey to propaganda much easier than someone older who has some ability to recognize and ignore the propaganda. The least educated among us are not necessarily the best people to vote. Those type of person vote one way, and it is never Conservative/Republican.
Judge shopping is not restricted to just Patents. The courts need a complete overhaul, as the 9th Circuit Court (Lawyers call it the 9th Circus) proves.
Jesus Christ, so I have to present you with my fucking medical records? Fuck you, asshole.
Sounds like someone was caught in a lie which explains the total lack of explanation when presented with facts that your situation does not match others with the same medical condition and the personal attack.
Medical history? No. Honesty? Yes.
I realize that truth and honesty are way too much to ask from a leftist.
No it's not, it exactly counters the fabrication presented by the person I responded to.
Yet another flat out lie. The cuts would have been the expansions that the ACA put in, which gave 38% of the Middle Class free healthcare through the program.
I think you have misunderstood what is happening here. YouTube is not removing these videos, it is simply preventing adverts from these companies from appearing next to them. That generally means that the content creator can't earn revenue through YouTube any more, but the videos are not being censored or removed.
This has actually been happening for ages due to copyright issues. For example, a lot of Mario players on Twitch also post clips to YouTube, but they can't be monetized because Nintendo won't allow it and will file copyright claims if you try to. So they make their money from Twitch and Patreon and merchandise, rather than YouTube ads.
Sucks but you can't really force advertisers to give you money.
While the first part is true what you omit is that if people can not monetize videos they won't make them. You can be the best bread maker in the world, but if nobody pays you to make bread you are out of business and working for someone else as a shoe maker.
It's also a selective process. A person like Blaire White who happens to be a transgender women with the wrong political view is demonetized, but a person who does nothing but copy CNN videos and label them with extremist anti-Trump titles makes 100-200K a month from Youtube. That goes against Fair Use laws, in addition to being selective bias.
Perform a search for people who fly to the US for treatment from the UK, France, Canada, Spain, Denmark, Finland, all because their Healthcare is either not as good or takes months to get an appointment. Nobody is racing to Denmark for dental care, nobody is racing to Sweden for heart surgery, nobody is racing to France for cancer treatment, and nobody is racing to China or Germany for things like limb replacements. The only time people in the US leave is because the FDA does not approve treatments they consider to be experimental.
As I stated before there are problems with Health care but mainly related to Malpractice suits, Tort, and insane regulation. Fix those and costs go down. Instead of even touching those valid issues, you decided to just lie. You are a disgusting person.
Strange, because I have 3 relatives with epilepsy and they all get covered by the Government because they don't work normal jobs due to their conditions. Not a single one was ever turned down at the Hospital, not refused medication, not refused an ambulance when needed, and not refused care for medical reasons. Those three relatives are in 2 different States, so it's not a State doing something the Feds won't with Medicaid. Either you are an extremely well off person, or you are not telling the whole story.
The Free Market medical system produced the best Medical practices in the world. Why do you think all of the people wealthy enough to fly to the US from all of those great places you mention do so when they needed Medical care? But hey, if you think China's care is so great why don't you go live there and become a citizen. How about France or Denmark? Oh yeah, none of them would take you (go ahead and apply for citizenship so I can laugh at you).
Malpractice and it's insurance, tort, and other regulations have been the problem with our Health system. Those are all problems due to Government, not "free market".
Prior to massive regulations insurance was affordable. Competition ensured that it was. Blue Cross was the "primary" and best employer insurance, but not the only game in town. Pricing led to HAP and others gaining popularity as a cheaper alternative for people to get through their employers. I paid less than 500.00 a year for a policy during college since my employer didn't provide insurance. It wasn't great insurance, but I didn't need great insurance. I needed something to cover me if something bad happened. You know, the whole point of paying for this thing called insurance.
Once I finally got a job with insurance, my monthly contribution was triple what I paid for catastrophic, but still affordable. Until ACA, I was never employed at a place that didn't have at least 2 choices of provider. Today, even at the large companies you have 1 (except for CA where you can choose Kaiser).
Private insurance meant competition. you know, that thing that is totally lacking in the ACA where most areas have been reduced to 1 provider with no competition. Policies can't be formulated by providers now, the Government mandates everything in them. Catastrophic coverage does not exist.
If competition was allowed, people could simply receive vouchers for plans with competing agencies. Just like employers had. Choose the provider you like the best and the Government picks up the tab instead of the Government stifling competition for the whole market.
It's Congress's job to set the Budget, not the Presidents. The President provides budget recommendations.
Your post attempts to move the goal post away from GP and my response. Have something relevant to say on topic?
I believe an important distinction is that Gitmo was not closed after 8 years of promises and the President leaving office without it getting done. President Trump has been in officer for a hair over 60 days. First try failed, and probably for the better. The replacement Bill put forth by Ryan was horrible.
Do you think President Obama tried only once to get Gitmo closed? It was a broken promise because he never got it done after numerous tries. People claiming doomsday for President Trump are foolish. If he does not get it done during his Presidency we can re-evaluate.
Fox is wrong as much as the other guys. Sean Hannity was out telling everyone Ryan's healthcare was good. His saving grace is that he also pointed out some of the problems with how it was planned and rolled out. Trying to be in the middle should not be the goal, being right should be the goal. RINOs pushing the bill were not right, and the Democrats putting their heads in the sand and doing nothing except cheerleading after the bill could not get off the ground were not right. Working to fix a horrible bill would have been right.
The answer is something Trump said a couple weeks ago. The Federal Government should never have gotten involved in health insurance. The answer is quite simple really, but I doubt his advisers would begin to do the right thing. Answer: GTFO of healthcare and provide vouchers to people who can't afford it on their own. Let the market set the rates, not the Government.
The Democrats passed the ACA on a line of bullshit. People needing assistance is not a reason for the Government to take over a complete line of business as they did with ACA. The arguments were a false choice. One should notice key changes in rhetoric, like calling Government Assistance of all forms "entitlements" instead of what they are, and arguing that health insurance is a right. The latter is bullshit. People should be able to get healthcare when needed, but that is not the same thing as health insurance.
You are still wrong and simply demonstrating that you have an irrational position based on complete ignorance. Reading your other posts in the thread it's obvious that you have the same position as the other SJWs, denying any fact that counters that position and providing none of your own.
The prophetic nature of the book is not the main issue. The issue I pointed out is that there are a large number of people happy to express an opinion which is devoid of facts claiming that their non-factual fantasy is real.
You have put an exclamation point on that fact, demonstrating that you are happy to be one of the ignorant masses.
You didn't read the book either. Don't attempt to critique me on things I never wrote. There is no character Digby in "Atlas Shrugged." Yes, I know Fountainhead too, but it was an earlier work not as fully developed.
How do I know you didn't read it? Because you are not even near the mark on my comment regarding a delusional person claiming reality is false and their fantasy is real. It's about 1200 pages, and I highly recommend it. I have read Heinlein too, but he's was not a Philosopher.
You did miss the last 100 years of history. In fact you just missed history in general.
Communism does not make the people the owners of the fruits of their labors, it makes the bureaucrats the owners of the fruits of people's labor. Straight from the manifesto you find 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs' People are incentivized to be lazy and complacent, and just yell about how much stuff they need. Working harder than your neighbor does not get you more stuff and inventing new technology does not get you new stuff. Those two things can make you an enemy of your neighbors and get you jailed or killed.
Both Russia and China moved to a controlled form of a market economy. Stealing technology was not enough to keep them afloat, so they had to do something to incentivize people. The partial market is still the suck for people that live there, because if you do too well you are killed and the Government just takes your stuff anyway.
Discrimination in the workplace has been illegal since I was a kid in the 70s. This includes discrimination against women.
Oh I see, it's illegal so it doesn't ever happen. That's why I also never see anyone going over the speed limit. True story.
What a moronic statement. What It means that there should be plenty of court cases proving that discrimination exists if it was true. You see, those cases with guilty verdicts would be something we call facts. Facts are used to form valid opinions, and of course debate a position. The more fact you have, the better your opinion and the better one can debate their position.
In the case of people speeding, we do have these things called facts. Millions upon millions of tickets are on record proving that speeding happens. Do you notice the difference between Speeding tickets and Sexual harassment in the STEM workplace? I agree it would be harder to prove sexual harassment, but people like you who claim it's so common should be able to easily justify your opinion with a reasonable number of _facts_. Those would be guilty verdicts in discrimination cases.
It is quite remarkable that you believe, without any facts, that nasty men are all out to abuse women in the workplace. Even worse, when asked to present facts you hide, and ignore any fact that runs contrary to your fantasy. Sane people work differently. When presented with facts they perform research and adjust their opinions based on new information.
People like you walk around claiming that reality is false and your fantasy is reality. The more people like you I read the more I am amazed at how prophetic Ayn Rand was with "Atlas Shrugged". No, you never read it so don't bother with more lies. Yes, I was correct stating that you were not sane. (unless you are a shill being paid to spread the delusion, which I highly doubt.)
Asian males are penalized on the ACT and SAT for their race.
The woman was not an "applicant"... She was actively RECRUITED by Uber thru LinkedIn.
Doesn't that fact actually discount a large portion of the current claims of sexism?
Your second and third sentences have no basis in reality. There was a massive push to social welfare programs to assist women with College in the later 80s and 90s. This includes assistance with child care so that Single Moms (a massively grown demographic) could go to College and not worry about their kids. Hence the disparity we have today which has 61% of all College students being women. You can't be so delusional that you believe moving women up to 61% of all college students is the result of a year, or even a few years. Then again, it seems like you really can be that delusional.
Nearly 80% of the field is women. Men report being ridiculed by both patients and their female coworkers. Since women practice hypergamy men are not seen as much more than dating toys by most women in the field. Citations can easily be found.
"Any more" is a complete misnomer. When people claim the "good ole days" they neglect the fact that most women were busy at home raising families. The majority could not afford to work, or could not afford to work full time. Single and wealthy women worked full time, not usually women with families.
The State was not the primary path for raising kids in the 70s and early 80s, parents were. Due to both social pressure to put women into the workplace and another fine program pushing self happiness as the number one consideration in your actions (both social engineering) that is no longer true. A majority of people today are being raised by the State, but that's not the same as the good ole days you claim was so great.
There are countless factors involved in people's choices of careers, and society has changed drastically since the 70s and 80s.
So what is your expectation in an answer? Nothing you could provide as a rational explanation is simple. Meaning, the simple explanation of sexism is also wrong.