If there is a skills shortage, that means wages are not rising sufficiently. Nobody here has taken Econ 101, apparently.
Here is the definition of an economic shortage: "In economic terminology, a shortage occurs when for some reason (such as government intervention, or decisions by buyers not to raise prices) the price does not rise to reach equilibrium."
At elite universities, it's pretty standard for all exams to be open book, because what they're testing is not something you can just copy from a book. But then again, I went to school before the internet became big.
American immigration policy was extremely restricted several decades ago, only letting in doctors and such. That probably has more to do with it.
It's more Asian to never study (because school is a joke and boring and easy) than to study hard.
What? No, that's not the point. The point is government is supposed to regulate the abuse of monopoly power, not create monopoly power with regulations.
99% of the useless noise in commentariat debates about controversial topics is *distraction* which attempts to censor descriptions/observations/facts by simply changing the topic to a whataboutism or some other kind of distraction.
A wiki that gave a place for every point to be made would fundamentally solve this censor-by-distraction problem on internet forum debates. It would have to be refuted or confirmed on its own merits, without changing the topic with a distraction, thereby fixing 99% of the problems arising from bias.
How does the lack of interest in something that geeky boys like in any way fall under the responsibility of those geeky boys, who have no influence over what non-geeky boys are interested in? It obviously does not, and that is why claims that it does fall under their responsibility sound absurd to us geeky boys.
Writing walls of text without paragraphs is called lacking literary manners. The people I know who do it are the intellectual equivalent of obese people.
There's more to the value of labor than how much education someone has. I know it's hard for you to imagine what those other factors could be, but just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It's quite dogmatic to simply assume that there is no more to non-dogmatic critical thinking than common sense, or that common sense itself is not often dogmatic.
Slashdot Mirror
That implies they care about anything more than short term profits.
If there is a skills shortage, that means wages are not rising sufficiently. Nobody here has taken Econ 101, apparently. Here is the definition of an economic shortage: "In economic terminology, a shortage occurs when for some reason (such as government intervention, or decisions by buyers not to raise prices) the price does not rise to reach equilibrium."
Facts cannot be sexist. They are either accurate or inaccurate.
The plot makes more sense than The Phantom Menace.
At elite universities, it's pretty standard for all exams to be open book, because what they're testing is not something you can just copy from a book. But then again, I went to school before the internet became big.
'We devils should', not 'us devils should'. The way you know is you say 'we should' and not 'us should'.
Samsung Galaxy S5 got Lollipop yesterday.
You like Titanic and Avatar more than Serenity, we get it.
American immigration policy was extremely restricted several decades ago, only letting in doctors and such. That probably has more to do with it. It's more Asian to never study (because school is a joke and boring and easy) than to study hard.
Or beer.
It's not like Khan was his family name and people called him Mr. Khan.
What? No, that's not the point. The point is government is supposed to regulate the abuse of monopoly power, not create monopoly power with regulations.
99% of the useless noise in commentariat debates about controversial topics is *distraction* which attempts to censor descriptions/observations/facts by simply changing the topic to a whataboutism or some other kind of distraction.
A wiki that gave a place for every point to be made would fundamentally solve this censor-by-distraction problem on internet forum debates. It would have to be refuted or confirmed on its own merits, without changing the topic with a distraction, thereby fixing 99% of the problems arising from bias.
Car hacking is real, they can make a journalist's Mercedes in Los Angeles accelerate so it crashes into a tree and explodes. Hypothetically.
> How can you have emotion or desire without consciousness?
You can't, emotion and desire are subjective experiences by definition and consciousness is subjectivity or subjective-experience itself.
How does the lack of interest in something that geeky boys like in any way fall under the responsibility of those geeky boys, who have no influence over what non-geeky boys are interested in? It obviously does not, and that is why claims that it does fall under their responsibility sound absurd to us geeky boys.
Libertarians in practice are just conservatives without the context of history and social forces.
Writing walls of text without paragraphs is called lacking literary manners. The people I know who do it are the intellectual equivalent of obese people.
It seems to have backfired though, after Rantic was outed.
There's more to the value of labor than how much education someone has. I know it's hard for you to imagine what those other factors could be, but just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Slaves don't have opportunities to work as non-slaves. What on earth are you talking about.
We never know what anything is (noumena), we only know what it does (phenomena).
Good point. The article mis-labelled as "others have fallen for the Wave hoax" doesn't mention anything about anybody actually falling for it.
The "conversation" before Snowden was establishment voices calling people like us tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists.
It's quite dogmatic to simply assume that there is no more to non-dogmatic critical thinking than common sense, or that common sense itself is not often dogmatic.