You really have no idea what logic is, do you. You've confused micro for macro and can't even see it in yourself. Yet for anyone who has studied economics, it's clear that the opportunity cost of everything is all the other opportunities that the same could have purchased. In other words, the price of building a new bridge is all the other options, like resurfacing the roads, building a school, or adding an extra lane to a well-travelled highway.

When we say there was a lost opportunity in economics, it doesn't mean anything like what you seem to believe.

I love this asshole. Yes, please give up one of the few things left to Americans; their pitifully short number of vacation days. Instead, stay at home. Like we don't work hard enough already. Wanna know what most people fly to? Not to have fun, but to go see family. They do it to go see the people they love. That's what Americans do on their rare time off. And this asshole says "Americans are sheep".

Yeah. Sure. Okay. Maybe they're just working themselves to death trying to live paycheck to paycheck because 85 people in the world control more wealth than the next 3.5 billion: And guess where over half of those 85 people live? Go on, guess.

You don't blame the people at the bottom for the excesses of those at the top; That's called being a douchebag. Put the blame right where it belongs: At the top.

The military will deny that the misconduct in any way affected the ability of the military to maintain or operate the missiles.
Thus...
Why are officers having to cheat on an exam if it's already been demonstrated they are competent?
Conclusion:
The tests were probably irrelevant and/or too difficult relative to the task they were assigned. In other words, the test was defective, not the soldiers.

Sir, my point was that when we deny someone an opportunity, a door is closed. We'll never know for sure what the damage is, it's incalculable. But we can be assured that by doing something they don't love, they'll be less motivated and contribute less. They produce less, and thus society derives less benefit. When you multiply this by millions of people who are discriminated against, you can see that there's a significant loss of productivity. The example of a cure for cancer or a better CPU architecture was just that, an example. We'll never know, for example, how much more technology and scientific advancement we would have gotten out of Niccoli Tesla if he hadn't been hunted by the government and pursued by the giant douchebag known as Thomas Edison, but we can be sure we missed out on things.

No, I think you misunderstand: Men in STEM fields make $18.900 more per year than wome in STEM fields.

Yes, well... I suppose if Job A makes $100,000 a year and Job B makes $20,000 a year, if 50 people from Group A are in Job A, and 50 people from Group B are in Job B, then we have no reason to suggest that something could be amiss here.

I wasn't aware that the law was the only way someone could be discriminated against. Thanks for reminding me of that. I retract all previous statements. We licked that whole racist problem the day we made it illegal. Nothing to see here, move along.

Yes, I can understand how judging people on the basis of the abilities, instead of their sex organs, could be a confusing concept to some.

When we judge people only by the strength of their contributions, and give them equal opportunity to pursue the fields of their choice, then we have met our social obligation. But until our expectations of others are truly equal, any answer to this question will simply reflect our own prejudices.

The statistics are that women make up nearly 52% of the general population. They make up 53% of all college graduates. Yet they make up an average of just 15% in STEM fields. On average, they make just $58,000 a year compared to $85,000 for men. And while on average, women have been improving their numbers in STEM fields, it's gone the other way in IT; Women received 29.6 percent of computer science B.A.â(TM)s in 1991, compared with 18.2 percent in 2010. Up here in Minnesota where I live, women make up less than 5% of senior IT positions.

You say "Who cares" and that gets you a big +5, and that should be a big +500 indicator of why the problem is so huge. It's precisely because of attitudes like this. You should care. Right now, some black person out there might have the cure for cancer, but society will never get it because he didn't have the money to finish college. Right now, some woman out there has a solution in her head that'll take CPU performance to the next level because of a radical new way of thinking about the problem, but she went into nursing instead.

Every time you create an inequality in society, we all lose out. You should care because putting the most qualified person in a position where they can do the most good, benefits all of us more than the unequal way things are done today.

Do women deserve special consideration? No. Do women deserve equal consideration? Yes! Your post makes it plain exactly what's wrong with our industry: You've confused one for the other, and you don't even see it in your own comments. It's easy for a woman to see, but for a man, if this little microcosm on an internet forum is any indication, it's quite difficult. Nobody until now even pointed out the incongruency.

And in the first sentence, you completely lost all your credibility. Did anyone say it wasn't true? Did I say those things were less harmful than alcohol? No. Nothing like that was said. What I was saying was the drugs that are equally or less harmful than already legal drugs should not be illegal. That's it. That's all. I never said which drugs.

Learn to read, bud.

They can just plant a pirated movie. Stiffer fine. Point is, the arguments for criminalization are based on a lie: Properly regulated, there wouldn't be any more harm from most of these drugs than what you can do getting piss drunk.... which is legal. Until they ban alcohol, anything less dangerous than that is a disengenuous argument; It's hypocricy.

I think the takeaway here is this man is neither terribly detail-oriented nor well-suited for his line of work. Things like date of manufacture, make and model, I/O amount, number of power cycles, environment, etc., are all obvious things to record to an experienced IT person. He appears to have done very little of that. He is a bean counter pretending to be an engineer.

There's a small difference: When you fuck up in a game, nobody trusts you anymore. This guy has a lot to answer for, and chances are good he won't be in a leadership position much longer. Those losses are just gone, and only the people who followed him pay for it, nobody else.

In real life, you can fuck up a lot and everyone else but you pays for it. Nobody's gonna pay this guy billions as a bonus for screwing up.

Suddenly, a wild lawyer appeared and that poster was never heard from again. Well, anyway. Tarantino hasn't thought things through... or rather, he's stubbornly short sighted and cares only about item 8 on your list. But here's the problem: The moment you take away fair use like this, published or not, copyrighted or not, you pretty much make an end of democracy. What a bold claim! Surely you must be trolling! Except I'm not: How do you think a democracy can exist if the population is illiterate and doesn't know anything about anything because it's suddenly illegal to talk about? Because that's what copyright will do if it's left unchecked: Everything can be copyright, and if you eliminate fair use, then what's left is a tax on all communication, thought, ideas, and exchanges. There is no more public domain, and people may not even be entitled to speak their own words in public because those can be copyrighted too. Now it becomes a case of only those with money can speak, write, etc.

No work of art is worth losing your entire cultural identity for.

Yes, the "slanderous" claim... that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. Firstly, for it to be slander, it would have to be untrue. Alas... as you just said, it is totally, completely, and utterly true. Oops!

They don't "interfere with the game's economy"? A month's worth of game time costs $9.95... a plex costs about $15 and does the same thing in game. And since Sir You Obviously Weren't There has forgotten... players protested en masse in a place in game called "Jita" over this "pay to win" model, many quit, and the server crashed several times as they tried (and succeeded) to overload the blade the busiest system in game. So yeah, please stop drinking the koolaid... Eve is a very interesting game, but CCP can and does make mistakes. Big ones. Stackless Python for the backend comes to mind... necessitating this "time dilation" they speak of... which is really code for "The server's so fucking overloaded everything's running like shit."

Depends. Most serious eve players have multiple accounts. Some have them backed by credit card, some don't. It isn't strictly necessary thanks to PLEX to actually pay to use the game... some do, some don't.