It depends on what you consider happiness. If Happiness means constantly slightly elevated dopamine levels as produced by non impairing drugs, yeah it's not going to do a damn thing. If by happiness you mean fulfilled by the work you do, no marital trouble at home, no crippling financial issues or personal crises outside of work taking attention away or requiring effort that leaves the employee sleep deprived, then yes it will make a huge difference. Happiness doesn't have some special effect in and of itself, but it is an indicator that problems that can creep into work time are manageable or nonexistent and that the person is a least somewhat motivated to do their work, which will produce much better results than the opposite circumstance.

Happy doesn't mean never ever stressed or unchallenged.

From the looks of it it seems that this ruling only applies to the data stored on phones, not information passing over the network. This doesn't apply to the mass surveillance of communications and it doesn't mean that the FISA courts aren't going to blanket approve every single warrant like they have been for the past several years. All this really means is the police can't search your phone when they arrest you or during a stop to gather evidence against without first getting a warrant. While this is definitely a step in the right direction it isn't nearly as wide reaching as you would think.

Only morons deal in absolutes, and horrible analogies and delusions of living in a fantasy world where we conquer nations steal the natural resources and sell them to fill the national coffers like we're in a fucking video game.

"I think" doesn't merit a call to action and "denied" and "seriously discouraged" are two very different things, one of which would merit direct action to change how the college admissions and job application processes work and one simply a discussion with the aim of changing perceptions on gender roles and fighting ethnic discrimination.

You're asking him to prove a negative which is impossible to do without exhaustively looking at every single woman and minority applying for tech related jobs and confirming that not a single case exists, which is absurd. What we can do fairly easily is look at the demographics of people applying for tech degrees and look at the rates at which those people are getting hired and what kind of salaries for like for like positions and like for like experience. Women as a whole apply for far fewer Computer Science degrees so it's expected that they would make up less of the workforce in those fields. If minorities are applying for fewer Computer Science degrees we would expect to see the same thing. Now, if there is evidence that minorities and women are meeting significant barriers to entry to get those degrees and motivated people are not being given an equal chance to get those degrees then we should take action to address that, but that comes long before blame can be laid at Google or Yahoo's feet. Not only that, but if certain demographics tend to show higher employment numbers that we aren't pushing to equalize the employment numbers in then by default we can't expect that we'd be able to equalize the numbers relative to population in other fields without the numbers equalizing there too. In summary, as long as people aren't being denied opportunities based on their ethnicity or gender then diversity for diversity's sake isn't helping anyone. We should be working on identifying the cases where people are being denied opportunities they want to take and taking action there.

I'm actually not opposed to getting rid of the notion of net neutrality in theory. If private entities want to invest in their own infrastructure, compete in an open market and provide a service at the cost and convenience of their choosing then so be it. However you don't get to take billions of public dollars, setup monopolies and then fuck over your customers who have no other options because you made sure they didn't.

No you're totally right. Today's DRM is impenetrable and will hold strong for a thousand years. And all those content creators I'm sure will maintain the DRM for centuries and both abandon their products and fight piracy of them at the same time.

If some more professional research and design was put into this it could be extremely useful for motorcyclists. When most people drive they're mostly just looking for other cars and a motorcyclist that looks extremely visible to a dashboard cam in the aftermath of an accident can easily go unnoticed by an inattentive driver. Something like a large red light bar at the top of the backpack that could triggered by the motorcycle's front and/or rear brake could give a night time rider a more similar profile to a car in poor light could them more noticeable and safer. Some work could be done to figure out what kind of profile any additional lights and patterns could be used to make them more noticeable too.

Go read the manifesto, it's completely batshit crazy and either Chu didn't read it or he's lying through his teeth. Rodgers talks about hate the whole notion of sex and removing the whole concept from the human experience, reducing women to a fraction of the population and hiding them away from all men, using them only for reproduction via artificial insemination. I don't know who you hang out with but I wouldn't exactly call that typical.

Seriously, the notion of rape culture is the most absurd and ignorant thing for anyone to suggest. If you are accused of rape publicly, every non sociopathic man and woman will scorn you forever, you'll lose your job, your friends and there's a good chance of mob justice taking you out before the legal system can if you aren't locked up right away. If you are convicted, the notion of rape being wrong is so innate that the murders and serial killers in jail will single you out as subhuman and likely take your life before long. To suggest that most men think rape is acceptable is to suggest most men don't have this same innate moral sense that you do. You have to convince your self that the majority of the male population is subhuman to hold the belief.

When the primary sources of the knowledge you are compiling are also rife with errors your articles will be full of errors as well. This isn't unique to wikipedia, all encyclopedias suffer from this.

woops wrong comment.

Unlike those fire proof gasoline powered cars.

You are incredibly naive. Non residential parking is not a service that sells itself. Parking is a service that facilitates getting to another service and when you mess with it you disrupt those services. When transportation costs get prohibitive it hurts business. Higher parking costs can price certain demographics out of an area which means businesses that target lower income consumers get hurt. There's a knock on effect that increases off road parking when street parking becomes more expensive because demand for it increases as the other becomes more scarce. Workers start to get priced out of certain areas when the cost of transportation makes their net income from their jobs lower.