We had 0.
Then Mr Duncan arrived. We had 1.
Then Mr Duncan died. We had 0.
Then the nurse tested positive. We have 1.
You're an idiot. If you have to play those kinds of semantic games in order to avoid counting above 1, please just avoid participating.
Let's see: total number of Ebola Patients in the U.S. is
You didn't bother reading the summary or the article, did you? Not just 1, Mr. Duncan. The next victim is the trained, well-equipped health care professional who - despite having far better protection and awareness than the vast majority of people in the world - just tested positive for having caught the virus from him.
What's your point in ignoring that glaring little dose of reality?
social conservatism isn't going to survive the next 3 decades.
Prognosticators have been predicting the end of social conservatism for 50 years.
You will not live to see our end.
LK.
The headline is quite inaccurate. The processors are doing what they're designed to do; approximate the results of certain operations to a "good enough" value to achieve an optimal result:work ratio. Sort of like how the NFL measures first-downs with a stick, a chain, and some eyeballs rather than bringing in a research team armed with scanning electron microscopes to tell us how many Planck lengths short of the first down they were.
This is a documentation failure. They're fixing the documentation. For anyone who would actually care about perfect accuracy in these kinds of operations, there are any number of different solutions to achieve the desired, more accurate result. The headline and the summary make it seem as though there's a problem with the processor which is simply incorrect.
There's a simple way of dealing with that. Don't be a racist nut job. Have actual valid reasons for your positions and keep the outrage to a reasonable level.
Coming from a person of color, far too often accusations of racism are used to silence legitimate dissent and debate.
Having valid reason and articulable concerns will not be enough to protect anyone from charges of racism.
We shouldn't be allowing anyone to enter this country if they have been to a country with an outbreak of any hemorrhagic disease in the past 90 days. For now, that means certain west African nations. The people in Zambia are every bit as black as the ones in Liberia and THEY aren't letting Liberians in.
Obama himself isn't a lefty, he's a moderate right politician. It's just the racism that blinds so many right wing nutjobs to what Obama is actually doing.
Depends on your politics. If you're an anti-war lefty, there's not much difference between Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush or Reagan.
If you're a small government righty, again, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Reagan aren't much different.
Me, I'm a fiscal moderate and a social conservative. There are lightyears between Obama and Bush, from my perspective.
LK
Financing can be cheaper than cash depending on the rate and the rate of inflation.
In the US, more poeple have died of gunshot wounds in the last month than have died from Ebola since it was discovered. Let's not talk about rational, effective responses from conservatives.
Yes, and far more people die every in the US from being beaten to death by killers using fists and blunt instruments than have died by killers using rifles of any kind, let alone the small number that involved scary looking rifles with black plastic parts on them. So what? Someone deciding to kill someone else - with a knife, a pipe, a gun, or their bare hands - isn't nearly as common as stupid kids killing themselves and others in cars, but mostly: it's an active decision. There's no comparing that to an outbreak of an ugly infectious disease, especially one with a high mortality rate that can kill you weeks after pick it up from someone's spit on a doorknob.
You want rational responses to both topics? OK, don't let violent criminals out of jail. Don't tolerate the existence of violent gangs like MS13 in our cities, and stop making it so politically incorrect to lock up crazy people who are plainly dangerous. And of couse, find ways to reduce one of the largest sources of death-by-gun stats, which is suicide - like, make Oregon's option more widely available. And in the meantime, work globally to stop travel out of West Africa until their outbreak problem is under control.
But these 716 women who had made it past all that shit and were working in the tech sector found that once you get there, it sucks to be in a job where you're treated poorly because you're a woman, or you feel isolated because everybody else is a guy.
There are exceptions. My sister is a successful electronics engineer. But she works in a big company where she's not the only woman. She might have left the industry too if she had worked her first job in a smaller company where it was all men except her.
So.... the problem is still in the pipeline? If suddenly, tomorrow, there were twice as many women as men in the tech pipeline and that continued for a decade, which of the things these 716 women identified as problems in the industry would continue? Being the only woman? Rarely. Being treated poorly because you're a woman? Unlikely when more of them are working there. Your sister is actually the counter-example to the Forbes article: put more women into play and suddenly the culture is no longer an issue.
"Here's something to think about: How come you never see a headline like `Psychic Wins Lottery.'" -- Comedian Jay Leno
