No. I was just stating what I thought should be in the quote.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

how many lost because they had been using AbiWord, LibreOffice Writer, or some other non-Microsoft word processing application?

I'd guess zero, but even if it were all 17, if the job requires the use of Microsoft Word, then the company is going to look to hire someone who knows how to use Microsoft Word.

Seconded.

I very much prefer to have all work-related communication done via email, or at the very least, an instant messenger of some sort.

I like having a written record of the conversation that I can refer to later. Face-to-face/phone conversations or online video-chat conferences leaves too much reliance on human memory and hand-written notes. Or an audio/video recording of the meeting that I'd have to sit through AGAIN when I didn't want to sit through it the first time.

I get phone calls from people all the time, and most of the time I tell them, please just write me an email.

Would you sit through Creationism 101 as required curriculum for a science degree (paying for it as part of tuition of course) with no objections?

Why would Creationism 101 be part of a science degree? I might be expected to sit through that class for a theology degree at a religious school.

If you want to study science, then study science. Keep anti-science religion out of it.

Maybe you're not smart enough to realize how that could put you in trouble, perhaps you don't remember any time when the elderly were stuck too ill to work, and they were unable to get a pension, or save things up, maybe you think they deserved it, and you know you can plan for the future yourself...but you know what? Other people are more practical and thoughtful, and realize that the whole outweighs the whining few.

First off, I'll say I'm not one of those "destroy social security" types, and I have no problem with social programs. One issue I do have with social security is that everyone is entitled to it, whether they need it or not. What would be wrong with reforming it so only people who actually need social security get paid by it?

What I mean by that: the way to play Morrowind and Oblivion was to build a "custom" character class designed specifically to AVOID leveling up, with certain major skills deliberately left aside to only be used (hand-to-hand, shield, etc) when you were ready to sit down and level. Otherwise, you'd screw your stats by leveling too fast, too hard, with too many skills left in the dust until you found yourself facing enemies that were far too powerful for you to handle.

IIRC, Morrowind didn't have monsters that leveled up with you. It had it's own set of leveling issues, like it became impossible to level up any more or increase stats beyond a certain point, but I was able to play and enjoy Morrowind without focusing too much on gaming the leveling system.

With Oblivion, I completely screwed up a few games and wasted many hours by leveling "incorrectly" and running into exactly the problem you described. Plus I generally disliked the idea of leveling up but the monsters kept up with me- why bother leveling up if I'm just going to be running in place?

Actually, what TEA Party members want is less government power. The example you ares seeing in China is fine example of why less government is a good idea. See, the all-powerful government that leftists like you want allows a government to set up all the regulations required to keep a population safe from those evil capitalist pigs. Unfortunately, it includes government power to choose who to apply those regulations to and when.

China may have a strong government, but they're not using that government power to enforce any environmental regulation. At all.

The comparison of the Tea Party/Libertarians to China is their desire to remove all government enforcement of environmental regulations, thus turning the landscape into a polluted nightmare resembling China... which you would know if you weren't deliberately missing the point.

It's not that human workers are competing with machines, but that human workers are competing with cheaper human workers.

I'd say it's both. As far as a business is concerned, they don't really care how a job gets done, they just want it to be done as cheaply as possible for an acceptable level of quality. If that can be done with a machine, they'll do it with a machine. If that means outsourcing to a cheaper labor pool, they will outsource.

The gap is bigger now than a few decades ago, but that's not because of increased use of robots. It's because we're running out of oil that fuels them (also a few other reasons, but that's too far off-topic). And when wealth is decreasing, those who have power can make sure their share isn't affected.

But wealth isn't decreasing- it continues to increase for those who already have wealth and power. It's not like they're feeling the pinch of dwindling resources too. They're becoming vastly more rich, at an ever accelerating rate, while the majority of people are seeing their real income and purchasing power decrease.

It hasn't? Take a look around.
We're in an era where workers are extraordinarily productive, yet average wages keep falling, and the wealth of the ownership class has increased massively.

You could also think of industrial machines like agricultural slaves in US history.
Push down the wages of the free workers, enrich the large plantation holders, impoverish many more people who can't compete with what is essentially extraordinarily cheap labor.

You don't know any countries that import water?
In the UK Evian and Volvic are two popular brands of bottled water that come from France. I've even seen bottled water from Fiji, despite having a plentiful supply of water ourselves.

As soon as I posted, I realized someone would point that out. This kind of imported water is a luxury item, not massive quantities of drinking water to maintain a population.

Unlikely. Nearly all population growth is occurring in developing countries. They would handily lose any war with the industrialized countries where most of the food is grown and consumption takes place. Most industrialized countries are at or near zero growth, with some experiencing negative growth (they are shrinking in population).

A few issues with that theory:
1. Wars could break out between neighboring developing countries, it doesn't necessarily have to be about food. It might be about water, for example, which is more likely to be locally scarce if there is a high demand on it. Some countries import a lot of food- I don't know any that import water.

2. "They would handily lose any war with the industrialized countries..." Sure, so the developing countries won't necessarily pick a fight with the industrialized countries, but they do tend to have resources (oil, etc.) that the industrialized countries want/need, so the industrialized countries may very well pick a fight to gain access to the resources.

$150k clearly goes a lot farther in your fantasy world than in reality.

Maybe if you spend your money like a drunken sailor, then yeah. If you exercise some judgment and restraint in your spending, $150k should go pretty damn far no matter where you live.

The area in the US with the highest median household income is City of Falls Church, Virginia: $113,313.

$150k puts you well above average in even the richest community in America.

"Daggerfall? that game was horrible broken pile of crap"
"Morrowind and Oblivian where plain and the art was boring"

Wow, you must really be looking forward to Skyrim then!