Does that happen because open-minded people will tend to form more inclusive groups AND perform better, or because switching up sexual orientation and skin color makes people perform better? That is, do inclusiveness and higher performance merely coincide together with the third variable of open-mindedness, or does inclusiveness itself trigger higher performance?
unless Svensgaard vetoes it...
I agree. Nationalized universal healthcare must be accompanied by fat-shaming (and smoking-shaming, non-exercise-shaming, etc). If you're squandering other people's healthcare resources, you should be motivated in every way possible into correcting your ways.
Also, people owning worthless games nobody likes because they were bundled in with that one awesome one.
Free speech makes verbal abuse (and the subsequent self-harm/suicides) more efficient. Outlawing certain phrases and forcing people to use inoffensive words makes bullying exhausting.
Ah. Thanks for clearing that up, and same to everyone below.
How can a problem with a backup computer on the ISS impact supply delivery by a SpaceX capsule from Earth?
Not to mention Russia does not have, and has never had, a moon capable launch vehicle (inb4 N1 explosion pictures), which means if the US has to pretty much start again from scratch to get people to the moon, the Russians are even further behind.
Where is the unit workshop? Just a bs reskin without unit workshop.
It has been pointed out previously in the comments section of The Crimson that such an act of divestment would be only symbolic. The reason is that publicly traded shares only fund a company in its initial sale during the IPO (which, for oil companies, was decades ago at the very least). All subsequent trades of shares only impact valuation of the company. Harvard's divestment would take down the price of an oil company stock by a fraction of a fraction of a dollar* which means any purchases or sales of assets using shares in the near term subsequent to this divestment would require a fraction of a fraction more shares, which, in the grand scheme of things is meaningless.
*in all likelihood the investment managers would try to divest in portions to minimize losses, so the price movement might be even closer to zero.
manly tears
Take the attack itself. What does it accomplish to deface an American's newspaper's website?
The article doesn't say anything about defacement, it actually says that journalists themselves were the targets. I assume being able to penetrate a journalist's work account is one of the first steps to either subsequently penetrating that journalist's personal accounts elsewhere, or to build a profile in order to create false identity elsewhere. The first could be used to reveal current sources, and the latter could be used to ensnare future sources.
Everyone is on high alert to stopping their own Snowden event, and I think that's a far simpler and more relevant explanation than "USA is trying to frame other countries by defacing its own news site"
Here's what usually goes down around
- Republican caught in wrongdoing -> Republicans are wrong and bad
- Democrat caught in wrongdoing -> The System (TM) is wrong and bad
To make the Kosovo analogy work, you would need to establish that Ukraine acted against Crimean Russians in a way comparable to how Yugoslavia acted against Kosovan Albanians.
It happens every single time another country is in the negative spotlight.
They speak as if USA invented meddling.
You'd be hard-pressed to find these so-what-if-x-does-it-y-did-it-too arguments back in 2002 and 2003. I don't believe any of these people brought up Soviet/British invasion of Afghanistan to dismiss criticism of the US, so the only conclusion one can draw is that they are not actually concerned with morality, just with who is violating the morality.
Neutrinos have bad breadth.
