I find it interesting we are bashing tech (AGAIN).

If you look at the Fortune 500, there are 5.2% women CEOs.
If you look at the Fortune 500 tech companies, there are 8% women CEOs.
If you look at the Fortune 500 non-tech companies, there are 2.8% women CEOs.

(1) Tell me again how this is a tech problem, and not a systemic problem.
(2) Tell me again that tech is not on the right trajectory, compared to all other businesses.
(3) Tell me again how tech is not more progressive than every other business sector.

By all means, lets go back to bashing tech, the only place where this social issue is being redressed in any meaningful fashion. I'm sure there will be absolutely no backlash from beating them up over something they are actually doing something about, while giving everyone else who is doing *NOTHING* about the issue is given a pass.

It's not like tech is full of people who are familiar with how bullying works... the actual bullies *ALWAYS* get a pass.

Actually... No.

You are incorrectly assuming that the per-employee cost for hourly employees to the business for 3 x 30 hr/wk is the same as for 2 x 45 hr/wk. It's not. There is cost loading to the business in the form of unfunded government mandates, such as employer provided medical insurance, workers comp, social security, and so on.

As a specific example, there's a social security tax cap, and employers must match employee contributions. What this effectively means is that if I have 2 employees, my business is out of pocket (2 x CAP) in matching funds, and the rest of my income is mine, whereas if I have 3 employees, I am out of pocket (3 x CAP). This is generally true of all capped max-out-of-pocket employer matching.

Similar capped match values include 401K matching contributions, Medicare.

Other per-employee costs include state unemployment tax, federal unemployment tax, workers compensation insurance, paid holidays, vacations, and sick days, profit sharing plans, direct pension contribution, post-retirement health insurance contributions.

This ignores non-shared resources, like office space for individual employees simultaneously at the business, business equipment costs per employee, furniture, electricity for their computers, and so on.

So it costs a hell of a lot more for a business to employ 3 people than it does for them to employ 2 people.

Your math does not work.

They're not paid a smaller fraction of the proceeds.

(1) The proceeds are "after taxes, medical, and other costs", all of which are higher

(2) A substantial amount of the productivity increase money has gone into subsidizing cost reduction to the eventual consumer. Think "everyday low prices at Walmart"

Thank you for being more productive, comrade; lettuce is now cheaper, and even though you personally don't eat lettuce, know that your efforts are appreciated by those who do.

As in "The walls will wobble, but they won't fall down"?

We should launch a massive research effort, figure out the strongest possible password, and make everyone use that.

Digital Single Market ?!?

Tell me: why do they want to build a dating site again?

That way *all* the factories can go to China and *all* the call centers can go to India! Yay!

Greece just called... they say they're waiting for their credit approval to go through...

Why is google listed?

They aggregate and anonymize the data before they sell it; it's just statistical information at that point.

You agree to some pretty draconian rules when you get a Q clearance. One of them is submitting any future publications for review, with the understanding that they will be censored of any classified material. At issue here is whether or not information which is already public should be considered classified, just because they're too lazy to declassify information which has already been disclosed.

In this particular case, not only was the information they are upset about disclosed, a lot more information was disclosed on top of it. I remember the particular article which disclosed it, since it was in an August 1982 journal discussing how to build X-Ray lasers for SDI using exactly the technology under discussion. Instead of putting a baffle between the halves of the device and your fusion fuel at the second focus, at the second focus you put an EMP target that then uses tin and lead tubes containing wires to use the EMP to power the X-Ray lasers. I think I have a copy of it around my house (somewhere), because it's the same issue that announced energy break-even for hot fusion in Tokamak 2, which I though was a pretty cool thing.

So the info has been out there at least 32 1/2 years.

His problem is that he has prior restraint agreements with some pretty nasty teeth in them.

You're right. He's thinking small.

Personally, I simply don't need a bunch of big plastic tchotschkies, no matter how fast I can print them.

Cheese it, it's the Feds!

Everyone hide your Beryllium-Pollonium detonators and your K-alpha reflector cavities, and act natural, for God's sake!

He had one at the time he helped invent the things. Yes, it's *THAT* Dr. Kenneth W. Ford who is the author we are talking about.

No, it's a worked out long form math problem unique to the test that was passed back out the window, and an answer received. The educational material was there.

Whoever heard of an asinine, progress retarding lawsuit coming out of East Texas before?

Anyone?