Seems like the alarmists mods are out in force. I haven't seen a post above 2 that wasn't pro-AGW

Been there, done that.. If you're anything like the rest of the alarmist crowd, you'll just re-do the models, and claim you need another 15 years to falsify the new ones - which we should accept until they are proven wrong.

I remember day-dreaming about an MMO like this ages ago when they were just coming into the mainstream. I was thinking one based on Feist's "Hall of Worlds" concept. Each player would start on a pre-fabbed world, and after levelling a bit, make their way into the Hall, where they could connect to player-generated worlds which served as dungeons against which to test their skill. After progressing sufficiently, they could gain control of their own world, and create another dungeon to add to the Hall of Worlds.

Still think it'd be a good game; I'd like to play it.

That article's a strawman - it's debunking a claim that nobody made.

North Korea has a restricted number of haircuts that barbers are allowed to perform - 10 for men, and 18 for women. That's not in doubt, that article even referenced the fact.

The new claim was that the number of allowed haircuts for men was being reduced to 1. That doesn't mean the everyone in the country had to rush out and get their hair cut, it means that the next time they get their haircut, they will be forced to take a Kim Jong-un cut.

So the fact that a bunch of visitors haven't seen a sudden growth in Jong-un-style haircuts neither proves nor disproves the original claim.

No, it's because "Arrgh! We're all going to die!" sells more newspapers than "Nothing's happening here, folks".

You do realise there's a difference between "unmanned" and "autonomous" don't you?

He "hesitated", and then (according to her) started abusing her on commit messages, and pulling her code out. It was the that, not the "hesitation" that I was labelling as "not handling it well".

It seems the lion's share of the problem was a founder's psychotic wife, who basically stalked her - which doesn't seem to have anything to do with gender discrimination, and all to do with one person being a nut-job.

Of the other issues she raised:
* Another engineer made a pass at her, got rejected, and didn't handle the rejection will.
* Some girls were hula-hoop dancing, and guys were watching them

The first issue might have been a problem, but if it was at all proportionate to the page-space dedicated to discussing it, it sounds like a fairly minor issue, and one that should really be able to be solved by HR. The second is just, well, petty. Sounds like she'd made up her mind to hate the place by that stage, and was finding fault with every little thing.

Nobody said abolish; they said limit their powers. And yes, states government's powers should be more limited than their constituent cities, for precisely the reasons you list.

It's not that state politicians are more moral; it's that their power is more limited. Less power = less corruption - and they have 49 competitors, which are relatively trivial to move between (compared to moving to a different country, anyway).

I'm the dim one, when apparently you cannot perform basic comprehension. I was questioning why 50 poor people getting rich was considered a bad thing, not why it was considered inequality.

Blah, blah, blah, off-topic ranting on "trickle-down" economics that has nothing to do with what I posted. I guess a keyword in my post must have tripped a spinal reflex, or something.

50 people getting a split of $19b is seen as a bad thing because it "increases inequality". Why? Would the rest of the area be better off if those 50 people were still poor? It was a transfer of wealth from Facebook's war chest to 50 individuals - the money wasn't taken from the rest of the population. Surely the measure of increasing prosperity should be how much your buying power has grown, rather than the fact that someone down the street's buying power increased more than yours.

Good, so you agree with me.

All I said was that saying "slums are not safe" does not imply "slum-dwellers are subhuman". All the rest was you projecting, and a mighty fine job you did of it, too.

No, you re-wrote what the OP said. He didn't say "unfit for human habitation" he implied that they were living in a place unsafe for human habitation.

That doesn't mean the occupants aren't human - it means that they're living a place that isn't safe. This is fairly basic English language comprehension.

Which has what to do with your claim that the OP implied that poor people aren't human, exactly?