That's not true. Using a matter/anti-matter annihilation drive, you can get to the nearest star at 1g acceleration with just 10 kg of fuel for each kg of payload. Now, it's true we don't have such an engine, but we do have (a tiny amount of) anti-matter, and the energy output is 100% efficient. So it's a known power source which can provide sustained acceleration with only about 10x the fuel to payload ratio, maybe a bit more to make up for a less than perfectly efficient thrust engine.

Or gold mining! Yea, that's the ticket to get the prospectors out there to colonize the place. Interstellar gold rush!

Sure, but it assumes the user either locked the phone before pocketing it, and/or the timer locked the screen before the dial/tweet/email happened.

Correct. Smart phones tend to butt-email or butt-tweet instead.

We had a contractor here one time that brought in a portable AP. It was set to broadcast the SSID which was "I Shoot Kids". This was shortly after the Sandy Hook incident. The admin called security and he was ejected permanently.

I just checked my spam folder again. I reserved a U-Haul, and the email confirming that reservation went to spam. One of the few false positives I get, but there are others.

What's interesting is all the political fund-raising emails. Only the conservative ones end up in Spam (Campaign for Liberty, Conservative Senate committee, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Mark Mix, etc.). That's fine - I don't really want to see those emails anyway. Yet, I get lots of the same emails from Hillary Clinton, Obama, Harry Reid, common good VA, Virginia Dems, Webb 2016, etc, and NONE of those left-leaning groups or politicians get sent to Spam. 0. That seems a little odd - I didn't do any filter training based on that. So does Google's spam filter have a political leaning?

I know, right? If only SE VA would implement more liberal policies. Worked great in Detroit - err Baltimore, MD., err I mean Chicago.. NVM

More likely, they don't give a crap about that, they just want to pay as little money as possible, that's their only goal.

This latest effort is just an attempt to deflect criticism of the gender mix in their own workforce, by blaming the "unconscious bias" in educators and parents for their inability to find qualified females for their workforce. It's closer to the truth to say that the cheap Indian and Chinese labor they want is mostly made up of men, very much more so than the field of US candidates.

Are you sure it wasn't the kool-aid? Or did this magical transformation in opinion occur when you had to start working for a living?