Yes, it's called "Googling for images". (You didn't say "original".)
Is it really "deceive" or just following the rules as written?
... while doing a shite. Hathankyouverymuch,
Anyone paid less than $100k/year will be forced to the fringes of the city,
I make that in Chicago. I interviewed with Amazon and was amazed at the rents for smaller places. You might want to revise that minimum up
Timing is everything
Then why not equally focus on removing barriers in other lucrative fields, including CEO, where females are underrepresented? Play the whole piano, not just the STEM key.
Indeed. Even Her Majesty The Queen stopped sending telegrams a few years ago. A shame, really.
Your Monarch has, with great reluctance but a lingering sense of optimism, embraced modern communications, as it is nowadays one of a great many passing diversions into which the grandchildren seem to be. With this in mind the formal 'Queen's Telegram' has been revised to a streamlined, responsive format which I'm sure will meet with approval from the majority of citizens.
Now the day you turn 100 you get a single tweet from @HerMajLiz: 'lol u 2 old'
First post!
After seeing my development job outsourced to India in the early 2000's during an IT slump, I have no compulsion to steer my daughter into STEM. I hope she finds a career that she grows into and does well, STEM or not.
STEM is in demand at this spot in history, but I've learned the hard way it's subject to fads, bubbles, age discrimination, H1B's, and outsourcing.
Please tell me, why push women into such risk?
I suspect it's lobbyists trying to get cheaper IT labor for their plutocrat bosses by flooding the market. Feel welcome to convince me otherwise.
Your rudeness is not appreciated.
Aggregate historical data is better than nothing; but I'd just fire up Waze.
Google hasn't killed Waze off... yet.
I reckon teh intarwebs would be full of armchair experts spouting a ton of shite.
The bloggy post is in response to an article calling out organizations such as his. The main argument is the $1B/year spent on AGW FUD is really the sum total of those groups entire budgets, not just what they spend on trying to trick people into doubting that CO2 emitted by human activity is causing detrimental climate effects (which it is of course). How much of the budget? Why don't I just say 10% for no good reason. He then says environmental groups get $1.6B/year claiming thats almost entirely for pushing AGW. Thats the exact argument he JUST REFUTED IN HIS OWN BLOG! WTF?!
Good for the goose, good for the gander. If you're going to apply certain rules to one side, you need to apply the same rules to the other side. And you end up with it skewed towards the pro-AGW group.
With your bare hands?!?