White males are the one group that it's tacitly deemed "okay" to discriminate against. Especially if they happen to be Christian, and even more so if they're Protestant ("WASP").

You just can't have a civil, enlightened society if there's ANY grounp it's okay to fuck with. Even if you think they deserve it. Even if retaliation, based on group identity, against those who didn't personally decide historical events (with their enduring consequences) is somehow your idea of "justice", and simultaneously not your idea of "vengeance". Reversing the tide doesn't cause the state of "tide-free". And it isn't going to.

Otherwise, like if a single individual -- or single institution -- or small group of institutions -- made all these bad decisions, I would be perfectly fine with shunning and refusing to trust that person based on an observed track record. But what you have with the group-guilt scenario is this implicit idea that a large group of people, including those who had no input into the process, should bear some guilt for it. That's a total flat-out rejection of any sort of accountability or individuality.

If you want some kind of one-ness or collective, you don't get it this way. Dystopias are created by trying to find more efficient ways of doing it like that. No, you start by honoring the individual and letting those flourish, interact, and coalesce as they will.

Lesson learned for how to draw up future contracts, I guess.

Hahaha - if the contracts were designed to produce on-time, on-budget they would be written that way (fixed price, fixed requirements, penalties for late delivery). Their intended purpose is quite the opposite of that. If something useful happens to be generated in the process of funneling money from taxpayers to the MIC, so much the better excuse for the next contract.

I've yet to witness a Majority which was truly Moral in both word and deed.

I prefer red wine, myself. Like maybe a good, dry cabernet sauvignon. But to each their own! Enjoy that beer, my friend. Salud!

I wouldn't hire them anyway, based in sheer incompetence. The most readily observed incompetence: calling oneself an "editor" while remaining unable to spell-check or understand and apply the 5th-grade English grammar in which most news stories are deliberately written.

The problem is, the workaholics and institution types effectively have forced their ways on everyone else. Worker productivity has steadily risen since at least the 1950s, meanwhile wages (indexed against inflation) have remained relatively stagnant. That would be equitable if the number of hours worked per week had been reduced, but it hasn't (that, by the way, is what steadily improving technology could have brought us, but it's never enough, the owners want more, more more).

That means someone's getting screwed, and unless most of your revenue comes from investments or other unearned income, that includes you. If you don't work the overtime and place your corporation above your family, you're "not a team player". Because these are conflicting goals, they cannot all be simultaneously satisifed. One must be chosen at the expense of all others, meaning some group who want it one way are going to force this upon everyone else. Currently, in so many work environments, this favors those who want more work and less free time.

Rather than call it pure coincidence, which I deliberately and knowingly stopped short of saying, I was implying that it is not. I simply didn't care to get into the minutia of precisely how that happened and what the exact sequence of events were, since my point did not depend on the details, only on the truth that things happened in this manner.

Oops, I meant to write that "Jane seems to be saying he isn't lecturing scientists about what scientists think."

Lecturing scientists about science is Jane's other hobby.

For some reason Jane doesn't seem to grasp the irony of him lecturing scientists about what scientists think.

Since you consider yourself to be a scientist, maybe I can use you for an example of how scientists think? You have VERY frequently demonstrated that you appear to think repeating the same false thing in public over and over again somehow makes it more true. I assure you, it's not. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-26]

Good grief. When have I ever said false things? Since Jane claims this happens "VERY frequently" it should be easy to link to a single, solitary example.

Jane seems to be saying he isn't lecturing scientists about science. That's absurd, Jane. You're lecturing me about what scientists think right here! In fact, you just accused me of knowingly lying because I've pointed out that your baseless accusations about what scientists think are... baseless accusations.

Jane seems to be stuck in a recursive loop where his baseless accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies spawn more baseless accusations of lying.

The ironic icing on this cake is the fact that Jane still hasn't admitted he was wrong when he repeated the same false Sky Dragon Slayer things in public over and over.

To whoever modded me "troll", I'll explain my position this much further:

You don't get to step on the Constitutional rights of one group in order to uphold another.

It doesn't work that way. Trying to do so will inevitably backfire. You set a terrible precedent, and weaken everybody's rights, including your own, when you do that.

---
It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own." -- Thomas Jefferson

Since you consider yourself to be a scientist, maybe I can use you for an example of how scientists think?

You have VERY frequently demonstrated that you appear to think repeating the same false thing in public over and over again somehow makes it more true.

I assure you, it's not.

Personally a beautiful woman tastefully dressed is more of a turn on than the slutty look anyway.

I guess it's different because I pay for conferences out of my own pocket, but I'm not going to go to all the hassle and expense of attending an Expo to waste my time at a vendor booth which spends its marketing dollars on objectifying women. The women may be there of their own free will and the whole arrangement may be perfectly morally straight (for the sake of argument), but the vendor is clearly disrespecting its customers' intelligence, and that itself makes me feel uncomfortable and want to avoid their booth.

Each time I've experienced the 'booth babe' phenomenon, never once did any of them know what an ARP reply was or how many key exchanges TLS modes use. This isn't a matter of nerd-quiz, it's that talking to them serves no purpose for why I go to an expo.

While several I've encountered have been both nice and pretty, I never once imagined that I was going to scurry off to a corner to make out with one or that they might suddenly provide useful product information, so a polite smile, the briefest of small-talk to let them know that I value them as a human being, and a thank-you and I was on to the next booth to talk to a sales engineer. Did the booth-babe vendor have something useful to sell me? Maybe, but I only have so much time, and this wasn't why I was there. I don't care if the sales engineer has a spare tire and a scraggly mustache, because I'm not there to make out with him (or her) either.

That booth babes is a thing tells me a few things: 1) target customers don't get to talk to pretty women much unless they're being paid (Jesus people, try being kind and friendly for a change) 2) target customers are mostly there blowing their employers' budgets on a half-assed vacation and don't really care about the cost or value, and 3) they probably play the Lottery and go to strip clubs too, for all their investment is worth (but I guess they have nothing better to do).

There would be no booth babes if they didn't provide value, and that they do is an indictment of the crowd attending. RSA might be putting up a roadblock, but the industry only needs to look itself in the mirror if it wants to find someone to blame. Stop being creepy and get a girlfriend, people.

What, you expect that Little England will stop paying the license fee en masse?

The BBC is not dependent on stars to bring in money. It is publicly funded.

This has been happening since at least a year ago. There's nothing at all about this story that raises it to the level of "news"