This is a "feminist" movie in the same way that Conan the Barbarian is a feminist movie.

I was getting so mad until I got to your sarcasm tag

There absolutely is a plot. Is it incredibly nuanced? No. It's pretty damn straightforward. There is a more nuanced subplot, however, if you like that sort of thing.

I just got back from it and it is a Mad Max movie. There is a shitload of Mad Max. There are other characters also, so if you watched the first Mad Max, and were upset by there being other characters ("I didn't pay to see Goose!") then maybe don't go.

So another country wants to develop space capability, and this is what Slashdot has to say about it? A bunch of half-assed racist remarks? It's not just shameful, it's lame. Of all places, here we should be celebrating people choosing to take part in scientific progress, not getting involved in ethnic or regional pissing contests.

So the main complaint seems to be that admitted Asians have significantly higher test scores than their counterparts. This would be slam-dunk evidence if really good SAT scores were all it took to get into Harvard, but they aren't and never have been. They are going to have to go into a lot more in-depth with their analysis to prove their point.

Also, to echo a point made on Reddit, haven't we been saying for years that standardized test scores are not good indicators of performance? Why in this case are we suddenly acting like they are the only criteria that matter?

Finally someone picking up on this. The study has nothing to do with "calcification", it has to do with how popular the bands you listen to are. If I had a bare interest in music and just listened to whatever top 40 radio played, I would rate "Younger" by their metrics than if I took up a sudden musical interest in exploring Vaporwave, Noise, and Witch House and listened to a dozen new albums a week.

So you'd rather the producers kept the money? Because that's what would happen.

If you could cure cancer, tomorrow, by yourself, you would be a billionaire. Not any piddly millionaire, a billionaire. Genentech, the leading cancer drug company, makes north of 10 billion annually. The US alone pays 120 billion a year to treat cancer. If you have a cure, walk your ass to the patent office, then call up the world at large and name your price.

But you can't cure cancer, anymore than you can fly to the moon yourself. The previously mentioned Genentech has 13,000 employees, and it is one of dozens of companies just like it. Doing big things, like curing an entire class of diseases, require the work of thousands of people, most of whom are surprisingly well paid.

As for the rest of your "argument", if you are paid very little, it may be because someone has outright tricked you, but more likely than not it's because you are replaceable. Maybe you work a cash register, or do yardwork, or move objects from one place to another, but the theme is that just about anyone can do your job. So when your company makes money from your work, it doesn't have to share much with you. You don't like it? You get replaced. Sometimes people can't be replaced, though, and then they have the power to demand a bigger share of the pie. Harry Shearer is one of these people.

I have no love for income inequality. It is an incredibly serious, timely issue. But there are different types of income, and when you start whining about entertainers or athletes it tells me that you don't understand economics and can't even grasp the real roots of income inequality.

Well, if you can do, it walk in there and try out. There's a position open.

Then you obviously have something to hide.

You have a grandiose definition of "a while" if hundreds of years doesn't make the cut.

Well, when they started talking to Microsoft it scared Google enough to buy them for $1.65B

You say the same thing about Youtube, and they have over 700 staff, plus whatever assistance they get from Google.

If anything, Socrates was executed for being sympathetic to the the Spartans, who had conquered Athens five years earlier.