Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Pft (Score 1) 905

by AnOnyxMouseCoward (#47515051) Attached to: The Daily Harassment of Women In the Game Industry
Thanks for posting this, loving the stats.

What I find really interesting is that the difference is so large between men and women, _for the same weight_. When I see a linebacker, I know he's stronger. As a man in a crowd of a mix of men and women, some taller/larger and some smaller/skinnier than me, I don't really feel threatened. However getting the stats, if I were a woman and knew that every single male my size is almost twice as strong as me, and even the ones shorter than me are probably stronger... yea that would be scarier. I can only imagine if everyone is 6'3 and the size of a linebacker, and yep, threats become much more threatening.

Comment: Re:Mostly political was my choice (Score 1) 278

by AnOnyxMouseCoward (#47500639) Attached to: The debate over climate change is..
Let me say this with simple numbers (the sources are in my original post):

China (in % of the world): Emission: 26.43% Population: 19%
US (in % of the world): Emission: 14.14% Population: 4.44%

Very obviously the US is polluting way more than their fair share. That was in my rant. My rant was about the OP saying China should reduce emissions before the Western world, because the impact of the Western world is minimal (false). My point was that everyone should reduce emissions, but that China at least spends and tries to do research for it, while having a harder time at reducing emissions due to emitting less, per capita, than the Western world. The Western world needs to get off of its butt.

It feels like you have the same exact opinion as me, without the hard numbers with sources, and while expressing your opinion said "I don't really get where you learned math", which is insulting. My math is there, my argument is there, my facts are there, with sources.

Comment: Re:Mostly political was my choice (Score 1) 278

by AnOnyxMouseCoward (#47478439) Attached to: The debate over climate change is..
Blaming developing countries for their development and its externalities feels really unfair, whether it's China or someone else. But let's talk about China, since they are the world's largest emitter of CO2.

China is responsible for a bit more than 25% of the world's emissions. They account for roughly 20% of the world's population, so emitting more than their "fair share." There is no question that China should be reducing emissions and imposing regulations. However, are you taking that as a sign they're going full-throttle with emissions? This came out a few months ago:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-24/china-enacts-biggest-pollution-curbs-in-25-years.html and this
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2014/06/17/china-leads-in-renewable-investment-again/

China accounts for 61% of the spending on renewables, worldwide. Do you think that government, full of ENGINEERS (and corruption...), is stupid? Do you think it doesn't understand that, regardless of the state of the world's climate, it needs to find better sources of energy to reduce the crazy pollution on its territory, give a decent quality of life to its citizens, and more importantly, continue growing unrestrained? There might be a debate in a "democratic" country since you need to cater to your uneducated, conservative electoral base, but not in a single party system when people come from STEM backgrounds. China is doing more on that front than anyone else, because they have to, and they know it. They're also polluting the most, but who do you think manufactures all the goods consumed here?

Now as to your argument that changing the situation in China has a bigger effect than trying to change the situation here, look at that table on wiki showing the world's emissions by country. China does 26.43%, the US, 14.14%, and the EU, 13.33%. Add the Western world together, see how we compare. The US has 320M people, or 4.44% of the world. Google tells me the EU has 742M. US + EU together is about 15% of the world's population (vs 19%), generating 27.47% of the CO2 (vs 26.43%). Where do you think is easier to reduce our carbon footprint, in China or here? What does it tell you when 4.44% of the population generates 3x more than their fair share?

I'll leave this for you, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.... Every bit helps, stop blaming other countries and take responsibility as a world leader (unless you're only interested in being a leader in the military and invasion of privacy front, which is what the rest of the world sees).

Now don't even get me started on how many resources are spent on growing meat vs vegetables.

Comment: Re:I guess they won't need any more foreign Visas? (Score 1) 383

by AnOnyxMouseCoward (#47475703) Attached to: Microsoft CEO To Slash 18,000 Jobs, 12,500 From Nokia To Go
Thanks for the link, found it very interesting. To me it appears most large companies have average salaries in the 80k+ range for H1B, and most of the 50-60k companies are either small, Indian (sorry, calling it like I see it), or universities/non-profits, in which I can assume the average salary is already way lower.

Also keep in mind not all H1Bs are software developers, and might not commend such a high salary in the first place, so.. I don't see anything that unusual, frankly.

Comment: Re:Simple (Score 1) 508

by AnOnyxMouseCoward (#47460457) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Future-Proof Jobs?
Fully agree with everyone needing to know personal finance. Home economics is not personal finance, and covers many more areas. Look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

As for your advices though, some are dangerous generalizations.

A credit card, when repaid in full monthly, builds your credit history and gives you a good credit score. Often times they also come with a cashback or a loyalty points program, which means it's more advantageous for you to be using it (not to mention your money stays in the bank and accrues interest for a bit longer).
Paying your house in full, as another poster mentions, is sometimes beneficial. Both to decrease interests payments when interests are really high and to build an asset you can capitalize for future investments.
The amount you need to invest for retirement is entirely dependent on your personal situation. A 10% yardstick gives people a number, but they should really find out what _they_ need.

Other than that, completely agree.

Comment: Re:Anyone have Cliff Notes? (Score 1) 128

... Wow, curiosity is really not your forte, is it? Yes, this is a direct ad hominem, but hey it's more justified than calling someone out on their penis (funny joke right there, btw, classy.).

"Because it's there and we haven't been/know close to nothing about it" is a _perfectly_ good answer. This is science we're talking about, and raw research and exploration don't need another reason.

Comment: Re:Hi speed chase, hum? (Score 1) 443

What's the solution? Not chase after him? Chase after him following speed limits and thus losing him?

The OP has a good point, it's technically better to deploy a helicopter. The problem is how long will it take to call for and have that helicopter chasing the car, and will you have lost all traces of it by then? Assuming the car stops on the side of the road then, without a car chasing it, are you going to then land the helicopter and arrest him, and how many people are in that helicopter in the first place? How much does it cost to field a helicopter, how many were available, and what were the chances of a real high-speed pursuit?

Those are just questions I have, but with my current lack of knowledge and information, I assume a car chase is the most practical thing they can do if they don't want to let a criminal go, even if they have to call in reinforcements (flying or otherwise).

Comment: Re:No one cares, so why does it matter? (Score 1) 278

Not to disagree with you, but in the eventuality of a revolution, I'm pretty the a right or not to a revolution given by a piece of paper written a couple hundred years ago is pretty meaningless. If it's a revolution, people don't need permission. Frankly, they don't necessarily even need weapons (that only determines whether you call your revolution peaceful or a civil war.. granted your chances of "success" are greater with weapons, all depending on your government).

Comment: Re:Unsafe at any speed (above 100 MPH)... (Score 5, Informative) 443

Look, pretty much all cars split in half when they hit a pole at 100 MPH.

http://articles.latimes.com/20...
http://www.autoevolution.com/n...
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news...

How much are you betting that in that last article, the driver of the Maxima wasn't driving 100 MPH? Most highway limits are 65 MPH, you're talking 50% faster, which is perhaps not a "huge difference" but it's not negligible. It also doesn't matter if the car splits in half, as long as the driver is protected within the cage (look at how F1 cars crumple when they crash, without a pole, but protect the driver). What matters more is someone probably not wearing a seat belt...

Comment: Re:wut (Score 1) 113

No, the door was open, and it's broadcasting because most users have no technical ability and don't know much about Wifi security.

But hey, even if the door says "open", it's a private house. The "normal" thing to do is knock, go "hey is anyone home?", enter, say hi and state your business. Else why the heck are you entering that door? Because if you enter, take pics of everything, read their documents ("Street View cars were accessing email, web history and other data"), and store it into your database for further investigation, that's CIA-level invasion of privacy. I don't even care if it's legal, it's just scummy.

Not everything that's possible should be done, and good job blaming the victim. I love Google as much as the next person, but hey, "Do no evil." Remember to be civil.

Comment: Re:A win for freedom (Score 1) 1330

Freedom. If she makes a mistake, she gets to pay for her abortion. Worse, if a woman gets raped and gets pregnant, she also gets to pay for her abortion

You were a retard during the weekend, drank yourself into oblivion and fell down a flight of stairs? Yep, covered.

I thought the debate on abortion was over, but I guess not. All in the name of religion, because religion is Righteous. It's not about freedom, it's about religion imposing its rule on the state and the law. If it's not about religion, then tell me why a clinical legal act should not be covered?

Brain off-line, please wait.

Working...