Do you plan to expand the franchise on any of your productions by adapting them for phones?
In many parts of the world taxis are private vehicles with a sign stuck on top, drivers hold their own licenses and companies act as advertising agencies and dispatchers. A recent trend is for one driver to join a company then keep their car running 24-7 as their buddies illegally act as taxi drivers in shifts, splitting the profits. This is an actual thing. Whether or not it's predominantly immigrants, illegal or otherwise, is another question mind you.
Nope that comes up just fine too. Try it for yourself? This list of redacted pages do not appear to have been redacted, every one I try comes up on google search results.
Do you have any reasons for your presumption, or are you just babbeling?
Their convictions in a court of law would be the reason. I'm as against feminist rape culture bullshit as any rational person, but the fact remains that rapists do exist, do go to trial, and do get convicted. I don't stand in their corner.
Even weirder I just googled the name "Eve Carlile" and google turned up the BBC news story just fine - and I'm in Europe.
There are some very nasty pieces of work on that list, rapists and murderers who presumably managed to get a removal order from within prison, but some are just weird, like "The news that lesbian couples in England and Wales who start a family through fertility treatment can now place both their names on the birth certificate has been welcomed by a gay couple with children. Eve Carlile describes the move as "practically really helpful, and ideologically great". "Why would they want that removed?
Mind you others are pretty silly, like the hacker who recorded a rude phone message after being left on hold for too long. Not sure why posterity needs that little tidbit.
If those are remotely controlled wouldn't it be easier to just jam the signal?
Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning? I think it's pretty neat, and even better it's not costing me a thing. Personally I'd enjoy watching hoverboard races even if they're confined to specialised parks, or even better some kind of hoverboard/gladiators crossover, or football, or whatever. Let's strap these things to boots and take basketball and hockey to the next level.
Second, I really do not know what this gender equality thing is. We have regulations stating that all humans have the same rights. So the term is redundant, as human equality includes gender equality.
Equality of outcome or opportunity? Because one is commusm and the other is rational.
They explained that with a factoid that in Iran engineering and CS are not a guys thing. They rather study other topics including theology. They are, as those two stated, more interested in their look than in technical gadgets.
I'm not especially familiar with the engineering and IT environment in Iran, and I seriously doubt you are either, so before leaping to conclusions I suggest that a closer look into things like Iranian IT and engineering job security and career tracks might be helpful. Let's not take a backward Islamic theocracy and try to compare it academically with civilised western democracies, apples to apples and all that.
However, it allows the conclusion that STEM interests are not a biological determined thing and are induced by culture. Therefore, if you want to change it you have to look at these cultures and how that came into existence. Then you can come up with a plan that works.
More importantly, a plan that women find appealing, and good luck with that.
More women in STEM by luring them in will not result in more women and more capable programmers in the field.
And yet you just got done saying you can socially engineer women into going into STEM fields.
Good question, e70838.
Eh a few points - first I couldn't find any source for that 70% figure in Iran in your linked articles. Second if you're using any of those countries as your model for gender equality you've clearly never lived there and know very little about them. Thirdly nobody's breaking down Kazakhistan's door looking for quality engineers.
As for the communist thing, I recall reading an interview done with women working on a construction site in somewhere like Cambodia - they were well able for the work but complained constantly that they'd much rather be at home doing the cooking and cleaning. Likewise in Russia, women have no time for feminist screeds - they're quite happy staying at home looking after the kids. In my opinion women are quite capable of successful work in IT, engineering, the sciences and what have you, they mostly just don't want to, regardless of the culture.
Which brings us right around to the elephant in the room, the fact that feminism has no reproductive strategy. The only way that feminism could result in a semi functional society would be for all children to be collectively raised in private or public facilities. Such an environment is very unlikely to have a positive outcome for those children but regardless - their parents likewise usually don't like the idea and never will.
So once again, we find feminism coming up against reality and losing badly.
I think our priorities are a bit different. I don't really see stocks and property as an end in and of themselves.
Don't put words in my mouth. Although as it turns out you might want to look into where pension funds put their money.
Also, people with nothing to do tend to have kids, and that is definitely something the system couldn't afford, so there would need to be measures to prevent that (if having kids doesn't cost you a lot, you'll tend to have them).
Great, so phase two of your economic masterplan is to make sure the system bankrupts itself within a generation. Hint: people are producers as well as consumers.
Have you run the numbers on that basic income idea? Just back of the envelope here, but take the US - 300 million population, give them $200 a week each, that's a cool $3 trillion dollars per annum, which is equivalent to the entire federal tax revenue in 2014. So, you're going to double all taxes to pay for this? Okay so let's cut out all those too young or old enough to already be on a state pension, as well as those who really don't need an extra ten grand a year (which in some places is nowhere near liveable), let's cut it down to 100 million people. That's a trillion dollars per year.
And this is before you start to consider the inflationary effects of pumping that much money into the economy, regardless of how recycled it is - most of that will be going to poor people who will mix it straight back into the liquid economy, taken from the mid to high level wealthy who tend to invest in property and stocks instead.
Basic income is not a workable idea, but fortunately we have social welfare nets that do approximately the same thing for people who actually need it.