Personally, looking at Tesla, how the company is run and the products they make, I predict that within the next 20 years Tesla will sell more cars per year than Mercedes.
Yeah, we should go back to the Fairness Doctrine, that requires BOTH sides of every issue to be covered.
I find it massively insulting that we are consistently led to believe that issues only ever have TWO solutions. The structure of the Fairness Doctrine reveals its fatal flaw, and in fact the fatal flaw of American Democracy today; that we're all supposed to line up behind one of TWO teams.
The Fairness Doctrine was an evil impediment to free speech, as far as I'm concerned it should never return.
There is the concept that the fact that she knows what the NSA did and how they operate would be a valuable thing for a company like Dropbox to know.
Its like how a coach for one team leaves to go to another team, they bring with them the knowledge of the plays and schemes that their previous team employed.
I don't know why women don't want to go into computing as a field.
I DO know that both of my daughters do not want to go into computing like their Dad. I have asked them this directly.
For whatever reason, they do not have an interest in computing. This is not for lack of effort. I have never withheld resources from them from using and working on any of our computers, and in fact they participated willingly when I coached the lego robotics team in our town. But programming just isn't their thing. They just weren't interested in it.
I'm not going to force them and I'm not going to blame society. Boys and Girls are different and no matter how long people try to pound out those differences they aren't going away.
I have worked with many women who work in IT and programming and many of them have been excellent coders/engineers/analysts.
Is it possible that all the women that want to be in computing choose computing and its just a fact that women don't choose to do computing as often as men do, and could it be possible that that really isn't actually a big deal?
No, no, no. First you vilify your opponent then you Godwin them!!
You've done it completely backwards!!
If you read the article, they leveled the playing field by adding just a 350 microsecond delay.
Yep, the talking heads can yak all day long and never be proven wrong.
I would add:
Have you ever considered revisiting the Captain Power universe? Perhaps in a full live action form?
Hell yeah. I'd get behind that too.
Of course the reverse of this is less corporate control and more government control.
Please tell me, whats the scarier proposition, bunches of really big and wealthy companies that we can often choose to deal with or not, or a huge massive government that has many times the resources of these companies and can jail you or worse?
It boggles my mind that someone could actually argue that the solution to us having too many powerful companies is making our massively powerful government even more powerful.
As counterintuitive as it is, the real reason so many of these companies have so much power is that the government has given it to them (see copyright, patents, handouts, and tax breaks). This is why small government is needed. A smaller government does not have the massive power of corrupting business that a large government has. You are fooling yourself if you think that a massive government's regulations won't revolve around special treatment of a select few instead of protecting the little guy. Government can't even see the little guy anymore.
And if they can do that, then we can keep using fewer pesticides.
Everyone seems to forget that the reasoning for these types of crops it to minimize spraying poison on our food sources.
These "evil" corporations are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Screw you. The invisible hand has always worked way way better at improving people's standard of living than kill/steal from the rich policies ever have.
Why is up with all the nouveau communists these days? It's not going to magically work better this time.
Epic post. It took a few seconds to catch on, but awesome reuse and appropriation of the feel of that particular homily.
That you had someone moderate it without knowing what it was and have to post to remove moderation only increases the epicness.
So you're saying that dealing with government regulations is so easy and trivial that you have to hire a consultant to do it!
The problem I have with the math standards is that they are acting like kids can just naturally figure out things such as how to divide large numbers. And in some respects they can, but when kids figure it out for themselves they miss most of the simple methods and processes that can make solving the problem much much much much easier.
Kids now are stumbling around how to divide 536 by 5 and sometimes coming up with the right answer. But instead of then being taught a quick an simple method, long division, they're forced to keep solving things the long convoluted way they "discovered" on their own.
This is a horrible turn of events. I personally conflate it with the idea of: What if one of those worthless humanities courses (where every answer can be considered "right") came up with a way to teach math? These new standards are the type of math you'd get from that.