I think the post was trying to say women prefer to work on multiple topics, not that they are incapable of focusing on one. The ADHD example is people who are incapable of focusing. Think of it as the introvert vs autistic comparison. An autistic person may be incapable of socializing. An introvert prefers not to socialize, but is perfectly capable if the situation calls for it. [Note: I'm not agreeing the original post, just saying its not a flawed argument in the way you think it's flawed]
No, last mile requires city hall approval. Tough luck getting approved by folks who don't know you and don't care.
Donations aren't bribery, because donations aren't payment _for_ anything. A bribe is payment _for_ some political action. It's completely legal to give donations. That's why prostitution is illegal but high-end escorts are legal. The high-end escort asks for a 'donation' and no service is promised. Of course, it's pretty obvious she won't give any service if there's no donation. But she doesn't _promise_ service for a donation. It's just that her reputation as an escort will suffer if she takes the money and runs. If she does turn tricks and the police catch her, she gets off scott free under the story that she independently fell in love and wanted a night of romance wit the John, which had _nothing_ to do with with the "donation". Senators and other politicians are high-end escorts of a different shade.
Let's not forget that the Supreme court for nearly a hundred of years upheld slavery as constitutional. It took an act of congress and the 18th amendment to the constitution to ban it. A modern person reading the constitution might go, gee, doesn't "life, *liberty*, and the pursuit of happiness" constitutionally protect against slavery? But, nope, to the simple minds of those in the 1800s, slaves were property not people, unless the new 13th amendment says otherwise.
Similarly, a person from the future might read the constitution and go, gee, doesn't "unreasonable search and seizure" apply to digital content? But, nope, to the simple minds of those today we need a new amendment saying digital privacy is a form of privacy just as it took the 18th amendment to say a differently pigmented person is still a person. Just because a computer is used to generate nudie pics of you a the airport doesn't suddenly make it "not a strip search" by the TSA. Just because a computer is used to communicate with someone else doesn't make it "not mail". We have all these laws already passed protecting us against strip searches and folks opening our mail, but NONE of it applies if a computer is involved. That's why patents can be so easily passed by adding "with a computer" to take an old idea and suddenly qualify as a new idea worthy of patent protections. Only congress can pass new laws -- yes, that congress, the one with an 18% approval rating that is slowly bankrupting us and threatens to default and shutdown the government twice a year; they are our only hope for sanity, not the courts; and, yes, we're screwed.
define "better". Cochroaches are equally evolved as we are, since we both co-habitat with neither of us able to wipe out the other. However, we wipe ourselves out in a holocaust, then cochroaches are better adept at surviving, and therefore more evolved. If, instead, we colonize multiple planets and Earth is wiped out by an asteroid, then humans are better adept at surviving, and therefore more evolved. We cannot define "better" other than the ability to survive.
it's not a maze, it's a pattern of random forward and backward slashes, "/" and "\". There's no guarantee that a path exists anywhere near the top to anywhere near the bottom. In fact, because it's random, you'd be blocked off at some point.
Use KDE, and the retina display will look beautiful.
47 milliards rupees in a furlong squared datacenter. There, now it's in English.
Well, the NPT itself is a carte blanche to US, USSR, UK, France, and China. The NPT gives carte blanche to all nuclear powers prior to 1969 and India tested in 1974 and many
In the end, it's all big chess game. What was the point of the NPT? Choices like "world peace" and such are nice for elementary school kids, but the reality is that the NPT like everything else is done to win, and in this case to maintain status quo for the major powers so they remain major powers. Then why be flexible and allow India? Because rigid structures are more prone to break than flexible structures. India became the 3rd largest economy ahead of Japan this year on purchasing power and by 2050 both the economies of China and India will independently surpass the U.S., and combined surpass the U.S plus Europe. Moreover, the U.S. doesn't see any long-term conflict with India, and in fact sees India as an ally which has a democracy, a liberal society, and a focus on business and economy rather than military. While India has nuclear and missile programs, its military budget is tiny, at only 2.7% of GDP, compared with 2.6% for England, 3.9% for Russia, 4.7% for the U.S. and 10.4% for Saudi Arabia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Military_expenditure_by_GDP_2008.png
All that said, it makes sense to slowly induct India into the status quo than risk a change in the global order. Every exclusive club has to occasionally induct new members to keep from turning irrelevant. That said, while a country club may accept a rich black man with the changing of the times, it's not a free-for-all where it accepts a homeless man. So the nuclear status quo will
You do realize it was Catholic priests, and the statue was of Jesus? The summary is misleading, instead of the summary writing "When a statue in Mumbai
How dare you infringe on my trademarks of facebucks and starbook!
There are also laws against doing things like shooting an unarmed person in the head, aka assassination, but if a soldier hears his superior yell "fire", he shoots, no questions asked. In theory, the govt. abides by its own laws, in practice, 'national security' trumps all laws, and even the courts have agreed, allowing the govt. to withhold evidence on the basis of national security. Govt: "He's guilty!" Judge: "why?" Govt: "We'd like to tell you why, but that harms national security." Judge: "oh, okay, he's guilty."
Smartphone = WiFi. If your phone can do WiFi, all the big service providers, Verizon, Sprint, ATT, etc. require you to get a "data plan" because they're shit scared you'll be happy with just WiFi and never subscribe for a data plan. It doesn't matter if your phone can crack 128-bit encryption in a minute or has a pico-projector to play 1080p 3D on 80" screens, an integrated deep blue and that IBM bot that won jeopardy, if it lacks WiFi, you'll be able to avoid paying for the data plan with service providers who'll deem it a dumb phone / feature phone and not a smart phone.
That's always been my view as well. The best post-9/11 security measure has been psychological. Every passenger is psychologically trained to refuse to believe they will land safely if they 'cooperate' with hijackers. That was the only real weapon a hijacker had, not boxcutters, not a gun, but the illusory promise that all will be fine if everyone just cooperates. That weapon, the psychological stranglehold, has been screened out, and that "solves" the problem of 9/11 ever repeating again. Case in point, flight 93. It never flew into a building. All it took was some passengers to have learned that the hijackers will not release them safely.
The Taliban are based more circa-1700s, whereas the "golden age" for the Middle East was closer to 700-1200 AD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age) Whenever a group looks backward and tries to be old-fashioned, they never pick a particularly advanced, progressive period. None of the right-wing "return America to how it used to be" folks want the 1960s with hippies, civil rights, and space exploration, even though 1960 is definitely old-fashioned as it was a half-century ago. They rather have the 1980s wall street 'greed is good' or the 1940s 'white man in charge' eras. In essence, the folks who look back always pick a very rigid, uncreative era. The creative don't look back, they just create and build anew.