Absolutely. However, I'd like to continue living without having to fight for all my daily resources. I'd also like to have kids, so that we may reach the stars one day.

Yep, it's selfish. All acts are selfish in one way or another. It's how we progress. So, yes, environmental change that a lot of species can't adapt to is bad for them and bad for me.

I never spied on coworkers. Only time I saw their desktops was during remote assistance or when I was at their desk.

One day, I was puttering away on some project when the phone rang. "It was totally an accident!" "What was an accident." "I didn't mean to go to that website." "What website." "The porn site." Then it dawned on me that this woman actually thought I sat around all day watching what people were doing on their computers.

That'd be nice if that was the case. Production, especially heavy industries, was controlled by a very profitable set of private enterprises, some of which still exist today. Krupp is just one example, BMW another. As for control over Mass Media, that's an authoritarian concept. Otherwise, what do you call Fox News?

And, according to today's Republicans, Reagan, Nixon, Bush Sr, Goldwater and more are also leftists. It just means that today's republicans are so ignorant that they don't notice how close they are to Neo-nazis and how batshit insane their positions are.

Actually, it used to be speculated that changes in nesting populations of Emperor Penguins might have been due to Climate Change. Instead, this particular research indicates that those changes might be fairly normal migrations between nesting sites.

What we have here is science using new data to falsify an old assumption. Science to the rescue! As is article-reading.

Without a doubt. The question is: is the environment changing faster than the species can adapt to it? We, the most adaptable species the earth has ever produced (if measured by how fast we can move into previously inhospitable environments) are still feeling significant effects from global climate change. The pine borer beetle, with its expanded range of warmer temperatures, is impacting whole chunks of communities that will have to adapt to brand new realities. What do you think is going to happen to species without opposable thumbs, a huge brain, and the ability to modify the environment on massive scales?

Questioning and asking are two completely different things, otherwise one wouldn't "ask a question", one would either ask or question.

To question something is to doubt the premises that lead to a given statement. To ask something is to enquire about something. When one has doubts a conclusion (i.e.: questions), one normally asks to ascertain the veracity of the conclusion. This leads to the construct "to ask a question" as in "to resolve a doubt".

Simon

The assumption behind providing equal opportunity is that it will lead to equal outcomes, at least statistically speaking. By necessity, manipulating opportunities means manipulating outcomes (unless, of course, you assume that manipulation of opportunities has no impact on outcomes). So you're saying that you're for improving the opportunities for women, so long as it doesn't change the current outcomes? Sounds not much different from the men who complain that women are taking their jobs.

And then the girls learn #4 once the reach the workforce:
4 The old boys network is real, many men are threatened by women, and trying to succeed can very quickly become a fight against misogynists who think that women should make them sandwiches.

That's why these initiatives still exist: because too many people have first-hand experiences of what many women face in the workforce, and they're trying to fix it.

The good news is, initiatives like this give us a chance to find out whether it's the "girls don't code because computers require testosterone to operate", or whether it's "girls don't code because boy coders are, on average, idiots who can't deal with girls."

Gifted is perfectly cromulent wordage.

Maybe if your employees weren't emailing so many dick pics, the traffic wouldn't be so high. My email archive of nearly 20 years is 5 gigs. I quadrupled that. Dipshit.

2 years is a ridiculously short time to "age out" email archives. Especially for an agency that takes longer than that to handle basic interactions. I just got a call last month from the IRS regarding the estate of a relative who passed in 2011. And the IRS claims they have the authority to go back six years for substantial errors so I'd expect them to be keeping their emails at least that long. More realistically, I'd expect them to keep their emails indefinitely. Storage is getting cheaper faster than email accumulates. What does the average person accumulate in a decade? 5 gigs? IRS has around 90,000 employees so that's 450,000 gigs of data give or take. Shit, I've got 32,000 gigs of storage 2' from me. I could expand that to 78,000 by swapping in bigger hard drives. And 144,000 by swapping in bigger drives and adding more ports. That's with stuff I could order from Newegg and assemble on the dining room table. If I went with real equipment, the only limit would be my wallet.

Last company I worked for, had been archiving email for years before I started and hadn't thrown out (or lost) a single email when I left 5 years later. If legal needed something from 2005, they'd give me the particulars and I'd plug them in and the system spit out a compilation of every message that met the specs. I also made an image of every employee's hard drive when they left the company before I put a fresh image on their computer. Just in case they'd stored something important on their local drive instead of their department's server. Only needed that a few times but the cost was so negligible we spent more on donuts and bagels than storing drive images.

Their failure to have a redundant, secure archive of such recent email is either intentional destruction or gross incompetence.