We're talking about work.

FYI, men killing men is a much bigger problem.

You mean Internet Tough Guys?

Or do you mean jobs in real life? Because nobody says that in real life and keeps their jobs.

Pretty much that.

And her quote "But because our very survival can depend on it" ... really? Really?! Melodramatic, much? When's the last time a female developer was ever assaulted at work? And no, "nice ass" doesn't count as a threat to your life, though it is a crude remark (unless you're Tom Brady).

Men and women are quite different.

I work construction, and the atmosphere is night and day when it's an all-male vs mixed crew. If you deal with female workers the way you deal with male, you're asking for trouble.

Stereotypes exist because they have a basis in reality.

No, not every woman is bitchy every time she's PMSing, but in general, women are harder to deal with when going through PMS.

Just because a fact is politically inconvenient, doesn't allow us to pretend it doesn't exist.

I'm curious, have you ever had a job? I don't mean a summer job or your coding job surrounded by fellow nerdlings. I'm talking about a job in a larger company where you have to deal with all sorts of people.

Because here's a hint: you're going to make people uncomfortable. People who overhear your in-jokes you make with your friends. People who come into the middle of a conversation and take things out of context. People who are naturally touchy. People who are having a bad day (and this happens pretty regularly for many women, about 4-5 days out of every 30). People who simply don't like you for one reason or another, because maybe they decided you look funny, or are the wrong race, or whatever, and they're either looking for an excuse to complain or they'll make one up.

And just out of curiosity, why is it only men who make women uncomfortable? Why can't men feel uncomfortable around women? Why isn't the need to constantly watch my tongue, to be on edge, always hyper-sensitive to their sensitivities a definition of uncomfortable? Why can Tom Brady honk their tits and tell them they should fuck, while I can't say hello without being a creep? (K, that's obviously an exaggeration, but you understand what I'm getting at).

"jokes about physical beauty and cognitive sex differences"

It's so hard to take these reports seriously when they include the most trifling transgressions along with the truly egregious ones.

http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/zines/spacemoose/polisci.gif

Looking at the comments so far, so many of them talk about safety and comfort being the reasons people take desk jobs rather than blue collar.

Bullshit.

After 40 years of continually shitting on unions, blue collar work, and glorifying every other career choice (badass cop! miraculous doctor! patriot marine! caring nurse! brainy engineer! saint virgin-for-life network guy!), Americans are now wondering why nobody wants these jobs.

And now that those who stuck with it are getting paid, suddenly there's a "labor shortage" and we'd better fucking train some people before they realize that a shortage of labor is an excess of pay.

Just a quick look at the pictures of the aircraft you linked showed no similarity with the Spitfire, other than the Supermarine name. S4 is a floatplane with a mid-wing, S5 is a floatplane with a low wing, and the 224 has fixed landing gear and gull wings.

Almost all early war fighters "shared ancestry" with racing aircraft from the 20s and 30s, but that's because where the aircraft development was going on at the time. World War I was over, budgets were cut, and with the technical limitations and rapid development of the time, there was significant overlap between civilian and military aviation. But that doesn't mean the Spitfire was a race plane any more than the B-17 was a passenger liner.

My God, Slashdot has gone to shit over the years. That kind of unresearched clickbait nonsense would not have made a post 10 years ago.

The aircraft in the picture is:

1. Too small.
2. Unarmed.
3. Unarmored.

Let's explain:

Once you add armament and armor, the Bugatti would be a LOT slower. Probably slower than the Bf-109 that set the 469mph record.

To compensate, you'd need a bigger engine. The 109, which was a small fighter to begin with (half the size of a P-51 and a third the size of a P-47), was already running a big engine for its size and barely had enough room to upgrade to the DB605 during the middle of the war. This Bugatti is tiny. It's powered by two 4.9L engines that produce 450hp each. In 1940, the 109 had the DB601 with a displacement of 34L and produced ~1200hp. By 1945, the DB605 was up to 37L and produced about 1800hp.

The Bugatti wouldn't be big enough to run an engine that big, and while I'm sure one of you is going to ask "but it doesn't need to"... yes it does. If it's to carry enough fuel, armaments, and ammunition, it needs to have an engine that can propel it forward at combat speeds with all that extra weight, and an airframe that can hold all that. You don't get a lunar lander to the moon in Kerbal Space Program with a pair of solid fuel boosters, and you don't get an armed and armored fighter to loiter over Britain for an hour with two 4.9L engines. Not happening. Physics disagrees.

Incidentally, the 109's already small size was one of the major problems for the Germans during the Battle of Britain. It didn't have the fuel capacity to stay over London for anything more than 15-20 minutes and still be able to return to France.

"Duh".

I don't mean to sound too flippant about this, but isn't this around the time in the movie that a Morgan Freeman type of character says "People were not meant to play at god!"?

Why would someone do this? I presume it's to give the defense time to prepare a better case or review evidence?

I'm afraid you're exactly right.

When you start globalizing and opening yourself up to competition with countries that have no labour or environmental laws to speak of, you by default undercut your own industries to the point where they are not competitive.

Free trade with developing countries is a horrendously bad idea for this reason. Tarriffs can be a mitigating factor - to a point, of course.

1. Slashdot nerds don't go to parties.
2. Slashdot nerds who voted "Libertarian" better either be filthy rich or built like brick shithouses, because scrawny, poor nerds in dead-end jobs are going to get their asses kicked in libertarian paradise.