There is no social pressure taking women out of STEM degrees, women are free to make their own degree choices and do so. Just like men. Fact: Assessment tests for promising areas of study are not gender specific. Countless men are given the same results as women for the same reasons and choose their degree choices by those tests. Numerous men do not pursue STEM degrees for the same reasons as women.
So unless you wish to claim that somehow a number 2 pencil and piece of paper can be bigoted, stop repeating propaganda which is easily dismissed as irrational nonsense. If you are not smart enough to figure out that you are repeating propaganda, or the irrationality of paper and pencil being biased, consider drinking heavy amounts of Thorazine.
Really? I've heard the last few Trek outings were absolute shit. I've been too busy to see many movies, but after Paramount's shenanigans began I couldn't see making time to give them any of my money. The fans made Trek - if they want to shit on the fans, then the fans can u make Trek. Except that most of them are p'tak.
I expect to there be less government under Trump, I may be wrong though. I expect reduction in government interference to the individuals (and when I say individuals I do mean people who are mostly abused by the power, those who have something to take away from, thus businesses and yes businesses are people.) That's the only thing that matters, one thing, the only thing, the singularity of things: less government interference.
They should have used unobtanium clocks, FTFY.
I am going to throw in with the parent here. When I watch TV I want to be comfortable and relax. Glasses don't maximize comfort, and in fact kinda suck a lot if you decide to stretch out on the sofa and need to lay on your side to face the TV. Pillows and glasses are basically incompatible.
If I have to wear glasses to watch something, I am going to watch something else
Is that US-only or is that the story they are telling?
I look at Spain and Italy and Greece and while they didn't have the best economy to start with, it was the bailouts that did them in.
I also wonder, where did these billions come from? The stock exchange is a zero-sum game. So who paid these billions to the taxpayer?
I am quite certain that 6502 was not an Intelligent design at all. It was mostly a random collection of metal oxide semiconductors thrown into a bin and then shaken, not stirred...
Clinton's email server was perfectly legal.
False statement. It was not legal when she implemented it, and it was taken down and confiscated exactly because it was illegal. Her particular uses of it were similarly illegal. If you have doubts go work for the Government and send to your Gmail account some classified documents. The same can be said for her top aide Huma, who may soon be facing charges for sending copies of those emails to her personal Yahoo account. "It is easier to print" is not an excuse for breaking the law!
The FBI Director stated both of those facts (actions were criminal and illegal) but recommended not prosecuting. His reason for doing this was a claim that there was no proof of intent. Intent is not a defined statute of the Laws. Former Prosecutor and current Congressman Trey Gowdy refutes that position very well and you can read his Congressional statements (or listen to them on CSPAN tape or Youtube clips). Hillary may still face prosecution for both perjury and violation of federal law for the use of the email server. She has yet to be pardoned and has not been cleared of wrong doing. She has simply avoided facing criminal charges.
Facts, you should learn to use them.
That's none of the concern for the collectivists (socialists most often), the answer is always obvious: take more other people's money.
My comments on "Grants" are fact based, but perhaps a tiny bit of hyperbole. Tuition grants almost exclusively go to the bottom 99%. I could not find a case of a tuition grant going to someone someone wealthy. I mentioned the "tiny bit of hyperbole" here specifically because exceptions are quite possible. Me not being able to find a grant going to a wealthy kid indicates that they are rare, but not necessarily impossible.
My first post referenced Scholarships separately because those cover everything from athletics to academically gifted. The wealthy can, and do, receive scholarships. Their chances of obtaining a scholarship is reduced because most scholarship programs look at a persons means to pay their own way when considering applicants.
The only way you could end up at the 1/3rd number is by looking at something other than "Grants", which is probably why you failed to provide a source for your argument.
The top 1% own more mansions than the bottom 99% combined. The top 1% own more Ferrari cars than the bottom 99% combined. The top 1% go to the most expensive schools. Did you also know that the bottom 99% get more grants for education than the top 1% by 100%? How about the amount of "free" tuition from scholarships going to mostly the lower 90%? More assistance programs exist for the bottom 30% than the top 70%.
There is no equality of opportunity at any level when discussing higher education. I don't want rich people to have "free" college any more than I want lower income people strapped with decades of debt for useless degrees. There is plenty of rational dialogue on making sure there is no discrimination and that College is actually useful and not just brainwashing. Those issues are not being discussed. Discrimination is simply assumed all the time regardless of any facts by way too many people.
If the Endowment is large enough they can give every student free tuition. If there is no endowment, everybody pays. In the middle, they need enough people paying full-boat to subsidize the kids who need a full ride. Look at the economics before you assume ill intent. There is no magic money and locking kids into thirty years of debt is no magnanimous gesture.
I honestly don't remember a promise of no commercials from Cable, only certain channels one could receive from cable. Some of the available channels, like early HBO did say "commercial free" because you paid (and most likely still do) for the subscription. Subscription based TV is why people go to Netflix and watch Netflix owned shows. Just like I pay for CRTV and watch their shows. The "Free" Youtube content can have commercials, but if you subscribe you don't get them either.
Networks who continue to use commercials for funding are on the decline, but this is not new or shocking.
A BLOG by a Politically motivated Person != FACTS Collected for analysis by the Department of Labor. It never ceases to amaze me how you left wing nut jobs fail to use facts in any argument and continually prop up opinions biased to your causes as "evidence." In fact you continually deny facts exist and have claimed facts are biased to gender and race.
FACT: MORE WOMEN THAN MEN ARE EARNING DEGREES! Are going to now claim "not enough STEM" indicating that you want to revoke a woman's choice in degree fields and force her into a STEM job instead of the degree of her choosing?
What is worth doing is worth the trouble of asking somebody to do.