Plus, places that don't collect taxes tend to not have things like roads, hospitals, laws, civilization.

If companies really did filter on that, it would be self correcting. Harvard would go from "All the Harvard grads that apply have excellent grades" to "Harvard grads used to always have great academic records, now most of them don't any more, let's hire grads from somewhere else."

But one does not go to Harvard to learn how to do a job, one goes to Harvard to meet the right people and their parents. And companies do not hire Harvard grads because of what they learned there, they hire Harvard grads because of who they know, and not what they know.

Harvard (and all the ivies) is the poster child of the old boy network.

Or everyone in the class has exactly the same grade? Is that a sign of an exceptionally good teacher with a small, well motivated class? Or a sign of an exceptionally bad teacher who has trivially easy tests?

In our effort to reduce everything to a simple algorithm with no human judgement, we fail to ask what actually matters.

I'll get modded down saying it, but sadly, at Harvard, it will be based on ethnicity and expressed political ideology.

And subject that power generation to the exact same regulations, environmental and otherwise, as any other. Do that, and we won't be seeing many new datacenters for the next 20 years.

They don't need to build an electric vehicle factory for that. I hear Tesla has a metric crapload of Wankpanzer's available real cheap.

I needed a good laugh, but that is exactly the opposite of how it actually works. They will be a discounted bulk price, or they'll build somewhere that will. That discount will delay the building of any new generating capacity, because the utility doesn't have the income. And while they will reliably use power, big customers generally get - because again, if they don't, they'll go somewhere that will - generous payment terms (you have to pay within 30 days of receiving at statement, they may have months, or more), and often don't live up to those.

All of those fairly standard business practices are easier to arrange in third world countries. That's why they're building there, and not in the US.

Did you read what I wrote? Did you have a grown up explain it to you?

Do you understand the difference between "not believe there is" and "believe there isn't"?

Do you understand there is a difference?

Do you?

Because either your language skills (or intellect) are so poor you don't understand that, or you're deliberately constructing a straw man. Which is it? Idiot, or dishonest? Must be one or the other.

That's why normal people don't take you seriously.

That's exactly the kind of word games that religiously atheists use to convince themselves they're more rational than theists.

And it only convinces you, and others as religiously atheistic.

"Personal atheism" is what generally gets lumped in with agnosticism, making coherent conversation impossible by mixing two very different things.

I suggest you have a grown up explain the difference between "a religion" and "a religious belief," or, more precisely, "a belief of a religious nature."

And the difference between "not believing there is" and "believing there isn't."

Do you understand there is a difference?

That is exactly the redefinition I was talking about.

Do you not understand the difference between "not believing the is" and "believing there isn't"?

When you lump atheism and agnosticism together, you (as I noted) make coherent conversation on the subject impossible.

But perhaps that's your goal.

Become? There was a time when he wasn't?

A Harvard professor went to prison for scamming his family and friends out of $600,000 to send to a Nigerian scammer. From this prison cell, he insisted it was a legitimate deal that would have worked if the government hadn't interfered.

Once a delusion takes hold, there's very little chance of breaking it.

(And Dawkins has been delusional for a long, long, long time.)

If one distinguishes between atheism and agnosticism (many don't, but that makes it impossible to have a coherent conversation with them on the subject), atheism is the affirmative belief there is no deity (where agnosticism is more "we don't know, "we can't know" or "I don't care").

Since proof that the deity of any major religion exists, or doesn't exist, is, by definition, impossible, that affirmative belief there is not God is exactly as much an act of faith as the belief there is.

And any faith can be proselytized for. And yes, Dawkins does. He's always been a bit of a nutbar, and more than a little bit of an asshole.

(I'll be modded down for saying that first part out loud, but that's inevitable when someone challenges a person's faith. Especially from someone who is in deep deniable that it is, in fact, faith.)

Until the Supreme Court rules on it (and they will, eventually), the question remains open.

After all, Google Won Authors Guild v. Google at trial. Many of the same arguments will apply here.

The issue to pursue here isn't what they did with the pirated material, it's how they pirated it.

(Commercial use can affect the penalties for infringement, but it's a factor in whether or not it is infringement.)