I doubt that you've ever bothered to try to understand my posts, preferring to assume that I wrote what you wanted me to, but let me assure you that your apparent assumption is completely wrong in this case. I have never written or implied that I know the answer to that question, and your claim here that I have just goes to prove that you can't be bothered to understand what's written before making a "reply" that only goes to show your own ignorance.

Just because we don't understand or experience other higher or lower realities does not mean they do not exist. Besides, we have evidence that they do, it's just that fundamentalists refuse to consider examining the evidence and refuse to question thier own assumptions and beliefs.

The same could be said about atheists.

That is unless anyone has definitive and incontrovertible proof to the contray. I'm sure we'd all appreciate seeing it.

Remember, the lack of proof that something exists is not, in itself, proof that it doesn't exist.

I can remember when they did this with glass bottles, back in the '50s and '60s, but it was called a deposit. You paid a few cents more when you bought whatever it was, usually soda, beer or booze, and got it back when you brought in the empties, even if it wasn't the same store you bought it from. There were even homeless, or nearly homeless people salvaging them from dumpsters to buy food or whatever.

That said, if you have employees who are determined to hurt your company, you have an HR problem not a technical one.

You might want to take a moment and ask why your employees are that determined to harm your company. Have they learned that your company is breaking the law or otherwise acting in harmful ways and want to put a stop to it? If so, they're whistleblowers, and may actually have your company's best interests at heart. Leaving them alone, or even helping them may well be your best choice, unless you're personally involved in those actions. Are they acting for political/economic/ideological/religious motives and really do want to harm your company? If so, blowing the whistle yourself may be the best thing you can do. There's no one right answer, it all depends on the circumstances.

If the voters don't want it, I don't care how persuasive the people pushing this think they are, they're just not going to get them to change their minds and vote for it. After all, everybody knows, or at least should know just how stubborn people are in Iowa. Once they've made up their minds, there's just no changing it, no matter what you do.

I usually listen to kxo1070 in Los Angeles at night...

If so, you're picking up signals from an alternate Earth. KXO broadcasts from El Centro, but not on 1070; what you're listening to is KNX, a Clear Channel station and one of the oldest radio stations in the USA.

The main reason that Copernicus's theory was accepted was that it required less epicycles than the Ptolemaic one. Then, Kepler came along and did away with them altogether.

I watched The Force Awakens in a theater when it first came out. It was so bad that I've never even considered watching another Star Wars movie and have completely given up on the franchise. The story line was so simple and the plot "twists" so obvious that it was clear to me that the writers were aiming for a target audience of ten year old boys. I guess that they must be pleasing lots of people because their movies are still making money, but I'm not one of them.

A American regime change War means we roll in and kill everyone in the existing government and replace them with whoever the fuck we want. We do not install a democracy. We might pretend to like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq but the people don't really get to pick who their leaders are we pick two or three options and they pick from a list.

Well, I'd have to say "yes and no" to that. Yes, it's true that they couldn't have voted the old regime back into power but no, we didn't give them a pre-picked list that only gave them Hobson's Choice. My understanding is that we let them nominate almost whoever they wanted (with the exception of known criminals) and let them vote for whoever they wanted from that list.

Every single day it feels like everything is just falling apart.
The next time you start feeling that way, think of some melody that you enjoy and whistle it. That ought to cheer you up. If not, always remember that half a gram is better than a damn.

My guess is that there are more Trump voters here than you'd think, they just don't make a big deal out of it. I'm sure they all know how the lefties will attack them for not marching in left-wing lockstep with them and any of them with mod points will censor them by modding them down, so why bother?

Back in the good old Usenet days, you'd have received a large number of replies pointing out tha Ugol's Law says "NO." Now, alas, Usenet is mostly gone and most people have forgotten that law if they ever knew it, but its response is still NO, and for the same reasons.

Iâ(TM)m not the only greybeard here wondering exactly why this question is being asked, since most *NIX heads here fully remember the boot burden of spinning rust, which upgrading that single component contributed to a massive savings in boot time.

I'm long retired and can still bore youngsters with tales of the IBM 1620 and punched cards. Now, I'm running a Dell Optiplex 980 that's at least a decade old and still uses spinning rust. It uses Fedora 43 and Xfce, and the timing on my last reboot looks like this:

~$ systemd-analyze Startup finished in 1.693s (kernel) + 3.855s (initrd) + 33.899s (userspace) = 39.449s graphical.target reached after 33.898s in userspace. ~$

Of course, I'm sure that if I were using Gnome, the timing would be double that, but that's one of the reasons I'm using Xfce.

If you want to save chicks, find a way to make roosters useful as broilers or other forms of chicken. Because right now the needed population of roosters to hens is very low.

OK, if you don't want to kill the male chicks, turn them into capons. The meat is said to be delicious and it lets the males live longer.

Heck even us Brits look at the time off, benefits and protective labour laws in EU states with envy!

If so, then how do you explain Brexit? You'd think that all of the working class would have voted against it to keep those labor laws and benefits.