jbmorgado

You can remove its authorisations at: https://myaccount.google.com/permissions

Anyway, first time I saw Lynch's Dune I didn't really liked it because it was too different from the books. But after some years (and reading the all series from Frank Herbert) I actually started to like the film.

See, for me, Lynch's film, was the best possible one. A lot of Dune is about thoughts, mental plans, counter plans. A mental chess game that goes on the mind of all the main characters and I don't think you can actually put all that on screen (at lest not without extending the film for several hours).

Sure you could have a grander vision of the books with better SciFi and a lot more money, but other than visually for an higher budget, I don't think any director can really do much better than Lynch.

Well, it's my take at least. I might be wrong (and would like to be proven wrong by a new Dune movie that exceeds my expectations) but until I see a movie that does better, I actually vouch for Lynch's Dune.

Not in EU they aren't. At most they are being now built assuming you should go there by public transportation, but certainly not that you drive there.

It obviously has if they come from a country where education is generally shitty when in comes to know how to code.

I'm not saying that's the case with India since I know nothing about the education there, but as a general proposition, yes, it seems obvious that people from some a particular country can be generally shitty coders due to their education system of course.

That could explain some unanswered questions in this article. I.E. If a married men is working more time than an unmarried one, that would be a good indication that a married men felt more pressured to work more after getting married and that was where this premium was mostly coming from.

So, max will be about some 10K per day.

EDIT: I meant the same amount of data as with Sigfox, i.e. about 10K a day (specifically I just want to fetch some local weather data basically, maybe some traffic data as well).

Again: I'm all for opening doors for everyone that "doesn't have any unfair external advantage" (i.e. doping) to compete. What I'm questioning is barring the fastest runners from competition and from the prizes just because of their gender.

In no way I was asking for barring anyone from anything, so stop mixing everything up just to suit your narrative.

Let me explain: If I divide a competition between 100 men and 100 women instead of the 200 best humans and then give prizes to the 3 best men and 3 best women instead of the 6 best humans, I'm actually denying place to 100 men and denying 3 men a prize just because of their gender (assuming as true your predicate that men timings are clearly superior to woman).

Isn't it funny how this is not gender based discrimination?

If we aim for total indiscrimination, shouldn't we just have a single category, let anyone run as long as they don't have any unfair external advantage and just give prizes and recognition to the first places?

EDIT: I find it funny that some people got worked out for me writing it "out loud" the truth that positive gender discrimination in favour of one gender is also actually gender discrimination against other gender.

Older scientists took all the positions and basically closed the doors to new entrants when it comes to any kind of contract (we work on scholarships), so most of us just changes jobs to industry (which is ratter easy) and don't pursue a scientific career.

Of course now that those older scientists should be retiring, there aren't enough younger scientists to do their work because they pushed so many of them away.

Seriously, I actually sleep quite a bit, but this guy comparing himself to an athlete at work, and also telling me that he has to sleep 11h in the days we goes working out is just plain bragging... which is typical from the Fortune 100 execs the article then claims that they might or may not (this part is weird) be interviewing.

Not to weather it collects your data or not.

- Turkey brought their legal institutions to the modern times

- that Turkey showed more respect for democratic and humanistic principles

- that Turkey respected more the civil rights of their citizens

- that Turkey respected their ethnic minorities (like the Kurds)

- Turkey recognized a member of the EU as an actual country (Cyprus).

And then, after Turkey failed yet, and yet again to address all those problems and we told them patiently yet again, that they needed to address those problems and they still didn't, they decided they are not going to really try and reverted the little work they had done.

And you come and blame the EU for wanting Turkey to become a country that actually respects the right of its own citizens.

How could we be so heartless, right?

We can/should help those in need and in fact we do help those in need, but don't put the blame on us for those people grave conditions in the first place.

Once again we will have to open our borders to this good people running away from a war and once again we will have to pretend that the majority of them didn't actually choose this way of life by supporting some dictator/ideology whose main ideologic pillars are xenophoby against people that don't follow their religion their way (Kurds) and a return to islamism in some form of Sharia.

Yup, we are really, really very happy that nobody was so mad as to let you in the EU... or else this that just happened (and in fact what has been happening the last decade backed by the majority of your population) would be a major danger to our existence.

This way we always have the option to just close even more our borders until you deal with this insanity that is going on in Turkey and then when in some medium term future you get back to a democracy and show good will towards respecting everyone's civil rights and liberties we can then resume talks again.

But if Erdogan becomes a nuisance Europe can always go through the unpleasant path, close the border from our side and not give Turkey a cent.

So the difference in the end would be just who has to turn:

- The statue that is there for decades.

- The statue that is there for less than one year.

If people where not doing this about (what they think in their heads is) some politically correct argument but about art (which is the point of the author of the article) than the answer would be obvious.

Just because Picasso (or some living author if you prefer for the example) doesn't own one of his paintings anymore, it's not artistically acceptable (arguably even culturally acceptable) for the owner of the painting to go there and just paint something over it that totally changes the meaning of the original painting.

Just because you are legally entitled to do something, it doesn't mean you should do something. As a recent example, just look at the United Airlines example for instance.