Technology moves too fast. I bet the man-power needed goes down every year as software improves and automates more and more of the process. Before college, everyone should spend days looking through local job listings to see what fields are actually hiring, at good rates.
While single and earning $50/hr full-time (which is $100,000/yr), you'll pay more than 1/3rd of that salary in federal+state income+SS taxes, and you'll probably have to move to a city with high rent to get such a job, which will eat at LEAST another 1/3rd of the rest, right off. You still come out ahead, of course, but there are plenty of situations where you can earn half as much (in a cheaper city) while being able to put away just as much in your savings (or retirement) account, while doing a much easier job.
Overall victimization rates are only gender-equal because they fail to control for about 3X more men than women being involved in criminal activity, a career choice that greatly increases the chance of one becoming a victim. Adjusting for that would put women far ahead, and of course sexual assault victims are overwhelmingly female.
There are no shortage of female dominated shows. The CW, Lifetime and Oxygen channels' entire line-up comes to mind. Daytime dramas and talk shows have long been a stronghold as well. Anybody complaining we need to get equal representation for men on The View?
DeBusk: I stand behind the figure. There are ample sources of data to draw upon to prove the point. Olympic weightlifting records clearly show significant strength disparities even when controlling for individual weight, and the average weight disparity between men and women is available from medical sources. In fact here's just one source provided by Neato a short while back: http://www.greenherontools.com/women-tools_why-tools.php
Gryphon: I hate to be crass, but you seem to have completely missed the point. Men don't tend to get abducted, overpowered, raped, and possibly strangled or stabbed (see: almost every serial killer). Certainly not in remotely the same numbers. I don't see how "awareness of the limits of your own strength and skills" will improve those outcomes, while realizing your physical disadvantages can be a helpful reminder to at least avoid some dangerous situations.
No amount of political correctness will make women remotely as strong as men. Its about a 2:1 disadvantage. I wonder how many women have been hurt in the real world because nobody tells them the truth, anymore.
When Hollywood tries to have a female action movie lead, they always cast some 4.5' 90lbs girl and have her pummeling a gigantic body builder, and it couldn't be more laughable. It would be one thing if it was all gun play, but I assume that makes for a much less exciting film.
They're not all alike. I absolutely love the ones you pull straight through with just a single pump inline, then out to the street... So much quicker to get in/out and less miserable to navigate when cars are waiting for the next open one.
In addition, there are the small footprint stations, where one cashier is in a glass coffin in the center, with no store at all. And those retrofits, installed in an existing row/strip mall with no indication which one is operating the pumps.
May be a sign your ceiling heights are ridiculously, wastefully, too high. If you made another level you'd have much more square footage to work with and not need the huge loft bed.
Pan & scan isn't just cutting-off the sides. Many times the 4:3 TV version shows MORE vertical picture than the theatre version... that's right, they go back to the raw film and include MORE of the pciture. With more vertical, they can then crop-off less of the horizontal, without any black bars showing at the top&bottom.
I was a videophile back in the day, and yet I preferrred pan & scan onn VHS. It was a real necessity, before DVD. VHS only had a resolution of 1/4 that of DVDs and VHS didnt have a special anamorphic/16:9 mode that lets you use the whole resolutionn in a different aspect ratio. Waste 1/3rd of VHS' picture quality on black bars, and what's left is even blurrier and awful to watch. Even now, on DVDs, using the way-too-wide original aspect ratio can be awful. Movies like A Boy And His Dog look pretty bad.
Pan & scan for 16:9 widescreen TVs is AWFUL! Take Robin Hood-Men in Tights, Mortal Kombat, etc., and to get a 16:9 picture on those DVDs, they just cut off the top and bottom of the 4:3 picture! You actually lose a huge amount of the picture in the widescreen/letterboxed version. That's the worst of all worlds!
The public is vastly more aware and concerned about this issue, because the FCC forced them to change TVs... When people's whole home video world was their 4:3 tube TV, everythig was simple, and directors trying to force letterboxing were complicating it. With the switch, there's nowhere to hide... Old TV shows will be 4:3, while new ones will be 16:9. Even then, some people choose to disgustingly stretch one of those to fill their screen rather than see letterboxing. Still, we were forced to confront the problem, daily.
I'm not a purist... I prefer a little bit of each. I zoom-in just a little, cutting off a bit of the picture, and using more of the screen, but only about halfway, as I dont take it far enough to hide the black bars. It's a shame most TVs dont have such an option built-in, to allow all of you to do similarly if you chose.
I was surprised to find out that women can't rotate their wrists... I can't imagine any other reason they need "patented" D-handle shovels. Of course men's D-handle shovels come in every length imaginable... And if they didn't, you need only remove one screw/bolt/rivet, cut the handle to length, then drill a new hole and reattach the D-handle. Basic shovels require even fewer steps to shorten (and lighten)!
I'm sadly NOT surprised that they sell for $70 each, while a similar shovel, designed to punish women for leaving the kitchen, sells for under $20 just about everywhere. Is women exploiting other women, for profits, a form of empowerment and social justice, too?
For any ladies out there... Not only can you choose between a wide array of shovel styles at any hardware store, and shorten handles as needed with minimal effort... But you can also investigate options like lightweight folding shovels, designed for hiking, yet tough enough for soldiers to dig fox holes for survival.
So he's a twit, so what? Her date with him might have gone perfectly fine. She's talking about it like she narrowly missed our on being murdered... Ted Bundy was actually quite charming and well-spoken, you know.
I agree MP3 wasn't yet popular at all (but it certainly did exist) so the leak was unlikely to have been released in that format. However, it doesn't follow that: "the file sizes were likely massive." They could have been compressed with other methods, down sampled, etc, etc.
While single and earning $50/hr full-time (which is $100,000/yr), you'll pay more than 1/3rd of that salary in federal+state income+SS taxes, and you'll probably have to move to a city with high rent to get such a job, which will eat at LEAST another 1/3rd of the rest, right off. You still come out ahead, of course, but there are plenty of situations where you can earn half as much (in a cheaper city) while being able to put away just as much in your savings (or retirement) account, while doing a much easier job.
In fact here's just one source provided by Neato a short while back: http://www.greenherontools.com/women-tools_why-tools.php
Gryphon: I hate to be crass, but you seem to have completely missed the point. Men don't tend to get abducted, overpowered, raped, and possibly strangled or stabbed (see: almost every serial killer). Certainly not in remotely the same numbers. I don't see how "awareness of the limits of your own strength and skills" will improve those outcomes, while realizing your physical disadvantages can be a helpful reminder to at least avoid some dangerous situations.
When Hollywood tries to have a female action movie lead, they always cast some 4.5' 90lbs girl and have her pummeling a gigantic body builder, and it couldn't be more laughable. It would be one thing if it was all gun play, but I assume that makes for a much less exciting film.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_height%E2%80%93velocity_diagram
Pilots stay within those parameters to ensure safety.
In addition, there are the small footprint stations, where one cashier is in a glass coffin in the center, with no store at all. And those retrofits, installed in an existing row/strip mall with no indication which one is operating the pumps.
I was a videophile back in the day, and yet I preferrred pan & scan onn VHS. It was a real necessity, before DVD. VHS only had a resolution of 1/4 that of DVDs and VHS didnt have a special anamorphic/16:9 mode that lets you use the whole resolutionn in a different aspect ratio. Waste 1/3rd of VHS' picture quality on black bars, and what's left is even blurrier and awful to watch. Even now, on DVDs, using the way-too-wide original aspect ratio can be awful. Movies like A Boy And His Dog look pretty bad.
Pan & scan for 16:9 widescreen TVs is AWFUL! Take Robin Hood-Men in Tights, Mortal Kombat, etc., and to get a 16:9 picture on those DVDs, they just cut off the top and bottom of the 4:3 picture! You actually lose a huge amount of the picture in the widescreen/letterboxed version. That's the worst of all worlds!
The public is vastly more aware and concerned about this issue, because the FCC forced them to change TVs... When people's whole home video world was their 4:3 tube TV, everythig was simple, and directors trying to force letterboxing were complicating it. With the switch, there's nowhere to hide... Old TV shows will be 4:3, while new ones will be 16:9. Even then, some people choose to disgustingly stretch one of those to fill their screen rather than see letterboxing. Still, we were forced to confront the problem, daily.
I'm not a purist... I prefer a little bit of each. I zoom-in just a little, cutting off a bit of the picture, and using more of the screen, but only about halfway, as I dont take it far enough to hide the black bars. It's a shame most TVs dont have such an option built-in, to allow all of you to do similarly if you chose.
http://uploads.neatorama.com/images/posts/693/87/87693/1453222882-0.jpg
I was surprised to find out that women can't rotate their wrists... I can't imagine any other reason they need "patented" D-handle shovels. Of course men's D-handle shovels come in every length imaginable... And if they didn't, you need only remove one screw/bolt/rivet, cut the handle to length, then drill a new hole and reattach the D-handle. Basic shovels require even fewer steps to shorten (and lighten)!
I'm sadly NOT surprised that they sell for $70 each, while a similar shovel, designed to punish women for leaving the kitchen, sells for under $20 just about everywhere. Is women exploiting other women, for profits, a form of empowerment and social justice, too?
For any ladies out there... Not only can you choose between a wide array of shovel styles at any hardware store, and shorten handles as needed with minimal effort... But you can also investigate options like lightweight folding shovels, designed for hiking, yet tough enough for soldiers to dig fox holes for survival.
http://ranker.com/list/charming-serial-killers/mike-rothschild