More math mistakes

According to a picture that is making the rounds on Facebook, Halliburton will make enough money to pay off a $200,000 fine in "just 23 seconds".

$200,000 per 23 seconds is $274 billion per year. The "23 seconds" number appears to come from an article in the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/halliburton-fine_n_3659293.html

This article claimed it uses the 2012 revenue numbers. However, Halliburton's revenues are actually only about $28.5 billion per year:

http://www.halliburton.com/public/news/pubsdata/press_release/2013/Q412_Earnings_Release.pdf

News Quiz

55 of Colorado's 62 county sheriffs have joined a lawsuit against the Colorado state governor to block two recent gun bills, including one which bans high-capacity magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds. Which of the following is an actual legal argument that was used in the court filing?

1. The ban discriminates against people with disabilities, because people with disabilities are less able to reload weapons quickly in a self-defense situation.

2. The ban interferes with the First Amendment right to freedom of the press, because the definition of "high-capacity magazine" is so poorly worded that it could refer to newsmagazines more than 15 pages long.

3. The 2nd Amendment's "right to bear arms" literally refers to "arms powerful enough to kill a bear", and some species of bears native to Colorado are tough enough that they require more than 15 shots to kill.

4. The 2nd Amendment's "right to bear arms" is geared toward weapons that the public is familiar with, and the most common way the public becomes familiar with weapons is from movies and video games, most of which include weapons with more than 15 rounds of ammunition.

Missing the Target

Did you see the recent news story about the lawsuit against Target for racial discrimination?  Apparently they had a training document which the employees thought was offensive:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/09/target-multicultural-tips_n_3566873.html

I don't understand why the first three items (not all Hispanic employees eat tacos, wear sombreros or dance

to salsa music) would be considered offensive. It sounds like these items are saying that Mexicans DO NOT

always follow the stereotype. (For instance, it seems obvious that if the document said "Yes, all Hispanics

do all these things" then that would clearly been  even more offensive. It seems weird to me that it is possible for

a statement to be racially offensive AND for its exact negation to also be racially offensive.)

However, the other three items, as well as some of the other descriptions of the conduct involved, do seem to be

racially offensive. But the one part that did stick out to me is the item about "some Hispanics are undocumented

workers." And the context of this document is talking about other employees.

So Target is admitting to hiring undocumented workers? Isn't that illegal? I'm surprised none of the stories

picked up on that.