Yeah, but how many people who have Symbian phones know that it runs the Symbian OS and how many are "I don't know what OS my phone runs"? I don't know the answer to that question, but my impression was that the latter was true of most of them (geeks like you find here on slashdot don't count).
What's next? Making plumbing a licensed profession which requires a a security clearance and supplies being available only from a licensed shop?
Don't give them any ideas. They just did a bunch of full scale SWAT style raids on barbershops in Florida (I believe the count was 19) where they handcuffed the barbers while they searched the premises for violations of the barber license and for illegal items (drugs, weapons, etc). All without a warrant, since a barbershop is subject to such searches by the Department of Licenses (who just happened to bring along local cops and the DEA). It was a great success, they found three instances of mimor amounts of illegal drugs and arrested several barbers for license violations (unlicensed barber, expired license, and other violations of that sort).
Why would anyone expect anything different? My expectation for Windows Phone 7 is that it will have slow uptake, but, if it is a good phone OS (and not junk like WinCE, which actually did pretty well for awhile), it will gradually increase market share with very few people realizing that that is what they are running. There will be four groups of people: "I've got an Iphone", "My phone runs Android", "I've got a BLackberry", and "I don't know what OS my phone runs". The last group will be composed primarily of those running WP7.
People aren't going to go out and buy a new smartphone just to get Windows Phone 7 on it, but they may replace their existing phone with a WP7 phone when it is time to upgrade.
Because after all, the best way to tell who is in the pocket of corporate interests is to look at who gave money to politicians who have yet to take office, not look at who gave money to the politicians currently in office when they ran in previous elections. I mean, comparing the legislation they support to the money they received in campaign donations won't tell you anything at all.
If you knew any history of the Democratic Party, you would realize that in the 1960s there were many who espoused the ideals of the today's right in the Democratic Party at that time. As a matter of fact, many of the Democratic politicians from the 1960s would be too far to the right of today's Democrats to be electable.
So, because an organization supports principles that were originally espoused by a Democrat that today are only espoused by Republicans (you know, ethics in governmnet), they are deceptive for referencing said Democrat?
Do you take everybody at their word? Just because they say they are about debunking misinformation doesn't mean that they don't create misinformation. Media Matters spends a lot of time "debunking" information they don't like.
Right wing conservative politicians are far, far more in bed with corporations than left wing politicians.
Wow, I never realized that Senator Chris Dodd or Congressman Barney Frank were right wing conservative politicians. But they must be, since it is impossible to be any more in bed with corporate interests than either of those two.
If Apple censors something they are not violating the First Amendment. Censorship by a private institution is not a violation of the First Amendment (except in certain limited circumstances).
You are also making the mistake of thinking that I speak for slashdot. I do not speak for slashdot (either the website or the "community"), I speak for myself (although I amuse myself by believing that there is a significant number of people on slashdot who agree with me on many subjects...usually different people on different subjects)
Whether or not someone should do something is not the question, the question is, should it be illegal for them to do so? I do not believe that I should be obligated to continue paying someone who thinks that working for me is terrible. If you think that working for my company is terrible then you will probably not do a very good job.
I have worked at companies that were miserable to work for until the person who was constantly complaining about how bad things were quit. Amazingly enough when that person left, working conditions "miraculously" improved. Actually, conditions didn't change much at first, but since that person was no longer there constantly reminding everyone about the things they didn't like about the job, people stopped focusing on the bad things and started to enjoy their job more.
Others have addressed your other points. However, real slaves did not have the option of running away and living on the street. If a real slave ran away, the owner tracked them down and forcibly brought them back to suffer rather severe physical punishment.
Actually, now that I have typed that, I don't think you understand what "forced to do labor" means in the context of slavery. If a slave refused to do labor as directed by his/her owner (or the owner's designee), he/she was likely to suffer rather severe physical punishment (punishment that makes the "torture" people accused the Bush Administration of doing look like a garden party).
No holiday time, no sick leave, no maternity leave, no restrictions on hours worked, no mandated breaks,...
I have yet to work anyplace in the U.S. that did not give at least 8 paid holidays to full time workers and holiday pay to those part time workers who were scheduled to work the holiday. Additionally, every place I have worked either gave a certain amount of sick time per length of tenure, or gave the employee sick time that accrued according to the number of hours worked. Finally, any U.S. company that does business across state lines must give breaks according to clearly laid out rules (it is more complicated for companies that do not do business across state lines, but as far as I know, only very small companies don't give breaks that follow the federal rules).
I hate to have to tell you this, but the First Amendment does not apply to your boss (unless he happens to work for the government).
The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Please note that it says "Congress shall make no law...", not "No one shall...abridge the freedom of speech...". This is an important difference. It isn't until the Fourteenth Amendment that the First Amendment comes to apply to state and local governments.
Actually I know a Amish dude that runs Linux on his desktop, there goes the Amish theory.
Well, he is either hiding his use of electricity from the other members of his church, or he has been shunned by the Amish (or in the process of being shunned).
Perhaps those who used Windows 1.0 would not have predicted that Windows would dominate the PC market 25 years later, but everyone I knew who understood computers did (none of them used Windows 1.0, this was in the day when you never used the first version of anything from MS. I seem to recall one person I knew predicting that Windows 3.0 would be the version that would catch on. I may be remembering that wrong, they may have said that when Windows 3.0 actually came out.
Where did you find an organization that represented a large enough group of members of the tea partys to write a "Tea Party Platform"? The closest thing I can find to a "Tea Party platform" is the "Contract from America" which nowhere mentions the 14th Amendment. The "Contract from America" is not something that has a consensus of those who consider themselves part of the Tea Party, but I think that most would agree that it addresses the issues that are important to the Tea Part movement (although many would choose to address some of the issues in a somewhat different manner).
The only part of the 14th amendment that I have seen anyone in the tea party say they want to repeal is the part where any baby born to any person inside the U.S. is a U.S. citizen, the so called "anchor-baby" provision. However, that is not a position of the tea party per se, merely a position of some members of the tea party movement.
Actually, the Founders put the Establishment clause in partly to assure everyone that the Federal Government would not establish a particular Church in conflict with the established Church of the several states, which would have happened if the Federal government established a Church since various states had different state Churches.
Thomas Jefferson used it later to explain his understanding of the 1st Amendment. Since he wrote the thing in the first place, he gets a pass here.
Umm, no, he didn't. He was actually out of the country when the First Amendment was written.James Madison wrote the First Amendment.
Additionally, if you read the letter where Thomas Jefferson used that phrase, you discover that he envisioned it as a one way "wall". The government is restricted from interfering with the "church", the "church" is not restricted from influencing the government.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but how many people who have Symbian phones know that it runs the Symbian OS and how many are "I don't know what OS my phone runs"? I don't know the answer to that question, but my impression was that the latter was true of most of them (geeks like you find here on slashdot don't count).
What's next? Making plumbing a licensed profession which requires a a security clearance and supplies being available only from a licensed shop?
Don't give them any ideas. They just did a bunch of full scale SWAT style raids on barbershops in Florida (I believe the count was 19) where they handcuffed the barbers while they searched the premises for violations of the barber license and for illegal items (drugs, weapons, etc). All without a warrant, since a barbershop is subject to such searches by the Department of Licenses (who just happened to bring along local cops and the DEA). It was a great success, they found three instances of mimor amounts of illegal drugs and arrested several barbers for license violations (unlicensed barber, expired license, and other violations of that sort).
Why would anyone expect anything different? My expectation for Windows Phone 7 is that it will have slow uptake, but, if it is a good phone OS (and not junk like WinCE, which actually did pretty well for awhile), it will gradually increase market share with very few people realizing that that is what they are running. There will be four groups of people: "I've got an Iphone", "My phone runs Android", "I've got a BLackberry", and "I don't know what OS my phone runs". The last group will be composed primarily of those running WP7.
People aren't going to go out and buy a new smartphone just to get Windows Phone 7 on it, but they may replace their existing phone with a WP7 phone when it is time to upgrade.
You mean the conservatives from the 80s that were elected by conservative Christians?
Because after all, the best way to tell who is in the pocket of corporate interests is to look at who gave money to politicians who have yet to take office, not look at who gave money to the politicians currently in office when they ran in previous elections. I mean, comparing the legislation they support to the money they received in campaign donations won't tell you anything at all.
If you knew any history of the Democratic Party, you would realize that in the 1960s there were many who espoused the ideals of the today's right in the Democratic Party at that time. As a matter of fact, many of the Democratic politicians from the 1960s would be too far to the right of today's Democrats to be electable.
So, because an organization supports principles that were originally espoused by a Democrat that today are only espoused by Republicans (you know, ethics in governmnet), they are deceptive for referencing said Democrat?
Really, I didn't think that Media Matters was that bad, they don't always lie.
Do you take everybody at their word? Just because they say they are about debunking misinformation doesn't mean that they don't create misinformation. Media Matters spends a lot of time "debunking" information they don't like.
Google Chris Dodd and Countrywide Mortgage and then do the same for Barney Frank. There are several other widely reported connections as well.
So, basically they are a right wing version of Media Matters or Center for American Progress?
But what about the Milk Marketing Board?
Right wing conservative politicians are far, far more in bed with corporations than left wing politicians.
Wow, I never realized that Senator Chris Dodd or Congressman Barney Frank were right wing conservative politicians. But they must be, since it is impossible to be any more in bed with corporate interests than either of those two.
If Apple censors something they are not violating the First Amendment. Censorship by a private institution is not a violation of the First Amendment (except in certain limited circumstances).
You are also making the mistake of thinking that I speak for slashdot. I do not speak for slashdot (either the website or the "community"), I speak for myself (although I amuse myself by believing that there is a significant number of people on slashdot who agree with me on many subjects...usually different people on different subjects)
Whether or not someone should do something is not the question, the question is, should it be illegal for them to do so? I do not believe that I should be obligated to continue paying someone who thinks that working for me is terrible. If you think that working for my company is terrible then you will probably not do a very good job.
I have worked at companies that were miserable to work for until the person who was constantly complaining about how bad things were quit. Amazingly enough when that person left, working conditions "miraculously" improved. Actually, conditions didn't change much at first, but since that person was no longer there constantly reminding everyone about the things they didn't like about the job, people stopped focusing on the bad things and started to enjoy their job more.
Others have addressed your other points. However, real slaves did not have the option of running away and living on the street. If a real slave ran away, the owner tracked them down and forcibly brought them back to suffer rather severe physical punishment.
Actually, now that I have typed that, I don't think you understand what "forced to do labor" means in the context of slavery. If a slave refused to do labor as directed by his/her owner (or the owner's designee), he/she was likely to suffer rather severe physical punishment (punishment that makes the "torture" people accused the Bush Administration of doing look like a garden party).
No holiday time, no sick leave, no maternity leave, no restrictions on hours worked, no mandated breaks,...
I have yet to work anyplace in the U.S. that did not give at least 8 paid holidays to full time workers and holiday pay to those part time workers who were scheduled to work the holiday. Additionally, every place I have worked either gave a certain amount of sick time per length of tenure, or gave the employee sick time that accrued according to the number of hours worked. Finally, any U.S. company that does business across state lines must give breaks according to clearly laid out rules (it is more complicated for companies that do not do business across state lines, but as far as I know, only very small companies don't give breaks that follow the federal rules).
I hate to have to tell you this, but the First Amendment does not apply to your boss (unless he happens to work for the government).
...abridge the freedom of speech...". This is an important difference. It isn't until the Fourteenth Amendment that the First Amendment comes to apply to state and local governments.
The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Please note that it says "Congress shall make no law...", not "No one shall
Considering this is slashdot, I automatically read that as "I'm putting a GNU on mine!" and started wondering where the punchline was...
Do you have any idea how big a gnu is?
Actually I know a Amish dude that runs Linux on his desktop, there goes the Amish theory.
Well, he is either hiding his use of electricity from the other members of his church, or he has been shunned by the Amish (or in the process of being shunned).
Perhaps those who used Windows 1.0 would not have predicted that Windows would dominate the PC market 25 years later, but everyone I knew who understood computers did (none of them used Windows 1.0, this was in the day when you never used the first version of anything from MS. I seem to recall one person I knew predicting that Windows 3.0 would be the version that would catch on. I may be remembering that wrong, they may have said that when Windows 3.0 actually came out.
Where did you find an organization that represented a large enough group of members of the tea partys to write a "Tea Party Platform"? The closest thing I can find to a "Tea Party platform" is the "Contract from America" which nowhere mentions the 14th Amendment. The "Contract from America" is not something that has a consensus of those who consider themselves part of the Tea Party, but I think that most would agree that it addresses the issues that are important to the Tea Part movement (although many would choose to address some of the issues in a somewhat different manner).
The only part of the 14th amendment that I have seen anyone in the tea party say they want to repeal is the part where any baby born to any person inside the U.S. is a U.S. citizen, the so called "anchor-baby" provision. However, that is not a position of the tea party per se, merely a position of some members of the tea party movement.
Actually, the Founders put the Establishment clause in partly to assure everyone that the Federal Government would not establish a particular Church in conflict with the established Church of the several states, which would have happened if the Federal government established a Church since various states had different state Churches.
Thomas Jefferson used it later to explain his understanding of the 1st Amendment. Since he wrote the thing in the first place, he gets a pass here.
Umm, no, he didn't. He was actually out of the country when the First Amendment was written.James Madison wrote the First Amendment.
Additionally, if you read the letter where Thomas Jefferson used that phrase, you discover that he envisioned it as a one way "wall". The government is restricted from interfering with the "church", the "church" is not restricted from influencing the government.
No, it isn't. The establishment clause is one way. The government must stay out of church, that doesn't mean that church must stay out of government.