meh, there is something to be said for some groups needing legal protections more then others, and in general people with wealth and power tend to have enough of their own resources and political power to take care of themselves and still come out on top.
By that logic, gays "need" marriage less as they have no biological offspring to distribute an estate to, and this entire issue should be moot. Right? Right?
I hate this strawman, and it's coming up time and time again.
This isn't a "personal belief" or "opinion." This isn't someone who like brunettes over blondes. This isn't someone who doesn't like chocolate or who even doesn't like smokers. This is the belief that a group of people should be second class to another group of people.
If someone stands up and says "I don't like gays" it is one thing. When someone stands up and says "we should take rights away because I don't like these people" it's quite another thing. I am pissed off about the latter. It's the difference between thinking the person is a jerk and thinking the person is detrimental.
Marriage is not a right, even for straight people. So it's YOU creating a strawman. I understand that marriage-as-a-right is how the social justice campaign has been waged for several generations, and you know even have fairly high ranking judges agreeing, but there is no historical precedence, and certainly nothing in the letter or intent of the constitution that makes marriage a right. Marriage is a privelege granted to theoretically-productive couples (in the sense of procreation) to encourage said activity.
would have a hard time convincing someone that the company is at fault because the low level employees hated the CEO.
We're trying to prove coercion here. Didn't some low level employees sign some petition, and send it to the board? That'd be evidence in Eich's favor. I don't believe the law states that the coercion has to initiate at a certain level.
Exactly. And as far as we know, he wasn't forced to resign. He did so so the company could move on as his presence would have been a distraction.
Law is written containing the words "coerce, influence, or attempt to coerce or influence through or by means of threat of discharge." Something tells me that he'd have a good case. You'd have a hard time convincing a jury that there was ZERO pressure to resign. Would he pursue said case? Maybe not. The article is just ironic that in a state full of shitbag liberal lightningrods they've created laws to protect themselves from the fallout from being shitbag liberal lightingrods, and in the end these laws could blow up in their face and protect a shitbag conservative (that liberals turned into a ) lightningrod.
As a society, and therefore it's government, has a vested interest in the perpetuety of said society...doesn't it make sense that a government would put a union generally considered capable of procreation a class higher than one that can't?
The US is having a hard enough time getting current citizens to birth at replacement rates to the point of importing third worlders, and now you want to incentivize GAURANTEED barren pairings at the same level as potential fecund ones? Doesn't make sense unless, like is commonly suggested, the leftist goal is actually to destroy America.
Well, if your action impacts other people (when trying to pass laws requiring others to take the same actions), esp ones who are not part of your faith, yeah, you are going to get called out on it
So, like, requiring catholic employers to pay for contraception under Obama care? Where's the boycotts there?
He should not be prosecuted for giving his funds, but for spreading his hate speech in public against gays.
And the proper punishment would be: banning him to repeat that or face a heavy fine (yeah yeah free speech lala I hear you, idiot!)
Apparently you don't otherwise you wouldn't use meaningless (but successfuly shaming) terminology like "hatespeech" and suggest that there be legal ramifications for anyone making a PRIVATE donation to a cause.
A lot of people don't think "it's in some religion so he gets out of jail for free" is valid logic. Being a dick is being a dick, no matter what the Greek Orthodox church may say.
Being a dick is completely legal, and (in the United States anyway) is codified in free speech and association. Not that the PR campaign waged by the left cares about such things.
Christians that hold that view need a STRONG lesson in civics then. Its fine they hold that view, but we are going to constantly remind them it is immoral to force their morality on the rest of us. This is exactly where the religious need to be reminded of what the limits of tolerance are.
It would seem that gay rights activists need that same lesson with their demands to have a special, LGBT, section/version of everything. In essence, forcing their morality on the rest of us.
So you're saying it'll still have a shit transmission.
Ford seems to have their priorities seriously screwed up if that is the case. Shouldn't they make sure the powertrain works before working on the infotainment system.
Ford hasn't built their own manuals in decades. They're either getrag or tremec. As to the automatics, the current crop are very, very good. Have you even driven a ford since......oh......'05? Or are you spouting off crap?
It's about spending. Nobody in our government cares whether the systems work so long as defense contractors get paid, and then turn around and support politician's re-elections.
Ok, now things make a lot more sense. It's amazing how one piece of the puzzle really brings out the picture. So essentially X was designed to do more than just display, which is why I've always been confused about what X actually did. Sometimes I thought it was a graphics driver, sometimes I thought it was a network protocol, but it's basically both.
don't forget it's also a print server, and a binary interpreter too. This is why wayland proponents think X11 is a mess.
To be quite frank, a lot of the reason why you don't get many young women in STEM - and Open Source projects - is you insist they have lots of experience.
Open Source used to be mostly rolled out by students and people between jobs, but nowadays a lot of Open Source coders have full time jobs at various tech firms.
Those tech firms tend not to hire women with non-tech degrees and without extensive experience.
There's your problem.
Originally, you only needed some form of 2 year or 4 year degree, of any type, not tech, to get hired. And experience came on the job.
Fix that.
Then you'll get young women doing Open Source coding.
So your solution to get women to do something they aren't doing is to dangle the carrot of salary in front of women SO uninterested in something they didn't even attempt to pursue it as a course of education, and then hope they bite?
And this will produce QUALITY coders? Or just meet some kinda of assinine affirmative action quota?
The concept of an ISP 'holding their users hostage' as they try to obtain concessions from content providers is not unique to Comcast. Everyone in the space is playing the same game of leveraging the strength of their numbers and their negotiation and personal networks to get any advantage they can.
You're right. The tiny handful of providers are all doing the same thing at the expensive of the people. People...you know...those things that our government is supposed to protect? Oh wait...our corporations are people too, now, and better people than actual people.
anti-women, anti-gay, anti-choice: those are absolutes. or, do you think that certain people deserve more rights than others
no, but you do.
The pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-women agenda does not let natural forces sort things out, instead FORCING them to except things whether they have any logical basis or not. Ergo, all the people in your chosen special interests groups have more rights than the out-group.
seriously. how could you, with a clear conscience, be against fairness in network access?
I can't understand why people support the republican agenda. they are always (the last 20 or so years) on the wrong side. they are anti-women, anti-gay, anti-immigrant (unless its cheap h1b labor), and anti-choice. and like racial segregation from the 50's, history will show the republicans to be on the wrong side of history, too.
a thorn in our side in progress. this is the part of my country I really hate; the fact that we have idiots keeping us back from making progress the rest of the world already enjoys.
Why are any of those things wrong? Because they "feel" bad to you? You sort of have to ignore a pretty serious mountain of evidence that being pro-(insert your list of what republicans are anti) are destroying soveriegnty, culture, and economic prowress of this country.
How is it pathetic. The FBI is federal law enforcement. Copyright law is federal not state. Commercial piracy, like recording movies for others, is a federal crime. There is nothing pathetic about it. For many moves the property owners are conglomerates that hire studios not the movie theaters, they can't "kick the guy out".
The FBI's prime directive is to protect the citizenry from corporeal harm, not protect the corporations from perceived financial harm.
resort to rhetoric about teaching "all sides" of "competing theories" and claiming that this approach promotes "critical thinking."
So basically what the proponents of evolution do, but since we don't like it...now it's bad. Right or wrong: you can't shame "them" for using the same tactics as "us." Well, I guess in America you can because people are too goddamn stupid to look behind the curtain.
it wasnt just some band... it was van fuckin halen \m/... and it was david lee roth pretending to be a pretentious douche of a rock star by asking for the m&ms.
Actually, according to his autobiogprahy, it was buried in the TECHNICAL part of the contract, and existed to make sure that the promotor/venue read this section so something (like the stage collapsing) didn't occur.
What a douche, not wanting to die mid-show killing audience members...
Mod me down as a troll, but I'm going to call your stupid and asinine statement out. I _want_ to live in a world where my girlfriend, or certain adventurous female friends of mine, feel safe in sending me nudie pics on my phone, and do so because they feel they can without fear of reprisal, revenge, blackmail, or hacking. Because a world like that means that YOU, and every other man out there can also reap that kind of benefit.
In other words, you want to live in the feminist utopia where women are protected from all negative consequences for their actions. You want to live in a world where a vagina is a de facto get out of - not just jail, everything - free card.
No, fuck that. UNLESS the same is afforded to men.............which it never will be, so fuck that.
The article is FUD. Why? Because there is still demand for this service.
But, because most people want to stream to cellular devices, their demand is capped at ~2GB per month. Streaming can't live under the current scenario of very limited data packages at high costs on cellular devices.
Slashdot Mirror
If employers were allowed to fire people simply because they "didn't wanted them around" do you think we would end up in a good society?
It's called an "at-will" state. Texas is that way. It's also seeing an employment boom right now. Is it a society I want to end up in? Yes it is.
meh, there is something to be said for some groups needing legal protections more then others, and in general people with wealth and power tend to have enough of their own resources and political power to take care of themselves and still come out on top.
By that logic, gays "need" marriage less as they have no biological offspring to distribute an estate to, and this entire issue should be moot. Right? Right?
I hate this strawman, and it's coming up time and time again.
This isn't a "personal belief" or "opinion." This isn't someone who like brunettes over blondes. This isn't someone who doesn't like chocolate or who even doesn't like smokers. This is the belief that a group of people should be second class to another group of people.
If someone stands up and says "I don't like gays" it is one thing. When someone stands up and says "we should take rights away because I don't like these people" it's quite another thing. I am pissed off about the latter. It's the difference between thinking the person is a jerk and thinking the person is detrimental.
Marriage is not a right, even for straight people. So it's YOU creating a strawman. I understand that marriage-as-a-right is how the social justice campaign has been waged for several generations, and you know even have fairly high ranking judges agreeing, but there is no historical precedence, and certainly nothing in the letter or intent of the constitution that makes marriage a right. Marriage is a privelege granted to theoretically-productive couples (in the sense of procreation) to encourage said activity.
would have a hard time convincing someone that the company is at fault because the low level employees hated the CEO.
We're trying to prove coercion here. Didn't some low level employees sign some petition, and send it to the board? That'd be evidence in Eich's favor. I don't believe the law states that the coercion has to initiate at a certain level.
Exactly. And as far as we know, he wasn't forced to resign. He did so so the company could move on as his presence would have been a distraction.
Law is written containing the words "coerce, influence, or attempt to coerce or influence through or by means of threat of discharge." Something tells me that he'd have a good case. You'd have a hard time convincing a jury that there was ZERO pressure to resign. Would he pursue said case? Maybe not. The article is just ironic that in a state full of shitbag liberal lightningrods they've created laws to protect themselves from the fallout from being shitbag liberal lightingrods, and in the end these laws could blow up in their face and protect a shitbag conservative (that liberals turned into a ) lightningrod.
No. You are in grievous error. Civil unions do not grant the same protections as civil marriage. They are a second-class sort of union, and are far more discriminatory than merely not being permitted to sit in the front of the bus.
As a society, and therefore it's government, has a vested interest in the perpetuety of said society...doesn't it make sense that a government would put a union generally considered capable of procreation a class higher than one that can't? The US is having a hard enough time getting current citizens to birth at replacement rates to the point of importing third worlders, and now you want to incentivize GAURANTEED barren pairings at the same level as potential fecund ones? Doesn't make sense unless, like is commonly suggested, the leftist goal is actually to destroy America.
Well, if your action impacts other people (when trying to pass laws requiring others to take the same actions), esp ones who are not part of your faith, yeah, you are going to get called out on it
So, like, requiring catholic employers to pay for contraception under Obama care? Where's the boycotts there?
He should not be prosecuted for giving his funds, but for spreading his hate speech in public against gays. And the proper punishment would be: banning him to repeat that or face a heavy fine (yeah yeah free speech lala I hear you, idiot!)
Apparently you don't otherwise you wouldn't use meaningless (but successfuly shaming) terminology like "hatespeech" and suggest that there be legal ramifications for anyone making a PRIVATE donation to a cause.
But laying this at the feet of "The Left" much less Obama is utter horseshit
Not really, no. This tactic of destroying people's livehoods by virtue of internet slacktivism is unquestionably a page out of the leftist playbook.
A lot of people don't think "it's in some religion so he gets out of jail for free" is valid logic. Being a dick is being a dick, no matter what the Greek Orthodox church may say.
Being a dick is completely legal, and (in the United States anyway) is codified in free speech and association. Not that the PR campaign waged by the left cares about such things.
Christians that hold that view need a STRONG lesson in civics then. Its fine they hold that view, but we are going to constantly remind them it is immoral to force their morality on the rest of us. This is exactly where the religious need to be reminded of what the limits of tolerance are.
It would seem that gay rights activists need that same lesson with their demands to have a special, LGBT, section/version of everything. In essence, forcing their morality on the rest of us.
Case in point: Boston St. Pat's Parade.
Whether cities are good for mankind in the first place? Or is that one of those "assumed truths" of liberalism that is unquestionable?
So you're saying it'll still have a shit transmission. Ford seems to have their priorities seriously screwed up if that is the case. Shouldn't they make sure the powertrain works before working on the infotainment system.
Ford hasn't built their own manuals in decades. They're either getrag or tremec. As to the automatics, the current crop are very, very good. Have you even driven a ford since......oh......'05? Or are you spouting off crap?
It's about spending. Nobody in our government cares whether the systems work so long as defense contractors get paid, and then turn around and support politician's re-elections.
what it was designed to do - remote display
Ok, now things make a lot more sense. It's amazing how one piece of the puzzle really brings out the picture. So essentially X was designed to do more than just display, which is why I've always been confused about what X actually did. Sometimes I thought it was a graphics driver, sometimes I thought it was a network protocol, but it's basically both.
don't forget it's also a print server, and a binary interpreter too. This is why wayland proponents think X11 is a mess.
To be quite frank, a lot of the reason why you don't get many young women in STEM - and Open Source projects - is you insist they have lots of experience.
Open Source used to be mostly rolled out by students and people between jobs, but nowadays a lot of Open Source coders have full time jobs at various tech firms.
Those tech firms tend not to hire women with non-tech degrees and without extensive experience.
There's your problem.
Originally, you only needed some form of 2 year or 4 year degree, of any type, not tech, to get hired. And experience came on the job.
Fix that.
Then you'll get young women doing Open Source coding.
So your solution to get women to do something they aren't doing is to dangle the carrot of salary in front of women SO uninterested in something they didn't even attempt to pursue it as a course of education, and then hope they bite? And this will produce QUALITY coders? Or just meet some kinda of assinine affirmative action quota?
The concept of an ISP 'holding their users hostage' as they try to obtain concessions from content providers is not unique to Comcast. Everyone in the space is playing the same game of leveraging the strength of their numbers and their negotiation and personal networks to get any advantage they can.
You're right. The tiny handful of providers are all doing the same thing at the expensive of the people. People...you know...those things that our government is supposed to protect? Oh wait...our corporations are people too, now, and better people than actual people.
anti-women, anti-gay, anti-choice: those are absolutes. or, do you think that certain people deserve more rights than others
no, but you do. The pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-women agenda does not let natural forces sort things out, instead FORCING them to except things whether they have any logical basis or not. Ergo, all the people in your chosen special interests groups have more rights than the out-group.
republicans. is there anything you DON'T fuck up?
seriously. how could you, with a clear conscience, be against fairness in network access?
I can't understand why people support the republican agenda. they are always (the last 20 or so years) on the wrong side. they are anti-women, anti-gay, anti-immigrant (unless its cheap h1b labor), and anti-choice. and like racial segregation from the 50's, history will show the republicans to be on the wrong side of history, too.
a thorn in our side in progress. this is the part of my country I really hate; the fact that we have idiots keeping us back from making progress the rest of the world already enjoys.
Why are any of those things wrong? Because they "feel" bad to you? You sort of have to ignore a pretty serious mountain of evidence that being pro-(insert your list of what republicans are anti) are destroying soveriegnty, culture, and economic prowress of this country.
How is it pathetic. The FBI is federal law enforcement. Copyright law is federal not state. Commercial piracy, like recording movies for others, is a federal crime. There is nothing pathetic about it. For many moves the property owners are conglomerates that hire studios not the movie theaters, they can't "kick the guy out".
The FBI's prime directive is to protect the citizenry from corporeal harm, not protect the corporations from perceived financial harm.
resort to rhetoric about teaching "all sides" of "competing theories" and claiming that this approach promotes "critical thinking."
So basically what the proponents of evolution do, but since we don't like it...now it's bad. Right or wrong: you can't shame "them" for using the same tactics as "us." Well, I guess in America you can because people are too goddamn stupid to look behind the curtain.
it wasnt just some band... it was van fuckin halen \m/... and it was david lee roth pretending to be a pretentious douche of a rock star by asking for the m&ms .
Actually, according to his autobiogprahy, it was buried in the TECHNICAL part of the contract, and existed to make sure that the promotor/venue read this section so something (like the stage collapsing) didn't occur. What a douche, not wanting to die mid-show killing audience members...
Mod me down as a troll, but I'm going to call your stupid and asinine statement out. I _want_ to live in a world where my girlfriend, or certain adventurous female friends of mine, feel safe in sending me nudie pics on my phone, and do so because they feel they can without fear of reprisal, revenge, blackmail, or hacking. Because a world like that means that YOU, and every other man out there can also reap that kind of benefit.
In other words, you want to live in the feminist utopia where women are protected from all negative consequences for their actions. You want to live in a world where a vagina is a de facto get out of - not just jail, everything - free card. No, fuck that. UNLESS the same is afforded to men.............which it never will be, so fuck that.
Ask yourself the following:
(1) Are you cooking most of what you eat yourself?
(2) Have you cut all sugar, pasta, bread, and other starchy foods, and most saturated fat and meat from your diet?
(3) Have you been tracking your calories and weight daily for the past month?
If the answer to any of these questions is "no", you haven't seriously tried losing weight, and nothing is likely to help you.
And this is why we have such a problem as a culture losing weight. Cut most meat from your diet? Are you fucking kidding me!?
The article is FUD. Why? Because there is still demand for this service.
But, because most people want to stream to cellular devices, their demand is capped at ~2GB per month. Streaming can't live under the current scenario of very limited data packages at high costs on cellular devices.