First off, selling a wedding cake to a gay couple has nothing to do with accepting gay marriage. No one else going in to buy a cake has to pass a test before being allowed to buy one. If someone came in and wanted a wedding cake for their two cats (so they could stop living in cat sin together), is the baker going to refuse on the grounds that cats can not be married in the eyes of the church, or is the baker just going to laugh and humor the kooky cat lady? Is the baker being a hypocrite for refusing service only to gay customers while accepting anyone else?
Second, let's say hypothetically that this is a Christian church, there is no religious edict or teaching against selling a wedding cake to a gay couple, so there is no religious freedom being suppressed here. The baker is not being forced to officiate at a gay marriage, not being forced to engage in any gay activities, not being forced to sin in any way whatsoever.
What is happening is that some groups can not keep distinct their religious beliefs from their political beliefs and their cultural beliefs. They're as mad as hell at gay marriage being legalized so that they're using a knee-jerk reaction against it and falsely claiming it is about their own religious beliefs being violated.
However under the law as it is written, I think I would lose any lawsuit if the restaurant refused to serve me. All the restaurant has to do is declare to the court that giving me service me would violate a religious belief of either the owners or anyone working there.
MBLA is an organization advocating for a very harmful act to be made legal. There's no way to equate that with a normal advocacy group.
But if it were me in the PR firm, I would refuse but not on religious grounds. There is nothing here about free expression of religion, that's just being used an excuse to be bigoted towards gay, a knee jerk response created to the legalization of gay marriages. There is nothing in any of my religious texts that says I must refuse service to certain groups of people. On the contrary, the religious texts I've read point in the opposite direction, and the founders associated with known and despised sinners.
But where are there any religious beliefs in any mainstream religion that forbid an employee of Joe's lawnmower service to refuse to fix a lawnmower of a gay person, or that of an atheist, communist, etc.? What "on the basis of religion" is this? It most certainly is not Christianity.
Now what if the coffee shop clerk (my religions prevents me from calling them "baristas") is harming business by giving a religious test to everyone who makes an order, so that he only serves those with the proper belief system (no gays or lawyers). Should that employee be fired or reassigned to floor mopping duties, without that being a violation of their religious expression of freedom?
So what does your choice with religious expression have to do with their choice of a private lifestyle that doesn't affect you in any way? Show me the religious texts your religion has that disallows making cupcakes for a gay weddings. Now there are religious texts that would support not doing commerce with any outsiders, but those relatively rare and small sects generally don't do business with the public and they were not high on the list of supporters for this bill.
This is most certainly not a Christian rights issue in any way. There may be scriptures that seem strongly to forbid homosexual activity, but there are also scripture sthat are against remarriage after divorce, premarital sex even by straight people, allowing women to teach during church services, and so forth. Yet this "religious rights" bill did not gain steam before when atheists or Hindus wanted to buy a wedding cake from a Christian baker, or for a racially mixed couple, or if the bride was previously divorced, or an unmarried couple wanted to buy a loaf of bread, etc. No, this issue showed up in response to gay marriage being legalized.
There is nothing whatsoever in this bill that protects actual religious freedoms.
Why not tell me which religion it is that disallows talking to gays, backing cupcakes for gay weddings, and so forth? There certainly is no backing for this in the predominant religion of Indiana. What religious beliefs then are being protected here? No one is being asked to commit any sins. The first ammendment rights of free expression of religion and free speech are not given additional protections by this bill and were not in any danger without this bill.
What's a "statist"? The definition I have (someone who believes the state is more important to the individual) does not seem to apply here, as the FCC is clearly siding with the individual here, and optimism has nothing pro or con with statism.
This is a CEO syndrome. You're surrounded all day by sycophants who claim you're the smartest, brightest, and wisest person they know. No matter what obscure VP you go to visit they all seem to recognize you on sight, so clearly you've got name and face recognition. All of your decisions are praised. Most of the time even the board of directors treat you like their best friend.
Any TCP/IP stack with a dependency on endianness is fundamentally broken. Seriously. Only a moron would forget to use ntohl and htonl, and only a moron product manager would allow such a stack to be sold. Every commercial vendor an embedded TCP/IP stack has ported to a variety of architectures. Even in the unlikely chance that there's a vendor of TCP/IP that has a endianness problem then you can always buy from someone else.
But most likely the POWER users are going to use BSD or Linux anyway.
I've never used a 68K embedded system. Those don't really have a good niche is the problem. 32-bit SoCs meant for high performance typically use PowerPC, and 32-bit SoCs meant for lower power or economy typically use ARM. My experience only. Sure it may have big numbers of sales, mostly with ColdFire in the automotive market.
Right, Intel x86 family doesn't win because it's better, but because it's a hassle to switch. Intel is good enough, nothing spectacular, no one will study x86 as a good example in CPU design courses, though I'm sure it will be taught by the faculty at business schools. MIPS and Sparc however will continue to be taught, PowerPC is still a better overall system design in every way. Even Intel is unable to climb out of the pit they are in with backwards compatibility, their own i860, i960, and Itanium chips failed not because they weren't superior designs but because they didn't have the backwards compatibility with a shitty design.
McDonald's is the number one restaurant in the world, but you don't hear the culinary world raving about how great they are. Why then does the x86 family maintain a set of fan boys?
Better solution would be if people just stopped buying from Amazon. But no, people got to have their stuff online, otherwise they'd be forced to head to a store like some primitive tribes do.
Ya, it's kind of a non-story really. Ok, he used a replica panel, and you can't just buy those online easily. But a raspberry pi running an emulator is just decidedly not geeky. I can run Unix version 1 and 6 and BSD 2.9 on my Mac and PC, but I don't tell people I rebuilt a PDP-7 or PDP-11 or VAX.
Meanwhile there ARE people out there who have built real computers and CPUs from scratch as a hobby, without any emulators behind the scenes. Check out the http://members.iinet.net.au/~d... web ring. Those are infinitely cooler I think.
It's also about a career. Need more people who know stuff, not just people who pass a test and do the minimum necessary to graduate. Ie, learn the S, the T, the E, and especially the M. Not just the R, and the R, and the R.
We've been complaining about this since Socrates first did so: the younger generation is a bunch of lazy bums!
The police are looking into the case from what I read. There was enough of an assault for the producer to head to the emergency room. The "provocation" was that the producer had not provided any hot food after the day's shooting. (by producer, lest anyone be confused, I mean the junior guy who works for a living and not an executive producer)
The irony was that Clarkson was already had his final warning, any future offensive comments crossing the line would have had him fired, but then he goes and punches someone so that it wasn't his big mouth that got him fired after all.
Anyone would have been fired for the same offense, probably lesser people would have spent jail time over it.
The point is not to get rid of anything that might be too exciting or alluring. The point is that sales and marketing people should be professional at a professional conference. There are plenty of auxillary magazines available if you are missing the cleavage.
Lack of internet service should be something that should be disclosed as a part of the home buying process. It's ok to say "never had internet before", but to have the seller/agent claim that there was service when there clearly was not should constitute as a breach of contract.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, selling a wedding cake to a gay couple has nothing to do with accepting gay marriage. No one else going in to buy a cake has to pass a test before being allowed to buy one. If someone came in and wanted a wedding cake for their two cats (so they could stop living in cat sin together), is the baker going to refuse on the grounds that cats can not be married in the eyes of the church, or is the baker just going to laugh and humor the kooky cat lady? Is the baker being a hypocrite for refusing service only to gay customers while accepting anyone else?
Second, let's say hypothetically that this is a Christian church, there is no religious edict or teaching against selling a wedding cake to a gay couple, so there is no religious freedom being suppressed here. The baker is not being forced to officiate at a gay marriage, not being forced to engage in any gay activities, not being forced to sin in any way whatsoever.
What is happening is that some groups can not keep distinct their religious beliefs from their political beliefs and their cultural beliefs. They're as mad as hell at gay marriage being legalized so that they're using a knee-jerk reaction against it and falsely claiming it is about their own religious beliefs being violated.
I always order out.
However under the law as it is written, I think I would lose any lawsuit if the restaurant refused to serve me. All the restaurant has to do is declare to the court that giving me service me would violate a religious belief of either the owners or anyone working there.
MBLA is an organization advocating for a very harmful act to be made legal. There's no way to equate that with a normal advocacy group.
But if it were me in the PR firm, I would refuse but not on religious grounds. There is nothing here about free expression of religion, that's just being used an excuse to be bigoted towards gay, a knee jerk response created to the legalization of gay marriages. There is nothing in any of my religious texts that says I must refuse service to certain groups of people. On the contrary, the religious texts I've read point in the opposite direction, and the founders associated with known and despised sinners.
But where are there any religious beliefs in any mainstream religion that forbid an employee of Joe's lawnmower service to refuse to fix a lawnmower of a gay person, or that of an atheist, communist, etc.? What "on the basis of religion" is this? It most certainly is not Christianity.
Now what if the coffee shop clerk (my religions prevents me from calling them "baristas") is harming business by giving a religious test to everyone who makes an order, so that he only serves those with the proper belief system (no gays or lawyers). Should that employee be fired or reassigned to floor mopping duties, without that being a violation of their religious expression of freedom?
So what does your choice with religious expression have to do with their choice of a private lifestyle that doesn't affect you in any way? Show me the religious texts your religion has that disallows making cupcakes for a gay weddings. Now there are religious texts that would support not doing commerce with any outsiders, but those relatively rare and small sects generally don't do business with the public and they were not high on the list of supporters for this bill.
This is most certainly not a Christian rights issue in any way. There may be scriptures that seem strongly to forbid homosexual activity, but there are also scripture sthat are against remarriage after divorce, premarital sex even by straight people, allowing women to teach during church services, and so forth. Yet this "religious rights" bill did not gain steam before when atheists or Hindus wanted to buy a wedding cake from a Christian baker, or for a racially mixed couple, or if the bride was previously divorced, or an unmarried couple wanted to buy a loaf of bread, etc. No, this issue showed up in response to gay marriage being legalized.
There is nothing whatsoever in this bill that protects actual religious freedoms.
Why not tell me which religion it is that disallows talking to gays, backing cupcakes for gay weddings, and so forth? There certainly is no backing for this in the predominant religion of Indiana. What religious beliefs then are being protected here? No one is being asked to commit any sins. The first ammendment rights of free expression of religion and free speech are not given additional protections by this bill and were not in any danger without this bill.
Don't be silly, Jesus was this white dude from America who voted for Goldwater.
What's a "statist"? The definition I have (someone who believes the state is more important to the individual) does not seem to apply here, as the FCC is clearly siding with the individual here, and optimism has nothing pro or con with statism.
Sarah Palin actually held a political office. I'm not sure if Fiorina was even on a student council.
This is a CEO syndrome. You're surrounded all day by sycophants who claim you're the smartest, brightest, and wisest person they know. No matter what obscure VP you go to visit they all seem to recognize you on sight, so clearly you've got name and face recognition. All of your decisions are praised. Most of the time even the board of directors treat you like their best friend.
Woah woah woah! It sounds like you might be new to the world of corporate management. A few MBA courses should set you right.
Any TCP/IP stack with a dependency on endianness is fundamentally broken. Seriously. Only a moron would forget to use ntohl and htonl, and only a moron product manager would allow such a stack to be sold. Every commercial vendor an embedded TCP/IP stack has ported to a variety of architectures. Even in the unlikely chance that there's a vendor of TCP/IP that has a endianness problem then you can always buy from someone else.
But most likely the POWER users are going to use BSD or Linux anyway.
I've never used a 68K embedded system. Those don't really have a good niche is the problem. 32-bit SoCs meant for high performance typically use PowerPC, and 32-bit SoCs meant for lower power or economy typically use ARM. My experience only. Sure it may have big numbers of sales, mostly with ColdFire in the automotive market.
Linux already runs well on POWER.
Right, Intel x86 family doesn't win because it's better, but because it's a hassle to switch. Intel is good enough, nothing spectacular, no one will study x86 as a good example in CPU design courses, though I'm sure it will be taught by the faculty at business schools. MIPS and Sparc however will continue to be taught, PowerPC is still a better overall system design in every way. Even Intel is unable to climb out of the pit they are in with backwards compatibility, their own i860, i960, and Itanium chips failed not because they weren't superior designs but because they didn't have the backwards compatibility with a shitty design.
McDonald's is the number one restaurant in the world, but you don't hear the culinary world raving about how great they are. Why then does the x86 family maintain a set of fan boys?
Better solution would be if people just stopped buying from Amazon. But no, people got to have their stuff online, otherwise they'd be forced to head to a store like some primitive tribes do.
But still plenty of states who are in the pockets of corrupt politicians who will claim such things are pro-business.
No, that name is insulting to real clowns.
Ya, it's kind of a non-story really. Ok, he used a replica panel, and you can't just buy those online easily. But a raspberry pi running an emulator is just decidedly not geeky. I can run Unix version 1 and 6 and BSD 2.9 on my Mac and PC, but I don't tell people I rebuilt a PDP-7 or PDP-11 or VAX.
Meanwhile there ARE people out there who have built real computers and CPUs from scratch as a hobby, without any emulators behind the scenes. Check out the http://members.iinet.net.au/~d... web ring. Those are infinitely cooler I think.
It's also about a career. Need more people who know stuff, not just people who pass a test and do the minimum necessary to graduate. Ie, learn the S, the T, the E, and especially the M. Not just the R, and the R, and the R.
We've been complaining about this since Socrates first did so: the younger generation is a bunch of lazy bums!
Tryst is the wrong word. That implies a brief romantic encounter. Whereas the government screws you for many many years.
The police are looking into the case from what I read. There was enough of an assault for the producer to head to the emergency room. The "provocation" was that the producer had not provided any hot food after the day's shooting. (by producer, lest anyone be confused, I mean the junior guy who works for a living and not an executive producer)
The irony was that Clarkson was already had his final warning, any future offensive comments crossing the line would have had him fired, but then he goes and punches someone so that it wasn't his big mouth that got him fired after all.
Anyone would have been fired for the same offense, probably lesser people would have spent jail time over it.
The point is not to get rid of anything that might be too exciting or alluring. The point is that sales and marketing people should be professional at a professional conference. There are plenty of auxillary magazines available if you are missing the cleavage.
Lack of internet service should be something that should be disclosed as a part of the home buying process. It's ok to say "never had internet before", but to have the seller/agent claim that there was service when there clearly was not should constitute as a breach of contract.