I think you messed up your sentence composition a bit. The only news I can find of any political donations he made around 2009 is about the same prop. 8. If he donated to Obama's campaign, it was probably because Obama didn't have much of a stance on gay rights at the time (because he wouldn't have been elected if he did - taking on the wrath of either side would have cost too many votes).
It's not just about his opinion. It's about his political donations (to California's Prop 8 specifically). Making him CEO will give him the wealth of hundreds of ordinary people which he could donate to further anti-gay-rights causes.
Opinions are worth boycotting too though. Throughout history, a few people have done horrible things wielding nothing but opinions and words. What if their opinions had been boycotted early on?
If he gave a flying fuck about your health, he would at least ask where you live first to know if you live in one of the few areas that might benefit from global warming and won't get dragged into any wars or refugee crises.
Funny how much you trust one computer model when its output flies in the face of decades of research and all the other computer models.
Also they point out "the pause" which shows that their model, and research, ignores ocean temperatures altogether...what kind of earth simulator is this!?
Everyone tried to tell something to North Korea regarding their death camps but then they said "mind your own business," Russia and China supported them, and that was the end of that.
If that definition were correct in the political context, the "tolerate my intolerance" crowd would be correct, and the entire movement could be thrown into a paradox with a childish logic trick. And then why not "tolerate" murder, pedophilia or nazism, since it's about "opinions and behavior."
Still not ashamed. I was replying to someone who appeared to be saying that carbon fiber was too fragile to make a good crash structure. I was right about that. I accidentally misused a term with a technical meaning in the process, that's all.
Sad thing is, I can't tell if you're a brilliant engineer or just a troll with basic materials science education, because they'd both respond the same way.
You're right, I have no materials science education whatsoever and accidentally used a technical term as a colloquialism. Something's bound to be on the opposite corner of the map from your area of expertise, mine being computer science.
Maybe it should be harder to start a small business.
If you're paying someone a sub-livable wage, are you giving to society or taking from it?
Other people have to donate resources to support the person making a sub-livable wage, while you profit from the arrangement.
I've worked with small businesses and I know what it's like. But I think that if a business must take from society rather than give to it in order to operate, purely in terms of dollars and cents, then it shouldn't be in operation.
Is "tough" a technical term? If you're going to get pedantic I think we should use technical terms.
It's "tough" as in a strong enough material to make a good crash structure, we agree on that. It's not "tough" like diamond. If you read my earlier post in this thread about crappy motorcycle helmets, you'd see that I don't think harder = better crash structure.
Race car crash structures - structures specifically made to absorb crash impact - are made of CF. It's very tough. It's why an F1 driver can walk away from plowing into a concrete wall at 300kph with just a hollow spike of material a few feet long between himself and the wall.
None of them would say that. That's like a CPU manufacturer saying multicore CPUs are unreliable. They're pretty much all selling them and they all know it's the future.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you messed up your sentence composition a bit. The only news I can find of any political donations he made around 2009 is about the same prop. 8. If he donated to Obama's campaign, it was probably because Obama didn't have much of a stance on gay rights at the time (because he wouldn't have been elected if he did - taking on the wrath of either side would have cost too many votes).
It's not just about his opinion. It's about his political donations (to California's Prop 8 specifically). Making him CEO will give him the wealth of hundreds of ordinary people which he could donate to further anti-gay-rights causes.
Opinions are worth boycotting too though. Throughout history, a few people have done horrible things wielding nothing but opinions and words. What if their opinions had been boycotted early on?
Because tolerance it's just tolerating any "thing." It's being against discrimination based on traits a person has no control over.
But making a stand against someone because they're gay seems petty...and I'm straight.
What happened to live and let live?
Anthony Watts is in it for the sweet Heartland Institute dollars.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...
If he gave a flying fuck about your health, he would at least ask where you live first to know if you live in one of the few areas that might benefit from global warming and won't get dragged into any wars or refugee crises.
Funny how much you trust one computer model when its output flies in the face of decades of research and all the other computer models.
Also they point out "the pause" which shows that their model, and research, ignores ocean temperatures altogether...what kind of earth simulator is this!?
LOL nice! XD
Maybe it's an Abe Simpson reference?
Everyone tried to tell something to North Korea regarding their death camps but then they said "mind your own business," Russia and China supported them, and that was the end of that.
I guess Stevie Wonder was wrong when he said "people keep on learning"...
He's right in the long term, but the process is VERY slow and sometimes stalls and regresses, even for centuries at a time.
I just got an image in my head of a yoga class turning into a Bleach/DBZ-style fight scene XD
"This will be the end of you! I have eaten whale for extra spirit energy! YUUUAAAAAAAA!!!!"
"Fish oil soaked beef" is how I've seen the taste described most of the time. I once also heard it described as "fishy liver."
If that definition were correct in the political context, the "tolerate my intolerance" crowd would be correct, and the entire movement could be thrown into a paradox with a childish logic trick. And then why not "tolerate" murder, pedophilia or nazism, since it's about "opinions and behavior."
Still not ashamed. I was replying to someone who appeared to be saying that carbon fiber was too fragile to make a good crash structure. I was right about that. I accidentally misused a term with a technical meaning in the process, that's all.
Sad thing is, I can't tell if you're a brilliant engineer or just a troll with basic materials science education, because they'd both respond the same way.
You're right, I have no materials science education whatsoever and accidentally used a technical term as a colloquialism. Something's bound to be on the opposite corner of the map from your area of expertise, mine being computer science.
Damn, thought I was using a colloquial term, specifically to avoid getting dragged into materials science pedantry.
They've been carrying lithium-ion batteries for the KERS system for a few years now.
Maybe it should be harder to start a small business.
If you're paying someone a sub-livable wage, are you giving to society or taking from it?
Other people have to donate resources to support the person making a sub-livable wage, while you profit from the arrangement.
I've worked with small businesses and I know what it's like. But I think that if a business must take from society rather than give to it in order to operate, purely in terms of dollars and cents, then it shouldn't be in operation.
BTW, thanks for calling me an "excited teenager" though. Makes me feel young!
Is "tough" a technical term? If you're going to get pedantic I think we should use technical terms.
It's "tough" as in a strong enough material to make a good crash structure, we agree on that. It's not "tough" like diamond. If you read my earlier post in this thread about crappy motorcycle helmets, you'd see that I don't think harder = better crash structure.
VERY impressive for a production vehicle.
LOLWUT?
Race car crash structures - structures specifically made to absorb crash impact - are made of CF. It's very tough. It's why an F1 driver can walk away from plowing into a concrete wall at 300kph with just a hollow spike of material a few feet long between himself and the wall.
None of them would say that. That's like a CPU manufacturer saying multicore CPUs are unreliable. They're pretty much all selling them and they all know it's the future.
Yes, but the batteries can survive being sprinkled with sparks just fine. It's being impaled that makes them ignite.
No, her hair's still on her scalp which is on the outside of the skull.