They would if it wasn't illegal and it wouldn't kick of a PR nightmare.
But browser choice is not skin color, and brower choice is not being disabled, and browser choice is not any of the other things the government has protected from discrimination.
Pizza hut charges me more for delivery than pickup. So does the local Chinese place. Charging more things that cost more is harldy a new idea.
And what happens when you do the same thing when two white guy are running? In other words how much of it is just that they pick Democrat everytime without caring about the details.
You think it takes 10 million agreeing to do something for it to happen? Why 10 million? How do you think they'll pick them?
I guess in your strange fantasy world where it takes the agreement of 10 million people for anything to be done, then sure nothing is likely to happen. In the real world though there's a handful of religious leaders at the top and a handful of military leaders under them who can do things without getting 10 million people to agree.
None of that has any relavance to roundup being a "fairly scary pesticide". If you are going to make things up at least have them be arguments for your claim.
Printing money is only fraud if it claims to be backed by something that doesn't actually exist. In the case of the US, they can print as much as they want without evey committing fraud. Sure print to much and you destroy the economy (people with wealth spend their resources trying to protect that wealth from the resulting inflation instead of doing economically beneficial stuff).
So the US didn't win against the Japanese in WW2 then? You don't get much more "use of overwhelming" than nuking two cities when no one else has nukes at all.
Clearly not because they've decided the cost isn't worth the benefit and hence are staying in a status that is not as beneficial to them. Which is strange because the cost doesn't actually exist, but to each his own.
I wouldn't notice if a resume I got for the positions we are advertizing didn't have a degree listed. And he would have one for the places that deal with HR requiring such a thing.
Of course lack of experience is a harder nut to crack but having a degree in CS doesn't make up for that anyway.
And yet it doesn't in a bunch of other developed countries. So maybe the problem is with the setup that is producing those prices not with the rather simple concept of insurance.
Sure if healthier have more covered medical expenses each year then yes they would end up paying more each year in health insurance.
I doubt that's the case though.
That they live longer and so pay for more years is irrelevant, they pay more rent/property insurance/etc as well.
Whether you pay extra for a policy that has limited price increases and you can't get booted from arbitrarily or pay less and risk get booted at the end of whatever the reissue time period is when you get cancer would again be up to the person.
Right, and he can choose to pay for insurance in case of such an occurance. If you are overwight and smoke than such insurance should cost you more.
Just like things would work out badly for me if my house burnt down, hence I pay for insurance. Note it's my choice to do so, no one forces me too (though if I have a mortgage the bank might have made keeping such insurance part of my end of the bargain - but it was my choice to make that agreement).
There's no difference between being a citizen and a permanent resident in terms of facilitating.
So that's completely irrelevant. Not to mention that the oath was the problem not the citizenship since the kids who are citizens without swearing an oath are all fine and dandy.
its an edge case, but the inferencing is pretty strong. " I know what is being referred to, and no true scotsman would call it that."
It's not a true scotsman argument because there is scotsman involved. There's no claim of all X do/are/belive/etc Y to defend a counter example with "A is not a true X".
What seals it is use of the word 'respect'. Her usage implies that anyone who would happen to refer to the product as 'Itanic' was contemptuous.
I don't think so, it just says no one she respects would use a disparaging term for a product she is involved with.
"Not having respect for" is also not the same as "being contemptuous of".
To me it reads as a acknowledgement that she has heard to the term before with an insult to the lawyer asking the question thrown in for good measure.
I'm pretty sure "annoying a cop" or "looking at a cop funny" or "speaking to a cop when not spoken to" are all reasons to be arrested on the spot.
More seriously if they tried analysing such data and responding in person they'd be overwhelmed with all the false positives (that have been mentioned in other posts, people researching novels, etc) that they'd have to give up on the idea anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
They would if it wasn't illegal and it wouldn't kick of a PR nightmare.
But browser choice is not skin color, and brower choice is not being disabled, and browser choice is not any of the other things the government has protected from discrimination.
Pizza hut charges me more for delivery than pickup. So does the local Chinese place. Charging more things that cost more is harldy a new idea.
Which is irrelevant because there is no "bet or wager". And of course it wasn't the point I was addressing in the first palce.
So a single flood or fire away from being lost?
The game is rated "MATURE 17+", any "little kids" playing it are the fault of idiotic parents not blizzard.
But do they actually vote?
And what happens when you do the same thing when two white guy are running? In other words how much of it is just that they pick Democrat everytime without caring about the details.
It's just bit. There is no difference to the network between an image of child porn and a manifesto to free Tibet.
If you can find the source of one you can find the source of the other.
So the "problem" is actually a case of "working as designed".
Is that your way of volunteering for the role?
You think it takes 10 million agreeing to do something for it to happen? Why 10 million? How do you think they'll pick them?
I guess in your strange fantasy world where it takes the agreement of 10 million people for anything to be done, then sure nothing is likely to happen. In the real world though there's a handful of religious leaders at the top and a handful of military leaders under them who can do things without getting 10 million people to agree.
None of that has any relavance to roundup being a "fairly scary pesticide". If you are going to make things up at least have them be arguments for your claim.
Printing money is only fraud if it claims to be backed by something that doesn't actually exist. In the case of the US, they can print as much as they want without evey committing fraud. Sure print to much and you destroy the economy (people with wealth spend their resources trying to protect that wealth from the resulting inflation instead of doing economically beneficial stuff).
Clearly you weren't because you said "in any conflict" which any moron can see is not restricting the claim to asymmetric warfare.
So the US didn't win against the Japanese in WW2 then? You don't get much more "use of overwhelming" than nuking two cities when no one else has nukes at all.
That doesn't change any of: :more marketable, more ecofriendly and more regulatory friendly" though.
Unless you interprete "ecofriendly" to be "better for the evironment" rather than "better for the owners feelings about the environment" of course.
Clearly not because they've decided the cost isn't worth the benefit and hence are staying in a status that is not as beneficial to them. Which is strange because the cost doesn't actually exist, but to each his own.
I wouldn't notice if a resume I got for the positions we are advertizing didn't have a degree listed. And he would have one for the places that deal with HR requiring such a thing.
Of course lack of experience is a harder nut to crack but having a degree in CS doesn't make up for that anyway.
And yet it doesn't in a bunch of other developed countries. So maybe the problem is with the setup that is producing those prices not with the rather simple concept of insurance.
Sure if healthier have more covered medical expenses each year then yes they would end up paying more each year in health insurance.
I doubt that's the case though.
That they live longer and so pay for more years is irrelevant, they pay more rent/property insurance/etc as well.
Whether you pay extra for a policy that has limited price increases and you can't get booted from arbitrarily or pay less and risk get booted at the end of whatever the reissue time period is when you get cancer would again be up to the person.
Right, and he can choose to pay for insurance in case of such an occurance. If you are overwight and smoke than such insurance should cost you more.
Just like things would work out badly for me if my house burnt down, hence I pay for insurance. Note it's my choice to do so, no one forces me too (though if I have a mortgage the bank might have made keeping such insurance part of my end of the bargain - but it was my choice to make that agreement).
Did Art have white skin by any chance?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFB_cEuBazs&t=5m10s
How do you leap from good to ultimate without a blink?
And everyone does not agree is doesn't belong in the ground, it is where is came from in the first place,
Most people don't like their job. They'd rather be watching TV, or playing video games, or playing with the kids, or travelling, or whatever.
Most people will at some point complain about their job.
Luckily most people have a better understanding of cost/benefit tradeoffs than you and hence don't just quit their jobs.
Hence why the argument falls apart.
There's no difference between being a citizen and a permanent resident in terms of facilitating.
So that's completely irrelevant. Not to mention that the oath was the problem not the citizenship since the kids who are citizens without swearing an oath are all fine and dandy.
It's not a true scotsman argument because there is scotsman involved. There's no claim of all X do/are/belive/etc Y to defend a counter example with "A is not a true X".
I don't think so, it just says no one she respects would use a disparaging term for a product she is involved with.
"Not having respect for" is also not the same as "being contemptuous of".
To me it reads as a acknowledgement that she has heard to the term before with an insult to the lawyer asking the question thrown in for good measure.
I'm pretty sure "annoying a cop" or "looking at a cop funny" or "speaking to a cop when not spoken to" are all reasons to be arrested on the spot.
More seriously if they tried analysing such data and responding in person they'd be overwhelmed with all the false positives (that have been mentioned in other posts, people researching novels, etc) that they'd have to give up on the idea anyway.