that's because Gamergate wasn't about ethics in game journalism, hilarious memes be damned. it was PRECISELY about white men continuing to be gatekeepers against gaming opening up to other people, including women. in sum, get your paranoid persecution complex out of here.
i switched from iPhone *to* Android specifically because iOS is such a closed platform. Android (or at least AOSP, non-Samsung variants) are for power users.
c) you're a lawyer, you're lying about what you are doing, and you should give me your name now so i can report you for an ethics violation under the model rules and your state's bar's ethics rules.
a) Violating the "model rules" is meaningless. Model laws and rules are an example and a suggestion, not actual laws or rules.
b) What motivation do you think this individual could possibly have to tell you his name when you say this is what you are going to do if he does?
except in the realm of law, where the Model Rules of Professional Conduct hold quite a bit of sway with the individual state bars in the U.S.
and the point was not to actually get whoever this is to "fess up." what speedlaw wrote is factually and legally wrong. incorrect. it's a rhetorical point.
IAAL.
Learned in a stint at an immigration law firm, that H1B means you write a job description that only your candidate can fill. For example, if I wanted an airplane engineer who knew jumbo jets, I could get a thousand Americans for the job. If I needed a jumbo jet guy who also could work on Bleriot biplanes, that might be a lot less. If I also said he needed to be fluent in Mandarin and Farsi, I've just written an H1-B for my candidate. The key to success is making sure that only your guy can meet the job description that YOU create.
Had a friend who was H1-B, even though he was raised in the states...he never bothered for the green card, took the easy way through school, etc. Had a falling out with his boss, and the H1-B went "poof". This essentially American had to relocate to Europe, and when he didn't self deport, was excluded for five years. H1-B means your employer owns your ass.
Sadly, it is now a means to "on shore" a docile labor force.
this is laughably inaccurate, to the point where i question if you're actually a lawyer.
to satisfy the requirements for an H-1B, you have to show that the position you're filling 1) requires at minimum a bachelor's degree in a particular specialty, and 2) your candidate has at least that bachelor's degree, or the equivalent. the process is based on the actual, real position the company is filling, NOT the other way around as you've just described. the burden is on the employer to prove that the bona fide position is an H-1B specialty occupation. read INA 214(i)(3) and 22 CFR 655.700 to 655.855, if you haven't already (hint: if you were even touching H-1Bs as a lawyer, this is MANDATORY READING, especially the LCA provisions!).
what you've described is...not the H-1B process. it's what more unscrupulous companies try to do with the PERM Labor Certification process for a green card, where they inevitably run into, and get smacked down by, the U.S. Department of Labor.
so there's three possibilities here: a) you're not actually a lawyer, because you have NO IDEA what you are talking about; b) you're a lawyer, but your practice was poor to the point of outright malpractice; or c) you're a lawyer, you're lying about what you are doing, and you should give me your name now so i can report you for an ethics violation under the model rules and your state's bar's ethics rules.
the first result i see is the Wikipedia page on the Armenian genocide. that's got it's own problems, but that's neither here nor there. using a proper Ad Blocker (i have uBlock installed) plus a good Hosts file (i'm using Hostsman and the MVPS hosts file) prevents Google's sponsored crap from showing up at all.
nuclear weapons ARE tech. nerds of the geopolitical bent have interest in what's going on here, too. and if anything else, this is literally "stuff that matters".
but here's your refund for a free article, if you still don't like it.
Not to look a gift outbreak of common sense in the mouth, but how the fuck can GPS trackers be a form of search and seizure and civil forfeiture NOT be a form of search and seizure? Some measure of consistency in our right to be secure in our papers and shit would be nice.
not to justify civil forfeiture (because i do think it's abused way too much), but typically such forfeiture comes after a warrant-authorized search or a search justified by one of the "exigent circumstances" exceptions to warrantless searches.
I may be a bigot in your mind, but you are illiterate in mine.
Quote from my post above that is relevant:
Civil union is the state sponsored joining, and should be the proper avenue for the state to allow something that religion indicates is wrong. If someone feels that a homosexual couple should share in the benefits a heterosexual relationship enjoys, they should move for equal benefits for the two, not move to change the definition of marriage.
except you keep insisting religion is the only institution allowed to define what marriage is, when marriage did not even start with religion to begin with. the claim that organized religions should be the only ones to define what marriage is is ludicrous.
alright, i'm out. my reading comp is fine. the issue is you're not even debating the point anymore, you're relying on strawmen that don't even address the issue.
You mean it has evidence that guys riding around in white robes killing anyone not going along with their views, and elected officials actively shutting down any business that would try to go against the flow makes it impossible for the free market to work.
Your problem is you don't understand how much you don't know.
do you...do you not know basic history? like, how businesses in the South used to deny service to blacks based on "personal beliefs"? or how public facilities used to have segregated buildings, where the sides meant for black persons almost always ended up being inferior or dangerous? are you posting from the U.S.? am i making a huge assumption that people still receive basic education in history?
i'm sorry, but the only one showing a dangerous lack of basic knowledge here is you.
Yes because there is only one person in the world that knows how to do any particular thing. And no one has any choice. / sarcasm
your response is "the free market provides"? really?
sorry, but the U.S. has pretty strong evidence already that this won't work. as in, the entire period of segregation and Jim Crow discrimination in the South. try again.
The freedom to be a dick is exactly what liberty is all about.
Do you think freedom of speech means you're allowed to write a letter to your grandmother? No, it means you can say controversial and offensive things without fear of government retribution.
Freedom isn't a word that's supposed to make everyone happy all the time. Liberty is about having the right to be "openly racist, sexist, misogynist, transphobic, and homophobic", without fear of physical aggression.
That's not to say there aren't consequences for one's actions, but a free society isn't one that mandates everyone conform to specific belief system, it's one that allows people to believe what they want and behave as they like, as long as they don't physically hard other people.
as an individual, yes, you can associate with whomever you want or don't want, and you can hold racist or sexist or whatever beliefs until you're the head of the Duck Dynasty or the KKK.
that question is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from that of public-facing businesses and organizations. if you permit such organizations to deny service to people based on who those persons fundamentally are (ex: race, sex, gender, etc.), you no longer have a free society. you have segregation and the Jim Crow south. you have modern-day Russia where gay persons are persecuted on a daily basis.
when you speak of "freedom" and "liberty", do you really mean that all people should have access to freedom and liberty? because permitting businesses to deny services to some simply results in "freedom" and "liberty" for a select few, which is in reality not liberty or freedom at all.
: the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely
: the power to do or choose what you want to
: a political right
You want to tell me how forcing anyone to provide service is compatible with that ?
When you say freedom and liberty, you mean certain people have a license to force people to participate in activities they find repulsive.
and yet you don't even grasp that businesses having the ability to deny service to a particular group of people because the business owner does not like that person's sex or race or other fundamental part of their being is precisely denying those people their right in choosing what they want to do?
be self aware for at least ONE SECOND in your life. liberty is a TWO WAY STREET.
If they had to accommodate groups they found objectionable.
Lets say 4th Reich games wanted a booth at the convention ?
Or Klansman entertainment.
Really ticks me off how the left has completely destroyed the meaning of words like freedom and liberty.
it really ticks me off how the right has characterized the ability to be openly racist, sexist, misogynist, transphobic, and homophobic as "freedom and liberty. absolutely disgusting.
society cannot and will not have actual liberty when businesses and public-facing organizations are permitted to discriminate against people for who they are under the guise of "religious freedom" or "liberty." the very notion is abhorrent to an open democracy, and it amazes how the right uses mental gymnastics to reach the conclusions they have.
The US has never, not once, invaded a country for oil and minerals. The idea that we have started a war for oil is just plain stupid. We are simply far too smart to do that kind of stupidity - not when we can so easily and cheaply have the CIA start a coup (which we did do in Iran).
There are not 545,000 IT job openings in this country.
not that i am disagreeing with the skepticism here, but do you have hard data establishing this to not be true? because all the griping here about the number not being realistic means bupkus without actual, hard data.
Yes, such as the 50,000 studies they "use" annually.
Thats 137 studies 'used" per day.
I guess common sense doesnt figure into your view of things sine you quoted the part where this is detailed, but failed to notice how ridiculous this is.
you're not a scientist, or even science-adjacent, are you. research institutions, both public and private, review incredible amounts of scientific literature, research results, and related items on a daily basis. that's part of science.
what's not common sense is the belief that the EPA, or any other private or public agency doing science review and research, should stop reviewing data at an arbitrary limit of studies. that's not only the exact antithesis of good science, it's also an asinine claim.
The secret science bill, for example, would apparently bar EPA from using public health studies based on confidential patient information, wrote the American Statistical Association’s president, David Morganstein, in a 25 February letter to lawmakers. That would force the agency into “a choice between maintaining data confidentiality and issuing needed regulations,” he wrote. Also, efforts to deidentify sensitive data before release—by stripping names and other information—aren’t fail-safe, Morganstein wrote.
Democrats are further concerned about another provision, not included in earlier versions, that would give EPA only $1 million per year to implement the bill, which would entail, among other things, obtaining raw data from study authors. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office calculated that the bill would cost $250 million annually to implement early on, and that’s only if EPA were to halve the number of studies it used to 25,000 annually, said Representative Donna Edwards (D–MD)
this bill is not even remotely about "transparency." it's about hamstringing the EPA.
Slashdot Mirror
that's because Gamergate wasn't about ethics in game journalism, hilarious memes be damned. it was PRECISELY about white men continuing to be gatekeepers against gaming opening up to other people, including women. in sum, get your paranoid persecution complex out of here.
i switched from iPhone *to* Android specifically because iOS is such a closed platform. Android (or at least AOSP, non-Samsung variants) are for power users.
c) you're a lawyer, you're lying about what you are doing, and you should give me your name now so i can report you for an ethics violation under the model rules and your state's bar's ethics rules.
a) Violating the "model rules" is meaningless. Model laws and rules are an example and a suggestion, not actual laws or rules.
b) What motivation do you think this individual could possibly have to tell you his name when you say this is what you are going to do if he does?
except in the realm of law, where the Model Rules of Professional Conduct hold quite a bit of sway with the individual state bars in the U.S.
and the point was not to actually get whoever this is to "fess up." what speedlaw wrote is factually and legally wrong. incorrect. it's a rhetorical point.
IAAL. Learned in a stint at an immigration law firm, that H1B means you write a job description that only your candidate can fill. For example, if I wanted an airplane engineer who knew jumbo jets, I could get a thousand Americans for the job. If I needed a jumbo jet guy who also could work on Bleriot biplanes, that might be a lot less. If I also said he needed to be fluent in Mandarin and Farsi, I've just written an H1-B for my candidate. The key to success is making sure that only your guy can meet the job description that YOU create. Had a friend who was H1-B, even though he was raised in the states...he never bothered for the green card, took the easy way through school, etc. Had a falling out with his boss, and the H1-B went "poof". This essentially American had to relocate to Europe, and when he didn't self deport, was excluded for five years. H1-B means your employer owns your ass. Sadly, it is now a means to "on shore" a docile labor force.
this is laughably inaccurate, to the point where i question if you're actually a lawyer.
to satisfy the requirements for an H-1B, you have to show that the position you're filling 1) requires at minimum a bachelor's degree in a particular specialty, and 2) your candidate has at least that bachelor's degree, or the equivalent. the process is based on the actual, real position the company is filling, NOT the other way around as you've just described. the burden is on the employer to prove that the bona fide position is an H-1B specialty occupation. read INA 214(i)(3) and 22 CFR 655.700 to 655.855, if you haven't already (hint: if you were even touching H-1Bs as a lawyer, this is MANDATORY READING, especially the LCA provisions!).
what you've described is...not the H-1B process. it's what more unscrupulous companies try to do with the PERM Labor Certification process for a green card, where they inevitably run into, and get smacked down by, the U.S. Department of Labor.
so there's three possibilities here: a) you're not actually a lawyer, because you have NO IDEA what you are talking about; b) you're a lawyer, but your practice was poor to the point of outright malpractice; or c) you're a lawyer, you're lying about what you are doing, and you should give me your name now so i can report you for an ethics violation under the model rules and your state's bar's ethics rules.
the first result i see is the Wikipedia page on the Armenian genocide. that's got it's own problems, but that's neither here nor there. using a proper Ad Blocker (i have uBlock installed) plus a good Hosts file (i'm using Hostsman and the MVPS hosts file) prevents Google's sponsored crap from showing up at all.
You would need 400,000 pounds of clay per Gigabyte.
how much is that in Library of Congresses?
nuclear weapons ARE tech. nerds of the geopolitical bent have interest in what's going on here, too. and if anything else, this is literally "stuff that matters".
but here's your refund for a free article, if you still don't like it.
it bankrupted the rest of the U.S.
Amazingly, I didn't go bankrupt, and neither did anyone I know, and nor did any business that I know of.
IOW, stop regurgitating manifestly false FUD.
sigh. can you take a little joke? sarcasm? hyperbole?
So the stock market is being actively manipulated by idiots?
As usual, these people are just parasites on the financial system looking to skim off money before everyone else has a chance.
High frequency trading is essentially skimming off the top for yourself without having done ANYTHING other than having a faster connection.
I hope these clowns bankrupt themselves one day with their stupidity.
this already happened, in 2008. except it didn't bankrupt the bankers, it bankrupted the rest of the U.S. and major parts of the globe.
probably one of my favorite points from the second Mass Effect. human society without culture AND science is doomed to die.
Not to look a gift outbreak of common sense in the mouth, but how the fuck can GPS trackers be a form of search and seizure and civil forfeiture NOT be a form of search and seizure? Some measure of consistency in our right to be secure in our papers and shit would be nice.
not to justify civil forfeiture (because i do think it's abused way too much), but typically such forfeiture comes after a warrant-authorized search or a search justified by one of the "exigent circumstances" exceptions to warrantless searches.
it's a bit of a different issue.
to support the EFF and all they do. donate now: https://supporters.eff.org/don...
I may be a bigot in your mind, but you are illiterate in mine.
Quote from my post above that is relevant:
Civil union is the state sponsored joining, and should be the proper avenue for the state to allow something that religion indicates is wrong. If someone feels that a homosexual couple should share in the benefits a heterosexual relationship enjoys, they should move for equal benefits for the two, not move to change the definition of marriage.
except you keep insisting religion is the only institution allowed to define what marriage is, when marriage did not even start with religion to begin with. the claim that organized religions should be the only ones to define what marriage is is ludicrous.
alright, i'm out. my reading comp is fine. the issue is you're not even debating the point anymore, you're relying on strawmen that don't even address the issue.
You mean it has evidence that guys riding around in white robes killing anyone not going along with their views, and elected officials actively shutting down any business that would try to go against the flow makes it impossible for the free market to work.
Your problem is you don't understand how much you don't know.
do you...do you not know basic history? like, how businesses in the South used to deny service to blacks based on "personal beliefs"? or how public facilities used to have segregated buildings, where the sides meant for black persons almost always ended up being inferior or dangerous? are you posting from the U.S.? am i making a huge assumption that people still receive basic education in history?
i'm sorry, but the only one showing a dangerous lack of basic knowledge here is you.
Yes because there is only one person in the world that knows how to do any particular thing. And no one has any choice. / sarcasm
your response is "the free market provides"? really?
sorry, but the U.S. has pretty strong evidence already that this won't work. as in, the entire period of segregation and Jim Crow discrimination in the South. try again.
The freedom to be a dick is exactly what liberty is all about.
Do you think freedom of speech means you're allowed to write a letter to your grandmother? No, it means you can say controversial and offensive things without fear of government retribution.
Freedom isn't a word that's supposed to make everyone happy all the time. Liberty is about having the right to be "openly racist, sexist, misogynist, transphobic, and homophobic", without fear of physical aggression.
That's not to say there aren't consequences for one's actions, but a free society isn't one that mandates everyone conform to specific belief system, it's one that allows people to believe what they want and behave as they like, as long as they don't physically hard other people.
as an individual, yes, you can associate with whomever you want or don't want, and you can hold racist or sexist or whatever beliefs until you're the head of the Duck Dynasty or the KKK.
that question is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from that of public-facing businesses and organizations. if you permit such organizations to deny service to people based on who those persons fundamentally are (ex: race, sex, gender, etc.), you no longer have a free society. you have segregation and the Jim Crow south. you have modern-day Russia where gay persons are persecuted on a daily basis.
when you speak of "freedom" and "liberty", do you really mean that all people should have access to freedom and liberty? because permitting businesses to deny services to some simply results in "freedom" and "liberty" for a select few, which is in reality not liberty or freedom at all.
Bullshit.Seeing as you don't even know the meaning of the word
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
: the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely
: the power to do or choose what you want to
: a political right
You want to tell me how forcing anyone to provide service is compatible with that ?
When you say freedom and liberty, you mean certain people have a license to force people to participate in activities they find repulsive.
and yet you don't even grasp that businesses having the ability to deny service to a particular group of people because the business owner does not like that person's sex or race or other fundamental part of their being is precisely denying those people their right in choosing what they want to do?
be self aware for at least ONE SECOND in your life. liberty is a TWO WAY STREET.
65 million customers? i'd think there'd be like 6.5 Radio Shack customers out there total.
If they had to accommodate groups they found objectionable.
Lets say 4th Reich games wanted a booth at the convention ? Or Klansman entertainment.
Really ticks me off how the left has completely destroyed the meaning of words like freedom and liberty.
it really ticks me off how the right has characterized the ability to be openly racist, sexist, misogynist, transphobic, and homophobic as "freedom and liberty. absolutely disgusting.
society cannot and will not have actual liberty when businesses and public-facing organizations are permitted to discriminate against people for who they are under the guise of "religious freedom" or "liberty." the very notion is abhorrent to an open democracy, and it amazes how the right uses mental gymnastics to reach the conclusions they have.
The US has never, not once, invaded a country for oil and minerals. The idea that we have started a war for oil is just plain stupid. We are simply far too smart to do that kind of stupidity - not when we can so easily and cheaply have the CIA start a coup (which we did do in Iran).
*looks at Iraq*
*laughs until the point of crying.*
will the cars only control 3/4ths of the tires, with the last tire "slowly kicking in" when roads get slick?
There are not 545,000 IT job openings in this country.
not that i am disagreeing with the skepticism here, but do you have hard data establishing this to not be true? because all the griping here about the number not being realistic means bupkus without actual, hard data.
the devil is in the details:
Yes, such as the 50,000 studies they "use" annually. Thats 137 studies 'used" per day. I guess common sense doesnt figure into your view of things sine you quoted the part where this is detailed, but failed to notice how ridiculous this is.
you're not a scientist, or even science-adjacent, are you. research institutions, both public and private, review incredible amounts of scientific literature, research results, and related items on a daily basis. that's part of science.
what's not common sense is the belief that the EPA, or any other private or public agency doing science review and research, should stop reviewing data at an arbitrary limit of studies. that's not only the exact antithesis of good science, it's also an asinine claim.
the devil is in the details:
The secret science bill, for example, would apparently bar EPA from using public health studies based on confidential patient information, wrote the American Statistical Association’s president, David Morganstein, in a 25 February letter to lawmakers. That would force the agency into “a choice between maintaining data confidentiality and issuing needed regulations,” he wrote. Also, efforts to deidentify sensitive data before release—by stripping names and other information—aren’t fail-safe, Morganstein wrote.
Democrats are further concerned about another provision, not included in earlier versions, that would give EPA only $1 million per year to implement the bill, which would entail, among other things, obtaining raw data from study authors. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office calculated that the bill would cost $250 million annually to implement early on, and that’s only if EPA were to halve the number of studies it used to 25,000 annually, said Representative Donna Edwards (D–MD)
this bill is not even remotely about "transparency." it's about hamstringing the EPA.