Not really. It says the court found that the association that brought the suit had no standing. That leaves the door open for the Commonwealth to pursue the matter in the courts.
I doubt that. The big players are only dabbling with EVs because the public has yet to show much of an interest. Sure, techie enclaves love EVs, and the greenies perhaps, but there's not a significant demand. Hybrids are selling because the public is more accepting of a vehicle that they can still take on a long trip and fill up along the way. It's a chicken and egg problem, but I don't blame the auto manufacturers for not wanting to take the risk yet.
There are states and cities that effectively ban firearms this way. Sure you could theoretically own a firearm in one of those areas, but not really. And that's for a product that "shall not be infringed".
They have no credibility on that case. It's either a tax or a fine. The court allowed the feds to use either throughout the testimony. It's one or the other, not both. The court gave the administration a free pass.
The courts aren't always right. Now it's up to the people.
Democrats and labor unions have run Detroit for what, six decades? How much longer do they need to fix those "preexisting" issues? Or is it that their ideologies simply don't work?
The problem is that in order for people who do a public facing job where their personal reputation and popularity affects the company's fortunes to have free speech without consequences everyone else would have to be forced to support the company no matter what. Boycotts could be made illegal, but how would you stop people uninstalling Firefox after his appointment?
Why do you think laws are necessary? In this case, it's already illegal in that state to fire someone for political donations. Yes, murky, he "stepped down". I'm suggesting that we as a people do better. I'm sure if someone were to dig, we could find something on most people that others could take offense to. None of us are innocent.
The CEO distinction doesn't do much for me. I get what you're saying, but it still had nothing to do with his role at Mozilla. Do you want the best person for the job or the one that's not as qualified but is more "socially acceptable"?
I agree that leaks are worrying, but in this case I'd argue that donations to political campaigns should be public. If someone without money to spare wants to endorse or promote a cause they have to speak, revealing their position.
Democracy can't happen with a gun pointed at you. Labor unions already target those that don't vote "with" them. I really don't want them having people's addresses.
You're still framing this as a prop 8 issue. It's not. This has to do with people's private lives versus their public lives. I don't want my employer invading my life beyond the workplace, and I believe we all have a right to separate our personal lives from our work lives. I also think that anonymity plays an import role in a democracy. If people can't speak or donate or act for fear of their livelihoods, what good is free speech? Even the founders used pseudonyms before the revolution. There may not have been one otherwise.
I'm also concerned about these data breaches. A list of gun owners was leaked, and all hell broke loose. Lists of donors were released, this happened. What next? Planned Parenthood customers? GOP voters? Names of patients with terminal or expensive-to-treat illnesses? Actions and consequences. Is hope and change now accomplished by targeting individuals for destruction? Sounds good until the horde comes for you. And I say that as the non-anonymous party in this back-and-forth.
I'm sure a lot of us didn't even know about this until he was ousted. I would have supported you (at least here in posts) then had I known about this at the time.
If what you say is true, it's interesting. I haven't heard that anywhere else.
Step back and see the bigger picture, will you? Mozilla has a lot of power in that their browser is used by a whole lot of people. Is that a group that should take sides on political issues? Protecting free speech should be their absolute number one priority. No one wants a web browser or mail reader that has ideologues controlling it. Would you use a web browser pushed by the NSA?
It's true what you say about free speech, and it does have consequences. Chrome got a lot of new users out of this, ironically. Ousting a CEO for one donation many years ago when even the President of the USofA believed the same at the time is a bit absurd. You raise an interesting point too. He was fired over information that should never have been released. That just makes it that much worse.
Think about the shoe on the other foot. What if companies started firing people for donating to some issue you care deeply for? Prop 8 is a side show here. This could have been about any issue, left or right. I'm not in favor of going after people in the workplace for what they believe in their personal life. If he was supporting NAMBLA, that's one thing. But this is a contentious issue, one of many. We need conversation, not condemnation. Forcing silence for fear of losing one's profession is horrible. That's not American.
They stood by and watched their CEO get ousted because of a donation to a cause that the majority supported. They could have championed free speech instead.
Knowing that Mozilla is now a "social justice" organization, who would trust their software? They could be cataloging everyone's surfing habits in order to use it against them later. They deserve a backlash.
We haven't stopped putting people in, but the non-violent criminals are generally the first to win the favor of "catch and release" policies that mean to address overcrowding. It's so out of control even in the small state I live in that nearly all prisoners had their sentences reduced and even violent offenders were able to leave prison months earlier than they were sentenced for. Knowing that, is the threat of prison much of a deterrent anymore? Even across the pond, that lunatic that shot up the island full of kids was ranting about inhumane treatment because he didn't have access to the latest video game machine. It's lunacy. I think the "enlightened" nations have forgotten what punishment is.
Does anyone in a modern country actually fear the police anymore? The prisons can barely hold violent offenders, even if they busted these theft rings, they're probably not going to prison for long, if at all. The best the police could probably do is thank them for not assaulting anyone as they're stealing from them.
There should be a balance. The ad sales mean nothing if the show (website, paper, whatever) has no viewers. The question is, who is this audience and why are they so apathetic that they're still willing to watch?
I'm tired of seeing Tesla articles on the front page, it's noise in the way of actually interesting tech news. It's not unlike TV providers putting ads in the program guide grid. It's noise that gets in the way.
Most vehicles, if not all, have protective covers on things. The hood, for example. My Jeep (second vehicle) has metal plates covering all sorts of things. This might be a neat article for a car news site, but why here? How is the techy?
due to lots of laws on the books calculating pensions differently for different agencies and different years of service it's almost impossible to code the business rules to take in different factors into account
If that's true, I wonder how the IRS processes tax returns. I can't imagine anything more complex than our tax laws. I doubt it's that bad, more likely it's that our government is really bad at taking on big projects.
At least they've put a new spin on the term "data mining".
If emergency responders are traumatized by seeing blood and gore, they may have chosen the wrong career. That would be like a surgeon who faints at the sight of blood.
Those aren't typically going to fail until the vehicle is significantly older. I had my last vehicle (a hybrid) for nearly 8 years, only thing I had to replace was the small 12v battery at the usual interval for car batteries. Do cars even have timing belts anymore?
You can keep extending on to greater and greater levels of extremism but the reality is, anything less than yes yields years of lawsuits and even more regulation. Who makes the decision on where the line is? If you say the line is X and refuse to make it, and this now arbitrary group decides you are wrong its Y, then the fines could kill your business. Thus, in practice the answer will be yes anyway.
That sounds rather defeatist. You're basically saying that we can't hope to stand up against the man and the special interests, so why bother. Ugh.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. It says the court found that the association that brought the suit had no standing. That leaves the door open for the Commonwealth to pursue the matter in the courts.
I doubt that. The big players are only dabbling with EVs because the public has yet to show much of an interest. Sure, techie enclaves love EVs, and the greenies perhaps, but there's not a significant demand. Hybrids are selling because the public is more accepting of a vehicle that they can still take on a long trip and fill up along the way. It's a chicken and egg problem, but I don't blame the auto manufacturers for not wanting to take the risk yet.
There are states and cities that effectively ban firearms this way. Sure you could theoretically own a firearm in one of those areas, but not really. And that's for a product that "shall not be infringed".
They have no credibility on that case. It's either a tax or a fine. The court allowed the feds to use either throughout the testimony. It's one or the other, not both. The court gave the administration a free pass.
The courts aren't always right. Now it's up to the people.
If by costing less you mean costing more, and by doing nothing you mean fucking over the Constitution.. you're exactly right.
Democrats and labor unions have run Detroit for what, six decades? How much longer do they need to fix those "preexisting" issues? Or is it that their ideologies simply don't work?
The problem is that in order for people who do a public facing job where their personal reputation and popularity affects the company's fortunes to have free speech without consequences everyone else would have to be forced to support the company no matter what. Boycotts could be made illegal, but how would you stop people uninstalling Firefox after his appointment?
Why do you think laws are necessary? In this case, it's already illegal in that state to fire someone for political donations. Yes, murky, he "stepped down". I'm suggesting that we as a people do better. I'm sure if someone were to dig, we could find something on most people that others could take offense to. None of us are innocent.
The CEO distinction doesn't do much for me. I get what you're saying, but it still had nothing to do with his role at Mozilla. Do you want the best person for the job or the one that's not as qualified but is more "socially acceptable"?
I agree that leaks are worrying, but in this case I'd argue that donations to political campaigns should be public. If someone without money to spare wants to endorse or promote a cause they have to speak, revealing their position.
Democracy can't happen with a gun pointed at you. Labor unions already target those that don't vote "with" them. I really don't want them having people's addresses.
You're still framing this as a prop 8 issue. It's not. This has to do with people's private lives versus their public lives. I don't want my employer invading my life beyond the workplace, and I believe we all have a right to separate our personal lives from our work lives. I also think that anonymity plays an import role in a democracy. If people can't speak or donate or act for fear of their livelihoods, what good is free speech? Even the founders used pseudonyms before the revolution. There may not have been one otherwise.
I'm also concerned about these data breaches. A list of gun owners was leaked, and all hell broke loose. Lists of donors were released, this happened. What next? Planned Parenthood customers? GOP voters? Names of patients with terminal or expensive-to-treat illnesses? Actions and consequences. Is hope and change now accomplished by targeting individuals for destruction? Sounds good until the horde comes for you. And I say that as the non-anonymous party in this back-and-forth.
We should be better than this.
I'm sure a lot of us didn't even know about this until he was ousted. I would have supported you (at least here in posts) then had I known about this at the time.
If what you say is true, it's interesting. I haven't heard that anywhere else.
Step back and see the bigger picture, will you? Mozilla has a lot of power in that their browser is used by a whole lot of people. Is that a group that should take sides on political issues? Protecting free speech should be their absolute number one priority. No one wants a web browser or mail reader that has ideologues controlling it. Would you use a web browser pushed by the NSA?
It's true what you say about free speech, and it does have consequences. Chrome got a lot of new users out of this, ironically. Ousting a CEO for one donation many years ago when even the President of the USofA believed the same at the time is a bit absurd. You raise an interesting point too. He was fired over information that should never have been released. That just makes it that much worse.
Think about the shoe on the other foot. What if companies started firing people for donating to some issue you care deeply for? Prop 8 is a side show here. This could have been about any issue, left or right. I'm not in favor of going after people in the workplace for what they believe in their personal life. If he was supporting NAMBLA, that's one thing. But this is a contentious issue, one of many. We need conversation, not condemnation. Forcing silence for fear of losing one's profession is horrible. That's not American.
They stood by and watched their CEO get ousted because of a donation to a cause that the majority supported. They could have championed free speech instead.
Knowing that Mozilla is now a "social justice" organization, who would trust their software? They could be cataloging everyone's surfing habits in order to use it against them later. They deserve a backlash.
We haven't stopped putting people in, but the non-violent criminals are generally the first to win the favor of "catch and release" policies that mean to address overcrowding. It's so out of control even in the small state I live in that nearly all prisoners had their sentences reduced and even violent offenders were able to leave prison months earlier than they were sentenced for. Knowing that, is the threat of prison much of a deterrent anymore? Even across the pond, that lunatic that shot up the island full of kids was ranting about inhumane treatment because he didn't have access to the latest video game machine. It's lunacy. I think the "enlightened" nations have forgotten what punishment is.
Does anyone in a modern country actually fear the police anymore? The prisons can barely hold violent offenders, even if they busted these theft rings, they're probably not going to prison for long, if at all. The best the police could probably do is thank them for not assaulting anyone as they're stealing from them.
There should be a balance. The ad sales mean nothing if the show (website, paper, whatever) has no viewers. The question is, who is this audience and why are they so apathetic that they're still willing to watch?
I'm tired of seeing Tesla articles on the front page, it's noise in the way of actually interesting tech news. It's not unlike TV providers putting ads in the program guide grid. It's noise that gets in the way.
Most vehicles, if not all, have protective covers on things. The hood, for example. My Jeep (second vehicle) has metal plates covering all sorts of things. This might be a neat article for a car news site, but why here? How is the techy?
My hybrid probably has some protective plates on its undercarriage, should I post that as a story?
due to lots of laws on the books calculating pensions differently for different agencies and different years of service it's almost impossible to code the business rules to take in different factors into account
If that's true, I wonder how the IRS processes tax returns. I can't imagine anything more complex than our tax laws. I doubt it's that bad, more likely it's that our government is really bad at taking on big projects.
At least they've put a new spin on the term "data mining".
If emergency responders are traumatized by seeing blood and gore, they may have chosen the wrong career. That would be like a surgeon who faints at the sight of blood.
I'd like a massaging driver's seat, but I'm not going to demand that every vehicle have one just to suit my own desire.
Seat belts are a stupid requirement since adults don't have to wear them in my state (New Hampshire).
Freedom includes the freedom to do stupid things.
I would sooner do surgery on my leg with a spoon
That's probably in the AHA somewhere..
Those aren't typically going to fail until the vehicle is significantly older. I had my last vehicle (a hybrid) for nearly 8 years, only thing I had to replace was the small 12v battery at the usual interval for car batteries. Do cars even have timing belts anymore?
That's not for you to decide, not in a free country.
You can keep extending on to greater and greater levels of extremism but the reality is, anything less than yes yields years of lawsuits and even more regulation. Who makes the decision on where the line is? If you say the line is X and refuse to make it, and this now arbitrary group decides you are wrong its Y, then the fines could kill your business. Thus, in practice the answer will be yes anyway.
That sounds rather defeatist. You're basically saying that we can't hope to stand up against the man and the special interests, so why bother. Ugh.
Could just be that they have different beliefs and don't care to involve themselves in things that don't interest them.