The CEO is going to be toast along with quite a few other people as soon as they have the situation calmed down - the board just doesn't want to toast him until things quiet down a bit.
Oh yeah! This is what I've come for - the scapeing of the traditional goat.
What's the tradition again? When a company does this all its sins and its shareholders sins are forgiven? Do they get a bailout as well?
And the sad thing is that the "punish BP" bloodlust is just going to result in thousands of decent Americans who work in the energy industry losing jobs in the inevitable restructurings that will come
That's what welfare and unemployment benefits are for - to keep the people afloat during industry shifts, etc. And it's not like the new employers wouldn't need to hire. As you point out the demand is still there.
panicked morons canceling their vacations because of what they saw on the news.
And yet I'm sure you'd totally buy it if a company said something like "While the reported storms might not reach our factories we've decided to reroute these items through overseas distributors for the time being."
Why should these consumers suffer more risk than they need to?
It's not that unreasonable. I know what baseline people in the USA/Canada sound like and I know what our religious extremists sound like.
True religious character is pretty much all about control and hate. That's what's magnified when talking to a True Christian, or presumably a True Muslim. "Our" idiots truly embrace every syllable of dumb in that book, why would we expect their idiots to be different?
The mistake made is in thinking the religious character is representative of the sane people in the area - for instance unindoctrinated children, atheists, and even the spiritual who don't preach war.
Christianity did some nasty things but the people went through the Enlightenment
The people changed, the church remains.
Islam didn't experience the Enlightenment and rejects it today.
Just like Fred Phelps and all the other religious people.
The change is due to the non-religious who've rejected both sides' nonsense.
We in the West either abandon our civilization and accept Sharia or sooner or later (and with Nukes spreading it better be sooner) we are going to be forced to end Islam as it is currently known and practiced. That means Ann Coulter's solution of "Invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." It will be the worst human rights atrocity in recorded history but I'm damned if I see a better solution.
Hah! You retarded motherfucker - you honestly think your space ghost is a better solution.
How about we feed Ann Coulter to you and feed you both to sharks?
We just don't have the time left to embark on a psyops action to slowly pervert their religion so as to remove the nastier bits.
No we don't. We've been trying to fix christianity forever and it doesn't work. Once you think faith is good you're almost totally lost to the reasoning (and thus reasonable) world?
The only thing to do is break them of their religion, just like here.
A fellow named Ali, who is Bangladeshi, and Muslim.
So did he just do it because he's religious. Or is it an irrelevant detail you drag in here?
Yes, to combat other irrelevant things, sure. But it's this kind of crap that keeps it going.
I dunno, but it seems to me that dogmatic, xenophobic, recidivist behaviour is on the rise worldwide
Yes, because we're good people and you're not - whoever you are. See, this guy who was good - well he's my religion so of course. And this guy, he's from my city so he's a good guy. And this mass murderer from my church - ummm, well, he's clearly been corrupted by you.
Seriously though, I think it's because everyone is so quick to label their helpful friend as part of whatever class they are (male, Bangladeshi, Muslim, whatever). That's a counterpart to selectively blaming your chosen targets for all the evils of the world.
When your friend is just your friend, and nobody mentions the race of the jerks they deal with, we'll be done.
Sometimes when you are against censorship, you got to be on the site of people who censor, because the people they censor are even worse. But that is not a catchy slogan.
Not at all. We survive just fine with our past greats being mocked mercilessly even when our enemies do it.
To say you HAVE to censor is to say you COULDN'T hear those words.
People with thin skin have an infinite capacity to find fresh wounds. If they aren't offended by one thing they're offended by the idea you find them easily offended. They'll always have a list of things that must be censored, and they'll never be worth listening to.
You're either pro-Democracy or against it - if you support a coup when you don't like the results then you're against Democracy
Not at all. I support a democracy of people speaking for themselves, but I don't accept the tyranny of the majority.
As soon as the action of that democracy is to take choice away from others the government loses its legitimacy. Tyranny is just as horrible when it's one man or a million in charge.
If these people voted to secede and form their own government that'd be legitimate - if they vote to replace their government with one non-responsive to the needs of the non-religious then they're traitors and we should aid the other side in the upcoming civil war.
I agree about the eventual answer though - education. But a large part of that is addressing religion like the myth it is.
Because a country under Sharia law is never in practice a democracy.
Right.
Whereas if you had a democracy to start with you could voluntarily subject yourself to space-ghost law as well. Of course nobody would - but they'd be free to do so. What we need to do is realize that for a reasonable god-botherer, this would be enough.
Sharia law is slavery and one of our allies is seeking to enslave its population - that this (might) have majority support doesn't matter at all to the minority, nor should it to us. Countries with religious government (leaders?) aren't legitimate as they reject a mandate from the people in exchange for one from their myth.
As an aside, to all the people who bring the US into unrelated conversations [...]
No. Most of the people who bring up the USA are either in it, near it, subject to its rule, etc. All valid reasons to discuss it. And like having the default currency, another cost of being the biggest is that everything is measured against you.
Given how the USA is currently enforcing their ideals for correct behavior, its own standards are appropriately more under scrutiny now than ever.
Especially given how it's little things like Bush not being properly elected that the USA used against Saddam. Sure he was a more egregious example, but that just suggests we'd have been fine if he'd kept his landslide victories to 65% instead of 99% - as we didn't care if he gassed the Kurdish, etc. It shows the USA's got pretty low standards at home and for allies.
Yeah, roads are socialist too and they probably don't bitch about those.
But without treating donations as bribes this public financing is just more donations - this time from a source they don't even have to be thankful to. It's only part of the solution.
Because you're a warmonger. You provide moral comfort to the killers by endorsing their words without checking them to see if they make the slightest bit of sense. You willingly believe the lies and justifications that make everything your side does safe and wonderful without question. You accept the word of someone who is clearly grasping at straws and thank him for it, encouraging others to buy the same nonsense.
Your hopes, dreams, etc are irrelevant. Nobody cares why Jeffery Dahmer killed except to stop it from happening again - nobody cares why you're willing to condemn the innocent to gory death or excuse their killers.
I don't pity you and you're no friend of mine. It's your victims I pity. I hope you get killed in the war you're so eager to support. Your tax money is being spent to guarantee someone dies, I'm just suggesting it be you... And GooberToo of course. It's apparently either that or more vans full of good samaritans.
Watch out shitstain. If you think THIS is an unacceptable level of anger - some appropriately harsh words in an anonymous online forum, just wait until someone orphaned by this nonsense delivers it in person. If not for people like you this war could be defusing things - instead your jingoism will end up winding it tighter than before with us at the center.
To the degree that works it's because they're in a racially charged and contrasted area. You may have noticed that the USA is a melting pot and has 1) internal enemies and 2) diverse foreign enemies.
Such a policy enacted here not only would be racist but ineffective and ultimately harmful.
It's like trying to catch highway speeders but being prohibited from looking at sports cars because they get offended when you accuse them of speeding.
No, profiling would be like stopping all sports cars or subjecting them to excessive scrutiny merely because they look like they could go fast. With a policy of focusing on fast-looking cars rather than fast-moving cars all dangerous drivers would have to do to avoid capture is drive an ugly car.
What would seem like common sense, when broadly enacted into a policy, quickly becomes the height of idiocy.
It seems RvWade is a perfect example of something that shouldn't be decided by lawmakers. Their solution is laws and they'll decide in favor of their ability to regulate everything.
What was on the minds of the WotC was individual liberty and conversely the limits of the government's power. The government simply doesn't have the right to regulate some thing - it was founded with the intent of being a limited body that can not and does not do those things.
Probably the right to bear arms ought also to be refined/redefined: are nuclear weapons admissible, and what is the threshold for a weapon that one has the right to bear?
Similarly, that has to be beyond the power of the government to enforce. Otherwise you can't trust the government to be what the rest of the document says it is.
A probably workable workaround would be to declare certain weapons/poisons/etc as crimes against humanity. Essentially everything we wouldn't want someone using on us. But then we'd have to stop using it and destroy our stocks of it too...
It misses the point though, which should be to limit the killing. Supposedly this is a humanitarian thing, but it's silly - the dead don't care which tech killed them and all near-misses with military grade hardware have disastrous life-shortening side-effects. What we'd need to do is treat weapons over certain powers, or death tolls when used, etc, as automatic proof of war crimes.
But even then it misses the larger point that war is what happens when words don't work. You've decided to kill the enemy, and they're trying to kill you. Taking less bombs to do it is simply efficiency - not (further?) immorality. The weapons aren't the issue - the issues are. Just wars are just regardless of weapons, unjust wars always unjust...
You can voice support for local law enforcement all you want - it's a lot different than handing an officer a $50 when you get pulled over for speeding.
You sycophantic fuck. You're willing to endorse anything as long as it technically absolves you of guilt.
That post was the most content-free thing since Dick Cheney last broke wind. It's absolutely wrong in most areas and pathetically stupid in others.
For instance, this shit about notifying people they were going into a war zone... Hello FUCK NUT! People live there. We took the war to their homes.
He dribbles further that they acted JUST like insurgents - which must mean walking slowly and openly down a public road. What would civilians do? Stay home forever? Perhaps now they'd nervously glance for the helicopter about to blow them apart, but that's pretty reasonable.
His frantic logical gyrations take on epic proportion when he talks about how the civilian van that tried to collect civilian wounded wasn't properly marked... because it's a civilian van dipshit. That's the fucking point - civilians trying to live their life getting cut down from afar, and people trying to render aid cut down from afar.
He concludes the clusterfuck by talking about how various "doctrines and conventions allow for the death of these people". Before addressing the monumental stupidity inherent in this, I can only ask - would you stand quiet and accepting if I was coming to kill you simply because I had a convention allowing for your death? Because unless that'd be enough for you, shut your ignorant hole. And if that would be enough, hold on, I'll make up a petition...
Yes. Our military feels they were told to do this and the orders were authentic and thus binding. And yes they probably were, but such orders aren't legitimate.
The test of this is that they led to the slaying of a large party of civilians we're theoretically trying to protect. We murdered our charges. Maybe the kid in charge of the button hit it when he was told to but the killing was wrong and it needs to stop.
When they come asking for reparations for the warcrimes I'm going to vote we give them YOU. Not the soldiers, but the ignorant fuckers at home cheering it on and making up excuses for it.
No, they've labeled all "gifts" as bribery, I think they meant.
In the USA bribery is part of the system. It doesn't stand out because you have to give politicians large campaign contributions.
If that was illegal, like giving a cop a gift when stopped for speeding, and covered in the papers as bribery/treason we wouldn't have eliminated corruption, just its hiding place.
But nobody gets rid of it until they label it corruption.
It might be corruption that our other rules almost mandate, but it's still corruption. It's obvious where it's a citizen giving a cop a "gift" but grayer at the politician/corporation level.
When you don't call it corruption it raises the question "why get rid of it then?"
So if my best friend is running for political office, I can't buy him a birthday gift, or even a drink at the bar, because that would be corruption & bribery under your definition.
No, because it would look like possible corruption and would disguise the real corruption.
You'd refrain because of respect for the system your friend is trying to build and how it requires him to live to a higher standard than otherwise.
The driver is Apple, and speeding here is distributing a copyrighted work without license. How do they get the developer into the driver's seat without the police seeing? He might have sold them the car, misled them regarding speed limits, etc, but they were driving...
If Apple distributed something they didn't have rights to they can't just point a finger at someone else and say "sue him". They'd take the hit and depending on their contract with the developer rake him over the coals for misleading them.
Realistically, it wouldn't take long for them to get caught. Only one person needs to find proof of manipulation and other mediums exist to communicate the "google unsafe" message on.
Then you'll find out it's against the law to leave your vehicle in the road while hitting the button, or something.
How about a pop bottle full of ball bearings, on a long string? When you come to a stop on the sensor you drop the bottle over the side and let it roll under the vehicle? Or that bouncy suspension setup - just lower your vehicle down on the sensor to trigger it and bust a few moves while waiting for the light to change.
They do and don't do as $Religion should and shouldn't do according to their beliefs. That is great.
No, that is not great, it's... nonsensical religious twaddle.
You know how it'd be ludicrous if one of the new-agers who thinks they've been Cleopatra in a past life decided to act as if they were her. It's just as crazy when it's a space-ghost cult who've told them that to appease the world-creator they must follow specific rules.
I am perfectly okay with people practicing their religion [...]
I'm perfectly okay with people believing whatever they do. It simply is what it is, not being okay with it wouldn't change it anyways.
But the thoughts themselves shouldn't be given a free pass just because they're held in honest error. If the rest of us would treat religion as the fairy tale it is the members might not find it so easy to be sucked in.
until it interferes with my own rights to freedom of speech and expression.
It does as soon as they want to be respected for the sacred nature of their stupid. If they'd object to you saying "Hey look, it's a group of the pedophile cultists and they're holding some fertility ritual" when a catholic wedding passes then it interferes with your freedom of expression.
That's then a religion becomes an enemy of the people. In this case, that is exactly what is happening.
You say that because the religion preaches murder (if only in some circumstances). That's not good enough.
All religion is the enemy because it preaches the lack of critical thinking that lets people be told what to do, from crazy holiday rituals to murder. Faith is incompatible with reasoning and as long as it gets a free pass so do the atrocities.
Slashdot Mirror
The CEO is going to be toast along with quite a few other people as soon as they have the situation calmed down - the board just doesn't want to toast him until things quiet down a bit.
Oh yeah! This is what I've come for - the scapeing of the traditional goat.
What's the tradition again? When a company does this all its sins and its shareholders sins are forgiven? Do they get a bailout as well?
And the sad thing is that the "punish BP" bloodlust is just going to result in thousands of decent Americans who work in the energy industry losing jobs in the inevitable restructurings that will come
That's what welfare and unemployment benefits are for - to keep the people afloat during industry shifts, etc. And it's not like the new employers wouldn't need to hire. As you point out the demand is still there.
panicked morons canceling their vacations because of what they saw on the news.
And yet I'm sure you'd totally buy it if a company said something like "While the reported storms might not reach our factories we've decided to reroute these items through overseas distributors for the time being."
Why should these consumers suffer more risk than they need to?
You mean by mentioning that British Petroleum is criminally negligent?
It's not that unreasonable. I know what baseline people in the USA/Canada sound like and I know what our religious extremists sound like.
True religious character is pretty much all about control and hate. That's what's magnified when talking to a True Christian, or presumably a True Muslim. "Our" idiots truly embrace every syllable of dumb in that book, why would we expect their idiots to be different?
The mistake made is in thinking the religious character is representative of the sane people in the area - for instance unindoctrinated children, atheists, and even the spiritual who don't preach war.
My theory is Science is incomplete. It can, in theory, answer What? It can't answer Why? Religion might get the wrong answer but it offers one.
That says it all about you. You'd rather have a comforting wrong answer than knowledge.
Christianity did some nasty things but the people went through the Enlightenment
The people changed, the church remains.
Islam didn't experience the Enlightenment and rejects it today.
Just like Fred Phelps and all the other religious people.
The change is due to the non-religious who've rejected both sides' nonsense.
We in the West either abandon our civilization and accept Sharia or sooner or later (and with Nukes spreading it better be sooner) we are going to be forced to end Islam as it is currently known and practiced. That means Ann Coulter's solution of "Invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." It will be the worst human rights atrocity in recorded history but I'm damned if I see a better solution.
Hah! You retarded motherfucker - you honestly think your space ghost is a better solution.
How about we feed Ann Coulter to you and feed you both to sharks?
We just don't have the time left to embark on a psyops action to slowly pervert their religion so as to remove the nastier bits.
No we don't. We've been trying to fix christianity forever and it doesn't work. Once you think faith is good you're almost totally lost to the reasoning (and thus reasonable) world?
The only thing to do is break them of their religion, just like here.
A fellow named Ali, who is Bangladeshi, and Muslim.
So did he just do it because he's religious. Or is it an irrelevant detail you drag in here?
Yes, to combat other irrelevant things, sure. But it's this kind of crap that keeps it going.
I dunno, but it seems to me that dogmatic, xenophobic, recidivist behaviour is on the rise worldwide
Yes, because we're good people and you're not - whoever you are. See, this guy who was good - well he's my religion so of course. And this guy, he's from my city so he's a good guy. And this mass murderer from my church - ummm, well, he's clearly been corrupted by you.
Seriously though, I think it's because everyone is so quick to label their helpful friend as part of whatever class they are (male, Bangladeshi, Muslim, whatever). That's a counterpart to selectively blaming your chosen targets for all the evils of the world.
When your friend is just your friend, and nobody mentions the race of the jerks they deal with, we'll be done.
Sometimes when you are against censorship, you got to be on the site of people who censor, because the people they censor are even worse. But that is not a catchy slogan.
Not at all. We survive just fine with our past greats being mocked mercilessly even when our enemies do it.
To say you HAVE to censor is to say you COULDN'T hear those words.
People with thin skin have an infinite capacity to find fresh wounds. If they aren't offended by one thing they're offended by the idea you find them easily offended. They'll always have a list of things that must be censored, and they'll never be worth listening to.
You're either pro-Democracy or against it - if you support a coup when you don't like the results then you're against Democracy
Not at all. I support a democracy of people speaking for themselves, but I don't accept the tyranny of the majority.
As soon as the action of that democracy is to take choice away from others the government loses its legitimacy. Tyranny is just as horrible when it's one man or a million in charge.
If these people voted to secede and form their own government that'd be legitimate - if they vote to replace their government with one non-responsive to the needs of the non-religious then they're traitors and we should aid the other side in the upcoming civil war.
I agree about the eventual answer though - education. But a large part of that is addressing religion like the myth it is.
Because a country under Sharia law is never in practice a democracy.
Right.
Whereas if you had a democracy to start with you could voluntarily subject yourself to space-ghost law as well. Of course nobody would - but they'd be free to do so. What we need to do is realize that for a reasonable god-botherer, this would be enough.
Sharia law is slavery and one of our allies is seeking to enslave its population - that this (might) have majority support doesn't matter at all to the minority, nor should it to us. Countries with religious government (leaders?) aren't legitimate as they reject a mandate from the people in exchange for one from their myth.
As an aside, to all the people who bring the US into unrelated conversations [...]
No. Most of the people who bring up the USA are either in it, near it, subject to its rule, etc. All valid reasons to discuss it. And like having the default currency, another cost of being the biggest is that everything is measured against you.
Given how the USA is currently enforcing their ideals for correct behavior, its own standards are appropriately more under scrutiny now than ever.
Especially given how it's little things like Bush not being properly elected that the USA used against Saddam. Sure he was a more egregious example, but that just suggests we'd have been fine if he'd kept his landslide victories to 65% instead of 99% - as we didn't care if he gassed the Kurdish, etc. It shows the USA's got pretty low standards at home and for allies.
No, it still seems to fit. Under Sharia law the sky-wizard crowd make the laws, under US "democracy" the rich disproportionally make the laws.
Neither is a good system for the victims of the politically active, either domestically or foreign.
Yeah, roads are socialist too and they probably don't bitch about those.
But without treating donations as bribes this public financing is just more donations - this time from a source they don't even have to be thankful to. It's only part of the solution.
Because you're a warmonger. You provide moral comfort to the killers by endorsing their words without checking them to see if they make the slightest bit of sense. You willingly believe the lies and justifications that make everything your side does safe and wonderful without question. You accept the word of someone who is clearly grasping at straws and thank him for it, encouraging others to buy the same nonsense.
Your hopes, dreams, etc are irrelevant. Nobody cares why Jeffery Dahmer killed except to stop it from happening again - nobody cares why you're willing to condemn the innocent to gory death or excuse their killers.
I don't pity you and you're no friend of mine. It's your victims I pity. I hope you get killed in the war you're so eager to support. Your tax money is being spent to guarantee someone dies, I'm just suggesting it be you... And GooberToo of course. It's apparently either that or more vans full of good samaritans.
Watch out shitstain. If you think THIS is an unacceptable level of anger - some appropriately harsh words in an anonymous online forum, just wait until someone orphaned by this nonsense delivers it in person. If not for people like you this war could be defusing things - instead your jingoism will end up winding it tighter than before with us at the center.
To the degree that works it's because they're in a racially charged and contrasted area. You may have noticed that the USA is a melting pot and has 1) internal enemies and 2) diverse foreign enemies.
Such a policy enacted here not only would be racist but ineffective and ultimately harmful.
It's like trying to catch highway speeders but being prohibited from looking at sports cars because they get offended when you accuse them of speeding.
No, profiling would be like stopping all sports cars or subjecting them to excessive scrutiny merely because they look like they could go fast. With a policy of focusing on fast-looking cars rather than fast-moving cars all dangerous drivers would have to do to avoid capture is drive an ugly car.
What would seem like common sense, when broadly enacted into a policy, quickly becomes the height of idiocy.
It seems RvWade is a perfect example of something that shouldn't be decided by lawmakers. Their solution is laws and they'll decide in favor of their ability to regulate everything.
What was on the minds of the WotC was individual liberty and conversely the limits of the government's power. The government simply doesn't have the right to regulate some thing - it was founded with the intent of being a limited body that can not and does not do those things.
Probably the right to bear arms ought also to be refined/redefined: are nuclear weapons admissible, and what is the threshold for a weapon that one has the right to bear?
Similarly, that has to be beyond the power of the government to enforce. Otherwise you can't trust the government to be what the rest of the document says it is.
A probably workable workaround would be to declare certain weapons/poisons/etc as crimes against humanity. Essentially everything we wouldn't want someone using on us. But then we'd have to stop using it and destroy our stocks of it too...
It misses the point though, which should be to limit the killing. Supposedly this is a humanitarian thing, but it's silly - the dead don't care which tech killed them and all near-misses with military grade hardware have disastrous life-shortening side-effects. What we'd need to do is treat weapons over certain powers, or death tolls when used, etc, as automatic proof of war crimes.
But even then it misses the larger point that war is what happens when words don't work. You've decided to kill the enemy, and they're trying to kill you. Taking less bombs to do it is simply efficiency - not (further?) immorality. The weapons aren't the issue - the issues are. Just wars are just regardless of weapons, unjust wars always unjust...
You can voice support for local law enforcement all you want - it's a lot different than handing an officer a $50 when you get pulled over for speeding.
You sycophantic fuck. You're willing to endorse anything as long as it technically absolves you of guilt.
That post was the most content-free thing since Dick Cheney last broke wind. It's absolutely wrong in most areas and pathetically stupid in others.
For instance, this shit about notifying people they were going into a war zone... Hello FUCK NUT! People live there. We took the war to their homes.
He dribbles further that they acted JUST like insurgents - which must mean walking slowly and openly down a public road. What would civilians do? Stay home forever? Perhaps now they'd nervously glance for the helicopter about to blow them apart, but that's pretty reasonable.
His frantic logical gyrations take on epic proportion when he talks about how the civilian van that tried to collect civilian wounded wasn't properly marked... because it's a civilian van dipshit. That's the fucking point - civilians trying to live their life getting cut down from afar, and people trying to render aid cut down from afar.
He concludes the clusterfuck by talking about how various "doctrines and conventions allow for the death of these people". Before addressing the monumental stupidity inherent in this, I can only ask - would you stand quiet and accepting if I was coming to kill you simply because I had a convention allowing for your death? Because unless that'd be enough for you, shut your ignorant hole. And if that would be enough, hold on, I'll make up a petition...
Yes. Our military feels they were told to do this and the orders were authentic and thus binding. And yes they probably were, but such orders aren't legitimate.
The test of this is that they led to the slaying of a large party of civilians we're theoretically trying to protect. We murdered our charges. Maybe the kid in charge of the button hit it when he was told to but the killing was wrong and it needs to stop.
When they come asking for reparations for the warcrimes I'm going to vote we give them YOU. Not the soldiers, but the ignorant fuckers at home cheering it on and making up excuses for it.
No, they've labeled all "gifts" as bribery, I think they meant.
In the USA bribery is part of the system. It doesn't stand out because you have to give politicians large campaign contributions.
If that was illegal, like giving a cop a gift when stopped for speeding, and covered in the papers as bribery/treason we wouldn't have eliminated corruption, just its hiding place.
But nobody gets rid of it until they label it corruption.
It might be corruption that our other rules almost mandate, but it's still corruption. It's obvious where it's a citizen giving a cop a "gift" but grayer at the politician/corporation level.
When you don't call it corruption it raises the question "why get rid of it then?"
So if my best friend is running for political office, I can't buy him a birthday gift, or even a drink at the bar, because that would be corruption & bribery under your definition.
No, because it would look like possible corruption and would disguise the real corruption.
You'd refrain because of respect for the system your friend is trying to build and how it requires him to live to a higher standard than otherwise.
The driver is Apple, and speeding here is distributing a copyrighted work without license. How do they get the developer into the driver's seat without the police seeing? He might have sold them the car, misled them regarding speed limits, etc, but they were driving...
If Apple distributed something they didn't have rights to they can't just point a finger at someone else and say "sue him". They'd take the hit and depending on their contract with the developer rake him over the coals for misleading them.
Realistically, it wouldn't take long for them to get caught. Only one person needs to find proof of manipulation and other mediums exist to communicate the "google unsafe" message on.
In a few years...
Which constitutional amendments do you think failed unreasonably?
Then you'll find out it's against the law to leave your vehicle in the road while hitting the button, or something.
How about a pop bottle full of ball bearings, on a long string? When you come to a stop on the sensor you drop the bottle over the side and let it roll under the vehicle? Or that bouncy suspension setup - just lower your vehicle down on the sensor to trigger it and bust a few moves while waiting for the light to change.
What kind of helmet do you wear?
They do and don't do as $Religion should and shouldn't do according to their beliefs. That is great.
No, that is not great, it's ... nonsensical religious twaddle.
You know how it'd be ludicrous if one of the new-agers who thinks they've been Cleopatra in a past life decided to act as if they were her. It's just as crazy when it's a space-ghost cult who've told them that to appease the world-creator they must follow specific rules.
I am perfectly okay with people practicing their religion [...]
I'm perfectly okay with people believing whatever they do. It simply is what it is, not being okay with it wouldn't change it anyways.
But the thoughts themselves shouldn't be given a free pass just because they're held in honest error. If the rest of us would treat religion as the fairy tale it is the members might not find it so easy to be sucked in.
until it interferes with my own rights to freedom of speech and expression.
It does as soon as they want to be respected for the sacred nature of their stupid. If they'd object to you saying "Hey look, it's a group of the pedophile cultists and they're holding some fertility ritual" when a catholic wedding passes then it interferes with your freedom of expression.
That's then a religion becomes an enemy of the people. In this case, that is exactly what is happening.
You say that because the religion preaches murder (if only in some circumstances). That's not good enough.
All religion is the enemy because it preaches the lack of critical thinking that lets people be told what to do, from crazy holiday rituals to murder. Faith is incompatible with reasoning and as long as it gets a free pass so do the atrocities.