Apparently you will continue to defend your incorrect interpretation to the death. And I'm sorry that "virtue signaling" so accurately captures that notion that it has achieved widespread use.
You originally claimed that this came from the right. Are you sticking by that, or do you finally see that this is a left-winger attempting to virtue-signal about women's rights?
So your theory is that a "traditional right wing boss" is, as he evidently sees it, a defender of women's rights in the workplace. This is good to know.
So thinking marriage is something that takes place between a man and a woman is a "kink" now, is it?
“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” -- Barack Obama, Nov. 2, 2008
"Marriage has historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman." -- Hillary Clinton, January 2000
I think voting for people, or contribute to their campaigns, who in turn vote to tax me, constitutes "taking real world action against" me. Those people should be immediately fired from their jobs for the action they have taken against my personal property, as well as that of every tax-paying employee of every U.S. company.
Your argument doesn't work very well, does it?
Nobody is "changing the definition of marriage" by allowing two guys to get married, and if you think they are, you're both a bigot and a fucking moron.
Of course it's a change to the definition of marriage, and name-calling doesn't change that fact.
Believing that the definition of marriage that prevailed for 2000 years shouldn't be changed is not the same as not liking gays, as has been pointed out so many times that I can't believe I need to say it.
Why what this guy does in his off hours is any of Drupal's business is a mystery to me. Are they going to investigate all of their employees' personal lives for PC conformity?
I agree, SE is really annoying. I apparently can't help anyone there because I don't have enough "reputation" or something. I guess 38 years of dealing with computers just doesn't quite qualify me for their little club.
As for people who respond to questions with "Why would you even want to do that in the first place?", I absolutely HATE that. While it is of course a valid response in some instances, it seems to be the goto answer for the first responders to a far higher percentage of technical questions than actually merit that reply. Unless the opposite is truly obvious why not assume that the asker is not an idiot, and answer the question he's asking, instead of questioning the question. Makes me crazy.
2 million is only 1-1/2% of the electorate, and the other candidate also has high unfavorable ratings, so your point is not one. Further, as has been pointed out repeatedly, if the electoral college did not exist, candidates would run their campaigns differently and would be trying to win the popular vote. Your argument is the same as one saying that the team that gains the most yards in a football game should win it, not the team that gets the most points. Games are judged by the rules of the game, not by extraneous scoring techniques.
And once you boot one of such kernels in Secure Boot mode, you can't insert unsigned modules, kexec unsigned kernels or access (even as root) a number of facilities that could let you gain control over your own machine.
People who are working because they WANT to work rather than NEED to work are way more productive and would produce much more GDP and a larger tax base to pay taxes.
All studies show that most people would continue to work even with a generous UBI.
How do you reconcile this unsupported-by-any-evidence "all studies" assertion with the live demo you have been seeing over the past several years of a massive rise in the SSI disability rolls? Are those people also part of the "most people" who will continue to work while being given free money? Or are they humans behaving like humans behave, unlike those in your "all studies"?
Nor does that assurance exist for any other such program with the exception of food stamps, and it would be exceptionally easy to have a portion of the money be flagged as "food only" where it can only be taken out at grocery stores similar to the way EBT works today.
That's funny. Google EBT fraud and get back to me. If you think EBT monies are used solely for food you are living in a fantasy land.
Well, there's giving flash drives full of emails to her attorney -- was _he_ cleared? Did _he_ have the appropriate security measures in place to receive and protect such information? I haven't heard a word about that aspect, and I've always thought it was the smokingest gun here.
Then there's putting the server in a bathroom somewhere. Was that a secure facility? I will admit it's a good place for "wiping," if called for.
OMG -- The "gross negligence" statute at issue specifically does NOT require intent, for the obvious reason that "gross negligence" is about incompetence, not intent. People don't "intend" to be "grossly negligent". That's why it's called negligence and not intentional harm. Good grief at least get THAT right.
Apparently I'm the only one who has trouble believing that this app has been used successfully to challenge 160,000 tickets.
It appears the reporter took the developer's word for that. Any proof at all of that rather extraordinary claim?
I'm not sure which Google you're talking about, but the one I'm aware of regularly antagonizes huge percentages of its users, between contentious Google doodles, their various political stances, the omnipresence of Google on one side of political campaigns, etc. I agree with you that it "would be foolish"; what you seem to be missing is that they are doing it in spite of that fact.
Just to make sure I'm reading this right . . . did I get it that Elon Musk is complaining about subsidies that OTHER companies get?
Has he read his own financials? His company wouldn't exist without subsidies.
Slashdot Mirror
You got a PhD in part because of a language that is controversial, and you consider that a win?
I'm sorry, in what part of his post did he say that?
Apparently you will continue to defend your incorrect interpretation to the death. And I'm sorry that "virtue signaling" so accurately captures that notion that it has achieved widespread use.
You originally claimed that this came from the right. Are you sticking by that, or do you finally see that this is a left-winger attempting to virtue-signal about women's rights?
That would depend on which biblical times you're talking about, unless there was more than one Eve and I missed it somehow.
So your theory is that a "traditional right wing boss" is, as he evidently sees it, a defender of women's rights in the workplace. This is good to know.
He tried to force his kink on everyone else.p>
So thinking marriage is something that takes place between a man and a woman is a "kink" now, is it?
“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” -- Barack Obama, Nov. 2, 2008
"Marriage has historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman." -- Hillary Clinton, January 2000
So kinky these two!
I think voting for people, or contribute to their campaigns, who in turn vote to tax me, constitutes "taking real world action against" me. Those people should be immediately fired from their jobs for the action they have taken against my personal property, as well as that of every tax-paying employee of every U.S. company. Your argument doesn't work very well, does it?
Then you're really missing the whole point of this story.
Nobody is "changing the definition of marriage" by allowing two guys to get married, and if you think they are, you're both a bigot and a fucking moron.
Of course it's a change to the definition of marriage, and name-calling doesn't change that fact.
Believing that the definition of marriage that prevailed for 2000 years shouldn't be changed is not the same as not liking gays, as has been pointed out so many times that I can't believe I need to say it.
Why what this guy does in his off hours is any of Drupal's business is a mystery to me. Are they going to investigate all of their employees' personal lives for PC conformity?
I agree, SE is really annoying. I apparently can't help anyone there because I don't have enough "reputation" or something. I guess 38 years of dealing with computers just doesn't quite qualify me for their little club.
As for people who respond to questions with "Why would you even want to do that in the first place?", I absolutely HATE that. While it is of course a valid response in some instances, it seems to be the goto answer for the first responders to a far higher percentage of technical questions than actually merit that reply. Unless the opposite is truly obvious why not assume that the asker is not an idiot, and answer the question he's asking, instead of questioning the question. Makes me crazy.
2 million is only 1-1/2% of the electorate, and the other candidate also has high unfavorable ratings, so your point is not one. Further, as has been pointed out repeatedly, if the electoral college did not exist, candidates would run their campaigns differently and would be trying to win the popular vote. Your argument is the same as one saying that the team that gains the most yards in a football game should win it, not the team that gets the most points. Games are judged by the rules of the game, not by extraneous scoring techniques.
I thought the risk of mortality was 100% . . . ?
Oh lol OK, no need to defend your position then. But then I already knew you could not.
And once you boot one of such kernels in Secure Boot mode, you can't insert unsigned modules, kexec unsigned kernels or access (even as root) a number of facilities that could let you gain control over your own machine.
Number of people who give a crap about that: you.
People who are working because they WANT to work rather than NEED to work are way more productive and would produce much more GDP and a larger tax base to pay taxes.
Citation needed.
All studies show that most people would continue to work even with a generous UBI.
How do you reconcile this unsupported-by-any-evidence "all studies" assertion with the live demo you have been seeing over the past several years of a massive rise in the SSI disability rolls? Are those people also part of the "most people" who will continue to work while being given free money? Or are they humans behaving like humans behave, unlike those in your "all studies"?
That's funny. Google EBT fraud and get back to me. If you think EBT monies are used solely for food you are living in a fantasy land.
Well, there's giving flash drives full of emails to her attorney -- was _he_ cleared? Did _he_ have the appropriate security measures in place to receive and protect such information? I haven't heard a word about that aspect, and I've always thought it was the smokingest gun here. Then there's putting the server in a bathroom somewhere. Was that a secure facility? I will admit it's a good place for "wiping," if called for.
OMG -- The "gross negligence" statute at issue specifically does NOT require intent, for the obvious reason that "gross negligence" is about incompetence, not intent. People don't "intend" to be "grossly negligent". That's why it's called negligence and not intentional harm. Good grief at least get THAT right.
Apparently I'm the only one who has trouble believing that this app has been used successfully to challenge 160,000 tickets. It appears the reporter took the developer's word for that. Any proof at all of that rather extraordinary claim?
I'm not sure which Google you're talking about, but the one I'm aware of regularly antagonizes huge percentages of its users, between contentious Google doodles, their various political stances, the omnipresence of Google on one side of political campaigns, etc. I agree with you that it "would be foolish"; what you seem to be missing is that they are doing it in spite of that fact.
If you don't understand how tax law works, posting comments regarding it is a bad idea. Tax deductibility does not make something free.
Whatever dude. Somehow I'm completely missing how that justifies Gawker publishing a sextape of Hulk Hogan.
Just to make sure I'm reading this right . . . did I get it that Elon Musk is complaining about subsidies that OTHER companies get? Has he read his own financials? His company wouldn't exist without subsidies.