I neither said they were, nor implied it. Was I really that confusing?
Let me try again. I'll use a operating system analogy, so perhaps your geeky minds can understand better.
Much like an OS like Linux has levels of security organized into rings, there are essentially four "rings" of interest in this matter.
Ring 0 would be Crimea. Its their lives being directly affected.
Ring 1 would be Russia and what's left of Ukraine (assuming any still is left by the time you read this). They are the former and existing countries squabbling over it.
Ring 2 would be all of Russia's neighbors. This isn't the first time Putin has marched his troops into the ethnic Russian portions of a neighbor who's government was getting too uppity. Clearly its been working for him, so he's got no reason to quit doing it. They all have ethnic Russian minorities as well. It doesn't take a prophet to figure out the rest out.
Ring 3 would be anyone pledged to defend one of the countries within Ring 2. Since some of Russian's neighbors are NATO members, that means all of NATO (including Western Europe, Canada, and the USA).
Ring 4 would be anyone pledged to defend one of the countries within ring 3. (for simplicity's sake, we'll make this transitive)
Ring 5 would be everyone else. They can probably afford not to care (assuming things don't escalate to a point where large amounts of nukes are a real possibility)
If you think the idea of things escalating out to a Ring 3 or 4 problem is ridiculous, I highly suggest you take a hard look at how the last two World Wars started, and ask yourself what's completely different this time.
The current government there is a party that got less than 10% of the vote in the last Crimean regional election, and was essentially appointed by Putin after his troops moved in. So it owes its entire political existence not to local support, but to the support of some guys in Moscow.
Its possible that if you had a completely free plebiscite on the issue, without Russian troops and "militias" backed by them standing around with guns, the people of Crimea would have willingly voted for something similar to what they have now. Its also possible they wouldn't. We'll never know now, because it doesn't look like there will be anything like a free election there again for quite a while.
If you are a Polynesian, perhaps it is a trivial detail. If you live in the area itself, a country bordering one of the principles (eg: Most of Eastern Europe), or a country pledged to militarily protect one of those countries (essentially all of Europe, Canada, and the USA), then this ought to matter a great deal to you.
This is essentially a story of an ongoing propaganda effort. Try as we might, there is flat out no way to classify any part of what a year ago was Ukraine without making a political statement. When you make a political statement, you are serving the purposes of one side or the other. These "sides" run countries with hundreds of millions of people in them, who might one day come to blows over the issue. There's no getting around that either.
There are still mobilized military units moving around in both the former and rump remainder parts of Ukraine. We honestly don't know if the country will exist at all two months from now. Getting their story out about their view of the status of these areas is just another ongoing part of the war (or whatever you want to call it), and websites like Wikipedia are bound to get caught in the middle.
That was essentially England's argument in sending colonists over there for trial. Its tough to get a lot of convictions out of a colonial jury that thinks the law itself is stupid (and they had no say in it). Parliment also passed laws taking both the appointment and salaries of judges out of the hands of the colonies. That showed up as a grievance everywhere too.
He wasn't kidding in the slightest about venue being a big issue in our break with Britain. You can find the issue at least alluded to as a grievance in just about any pre-war document. My favorite is Franklin's sarcastic Rules by Which a Great Empire May Be Reduced to a Small One
This King, these Lords, and these Commons, who it seems are too remote from us to know us and feel for us, cannot take from us... our Right of Trial by a Jury of our Neighbours.... To annihilate this Comfort,... let there be a formal Declaration of both Houses, that Opposition to your Edicts is Treason, and that Persons suspected of Treason in the Provinces may, according to some obsolete Law, be seized and sent to the Metropolis of the Empire for Trial; and pass an Act that those there charged with certain other Offences shall be sent away in Chains from their Friends and Country to be tried in the same Manner for Felony. Then erect a new Court of Inquisition among them, accompanied by an armed Force, with Instructions to transport all such suspected Persons, to be ruined by the Expence if they bring over Evidences to prove their Innocence, or be found guilty and hanged if they can’t afford it.
There are diseases where the only known effective treatment at this point in time is stem cells. And those are/were in the trial stages.
Fuck politics.
This is the thing that frustrates me the most about the current political situation. A few nihilists who have taken over one of our parties (the "Republican" one), are able to screw over the whole system so that nothing productive can get done. But that's not the worst part; any gamer can tell you that the world is full of griefers. The worst part is that they are getting away with this behavior because nobody blames them directly. So here you're clearly ticked, but you blame "politics". Why aren't you blaming the actual greifers causing the problem?
Hell, we're about to have an election this year, and both houses are likely to get more of these greifers. If voters don't make the responsible individuals pay for this behavior, where does it end?
Yeah, I've got a box full of old Creative Computing mags in the attic, and yeah, BASIC was my first programming language. But celebrate its birthday? Meh...
The language certainly has its place in history, but frankly I moved on a long time ago, and for damn good reason. To me, this would be like celebrating the birthday of the Hustle or Electric Slide. I might occasionally pine for the days of wall-to-wall shag carpeting, but that doesn't mean I'm about to install it in my living room again "for old time's sake". It died for a very good reason. Let it go.
Sensible. After getting thousands and thousands of zombies taken out by those damn plants, the sensible thing to do would be to subvert them from the inside.
The truth is that the House has repeatedly passed budgets, and the Demoncrat controlled Senate led by Dingy Harry Reid has refused to take them up.
That's one of those "truths" that folks like to hide lies in. Yes, the House has repeatedly passed budgets, that is true. It is also true that the Senate has repeatedly passed budgets, and Obama has repeatedly submitted budgets he'd be happy to sign to Congress. So everyone's doing their job in good faith, right?
Clearly not. The real truth here is that the House's "budgets" have contained no attempt whatsoever to contain language that has a hope of passing in the Senate, much less get a signature from the POTUS. The House knew full well those budgets wouldn't pass when they voted for them. So pretending these were serious attempts at legislation is a flat out lie.
The Senate's passed budgets, on the other hand, quite often could get a majority in the house (and a POTUS signature). The House deals with this situation that threatens to produce an actual budget by refusing to bring them up for a vote.
So yeah, we could mislead everyone and claim the House has been trying to pass budgets, or we could tell the honest truth.
What happened was that there was ongoing funding of stem-cell research, much of it government-funded. However, there's an existing law that forbids any government funding of abortion. When fetal stem-cell research became a possibility, President Clinton issued an executive order saying that research didn't count against the law. Then he left office, and President Bush (II) issued his own order saying it did qualify (at least for any new fetal tissues). When president Obama took office, he issued his own order saying it was OK again.
Yes, all that was banned was new fetal tissue research. But that was where the new research was being done at the time, so its a distinction without much difference.
Today Congress is (perhaps inadvertently) getting around this re-funding by simply blanket defunding all government funding of research (along with everything else). This was the only kind of "budget" they could agree to. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama though. Sure, he signed the law for the current qasi-budget we operate under, but only because it was the best we were ever likely to get out of a House of Reps (yes, run by Republicans) that reflexively votes against anything he so much as says a kind word about.
Perhaps the Republican goal wasn't to defund stem-cell research, but that's certainly the effect. At some point incompetence becomes advanced enough that it is indistinguishable from malice.
Obama doesn't fund the government. That's Congress' job.
People like to say "Bush banned stem-cell research". Because he took an executive order to do so, at a time when Congress was backing everything he did (he did not veto a single bill during his first 6 years in office, which I believe is a record).
Obama has pretty much the opposite kind of Congress. The only blame you could possibly give Obama for this is for not pretending that he hated stem-cell funding research, thus forcing them all to pass bills requiring it. Reverse psychology is about the only thing that could possibly work for him at this point.
Which is fine, except that people are still running around playing on the things.
This isn't just an issue of a few musicians being foolish either. A lot of those old instruments were made with real ivory. That's illegal to import to the USA now, but the musicians got themselves an exemption so they could travel with these old supposedly superior instruments. So of course modern ivory poachers started making themselves fake old instruments to smuggle new ivory around.
Now this loophole is being closed a bit, and musicians are up in arms that their audiences now won't be able to hear these ancient supposedly superior instruments any more. The government may have to give in. So this isn't just about some musicians being silly. We may lose a lot of elephants over this.
Don't use the good beer. Use the Miller Light that's been sitting in your fridge since someone brought it over months ago.
Next question: Does Coors count as beer for these purposes? We know it doesn't count count as beer for personal consumption, but I'm wondering if the same principle holds for cooking meat with it. Clearly further study is called for.
Why would zebras evolve to have stripes whereas other hooved mammals did not?
I don't think that's true. I distinctly remember seeing a shot of a mustang (not the car, the horse) with stripes on its hindquarters. These are wild horses descended from escaped Spanish horses in the western US. I distinctly remember the announcer saying their wild ancestors probably had stripes, and after half a millennium of independent evolution, some were regaining stripes.
According to this link the horses the Blackfeet used often had these stripes. Despite what their legends may say, Native Americans like the Blackfeet got their horses by taming them from this same pool of the descendants of escaped Spanish horses.
Wikipedia does say that the ancestor of the domestic horse, Equus Ferrus Ferrus, often had stripes on its shoulders.
So it sure looks like there's probably some kind of genetic usefulness for stripes in non-domesticated horses, both in ancient Asia and the modern American West as well.
This is not the use that people are complaining about.
You are absolutely correct that it isn't the way the current Koch-approved talking point is worded. But that hardly matters one bit to the rest of us once the drugs are removed from the insurance company's payment schedule, now does it? The effect most certainly would be that some medically necessary hormone treatments will become unpaid due to the fact that they are accomplished using pills or patches that are also used for birth control.
And yes, 50% of the population is trying to point this out. I hear it brought up all the time. You probably don't usually hear them if you spend all of your time consuming winger-only media. Go listen to someone who doesn't get their talking points from the Koch brothers. Failing that, you could try listening to a woman once in a while I suppose...
If I believed wholeheatedly what he wrote there and paid no attention to what he did when he thought nobody was looking, then sure.
Interestingly, the contents of that statement prove without a doubt that Mr. Eich understands completely why people have a problem with having him as CEO. It makes me wonder why so many people here claim to not see it.
You don't have to be clear on why. Its is a fact that it does (hundreds of them in fact), and has since essentially the mid-20th century. If you don't like this situation, you are free to rail against it (good luck with that). But in the meantime it is morally incumbent on us to be fair about it.
And traditional marriage has been outlawed in this country for quite a while. If you want to argue for polygamy and disenfranchisement of women go right ahead, but please do it somewhere far enough from me that I'm not liable to get caught in the crossfire.:-)
As a Man who spent the last 25 years paying for his wife's birth control out of his own paycheck (or via *gasp* his health insurance), that goes double for me. It was an entirely health-related expense, just like the three pregnancies were, and the tubal ligation was. Or should those not be paid for either? In fact, for the last three years, my wife has had a particular "birth control" prescribed to her purely as a method to keep her hormones balanced properly (otherwise she would get migraines so bad she couldn't work).
I know the whole topic makes immature people like teenagers and Republicans giggle, but the fact is that birth control is a continual and integral part of health care for any family that contains at least one female between the ages of puberty and menopause. Just like pap-smears for women, and protstrate exams for older men. It is all part of the healthcare expenses of being an actual human being with (clutch your pearls here folks) sexual parts.
How is his stance related to the job, other than it is unpopular?
I dunno. I don't think I'd be happy working for someone who considered me sub-human, and has said so publicly. Presumably Mozilla has gay employees and contributors, and this CEO is quite likely to have a big say in what benefits they are given and how they are treated. So if he honestly thinks gay folks (including ones working for Mozilla) shouldn't be treated like real people with real families to worry about, it damn well does relate to his job.
It seems pretty reasonable to be upset to me. I think perhaps your confusion stems from the fact that you think this is some "coin flip" issue that has no effect whatsoever on the actual lives of the actual people in question.
Marriage has been pretty statically defined for an incredibly long time across a lot of cultures
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about the modern love-based marriages we have redefined for ourselves sometime around the early 20th Century.
I didn't realize he was arguing for marriages between one man and as many wives as he can support, as long as they are all female and over the age of 8. Marriages where there is effectively a property transfer of female progeny and other goods or chattel between one man and one of his adult peers. Marriages that are entirely about maintaining the man's household and giving him some heirs to carry that on after he's gone. Marriages that have nothing whatsoever to do with love, and in fact all parties concerned are expected (and in the man's case encouraged) to seek love elsewhere, with whatever partner of whatever gender they chose. You know, traditional marriage.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me try again. I'll use a operating system analogy, so perhaps your geeky minds can understand better.
Much like an OS like Linux has levels of security organized into rings, there are essentially four "rings" of interest in this matter.
If you think the idea of things escalating out to a Ring 3 or 4 problem is ridiculous, I highly suggest you take a hard look at how the last two World Wars started, and ask yourself what's completely different this time.
The current government there is a party that got less than 10% of the vote in the last Crimean regional election, and was essentially appointed by Putin after his troops moved in. So it owes its entire political existence not to local support, but to the support of some guys in Moscow.
Its possible that if you had a completely free plebiscite on the issue, without Russian troops and "militias" backed by them standing around with guns, the people of Crimea would have willingly voted for something similar to what they have now. Its also possible they wouldn't. We'll never know now, because it doesn't look like there will be anything like a free election there again for quite a while.
If you are a Polynesian, perhaps it is a trivial detail. If you live in the area itself, a country bordering one of the principles (eg: Most of Eastern Europe), or a country pledged to militarily protect one of those countries (essentially all of Europe, Canada, and the USA), then this ought to matter a great deal to you.
This is essentially a story of an ongoing propaganda effort. Try as we might, there is flat out no way to classify any part of what a year ago was Ukraine without making a political statement. When you make a political statement, you are serving the purposes of one side or the other. These "sides" run countries with hundreds of millions of people in them, who might one day come to blows over the issue. There's no getting around that either.
There are still mobilized military units moving around in both the former and rump remainder parts of Ukraine. We honestly don't know if the country will exist at all two months from now. Getting their story out about their view of the status of these areas is just another ongoing part of the war (or whatever you want to call it), and websites like Wikipedia are bound to get caught in the middle.
It's not change=good versus change=bad. Everyone is ok with change.
...says the guy who insists on posting in a fixed-width font in 2014.
get rid of both GNOME and KDE, and make XFCE behave itself and Linux might start acting more in line with the Unix philosophy
You provided the wrong link. If you want to educate people on the Unix philosophy, you should be directing them here.
That was essentially England's argument in sending colonists over there for trial. Its tough to get a lot of convictions out of a colonial jury that thinks the law itself is stupid (and they had no say in it). Parliment also passed laws taking both the appointment and salaries of judges out of the hands of the colonies. That showed up as a grievance everywhere too.
This King, these Lords, and these Commons, who it seems are too remote from us to know us and feel for us, cannot take from us ... our Right of Trial by a Jury of our Neighbours. ... To annihilate this Comfort, ... let there be a formal Declaration of both Houses, that Opposition to your Edicts is Treason, and that Persons suspected of Treason in the Provinces may, according to some obsolete Law, be seized and sent to the Metropolis of the Empire for Trial; and pass an Act that those there charged with certain other Offences shall be sent away in Chains from their Friends and Country to be tried in the same Manner for Felony. Then erect a new Court of Inquisition among them, accompanied by an armed Force, with Instructions to transport all such suspected Persons, to be ruined by the Expence if they bring over Evidences to prove their Innocence, or be found guilty and hanged if they can’t afford it.
(emphasis his)
There are diseases where the only known effective treatment at this point in time is stem cells. And those are/were in the trial stages.
Fuck politics.
This is the thing that frustrates me the most about the current political situation. A few nihilists who have taken over one of our parties (the "Republican" one), are able to screw over the whole system so that nothing productive can get done. But that's not the worst part; any gamer can tell you that the world is full of griefers. The worst part is that they are getting away with this behavior because nobody blames them directly. So here you're clearly ticked, but you blame "politics". Why aren't you blaming the actual greifers causing the problem?
Hell, we're about to have an election this year, and both houses are likely to get more of these greifers. If voters don't make the responsible individuals pay for this behavior, where does it end?
Yeah, I've got a box full of old Creative Computing mags in the attic, and yeah, BASIC was my first programming language. But celebrate its birthday? Meh...
The language certainly has its place in history, but frankly I moved on a long time ago, and for damn good reason. To me, this would be like celebrating the birthday of the Hustle or Electric Slide. I might occasionally pine for the days of wall-to-wall shag carpeting, but that doesn't mean I'm about to install it in my living room again "for old time's sake". It died for a very good reason. Let it go.
Sensible. After getting thousands and thousands of zombies taken out by those damn plants, the sensible thing to do would be to subvert them from the inside.
Yes, now there are truly zombies on your lawn.
The truth is that the House has repeatedly passed budgets, and the Demoncrat controlled Senate led by Dingy Harry Reid has refused to take them up.
That's one of those "truths" that folks like to hide lies in. Yes, the House has repeatedly passed budgets, that is true. It is also true that the Senate has repeatedly passed budgets, and Obama has repeatedly submitted budgets he'd be happy to sign to Congress. So everyone's doing their job in good faith, right?
Clearly not. The real truth here is that the House's "budgets" have contained no attempt whatsoever to contain language that has a hope of passing in the Senate, much less get a signature from the POTUS. The House knew full well those budgets wouldn't pass when they voted for them. So pretending these were serious attempts at legislation is a flat out lie.
The Senate's passed budgets, on the other hand, quite often could get a majority in the house (and a POTUS signature). The House deals with this situation that threatens to produce an actual budget by refusing to bring them up for a vote.
So yeah, we could mislead everyone and claim the House has been trying to pass budgets, or we could tell the honest truth.
In my experience, it essentially tastes like the container it is served in (typically aluminum).
Odd definition of "Lie"
What happened was that there was ongoing funding of stem-cell research, much of it government-funded. However, there's an existing law that forbids any government funding of abortion. When fetal stem-cell research became a possibility, President Clinton issued an executive order saying that research didn't count against the law. Then he left office, and President Bush (II) issued his own order saying it did qualify (at least for any new fetal tissues). When president Obama took office, he issued his own order saying it was OK again.
Yes, all that was banned was new fetal tissue research. But that was where the new research was being done at the time, so its a distinction without much difference.
Today Congress is (perhaps inadvertently) getting around this re-funding by simply blanket defunding all government funding of research (along with everything else). This was the only kind of "budget" they could agree to. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama though. Sure, he signed the law for the current qasi-budget we operate under, but only because it was the best we were ever likely to get out of a House of Reps (yes, run by Republicans) that reflexively votes against anything he so much as says a kind word about.
Perhaps the Republican goal wasn't to defund stem-cell research, but that's certainly the effect. At some point incompetence becomes advanced enough that it is indistinguishable from malice.
Obama doesn't fund the government. That's Congress' job.
People like to say "Bush banned stem-cell research". Because he took an executive order to do so, at a time when Congress was backing everything he did (he did not veto a single bill during his first 6 years in office, which I believe is a record).
Obama has pretty much the opposite kind of Congress. The only blame you could possibly give Obama for this is for not pretending that he hated stem-cell funding research, thus forcing them all to pass bills requiring it. Reverse psychology is about the only thing that could possibly work for him at this point.
Which is fine, except that people are still running around playing on the things.
This isn't just an issue of a few musicians being foolish either. A lot of those old instruments were made with real ivory. That's illegal to import to the USA now, but the musicians got themselves an exemption so they could travel with these old supposedly superior instruments. So of course modern ivory poachers started making themselves fake old instruments to smuggle new ivory around.
Now this loophole is being closed a bit, and musicians are up in arms that their audiences now won't be able to hear these ancient supposedly superior instruments any more. The government may have to give in. So this isn't just about some musicians being silly. We may lose a lot of elephants over this.
Don't use the good beer. Use the Miller Light that's been sitting in your fridge since someone brought it over months ago.
Next question: Does Coors count as beer for these purposes? We know it doesn't count count as beer for personal consumption, but I'm wondering if the same principle holds for cooking meat with it. Clearly further study is called for.
Why would zebras evolve to have stripes whereas other hooved mammals did not?
I don't think that's true. I distinctly remember seeing a shot of a mustang (not the car, the horse) with stripes on its hindquarters. These are wild horses descended from escaped Spanish horses in the western US. I distinctly remember the announcer saying their wild ancestors probably had stripes, and after half a millennium of independent evolution, some were regaining stripes.
According to this link the horses the Blackfeet used often had these stripes. Despite what their legends may say, Native Americans like the Blackfeet got their horses by taming them from this same pool of the descendants of escaped Spanish horses.
Wikipedia does say that the ancestor of the domestic horse, Equus Ferrus Ferrus, often had stripes on its shoulders.
So it sure looks like there's probably some kind of genetic usefulness for stripes in non-domesticated horses, both in ancient Asia and the modern American West as well.
This is not the use that people are complaining about.
You are absolutely correct that it isn't the way the current Koch-approved talking point is worded. But that hardly matters one bit to the rest of us once the drugs are removed from the insurance company's payment schedule, now does it? The effect most certainly would be that some medically necessary hormone treatments will become unpaid due to the fact that they are accomplished using pills or patches that are also used for birth control.
And yes, 50% of the population is trying to point this out. I hear it brought up all the time. You probably don't usually hear them if you spend all of your time consuming winger-only media. Go listen to someone who doesn't get their talking points from the Koch brothers. Failing that, you could try listening to a woman once in a while I suppose...
If I believed wholeheatedly what he wrote there and paid no attention to what he did when he thought nobody was looking, then sure.
Interestingly, the contents of that statement prove without a doubt that Mr. Eich understands completely why people have a problem with having him as CEO. It makes me wonder why so many people here claim to not see it.
And traditional marriage has been outlawed in this country for quite a while. If you want to argue for polygamy and disenfranchisement of women go right ahead, but please do it somewhere far enough from me that I'm not liable to get caught in the crossfire. :-)
As a Man who spent the last 25 years paying for his wife's birth control out of his own paycheck (or via *gasp* his health insurance), that goes double for me. It was an entirely health-related expense, just like the three pregnancies were, and the tubal ligation was. Or should those not be paid for either? In fact, for the last three years, my wife has had a particular "birth control" prescribed to her purely as a method to keep her hormones balanced properly (otherwise she would get migraines so bad she couldn't work).
I know the whole topic makes immature people like teenagers and Republicans giggle, but the fact is that birth control is a continual and integral part of health care for any family that contains at least one female between the ages of puberty and menopause. Just like pap-smears for women, and protstrate exams for older men. It is all part of the healthcare expenses of being an actual human being with (clutch your pearls here folks) sexual parts.
How is his stance related to the job, other than it is unpopular?
I dunno. I don't think I'd be happy working for someone who considered me sub-human, and has said so publicly. Presumably Mozilla has gay employees and contributors, and this CEO is quite likely to have a big say in what benefits they are given and how they are treated. So if he honestly thinks gay folks (including ones working for Mozilla) shouldn't be treated like real people with real families to worry about, it damn well does relate to his job.
It seems pretty reasonable to be upset to me. I think perhaps your confusion stems from the fact that you think this is some "coin flip" issue that has no effect whatsoever on the actual lives of the actual people in question.
You talk like that doesn't happen now.
Marriage has been pretty statically defined for an incredibly long time across a lot of cultures
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about the modern love-based marriages we have redefined for ourselves sometime around the early 20th Century.
I didn't realize he was arguing for marriages between one man and as many wives as he can support, as long as they are all female and over the age of 8. Marriages where there is effectively a property transfer of female progeny and other goods or chattel between one man and one of his adult peers. Marriages that are entirely about maintaining the man's household and giving him some heirs to carry that on after he's gone. Marriages that have nothing whatsoever to do with love, and in fact all parties concerned are expected (and in the man's case encouraged) to seek love elsewhere, with whatever partner of whatever gender they chose. You know, traditional marriage.
- If Mozilla keeps him, they'll get backlash from the gay lobby (for lack of a better term.)
Hmmm. What could a better term for "people who care about fair treatment of their fellow human being" possibly be?
How about most Americans?