Well, from the Chik-fil-a and other boycotts, I get the impression that the gay rights advocates strongly support the idea of boycotting a business based on what they believe. Yet, the intention here is that the business not have the same rights-- to refuse service because of their customer's beliefs. Is bizarre system truly what is wanted, or is it a double standard because THEIR beliefs are "correct"?
I believe that the important distinction is that Chik-Fil-A is a corporation. It is a legal fiction the enjoys the empowerments and protections granted it by the state. IMO, as such, it is at least partially an agent of the state, and thus should not be permitted to discriminate. If you're a little mom-and-pop store that isn't incorporated, then go ahead and discriminate, if you ask me, as repugnant and unethical as I might personally find that to be.
And what about in the meantime? Until that libertarian fairlytale day when the "government gets out of the marriage business", why should gay people be discriminated against until then? As long as government is in the marriage business, must it not do so fairly and in a non-discriminatory manner?
Really? This New Yorker has always assumed that "Silicon Valley" referred to a particular area of California and its tech industry. Other parts of the country have their own terms, e.g. Silicon Alley, the 128 Corridor, etc.
"Nuclear weapon" does not automatically mean "missile warhead". The first nuclear bombs were huge and required B-29s to carry them. Taking that and miniaturizing (and ruggedizing) it to the point where it can launched off the tip of a missile is another matter.
Unless they publish orbital parameters, we don't even know that they've launched a cubesat. It's not like they've never lied before about their capabilities.
All he's saying is that polite people don't insult other people's parentage, family, religion, and so on. Doing so often gets an unpleasant reponse. What he said was that if you go to his house and insult his mother, he'll punch you.
What he said was: "You cannot provoke, you cannot insult the faith of others, you cannot make fun of the religion of others..." Well, like hell I can't. He can suggest that I should not, but he'd better not try to tell me that I cannot.
I do thank him/her. There is no such thing as a right not to be offended, and everyone needs to understand this. No such right can exist, precisely because it is in opposition to the notion of free speech.
I would bet on the cost being less than it is now. And, while I will have had access to all the latest stuff (and all the old stuff too) over those 30 years, the other guy will have spent those 30 years stuck with only the CDs he bought during that time, at a rate of only one new CD a month unless he wants to spend more money than me.
No, I will have every song there is, including all the newest ones. You'll only have your 4000, most of which you probably won't be listening to anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, we know it's really 10 cc. (Not really.)
Well, from the Chik-fil-a and other boycotts, I get the impression that the gay rights advocates strongly support the idea of boycotting a business based on what they believe. Yet, the intention here is that the business not have the same rights-- to refuse service because of their customer's beliefs. Is bizarre system truly what is wanted, or is it a double standard because THEIR beliefs are "correct"?
I believe that the important distinction is that Chik-Fil-A is a corporation. It is a legal fiction the enjoys the empowerments and protections granted it by the state. IMO, as such, it is at least partially an agent of the state, and thus should not be permitted to discriminate. If you're a little mom-and-pop store that isn't incorporated, then go ahead and discriminate, if you ask me, as repugnant and unethical as I might personally find that to be.
And what about in the meantime? Until that libertarian fairlytale day when the "government gets out of the marriage business", why should gay people be discriminated against until then? As long as government is in the marriage business, must it not do so fairly and in a non-discriminatory manner?
Really? This New Yorker has always assumed that "Silicon Valley" referred to a particular area of California and its tech industry. Other parts of the country have their own terms, e.g. Silicon Alley, the 128 Corridor, etc.
New York City is now in Alaska? No wonder this winter was so nasty.
"The flight will be conducted on a Swedish SAAB 340 observation aircraft that is not equipped with any weaponry."
Didn't 9/11 teach us that any sufficiently sized plane is a weapon? Can this ever really be safe?
...sunshine isn't the best disinfectant after all. Or the White House has an infection it doesn't want cured.
A lot less than solar and wind.
But not in a Compaq laptop, I'd bet more than a few bucks. PS/2 was a whole different ecosystem.
You're gonna pay me to put a giant penis on top of my house? Where do I sign?!?!
...until the cranial screwtop is invented.
Google could include an adblocker that blocks everything but Google ads...?
Oops, C8H8 not C8H18.
Octane is plastic? I'm pretty sure at STP it's a volatile liquid.
I don't know, except that the energy density of propanol is roughly similar to that of gasoline.
Because they do a better job, they are more functional. Plus there are only so many caves to go around. So, what was your point again?
Congratulations on completely missing the point, Coward.
"Nuclear weapon" does not automatically mean "missile warhead". The first nuclear bombs were huge and required B-29s to carry them. Taking that and miniaturizing (and ruggedizing) it to the point where it can launched off the tip of a missile is another matter.
Unless they publish orbital parameters, we don't even know that they've launched a cubesat. It's not like they've never lied before about their capabilities.
Who cares what they look like? As long as the HVAC works and they roll down the track, aren't they doing their job?
Maybe it already sank into the ground a little.
All he's saying is that polite people don't insult other people's parentage, family, religion, and so on. Doing so often gets an unpleasant reponse. What he said was that if you go to his house and insult his mother, he'll punch you.
What he said was: "You cannot provoke, you cannot insult the faith of others, you cannot make fun of the religion of others..." Well, like hell I can't. He can suggest that I should not, but he'd better not try to tell me that I cannot.
I do thank him/her. There is no such thing as a right not to be offended, and everyone needs to understand this. No such right can exist, precisely because it is in opposition to the notion of free speech.
I would bet on the cost being less than it is now. And, while I will have had access to all the latest stuff (and all the old stuff too) over those 30 years, the other guy will have spent those 30 years stuck with only the CDs he bought during that time, at a rate of only one new CD a month unless he wants to spend more money than me.
No, I will have every song there is, including all the newest ones. You'll only have your 4000, most of which you probably won't be listening to anymore.