It showed you a summary of what you voted. We can only assume there is any connection between that and what it recorded internally.
"Now if it gets counted is another question. That's a question no matter what voting method you use though."
Definitely. And it's much easier to find out the answer to that question if after the fact we can look at a peice of paper that you looked at when you voted.
"Where would you be if mechanics, IT people, doctors and the rest of the services sector suddenly vanished?"
I imagine I'd get by, but clearly I'd have far less me to focus on things that really interest me. As the entire services sector currently exists, and seems unlikely so spontaneously disappear, I'd just as soon make use of it. May we assume you grow all your own food, generate all your power, and perform all your own surgery? Or do you occasionally rely on the expertise of others?
I like Heinlien too; though I think dying galantly is an overated skill.
"A command for the Israelites to destroy a specific historical nation is qualitatively different from a command for all Muslims to destroy all nonbelievers everywhere."
I disagree. A call for genocide is appalling, the identity of the targeted group is irrelevant.
I think your identification of Islam as the problem is erroneous. On the one hand, it's too general; there are a handful of sociopathic nut jobs who think the Qur'an says what you say it does, and must be followed. But it's crazy to identify all of Islam as isdentical with that small group when billions of Muslims DON'T think that's what the Qur'an says. You imply all interpretations of the Qur'an lead to violence, but a quarter of the worlds population disagrees. On the other hand, identifying Islam as the problem is too specific; the problem is the very idea that what some book says could have any impact on whether appalling things are justified. History provides pleny of examples of people who thought the Bible justified and required such things of them. Certainly there are people today who would reject your description of the Bible as a "human work"; who think the Bible is the literal, eternal word of God (some specific English translation no less!), and that it justifies terrible things done to people not like them. I beleive the fact that these people are tolerated-fringe Americans rather than the Taliban is an accident of history, not a fundamental difference in their source material.
From what I've seen of Scientology, it's every bit as bad as the rest. It's small and new, and so dominated by the whackos, but doesn't have enough political clout to survive outright calling for murder. It focusses its negative attention on its own dissidents, not because it is somehow nicer, but because its leaders are smart cult builders. It definitely shares the scary assertion that its followers are involved in something much vaster and more important that the puny, insignificant lives of a few non beleivers.
"it seems to me that it's referring to a specific group of nations occupying a specific piece of land"
Oh, well in that case, no problem; on with the genocide!
"Anyway, my original comment never said anything about the Bible, so I'm not sure why you think this is even relevant."
Your original comment singled out a particular religions text as supporting violence if read literally, implying to me you intended some comment on that religion as opposed to others. I selected a passage from a different religions text that clearly supports violence. Did I happen to pick your religion? Sorry, I don't mean to criticize your religion particularly, my argument is that all religion is dangerous stuff.
Why would you feel better about your work than something else if you didn't think it was a better thing to be doing? I can't even make the question sound like it makes sense. Why not attach a value judgement to the kind of work people do? Is it not reasonable to say a social worker is doing more good for society than a blackjack dealer? You say you think you and others are here to help each other, and note it's obvious that others think differently. But you seem very reluctant to reach the obvious conclusion: You think they are wrong.
Well, that's an odd way of putting it, but yes, exactly. The OS can't possibly check for valid input. The problem reported was not a Windows-specific problem any more than it was a steel-hulled-ship-specific problem.
Your cynicsm is impressive, but kinda boring. If you're going to have a discussion of states rights vs. federal power and not consider what the constitution says to be relevant, you're not discussing, you're just babbling groundlessly.
In the examples you previously cited, nobody questioned whether the Constitution applied, and certainly nobody amended it. They argued HOW it applied. That's the whole discussion. "Is Medical pot use in california Interstate commerce?" for example.
By your logic, there was no rioting in the streets when the court said taking a gun into a school zone wasn't interstate commerce, hence Americans are fervent supporters of states rights.
We could throw out messages using email features spammers use. Then spammers will stop using those features, and we'll have just as much spam, and less features for legit mail. Not a win.
You feel working for a non-profit is morally superior; You feel bad that workers doing harder but less skilled work get paid less. I'm sorry, but in what sense are you not a commie? I mean, forget all the negative stupidity heaped on communism by people who apply that label indiscriminately. It sure sounds like your political beliefs are most accurately and succinctly summed up by saying you are a communist. If you want to convince anyone else of these beleifs, you might start by rejecting the automatic assumption that they are bad and wrong that comes from denying their most accurate label off the top. When you say "I'm not a commie!", you acknolwedge the assumption that communism is obviously bad at the outset.
For the record, I think you're wrong, and that communism is bad even for the working classes it seeks to help. But I don't think it's *obviously* bad, and I think the same of unrestrained capitalism, so I hate being deprived of a healthy societal discussion when one end of the spectrum just capitulates at the beginning.
NPR does not broadcast fundraising; for that matter, NPR does not broadcast. They produce programming which they sell, mostly to their members: local public radio stations who raise money by fundraising. I don't know why I'm pointing out this distinction between the various entities involved, except to say it's not surprising that NPR is willing to sell it's content to Sirius, who can get the money by just charging for service. Nor is it surprising that NPR is going to bat for the scores of their member/customers who are little-guy local broadcasters getting illegally jammed by satelite radio; who is unlikely to care until someone with a decently funded legal team makes them.
I too have lived quite a few places, and am quite aware that it is silly to condemn entire regions wholesale. In saying the south sucks and I don't want to live there, I was overstating the case for rhetorical effect. More diplomatically, I might say that (due no doubt to the prejudices instilled in me as an umpteenth-generation New Englander), I find I have an aversion to some cultural elements that are more prevalent in the South than elsewhere. I now live in Boulder, Colorado: an odd enclave that combines the higly educated, liberal politics of New England (where half the residents seem to have grown up), but ditches the stuffiness for the informality of the West. It suits me well. If the South suits you, you are welcome to it. Different regions ought to differ, as different people like different things, and that's the whole crux of my argument in favor of states rights.
"Unless the feds are trying to get you on something else they really aren't going to waste their time with stopping you from buying whiskey and transporting it across state lines"
I'm not talking about transporting it across state lines. I'm buying whisky, and taking it home, and drinking it, all in Colorado. Even though doiing so might be illegal in another state, I should not be prosecuted by the feds. Not because they don't feel like it or want to get me for something else, but because it would be completely insane to consider me in any way a criminal in the first place, since what I am doing is entirely legal. Nor do I think the feds need to make sure every state allows the sale of whisky. It is simply not a problem for our National unity if I can buy whisky in one state and not another; and it's an excellent way to try out both ways and see who has more whisky-related social ills or whatever.
The examples you list of countries with "strong autonomous regions" have regions that don't want to be part of the country at all. They want to have their own national tax and foriegn policies in particular. Which has squat to do with what I'm talking about. Also your list of countries with strong national cohesion left out Iran, North Korea, Cuba, etc. The United States does have strong national cohesion. That cohesion is based, I hope, on our shared values, not on enforced, lock-step conformity.
"Yes federal over-riding of state authority is constitutional. The federal laws are the laws of the land. Not just whats in the Constitution, but any law Congress passes even if not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Its a mere formality."
Please read the Constitution some time. It is not very long, fairly easy to understand, and it says you are wrong. Congress has the authority to pass laws on a sharply limited set of subjects; authority to pass laws on other subjects is explicitly reserved to the states.
So my entire original point was that if I buy whisky, legally, in Colorado, while it is illegal to buy it in Utah, it is unreasonable for the original poster to conclude I am a criminal picking an opportune State in which to commit my dastardly crime.
You seem to think that because the current balance of federal vs. state power is what it is, that's what it should be; or that the current balance is desirable because of your opinion of how cohesive a nation we are or how much we identify with the nation vs. state or something. None of this is very interesting to me.
In relation to states rights the interesting question to me is, when federal authorities overide states, is it legal according to the constitution? In the Oregon Assisted suicide, or California Medical Pot examples you cite, I would argue it clearly is not. (Please don't tell the Supreme Court disagrees with me; I know that) I would specifically reject your equation of cohesion with strength; enforced uniformity means a lack of competition, stagnation, and weakness.
I don't even really understand what you're saying about the South except that you appear to think it sucks and don't want to live there, so at least we agree on something.
"Seeing as how there's a lack of rioting in the streets over the issue I can only infer that most Americans are just fine with having a cohesive and strong America instead of fiercly independent nearly fully autonomous individual states."
Seeing as their is a lack of rioting in the streets, I can only infer that most Americans have food, shelter and tellivision. I don't think their opinion of maximally localized governance and a strict constructionist aproach to federal power as a firewall against pointless infringements on civil liberties has much to do with it, as I don't think they've given it enough thought to even have such an opinion.
"You see, we move around in our own country a lot more than people in other countries do"
Not that it particularly matters, but I do not beleive you have any evidence for this.
In any case, what's that got to do with states rights? I'm not objecting to anyone moving to my state, brining their attitudes with them, and voting acrordingly. I'm objecting to people unnecessarily imposing their attitudes on a state they don't live in without even moving there.
But mostly I'm objecting to the original poster implying somone is an evil criminal choosing where to commit their crimes if they choose to live in a state where their activities are legal. If I think it's OK, and the voters where I live think it's OK, I'm a bad guy if voters anywhere else disagree? That's insanely stupid.
"I understand the whole 'states rights thing' but many times it just ends up allowing loopholes for criminals to pick one state over the other to commit their crimes."
You do not understand the "states rights thing". It allows people to pick one state over another to do things that are not a crime in the state they pick.
Got a reference there? Because the one thing I have never, ever seen CR do is call anything "Hands down best". Their reviews always have qualifiers, and indeed, focus on helping you understand the various trade-offs available.
Come to think of it, I've read all their desktop computer reviews since before eMachines first came out, and eMachines has never been the top rated.
I beleive eMachines has been rated a "best buy", but that is indeed calling it "best value" at its price point. And I'd agree with that rating: about a year ago when I looked for a cheap desktop with no monitor, eMachines was the clear choice if you wanted to stay under $500.
The Iraqi insurgency is doing a fine job of making Iraq a very nasty place to be, and possibly at making Americans wonder if there is any positive benefit of being there that makes it worth it.
But I don't see them staging a military takeover of the United States.
Planning to defend your rights by violent rebellion is not reliable. The second amendment as written should give everyone the right to their very own nuke. That would be insane; Hence reigning in government by ensuring the ability of the people to violently rebel is no longer feasible. This is a very dangerous position to be in, so we need to be extremely vigilant in protecting our rights and freedoms by other means, since if it gets to the point of needing guns, it's too late.
On the plus side, there's not much reason to we can't go ahead and have some reasonable gun-control policy...
"He doesn't mention that much of the team was pulled into other projects after IE 6."
He certainly does in question 2. Your complaint seems to be that he doesn't say "The big wig managers stole all my developers for other less important projects, and then made me do less important features". Instead he says, in various contexts, that while they (Microsoft) think thing A is great they thought thing B was a higher priority so they did it first.
It's pretty unrealistic to expect him to pass the buck and blame his bosses for being idiots in a Slashdot interview. But in any case, I wouldn't want him to. He's speaking for MS, he should take responsibility for MSs decisions and explain them. Which he pretty much does.
When asked what he thinks would be the effect on IEs market share if they added an option to make users pick thier default browser, I note he didn't say Joe Average User would pick IE because it's so obviously superior. He argued/admitted Joe would click on the logo they've seen before. Having given a pretty solid and straightforward answer to the question asked, he didn't take the oportunity to veer off on a tangent about MSs contorversial bundling practices; and you're shocked.
Prominent Microsoft Team Leader Answers Questions with Somewhat Pro-Microsoft Slant: Film at Eleven.
Seriously though, I thought his answers were reasonably good to the extent he was asked for information. To the extent he was asked for opinions, the questions were stupid.
He says they worked on other things, and you're upset he didn't specify that "management" told them to work on those things? Do you think he is trying to hide the fact that MS is not a random collection of programmers doing whatever they feel like, but a corportation with an org chart? I'm glad you're here to straighten things out, otherwise I would have though decisions at MS were made like they are at most companies, by coin toss.
There's not exactly a lack of reasons to hate MS; let's not invent silly ones that apply equally to every successful organization in the world.
Well, my point was that the content of the statement is not what determines whether it is protected. If I want to walk down the street singing along to "Kill All The White Man", that absolutely is protected speach. Because a reasonable person would not expect anyone to commit violence because of my speech. A reasonable person would expect others to laugh their ass off at the expense of my white upper middle class tone deaf self.
You absolutely can say "Everyone go out and kill a white man." If you say it in a context where a reasonable person would expect that someone will actually do it, just because you said so, and they then do, you can be held responsible. But that's a far cry from not being allowed to say it ever.
Relatedly, "Kill All The White Man" by NOFX is an excellent song.
Slashdot Mirror
It showed you a summary of what you voted. We can only assume there is any connection between that and what it recorded internally.
"Now if it gets counted is another question. That's a question no matter what voting method you use though."
Definitely. And it's much easier to find out the answer to that question if after the fact we can look at a peice of paper that you looked at when you voted.
"on a new touch screen machine which worked just fine"
Did it print all your votes on a piece of paper you carefully reveiwed, and which represents your actual, official vote?
If not, you have no idea if it worked "just fine"; If so, how was that better than marking the votes on paper to begin with?
"Where would you be if mechanics, IT people, doctors and the rest of the services sector suddenly vanished?"
I imagine I'd get by, but clearly I'd have far less me to focus on things that really interest me. As the entire services sector currently exists, and seems unlikely so spontaneously disappear, I'd just as soon make use of it. May we assume you grow all your own food, generate all your power, and perform all your own surgery? Or do you occasionally rely on the expertise of others?
I like Heinlien too; though I think dying galantly is an overated skill.
"A command for the Israelites to destroy a specific historical nation is qualitatively different from a command for all Muslims to destroy all nonbelievers everywhere."
I disagree. A call for genocide is appalling, the identity of the targeted group is irrelevant.
I think your identification of Islam as the problem is erroneous. On the one hand, it's too general; there are a handful of sociopathic nut jobs who think the Qur'an says what you say it does, and must be followed. But it's crazy to identify all of Islam as isdentical with that small group when billions of Muslims DON'T think that's what the Qur'an says. You imply all interpretations of the Qur'an lead to violence, but a quarter of the worlds population disagrees.
On the other hand, identifying Islam as the problem is too specific; the problem is the very idea that what some book says could have any impact on whether appalling things are justified. History provides pleny of examples of people who thought the Bible justified and required such things of them. Certainly there are people today who would reject your description of the Bible as a "human work"; who think the Bible is the literal, eternal word of God (some specific English translation no less!), and that it justifies terrible things done to people not like them. I beleive the fact that these people are tolerated-fringe Americans rather than the Taliban is an accident of history, not a fundamental difference in their source material.
From what I've seen of Scientology, it's every bit as bad as the rest. It's small and new, and so dominated by the whackos, but doesn't have enough political clout to survive outright calling for murder. It focusses its negative attention on its own dissidents, not because it is somehow nicer, but because its leaders are smart cult builders. It definitely shares the scary assertion that its followers are involved in something much vaster and more important that the puny, insignificant lives of a few non beleivers.
"it seems to me that it's referring to a specific group of nations occupying a specific piece of land"
Oh, well in that case, no problem; on with the genocide!
"Anyway, my original comment never said anything about the Bible, so I'm not sure why you think this is even relevant."
Your original comment singled out a particular religions text as supporting violence if read literally, implying to me you intended some comment on that religion as opposed to others. I selected a passage from a different religions text that clearly supports violence. Did I happen to pick your religion? Sorry, I don't mean to criticize your religion particularly, my argument is that all religion is dangerous stuff.
Give me a literal interpretation of this then:
"thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."
Hint: It isn't the Qur'an
Why would you feel better about your work than something else if you didn't think it was a better thing to be doing? I can't even make the question sound like it makes sense. Why not attach a value judgement to the kind of work people do? Is it not reasonable to say a social worker is doing more good for society than a blackjack dealer?
You say you think you and others are here to help each other, and note it's obvious that others think differently. But you seem very reluctant to reach the obvious conclusion: You think they are wrong.
Well, that's an odd way of putting it, but yes, exactly. The OS can't possibly check for valid input. The problem reported was not a Windows-specific problem any more than it was a steel-hulled-ship-specific problem.
Your cynicsm is impressive, but kinda boring. If you're going to have a discussion of states rights vs. federal power and not consider what the constitution says to be relevant, you're not discussing, you're just babbling groundlessly.
In the examples you previously cited, nobody questioned whether the Constitution applied, and certainly nobody amended it. They argued HOW it applied. That's the whole discussion. "Is Medical pot use in california Interstate commerce?" for example.
By your logic, there was no rioting in the streets when the court said taking a gun into a school zone wasn't interstate commerce, hence Americans are fervent supporters of states rights.
We could throw out messages using email features spammers use. Then spammers will stop using those features, and we'll have just as much spam, and less features for legit mail. Not a win.
You feel working for a non-profit is morally superior; You feel bad that workers doing harder but less skilled work get paid less. I'm sorry, but in what sense are you not a commie? I mean, forget all the negative stupidity heaped on communism by people who apply that label indiscriminately. It sure sounds like your political beliefs are most accurately and succinctly summed up by saying you are a communist. If you want to convince anyone else of these beleifs, you might start by rejecting the automatic assumption that they are bad and wrong that comes from denying their most accurate label off the top. When you say "I'm not a commie!", you acknolwedge the assumption that communism is obviously bad at the outset.
For the record, I think you're wrong, and that communism is bad even for the working classes it seeks to help. But I don't think it's *obviously* bad, and I think the same of unrestrained capitalism, so I hate being deprived of a healthy societal discussion when one end of the spectrum just capitulates at the beginning.
NPR does not broadcast fundraising; for that matter, NPR does not broadcast. They produce programming which they sell, mostly to their members: local public radio stations who raise money by fundraising. I don't know why I'm pointing out this distinction between the various entities involved, except to say it's not surprising that NPR is willing to sell it's content to Sirius, who can get the money by just charging for service. Nor is it surprising that NPR is going to bat for the scores of their member/customers who are little-guy local broadcasters getting illegally jammed by satelite radio; who is unlikely to care until someone with a decently funded legal team makes them.
I too have lived quite a few places, and am quite aware that it is silly to condemn entire regions wholesale. In saying the south sucks and I don't want to live there, I was overstating the case for rhetorical effect. More diplomatically, I might say that (due no doubt to the prejudices instilled in me as an umpteenth-generation New Englander), I find I have an aversion to some cultural elements that are more prevalent in the South than elsewhere. I now live in Boulder, Colorado: an odd enclave that combines the higly educated, liberal politics of New England (where half the residents seem to have grown up), but ditches the stuffiness for the informality of the West. It suits me well.
If the South suits you, you are welcome to it. Different regions ought to differ, as different people like different things, and that's the whole crux of my argument in favor of states rights.
"Unless the feds are trying to get you on something else they really aren't going to waste their time with stopping you from buying whiskey and transporting it across state lines"
I'm not talking about transporting it across state lines. I'm buying whisky, and taking it home, and drinking it, all in Colorado. Even though doiing so might be illegal in another state, I should not be prosecuted by the feds. Not because they don't feel like it or want to get me for something else, but because it would be completely insane to consider me in any way a criminal in the first place, since what I am doing is entirely legal. Nor do I think the feds need to make sure every state allows the sale of whisky. It is simply not a problem for our National unity if I can buy whisky in one state and not another; and it's an excellent way to try out both ways and see who has more whisky-related social ills or whatever.
The examples you list of countries with "strong autonomous regions" have regions that don't want to be part of the country at all. They want to have their own national tax and foriegn policies in particular. Which has squat to do with what I'm talking about. Also your list of countries with strong national cohesion left out Iran, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
The United States does have strong national cohesion. That cohesion is based, I hope, on our shared values, not on enforced, lock-step conformity.
"Yes federal over-riding of state authority is constitutional. The federal laws are the laws of the land. Not just whats in the Constitution, but any law Congress passes even if not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Its a mere formality."
Please read the Constitution some time. It is not very long, fairly easy to understand, and it says you are wrong. Congress has the authority to pass laws on a sharply limited set of subjects; authority to pass laws on other subjects is explicitly reserved to the states.
So my entire original point was that if I buy whisky, legally, in Colorado, while it is illegal to buy it in Utah, it is unreasonable for the original poster to conclude I am a criminal picking an opportune State in which to commit my dastardly crime.
You seem to think that because the current balance of federal vs. state power is what it is, that's what it should be; or that the current balance is desirable because of your opinion of how cohesive a nation we are or how much we identify with the nation vs. state or something. None of this is very interesting to me.
In relation to states rights the interesting question to me is, when federal authorities overide states, is it legal according to the constitution? In the Oregon Assisted suicide, or California Medical Pot examples you cite, I would argue it clearly is not. (Please don't tell the Supreme Court disagrees with me; I know that) I would specifically reject your equation of cohesion with strength; enforced uniformity means a lack of competition, stagnation, and weakness.
I don't even really understand what you're saying about the South except that you appear to think it sucks and don't want to live there, so at least we agree on something.
"Seeing as how there's a lack of rioting in the streets over the issue I can only infer that most Americans are just fine with having a cohesive and strong America instead of fiercly independent nearly fully autonomous individual states."
Seeing as their is a lack of rioting in the streets, I can only infer that most Americans have food, shelter and tellivision. I don't think their opinion of maximally localized governance and a strict constructionist aproach to federal power as a firewall against pointless infringements on civil liberties has much to do with it, as I don't think they've given it enough thought to even have such an opinion.
"You see, we move around in our own country a lot more than people in other countries do"
Not that it particularly matters, but I do not beleive you have any evidence for this.
In any case, what's that got to do with states rights? I'm not objecting to anyone moving to my state, brining their attitudes with them, and voting acrordingly. I'm objecting to people unnecessarily imposing their attitudes on a state they don't live in without even moving there.
But mostly I'm objecting to the original poster implying somone is an evil criminal choosing where to commit their crimes if they choose to live in a state where their activities are legal. If I think it's OK, and the voters where I live think it's OK, I'm a bad guy if voters anywhere else disagree? That's insanely stupid.
"I understand the whole 'states rights thing' but many times it just ends up allowing loopholes for criminals to pick one state over the other to commit their crimes."
You do not understand the "states rights thing". It allows people to pick one state over another to do things that are not a crime in the state they pick.
Got a reference there? Because the one thing I have never, ever seen CR do is call anything "Hands down best". Their reviews always have qualifiers, and indeed, focus on helping you understand the various trade-offs available.
Come to think of it, I've read all their desktop computer reviews since before eMachines first came out, and eMachines has never been the top rated.
I beleive eMachines has been rated a "best buy", but that is indeed calling it "best value" at its price point. And I'd agree with that rating: about a year ago when I looked for a cheap desktop with no monitor, eMachines was the clear choice if you wanted to stay under $500.
The Iraqi insurgency is doing a fine job of making Iraq a very nasty place to be, and possibly at making Americans wonder if there is any positive benefit of being there that makes it worth it.
But I don't see them staging a military takeover of the United States.
Planning to defend your rights by violent rebellion is not reliable. The second amendment as written should give everyone the right to their very own nuke. That would be insane; Hence reigning in government by ensuring the ability of the people to violently rebel is no longer feasible. This is a very dangerous position to be in, so we need to be extremely vigilant in protecting our rights and freedoms by other means, since if it gets to the point of needing guns, it's too late.
On the plus side, there's not much reason to we can't go ahead and have some reasonable gun-control policy...
"He doesn't mention that much of the team was pulled into other projects after IE 6."
He certainly does in question 2. Your complaint seems to be that he doesn't say "The big wig managers stole all my developers for other less important projects, and then made me do less important features". Instead he says, in various contexts, that while they (Microsoft) think thing A is great they thought thing B was a higher priority so they did it first.
It's pretty unrealistic to expect him to pass the buck and blame his bosses for being idiots in a Slashdot interview. But in any case, I wouldn't want him to. He's speaking for MS, he should take responsibility for MSs decisions and explain them. Which he pretty much does.
When asked what he thinks would be the effect on IEs market share if they added an option to make users pick thier default browser, I note he didn't say Joe Average User would pick IE because it's so obviously superior. He argued/admitted Joe would click on the logo they've seen before. Having given a pretty solid and straightforward answer to the question asked, he didn't take the oportunity to veer off on a tangent about MSs contorversial bundling practices; and you're shocked.
Prominent Microsoft Team Leader Answers Questions with Somewhat Pro-Microsoft Slant: Film at Eleven.
Seriously though, I thought his answers were reasonably good to the extent he was asked for information. To the extent he was asked for opinions, the questions were stupid.
Are you seriously allergic to looking up easily available facts before incredulously questioning them?
Redhat's Premium level is $2500; Oracle is offering an equivalent for $1000; and their highest level is $2000.
I don't understand what Sun has to do with anything; I assume it's a joke I'm failing to get?
He says they worked on other things, and you're upset he didn't specify that "management" told them to work on those things? Do you think he is trying to hide the fact that MS is not a random collection of programmers doing whatever they feel like, but a corportation with an org chart? I'm glad you're here to straighten things out, otherwise I would have though decisions at MS were made like they are at most companies, by coin toss.
There's not exactly a lack of reasons to hate MS; let's not invent silly ones that apply equally to every successful organization in the world.
That won't help you, all the asprin fell out. Damn thing has no inside.
Well, my point was that the content of the statement is not what determines whether it is protected. If I want to walk down the street singing along to "Kill All The White Man", that absolutely is protected speach. Because a reasonable person would not expect anyone to commit violence because of my speech. A reasonable person would expect others to laugh their ass off at the expense of my white upper middle class tone deaf self.
You absolutely can say "Everyone go out and kill a white man." If you say it in a context where a reasonable person would expect that someone will actually do it, just because you said so, and they then do, you can be held responsible. But that's a far cry from not being allowed to say it ever.
Relatedly, "Kill All The White Man" by NOFX is an excellent song.