nice strawman there. The problem is come up with a reasonable complaint. Complaining about someone on the internet like this is ludacris, no matter who the company is.
1) he did not say you could not use the Old tesaiment, just that if you use it you have to use all of it, such as split hooves, mixed fabrics divorce, adultery stoneings and all that. You dont get to being out what it says on gays and then ignore everything else.
2) see number 1
3) see number 1
4) where in the quote was homosexuality brought up again?
Note the word ONLY in that statement. ROI is still high on the list, bashing Indiana shows that it is not ONLY about ROI, bashing SA, well that may lead to investor lawsuits.
Actually no they do not. The new rules do not disallow taxes but that is not the same thing, and there is NOTHING in the rules that allow content control.
You obviously do not know what it is to be hypocritical. It would be hypocritical if he pulled out of the Indiana market, but stayed in the SA market, but that not what happened... It also has everything with out constitutional rights. Here in the US we have the rigths to freedom of speech. He can say what he said with impunity from the government. If he made the same speech about SA he could very well be in trouble. If he pulled out of SA his market share could drop and he would be sued.
So you agree with her in what way? SA and other markets do not have a contitution like ours. They do not give people the freedom to say and do what they want. The 2 groups are not analogous.
Who is talking about sexual assault? If you give someone consent to take a video of you having sex then you need to beware, you just gave up some of your privacy rights.
It seem you are implying that corruption cannot happen in the free market without government involvement. The government is a tool, just like guns. The biggest evil bogeymen are the ones that use that tool to do evil, which are typically corporations.
I think the problem is that there is a lose affiliation. Wikipedia is responsible for what its employees, paid or unpaid do. The administrators are not just members of the general public, wikimedia gives them special privileges. The administrator in this case seems to have had an affiliation with the school, and was doing things at wikipeida to lie for/about the school.
No, it is not false. Not even a little bit. When someone says Karl Benz created the car is that salse because he did not invent the nissan sentra? It would be false to say the government invented the world wide web, or ecommerce, but not that they created the internet, that is a fact.
I only respect laws designed to represent the interests of the citizenry as a whole--not the vested interests of one tiny class who bribed some politicians with campaign contributions.
You're right. It's not in the best interest of citizenry as a whole to have properly licensed and insured livery drivers. We're much better off when anyone with a smart phone and a car can provide taxi services.
Well they are insured and they do have a license, so I am not sure your point.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably that they were not providing the source at all, not that they were providing a fake source.
It has more to do with my poor spelling.
nice strawman there. The problem is come up with a reasonable complaint. Complaining about someone on the internet like this is ludacris, no matter who the company is.
1) he did not say you could not use the Old tesaiment, just that if you use it you have to use all of it, such as split hooves, mixed fabrics divorce, adultery stoneings and all that. You dont get to being out what it says on gays and then ignore everything else.
2) see number 1
3) see number 1
4) where in the quote was homosexuality brought up again?
So how was it a double standard. Remember to compare apples to apples.
Note the word ONLY in that statement. ROI is still high on the list, bashing Indiana shows that it is not ONLY about ROI, bashing SA, well that may lead to investor lawsuits.
Actually no they do not. The new rules do not disallow taxes but that is not the same thing, and there is NOTHING in the rules that allow content control.
You obviously do not know what it is to be hypocritical. It would be hypocritical if he pulled out of the Indiana market, but stayed in the SA market, but that not what happened... It also has everything with out constitutional rights. Here in the US we have the rigths to freedom of speech. He can say what he said with impunity from the government. If he made the same speech about SA he could very well be in trouble. If he pulled out of SA his market share could drop and he would be sued.
So you agree with her in what way? SA and other markets do not have a contitution like ours. They do not give people the freedom to say and do what they want. The 2 groups are not analogous.
Who is talking about sexual assault? If you give someone consent to take a video of you having sex then you need to beware, you just gave up some of your privacy rights.
It seem you are implying that corruption cannot happen in the free market without government involvement. The government is a tool, just like guns. The biggest evil bogeymen are the ones that use that tool to do evil, which are typically corporations.
Courts have already agreed they have the authority, so I am not sure where you get your information from.
8 pages or rules that in essence just say, you cannot discriminate on packets, is considered a huge swathe?
He specifically said no fines, that they have to provide the service as the fine.
auto pilot can land the plane too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
So do you just pick and chose what studies you believe?
And a company can still be legally liable for its "volunteers", they are still workers for the company, they are just not paid.
I think the problem is that there is a lose affiliation. Wikipedia is responsible for what its employees, paid or unpaid do. The administrators are not just members of the general public, wikimedia gives them special privileges. The administrator in this case seems to have had an affiliation with the school, and was doing things at wikipeida to lie for/about the school.
No, it is not false. Not even a little bit. When someone says Karl Benz created the car is that salse because he did not invent the nissan sentra? It would be false to say the government invented the world wide web, or ecommerce, but not that they created the internet, that is a fact.
Because, you know, some other president such as republican would not have done the same thing.
BEcause it taxes the poor and middle class more at the expense of those who could afford it most. It is inherently wrong, morally and unjust.
Throwback Tuesday on a Wednesday, dont make those sorts of recommendations here, they may listen.
You do realized that they do have commercial insurance through uber right?
http://blog.uber.com/rideshari...
http://blog.uber.com/rideshari...
I only respect laws designed to represent the interests of the citizenry as a whole--not the vested interests of one tiny class who bribed some politicians with campaign contributions.
You're right. It's not in the best interest of citizenry as a whole to have properly licensed and insured livery drivers. We're much better off when anyone with a smart phone and a car can provide taxi services.
Well they are insured and they do have a license, so I am not sure your point.