Except that being on someones else's property requires them to have a permission to be there, and there are restrictions on that permission, and that permission is probably predicated on the laws mentioned in the article they are thinking about updating. I never mentioned "taking" the poles, but requiring the fame faire use for ISPs currently required for cable and telcoms. ATTs on words indicate their is ample capability on the poles for Google.
That's not the legal definition of extortion, unless displaying those images is a crime
Umm, displaying the immage does not have to be a crime in order for it to be extorton.. In fact no where in the definition does it say the threat itself has to be illegal.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/extortion
n. the act of securing money, favors, etc. by intimidation or violence; blackmail
I dont think they will have to purchase them. They are already on public property under easment, they can just require fair use by ISPs at the same costs as telcoes and cable providers.
A couple of years ago a couple of people from the group came up to my house. I had just woken up and was making breakfast in my shorts, but no shirt. I had a friend sleeping on the couch, who had also just woken up and dressed the same way. As soon as they identified themselves we put our arms around each others waste and invited them in.. I am not sure I seen a group of people run so fast in my life.
Except you do.. Leaving something to someone who is not legally related to you is much more expensive to that person than leaving it to a child/spouce.. The tax rates are completely different, and in some cases there would be no taxes.
He did not try to convince you to change your religion.
You're the first person to use that phrase.
If you read my post, no where did I accuse OP of trying "to convince [me] to change [my] religion."
OP said:
Tell me, when was the last time you had atheists... trying to pressure and intimidate you into changing your beliefs?
which, as I pointed out, is exactly what OP tries to do when they, referring to religions other than their own, state:
That might be because religion is an irrational, illogical, omnipresent belief in fairy tales with zero supporting evidence that has been used for thousands of years as a means of indoctrination, control and justification to kill.
OP is the pot calling the kettle black, which was the point I was making.
Actually you did. You stated he was doing the exact thing he was accusing the religious of doing, and since thing he was accusing them of doing was getting people to change their religion you were claiming that he was trying to change peoples religion..It is funny you said you didnt make the statement and then reiterate the statement.. I know you are trying to nitpick the "me" and "my", however that does not matter because it is still part of what you are accusing him of.
And it has been ruled server times since then that it covers states as well, which means that what I said was correct. It means what its current interpretation means. If you wanna get that interpretation changed take it up with the SCOTUS.
The monument does come into opposition to it, because its goal is the creation of a divide of the public good. Even if it did not, all of that does not matter, because the constitution says they cannot favor one religion over anther which they will be doing.
So allowing one group to place a monument in the location without allowing another group is some how not playing favorites, I am not sure you understand what that word means.
He did not try to convince you to change your religion. He made a statement and moved on, all of which is factual. When a religious zealot comes to your door they tend to try and force it on you, tell you that you are wrong for your opinions and they are correct. What he did was nothing like that.
Then it is time to remove all state and federal benefits to being married.
Also you dont seem to have a strong grasp on the constitution, when the state agreed to follow. They are not allowed to pick one religion over another, so if they have the 10 commandments they MUST allow the other monument, regardless of whether there is 1 satan worshiper in the state or 3/4th majority of them. It is not about offending the minority, it is constitutional protections of the 1st amendment.
Prejudice towards what? Judges can be knowledgeable on the subject matter, in fact they are expected to be in many cases. What you are think of is they cannot be biased towards one defendant or another.
Wait, what? So a contractor adds code that Google expressly told them not to, and somehow Google is now lacking in good faith... The mere fact that Google told him not to shows that they were acting is better faith then you are giving him credit for.
Content creators create the traffic, or are you saying without the content that traffic would somehow magically exist. At best it is a double situation where both create the traffic.
No, that is still not an excuse. If the company being paid changed that spec than it is their fault and it is not a valid excuse. If the client changed the spec, then the company being paid caved and did not force a change in deadline then the company is still at fault and there is not a valid excuse
I dont think he was blaming an individual person but the company doing the development.
From my software engineering class in college, and from experience, that problem still layss at the feet of poor project management from Oracle. It is their job to ensure that they get the specs they need to make it work. Note the article did not say the requirements changed, but that Oracle missed deadlines.
Umm, first this is not healthcare.gov we are talking about here, but a smaller state level version. Second if the Oracle project manager is not getting the specs right than the problem still lays at their feet.
Except the politicians are not paying for it, Me and other residents of NC are paying for it, so yes I do expect it to be covered by my taxes. It is better than the other stupid shit they waste our money on, such as stealing the airport from Charlotte, or the water plants from Asheville because they could unregulated it if it was in the right hands.
Slashdot Mirror
except none of that contradicts anything I said.
Um, it is in the summery.. Are we too lazy to even read the summery now?
He said he would not invest in MS because of his friendship with Gates, not because of of long term profit from software.
Except that being on someones else's property requires them to have a permission to be there, and there are restrictions on that permission, and that permission is probably predicated on the laws mentioned in the article they are thinking about updating. I never mentioned "taking" the poles, but requiring the fame faire use for ISPs currently required for cable and telcoms. ATTs on words indicate their is ample capability on the poles for Google.
That's not the legal definition of extortion, unless displaying those images is a crime
Umm, displaying the immage does not have to be a crime in order for it to be extorton.. In fact no where in the definition does it say the threat itself has to be illegal.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/extortion
n. the act of securing money, favors, etc. by intimidation or violence; blackmail
I dont think they will have to purchase them. They are already on public property under easment, they can just require fair use by ISPs at the same costs as telcoes and cable providers.
He said Google, not ATT
A couple of years ago a couple of people from the group came up to my house. I had just woken up and was making breakfast in my shorts, but no shirt. I had a friend sleeping on the couch, who had also just woken up and dressed the same way. As soon as they identified themselves we put our arms around each others waste and invited them in.. I am not sure I seen a group of people run so fast in my life.
Except you do.. Leaving something to someone who is not legally related to you is much more expensive to that person than leaving it to a child/spouce.. The tax rates are completely different, and in some cases there would be no taxes.
He did not try to convince you to change your religion.
You're the first person to use that phrase.
If you read my post, no where did I accuse OP of trying "to convince [me] to change [my] religion."
OP said:
Tell me, when was the last time you had atheists... trying to pressure and intimidate you into changing your beliefs?
which, as I pointed out, is exactly what OP tries to do when they, referring to religions other than their own, state:
That might be because religion is an irrational, illogical, omnipresent belief in fairy tales with zero supporting evidence that has been used for thousands of years as a means of indoctrination, control and justification to kill.
OP is the pot calling the kettle black, which was the point I was making.
Actually you did. You stated he was doing the exact thing he was accusing the religious of doing, and since thing he was accusing them of doing was getting people to change their religion you were claiming that he was trying to change peoples religion..It is funny you said you didnt make the statement and then reiterate the statement.. I know you are trying to nitpick the "me" and "my", however that does not matter because it is still part of what you are accusing him of.
Except in this case the government would be playing favorites.
And it has been ruled server times since then that it covers states as well, which means that what I said was correct. It means what its current interpretation means. If you wanna get that interpretation changed take it up with the SCOTUS.
The monument does come into opposition to it, because its goal is the creation of a divide of the public good. Even if it did not, all of that does not matter, because the constitution says they cannot favor one religion over anther which they will be doing.
So allowing one group to place a monument in the location without allowing another group is some how not playing favorites, I am not sure you understand what that word means.
He did not try to convince you to change your religion. He made a statement and moved on, all of which is factual. When a religious zealot comes to your door they tend to try and force it on you, tell you that you are wrong for your opinions and they are correct. What he did was nothing like that.
Also you dont seem to have a strong grasp on the constitution, when the state agreed to follow. They are not allowed to pick one religion over another, so if they have the 10 commandments they MUST allow the other monument, regardless of whether there is 1 satan worshiper in the state or 3/4th majority of them. It is not about offending the minority, it is constitutional protections of the 1st amendment.
Paying the admin is continuously paying for maintenance that he included, not installation.
The original statement was that it was done in bad faith by Google, your retort does not counter my statement in that regards.
Prejudice towards what? Judges can be knowledgeable on the subject matter, in fact they are expected to be in many cases. What you are think of is they cannot be biased towards one defendant or another.
Wait, what? So a contractor adds code that Google expressly told them not to, and somehow Google is now lacking in good faith... The mere fact that Google told him not to shows that they were acting is better faith then you are giving him credit for.
Content creators create the traffic, or are you saying without the content that traffic would somehow magically exist. At best it is a double situation where both create the traffic.
I dont think he was blaming an individual person but the company doing the development.
From my software engineering class in college, and from experience, that problem still layss at the feet of poor project management from Oracle. It is their job to ensure that they get the specs they need to make it work. Note the article did not say the requirements changed, but that Oracle missed deadlines.
Umm, first this is not healthcare.gov we are talking about here, but a smaller state level version. Second if the Oracle project manager is not getting the specs right than the problem still lays at their feet.
Except the politicians are not paying for it, Me and other residents of NC are paying for it, so yes I do expect it to be covered by my taxes. It is better than the other stupid shit they waste our money on, such as stealing the airport from Charlotte, or the water plants from Asheville because they could unregulated it if it was in the right hands.