And proved you are either anti-freedom yourself or a psychopath - the only types of people who would not instantly see that this is the only logical definition.
"If you don't agree with me, you're obviously crazy."
Yeah, there's the circlejerk event horizon. Nothing left for me to do here, so I'll just let you get back to fapping to your slightly-right-of-Ghenghis-Khan Harpy-queen.
I doubt it'll make much difference in the long run, after seeing how.top,.info, etc.. turned out - just more playgrounds for spammers while the registrars get to rake in fees for useless registrations for "brand protection". Legit companies will still have a.com, legit organizations will still have a.org (or a.com), etc.
Maybe after some time, one or two of these new TLDs will get some legitimacy. I expect, though, this will just end up making me spend that much more time updating my check_helo_access and smtpd_sender_restrictions pcre files...
Neither group gives an airborne copulation at a ventrally rotating toroid about "liberty", they just declare their own particular doctrine to be $liberty and then claim the other side is anti-$liberty, which becomes semi-true if you allow for inline evaluation. It's just like the zealous supporters of a certain licensing when they declare that their license is "free as in freedom*" (*using our specially crafted definition of freedom). If that redefinition is rejected, there's nothing on either side but propaganda and bullshit.
First depends on what resources you're talking about. There's plenty of worry about the sustainability of quite a few resources, including ones which will likely be further used up in making this robot worker army.
Second, recycling offers neither 100% efficient returns, nor is it free.
It's interesting that the supporting dialog in Star Trek:TNG reveals most people don't work with technology. Since robots in the ST universe do all the manual labour, it leaves one asking what do all those humanoids produce?
Freedom of association applies to people not businesses
Then why did you bring up "Freedom of Association" in the first place, since we're talking about two businesses?
Whether its moral or not can be debateable but its never illegal
I never said it was illegal, and I don't care if it is illegal - AFAIC, the US legal system has as much to do with "right vs wrong" as who the next Dr. Who companion is has on the orbit of Neptune.
and the right does it just as often.
If you're trying to make a case for being better than them, the kindergarten playground defense is probably not the best way to go about it.
But apparently boycotts are only oppresive when the left does it ?
You also didn't answer the question of why it's there's no moral (i.e. completely orthogonal to the law) contradiction in using "Freedom of Association" to ostracize and/or deny livelihoods to people who do or believe what you consider to be reprehensible things (as long as they're not religious reprehensible things), and someone else doing the same thing for doing or believing things they find equally reprehensible.
You're the only one talking about "right and left" and oppression. I'm talking about internal consistency, and the all to common lack of it in this position.
Uhh, apparently you failed to remember "Equal Protection Under The Law" which is DIRECTLY WRITTEN in our laws, which makes it absolutely real.
I didn't "fail to remember" anything. There's what's "directly written in our laws" and then there's reality, where things that explicitly contradict "Equal Protection Under the Law" are also "directly written in our laws."
There is no crime in a citizen choosing not to associate with anybody so you're full of shit.
anybody else is - in fact - perfectly free to not associate based on any of those classes. You may draw scorn (well deserved scorn) but government will do nothing to stop you.
Bullshit. You moved the goalpost from business to personal association, then back it up with the law rather than the basic facts of the actions. Then you proceed to argue as if the law can be assumed to be equitable; a belief comparable to believing that angels and Santa Claus are real.
You're fine with Pao and co. not doing business with someone else because they choose not to associate with them, because you approve of their reasons. Those reasons are literally the only difference between their actions and the racist actions you're so vehemently denouncing.
The only exceptions to that law is a public servant or a business- which are, legitimate, exceptions - because without those exceptions if you're unlucky enough to be born in the wrong class you can very easily be unable to buy food, unable to procure any services - even find yourself unable to get a driving license because the local DMV officer doesn't like your class.
The same consequences can be had by someone who openly holds the "wrong" political positions; Several other comments brought up that so-called "hate speech" may, in fact, have a "chilling effect" on those it targets, and that may well be true. So can behavior like this, but your arguments here suggest that you're okay with the position that the Trump supporter "should just keep quiet, and he'll have no problems." Apparently, sometimes, it's okay, if it just chases the "bad" people away.
Unless what you're trying to exercise your democratic right not to associate with happens to be one of the blessed "protected classes." Then your rights are trumped (npi) by theirs.
Some animals were created more equal than others, evidently.
Why do people think things like the Bechdel test are worth more than a fart in the breeze/
For the same reason they think "the lack of qualified people to fill 500,000 U.S. tech jobs" has anything to do with "how STEM careers have been presented in film and television" instead of the fact that the primary "qualification" being looked for is H1-B eligibility.
Not sure where you got the "back of the head" from - the post you're responding to never used the word "head" anywhere - he did use "heart" though, which can theoretically be reached through the part of the body commonly referred to as "the back."
It doesn't lend your criticism of his logic a lot of credibility when you fumble your own counters so badly.
Unfortunately, Google and Amazon are still having their little dick-waving contest, so Amazon Video (and the prime "bonus") is pretty much useless on way too many devices that Netflix works (at least passably - they're too stingy with the HD device blessing, IMO) on.
And this, boys and girls, is what "cognitive dissonance" feels like. I had a whole 30 seconds of feeling like this had to be one of those stupid "quote troll" memes, since I couldn't imagine Trent Reznor dribbling out that kind of mealy mouthed corporate crap. Then it finally clicked that I was working off an image that is over 25 years out of date...
Slashdot Mirror
My cousin says he has pictures of bigfoot, but he can't publish him or the government will drag him away to a secret prison under Cheyenne Mountain
And proved you are either anti-freedom yourself or a psychopath - the only types of people who would not instantly see that this is the only logical definition.
"If you don't agree with me, you're obviously crazy."
Yeah, there's the circlejerk event horizon. Nothing left for me to do here, so I'll just let you get back to fapping to your slightly-right-of-Ghenghis-Khan Harpy-queen.
I doubt it'll make much difference in the long run, after seeing how .top, .info, etc.. turned out - just more playgrounds for spammers while the registrars get to rake in fees for useless registrations for "brand protection". Legit companies will still have a .com, legit organizations will still have a .org (or a .com), etc.
Maybe after some time, one or two of these new TLDs will get some legitimacy. I expect, though, this will just end up making me spend that much more time updating my check_helo_access and smtpd_sender_restrictions pcre files...
Neither group gives an airborne copulation at a ventrally rotating toroid about "liberty", they just declare their own particular doctrine to be $liberty and then claim the other side is anti-$liberty, which becomes semi-true if you allow for inline evaluation. It's just like the zealous supporters of a certain licensing when they declare that their license is "free as in freedom*" (*using our specially crafted definition of freedom). If that redefinition is rejected, there's nothing on either side but propaganda and bullshit.
And you're still assuming I'm "the right", which is cute.
Both argue that the other mostly want the liberty to tell others how to live. Only the left is correct about that though.
Wow. Okay, now that my irony meter is blown, I'm outta here. Pax.
First depends on what resources you're talking about. There's plenty of worry about the sustainability of quite a few resources, including ones which will likely be further used up in making this robot worker army.
Second, recycling offers neither 100% efficient returns, nor is it free.
Third and fourth are wishful thinking, at best.
It should not come as a surprise to you that some of the most expensive ~350 sq. mi. in the US might not be indicative of the other 3.7 million...
It's interesting that the supporting dialog in Star Trek:TNG reveals most people don't work with technology. Since robots in the ST universe do all the manual labour, it leaves one asking what do all those humanoids produce?
Preachy monologues?
This:
and no, there is no real raw materials constraint
really feels like it makes your argument questionable.
Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'open' that I wasn't previously aware of.
Freedom of association applies to people not businesses
Then why did you bring up "Freedom of Association" in the first place, since we're talking about two businesses?
Whether its moral or not can be debateable but its never illegal
I never said it was illegal, and I don't care if it is illegal - AFAIC, the US legal system has as much to do with "right vs wrong" as who the next Dr. Who companion is has on the orbit of Neptune.
and the right does it just as often.
If you're trying to make a case for being better than them, the kindergarten playground defense is probably not the best way to go about it.
But apparently boycotts are only oppresive when the left does it ?
You also didn't answer the question of why it's there's no moral (i.e. completely orthogonal to the law) contradiction in using "Freedom of Association" to ostracize and/or deny livelihoods to people who do or believe what you consider to be reprehensible things (as long as they're not religious reprehensible things), and someone else doing the same thing for doing or believing things they find equally reprehensible.
You're the only one talking about "right and left" and oppression. I'm talking about internal consistency, and the all to common lack of it in this position.
Uhh, apparently you failed to remember "Equal Protection Under The Law" which is DIRECTLY WRITTEN in our laws, which makes it absolutely real.
I didn't "fail to remember" anything. There's what's "directly written in our laws" and then there's reality, where things that explicitly contradict "Equal Protection Under the Law" are also "directly written in our laws."
There is no crime in a citizen choosing not to associate with anybody so you're full of shit.
anybody else is - in fact - perfectly free to not associate based on any of those classes. You may draw scorn (well deserved scorn) but government will do nothing to stop you.
Bullshit. You moved the goalpost from business to personal association, then back it up with the law rather than the basic facts of the actions. Then you proceed to argue as if the law can be assumed to be equitable; a belief comparable to believing that angels and Santa Claus are real.
You're fine with Pao and co. not doing business with someone else because they choose not to associate with them, because you approve of their reasons. Those reasons are literally the only difference between their actions and the racist actions you're so vehemently denouncing.
The only exceptions to that law is a public servant or a business- which are, legitimate, exceptions - because without those exceptions if you're unlucky enough to be born in the wrong class you can very easily be unable to buy food, unable to procure any services - even find yourself unable to get a driving license because the local DMV officer doesn't like your class.
The same consequences can be had by someone who openly holds the "wrong" political positions; Several other comments brought up that so-called "hate speech" may, in fact, have a "chilling effect" on those it targets, and that may well be true. So can behavior like this, but your arguments here suggest that you're okay with the position that the Trump supporter "should just keep quiet, and he'll have no problems." Apparently, sometimes, it's okay, if it just chases the "bad" people away.
Unless what you're trying to exercise your democratic right not to associate with happens to be one of the blessed "protected classes." Then your rights are trumped (npi) by theirs.
Some animals were created more equal than others, evidently.
For the same reason they think "the lack of qualified people to fill 500,000 U.S. tech jobs" has anything to do with "how STEM careers have been presented in film and television" instead of the fact that the primary "qualification" being looked for is H1-B eligibility.
Would you mind giving me some examples, please?
NB: My asking isn't about Clinton or Trump, it's about being a fan of Snopes and wondering if there's a reason I should reassess that position.
Not sure where you got the "back of the head" from - the post you're responding to never used the word "head" anywhere - he did use "heart" though, which can theoretically be reached through the part of the body commonly referred to as "the back."
It doesn't lend your criticism of his logic a lot of credibility when you fumble your own counters so badly.
How's the Slashdot demographic looking these days? Is it even likely we've got more than a handful old enough to remember the spelling bee gaffe?
> I had some sort of computing device since the TI99-4a
Oh gods. As soon as I read that, I heard those two-tone startup beeps in my head...
The "average user" ditched FF for Chrome a long time ago.
To be fair, while this latest idiocy is the USOC, the IOC is even worse about this same sort of bullshit.
Unfortunately, Google and Amazon are still having their little dick-waving contest, so Amazon Video (and the prime "bonus") is pretty much useless on way too many devices that Netflix works (at least passably - they're too stingy with the HD device blessing, IMO) on.
And this, boys and girls, is what "cognitive dissonance" feels like. I had a whole 30 seconds of feeling like this had to be one of those stupid "quote troll" memes, since I couldn't imagine Trent Reznor dribbling out that kind of mealy mouthed corporate crap. Then it finally clicked that I was working off an image that is over 25 years out of date...
Man, fuck getting old. Happy freakin' birthday.
"Sorry boss, I'm not going to be able to make it in today. Yeah, the goddamn Hyundai bricked itself again..."