Well these are conservatives we are talking about here and they do love draconian justice.
I think you're painting with a broad brush. I think conservatives do, generally, see obeying the laws as a moral virtue, and disobeying laws for selfish purposes, or other anti-social acts in general, as a moral failing worth of punishment. I think there's a general feeling that we should (a) have a set of laws we agree to live by, and (b) have to obey them except in extraordinary situations.
But many conservatives, myself included, believe that our country has strayed very far from (a). We are in general not governed by popular consent. The senators from Disney, etc. have seen to that. It seems to me that laws which were enacted through bribery and corruption probably have a far weaker claim on even the most civic-minded conservative.
I think you make a good point regarding the Christians. But I believe my main point is still valid w.r.t. the Mulsims, depending on how you read the CoC wording.
If the Muslim example I gave is realistic for even some Muslims, then it's offensive to those current Muslims for someone else to state the he/she is a former Muslim.
In that example, the offense isn't because the former Muslim said something about the current Muslim's religious affiliation; he/she said it about his/her own religious history. The mere utterance of that is offensive to those current Muslims.
Another example, perhaps, is simply for me to say "I think Mohamed made up the whole thing." In that case, I'm speaking only about my own views, but it could get my workplace bombed, which is probably a clear indication that my words offended someone because of their religious affiliation. It's not clear to me that me making such a statement is compatible with the CoC.
No religious privilege, so no allowances for treating homosexuality as not normal. What makes you think that there is a conflict here?
This part, regarding their definition of proscribed "harassment":
Offensive comments related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neuro(a)typicality, physical appearance, body size, race, age, regional discrimination, political or religious affiliation
To some Christians, saying "I'm gay" is offensive, because they hear it as a statement that homosexuality is an attribute of a person, rather than merely a chosen behavior.
To some Muslims, saying "I was born in a Muslim village, but I personally am a Christian." is so offensive that they feel compelled to kill you.
My point is that different people can (and do) feel offended by radically different things, and I think the CoC is misguided if it attempts to find some "middle ground" that offends no one except white Christian men.
This is why none of this should be patent eligible.
Well, I wouldn't say that's the only reason.
The libertarian in me say that when it comes to someone else's ability to restrict what I do, shy of causing them physical harm, the only valid response is, fuck off.
Then, when it didnt become an instant sensation, they threw a tantrum and made all users social media users by embedding Plus into everything that google did.
I'm not sure the "threw a tantrum" part is valid. Do you have any reason to believe it was an act of irrational rage, rather than a calculated risk that they had the clout to achieve their goals using that strategy?
That doesn't jive with my personal experience. I've experienced a lot of gradations of attraction and of selfishness over the years. I definitely can't say it was always just one of those to polar opposites.
Maybe some marriage counseling and/or one-on-one counseling for her? Sounds like she may have a source of unhappiness that only a pro can help her understand.
Unless the jealousy leads her to give you blow jobs. Then you have a real quandary.
I get the feeling most of the profiles are fake anyway to pull in gullible males.
Never give in to blackmail.
Even better yet: Make every effort to be loyal to your spouse. If you fail, repent, hope for forgiveness, and try harder next time. Flee from all forms of temptation to do evil.
Oh it's not so bad. Was once on a flight in Guatemala with one backward facing row.... staring at a mother breastfeeding her baby in turbulence all the way to Costa Rica.
I'll never forget that flight.
Yeah, flying's really gotten worse over the years. Back then, kids got free milkshakes!
I have a hard time siding with anyone using software patents offensively. Fuck these guys and their patents. And if Apple asserts software patents in a non-defensive manner, fuck them, too.
You may want to go a little more up stream. How about, "Fuck the corrupt U.S. Congresses and Presidents. Fuck the psychopath lawyers and business people who want to infringe upon our freedom so they can make more money. Fuck the SCOTUS for not recognizing software as math. (And frown at Donald Knuth who also thinks software should be patentable, but is otherwise a swell guy.)"
I managed to do it, but it took almost a year of looking, even in a job market supposedly favorable to programmers.
My strategy was to basically scour the job boards, looking for remote jobs, and apply when it looked like a good fit. Some boards I found helpful for remote, non-contract work:
Job sites which don't have a specific category for "remote" tended to produce a lot of noise, because searching on "remote" would get hits for things like "remote work not allowed".
Two other things which seemed very helpful in landing a job:
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're painting with a broad brush. I think conservatives do, generally, see obeying the laws as a moral virtue, and disobeying laws for selfish purposes, or other anti-social acts in general, as a moral failing worth of punishment. I think there's a general feeling that we should (a) have a set of laws we agree to live by, and (b) have to obey them except in extraordinary situations.
But many conservatives, myself included, believe that our country has strayed very far from (a). We are in general not governed by popular consent. The senators from Disney, etc. have seen to that. It seems to me that laws which were enacted through bribery and corruption probably have a far weaker claim on even the most civic-minded conservative.
Well there's the problem. Oracle thinks the language and runtime are a complete operating system.
Yeah! I demand they call it "GNU/Java"!
I think you make a good point regarding the Christians. But I believe my main point is still valid w.r.t. the Mulsims, depending on how you read the CoC wording.
If the Muslim example I gave is realistic for even some Muslims, then it's offensive to those current Muslims for someone else to state the he/she is a former Muslim.
In that example, the offense isn't because the former Muslim said something about the current Muslim's religious affiliation; he/she said it about his/her own religious history. The mere utterance of that is offensive to those current Muslims.
Another example, perhaps, is simply for me to say "I think Mohamed made up the whole thing." In that case, I'm speaking only about my own views, but it could get my workplace bombed, which is probably a clear indication that my words offended someone because of their religious affiliation. It's not clear to me that me making such a statement is compatible with the CoC.
No religious privilege, so no allowances for treating homosexuality as not normal. What makes you think that there is a conflict here?
This part, regarding their definition of proscribed "harassment":
Offensive comments related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neuro(a)typicality, physical appearance, body size, race, age, regional discrimination, political or religious affiliation
To some Christians, saying "I'm gay" is offensive, because they hear it as a statement that homosexuality is an attribute of a person, rather than merely a chosen behavior.
To some Muslims, saying "I was born in a Muslim village, but I personally am a Christian." is so offensive that they feel compelled to kill you.
My point is that different people can (and do) feel offended by radically different things, and I think the CoC is misguided if it attempts to find some "middle ground" that offends no one except white Christian men.
I wonder if some adherents of Abrahamic religions consider it religiously offensive to be asked to treat homosexuality as normal.
How does GitHub's CoC reconcile seemingly conflicting goals such as this?
"Firefox 40 Arrives With Windows 10 Support, Expanded Malware Protection"
That seems like a contradiction, given what I've read about Windows 10.
Well, I wouldn't say that's the only reason.
The libertarian in me say that when it comes to someone else's ability to restrict what I do, shy of causing them physical harm, the only valid response is, fuck off.
I'm not sure the "threw a tantrum" part is valid. Do you have any reason to believe it was an act of irrational rage, rather than a calculated risk that they had the clout to achieve their goals using that strategy?
Is why a long list of seemingly obvious criminal charges hasn't been brought against the drone operator.
I'd start with whatever laws relate to peeping Toms, disturbing the peace, and perhaps harassment.
From your neutral and measured tone, I'll assume you're not speaking from personal experience.
That doesn't jive with my personal experience. I've experienced a lot of gradations of attraction and of selfishness over the years. I definitely can't say it was always just one of those to polar opposites.
Pro Tip: Make the decision not to cheat before you begin any relationship. Once in a relationship, learn to not let your eyes wander.
That seems like a great idea, but after years of trying, I can't imagine how I'd ever pull that off.
Maybe some marriage counseling and/or one-on-one counseling for her? Sounds like she may have a source of unhappiness that only a pro can help her understand.
Unless the jealousy leads her to give you blow jobs. Then you have a real quandary.
I get the feeling most of the profiles are fake anyway to pull in gullible males.
Never give in to blackmail.
Even better yet: Make every effort to be loyal to your spouse. If you fail, repent, hope for forgiveness, and try harder next time. Flee from all forms of temptation to do evil.
Easier said than done, to be sure.
More like, especially if it's me. I've seen the way I code.
Fridays are the traditional days for Dice SJW clickbaiting.
Gag orders and national security letters have no place in the Land of the Free.
This should be too obvious to even be worth saying.
Some would-be applicants might appreciate hearing the company name.
Warner wouldn't steal a car, would they?
Free of drunk people, or homeless people who smell so bad it's unpleasant to be near them?
Free of limitations in when I can depart, or how much longer the ride takes than driving?
Free of the inability to easily stop to grab a coffee or use the bathroom?
So they're promising a cap on their maximum quality of service, but not on their minimum quality of service?
Oh it's not so bad. Was once on a flight in Guatemala with one backward facing row.... staring at a mother breastfeeding her baby in turbulence all the way to Costa Rica.
I'll never forget that flight.
Yeah, flying's really gotten worse over the years. Back then, kids got free milkshakes!
I have a hard time siding with anyone using software patents offensively. Fuck these guys and their patents. And if Apple asserts software patents in a non-defensive manner, fuck them, too.
You may want to go a little more up stream. How about, "Fuck the corrupt U.S. Congresses and Presidents. Fuck the psychopath lawyers and business people who want to infringe upon our freedom so they can make more money. Fuck the SCOTUS for not recognizing software as math. (And frown at Donald Knuth who also thinks software should be patentable, but is otherwise a swell guy.)"
I managed to do it, but it took almost a year of looking, even in a job market supposedly favorable to programmers.
My strategy was to basically scour the job boards, looking for remote jobs, and apply when it looked like a good fit. Some boards I found helpful for remote, non-contract work:
Job sites which don't have a specific category for "remote" tended to produce a lot of noise, because searching on "remote" would get hits for things like "remote work not allowed".
Two other things which seemed very helpful in landing a job:
Are you crazy??? Now she's going to sue you for sexual harassment!