I think you just proved his point. You are doing exactly that, you are using this as fodder for political infighting. You don't like it so you label it as hate speech. Does that mean we treat it the same way Europe treats it? Somebody makes an anti-Semitic comment on twitter, so France wants to put them in jail?
Anyways, yes they both do it. 10 seconds of google and I found something that tops yours: Obama makes fun of disabled people:
You're one of those people who I commonly rail against when I say we need to stop treating the election like we're rival football teams. Quite possibly one of the ones I rail against for blind voting.
Now instead of just laws requiring data retention to prevent child pornography, we can now also use genocide prevention as an excuse. And then of course just use it to go after copyright infringers.
If you want to learn about genocide speech, go to stormfront.org, there's no need to build a new database when somebody has already created one for you.
That is SOOOO the wrong attitude to have, and exactly why nobody would hire you. I learned most of what I know about networking from college. If you go to an interview and you can't show them that you can subnet, they'll dismiss you in a heartbeat. If everybody who is complaining against H-1B visas is like you, then it's no wonder they can't find a job.
I remember hearing an incident about how an employer asked a recently graduated student to demonstrate to him how he would wire and then configure a cisco router and two switches with a quickly improvised scenario. The student walked into their rack room, and the first thing he asked was which one is the router.
The kid may as well have been Albert Einstein. The fact of the matter though is that the employer doesn't need Albert Einstein. He needs somebody to manage his information infrastructure. If you want to focus on theory with your CS degree, your best bet is to work at a university like that Ph.D who was featured in the recent slashdot article. Although you may understand the technology, you have no idea how to implement it, which doesn't make you marketable at all.
Also, an IT degree isn't necessarily even a degree, though many are offered. At my local community college they offer about 8 of them, to include Linux Systems Administration and Network Systems Administration, which necessitate all of the liberal arts, humanities, and science classes like any other associates degrees. Then there are also the certificates of completion for the technology only tracks.
Exactly. Bingo. Nail on the head. If most "tech industry" people who are railing against H-1B visa's are CS majors, then it is no wonder they can't find a job.
Not many employers are actually looking for CS majors. They don't need or want somebody to do research on the next big thing or somebody to have on their payroll to create tech ideas when the function of that business isn't technology related. What they want is that when they have a specific business need, they have somebody on the payroll who can implement and maintain that business need. When we need a bigger compute cluster with a larger SAN and perhaps to expand our network, a CS major is a poor choice for that job because of what you just told me. He can't subnet so he has no business touching their information infrastructure.
Most businesses who have a technology need are NOT in the business of the theoretical realm, so it's only natural that they won't hire people to do that.
I really don't think the DOJ should bother. Capitalism did to Microsoft what the government could not. Even in the EU, where supposedly proper justice was being served, when given the choice, the customers chose internet explorer anyways. Microsoft was forced to sell the N version of windows that didn't include media player, but nobody bought it anyways.
Yet when superior browsers rose up, not even the inclusion of IE as the default and unremovable browser (in the US at least) stopped customers from ultimately picking Chrome in higher numbers than IE.
I think capitalism will do the same thing to Apple. Yeah, there are the washed masses. We should know that better than anybody. But the customers aren't going to change from that unless something better comes along. The best we can do is remove government sanctioned monopolies granted by overbearing patents, and do away with the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA.
In my experience, it is mostly lacking. Sure, people are graduating from college with these shiny IT degrees, but for example I know of all too many IT graduates that can't even do something as basic as subnetting.
Well one thing about politicians is that they always need to make it look as though they are doing something. Doesn't matter if things are just left best as is. In order to get votes, they have to be sensationalist. They have to fight the good fight, even if they aren't actually doing anything.
To be honest, your attitude is why our industry is in decline. If we have no welders, pipe fitters, construction workers, plumbers, etc who is supposed to build stuff? People like you have declared war on work, and assume that somehow we have the ability to eliminate these jobs.
Exactly. Somebody who is either in this situation or knows somebody in this situation saw fit to down mod me troll, probably because they think the problem lies in the fact that nobody has any use for them, rather than the fact that they chose to do something nobody has a use for.
All we ever hear about (from e.g. politicians) is how we need to stimulate education in America. We already spend a crapload on it, so I don't think that is the problem. I think the problem is we're spending too much and have long since passed the point of severely diminishing returns.
I tire of hearing from people who borrow $80,000 for a degree in philosophy or liberal arts, wonder why they don't have a job, and then blame it on the boogyman (typically the wealthy) when really it's their own damn fault for going into a career field that isn't even marketable to begin with. I think this would be less of a problem if the government didn't simply hand out loans to just anybody for just any degree that they can ask for. Or even better, if these loans weren't available in the first place then the tuition rates would go down.
Please actually pay attention to your house/senate candidates next election.
Goodluckwiddat. I think one of the problems is this message that getting out to vote is such a noble thing to do. It isn't. If you aren't educated about a decision you participate in, then why are you participating to begin with?
IMO end the "get out the vote" "rock the vote" "vote or die" campaigns.
Honestly I think if we simply made more of these sources of income legitimate, and even dropped taxes a bit, we'd probably see increased tax revenue.
For example, drug kingpins make insane amounts of money, and what little money they can launder into legitimate income without looking suspicious they'll pay taxes on. The rest goes here.
As for the rest...well, what do you think of all of the nice things Johnny Depp had to say about America before permanently moving over to France? Hint: It's a trick question.
I'm a bit doubtful that they pay no taxes at all. Usually it catches somebody's eye when you are driving around in a Ferarri, spending most of your days on vacation, or own a yacht, yet your reported income is $30,000 per year. Chances are that they not only pay much more in taxes than you do, but that going through all of this trouble to hide that money costs them double that as well.
Anyways, I really REALLY doubt that this is just some rich guy simply trying to avoid taxes. This is probably something along the lines of say drug dealers who are laundering some of their money into legitimate income, which is what they "live" off of, whereas the rest of it is sitting in these "tax havens" because it's money that under the law they shouldn't have to begin with already because they simply can't launder it fast enough without looking suspicious, yet keeping it around in the form of cash is just downright risky.
Yeah, people in the drug trade really do make that much money. This is yet another reason I think drugs should be legal, in addition to the fact that the cartels have killed about 70,000 people in the last 7 years.
I only read a few of his reviews because I found most of them to be rather thoughtless and lame. Take his review on "Team America" for example. He gave it a bad review mainly because it joked about those waging the war on terror. The content of the movie, even its purpose, was just completely lost on him. I later found out that he gave Fahrenheit 9/11 a good review for exactly the same reason, only that movie wasn't even entertaining unless you like watching the blooper reel of political messages. I know its purpose wasn't intended to entertain, but it wasn't useful for anything else unless you like watching political propaganda.
I really don't see any sense in respecting the opinion of such a person. My opinion of him isn't just based on that though - rather that is one of the most egregious examples of where I can think of him giving a movie an unfair review because it offended him. (And that's part of the message of the movie - they intended to offend everybody who watched it in at least some way.)
VNC is a rather inefficient protocol. It basically works by sending periodic screenshots of the host system to the remote one, whereas RDP sends just enough information to the other end to render the screen on its own. Basically it is just a hell of a lot more efficient on bandwidth and CPU usage.
Oh and I forgot to add; while they are giving this free money to this profitable business, they can't even properly fund themselves and are going deeper and deeper into debt every year. It's stupid that taking away unnecessary spending like this, which I think very obviously needs to be done, is like pulling teeth.
Undeterred, a group of the plaintiffs, including Fox and PBS, said they intended to move to trial. “Today’s decision is a loss for the entire creative community,” they said in a statement. “The court has ruled that it is O.K. to steal copyrighted material and retransmit it without compensation. While we are disappointed with this decision, we have and are considering our options to protect our programming.”
I recall something in the last election about how PBS should be entitled to government funding for "the greater good", meanwhile their sales of DVDs and other whatnot's (which apparently they are now trying to protect) go directly into the pockets of the executives instead of repaying what the government gave them. Never mind that big bird makes hundreds of millions per year in addition to paying nothing for its main source of distribution.
Why is government subsidized work supposed to be the property of this so called benevolent broadcaster?
And no, I'm neither a Romney supporter nor a Republican. I'm just one of those libertarians who is a nut for thinking that the government handing money to private entities who otherwise have a perfectly sustainable business model (and are in fact very profitable) is ripping off the taxpayers, and I'm annoyed as hell that somebody would be painted as being the bad guy who "hates free education for children" because he wants to take away said funding.
Well they didn't really drop that much, but what little they did is easily explainable: Inexpensive but good tablets hit the market hard and fast around that time. Namely, the Kindle Fire and the Nexus 7. Naturally the competition needed to do just that - compete.
Why would that be the case today? A lot of newer implementations are being virtualized, so you could simply clone the guest, patch the clone, and do a live swap at layer 2 once the patched server has booted. That also mitigates the chance that the patch breaks something, in which case you simply put the unlatched system back in place.
Just find somebody who says "dude" every time he starts a sentence, and bro at the end. Make sure he dues it consistently or he might be a faker. Bam, there's your pot czar.
Bubble's can effect many adjacent industries. For example, some companies might have many customers who work in that industry, and if those customers go kaput, then so might their sellers.
Intel is in a similar situation. I think it was something like 70% of their sales are to HP and Dell when I looked at their annual 10K a few years ago. If either of those companies folds, intel is in trouble. The scary thing is that this may be a reality soon for both HP and Dell. If you're an employee of intel, that could concern you. If you depend on any of intels technologies for a product you make, that should concern you as well, even if the industry you work in has no indications of collapsing any time soon. Even if intel is still available to sell to you, their prices might jump due to economies of scale.
That's the strange thing about economic bubbles. You'll see a crazy trend with crazy demand, and it may even sit that way for a long time, and just when you think it is a genuine shift in trends rather than a bubble, it pops. In 1995 some observers saw what they believed to be a tech bubble. 1998 passed, and it was still there. Some economists believed that the business cycle had come to an end (e.g. no more cycles - just consistent sustained growth) due to how far reaching the tech industry was. And what do you know, in 2000 growth stops, and shortly after it pops because it turns out that most players in the tech industry didn't actually have a viable business model (I remember a lot of them were ad driven - e.g. this company makes money by selling ads to that company, which sells ads to another company...) Clearly Bush's fault.
Same thing with the housing bubble, which some were observing as a bubble in 2003, and it took all the way until 2008 before it finally popped. Only since the housing bubble wasn't as entrenched in nearly as many adjacent industries (the banking industry being a notable exception,) the GDP wasn't artificially propped up so we didn't see the miracle economy with the non-existent business cycle that we had in the late 90's. Gingrich claimed he was a pro at balancing the budget and Clinton claimed to be an economics pro, only neither was true, the revenue stream was just artificially high so it gave them both free bullet points on their resume's.
As for mobile, I think there's a bit of hype, but I don't think there's a true bubble. It may scale back a bit as once developers have their apps, they could shed some employees because they merely need to maintain the apps rather than write new ones. Note the uncertain terms I'm using. For example, you've got companies like instagram who doesn't appear to have a viable business model other than being backed by facebook. But then again, you could continue to go through the regular process of new companies coming up and needing new apps before they fold, only for a new one to repeat.
I think as was mentioned earlier though that the mobile sector as a whole is overhyped. You've got people into these shiny new devices, but excitement for them is dying down. Iphones are becoming less popular because it is mostly just incremental upgrades like we saw at the turn of the millennium to 2002 or so, at which point sales sort of leveled off. I predict the same with the Galaxy S4. We'll probably see the sales numbers sit around until the market saturates, and then people will just get to the point that they like sticking with what they have instead of always upgrading. But you ask, how does this effect apps if everybody has a smartphone? One thing I tend to notice, but I don't know if its true because I don't have any numbers (so I could be talking out my ass here) but it seems to me that people tend to do a lot of app shopping when they get a new device. If the waves of new devices stop coming (or rather, the waves of excitement stop,) that might cause the app sales to level off until "the next big thing(TM)".
Indeed, can you prove that there isn't a giraffe sitting behind that keyboard? While we all haven't seen any giraffe that can type coherent English, can you prove that one doesn't exist?
I'm an atheist myself, but I don't set out to convince anybody else to be one, so I don't bother to try to prove my viewpoint to anybody. If a conservative tells me to observe the sabbath, I'll tell them the same thing I'll tell a liberal who tells me that it is immoral to own firearms. But at the same time, I'm not going to tell them that they should agree with me, rather just ask that they respect my position.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you just proved his point. You are doing exactly that, you are using this as fodder for political infighting. You don't like it so you label it as hate speech. Does that mean we treat it the same way Europe treats it? Somebody makes an anti-Semitic comment on twitter, so France wants to put them in jail?
Anyways, yes they both do it. 10 seconds of google and I found something that tops yours: Obama makes fun of disabled people:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/03/president-ob-15-3/
You're one of those people who I commonly rail against when I say we need to stop treating the election like we're rival football teams. Quite possibly one of the ones I rail against for blind voting.
Now instead of just laws requiring data retention to prevent child pornography, we can now also use genocide prevention as an excuse. And then of course just use it to go after copyright infringers.
If you want to learn about genocide speech, go to stormfront.org, there's no need to build a new database when somebody has already created one for you.
That is SOOOO the wrong attitude to have, and exactly why nobody would hire you. I learned most of what I know about networking from college. If you go to an interview and you can't show them that you can subnet, they'll dismiss you in a heartbeat. If everybody who is complaining against H-1B visas is like you, then it's no wonder they can't find a job.
I remember hearing an incident about how an employer asked a recently graduated student to demonstrate to him how he would wire and then configure a cisco router and two switches with a quickly improvised scenario. The student walked into their rack room, and the first thing he asked was which one is the router.
The kid may as well have been Albert Einstein. The fact of the matter though is that the employer doesn't need Albert Einstein. He needs somebody to manage his information infrastructure. If you want to focus on theory with your CS degree, your best bet is to work at a university like that Ph.D who was featured in the recent slashdot article. Although you may understand the technology, you have no idea how to implement it, which doesn't make you marketable at all.
Also, an IT degree isn't necessarily even a degree, though many are offered. At my local community college they offer about 8 of them, to include Linux Systems Administration and Network Systems Administration, which necessitate all of the liberal arts, humanities, and science classes like any other associates degrees. Then there are also the certificates of completion for the technology only tracks.
Exactly. Bingo. Nail on the head. If most "tech industry" people who are railing against H-1B visa's are CS majors, then it is no wonder they can't find a job.
Not many employers are actually looking for CS majors. They don't need or want somebody to do research on the next big thing or somebody to have on their payroll to create tech ideas when the function of that business isn't technology related. What they want is that when they have a specific business need, they have somebody on the payroll who can implement and maintain that business need. When we need a bigger compute cluster with a larger SAN and perhaps to expand our network, a CS major is a poor choice for that job because of what you just told me. He can't subnet so he has no business touching their information infrastructure.
Most businesses who have a technology need are NOT in the business of the theoretical realm, so it's only natural that they won't hire people to do that.
http://www.ted.com/talks/mike_rowe_celebrates_dirty_jobs.html
That's why you're losing your job to foreigners.
You said teens squirting.
I really don't think the DOJ should bother. Capitalism did to Microsoft what the government could not. Even in the EU, where supposedly proper justice was being served, when given the choice, the customers chose internet explorer anyways. Microsoft was forced to sell the N version of windows that didn't include media player, but nobody bought it anyways.
Yet when superior browsers rose up, not even the inclusion of IE as the default and unremovable browser (in the US at least) stopped customers from ultimately picking Chrome in higher numbers than IE.
I think capitalism will do the same thing to Apple. Yeah, there are the washed masses. We should know that better than anybody. But the customers aren't going to change from that unless something better comes along. The best we can do is remove government sanctioned monopolies granted by overbearing patents, and do away with the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA.
In my experience, it is mostly lacking. Sure, people are graduating from college with these shiny IT degrees, but for example I know of all too many IT graduates that can't even do something as basic as subnetting.
Well one thing about politicians is that they always need to make it look as though they are doing something. Doesn't matter if things are just left best as is. In order to get votes, they have to be sensationalist. They have to fight the good fight, even if they aren't actually doing anything.
To be honest, your attitude is why our industry is in decline. If we have no welders, pipe fitters, construction workers, plumbers, etc who is supposed to build stuff? People like you have declared war on work, and assume that somehow we have the ability to eliminate these jobs.
http://www.ted.com/talks/mike_rowe_celebrates_dirty_jobs.html
My cousin is a welder who makes $150k.
Exactly. Somebody who is either in this situation or knows somebody in this situation saw fit to down mod me troll, probably because they think the problem lies in the fact that nobody has any use for them, rather than the fact that they chose to do something nobody has a use for.
All we ever hear about (from e.g. politicians) is how we need to stimulate education in America. We already spend a crapload on it, so I don't think that is the problem. I think the problem is we're spending too much and have long since passed the point of severely diminishing returns.
Hear hear.
I tire of hearing from people who borrow $80,000 for a degree in philosophy or liberal arts, wonder why they don't have a job, and then blame it on the boogyman (typically the wealthy) when really it's their own damn fault for going into a career field that isn't even marketable to begin with. I think this would be less of a problem if the government didn't simply hand out loans to just anybody for just any degree that they can ask for. Or even better, if these loans weren't available in the first place then the tuition rates would go down.
Please actually pay attention to your house/senate candidates next election.
Goodluckwiddat. I think one of the problems is this message that getting out to vote is such a noble thing to do. It isn't. If you aren't educated about a decision you participate in, then why are you participating to begin with?
IMO end the "get out the vote" "rock the vote" "vote or die" campaigns.
Honestly I think if we simply made more of these sources of income legitimate, and even dropped taxes a bit, we'd probably see increased tax revenue.
For example, drug kingpins make insane amounts of money, and what little money they can launder into legitimate income without looking suspicious they'll pay taxes on. The rest goes here.
As for the rest...well, what do you think of all of the nice things Johnny Depp had to say about America before permanently moving over to France? Hint: It's a trick question.
I'm a bit doubtful that they pay no taxes at all. Usually it catches somebody's eye when you are driving around in a Ferarri, spending most of your days on vacation, or own a yacht, yet your reported income is $30,000 per year. Chances are that they not only pay much more in taxes than you do, but that going through all of this trouble to hide that money costs them double that as well.
Anyways, I really REALLY doubt that this is just some rich guy simply trying to avoid taxes. This is probably something along the lines of say drug dealers who are laundering some of their money into legitimate income, which is what they "live" off of, whereas the rest of it is sitting in these "tax havens" because it's money that under the law they shouldn't have to begin with already because they simply can't launder it fast enough without looking suspicious, yet keeping it around in the form of cash is just downright risky.
Yeah, people in the drug trade really do make that much money. This is yet another reason I think drugs should be legal, in addition to the fact that the cartels have killed about 70,000 people in the last 7 years.
I only read a few of his reviews because I found most of them to be rather thoughtless and lame. Take his review on "Team America" for example. He gave it a bad review mainly because it joked about those waging the war on terror. The content of the movie, even its purpose, was just completely lost on him. I later found out that he gave Fahrenheit 9/11 a good review for exactly the same reason, only that movie wasn't even entertaining unless you like watching the blooper reel of political messages. I know its purpose wasn't intended to entertain, but it wasn't useful for anything else unless you like watching political propaganda.
I really don't see any sense in respecting the opinion of such a person. My opinion of him isn't just based on that though - rather that is one of the most egregious examples of where I can think of him giving a movie an unfair review because it offended him. (And that's part of the message of the movie - they intended to offend everybody who watched it in at least some way.)
VNC is a rather inefficient protocol. It basically works by sending periodic screenshots of the host system to the remote one, whereas RDP sends just enough information to the other end to render the screen on its own. Basically it is just a hell of a lot more efficient on bandwidth and CPU usage.
Oh and I forgot to add; while they are giving this free money to this profitable business, they can't even properly fund themselves and are going deeper and deeper into debt every year. It's stupid that taking away unnecessary spending like this, which I think very obviously needs to be done, is like pulling teeth.
Undeterred, a group of the plaintiffs, including Fox and PBS, said they intended to move to trial. “Today’s decision is a loss for the entire creative community,” they said in a statement. “The court has ruled that it is O.K. to steal copyrighted material and retransmit it without compensation. While we are disappointed with this decision, we have and are considering our options to protect our programming.”
I recall something in the last election about how PBS should be entitled to government funding for "the greater good", meanwhile their sales of DVDs and other whatnot's (which apparently they are now trying to protect) go directly into the pockets of the executives instead of repaying what the government gave them. Never mind that big bird makes hundreds of millions per year in addition to paying nothing for its main source of distribution.
Why is government subsidized work supposed to be the property of this so called benevolent broadcaster?
And no, I'm neither a Romney supporter nor a Republican. I'm just one of those libertarians who is a nut for thinking that the government handing money to private entities who otherwise have a perfectly sustainable business model (and are in fact very profitable) is ripping off the taxpayers, and I'm annoyed as hell that somebody would be painted as being the bad guy who "hates free education for children" because he wants to take away said funding.
Maybe this is part of the reason Sinofsky was fired?
Well they didn't really drop that much, but what little they did is easily explainable: Inexpensive but good tablets hit the market hard and fast around that time. Namely, the Kindle Fire and the Nexus 7. Naturally the competition needed to do just that - compete.
Why would that be the case today? A lot of newer implementations are being virtualized, so you could simply clone the guest, patch the clone, and do a live swap at layer 2 once the patched server has booted. That also mitigates the chance that the patch breaks something, in which case you simply put the unlatched system back in place.
Just find somebody who says "dude" every time he starts a sentence, and bro at the end. Make sure he dues it consistently or he might be a faker. Bam, there's your pot czar.
Bubble's can effect many adjacent industries. For example, some companies might have many customers who work in that industry, and if those customers go kaput, then so might their sellers.
Intel is in a similar situation. I think it was something like 70% of their sales are to HP and Dell when I looked at their annual 10K a few years ago. If either of those companies folds, intel is in trouble. The scary thing is that this may be a reality soon for both HP and Dell. If you're an employee of intel, that could concern you. If you depend on any of intels technologies for a product you make, that should concern you as well, even if the industry you work in has no indications of collapsing any time soon. Even if intel is still available to sell to you, their prices might jump due to economies of scale.
That's the strange thing about economic bubbles. You'll see a crazy trend with crazy demand, and it may even sit that way for a long time, and just when you think it is a genuine shift in trends rather than a bubble, it pops. In 1995 some observers saw what they believed to be a tech bubble. 1998 passed, and it was still there. Some economists believed that the business cycle had come to an end (e.g. no more cycles - just consistent sustained growth) due to how far reaching the tech industry was. And what do you know, in 2000 growth stops, and shortly after it pops because it turns out that most players in the tech industry didn't actually have a viable business model (I remember a lot of them were ad driven - e.g. this company makes money by selling ads to that company, which sells ads to another company...) Clearly Bush's fault.
Same thing with the housing bubble, which some were observing as a bubble in 2003, and it took all the way until 2008 before it finally popped. Only since the housing bubble wasn't as entrenched in nearly as many adjacent industries (the banking industry being a notable exception,) the GDP wasn't artificially propped up so we didn't see the miracle economy with the non-existent business cycle that we had in the late 90's. Gingrich claimed he was a pro at balancing the budget and Clinton claimed to be an economics pro, only neither was true, the revenue stream was just artificially high so it gave them both free bullet points on their resume's.
As for mobile, I think there's a bit of hype, but I don't think there's a true bubble. It may scale back a bit as once developers have their apps, they could shed some employees because they merely need to maintain the apps rather than write new ones. Note the uncertain terms I'm using. For example, you've got companies like instagram who doesn't appear to have a viable business model other than being backed by facebook. But then again, you could continue to go through the regular process of new companies coming up and needing new apps before they fold, only for a new one to repeat.
I think as was mentioned earlier though that the mobile sector as a whole is overhyped. You've got people into these shiny new devices, but excitement for them is dying down. Iphones are becoming less popular because it is mostly just incremental upgrades like we saw at the turn of the millennium to 2002 or so, at which point sales sort of leveled off. I predict the same with the Galaxy S4. We'll probably see the sales numbers sit around until the market saturates, and then people will just get to the point that they like sticking with what they have instead of always upgrading. But you ask, how does this effect apps if everybody has a smartphone? One thing I tend to notice, but I don't know if its true because I don't have any numbers (so I could be talking out my ass here) but it seems to me that people tend to do a lot of app shopping when they get a new device. If the waves of new devices stop coming (or rather, the waves of excitement stop,) that might cause the app sales to level off until "the next big thing(TM)".
Indeed, can you prove that there isn't a giraffe sitting behind that keyboard? While we all haven't seen any giraffe that can type coherent English, can you prove that one doesn't exist?
I'm an atheist myself, but I don't set out to convince anybody else to be one, so I don't bother to try to prove my viewpoint to anybody. If a conservative tells me to observe the sabbath, I'll tell them the same thing I'll tell a liberal who tells me that it is immoral to own firearms. But at the same time, I'm not going to tell them that they should agree with me, rather just ask that they respect my position.