20 some years ago when toyota and honda started becoming popular, a few of us in highschool would pick one end of those cars up and turn them sideways in thier psrking spots. We never caused any damage though. We sometimes would knock on the owners door and tell them a strong gust of wind did it.
It was all out of boredom and resentment about buying a foreign car at that time meant an american worker was without a job. Of course the imports solved that resentment issue by opening manufactoring plants in the US. Smartest thing they ever did if you ask me.
They would fall into the globalization catagory - as in they are in part of the globe that detroit isn't in. Hell, ohio anf kentucky make a lot of cars and car parts to.
They underlaying story is political and social economics which economist and historians don't really want to point to out of fear of being labelef partisan.
Or the left wing scream. When the patriot act extension was passed, Harry Reid was busy with comments like "When the clock strikes midnight tomorrow, we would be giving terrorists the opportunity to plot attacks against our country, undetected," speaking about those evil tea party republicans holding the law up trying to amend it while tea party candidates like Rand Paul was asking whether the nation "should have some rules that say before they come into your house, before they go into your banking records, that a judge should be asked for permission, that there should be judicial review? Do we want a lawless land?"
Of course Obama has taken Bush's programs to new heights while arguing legal interpretations of wording to justify the bulk collection of data. One outraged republican said "the suggestion that the administration can violate the law because Congress failed to object is outrageous."
Please stop making excuses for this behavior. Especially when it is pretty easy to find examples that cause them to fail. Plenty of republicans as well as democrats appose this crap. The tea party members actually attempted to limit it at one time but were ignored and scoffed at out of spite. Obama is not running for office any more. If he actually thought the programs some of which were created under his watch, some were expanded from the previous administration, were wrong, then he would not defend them and simply not care about what the republicans or democrats thought and end them as the chief executive officer of the land.
lol.. and the chief executive officer in the US has absolutely no power to change or stop the programs that the former administration set in place basically by using the executive powers of the office? These programs were in the lime light when Obama was running for office the first time and he campaigned against them.
The minute Obama failed to act on the programs, they became his. The minute he took office and did nothing, he took responsibility for them. This is his second term and even if you claim he couldn't do anything about it, he wasted his first term not trying and even signed the patriot act extension from France using an auto-pen technology to stop it from sun-setting.
I'm really getting sick and tire of everyone blaming Obama's failures on Bush. Stop scape goating him and hold his feet to the fire if you expect any change. Holding on to your political ideology just isn't worth it. Especial when you can claim he was just a liar and not what he lead you to believe and escape with your political ideology in tact.
lol.. Universities have existed long before the 1900's. Why do you think the church had pull over Galileo? It was because he worked at one when he came up with his concept on a heliocentric universe (expanded from copernicus'). When it was first circulated, the only restrictions they placed on him/it was to disclaim it hadn't been proven and not to teach it until it had been. He later went on to insult the pope and church clergy which got him house arrest until he died.
Of course that is over simplistic but it captures the events accurately. The church had never attempted to squash information, it demanded evidence of the validity of it. This evidence would soon be found but squashed only to spite someone who attacked specific members of the church- not to hamper the flow of information.
The poor could attend universities by getting jobs with the church. It wasn't uncommon. But as you said, they didn't start getting wide access to education until the 1900s but that was more of a application of resources then the church doing anything with the flow of information. I'm certainly not aware of any church stances saying universities or even public education was not christian like or anything. Please enlighten me if you are.
It means his control c got stuck and pasted twice.
I imagine this happened because the keys got sticky from a couple one handed sessions in the middle of the night which might also explain the lack of attention on the actual post and the lapse in editing.
I've heard stories about people putting their keyboards in the dishwasher to clean them but I'm not sure I would ever want to eat at the editors house after that unless it was a BBQ and we used paper plates.
Yes, they did. Like your reply, where they attack the people who didn't want Eich as CEO because of his support for legally denying rights to gays, by trying to make them out to be bigots.
Ok, first, lets stop inflating everything to some emotional epoxy that wouldn't hold itself together. No one was trying to deny gays any rights. Gays always had the same rights as ever other human- the right to marry someone of the opposite sex and of legal age and sound mind. No one ever attempted to take that right away from anyone because they were gay. And no, love is not in the law so it doesn't matter who loves who which is another emotion that millions of people fail to understand or define. When Gays attempted to get marriage rights, they were looking for a right in excess of that which everyone else had. If someone was against that, they weren't denying anyone any rights, they were stopping the creation of additional rights.
I understand why you post anonymously. You are afraid that your comment will someday become associated to some online identity that might follow you and you might face political repercussions for your stance now that you want to back doing so on others. But it is you who fail, your hyperbole and exaggeration is only making you look silly when examined logically.
So you think there was a witch hunt now? There was no witch hunt. Eich got a position. A very prominent one that exposed his past actions to further scrutiny. There was no threat of harm, no threat of punishment.
Just a refusal to do business with Mozilla. An action you support, when it is advancing your own agenda.
Yet you oppose it in others.
What I saw was a vile witch hunt meant to target a man's financial life for something that over 80% of the country at the time, including a sitting president and several former presidents agreed with. No one to this day, and I have been asking for the evidence, has ever been able to show that his loose political affiliations or this one donation has ever crossed from his personal life and into any professional actions he has taken or was responsible for.
Yes, a company does not have the right to exist. A person however does and whenever a company persecutes a person for their free speech, that company needs to go away. This is not hypocritical unless you somehow think a company has a right to exist and impose it's religious, political, and any other belief of the day onto the private actions of employees.
No, he donated to a cause attempting to deny legal rights to same sex marriage through a campaign of fear and deception. This was a very public attempt, and not in any way, was it private conduct.
Which is why the donations are a public record.
And what Eich did was participate in the political system where he funded those who said, if you want to get married, it better be with how we agree or you will not be allowed to marry here, or anywhere we have influence over.
And you are supporting it. Not just defending Eich, but explicitly supporting it.
So you are endorsing use of the legal system to compel others in their actual private conduct.
lol.. supporting it? I support the right of anyone to address their government and make their cases heard. I support the right of anyone to go to the people and make their positions heard. I support the rights of anything that deals with free speech and I am against anyone trying to punish people for doing so.
Now, there you go with exaggerations again- his donation was to a group that said 200+ years of history and centuries of precedent mean something- marriage is between a man and a woman only. all gays had the right to marry just like anyone else, they just had to marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else. And the law was not that these donations were public record at the time it was made, that law was created after prop 8 passed and retroactively applied- pr
You must be confused. You are now using the same language I was using "support".
The big bang has never been verified, there has never been with "the use of empirical data, observation, test, or experiment to confirm the truth" There has been well supported observations and evidence as you mentioned in your first statement but nothing has ever verified the truth of the big bang.
Thanks for playing though, please stop moving the goal posts then returning once the subject matter moved on.
You are correct, ehen the bigoted mob at mozilla got its way, they come up with flimsy excused. This entire article is one of them. Its entire premise is an argument to justify the action because it might be maybe possible that a source of funding that was never in conflict the entire time Eich wotked at mozillia or the four previous years they knew of the conttibutions could possibly dry up because of his job before the political which hunt forced him out.
And your attemp to claim i am doing the same thing when i say no one should be using or associating with mozilla if they value free speech. You couldn't be more clueless. First, all Eich did was donate privately to a cause that attempted to preserve the law and tradition that has been part of the US for more than 200 years snd the norm in every civilized society fore centuries longer which the majority of the country supported. What mozilla did was say if you ever participate in the political system, it better be with how we agree or you will not be employed here or anywhere they have influence over.
It was participation in the political process, the freedom of speech, that made it possible for gays to appose centuries of tradition and gain acceptance not only among their peers but legally in the majority of the states in the US. But now it seems that it is fair game to retaliate on people youpolitically disagree with. Imagine if that was the norm when people were donating to pro gay rigjts efforts across the countty.
That is nothing of the same thing. No one has ever shown that anything Eich did under his employ harmed gays. All his political views were private and separate from his employment. However, railroading him was very public and very much the actions of a company whos employees used the very same free speech process to change more than 200 years of precedent in the US. It is completely disgusting and no one who values free speech should have anything to do with mozilla!
This has happened since the start of the cold war. The US has done this with Cuba in some form or another since castro confiscated private industry and expelled the foreign owners and workers.
And yes, closing down twitter in a country is about the same as jamming a radio signal with the added benifit of hampering opposition communications.
Are you saying that a business employees persecuting someone for a common political belief held before that someone took a position is in no way reflective of that company's moral grounds?
No one who supports free speech should have anything to do with any company that retaliates against someone for political speech. This can not only get peoplr you disagree with booted out but ypu not hired because you supported something controversial like samr sex marriage. And remember, prop 8 passed and was overturned by an activist judge and yhe elected political leaders failed to follow the will of the people and refused to defend it. There are more people who were apposed to changing the definition of marriage to allow gays to marry than there ever was supporting it.
But this article is about the vendor saying yes and taking the money.
Its all the same trap. The only real difference is ideological. You could also pay a third party vendor to firewall off the systems making the unsupported systems someehat secure in the absence of vendor created support.
The only way it would make a difference is if the government is already either developing it or paying for someone else.to do it. I'm not apposed to that either
Superflurious and redundant? I think not. Spouses get widowers benifits that children/parents do not. They also get oyher benifits like insurance and so on that parents/children do not. Minors also have their parents sign legal contracts for them.
Anything absurd would be your comment and your attemp to weasle out of it when it isn't convienient. If it is convienient to dismiss something troubling your podition, the flaw is with your position.
Keep going around telling people who put you in your place that they are scientifically illiterate. Eventhe links you present disagree with you and agree with me. All you are doing is ptoviding facts that you are illiterate yourself.
A mother and son are entitled to it? A man and his three wives are entitled to it? Someone and their neighbors kid is entitled to it? Everyone is entitled to it?
And yes, you can have marriage without sexual relations. Especially when it is just a contract.
Slashdot Mirror
About 6-8 years before that. Late 80s. I'm in my 40s
20 some years ago when toyota and honda started becoming popular, a few of us in highschool would pick one end of those cars up and turn them sideways in thier psrking spots. We never caused any damage though. We sometimes would knock on the owners door and tell them a strong gust of wind did it.
It was all out of boredom and resentment about buying a foreign car at that time meant an american worker was without a job. Of course the imports solved that resentment issue by opening manufactoring plants in the US. Smartest thing they ever did if you ask me.
They would fall into the globalization catagory - as in they are in part of the globe that detroit isn't in. Hell, ohio anf kentucky make a lot of cars and car parts to.
They underlaying story is political and social economics which economist and historians don't really want to point to out of fear of being labelef partisan.
Or the left wing scream. When the patriot act extension was passed, Harry Reid was busy with comments like "When the clock strikes midnight tomorrow, we would be giving terrorists the opportunity to plot attacks against our country, undetected," speaking about those evil tea party republicans holding the law up trying to amend it while tea party candidates like Rand Paul was asking whether the nation "should have some rules that say before they come into your house, before they go into your banking records, that a judge should be asked for permission, that there should be judicial review? Do we want a lawless land?"
Of course Obama has taken Bush's programs to new heights while arguing legal interpretations of wording to justify the bulk collection of data. One outraged republican said "the suggestion that the administration can violate the law because Congress failed to object is outrageous."
Please stop making excuses for this behavior. Especially when it is pretty easy to find examples that cause them to fail. Plenty of republicans as well as democrats appose this crap. The tea party members actually attempted to limit it at one time but were ignored and scoffed at out of spite. Obama is not running for office any more. If he actually thought the programs some of which were created under his watch, some were expanded from the previous administration, were wrong, then he would not defend them and simply not care about what the republicans or democrats thought and end them as the chief executive officer of the land.
And with the senate controlled by democrats, none of those bills have ever been passed and became law.
Oh wait, reality just called and wanted to know if you would be home in time for dinner.
lol.. and the chief executive officer in the US has absolutely no power to change or stop the programs that the former administration set in place basically by using the executive powers of the office? These programs were in the lime light when Obama was running for office the first time and he campaigned against them.
The minute Obama failed to act on the programs, they became his. The minute he took office and did nothing, he took responsibility for them. This is his second term and even if you claim he couldn't do anything about it, he wasted his first term not trying and even signed the patriot act extension from France using an auto-pen technology to stop it from sun-setting.
I'm really getting sick and tire of everyone blaming Obama's failures on Bush. Stop scape goating him and hold his feet to the fire if you expect any change. Holding on to your political ideology just isn't worth it. Especial when you can claim he was just a liar and not what he lead you to believe and escape with your political ideology in tact.
woosh...
Do they need more then one hand for that?
lol.. Universities have existed long before the 1900's. Why do you think the church had pull over Galileo? It was because he worked at one when he came up with his concept on a heliocentric universe (expanded from copernicus'). When it was first circulated, the only restrictions they placed on him/it was to disclaim it hadn't been proven and not to teach it until it had been. He later went on to insult the pope and church clergy which got him house arrest until he died.
Of course that is over simplistic but it captures the events accurately. The church had never attempted to squash information, it demanded evidence of the validity of it. This evidence would soon be found but squashed only to spite someone who attacked specific members of the church- not to hamper the flow of information.
The poor could attend universities by getting jobs with the church. It wasn't uncommon. But as you said, they didn't start getting wide access to education until the 1900s but that was more of a application of resources then the church doing anything with the flow of information. I'm certainly not aware of any church stances saying universities or even public education was not christian like or anything. Please enlighten me if you are.
It means his control c got stuck and pasted twice.
I imagine this happened because the keys got sticky from a couple one handed sessions in the middle of the night which might also explain the lack of attention on the actual post and the lapse in editing.
I've heard stories about people putting their keyboards in the dishwasher to clean them but I'm not sure I would ever want to eat at the editors house after that unless it was a BBQ and we used paper plates.
Ok, first, lets stop inflating everything to some emotional epoxy that wouldn't hold itself together. No one was trying to deny gays any rights. Gays always had the same rights as ever other human- the right to marry someone of the opposite sex and of legal age and sound mind. No one ever attempted to take that right away from anyone because they were gay. And no, love is not in the law so it doesn't matter who loves who which is another emotion that millions of people fail to understand or define. When Gays attempted to get marriage rights, they were looking for a right in excess of that which everyone else had. If someone was against that, they weren't denying anyone any rights, they were stopping the creation of additional rights.
I understand why you post anonymously. You are afraid that your comment will someday become associated to some online identity that might follow you and you might face political repercussions for your stance now that you want to back doing so on others. But it is you who fail, your hyperbole and exaggeration is only making you look silly when examined logically.
What I saw was a vile witch hunt meant to target a man's financial life for something that over 80% of the country at the time, including a sitting president and several former presidents agreed with. No one to this day, and I have been asking for the evidence, has ever been able to show that his loose political affiliations or this one donation has ever crossed from his personal life and into any professional actions he has taken or was responsible for.
Yes, a company does not have the right to exist. A person however does and whenever a company persecutes a person for their free speech, that company needs to go away. This is not hypocritical unless you somehow think a company has a right to exist and impose it's religious, political, and any other belief of the day onto the private actions of employees.
lol.. supporting it? I support the right of anyone to address their government and make their cases heard. I support the right of anyone to go to the people and make their positions heard. I support the rights of anything that deals with free speech and I am against anyone trying to punish people for doing so.
Now, there you go with exaggerations again- his donation was to a group that said 200+ years of history and centuries of precedent mean something- marriage is between a man and a woman only. all gays had the right to marry just like anyone else, they just had to marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else. And the law was not that these donations were public record at the time it was made, that law was created after prop 8 passed and retroactively applied- pr
You must be confused. You are now using the same language I was using "support".
The big bang has never been verified, there has never been with "the use of empirical data, observation, test, or experiment to confirm the truth" There has been well supported observations and evidence as you mentioned in your first statement but nothing has ever verified the truth of the big bang.
Thanks for playing though, please stop moving the goal posts then returning once the subject matter moved on.
And you think the internet is any different? ..lol
Yes. Tbe church has always done that which id ehy they created universities and high education.
Well, created is a stretch but they started quite a few of them and are directly connected to most of thr more prominent ones.
And of course that answer would be yes.
And of course that answer doesn't change anything because he can will himself able to lift it any time in the future if he decides to.
Unless someone is editing wikipedia, you are lieing.
It evrn starts out using support over verify. I suppose you are going to also claim that the big bang if fact and can never change too.
According to the article, i think you should take your psudoscience and go home if you hold those beliefs.
You are correct, ehen the bigoted mob at mozilla got its way, they come up with flimsy excused. This entire article is one of them. Its entire premise is an argument to justify the action because it might be maybe possible that a source of funding that was never in conflict the entire time Eich wotked at mozillia or the four previous years they knew of the conttibutions could possibly dry up because of his job before the political which hunt forced him out.
And your attemp to claim i am doing the same thing when i say no one should be using or associating with mozilla if they value free speech. You couldn't be more clueless. First, all Eich did was donate privately to a cause that attempted to preserve the law and tradition that has been part of the US for more than 200 years snd the norm in every civilized society fore centuries longer which the majority of the country supported. What mozilla did was say if you ever participate in the political system, it better be with how we agree or you will not be employed here or anywhere they have influence over.
It was participation in the political process, the freedom of speech, that made it possible for gays to appose centuries of tradition and gain acceptance not only among their peers but legally in the majority of the states in the US. But now it seems that it is fair game to retaliate on people youpolitically disagree with. Imagine if that was the norm when people were donating to pro gay rigjts efforts across the countty.
That is nothing of the same thing. No one has ever shown that anything Eich did under his employ harmed gays. All his political views were private and separate from his employment. However, railroading him was very public and very much the actions of a company whos employees used the very same free speech process to change more than 200 years of precedent in the US. It is completely disgusting and no one who values free speech should have anything to do with mozilla!
You cannot believe that with a straight face. Go troll somewhere else where people are idiots or something and you might get somewhere.
I guess you never heard of radio free Europe.
This has happened since the start of the cold war. The US has done this with Cuba in some form or another since castro confiscated private industry and expelled the foreign owners and workers.
And yes, closing down twitter in a country is about the same as jamming a radio signal with the added benifit of hampering opposition communications.
Read the links you posted. They support my position.
Are you saying that a business employees persecuting someone for a common political belief held before that someone took a position is in no way reflective of that company's moral grounds?
No one who supports free speech should have anything to do with any company that retaliates against someone for political speech. This can not only get peoplr you disagree with booted out but ypu not hired because you supported something controversial like samr sex marriage. And remember, prop 8 passed and was overturned by an activist judge and yhe elected political leaders failed to follow the will of the people and refused to defend it. There are more people who were apposed to changing the definition of marriage to allow gays to marry than there ever was supporting it.
But this article is about the vendor saying yes and taking the money.
Its all the same trap. The only real difference is ideological. You could also pay a third party vendor to firewall off the systems making the unsupported systems someehat secure in the absence of vendor created support.
The only way it would make a difference is if the government is already either developing it or paying for someone else.to do it. I'm not apposed to that either
Superflurious and redundant? I think not. Spouses get widowers benifits that children/parents do not. They also get oyher benifits like insurance and so on that parents/children do not. Minors also have their parents sign legal contracts for them.
Anything absurd would be your comment and your attemp to weasle out of it when it isn't convienient. If it is convienient to dismiss something troubling your podition, the flaw is with your position.
Keep going around telling people who put you in your place that they are scientifically illiterate. Eventhe links you present disagree with you and agree with me. All you are doing is ptoviding facts that you are illiterate yourself.
It's still a cost though. It is the same thing.there is no technical advantage to OSS in this instance.
A mother and son are entitled to it? A man and his three wives are entitled to it? Someone and their neighbors kid is entitled to it? Everyone is entitled to it?
And yes, you can have marriage without sexual relations. Especially when it is just a contract.