The problem i have seen with employees coming from other large successful companies or even not so successful companies with big name recognition is difficulty in leaving that company behind. This pops up when you want something done a certain way and you have to fight them because at their last job it was done different and it is better or easier for them or whatever. Sometimes this is meaningless in the grand scheme of things, Sometimes it threatens the backwards compatibility or future expansion and sometimes it changes the product itself.
Not all do this. But there will be a couple that will sour the desirability of others coming from those companies unless it is a position you don't have to worry about it.
The term you want to use is "involuntary servitude "
Slavery fits under that and they are essentially the same. The difference is that when people think of slavery, they think of the plantation and whippings.
Pal, i was agreeing with you. Ok too think we should put our heads in the sand and sit on our hands while ignoring potential threats in the world. Chamberlain secured peace for parts of Europe doing the same along with a little talking to threats of the time so why can't we? I don't know why you are calling me a coward. I am in agreement. If we ignore them, they will ignore us. Those exceptions in history are just outliers.
We might as well just get promises to leave us alone like Chamberlain did for England back in the day. We can go and party like it was the roaring 20s as if history couldn't teach us anything at all.
Yup, That is what we need to do. Ignore history and save money while calling others paying attention a coward.
You need to put the weed down and actually look at the constitution.
First, The presidential oath says "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So he is obliged to preserve the constitution by oath.
But it doesn't end there. The president is required to faithfully execute the laws of the land. Congress has the power To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;. Once congress does that, The president is constitutionally bound to defend the country.
Also for pay, congress mandates that by law too. This also obligates the president to pay the military. Standing army and all that are by law which the constitution specifically gives congress the powers to do so
Now back to the original point of the gp. Treason is defined by waging war against the United States and adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Not repelling invaders certainly would fall into that definition. Especially if congress called the military to do so by law.
They won't have a hard time at all. They are already calling it the Biden rule to not consider a supreme court nomination in the last year of an administration.
They have essentially said they are treating this as a democrat controlled Senate using the vice presiden's own words.
They were not interested until after Google stepped in. But Google started buying up dark fiber at the end of the dot com era (right before the bust was actually called the bust) so they have been sitting on it somewhat too.
Of course speculation was that they were using it for data centers and such which might be true. But they own a lot of dark fiber now.
Interesting. We have something you don't like coming from a sitting democrat administration and you somehow are insistent that it is the republican's fault.
It is not that support for oiland coal are patriotism or anything. It is cost and artificially increasing them that seems to be necessary for it to make economic sense. If the power plant can deliver the energy more reliable and cheaper, using that makes sense. If rooftop solar can, that makes sense. Where the objections come in to play that gives you the patriotism impressions is when the costs of one are inflated to make the others more attractive. It is simply unamerican to have the federal government dictate you need to pay more for something just to pad the pockets of a sector of business. That is also one of the biggest objections to Obamacare - the individual mandate.
Unfortunately, Most Americans do not consider externalities that they did not have to bother considering previously as justification either.
Well, yes and no. You are correct in the concept of ex post facto but incorrect on the retroactive classification. Several of the documents being looked at were classified at the point of creation due to known policies and who or what the communication was about. Then there is supposed documents that were classified before hand and mishandled.
How do we know this? Because several people she communicated with had their emails hacked and dumped on the internet marketing. But that of course necessarily assumes the emails are real which is something we will have to wait until the FBI investigation is finished.
And you know that factually those links do you support your fantasies which is why you refuse to link to them in support of your claims. You need help I
Wow. You just invent anything you want in order to justify your fallacies. We are going in circles now with you almost completely ignoring what was said in order to impose your fantasies. I was wrong, you weren't intentionally lieing, although it is still lies, you are delusional enough to believe them. What I do not understand is how you can maintain that belief despite not being able to find any links to support it.
As I said, the AC and I were communicating just fine. If you really do believe that Eich's departure wasn't related to public outcry I really do need to understand this because it fundamentally flies against what I understand your position to be on this argument.
I never said his departure was because of anything else. I said lost his job was a correct description in which you were insisting it wasn't. But we later found that you were conflating that with getting fired. Like I said, if you want to walk your statement back, then fine.
Your description of what the conflict was lacked any of the important details of this story. When you finally did partially educate yourself we were able to move forward. Unfortunately you didn't read all of it so we're stuck again.
Nope, my description is completely accurate. Your opinions are not fact and the opinions of others certainly are not fact either.
Those two statements right next to each other are hilarious.;)
I'm glad you find your homosexuality and your hatred for your kind funny. I guess it would be a mental strain that could cause you to react spatially separate from your character.
This is untrue, proven in my last comment. For some reason you only half-read what is put in front of you.
Your last paragraph is what was untrue. I dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't match any of the known facts. It is nothing more than your opinion and you have demonstrate your ability to display wild opinions that you have convinced yourself were fact when they are figments of your imagination for all anyone knows.
Heh, yeah, it'd totally make sense that I'd run around doing interviews while trying to hide another crime. Oh, and you can stretch your character all you want, you've proven time and time again here that's not what you would do. At this point, you thinking I'm gay is my fault, not yours.
That is exactly how laundering money is done. It takes the proceeds of illegal activities and funnels them through legal activities in order to make them appear to be legitimate gains. Did you think money laundering was actually putting it in the washer and dryer or something?
False. If you were properly informed on this story you would never have made this statement. Are you even aware of where Mozilla's HQ is located?
Well, you are completely lieing here. If you had a shred of evidence that Eich had discriminated against anyone in his employment and job duties at Mozilla you would have no problem providing links which at this point simply do not exist. You saying "false" doesn't change that fact. You substituting your opinion doesn't change that fact. You are telling a lie for whatever reason. I suspect it is because you are both gay and hate gays at the same time which explains your emotional turmoil and diminished mental capacity. And yes, you can take that as my opinion.
No, he is asking to do himself what the service does without buying the service.
You seem to be under the impression that if I use my computer to do the work of removing ads, it is the same as Youtube somehow doing the work. It is not and it is not using youtube's services without buying them either.
Correct. The AC and I were communicating our messages and thoughts just fine, we understood each other. You, however, became conveniently confused right about the time that I teased you for not having read up on the topic. That would be you misunderstanding the context. Now if you're putting forward the idea that Eich didn't end up unemployed because of the actions of 'people with opinions', then one could attribute that to something other than a cheap debate tactic.
There is no confusion, you used specific words with specific meanings. If you wish to recant them, then fine.
What happened was you went forward on a poorly informed opinion. Now that you've finally informed yourself you're trying to keep your head held high while packin' that parachute.
I wasn't poorly informed, I knew everything when we started this conversation that I know now. Nothing I have said is materially different than from the beginning. You are making assumptions you have no clue about because nothing has been said about it.
Both statements are incorrect. You do care. You're trying to stick me with that label because you want it to be true. You're trying to say I'm emotional and irrational. The hilarity of your approach here is that in mixing that with your ignorance on the topic all you've done is ascribe a pretty solid reason as to why I would have a much better grasp of this topic than you do.
Actually, I do not care about you being gay at all. Or should I say I do not care any more or less than before because it doesn't bother me. But if you think outing you was an attempt to insult you, you are completely missing the point. I went off assuming you are gay purposely with more information than you have about Eich and the claims you are making about him. If you think I am wrong, it should give you pause to consider how wrong you might be too.
BTW, do you have a problem with being outed as being gay? Are you some sort of closet hater or something? Are you simply transposing your own feelings and motivations on to Eich in order to satisfy some internal conflict about your homosexuality? I don't understand all the hate from you.
Not exactly. Let's paint a picture that would make this statement true. Let's say someone found an official receipt from a... oh I don't know the proper term, but let's say 'legally-operated whore house in Nevada'. On this receipt it shows I paid a substantial amount of money for an hour with a male prostitute, and that I didn't leave the room until that hour was up. Let's then further say that the existence of this receipt angered a lot of people who feel I should 'pray the gay away'. Public statements were made saying that sex with another man is a sin man should only lay with woman and so forth. So I issued an apology worded thusly: "I'm sorry for causing that pain." And... that's it, that's the whole apology. If this happened, THEN your statement would be true. Also, if it turned out I wasn't gay then your belief that I am would be entirely my fault and not yours.
And for all I know, the male prostitute you like spending time with is your brother who wouldn't otherwise talk to you so you purchased an hour from his pimp. Or you could be laundering money from some illegal operation and doing nothing with the whore other than talking about how to spend it. Or you could be a cop trying to covertly get information about something that he otherwise wouldn't talk to you about for fear of repercussions so you make it look like an innocent business transaction to have legitimacy outside of squealing to the pigs.
Here is what we do know about Eich. He for some undisclosed reasons, legally donated to a group trying to push a proposition through the elections in California keeping marriage defined as between one man and a woman. This information was hidden from the public until 4 years later when a new law
I've worked with people like that in the past. They would do the bare minimum and say things like "I'm not giving them anything extra". Then they bitched because they were passed over for promotions or their raises weren't as high as other people's and so on. They just didn't get it literally and figuratively.
Of course not all work is like that where people get individual raises (or a portion of their annual raises) based on their performance and a disagreeable manager could hamper that a bit. But when I have found myself in those situations, I just get another job. Finding jobs is somewhat easy for me. I have a good work record and many of my past employers- even ones I was fired from, will gladly give me a good recommendation. Those who won't are somewhat known to be assholes by almost everyone else who would hire you. I'm not the first person to leave those places.
Lol.. you cannot even guarantee that your zipper is zipped let alone anything about me. Go back and reread what i said and consider the context before showing your ignorance again.
Something you should know about the Kent state incident is that most. The only people to run away were the unarmed students. Every single armed person there supported action to control the hippies and the gun fire was supposedly in response to a gun on the roof of one of the buildings. Most if not all gun owners supported the efforts of the national guard when the situation was unfolding.
Anyways its an apples to oranges comparison. There simply are not 1000 local police that are going to storm my house (number of troops initially sent to Kent Ohio). There simply are not 1000 local police in my area period.
Not everyone wants to work less though. If I can make $60k working 40 hours a week, I should be able to grab another $15-20 thousand easy picking up 10 to 20 more hours a week. I can live somewhat comfortable on $60 thousand a year but why should I limit myself when I have the free time and abilities to do it? Certainly not because you want to do it for yourself.
All communism devolves into dictatorship. The authoritarian aspects are neccesity when i decide I want more or want to work less or keep what I earn. Greed and laziness doesn't magically disappear. All participants need to either voluntarily participate or be forced to else removed from the system.
He is the kid who was followed home by some cop wannabe and decided to leave his home and search out the wannabe in order to beat him. When he found him, that is what happened and the wannabe shot him in legal self-defense.
Slashdot Mirror
And I miss the hot grits. .. or was it Natalie Portman? Btw, can I subscribe to someone's newsletter.
The problem i have seen with employees coming from other large successful companies or even not so successful companies with big name recognition is difficulty in leaving that company behind. This pops up when you want something done a certain way and you have to fight them because at their last job it was done different and it is better or easier for them or whatever. Sometimes this is meaningless in the grand scheme of things, Sometimes it threatens the backwards compatibility or future expansion and sometimes it changes the product itself.
Not all do this. But there will be a couple that will sour the desirability of others coming from those companies unless it is a position you don't have to worry about it.
The term you want to use is "involuntary servitude "
Slavery fits under that and they are essentially the same. The difference is that when people think of slavery, they think of the plantation and whippings.
Pal, i was agreeing with you. Ok too think we should put our heads in the sand and sit on our hands while ignoring potential threats in the world. Chamberlain secured peace for parts of Europe doing the same along with a little talking to threats of the time so why can't we? I don't know why you are calling me a coward. I am in agreement. If we ignore them, they will ignore us. Those exceptions in history are just outliers.
Yup.
We might as well just get promises to leave us alone like Chamberlain did for England back in the day. We can go and party like it was the roaring 20s as if history couldn't teach us anything at all.
Yup, That is what we need to do. Ignore history and save money while calling others paying attention a coward.
I don't think not getting his way would meet the extraordinary occasions requirements.
You need to put the weed down and actually look at the constitution.
First, The presidential oath says "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So he is obliged to preserve the constitution by oath.
But it doesn't end there. The president is required to faithfully execute the laws of the land. Congress has the power To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;. Once congress does that, The president is constitutionally bound to defend the country.
Also for pay, congress mandates that by law too. This also obligates the president to pay the military. Standing army and all that are by law which the constitution specifically gives congress the powers to do so
Now back to the original point of the gp. Treason is defined by waging war against the United States and adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Not repelling invaders certainly would fall into that definition. Especially if congress called the military to do so by law.
They won't have a hard time at all. They are already calling it the Biden rule to not consider a supreme court nomination in the last year of an administration.
They have essentially said they are treating this as a democrat controlled Senate using the vice presiden's own words.
That is also why taxes need to be initiated from the house. They wanted the representatives of the people to be responsible for taxing the people.
You should get out more. There are a lot more religious than it appears you have been exposed to.
They were not interested until after Google stepped in. But Google started buying up dark fiber at the end of the dot com era (right before the bust was actually called the bust) so they have been sitting on it somewhat too.
Of course speculation was that they were using it for data centers and such which might be true. But they own a lot of dark fiber now.
Interesting. We have something you don't like coming from a sitting democrat administration and you somehow are insistent that it is the republican's fault.
It is not that support for oiland coal are patriotism or anything. It is cost and artificially increasing them that seems to be necessary for it to make economic sense. If the power plant can deliver the energy more reliable and cheaper, using that makes sense. If rooftop solar can, that makes sense. Where the objections come in to play that gives you the patriotism impressions is when the costs of one are inflated to make the others more attractive. It is simply unamerican to have the federal government dictate you need to pay more for something just to pad the pockets of a sector of business. That is also one of the biggest objections to Obamacare - the individual mandate.
Unfortunately, Most Americans do not consider externalities that they did not have to bother considering previously as justification either.
Well, yes and no. You are correct in the concept of ex post facto but incorrect on the retroactive classification. Several of the documents being looked at were classified at the point of creation due to known policies and who or what the communication was about. Then there is supposed documents that were classified before hand and mishandled.
How do we know this? Because several people she communicated with had their emails hacked and dumped on the internet marketing. But that of course necessarily assumes the emails are real which is something we will have to wait until the FBI investigation is finished.
And you know that factually those links do you support your fantasies which is why you refuse to link to them in support of your claims. You need help I
Wow. You just invent anything you want in order to justify your fallacies. We are going in circles now with you almost completely ignoring what was said in order to impose your fantasies. I was wrong, you weren't intentionally lieing, although it is still lies, you are delusional enough to believe them. What I do not understand is how you can maintain that belief despite not being able to find any links to support it.
I never said his departure was because of anything else. I said lost his job was a correct description in which you were insisting it wasn't. But we later found that you were conflating that with getting fired. Like I said, if you want to walk your statement back, then fine.
Nope, my description is completely accurate. Your opinions are not fact and the opinions of others certainly are not fact either.
I'm glad you find your homosexuality and your hatred for your kind funny. I guess it would be a mental strain that could cause you to react spatially separate from your character.
Your last paragraph is what was untrue. I dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't match any of the known facts. It is nothing more than your opinion and you have demonstrate your ability to display wild opinions that you have convinced yourself were fact when they are figments of your imagination for all anyone knows.
That is exactly how laundering money is done. It takes the proceeds of illegal activities and funnels them through legal activities in order to make them appear to be legitimate gains. Did you think money laundering was actually putting it in the washer and dryer or something?
Well, you are completely lieing here. If you had a shred of evidence that Eich had discriminated against anyone in his employment and job duties at Mozilla you would have no problem providing links which at this point simply do not exist. You saying "false" doesn't change that fact. You substituting your opinion doesn't change that fact. You are telling a lie for whatever reason. I suspect it is because you are both gay and hate gays at the same time which explains your emotional turmoil and diminished mental capacity. And yes, you can take that as my opinion.
No, he is asking to do himself what the service does without buying the service.
You seem to be under the impression that if I use my computer to do the work of removing ads, it is the same as Youtube somehow doing the work. It is not and it is not using youtube's services without buying them either.
There is no confusion, you used specific words with specific meanings. If you wish to recant them, then fine.
I wasn't poorly informed, I knew everything when we started this conversation that I know now. Nothing I have said is materially different than from the beginning. You are making assumptions you have no clue about because nothing has been said about it.
Actually, I do not care about you being gay at all. Or should I say I do not care any more or less than before because it doesn't bother me. But if you think outing you was an attempt to insult you, you are completely missing the point. I went off assuming you are gay purposely with more information than you have about Eich and the claims you are making about him. If you think I am wrong, it should give you pause to consider how wrong you might be too.
BTW, do you have a problem with being outed as being gay? Are you some sort of closet hater or something? Are you simply transposing your own feelings and motivations on to Eich in order to satisfy some internal conflict about your homosexuality? I don't understand all the hate from you.
And for all I know, the male prostitute you like spending time with is your brother who wouldn't otherwise talk to you so you purchased an hour from his pimp. Or you could be laundering money from some illegal operation and doing nothing with the whore other than talking about how to spend it. Or you could be a cop trying to covertly get information about something that he otherwise wouldn't talk to you about for fear of repercussions so you make it look like an innocent business transaction to have legitimacy outside of squealing to the pigs.
Here is what we do know about Eich. He for some undisclosed reasons, legally donated to a group trying to push a proposition through the elections in California keeping marriage defined as between one man and a woman. This information was hidden from the public until 4 years later when a new law
I've worked with people like that in the past. They would do the bare minimum and say things like "I'm not giving them anything extra". Then they bitched because they were passed over for promotions or their raises weren't as high as other people's and so on. They just didn't get it literally and figuratively.
Of course not all work is like that where people get individual raises (or a portion of their annual raises) based on their performance and a disagreeable manager could hamper that a bit. But when I have found myself in those situations, I just get another job. Finding jobs is somewhat easy for me. I have a good work record and many of my past employers- even ones I was fired from, will gladly give me a good recommendation. Those who won't are somewhat known to be assholes by almost everyone else who would hire you. I'm not the first person to leave those places.
Lol.. you cannot even guarantee that your zipper is zipped let alone anything about me. Go back and reread what i said and consider the context before showing your ignorance again.
Something you should know about the Kent state incident is that most. The only people to run away were the unarmed students. Every single armed person there supported action to control the hippies and the gun fire was supposedly in response to a gun on the roof of one of the buildings. Most if not all gun owners supported the efforts of the national guard when the situation was unfolding.
Anyways its an apples to oranges comparison. There simply are not 1000 local police that are going to storm my house (number of troops initially sent to Kent Ohio). There simply are not 1000 local police in my area period.
Not everyone wants to work less though. If I can make $60k working 40 hours a week, I should be able to grab another $15-20 thousand easy picking up 10 to 20 more hours a week. I can live somewhat comfortable on $60 thousand a year but why should I limit myself when I have the free time and abilities to do it? Certainly not because you want to do it for yourself.
You also don't see any Christian leaders standing up and cheering him on or justifying his actions. The same cannot be said for Muslim terrorist.
You do however see Christian followers denouncing kony's actions very loudly which you do not see much with Muslims.
All communism devolves into dictatorship. The authoritarian aspects are neccesity when i decide I want more or want to work less or keep what I earn. Greed and laziness doesn't magically disappear. All participants need to either voluntarily participate or be forced to else removed from the system.
He is the kid who was followed home by some cop wannabe and decided to leave his home and search out the wannabe in order to beat him. When he found him, that is what happened and the wannabe shot him in legal self-defense.
I guess the castle was his victim's life.