It wasn't a nuclear plant that sucked in the diver. It was a current created by an artificial lagoon being drained below sea level and the sea via gravity refilling it. That is why there was no impeller or turbine to chew him up.
It's only a success if you count criminal behavior and a failure to act by the employee a success. If an employer fails to pay the employee, under various state and federal laws, the employee can sue for wages plus costs. In some areas circumstances the state or federal labor board or Secretary position will file the suite on the employees behalf. In others, the employee can place a mechanics lien on titled property locking the employer or even the customer from selling the property until it is paid.
Your idea of it being a success is like calling a liquor store robbery a success because the only witness refuses to come forward. Sure, you can look at it that way but it was only a success because someone failed to stand up for themselves.
It's immaterial anyway, the assertion was that he was 'fired merely for his views'.
No the assertion was not. It was that he lost his job. We covered this in my first reply to you. In fact, you even quoted it in your initial response. The op said "Their former CEO lost his job merely because of his views about marriage".
Why do you have to make crap up?
We've just gone through Round 4 and not only have we disproved it again, but you've also got some reading to do before you can carry on this debate. The ads, the timeline, the statement he made, you're very under-informed considering the extrememiness of the opinion you have.
For fucks sake, you cannot even get what was said correct and you will not link to anything that backs your claim up. You are just making shit up. And as I said, this is about you- not him. I personally do not care about him, what I do care about is your intentional distortion of any fact. You got my statement about mental health wrong, you got the statement you initially quoted wrong, and you are filling in the blanks with incorrect bullshit in order to maintain this fictional reality you seem so attached to.
He made the donation after the ad campaign started. He has also made no statement expressing any sort of regret that his money was mis-spent. He clearly wanted those ads. He destroyed the confidence he had from what became his employees. That's how 'people like me', whatever that means, heard about it in the first place.
First, how do you know he saw the ads that happened before he donated? How do you know that he even bothered to look at them after? For all you know, he simply donated to something because a friend asked him to and really didn't care about it at all. He has made no statements about it at all that I am aware of. All this malice is of your own invention.
Heh. Everywhere you look you see gay people and lynch-mobs. You'll pardon me for questioning your ability to assess my mental health.
Well first, I don't see gay people everywhere and I have only seen a few lynch mobs (one of which I'm still puzzled over because it ended with an Arab kid hanging from a tree with his hands and feet duck taped and the law enforcement called it an apparent suicide). Or were you talking figuratively? Oh well..
Second, I did not assess your mental health at all. I said that because it is statistically likely that gay people have mental issues at some point in their life they see a shrink and I had hoped you were one of them so you could have your shrink explain some things to you.
And that marks the end of Round 3, and we're still not talking about his views.
And it is likley we will not talk about his views. There certainly is nothing of record other than a donation that you imagine so much hate from. You certainly did not offer anything other than your conjecture about what they might be. No, this is about your views and how they exist mostly in your head. About how you think it is necessary to slander someone you disagree with and spread lies about them. You are simply wrong and if you had any evidence to back it up, you would have posted links by now. It's that simple.
Think of a computer illiterate trying to sound as smart as possible talking about a virus for the first time. If you substitute "trojan virus" for "lying dormant cyber pathogen", it sounds a lot more realistic.
There's an old executive saying: Don't write anything you can't erase. At the end of the day he willingly made a donation to the campaign and put his company name on it. He knew what he was doing.
And he knew that in no way was he representing his employer. What is your point other than you want to twist stupid shit that shouldn't even be a consideration?
That's not what we're talking about.
His donation went towards the production of a bunch of anti-gay ads that spent most of their time talking about how shocking homosexuality is to kids and very little talking about marriage. Yes, that was hostile, it's also the core of the annoyance with him.
No, his donation went to a group outside his control who was supposed to be backing prop 8. Here is the thing with donations though, once to give the money to someone else, you lose almost all control on how it is spent. He had absolutely no control over how it was used. It is nothing but silly to blame him for crap he took no part in other than donating funds for a separate cause.
Basically what you just said here was: "I assume(*) you're a victim of the actions of this man and you should keep quiet about it." Apparently he has more right to freedom of speech than any of us that happen to be on a differing side from you.
There is no "I assume you're gay", you advertise it in your sig and have said as much in other posts. Who cares that you are gay. And no, I did not say you had to keep quit about anything, I said you had to be honest about it and if you do not understand the difference, then I will actually say you should keep quiet about it.
That was round 2 of a heated name-calling debate and we're still not even talking about his beliefs. He destroyed his qualification to be a CEO at Mozilla through his actions, not his words. Actually this is really the point I'm making. I'm really not interested in changing your mind on gay marriage, so don't expect much of a response from me on the next go around.
He did not destroy anything. People like you are making shit up and spewing it because your feelings got hurt when the entire country said you couldn't get married to the same sex. This is not about his beliefs, it is about your beliefs and how utterly wrong they are. I hope you are seeing a shrink (most gay people have mental issues at some point in their life) and I hope you can ask them to explain the difference from reality and what you want it to be.
They didn't consider it criminal behavior at all, they considered it good, sound business practice. And what was I going to do about it? Nothing much, so it was indeed good, sound business practice. Do you even think for a minute that this behavior isn't going on for citizens as well? With the same results?
I'm sorry to say but you are or were kind of stupid. If an employer refused to pay me when I follow their own rules, I move on to another job and likely take them to court for back wages. There shouldn't have been a third time.
And no, I do not have to stop and consider that this behavior happened to citizens as well. As a citizen, assuming you are not wanted by the cops for anything, you can report the employer's behavior and even sue. But if you cannot go to the courts or state agencies, you kind of have to put up with it or figure out how to go elsewhere.
Now of course, I scaled the sales back and got another job pretty quickly. But they carried on for a number of years, probably screwing other employees over.
You should have sued them for lost wages too.
Here is what I do not get. If you were making the sales, they were making the money. They would have to know that either people would stop making the sales or go elsewhere. Either way, they lost a valuable sales asset which doesn't make any business sense at all. Are you sure the business you were in wasn't just the front for a drug ring and they didn't want it to succeed else they would have issues laundering drug money?
cops are prohibited from asking about anyone's immigration status, unless they have already been arrested for other reasons
As it should be. No cop should be requesting information unless they have a valid law enforcement interaction with you and looking like a crook is not valid.
Republicans want to keep them around as a wedge issue that they can exploit
Well, that and cheap labor. In fact, many democrats like the idea of cheap labor too.
This is why things like E-verify is important. It gives penalties to employers who attempt to exploit illegal immigrants. You still have the problem of criminals doing day labor while hiding from capture but at least they aren't doing more criminal things in their attempts to survive.
Huh? I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here. Do you actually think that expecting a days pay for a days worth of work is socialism or that keeping the pay is some sort of socialism? The former is free market capitalism, the later is criminal behavior plain and simple. I'm not sure where socialism or any political ideology comes into play here other than a lot of the workers are illegals which is the only real reason people can get away with robbing their wages and underpaying them. It's not like they can complain to any authorities without fear of legal consequences for themselves.
Day labors also tend to be illegal immigrants. I wonder how long until this is considered a criminal enterprise or the cops end up demanding the user database. Even sanctuary cities might be forced into compliance and if E-verify becomes mandatory, it can cause problems with these employers too.
You can be even a bit less worried too. Jets do not typically fly at such low altitudes. Except for very short flights (almost short enough it would be easier to drive), most private jets cruise above 40,000 feet ( over 12000 meters) and commercial jets are around 35,000 feet (almost 11000 meters). What you would find around 11000 or likely lower than 13,500 feet would be single engine aircraft. Anything over 13,500 feet sort of needs a pressurized cabin (or supplemental air supply) and engine enhancements (different types of superchargers and fuel) that likely would cause a jet engine to be used in a modern plane due to expense and complexity compared to a jet engine. Of course there are the old planes that already had the extras and can cruise at 40,000 or betters on piston engines (like bombers and multi engine aircraft)..
He willfully made a donation that required him to list his employer. The reason for that rule is transparency.
You are a complete idiot. Campaign laws require you to list your employer's name when making donations over a certain amount. The reason is to catch employers who make illegal donations through their employees.This in no way whatsoever at all means he "representing Mozilla on views that they weren't interested in supporting". his employment at Mozilla or his donation for that matter wouldn't have even been known if not for an after the fact new law retroactively made the information public record. It only means that a person made a contribution for whatever reason. And you do not know that reason either, it could be because he didn't think marriage laws should be changed or redefined or it could be because someone close to him told him to do so and he just did it as a favor to them. You do not know.
As for hostility, his donation went towards an ad-campaign that was anti-gay in nature. At the time he made his donation the campaign had already started, he knew what he was putting his money towards.
Bullshit. Not redefining marriage is not hostile in the least. It may hurt your feelings when you do not get what you want but that is your problem not his or mine. It is not anti gay to say marriage is between a man and woman. He did not in any ways say gays are less of people or they should not exist or anything of the sort. And guess what, prop 8 passed by a large amount showing the mindset of a lot of people back then. Hell, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama held the same beliefs until they realized how gays could be politically advantageous for their aspirations.
As for how he'd behave as CEO, he had already demonstrated where he was and how far he was willing to go. Oh and he had already caused harm to his employees before taking the role. DURING his time at Mozilla.
This is bullshit too that only exists in your head. No one, I repeat, absolutely no one has ever demonstrate or even attempted to claim he was hostile in any ways towards gays or anyone else in his service at Netscape or Mozilla until a bunch of intolerant fucks got their panties in a bunch over a political donation 8 years prior.
I get it, you are gay. That much is obvious. But that doesn't give you the right to go around slandering someone's name because at one point in time they disagreed with you. Grow up for fucks sake.
The easiest way to get Americans to vote for someone the outside world does not like is to make it obvious they do not like them. Americans will hold their nose and elect Satan himself if a bunch of foreigners acted like we couldn't. The overwhelming vast majority of Americans agree on one thing, foreigners do not have the right to tell us what to do.
Anonymous is the GOP? No wonder they act all stern, strict, and that kind of crap about anonymous. It's like the most vocal anti gay voices seem to belong to closet homosexuals.
There might be signs of one around but after all this time, it would be a natural part of the evolutionary ecosystem (panspermia) by now. Anyways, the amount of energy involved in this blast site likely means anything hitching a ride down would have been taken out at the time of landing.
But it would be interesting to see something with raw DNA that somewhat matches strings within existing DNA. It could show a direct link to a panspermia event.
Lol.. you are imagining things. He in no way represented Mozilla in his speech. He made a donation that was secret at the time and only made public years later through no actions of his own.
Furthermore, no one has ever claimed he was hostile, discriminatory or otherwise inappropriate to any Mozilla employee. He has been there since the beginning and your point of mentioning a portion of his employees proves he wasn't hostile towards them. Otherwise they wouldn't be employed there.
It doesn't punish Apple any more than i have been punished for not becoming an approved vendor or because my widgets are manufactured in Mexico.
It does specifically name Apple though. It is a stupid bill too. It is essentially saying that the government cannot purchase devices it knows that spies and enemies cannot use because of security features unless they make it possible for spies and enemies to defeat the security too.
So you don't know either but for some reason cannot believe what the op said?
The op was correct too. The fact is that he had donated (which is political speech) to a cause to keep marriage at a traditional definition (his opinion about marriage) was the reason behind him being forced into leaving.
Now you may be hung up on him being driven to quit rather than being fired or some other stupid quibble but the op said lost his job not fired or something specific.
BTW, I stopped using Firefox shortly after that fiasco. I stopped installing it on customer systems and stopped preaching its value. It's all gone from what I can tell.
Sort of but not really. Not all pizza makers use wood fired ovens and the oil from teenager zits would likely clog up the sewers and catch fire rereleasing much of that carbon.
I was wondering something. Why would the government want to use Apple phones if they are back doored and it is known that spies and others could access information on them?
It seems to me they would want it the other way around. Don't use if there is a back door instead of if there isn't any.
So I have to ask. Are all the purchase made in America laws that direct government to prioritize US goods in their purchasing requirements a bill of atainder also? How would this be different from existing laws that say you can only purchase supplies through approved vendors?
I'm thinking congress is well within constitution grounds to direct how money it appropriates is spent.
I suppose you think you have made some sort of point by specifically mentioning small government conservative. I guess maybe you did but it isn't the one you think. Small government conservatives recognize constitutional powers and defense is a legitimate constitutional power. In other words, defense spending does not go against the small government conservative ideology.
So I guess if you had a point, it might be that you talk about stuff you don't understand.
Slashdot Mirror
It wasn't a nuclear plant that sucked in the diver. It was a current created by an artificial lagoon being drained below sea level and the sea via gravity refilling it. That is why there was no impeller or turbine to chew him up.
It's only a success if you count criminal behavior and a failure to act by the employee a success. If an employer fails to pay the employee, under various state and federal laws, the employee can sue for wages plus costs. In some areas circumstances the state or federal labor board or Secretary position will file the suite on the employees behalf. In others, the employee can place a mechanics lien on titled property locking the employer or even the customer from selling the property until it is paid.
Your idea of it being a success is like calling a liquor store robbery a success because the only witness refuses to come forward. Sure, you can look at it that way but it was only a success because someone failed to stand up for themselves.
Who said he was fired? The op said lost his job. Your reply seems a bit imaginative.
No the assertion was not. It was that he lost his job. We covered this in my first reply to you. In fact, you even quoted it in your initial response. The op said "Their former CEO lost his job merely because of his views about marriage".
Why do you have to make crap up?
For fucks sake, you cannot even get what was said correct and you will not link to anything that backs your claim up. You are just making shit up. And as I said, this is about you- not him. I personally do not care about him, what I do care about is your intentional distortion of any fact. You got my statement about mental health wrong, you got the statement you initially quoted wrong, and you are filling in the blanks with incorrect bullshit in order to maintain this fictional reality you seem so attached to.
First, how do you know he saw the ads that happened before he donated? How do you know that he even bothered to look at them after? For all you know, he simply donated to something because a friend asked him to and really didn't care about it at all. He has made no statements about it at all that I am aware of. All this malice is of your own invention.
Well first, I don't see gay people everywhere and I have only seen a few lynch mobs (one of which I'm still puzzled over because it ended with an Arab kid hanging from a tree with his hands and feet duck taped and the law enforcement called it an apparent suicide). Or were you talking figuratively? Oh well..
Second, I did not assess your mental health at all. I said that because it is statistically likely that gay people have mental issues at some point in their life they see a shrink and I had hoped you were one of them so you could have your shrink explain some things to you.
And it is likley we will not talk about his views. There certainly is nothing of record other than a donation that you imagine so much hate from. You certainly did not offer anything other than your conjecture about what they might be. No, this is about your views and how they exist mostly in your head. About how you think it is necessary to slander someone you disagree with and spread lies about them. You are simply wrong and if you had any evidence to back it up, you would have posted links by now. It's that simple.
Think of a computer illiterate trying to sound as smart as possible talking about a virus for the first time. If you substitute "trojan virus" for "lying dormant cyber pathogen", it sounds a lot more realistic.
And he knew that in no way was he representing his employer. What is your point other than you want to twist stupid shit that shouldn't even be a consideration?
No, his donation went to a group outside his control who was supposed to be backing prop 8. Here is the thing with donations though, once to give the money to someone else, you lose almost all control on how it is spent. He had absolutely no control over how it was used. It is nothing but silly to blame him for crap he took no part in other than donating funds for a separate cause.
There is no "I assume you're gay", you advertise it in your sig and have said as much in other posts. Who cares that you are gay. And no, I did not say you had to keep quit about anything, I said you had to be honest about it and if you do not understand the difference, then I will actually say you should keep quiet about it.
He did not destroy anything. People like you are making shit up and spewing it because your feelings got hurt when the entire country said you couldn't get married to the same sex. This is not about his beliefs, it is about your beliefs and how utterly wrong they are. I hope you are seeing a shrink (most gay people have mental issues at some point in their life) and I hope you can ask them to explain the difference from reality and what you want it to be.
I'm sorry to say but you are or were kind of stupid. If an employer refused to pay me when I follow their own rules, I move on to another job and likely take them to court for back wages. There shouldn't have been a third time.
And no, I do not have to stop and consider that this behavior happened to citizens as well. As a citizen, assuming you are not wanted by the cops for anything, you can report the employer's behavior and even sue. But if you cannot go to the courts or state agencies, you kind of have to put up with it or figure out how to go elsewhere.
You should have sued them for lost wages too.
Here is what I do not get. If you were making the sales, they were making the money. They would have to know that either people would stop making the sales or go elsewhere. Either way, they lost a valuable sales asset which doesn't make any business sense at all. Are you sure the business you were in wasn't just the front for a drug ring and they didn't want it to succeed else they would have issues laundering drug money?
lol.. Your trying to be silly.. Or you ran out of meds.
As it should be. No cop should be requesting information unless they have a valid law enforcement interaction with you and looking like a crook is not valid.
Well, that and cheap labor. In fact, many democrats like the idea of cheap labor too.
This is why things like E-verify is important. It gives penalties to employers who attempt to exploit illegal immigrants. You still have the problem of criminals doing day labor while hiding from capture but at least they aren't doing more criminal things in their attempts to survive.
Huh? I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here. Do you actually think that expecting a days pay for a days worth of work is socialism or that keeping the pay is some sort of socialism? The former is free market capitalism, the later is criminal behavior plain and simple. I'm not sure where socialism or any political ideology comes into play here other than a lot of the workers are illegals which is the only real reason people can get away with robbing their wages and underpaying them. It's not like they can complain to any authorities without fear of legal consequences for themselves.
Day labors also tend to be illegal immigrants. I wonder how long until this is considered a criminal enterprise or the cops end up demanding the user database. Even sanctuary cities might be forced into compliance and if E-verify becomes mandatory, it can cause problems with these employers too.
You can be even a bit less worried too. Jets do not typically fly at such low altitudes. Except for very short flights (almost short enough it would be easier to drive), most private jets cruise above 40,000 feet ( over 12000 meters) and commercial jets are around 35,000 feet (almost 11000 meters). What you would find around 11000 or likely lower than 13,500 feet would be single engine aircraft. Anything over 13,500 feet sort of needs a pressurized cabin (or supplemental air supply) and engine enhancements (different types of superchargers and fuel) that likely would cause a jet engine to be used in a modern plane due to expense and complexity compared to a jet engine. Of course there are the old planes that already had the extras and can cruise at 40,000 or betters on piston engines (like bombers and multi engine aircraft)..
You are a complete idiot. Campaign laws require you to list your employer's name when making donations over a certain amount. The reason is to catch employers who make illegal donations through their employees.This in no way whatsoever at all means he "representing Mozilla on views that they weren't interested in supporting". his employment at Mozilla or his donation for that matter wouldn't have even been known if not for an after the fact new law retroactively made the information public record. It only means that a person made a contribution for whatever reason. And you do not know that reason either, it could be because he didn't think marriage laws should be changed or redefined or it could be because someone close to him told him to do so and he just did it as a favor to them. You do not know.
Bullshit. Not redefining marriage is not hostile in the least. It may hurt your feelings when you do not get what you want but that is your problem not his or mine. It is not anti gay to say marriage is between a man and woman. He did not in any ways say gays are less of people or they should not exist or anything of the sort. And guess what, prop 8 passed by a large amount showing the mindset of a lot of people back then. Hell, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama held the same beliefs until they realized how gays could be politically advantageous for their aspirations.
This is bullshit too that only exists in your head. No one, I repeat, absolutely no one has ever demonstrate or even attempted to claim he was hostile in any ways towards gays or anyone else in his service at Netscape or Mozilla until a bunch of intolerant fucks got their panties in a bunch over a political donation 8 years prior.
I get it, you are gay. That much is obvious. But that doesn't give you the right to go around slandering someone's name because at one point in time they disagreed with you. Grow up for fucks sake.
The easiest way to get Americans to vote for someone the outside world does not like is to make it obvious they do not like them. Americans will hold their nose and elect Satan himself if a bunch of foreigners acted like we couldn't. The overwhelming vast majority of Americans agree on one thing, foreigners do not have the right to tell us what to do.
Keep it up and Trump will be president.
Anonymous is the GOP? No wonder they act all stern, strict, and that kind of crap about anonymous. It's like the most vocal anti gay voices seem to belong to closet homosexuals.
Alien extemophile virus?
There might be signs of one around but after all this time, it would be a natural part of the evolutionary ecosystem (panspermia) by now. Anyways, the amount of energy involved in this blast site likely means anything hitching a ride down would have been taken out at the time of landing.
But it would be interesting to see something with raw DNA that somewhat matches strings within existing DNA. It could show a direct link to a panspermia event.
Lol.. you are imagining things. He in no way represented Mozilla in his speech. He made a donation that was secret at the time and only made public years later through no actions of his own.
Furthermore, no one has ever claimed he was hostile, discriminatory or otherwise inappropriate to any Mozilla employee. He has been there since the beginning and your point of mentioning a portion of his employees proves he wasn't hostile towards them. Otherwise they wouldn't be employed there.
It doesn't punish Apple any more than i have been punished for not becoming an approved vendor or because my widgets are manufactured in Mexico.
It does specifically name Apple though. It is a stupid bill too. It is essentially saying that the government cannot purchase devices it knows that spies and enemies cannot use because of security features unless they make it possible for spies and enemies to defeat the security too.
So you don't know either but for some reason cannot believe what the op said?
The op was correct too. The fact is that he had donated (which is political speech) to a cause to keep marriage at a traditional definition (his opinion about marriage) was the reason behind him being forced into leaving.
Now you may be hung up on him being driven to quit rather than being fired or some other stupid quibble but the op said lost his job not fired or something specific.
BTW, I stopped using Firefox shortly after that fiasco. I stopped installing it on customer systems and stopped preaching its value. It's all gone from what I can tell.
Sort of but not really. Not all pizza makers use wood fired ovens and the oil from teenager zits would likely clog up the sewers and catch fire rereleasing much of that carbon.
I was wondering something. Why would the government want to use Apple phones if they are back doored and it is known that spies and others could access information on them?
It seems to me they would want it the other way around. Don't use if there is a back door instead of if there isn't any.
So I have to ask. Are all the purchase made in America laws that direct government to prioritize US goods in their purchasing requirements a bill of atainder also? How would this be different from existing laws that say you can only purchase supplies through approved vendors?
I'm thinking congress is well within constitution grounds to direct how money it appropriates is spent.
Pork barrel spending is little more of an opinion. I dismissed that part after the small government conservative line.
And no. I do not consider it pork barrel spending. You may have a different opinion but it doesn't mean you are right.
I suppose you think you have made some sort of point by specifically mentioning small government conservative. I guess maybe you did but it isn't the one you think. Small government conservatives recognize constitutional powers and defense is a legitimate constitutional power. In other words, defense spending does not go against the small government conservative ideology.
So I guess if you had a point, it might be that you talk about stuff you don't understand.