Try living in a place where cable companies with on-demand are forcing small/big video rental stores to close and making video rental vending machine a real competition by comparison!
Where I live (in Brooklyn), there are couple of foreign video stores (about a mile away) which rents out only Indian and Russian stuffs and other places just are plain tasteless porns only. I have to literally walk 2 hours to get to closest BlockBuster which may and may not carry what I want to rent.
Regardless of the distant, anything at this point seems very attractive alternative and that's including a freaking video rental vending machine.
Once in a while break the DVDs and tell them it was "Postal Service" fault if Netflix lies to you that your DVD is delayed because of "Postal Service."
That oughta fuckup that fairness algorithm.
If it's the cost, just increase the subscription fee. If it's the piracy, just limit the DVD rental amount per month. But don't fucking lie to your customers like everyone is a cheap ass thief who's out to get everyone in Hollywood.
Local newspapers in SF/NYC lost millions on WANTAD revenue to Craigslist.
Also Craigslist being no-for-profit kinda helps it with tax also. Craigslist doesn't directly make money from majority ppopulous, but directly from advertisers who post commercial ads as in WANTAD.
I am not arguing that Craigslist is not free. But it's a multi-million dollar company with eBay holding 25% stake in it. Back in 2004, there was report saying Craigslist revenue was around 7 million for under 20 staffed company.
Free or not, it's commercial ads. Also the company is filed as non-profit meaning tax exempt. Not some guy running a free porn shop or forum here in his mother's basement.
[Disclaimer from Craigslist] # no -- it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests # Fee Disclosure: $$$
This isn't just a post excercising on one's freedom of speech or one's right to express oneself. It's a commercial advertisement. Craigslist even charges posters for some of its service and plan to charge for housing ads later on. eBay has 25% stake in this company. Why is it so hard to accept that Craigslist isn't just some guy running a free online forum in his mom's basement here? It's a "company" providing content and at the same time commercial advertisment for community. It even has salary paid staffs in a fancy Victorian house! Just because it's "online," it's not exempted from laws against discriminiation.
"But what about laws being reasonable?" How about people being reasonable? Is it reasonable to discriminate publically? We are not talking about private citizen being discriminatory or property owners being discriminatory in private. We are talking about discriminatory against the public.
"You know that the law is going to place an enourmous burdon on Craigslist. If you have millions of ads, the cost to manually check each one to make sure there is no discimintory language is going to be pretty damn high." Is that the reason why Craigslist is planning to charge people to post the ads in the first place? If the cost is the reason to ignore discriminiation, then slavery is more than reasonable by any standard.
"If a law is unreasonable, if the costs of compliance is too high, and it is restricting a totally reasonable activity (running a online classifieds system), then the law is anti-social and oppressive." It's a service and it's a choice by Craigslist to make it free for community, not by force. Charging people for service is not out of boundry of reason. For any business, costs of compliance is high regardless due to regulations and license. Craigslist is certainly no stranger to high cost of compliance. By your definition, totally reasonable activity that runs and permits illegal activity (regardless what law it is) is permissible for the sake of cost, then who's being anti-social and oppressive here? Community and Society is bound by law and ethics. The ones that do not comply with the law which protects the freedom and rights of general public is the one who is being anti-social and oppressive.
Aside from the law being extra-constitutional.." The Law that protects the rights of individual and freedom isn't being "extra" constitutional. It's being just plain old Constitutional. Believe me, I'm no liberal or libertarian, but the law against discrimination isn't to hinder anyone's freedom. It's to punish those who violates one's rights and freedom as everyone equally protected under the law.
it will destroy any online classified system that isn't backed by a huge corporation with an army of lawyers and millions of dollars." FYI, Craigslist is backed by a huge corporation with an army of lawyers and millions of dollars. eBay has 25% stake in the company. Besides that fact, if I'm to offer service that provides people to advertise commercial ads, why am I being exempt from this law where online RealEstate agency (pretty much middle man like online ad service) or online newspaper company is not? Why?
"Yup!" So you agree that Pro-choice goes both ways.. lets see...
"But if they fire you because you remind them of their ex-*friend or their mother inlaw, that's fine?" Yup. You are only thinking of freedom for employer. What about freedom for employee? You don't need a reason to fire someone if you live in "hire-at-will" state as long as you are not firing anyone based on race, sex, religion and age which are protected by Constitution.
"But if I discover I'm a "cat person", and want a cat, they can kick me out?" Yup. Cats are not protected by Constitution as humans. Animals Rights Act doesn't cover rent right issue.
"So they lose me as a customer, and unbiased people get more business. Jerks losing money is a bad thing?" It's not about "jerks" losing money. It's about your equal right to access public facility. Someone puts business in public regardless it's privately owned or publically traded, "jerks" are to obey the law of the land, not obey only when it favors his/her preference.
"If they don't want to give you money, why should they be forced to? It belongs to them." First of all, no money given by FDIC insured banks are excempted from FDIC rules and regulation. http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/2000-60 00.html If they don't want to be insured, banks can surely do without one could do business. It's called "loan sharks" and surely they can discriminate all they want.
"Bathroom is for paying customers only". Good point. But if that sign says "Bathroom is for CERTAIN paying customers only," and you and your girlfriend have to piss by tree, you'll literally be "pissed," too.
So we outlaw FUBU and women-only gyms?" First of all, FUBU means "For Us, By Us" so where do you get that idea that it's only for "certain" people? Now, "women-only gyms" is the good example. IMHO, it's unconstitutional. As some states already illegalized this type of estabilishment, but Penn. and Mass has voted in favor of single-sex gym. So the issue is still out there. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/diet.fitness/0 5/31/women.only.wmd/ When NOW (National Organization for Woman) fights against women-only gyms, we know this issue is screwed up (without taking any side).
"...when it comes to friends, family, associates, business partners, lovers, spouses, and people that ask me for dates I can discriminate freely by sex, age, intelligence, politics, race, beauty and kindness..." No. I rather have woman date me regardless. Matter of fact, it should be law that all woman should date me. I don't discriminate love~ or casual sex for that matter... (oh god..) Anyway, my point is, it's your life and your freedom, not other's you are affecting when it comes to your personal relationship. It's that "CERTAIN" kind of discrimination that made it possible for racism and separatism/sectarian states to be TOLERABLE in our previous society. Didn't we already learn this lesson during CIVIL WAR and Civil Rights Movement???
"As long as public schools don't discriminate, I don't see a problem." Ah, so you got a point there. It was a bad example since private schools' entrance often is based on academic standing.
"No, it doesn't. If you are discriminated by another individual or a private institution, you are always free to avoid having any deals with them." Huh? You have confused act of discrimination hindering Constitutional freedom, with not talking to your neighbor freedom. You can discriminate all you want as long as you don't fuck with other people's freedom to live in pursuit of happiness like denying them from owning a house or walking through your town.
Let me make this clear. Lets say, you have a private collection of stamps you value a lot. One day, you decide to show it only to your cloest friends. One of your friend asked you if he/she can bring someone you don't know and happens to be "certain kind of" person. You reject. Are you discriminating? Sure, but it doesn't violate anyone's freedom since you just want to show it only to your closest friends anyway. Now one day, you decide to open it the public to see your private collection. You advertise to the world to see. Again, your friend asked you if he/she can bring someone you don't know and happens to be "certain kind of" person. You reject. Are you discriminating? Yes. Are you affecting interest and freedom of general public? Yes, because public isn't your prefered friends.
"You do not, after all, have any specific right to live in my house." Yes, I do have a right to live in your house if you put it up for sale or rent and advertise in public. If it's your right and freedom that matters so much that only want prefered kinds to rent it, why put it up for sale/rent to begin with for all the world to see? After all, public isn't just one kind. If you want to keep it private, keep it private, not publically advertised.
I do agree on certain points you are trying to make, but I have to disagree about "selling" part. Renters aren't selling. But it's about making profit from the property without loosing ownership of it.
Also it's not about renter's freedom to NOT offering to certain group of people. It's about freedom for that certain group of people to have access to that offering. The arguement people trying to make that it's about "My Freedom to not rent it to everyone" is just plain wrong. It's not "My Freedom." It's "My Preference." It's idiotic to think that one's freedom to hinder other's freedom is constitutional and be protected. There is no clause in Constitution that protects "preference" over freedom.
Freedom for ALL should to be protected, not violate for some and protect for the other.
"no one had a right to that property, and no one had an opportunitiy to use it until I chose to put it on the market anyway."
Are you sure about that? Eminent Domain Public Housing, a beautiful thing, ain't it? If you want to protect your property from Eminent Domain, make it a Public Housing!:)
I have to disagree. By your definition, act of discrimination doesn't violate other's freedom. But that's false.
Discrimination is nothing less than anti-freedom which imposes one's discrimination to hinder other's freedom. I am not talking about racial only issues here, but rather more general sense.
For instance, if your IQ does not fall under one's preferable level (and I'm not saying that to insult you or anyone or it's true), are you willing to accept that your freedom to learn or to have access to facility to learn can be compromised?
In my opinion, prejudice is everywhere and we are all guilty of it, however act of discrimination violates every sense of freedom there is and degrades fellow human beings' quality of life and pursuit of happiness. Now, what's so better about that?
Your new boss comes over and fire you for not being "his/her" kind. That's a pro-choice, right? Your landlord tells you that he/she is not renewing your lease because you are not his/her kind. Pro-choice right? Gas attendant doesn't want to serve your kind. Pro-choice? Yup. Your application for a loan is turned down because Bank doesn't want your kind running business in the neighborhood. Pro-choice! yeah~ Your kind can't use his/her kind's bathroom because bathroom isn't for your kind. Pro-choice written all over. Your kind can't shop at his/her kind's store. You have to walk 20 miles down the road to shop at your kind's store. Pro-choice is the brand of that sneaker!
"How much do you want to bet that this very lawsuit was the catalyst for that decision?"
It's been talked about for awhile and planning to charge for job and housing ads. At least over two years. I remember, Craigslist, instead, start charging job ads first in selective region to test the water and get feedbacks from community.
Now, I do admit I am a bit off on the fact myself and I do thank you for correcting me. I appologize. However it's evident that the Craigslist fee to post Housing Ads should put Craigslist directly responsible for the quality of the ads on Craigslist. For example, the job posting in NYC requires paying Craigslist fee, and that puts Craigslist directly responsible for ads violating "equal opportunity."
Further more, Chicago or not, it's the same service and there is no rule that prohibits anyone living abroad from looking for housing in Chicago even though posting ads in Chicago may be free. Therefore if Craigslist is charging fee for posting ads in NYC, the same quality control should apply to every housing posts in every city.
If it was free service as in Slashdot posting free, sure, it shouldn't matter what crackpot ads are on Craigslist. BUT that's not the case. Craigslist DOES take money for posting ads by collecting fee from ad posters.
Hence Craigslist is directly responsible for allowing discriminatory ads.
It's called "Ghetto" and "Public Housing." In NYC, every building has to reserve a certain sections or rent out some portion of apartments to low income families at very low rate.
For instance, a building I was living in downtown NYC (a block away from Wall St. on Broadway), a studio can go up to 2 grand a month on rent. A low income (qualified) resident can get that same apartment at a fraction of 2 grand. For some old buildings, there are tenants still paying rent only you and i can dream of (like 300 bucks a month at prime location in Manhattan) due to rent stabilization. So you may ask, "WTF, is that fair for the building owners?" Well, it is since, building owners gets huge chunk of city property tax deduction off of it. However some location realestate is just so hot and expensive, not even tax break can make up for the loss in rent according to the square footage.
Perhaps there is more story than this, but with limited budget on the rise for NYC, perhaps this was just a sorry ass excuse to cut down on some of the spending by the Office. After all, NY is "hire-at-will" state. Another word, you don't need a reason to get fired in the state of New York.
But most importantly...
Rather you are productive or not, what make you think, you are not a disposable worker at your work? We all are. Human Resource is just another asset to the company, and it can be bought and sold just like everything else. Don't be fooled by the words like "Teamwork" and "Loyalty." Our career is not defined by the company, but what we do for the company. Last thing you want to do is like Greenwood, "I should have been warned, not fired for first offense..." If you are fired, well then fuck them. Get a better job, take your experience and move on. Attachment of emotional feelings like "Loyalty and Teamwork" only makes us a better target for practice screwing by upper management. I am not at all being disgruntle, but being realistic.
A job that treats you like an asset that can be bought and sold, you should return the favor by treating it like a temporary housing you just can't wait to get the fuck out of.
Lets start small, say, starting from the end users. Lets Shame those lame users who were careless about what gets installed on their machines.
Shame them with "boo" and publically defacing them with tar and feather except for the really good looking hot chicks... In that case, I'll personally deface them myself.. at home... privately...
"Soul" != white fluffy cloud with sparkling twinkles
He meant, game programmers and creative teams should engage in creative process through other source of inspiration than traditional media we are constantly exposed to.
He admittedly said he's not without fault. GOW was partly inspired by Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Personally I think, he's idealist who doesn't like living in a reality... I'll believe his words when I see his next project.
We treat your privacy with the utmost respect. Google Desktop doesn't make your computer's content accessible to Google or anyone else without your explicit consent. The application also offers privacy options such as locking search, encrypting the index, and not indexing password-protected Office files or secure (HTTPS) web pages.
If you activate the Search Across Computers feature, your indexed files will be sent to Google Desktop servers for copying to your other computers on which you've also activated Search Across Computers. Your index and data files are never accessible to anyone via a Google web search. And if you don't activate Search Across Computers, your Google Desktop index and data files never leave your computer.
You can learn more by reading the Google Desktop privacy policy or about the Search Across Computers feature.
One's right to protect own privacy doesn't come with footnote saying "If you don't lock your door, you'll loose your right." One's right to protect own privacy should be honored wheather door is open or locked. Feature hindered to enable and a distance one has to go to take advantage of those features which is to protect privacy, cannot be viewed anything less than to evade one's privacy.
Google shouldn't make it as an "Optional Feature" to protect the privacy of its users, but make it ONLY feature to protect privacy. There is no room for hypocricy when it comes to where one stands in a land of bullshit.
Google's intent is clear. Google may "do no evil," but it surely does a lot of "think evil" and I'm more afraid of that.
Red Cross should just shut the hell up. What idiotic dumb ass trademarks something so freakishly generic and historically offensive (to many) as a sign of humanitarian effort?
Even moonshine drunkards like KKK have been using Red Cross as their signature for their idiotic cause even before there was "Red Cross." How about Crusaders? Is "Red Cross" trying to be funny and make some kind of satirish joke about hundreds of thousands of slaughtered men/women/children because of some religion?
It would be pointless. Don't waste your time and energy.
Throw some money around, preferably bundled in rubber band and post up some pictures with you and some hot chicks on the wall at your office/cubicle/basement space with desk.
If the above doesn't work, hit them over their head and sprinkle some crack/coccaine over their body.
Slashdot Mirror
Try living in a place where cable companies with on-demand are forcing small/big video rental stores to close and making video rental vending machine a real competition by comparison!
Where I live (in Brooklyn), there are couple of foreign video stores (about a mile away) which rents out only Indian and Russian stuffs and other places just are plain tasteless porns only. I have to literally walk 2 hours to get to closest BlockBuster which may and may not carry what I want to rent.
Regardless of the distant, anything at this point seems very attractive alternative and that's including a freaking video rental vending machine.
Once in a while break the DVDs and tell them it was "Postal Service" fault if Netflix lies to you that your DVD is delayed because of "Postal Service."
That oughta fuckup that fairness algorithm.
If it's the cost, just increase the subscription fee. If it's the piracy, just limit the DVD rental amount per month. But don't fucking lie to your customers like everyone is a cheap ass thief who's out to get everyone in Hollywood.
they make money like this (although no charge to post in Boston or San Diego)
https://post.craigslist.org/nyc/J?guide=yes
https://post.craigslist.org/sfo/J
or like this starting march in NYC housing
http://forums.craigslist.org/?forumID=20040204
Local newspapers in SF/NYC lost millions on WANTAD revenue to Craigslist.
Also Craigslist being no-for-profit kinda helps it with tax also. Craigslist doesn't directly make money from majority ppopulous, but directly from advertisers who post commercial ads as in WANTAD.
I am not arguing that Craigslist is not free. But it's a multi-million dollar company with eBay holding 25% stake in it. Back in 2004, there was report saying Craigslist revenue was around 7 million for under 20 staffed company.
Free or not, it's commercial ads. Also the company is filed as non-profit meaning tax exempt. Not some guy running a free porn shop or forum here in his mother's basement.
As I said, it's about the MONEY.
[Disclaimer from Craigslist]
# no -- it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
# Fee Disclosure: $$$
This isn't just a post excercising on one's freedom of speech or one's right to express oneself. It's a commercial advertisement. Craigslist even charges posters for some of its service and plan to charge for housing ads later on. eBay has 25% stake in this company. Why is it so hard to accept that Craigslist isn't just some guy running a free online forum in his mom's basement here? It's a "company" providing content and at the same time commercial advertisment for community. It even has salary paid staffs in a fancy Victorian house! Just because it's "online," it's not exempted from laws against discriminiation.
"But what about laws being reasonable?"
How about people being reasonable? Is it reasonable to discriminate publically? We are not talking about private citizen being discriminatory or property owners being discriminatory in private. We are talking about discriminatory against the public.
"You know that the law is going to place an enourmous burdon on Craigslist. If you have millions of ads, the cost to manually check each one to make sure there is no discimintory language is going to be pretty damn high."
Is that the reason why Craigslist is planning to charge people to post the ads in the first place? If the cost is the reason to ignore discriminiation, then slavery is more than reasonable by any standard.
"If a law is unreasonable, if the costs of compliance is too high, and it is restricting a totally reasonable activity (running a online classifieds system), then the law is anti-social and oppressive."
It's a service and it's a choice by Craigslist to make it free for community, not by force. Charging people for service is not out of boundry of reason. For any business, costs of compliance is high regardless due to regulations and license. Craigslist is certainly no stranger to high cost of compliance. By your definition, totally reasonable activity that runs and permits illegal activity (regardless what law it is) is permissible for the sake of cost, then who's being anti-social and oppressive here? Community and Society is bound by law and ethics. The ones that do not comply with the law which protects the freedom and rights of general public is the one who is being anti-social and oppressive.
Aside from the law being extra-constitutional.."
The Law that protects the rights of individual and freedom isn't being "extra" constitutional. It's being just plain old Constitutional. Believe me, I'm no liberal or libertarian, but the law against discrimination isn't to hinder anyone's freedom. It's to punish those who violates one's rights and freedom as everyone equally protected under the law.
it will destroy any online classified system that isn't backed by a huge corporation with an army of lawyers and millions of dollars."
FYI, Craigslist is backed by a huge corporation with an army of lawyers and millions of dollars. eBay has 25% stake in the company. Besides that fact, if I'm to offer service that provides people to advertise commercial ads, why am I being exempt from this law where online RealEstate agency (pretty much middle man like online ad service) or online newspaper company is not? Why?
"Yup!"
0 00.html
0 5/31/women.only.wmd/
So you agree that Pro-choice goes both ways.. lets see...
"But if they fire you because you remind them of their ex-*friend or their mother inlaw, that's fine?"
Yup. You are only thinking of freedom for employer. What about freedom for employee? You don't need a reason to fire someone if you live in "hire-at-will" state as long as you are not firing anyone based on race, sex, religion and age which are protected by Constitution.
"But if I discover I'm a "cat person", and want a cat, they can kick me out?"
Yup. Cats are not protected by Constitution as humans. Animals Rights Act doesn't cover rent right issue.
"So they lose me as a customer, and unbiased people get more business. Jerks losing money is a bad thing?"
It's not about "jerks" losing money. It's about your equal right to access public facility. Someone puts business in public regardless it's privately owned or publically traded, "jerks" are to obey the law of the land, not obey only when it favors his/her preference.
"If they don't want to give you money, why should they be forced to? It belongs to them."
First of all, no money given by FDIC insured banks are excempted from FDIC rules and regulation. http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/2000-6
If they don't want to be insured, banks can surely do without one could do business. It's called "loan sharks" and surely they can discriminate all they want.
"Bathroom is for paying customers only".
Good point. But if that sign says "Bathroom is for CERTAIN paying customers only," and you and your girlfriend have to piss by tree, you'll literally be "pissed," too.
So we outlaw FUBU and women-only gyms?"
First of all, FUBU means "For Us, By Us" so where do you get that idea that it's only for "certain" people? Now, "women-only gyms" is the good example. IMHO, it's unconstitutional. As some states already illegalized this type of estabilishment, but Penn. and Mass has voted in favor of single-sex gym. So the issue is still out there.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/diet.fitness/
When NOW (National Organization for Woman) fights against women-only gyms, we know this issue is screwed up (without taking any side).
"...when it comes to friends, family, associates, business partners, lovers, spouses, and people that ask me for dates I can discriminate freely by sex, age, intelligence, politics, race, beauty and kindness..."
No. I rather have woman date me regardless. Matter of fact, it should be law that all woman should date me. I don't discriminate love~ or casual sex for that matter... (oh god..)
Anyway, my point is, it's your life and your freedom, not other's you are affecting when it comes to your personal relationship. It's that "CERTAIN" kind of discrimination that made it possible for racism and separatism/sectarian states to be TOLERABLE in our previous society. Didn't we already learn this lesson during CIVIL WAR and Civil Rights Movement???
"As long as public schools don't discriminate, I don't see a problem."
Ah, so you got a point there. It was a bad example since private schools' entrance often is based on academic standing.
"No, it doesn't. If you are discriminated by another individual or a private institution, you are always free to avoid having any deals with them."
Huh? You have confused act of discrimination hindering Constitutional freedom, with not talking to your neighbor freedom. You can discriminate all you want as long as you don't fuck with other people's freedom to live in pursuit of happiness like denying them from owning a house or walking through your town.
Let me make this clear. Lets say, you have a private collection of stamps you value a lot. One day, you decide to show it only to your cloest friends. One of your friend asked you if he/she can bring someone you don't know and happens to be "certain kind of" person. You reject. Are you discriminating? Sure, but it doesn't violate anyone's freedom since you just want to show it only to your closest friends anyway. Now one day, you decide to open it the public to see your private collection. You advertise to the world to see. Again, your friend asked you if he/she can bring someone you don't know and happens to be "certain kind of" person. You reject. Are you discriminating? Yes. Are you affecting interest and freedom of general public? Yes, because public isn't your prefered friends.
"You do not, after all, have any specific right to live in my house."
Yes, I do have a right to live in your house if you put it up for sale or rent and advertise in public. If it's your right and freedom that matters so much that only want prefered kinds to rent it, why put it up for sale/rent to begin with for all the world to see? After all, public isn't just one kind. If you want to keep it private, keep it private, not publically advertised.
"you're not "sharing" it, you're selling it"
I do agree on certain points you are trying to make, but I have to disagree about "selling" part. Renters aren't selling. But it's about making profit from the property without loosing ownership of it.
Also it's not about renter's freedom to NOT offering to certain group of people. It's about freedom for that certain group of people to have access to that offering. The arguement people trying to make that it's about "My Freedom to not rent it to everyone" is just plain wrong. It's not "My Freedom." It's "My Preference." It's idiotic to think that one's freedom to hinder other's freedom is constitutional and be protected. There is no clause in Constitution that protects "preference" over freedom.
Freedom for ALL should to be protected, not violate for some and protect for the other.
"no one had a right to that property, and no one had an opportunitiy to use it until I chose to put it on the market anyway."
:)
Are you sure about that? Eminent Domain Public Housing, a beautiful thing, ain't it? If you want to protect your property from Eminent Domain, make it a Public Housing!
"Anti-discrimination laws are anti-freedom laws."
I have to disagree. By your definition, act of discrimination doesn't violate other's freedom. But that's false.
Discrimination is nothing less than anti-freedom which imposes one's discrimination to hinder other's freedom. I am not talking about racial only issues here, but rather more general sense.
For instance, if your IQ does not fall under one's preferable level (and I'm not saying that to insult you or anyone or it's true), are you willing to accept that your freedom to learn or to have access to facility to learn can be compromised?
In my opinion, prejudice is everywhere and we are all guilty of it, however act of discrimination violates every sense of freedom there is and degrades fellow human beings' quality of life and pursuit of happiness. Now, what's so better about that?
OP meant posters of JANEANE GAROFALO
Pro Choice goes both ways.
For instance, by your definition of "Pro-choice";
Your new boss comes over and fire you for not being "his/her" kind. That's a pro-choice, right?
Your landlord tells you that he/she is not renewing your lease because you are not his/her kind. Pro-choice right?
Gas attendant doesn't want to serve your kind. Pro-choice? Yup.
Your application for a loan is turned down because Bank doesn't want your kind running business in the neighborhood. Pro-choice! yeah~
Your kind can't use his/her kind's bathroom because bathroom isn't for your kind. Pro-choice written all over.
Your kind can't shop at his/her kind's store. You have to walk 20 miles down the road to shop at your kind's store. Pro-choice is the brand of that sneaker!
Get the point?
Technically I am not wrong since I didn't say "charging for Housing ads" but just "ads" but I'll bite.
[posting jobs in NYC on Craigslist]
https://post.craigslist.org/nyc/J?guide=yes
"Price: $25 per category (example - select 3 categories and the total cost will be $75)"
"How much do you want to bet that this very lawsuit was the catalyst for that decision?"
It's been talked about for awhile and planning to charge for job and housing ads. At least over two years. I remember, Craigslist, instead, start charging job ads first in selective region to test the water and get feedbacks from community.
Slashback...5 0
i gslist_and_fees.html [Jan. 12, 2005]
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/04/20242
From Craigslist...
http://forums.craigslist.org/?forumID=20040204
Digg's post...
http://digg.com/links/Craigslist_to_Charge_Fees
It's been talked about for awhile...
http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/2005/01/12/cra
Now, I do admit I am a bit off on the fact myself and I do thank you for correcting me. I appologize. However it's evident that the Craigslist fee to post Housing Ads should put Craigslist directly responsible for the quality of the ads on Craigslist. For example, the job posting in NYC requires paying Craigslist fee, and that puts Craigslist directly responsible for ads violating "equal opportunity."
Further more, Chicago or not, it's the same service and there is no rule that prohibits anyone living abroad from looking for housing in Chicago even though posting ads in Chicago may be free. Therefore if Craigslist is charging fee for posting ads in NYC, the same quality control should apply to every housing posts in every city.
If it was free service as in Slashdot posting free, sure, it shouldn't matter what crackpot ads are on Craigslist. BUT that's not the case. Craigslist DOES take money for posting ads by collecting fee from ad posters.
Hence Craigslist is directly responsible for allowing discriminatory ads.
Get the facts.
It's called "Ghetto" and "Public Housing." In NYC, every building has to reserve a certain sections or rent out some portion of apartments to low income families at very low rate.
For instance, a building I was living in downtown NYC (a block away from Wall St. on Broadway), a studio can go up to 2 grand a month on rent. A low income (qualified) resident can get that same apartment at a fraction of 2 grand. For some old buildings, there are tenants still paying rent only you and i can dream of (like 300 bucks a month at prime location in Manhattan) due to rent stabilization. So you may ask, "WTF, is that fair for the building owners?" Well, it is since, building owners gets huge chunk of city property tax deduction off of it. However some location realestate is just so hot and expensive, not even tax break can make up for the loss in rent according to the square footage.
Perhaps there is more story than this, but with limited budget on the rise for NYC, perhaps this was just a sorry ass excuse to cut down on some of the spending by the Office. After all, NY is "hire-at-will" state. Another word, you don't need a reason to get fired in the state of New York.
But most importantly...
Rather you are productive or not, what make you think, you are not a disposable worker at your work? We all are. Human Resource is just another asset to the company, and it can be bought and sold just like everything else. Don't be fooled by the words like "Teamwork" and "Loyalty." Our career is not defined by the company, but what we do for the company. Last thing you want to do is like Greenwood, "I should have been warned, not fired for first offense..." If you are fired, well then fuck them. Get a better job, take your experience and move on. Attachment of emotional feelings like "Loyalty and Teamwork" only makes us a better target for practice screwing by upper management. I am not at all being disgruntle, but being realistic.
A job that treats you like an asset that can be bought and sold, you should return the favor by treating it like a temporary housing you just can't wait to get the fuck out of.
Lets start small, say, starting from the end users. Lets Shame those lame users who were careless about what gets installed on their machines.
Shame them with "boo" and publically defacing them with tar and feather except for the really good looking hot chicks... In that case, I'll personally deface them myself.. at home... privately...
i have to go to bathroom now...
"It's about Russia."
That's all I need to know. By the way, we need to talk about that TPS Report. -Management
"Soul" != white fluffy cloud with sparkling twinkles
He meant, game programmers and creative teams should engage in creative process through other source of inspiration than traditional media we are constantly exposed to.
He admittedly said he's not without fault. GOW was partly inspired by Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Personally I think, he's idealist who doesn't like living in a reality... I'll believe his words when I see his next project.
http://desktop.google.com/about.html
...
12. What about my privacy? Does Google Desktop share my content with anyone?
We treat your privacy with the utmost respect. Google Desktop doesn't make your computer's content accessible to Google or anyone else without your explicit consent. The application also offers privacy options such as locking search, encrypting the index, and not indexing password-protected Office files or secure (HTTPS) web pages.
If you activate the Search Across Computers feature, your indexed files will be sent to Google Desktop servers for copying to your other computers on which you've also activated Search Across Computers. Your index and data files are never accessible to anyone via a Google web search. And if you don't activate Search Across Computers, your Google Desktop index and data files never leave your computer.
You can learn more by reading the Google Desktop privacy policy or about the Search Across Computers feature.
One's right to protect own privacy doesn't come with footnote saying "If you don't lock your door, you'll loose your right." One's right to protect own privacy should be honored wheather door is open or locked. Feature hindered to enable and a distance one has to go to take advantage of those features which is to protect privacy, cannot be viewed anything less than to evade one's privacy.
Google shouldn't make it as an "Optional Feature" to protect the privacy of its users, but make it ONLY feature to protect privacy. There is no room for hypocricy when it comes to where one stands in a land of bullshit.
Google's intent is clear. Google may "do no evil," but it surely does a lot of "think evil" and I'm more afraid of that.
Red Cross should just shut the hell up. What idiotic dumb ass trademarks something so freakishly generic and historically offensive (to many) as a sign of humanitarian effort?
Even moonshine drunkards like KKK have been using Red Cross as their signature for their idiotic cause even before there was "Red Cross." How about Crusaders? Is "Red Cross" trying to be funny and make some kind of satirish joke about hundreds of thousands of slaughtered men/women/children because of some religion?
It would be pointless. Don't waste your time and energy.
Throw some money around, preferably bundled in rubber band and post up some pictures with you and some hot chicks on the wall at your office/cubicle/basement space with desk.
If the above doesn't work, hit them over their head and sprinkle some crack/coccaine over their body.