They have a national health care system, coverage cannot be denied, and hospitals are, by law, physician-owned non-profits. The government sets the prices and generally the patient gets a bill for 30%. I'm sure if they can't pay they'll feel very ashamed, and beg for more nuclear cleanup work.
Dude, you put this weird "nope" on the front as if what you were about to say contradicted what I said. But then you just said an additional true thing that has nothing to do with any of it.
That is true for corporations generally. Most "corporations" are privately traded. Public companies have a whole different set of requirements related to the stock being a financial investment. If the charter of a public corporation says differently, those sections are probably invalid.
In most cases a lay-off isn't considered a termination. The employer just doesn't have any work for you to do. There is a presumption that if they sold the business next week and somebody wanted to re-open, they would call back these workers.
Except this guy, his employment was suspended when they shut down, so he probably would have to make it through some sort of disciplinary process before being called back.
Everything is stacked against the poor or anybody needing assistance in AZ. That's just AZ, has nothing to do with "right-to-work" or anything else. A lot of people move to AZ for a job, and AZ would just rather they move when they lose it.
Why stop there? Take it all the way to the top! If they choose people with a general resemblance, they could leave the country and it could buy them weeks. "They've been spotting entering and exiting the meeting room, but nobody has been able to get through on the telephone"
What "class" is that? They're not slaughtering all the homeless people. They're convincing to a small number of them to take high risk jobs for low pay.
Here in Oregon the standard practice is to allow customers to connect any approved inverter (no gimmick, all the main brands are accepted) and then whatever you feed into the system is discounted from your bill at wholesale rates. They don't have to build anything out, the power flows directly to the nearest other customers who are drawing power. They just see the power draw go down at the substation, and the generation and use on the meters.
Read this slowly and carefully. No one, including github, has any obligation to defend your being an ass. Grow up and get a life. They can delete what they think is right to delete.
It doesn't matter if you agree that it is offensive or find it personally offensive. The way being sensitive works is that you listen to other people when they tell you they are offended. Then you can measure the intent of the thing that is accused of being offensive. In a case like this, one thing is immediately clear: it was intended to be offensive to the people who indeed offended by it. Case closed; intentionally offensive. That is true without ever bringing up your or my person feelings about the creative merit, or lack thereof.
And then already we know the material is off-topic. So deleting it is a no-brainer to any business. If it was a blog site whose purpose was social commentary, then it would be a whole different evaluation. But it isn't. It is github.
GitHub is a private entity, a for-profit company. Right now, they provide a useful service if you like git. In the future they may not.
That's the great thing about git; it is open source, it doesn't come from github. If github disappears... you have all your code on every developer's computer, you can simply install a standard git server on a VPS and type one command and you've switched your remote repo.
It's not like it is readily apparent the individual is sane or crazy, properly licensed or just waiting for the right moment to pull it out to rob the place.... I sure as hell don't want two people shooting it out in my business.
Right. The worst part about a robbery isn't the money, it is that your customers are terrorized and have a bad experience. The stolen money is an insurance claim if it is enough to bother with.
No, it is easy to know what is acceptable. If you're unsure, it isn't acceptable.
Potentially offensive creative expression should be going to some place that is for that, like http://deviantart.com/
If it is only offensive because you have lots of globals and gotos, then it is fine for github. If it is a parody that is not offensive but instead chooses a technology topic, then that is probably also acceptable.
It should be obvious that unless your intent is to be offensive, once you find out it is offensive to the audience there should be no trouble in moving it to an appropriate venue. It sortof proves itself. Especially as here where there is no functional value at all,100% of the claimed value is as a creative work, and where github's claimed purpose is for functional work.
Right, you get something from them. But they are getting nothing from you. Agreeing to their terms is a requirement that they can extend, but you have to rights to any of it, legally, unless you have given them something of value in return. That is why if you want to "give" somebody a car or something else large, it is customary to "sell" it to them for $1. If you don't get the $1, then you can take it back from them at any time in the future, because giving something away doesn't transfer ownership except in limited circumstances such as a charitable donation which is legally different than a gift.
A free user is bound to the terms of service not by law, but by the site owner's prerogative to enforce the rules of their choosing. It is not valid as a contract, but it also doesn't need to be.
Here is the score: they just legalized much more spying than the French people thought was happening. And in their surprised defense they've admitted this is all already being done, and that prior to this French intelligence, and even law enforcement, were believed by the French government to have unlimited powers.
Right, but as in this case... Most coffee shop patrons don't want to have to deal with weapons situations during their visit. A weapon is really out of place there, and I don't think having people running around with firearms is going to increase their business.
Likewise, most programmers and project managers don't want to have unrelated issues thrust on their simple, purpose-driven activity. Keep the social commentary fake projects out of the code repo list.
If the behavior of a new customer is antagonistic to their existing customers, they really shouldn't need to think about it for very long.
That's not a post by github about how you're supposed to use their service, it is a blog post on the internet.
Also, all the things described are using the actual collaboration features of github in the expected way, just with different things like musical scores as their source code. None of the listed things are social commentary disguised as something that would need a collaboration tool.
Right. But this is more like a cinema refusing to show something that isn't a movie, but claims to be. For example, if an offensive social commentary was simply read into a camera. Same as here, there are multiple problems with the content: isn't a movie, doesn't have interest as a movie, doesn't have general interest to the community served by the cinema (movie fans), is generally low quality and doesn't have any commercial usefulness.
And you'll find in the case of a cinema, they would not only refuse to show any such out-of-place trash, they'd even refuse to show real movies unless they thought there was interest.
Github is not a blogging host. They are a host for source code. Fake projects are graffiti.
You're obviously not a developer if you think that a site specifically for posting code "should" allow itself to be spammed with fake projects that are actually designed to take offensive positions for shock value.
No, even if the right wing media misrepresents this as some sort of liberal conspiracy to destroy freedom of speech, they actual public opinion that should matter to github is that of software developers and companies, which is who buys paid accounts. And to them, adding fake repos to clutter the indexes and search results is clearly bad. Even if you think the offensive jokes are funny, it is still functionally bad to have that content on github. It really doesn't matter what the content is.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, his focus was on removing all US military personnel from Saudi Arabia, which he failed at.
His secondary goal was to destroy the ruling family for the crime of having invited the US in.
He failed at both of those. He did reduce the US footprint there, at the expense of increasing it in the region generally.
Imagine how different the region might look if we had let Hussein invade Saudi in `90.
Actually, we caught a few at the border, by border guards who thought they were acting suspiciously.
Some failed on their own.
A number of airplane bombers were stopped by passengers, who have generally learned the "security mob" mentality required in those situations.
A bunch of Americans attempting to be recruited by terrorists were instead recruited by the FBI in stings.
So as far as the terrorist threat goes, the military is not really involved, except in blowing up distant places and making people hate.
But I'm in Oregon. Without the military, I'd be speaking Japanese.
They have a national health care system, coverage cannot be denied, and hospitals are, by law, physician-owned non-profits. The government sets the prices and generally the patient gets a bill for 30%. I'm sure if they can't pay they'll feel very ashamed, and beg for more nuclear cleanup work.
Dude, you put this weird "nope" on the front as if what you were about to say contradicted what I said. But then you just said an additional true thing that has nothing to do with any of it.
That is true for corporations generally. Most "corporations" are privately traded. Public companies have a whole different set of requirements related to the stock being a financial investment. If the charter of a public corporation says differently, those sections are probably invalid.
In most cases a lay-off isn't considered a termination. The employer just doesn't have any work for you to do. There is a presumption that if they sold the business next week and somebody wanted to re-open, they would call back these workers.
Except this guy, his employment was suspended when they shut down, so he probably would have to make it through some sort of disciplinary process before being called back.
Everything is stacked against the poor or anybody needing assistance in AZ. That's just AZ, has nothing to do with "right-to-work" or anything else. A lot of people move to AZ for a job, and AZ would just rather they move when they lose it.
Why stop there? Take it all the way to the top! If they choose people with a general resemblance, they could leave the country and it could buy them weeks. "They've been spotting entering and exiting the meeting room, but nobody has been able to get through on the telephone"
What "class" is that? They're not slaughtering all the homeless people. They're convincing to a small number of them to take high risk jobs for low pay.
Here in Oregon the standard practice is to allow customers to connect any approved inverter (no gimmick, all the main brands are accepted) and then whatever you feed into the system is discounted from your bill at wholesale rates. They don't have to build anything out, the power flows directly to the nearest other customers who are drawing power. They just see the power draw go down at the substation, and the generation and use on the meters.
I think it means somebody on the lowest level of professional baseball team. A, AA, AAA, Major League
Read this slowly and carefully. No one, including github, has any obligation to defend your being an ass. Grow up and get a life. They can delete what they think is right to delete.
Because this is the first time they admitted what was going on.
It doesn't matter if you agree that it is offensive or find it personally offensive. The way being sensitive works is that you listen to other people when they tell you they are offended. Then you can measure the intent of the thing that is accused of being offensive. In a case like this, one thing is immediately clear: it was intended to be offensive to the people who indeed offended by it. Case closed; intentionally offensive. That is true without ever bringing up your or my person feelings about the creative merit, or lack thereof.
And then already we know the material is off-topic. So deleting it is a no-brainer to any business. If it was a blog site whose purpose was social commentary, then it would be a whole different evaluation. But it isn't. It is github.
GitHub is a private entity, a for-profit company. Right now, they provide a useful service if you like git. In the future they may not.
That's the great thing about git; it is open source, it doesn't come from github. If github disappears... you have all your code on every developer's computer, you can simply install a standard git server on a VPS and type one command and you've switched your remote repo.
It's not like it is readily apparent the individual is sane or crazy, properly licensed or just waiting for the right moment to pull it out to rob the place. ... I sure as hell don't want two people shooting it out in my business.
Right. The worst part about a robbery isn't the money, it is that your customers are terrorized and have a bad experience. The stolen money is an insurance claim if it is enough to bother with.
No, it is easy to know what is acceptable. If you're unsure, it isn't acceptable.
Potentially offensive creative expression should be going to some place that is for that, like http://deviantart.com/
If it is only offensive because you have lots of globals and gotos, then it is fine for github. If it is a parody that is not offensive but instead chooses a technology topic, then that is probably also acceptable.
It should be obvious that unless your intent is to be offensive, once you find out it is offensive to the audience there should be no trouble in moving it to an appropriate venue. It sortof proves itself. Especially as here where there is no functional value at all,100% of the claimed value is as a creative work, and where github's claimed purpose is for functional work.
Right, you get something from them. But they are getting nothing from you. Agreeing to their terms is a requirement that they can extend, but you have to rights to any of it, legally, unless you have given them something of value in return. That is why if you want to "give" somebody a car or something else large, it is customary to "sell" it to them for $1. If you don't get the $1, then you can take it back from them at any time in the future, because giving something away doesn't transfer ownership except in limited circumstances such as a charitable donation which is legally different than a gift.
A free user is bound to the terms of service not by law, but by the site owner's prerogative to enforce the rules of their choosing. It is not valid as a contract, but it also doesn't need to be.
Here is the score: they just legalized much more spying than the French people thought was happening. And in their surprised defense they've admitted this is all already being done, and that prior to this French intelligence, and even law enforcement, were believed by the French government to have unlimited powers.
Right, but as in this case...
Most coffee shop patrons don't want to have to deal with weapons situations during their visit. A weapon is really out of place there, and I don't think having people running around with firearms is going to increase their business.
Likewise, most programmers and project managers don't want to have unrelated issues thrust on their simple, purpose-driven activity. Keep the social commentary fake projects out of the code repo list.
If the behavior of a new customer is antagonistic to their existing customers, they really shouldn't need to think about it for very long.
That's not a post by github about how you're supposed to use their service, it is a blog post on the internet.
Also, all the things described are using the actual collaboration features of github in the expected way, just with different things like musical scores as their source code. None of the listed things are social commentary disguised as something that would need a collaboration tool.
Right. But this is more like a cinema refusing to show something that isn't a movie, but claims to be. For example, if an offensive social commentary was simply read into a camera. Same as here, there are multiple problems with the content: isn't a movie, doesn't have interest as a movie, doesn't have general interest to the community served by the cinema (movie fans), is generally low quality and doesn't have any commercial usefulness.
And you'll find in the case of a cinema, they would not only refuse to show any such out-of-place trash, they'd even refuse to show real movies unless they thought there was interest.
Github is not a blogging host. They are a host for source code. Fake projects are graffiti.
You're obviously not a developer if you think that a site specifically for posting code "should" allow itself to be spammed with fake projects that are actually designed to take offensive positions for shock value.
No, even if the right wing media misrepresents this as some sort of liberal conspiracy to destroy freedom of speech, they actual public opinion that should matter to github is that of software developers and companies, which is who buys paid accounts. And to them, adding fake repos to clutter the indexes and search results is clearly bad. Even if you think the offensive jokes are funny, it is still functionally bad to have that content on github. It really doesn't matter what the content is.
You do know that github is a source code repository services company, and not a blog hosting company... right?