Yes, that struck me as well.

The whole "turning the other cheek" thing isn't even a general directive. It is intended to specifically address insults to your religion. The "turn the other cheek" bit is meant EXACTLY FOR THIS SITUATION. So the Jesuit commits one count of dogma fail right there.

Plus there's the whole "eye for an eye" thing, which is not as some people like to claim some sort of call to vendetta. It's an old testament thing along the lines of modern Tort law. To repair a harm the "damages" must be equivalent. If an eye is lost, then an eye must be given back.

It's not like Sean Connery's revenge speech in The Untouchables.

Again, another dogma fail.

On the other hand, I have sat in court and heard the judge declare that "but he insulted my mother" is not a legally justifiable excuse for violence. This isn't just some theoretical idea I might have heard from the Internet. It's personal first hand experience with an actual court and an actual judge.

You will get thrown in jail for "defending your mother". That's no more an excuse for assault and battery and murder than blasphemy is.

I think with the former, there is more the acknowledgement that the perp is willing to bear the full legal consequences of their actions. There are no excuses made. They do what needs to be done and accept the resulting punishment.

Sometimes an expletive is called for.

This is the same guy that would be fueling the Xian version of ISIS if certain acts of heresy did not castrate the power of his little cabal a few centuries ago.

On the surface it all sounds nice and sweet but the underlying problem is that you can't criticize if you can't offend. If you can't criticize then power becomes corrupt and runs amok. Progress comes to a halt because those in power don't want anything that could interfere with their racket.

A modern civilized society depends and thrives on the ability to commit heresy and offend people.

This also fails as a "free market" because the labor that's being undercut isn't able to move where costs are lower. It's not a "free market" if corporations can import talent but individuals can't move out of the resulting disaster area.

If Republicans destroy Ohio, I can move to Pennsylvania.

I don't have that option with this particular "free market".

That's funny because I have personally managed to out earn an H1B with a PhD (if not several) simply because of my status as a full citizen. I am free to bargain with an employer. I don't have to worry about deportation if I am too demanding.

Now that's the "good side" of H1Bs (abused talent).

The bad side is mediocre no talent sleazebags that are just used to lower labor costs. I've seen that variation on the H1B system as well.

Your "situation" could be much better. You could have an actual green card.

Also, cut out this "team of lawyers" crap. This makes you sound like such an obvious shill. I'm familiar with that end of things too. You're so full of it.

No it isn't. HIB is a slave status. Being against a slave status is not protectionism. It's classic American patriotism (Common Sense).

You are trying to conflate immigration in general with the HIB underclass status and they simply aren't the same thing.

If they're worth importing, they're worth treating right.

Opposition to the creation of an underclass is not "protectionism". If we really need them then fine, bring them over. Just bring them over as full EQUALS.

Given them green cards the moment they land or forget about it.

They won't do that of course because it doesn't get them what they want. They want indentured quasi-slave labor. They don't want real professionals.

The only reason this situation seems "ugly" is because something is being forced down our throats Microsoft monopoly style. One of the great things about Unix modular design is that you can easily accomodate everyone even if they have mutually exclusive requirements.

SystemD fails at playing nice with the rest of Unix and the vast majority of end users that view it as useless at best.

Your choices should not require you to piss on my fileserver.

My heavy tablet user still finds the form factor unsuitable for a lot of web browsing and that's pretty lightweight stuff by PC standards.

The form factor just isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Media hype and wishful thinking won't change that.

A $200 PC with useful inputs can still run circles around tablets.

Windows 8.1 is a result of the backlash against Win8. Subject the average user to Win8 and they will still manifest the same "abject fear" they always had. Microsoft just backtracked a little.

Enough apparently to make Win 8.1 much less despised than it's predecessors.

It's almost like they rediscovered the idea that you shouldn't treat your customer like sh*t.

The problems with GMOs don't end with "scientific truth". Not that ephemeral faith in a technology ever amounted to much. Our own recent history is littered with disasters of that kind.

"Arguing the science" is just a crass way of ignoring any of the other problems.

it also makes Tyson look like a cheap corporate tool.

It also exposes the obvious hubris and myopia of scientists.

It's stupid to speak of science in terms of "truth" because science is never anything but a best guess. This undermines the idea that scientists are not Bishops in lab coats and another variation on the same invallid appeals to authority that dominate other important ideas.

Declaring "truth" requires more certainty than an honest scientist should ever have.

It is more the domain of religion.

He seems to misunderstand the philisophical basis of science. He also can't seem to avoid antagonizing those he needs to reach most. He's a sort of anti-Sagan.

HELL. Just requiring one year of training in their field PERIOD would be a massive improvement over what we have now.