I'm not totally against X in a way that would make me seem like a total loon to any sane person, I just have certain important qualms with X which may seem reasonable on the surface but, if you pick at it, amount to something indistinguishable from total denial of the issue.
Not always but in this case it was. The judge was not impartial. He was a gay man who exploited his position to further the cause. It wasn't just his vision of what ought to be, it was a decision in which he had a personal stake. People get bent out of shape that Clarence Thomas used to work for Monsanto, it would be like if he still consulted for them while on the bench.
I guess we'll need asexual judges since by this logic, a straight man (or woman?) would be equally unfit to rule on the case.
So you seem to be upset that there was nothing in writing that said "while employed with us as the face of the company and highest-paid employee, being a horrible bigot and donating to bigoted causes will be considered a fireable offense due to the loss of business from public backlash." Well after this I'm sure all CEO's contracts will have such clauses, so the board members won't have to choose between stepping right onto the wrong end of a lawsuit or hurling themselves against the 38th floor windows. And he wasn't forced out of the position anyway. He could have stayed on and gone down with the ship.
I also find it hilarious that you compared this to a witch hunt or lynching. We're not so far past those that you wouldn't know the original meaning of those words. It's just hilarious how the most powerful group in any society always has a massive persecution complex.
"This guy's donations to a bigoted cause brought a boycott onto his company and he was pressured to leave the position for it!?!? THAT'S JUST LIKE BURNING HIM ALIVE FOR BEING UNPOPULAR OR BEING HANGED TO DEATH BY AN ANGRY MOB FOR HIS SKIN COLOR!!!"
So when judges rule in a way you don't like it's judicial activism?
Politicians don't have additional rights, they have different job conditions. For example if you were a bartender you could use adult language with customers and not get fired, while if you were a mascot at an amusement park you couldn't. I can't show up to work in a french maid outfit and keep my job while a stripper can. I could, however, star in porn videos in my free time and keep my job while a Disney pop idol couldn't. Are you getting the idea? In some jobs there are restrictions in what's allowed both on and off the job for PR reasons.
Fair enough, yes I think I should have used polygyny in place of polygamy for this discussion.
Homeopathy has a legitimate use in medicine, and some doctors are already using it on patients.
It's called the placebo effect
Barack Obama is a politician. They're free to hold offensive views and many are rewarded for it, it's part of the job.
And they weren't really the same position either. The most anti-gay-rights thing Obama ever did is to state that "Marriage should be between a man and a woman." About as close to the fence as you can get on the anti-gay-rights side. Later he denounced those views and has made many pro-gay-rights statements and actions.
Eich donated to a campaign to strip gays of an existing right to marry and has been completely unapologetic about it. Not the same position.
I was talking more about "traditional" polygamy rather than polyamory...polyamorous relationships tend to have a more balanced gender ratio than the usual one man/many women situation in polygamy.
Came here to say this, this is the flip side of the coin. Any company could be helplessly sunk by a sufficiently offensive CEO.
First GAY AGENDA and now LAVENDER MAFIA?
LOL I can't wait to see what you nutbags come up with next! XD
(BTW I also enjoyed the equals sign transforming into a swastika)
A Sony DS3 w/ thumb keyboard connected to an HTPC running Xubuntu.
OK well I need another remote for the TV itself, but if I was using a PC monitor and separate speakers I wouldn't!
For planned long-distance driving an "electric jerry can" would make sense - a box that could be charged at home, and then put into the car's trunk and plugged into the car. The only reason they won't work right now is that the energy density is too low. Once a battery can match or exceed gasoline in energy density, then a person will be able to haul around a container that can meaningfully extend the car's range.
The idea is that you shouldn't have a steady stream of customers, just the occasional long-distance driver. Most people would charge their cars overnight, like a cell phone, especially if they realize that quick-charges are bad for the battery's longevity and might not be available. I'm sure stations would rightly charge a premium for them too.
There is at least some objective harm in the other two types of relationships. Incestuous relationships are very likely to produce children with birth defects. Polygamous relationships allow wealthy men to build harems and reduce the supply for everyone else creating many nasty side-effects for society (see: middle east). So I see nothing wrong with starting with the types of relationships that create no objective, provable harm and then considering the ones that do.
There's also the matter of choice. As far as we know, there's no kind of sexuality where a man can only get off with multiple women or his sister.
Overall, high-speed recharge for cars may bring as many or more problems than it solves, especially when the battery-swap alternative allows for load-leveling, for leveraging the ability to purchase at the cheapest or most environmentally friendly times, for eliminating the need for an owner to worry about large battery-replacement costs and potentially even for returning power to the utilities at peak-demand times.
Oh no. Battery swapping carries the greatest number of problems of all electric car charging solutions. It means all cars need to have a standardized battery size, technology, and connector, and even a standardized bay if you want to load them in any hurry. This will slow EV development from a sprint to a crawl as every car will now carry legacy technology that will have to be accounted for.
This will also have big ramifications in car design. Right now, most cars have a bespoke gas tank for their sub-model (a great example I've learned about the hard way is the AE90-series Corolla. 2-door, 4-door, and wagon tanks are different. Carbed and EFI tanks are different. And then there are two EFI tank variants with different ports on top just to make things interesting. So you're looking at 6+ different tanks for a line of cars that would seem to be mostly very similar). Same thing with EVs and battery pack designs. Lots of space will be needed to shoehorn standardized batteries into the cars with a nice accessible swapping bay.
And then after you've gone and kneecapped EV development and made every car look like it's smuggling a bulk-pack of cigarettes through an airport, you might one day receive a dud old battery and get stranded on the side of the road anyway, because each battery will have a unique operating history you don't know about. Mission accomplished!
Why not have capacitors (or batteries like these) that can slowly charge up from the grid and then quickly discharge to quick-charge a car? Multiple banks of them could allow a few cars to quick-charge in sequence without leaving the next customer SOL.
Neutrinos have bad breadth.
