Comment Re:May I have a source please? (Score 1) 188
Do you have Google on your computer?
Do you have Google on your computer?
Not everything is a game. Or a sum. Period.
The issues involved can't be quantified numerically, and then just put through an equation until everyone is equally happy or miserable.
Nor could we call such a process just, good, right, proper or any other similar positive term.
If I'm stopped with no reason and unjustly accused of a crime just for shopping there (Which is what asking for a receipt is. Next time try not having it on you and see how it goes.) - I'm not shopping there anymore.
And I'm raising a fuss prior to that. See how that goes regarding their promotions and stamps.
As for your other examples, it appears to me by what you are letting slide and in which way (centering on authoritative and economical aspects of human interaction and disregarding the moral issues like spying, stealing, more spying and workspace harassment) that you are either purposefully putting those up as strawmen OR that you really don't see anything wrong there.
A parent-child relationship with no trust or privacy, where children are objects and not persons. Nice.
A commercial relationship where both trust and honesty hinges on the question of technical abilities of both sides, along with the ability of one side to trick the other without them noticing it - and if they do, that's OK. Cheating - fine if you can get away with it.
And a "I'm your boss, I'm your god" relationship which allows employee fuck-all of options - they can choose having no privacy or no job.
And that, according to your argument, is just as it should be. Even more, "that is a good thing."
Did you check with your psychiatrist lately? You may be a psycho.
Or working for the NSA. But I'm repeating myself there.
James Blish actually had a much better explanation for how transporters are 'really' supposed to work
Would you mind reminding us?
I remember reading through that explanation but not reading the rest of the story as the translation didn't really sit well with me.
And the fact that almost nobody in the Star Trek (television) universe is concerned with this fact is bugging me.
Bones McCoy did. All the time.
On the other hand... you did notice they didn't do much church going on that show?
That they were more... what's the word... sciency?
Lying about killing a co-cadet in a training accident.
Any flaw that episode may have is overshadowed by Picard's "First Duty" speech. Which is also the title of the episode.
Training accident is just the window dressing.
I was talking in the "spirit of the article".
Which, lest we forget, is titled "Rats Didn't Spread Black Death, Humans Did, Say Researchers".
Straczynski had the main arc in mind, but he could not foresee where the show will end up.
So, he had "trap doors" written for all characters. But episodes and characters still had to be written as they went along.
Just like a cop pulling you over to inform you that your tail light is broken and that you should fix it for your own safety!
That only takes skill, not brains.
I mean... you can see stupid posts made by penis heads all the time.
You have to re-read it at least twice to pick it up, as the connection with other points is very weak.
"As an explanation for the Black Death in its own right, [bubonic plague spread by rat fleas] simply isn't good enough. It cannot spread fast enough from one household to the next to cause the huge number of cases that we saw during the Black Death epidemics," said Public Health England's Dr Tim Brooks.
I.e. Flees are not a fast enough vector. It must have been something faster.
Enter airborne plague. And the 1906 case as an example of how fast it moves.
And the presence of "DNA of Yersinia pestis" on the teeth of the corpses of the people from the period, as a proof that they COULD HAVE been spreading it with their breath. Too.
The find actually does not exclude fleas, it only (maybe) provides proof for YET ANOTHER vector - that we already knew of.
Indeed a terrible article.
Well hello there, you fucking retarded asshole!
Nice to see you taking offense at calling racists FUCKING RETARDED ASSHOLES, followed by arguing just the right racist points (as if being non-white is a valid racial determination), followed by assumptions about the identity of someone you see as an opponent and sweeping generalizations about those identity assumptions...
Even literally arguing the idea that every member of group A should be OK with everything group A does, including bad and evil things, as long as it is aimed against those outside the group A and those opposing it.
Ain't generalizations grand?
And this, children, is how you recognize FUCKING RETARDED ASSHOLES - by what they are against and by what they support through their "logic".
In this case, we have a defender of racists, supporter of the idea of "non-white" as a determining factor of one's identity (just like calling both a rabbit and a fox "not a cow"), a believer in "tribal enemies" AND paranoid hater of over a billion humans whom he has generalized into his own personal scarecrow.
And how do we call someone like that?
A FUCKING RETARDED ASSHOLE!
An example of a racist would be someone who implies that all Muslims/Arabs are a single race and calls people racists for saying derogatory things about them.
Calling someone a "darkie" is a racial slur but is not precise about a race it is referring to.
You can have you spick darkies, your nigger darkies, your sand nigger darkies, even your chink darkies.
Now... How about calling someone who bunches all those people as "darkies" a racist, for "saying derogatory things about them"?
Is that racist too?
See how that goes? A racist does not have to be precise about their derogatory terms and actions to be racist.
They can even be extra nice to the people in question and still be racist.
That's because racism and racist slurs all in the intent of the user - not the person it is aimed at OR the third party observer.
Which is why it is perfectly normal for the most of the world to call all those people with black skin simply blacks without being racist.
Instead of coming up with a PC term involving Africa and a local national distinction.
Imagine the faux pas a Frenchman would commit for calling a Jamaican blackman a "French African". Oh boy!
Ah! But should he call him an "African" implying that "they are all alike" and more - that's racism and the person doing that is a racist.
And more importantly - a FUCKING RETARDED ASSHOLE.
So you see... it does not really matter how we call that person who goes around "saying derogatory things about them" - as long that term is synonymous with being a FUCKING RETARDED ASSHOLE.
Racist, nationalist, fascist, ethnicist, religionist... it's all the same.
And it's OK. Really. It is!
There is no moral or political issue with calling someone who is a FUCKING RETARDED ASSHOLE a FUCKING RETARDED ASSHOLE.
Regardless of their persuasion and the brand of their retardedness.
there are MUCH better drugs to get high on than shitty antidepressants.
Legally?
This is not a gender problem, this is a people problem.
Quite.
THIS, as in this particular case, it is primarily obvious mobbing performed on her by the WIFE of one of the founders of GitHub.
Sure, there are other issues, like the other employee who came out of nowhere professing his love and then started to bully her passive aggressively for "rejecting him".
Though she was already in "a committed relationship" with another employee of GitHub.
But this is primarily mobbing, plain and simple. Done by the proverbial "bosses wife".
FFS - founder who's wife had issues with Horvath demanded her boyfriend to resign cause it was ",bad judgement' to date coworkers".
I.e. She was pressured by "the wife", while her boyfriend was pressured by "the husband".
That's NOT SEXISM. They clearly took precautions so it would not be seen as sexism.
Founder and his wife were MOBBING their employees.
On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.
