and not caring if they destroyed the company and the lives of the superior employees who still worked there.
Oh, and where you work there are superior and inferior employees too? And anyone who gets fired is obviously a serf^H^H^H, an inferior employee. Let me guess, you're part of the superior employees.
the thump/thump/thump of the blades (like a whirleybird *old ref* overhead for days) during the prevalent low wind conditions doomed this project even though it lasted long enough to depress property values within 15 miles. low frequencies travels far.
I have family that lives about 700m from a 105m high wind turbine (height at the axle) and you cannot hear it. What you can clearly hear however is the wind in the trees and the cows of the nearby farm when they are here.
Without a shell game of tax dollars shuttling in and out with many transfers of project ownership, there would be NO turbines standing.
Do you really expect us to believe that power plants burning coal or gas don't involve any political shenanigans and don't benefit from any subsidy?
You do realize that even when those monsters are turning in the wind, they usually are just lubricating internals and not generating?
Wrong: The EROI for wind energy is between 20 and 25, meaning they produce 20 to 25 times more energy than has been used for their construction, operation and decommission.
Some may argue the company has a right to know exactly where their equipment is at all times. This comes down to trust and if a company doesn't trust an employee to take a cellphone home and return it without constant tracking, I would strongly question why I would want to work for such an un-trusting company.
Conversely if a company does not trust an employee to return the cellphone, then they should not give him/her one, or even not have him/her as an employee. And if their trust problem is not limited to a specific employee, then their management should go see a shrink and seriously question the way they treat their employees.
It seems like the local newspapers should be interested in this document stash: it seems like a good source of data for a bit of investigative journalism and could be turned into quite q few interesting articles. So they should team up with these two programmers to help parse through the data, just like journalists teamed together to analyze the Snowden documents.
It also seems like they need a way to make this data more searchable and organized which is again a problem that journalists faced many times (Snowden, Luxleaks, Swissleaks, Sony). So if there's not some open-source code for organising such data already there should be by now. Anyway contacting people involved with one of these older data stashes could help figure out how to organize this one and make the most of it.
Maybe for light vehicle electric can win if range, cost, refuel time, and the problem of a jump start if you run out of gas on the roads is solved. Now design a battery that can pull a 440,000 pounds or 200,000 kilograms triple trailer configuration across hundreds of miles of highway.
So you're saying battery-powered vehicules are not worth even considering until they are viable to pull the equivalent of, not one, not two, but almost four M1 Abrams tanks? A feat that even most full-size commercial trucks cannot pull off?
The scenario with a bag of bagels isn't one of the ones causing an issue, so as an example it doesn't apply. That type of transaction is fine - that the buyer is gay or whatever is irrelevant, it has no bearing on the transaction, it has no reason to come up. It'd be quite a stretch to say that by selling them some bagels you are endorsing them in any way.
Indiana's senate bill 101 does not make it clear that it does not apply in this case (I'll grant you it does not make much clear at all though). Do you have a reliable source that explains why this case is not relevant?
But what if my chuch/religion says that gay marriage is okay? Shouldn't the government stay out of it?
The problem is the government is outsourcing of who can get special tax status and other benefits to religions. A religious wedding should have no legal consequence whatsoever. Only the government should decide who enters a partnership with whom. Whether you call that partnership "marriage" or something else like "civil union" to appease the religious types is of little importance.
Note that it would be fine to have the religious organisations handle your civil union paperwork to make things as transparent as possible, as long as you can file the exact same parperwork directly with the government, and as long as that paperwork is the only thing recognized by the government. But having the law recognize the religious notion of marriage and civil unions separately introduces unneeded complexity and opportunities for inconsistencies.
On the other side, it seems like you have the government forcing people not just to tolerate - but to actively celebrate - something that is deeply abhorrent to them.
How is being forbidden from refusing to sell a bag of bagels to anyone who's polite and pays being forced to actively celebrate same-sex marriage?
I do not believe that it is discrimination to refuse to take the money and provide services to someone who wants to you to make a cake for their same-sex wedding.
What about refusing to sell a bag of bagels to a customer on the basis he's gay? My understanding of the law is that it would legalize that. Can you still claim that would not be discrimination?
What of "freedom of speech"? This right says that you have the right to have and express any opinion you choose. Where you are "free" to say something, you are not free from the consequences of what you say. There ARE limits to this freedom too. The classic "yelling fire in a crowded theater" comes to mine, as does inciting riots. Now, lets discuss freedom of religion. I've never said there are "no limits" to what you can do in the name of religion in this country. There ARE limits.
And yet while you'd be the first to get up in arms if a shopkeeper refused to sell you bagels on the basis of your religion, you're the one claiming that forbidding you from doing so on the basis of a customer being gay would infringe on your freedom of religion! So forgive me for getting the impression that you're employing double standards there and not seeing what kind of restrictions you're willing to accept to your freedom of religion.
Oh, and I'd like to point out that the law we are discussing was passed and signed into law by the FEDERAL government way back during Clinton's terms in office, was also adopted by 20 individual states including Illinois where B. Obama was serving at the time (and offered no objections to at the time).
So? Is that supposed to magically make legalizing discrimination a good thing?
The only reason we are discussing this in Indiana is political theater....
No, the reason we're discussing this is that many people find it incredible that there are still some, including high ranking politicians in your country, who would claim in this day and age that discrimination is good. Sure you're the first one to say that discrimination based on religion is wrong and you even concede that discrimination based on race and sex is illegal, but to you discriminating on other criteria not being explicitly outlawed means it's morally ok? So discriminating against albinos is fine. Against blondes, absolutely no problem. Against single mothers? Sure. Against gays? A duty? Have you really learned nothing from history?
I have better things to do than argue about your definition of what cannot be religious freedom in your view, because in reality your framework of reason is really more of an authoritarian "Government knows best" solution that is not about preserving freedom, but about something else....
Oh sure. Claim all others really want is a dictatorship when it is you who wants to put a new law on the books, pose as the victim when it is you who wants to victimize others. That makes total sense.
Let me rephrase because I think you missed the point. Discriminations are generally wielded by a majority against a minority. Your argument that we should let the market decide makes no sense: the majority will not feel the impact of a minority of their customers going elsewhere and thus will not have any reason to change their behavior. So it's a hypocritical way of say minorities should continue to be discriminated against "until the problem goes away".
And here are some parts of the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the US helped draft, that you don't seem to be aware of:
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
We either do or we don't have religious freedom here and if that freedom doesn't extend into how people can conduct business and what activities they choose to be involved in and what they refuse to do, then we really DON'T have the freedom,
So it seems your view is that religious freedom must trump every other freedom or right. But that cannot work. Not everyone follows the same religion (if any). Ensuring that is the whole point of religious freedom. But each religion has its own idea of what its followers must do. Some say unmarried women who have sex must be stoned. According to your argument, making that illegal would be denying these people their religious freedom. Sure you may not agree with their religious mores, but you cannot question or deny theirs while refusing your right to discriminate based on yours to be questioned or made illegal.
the only way out is to hold that religious freedom must stop where other people's freedoms start. That means the right to go about their live peacefully, and not to be discriminated against.
Just like doctors should not be allowed to discriminate for any reason, people running stores open to the general public should not be allowed to discriminate. If selling to some categories of the population goes against their religion then they should run a private store, one that requires a membership card from their congregation or something, or they should find themselves another job where they can choose their clients.
We have government interfering with religion which is expressly forbidden in our constitution..
I think you were more specifically thinking of the Bill of Rights. It's a good document but it's not the absolute unambiguous answer you make it out to be. For instance, the first amendment, the one you care about because it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", immediately continues with "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Well, lots of religions consider blasphemy to be a religious crime and want it to be forbidden and punished. But that would go against the very same amendment's protection of freedom of speech. So which is it? It seems like according to you religious freedom should trump freedom of speech but I'm not sure your fellow citizens would agree with you on that, or that you'd really like to live in such a country.
Don't like it? Sorry. Get the constitution changed, but I warn you that you won't like the results.
Don't need to. I already leave in a country where discrimination is illegal. Works just fine. Thank you very much.
Then there are things which you CAN discriminate on.
If you don't like who a business [...] refuses service to, you are free to take your business elsewhere and share your views with your friends, neighbors or even the random person on the street if they will listen.
Let the market decide and if the majority of people think like you and take their business some other place, so be it. Just live your life and do your business and let others do the same. Seems like freedom to me.
Wonderful community you want to build. One where minorities can be ostracised, denied service by the majority, forced to either supply themselves from shaddy sources who will overchage them or to die or leave if they can. Members of that holier than thou majority can try to hide behind the veil of religious mores all they want. The truth is it is they who don't have one shred of morality.
The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.
