There was an interesting article on the BBC about the US and UK's refusal to pay hostage ransoms. They showed that It resulted in far less hostage taking for those two countries compared to the other European nations that did pay the ransoms, but they also showed that it also made the situations for those who were kidnapped far worse than the other countries.
I apologize the age of an enemy is 18 and 65. I correct myself now.
Drones and people are not the same thing. Drones get their targets overwhelmingly from SIGINT provided by the NSA.
Oftentimes drones are sent to kill based only on a cell phone signature with no other verification. Its how you get circumstances like a hellfire missile being fired at a group of people going to a wedding.
The people pushing those buttons have no idea who is being killed by what gets fired. Furthermore all of those enemy combatants killed by drones are only as a result of the government redefining the definition of "enemy combatant" to mean a male between the ages of 13 and 55 in a warzone. Drones kill civilians by an overwhelming majority and the person pushing the button never knows the difference.
Ironically the Italians are the worst at this sort of stuff. Ever catch a glimpse of the Ferrari agreements? They actually prohibit you from selling your car to anyone that Ferrari doesn't approve for two years after purchase.
Apparently it's to keep the collector's value high.
The first thing that you do with your cash flow is pay your people. Everyone gets paid after because without you people you are nothing.
Experienced and driven people are what attract investment, and they are what makes you profitable. Investors usually use you ideas as a formality but when they choose to invest they will be looking towards what kind of employees you can attract. That's the reason why Tesla's shares are at $181. Because Elon Muck has the drive, experience, charisma, and track record to get that investment, and no one cares if Tesla won't be profitable until 2020. Businesses can survive for quite a while without profits, but they die pretty fast without people.
Don't believe me then lets try an experiment with two businesses. In one case they don't pay their employees salary for a month and in the other they don't pay the shareholders for a month. See which one dies sooner.
As far as the stunt being for PR I don't think that is the primary motivation here. As I said before even with the stock options (based on the calculations of a previous poster) he is still slashing his salary from 2.2M to 400K. That is a very large drop in money for something that is just designed to generate PR especially seeing as how our spending budgets tend to grow to fit how much money we make. And even if his salary climbs again so what? He should be paid in proportion to how well his company is doing especially if he founded the the thing.
Clearly a comment from someone who has never been without money. FYI it costs a lot of money to start your own business, and those who live paycheck to paycheck are very much short on options when quitting means they are homeless. Money gives you options. Lower income people have less options because they have less money, and the reason they have less money is because the money is being scalped by higher income people who have the options, granted by wealth, to do something like influence an election or lobby for a lower minimum wage.
The fact that some people have more choices doesn't mean that you have less
Did you actually read this statement? Do you realize that it contradicts itself or are you just that blinded by you unsubstantiated ideology that you cannot see reason?
Slashing your own take in by 75% isn't a PR stunt anymore, and he has the benefit of ensuring he will have the pick of the litter in terms of talent for his company. Who wouldn't want to work for a guy that doubles your salary to look out for you? The most important part of running a company is getting the right people and keeping them happy. With this one move he has done both with a perfect ten.
Apparently he called ahead by an hour to let them know he was coming, and what his intentions were. To lazy to link, but ars has a good article on it.
More than that, imagine if they successfully land the second stage on Monday. That will completely overshadow any news announcement from the United Leftovers Alliance, especially if their rocket is technologically inferior. They will be a laughing stock and it will be glorious.
blacks are over 56% of Montgomery's population while gays are less than 4% of the national population.
I don't give a damn what they think their religion says they are entitled to. Unless that can prove that the existence of homosexuality actually harms their rights they can limit their bigotry to speech and not legislation.
Yes, plenty of well deserved outrage mostly from non-homosexuals. Assuming the group was not the benefit of a mass movement how do you propose that 3.8% of a population can significantly impact a local economy or business?
The reason that so many people leap to the LGBT communities defense is because they correctly surmise that a threat to freedom and just anywhere is a threat to freedom and injustice everywhere.
Your brave protectors who can do no wrong and should be trusted to stoically carry out their duties to flag and country. Now give us our backdoors you little shits.
This act is clearly targeted at homosexuals. An economic group that has far less influence than the much larger minority, based on percentage, of blacks in Montgomery. Any boycott by homosexuals could certainly be ignored by the businesses of Indiana as they would have negligible impact on the cake industry. Do you suggest that because homosexuals don't have the same economic clout as blacks did on the bus industry in Montgomery that they do not deserve the right to be served like a human being in a public business?
I would also like to remind you of the LAWS that came about because of that bus boycott to preserve the rights and freedoms of those who engaged in civil disobedience to obtain them, as it is because of those laws that the benefits from the bus boycott still exist today. Namely the lack of "whites only" signs. I would rather not repeat those times with blacks replaced with "fags."
That is fine when we are talking about a private contract between two people, but as eleventy billion people on this forum have pointed out it is not ok for a public business to refuse service based on skin color, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. A business is a public facing entity and must abide by the rules of non discrimination.