Yeah, because who needs clean air, fresh water, safe food, safe working conditions, fair pay and other such "Big Government" regulations?
Free speech guarantees you the right to say it free from consequences. It says nothing about a guaranteed venue or audience. And any college would have a legitimate interest in blocking that material over their e-mail system on a mass scale. It's happened before:
"An estimated 3000 [Michigan State University] students protesting the ban on alcohol at Munn Field tailgate parties resulted in police firing tear gas at the crowd. The gathering was planned in advance by an email spread through the student body email system asking students to gather and protest the ban. The university police informed students, via the school newspaper, that anyone getting on Munn Field would be arrested for trespassing. One student crossed the fence and was arrested by campus police. Shortly thereafter, 30-40 students crossed the fence and when the remaining students saw the police unable to arrest everyone, approximately 1,500 students poured over the fence on Munn field. The students played football, frisbee and played in the rain and mud. The police then tear gassed the students, who then left and went to the University President's (M. Peter McPherson) house. When the students learned the President was not available, they then went to Grand River Ave, and a small riot ensued."
And don't pull the "only conservatives are restricted" card because it is easily annihilated.
They're big business because there is no incentive to use anything else.
True considering we practice selective capitalism in this country.
How about banning the pesticide that's killing them off?
True. But Amazon cannot blackmail the publisher using its marketing clout either. It would be like Microsoft making it so Windows will not run a certain company's software.
You're comparing Apples and Crocodiles. Apple rigged prices with the collusion of the major publishers which is illegal.
No, it does not count. Itanium's target market changed and they did not switch to AMD. If you want to use the "kicked the ass of" phrasing, Itanium got its ass kicked by Xeon\ because that is what the high-end servers, like the ones SGi produces now, are using that require strong number crunching if they are still using chips in the Intel/AMD ecosystem.
How could AMD64 "kick IA64's ass" when they were never in competition with each other? IA64 refers to Itanium which was never released for consumer markets but rather for high-end servers. It was to compete against Sun's SPARC, DEC's Alpha, and the SGi MIPS chips.
Amen! I finally had a chance to listen to music using Beats. To be fair I gave it a minute or two of listening and came to the conclusion the Sennheiser headphones I bought from Best Buy were much better and 75% cheaper.
And I would say a reaction formation is your problem.
This isn't a "political blacklist". He's not being "blacklisted" first and foremost. He is being asked to resign.
Second, it's not an issue of politics. It's an issue of humanity. But unfortunately some people having equality has become a political issue and it really shows just how sick the US really is.
You mean it was disclosed because it was mandatory? If you want to play that card, the Prop 8 people were threatening businesses with boycotts well before that.
Those donations should be public. Unless one lacks the courage of ones convictions.
Brendan Eich is NOT being asked to step down because of "personal beliefs" so let's drop that BS right now. He crossed the line by donating money to actively strip away rights of individuals which is a whole different ball game. But it comes down to this even though most people won't admit it... It's still socially acceptable to be homophobic. If he had given money to the KKK or something this would not be an issue. But because it is still ok to bash gays and make/keep them second class citizens it's still a "debate"
This is why I tell clients not to use them. Because it takes some bogus copyright claim and Google rolls over and plays dead because they do not want to actually invest time and money into a system and training that actually works to weed out these abusive claims.