Redhat and Canonical aren't even in the same league. Redhat is managing major projects like KVM. Canonical spends its energies on pointless projects that no one wants. I don't want to lionize Redhat in any way, but if Canonical fell into a hole in the Earth tomorrow, Linux was go merrily along, but if Redhat died, it would have a pretty serious and negative effect on a number of key projects.
So, just to get this straight, a company who gained its position through a helluva lot of taxpayer dollars, much of it in the form of last mile access on public lands, now decides it has some ethical and moral right to block a competitor.
I say that every single time one of the old telco descendants does this, they are sent a bill with interest for every nickel directly or indirectly they received from the public purse, payable immediately.
Certainly, Atheism has no formal organization, but neither do many religions (see also "Wicca" as an example), so that cannot be a usable guideline. But there is even more damning evidence here: Atheism does have "saints" and "preachers" (e.g. Mr. Dawkins), it does have a dogma (centered around a fairly particular definition of "reason" as its central coda, I believe, yes?), and it certainly have its zealots (oftentimes more irritating than Mormon/JV missionaries, truth be told.) Also, they seem to have the same smug self-assurance that many religious folks carry.
Only religious people think Dawkins is a preacher or a saint. You'll find Atheists that disagree with him and you'll find he'll happily debate with them.
You cant do that to a Christian preacher.
Further more, there is no code nor dogma. A lot of theists who dont understand what atheism is try to ascribe these things to atheism but only demonstrate their own ignorance. You cant really blame atheists from getting upset here, they're a diverse group of people with no common beliefs and you're trying to shoehorn them into a box that doesn't fit because someone who is atheist does not fit your world views. It's like if I were to say that all theists were kitten eating Hitler worshippers because I know this one guy who believes in god and who may or may not have eaten a kitten and has a picture that looks a bit like Hitler if I squinted at it.
But I wouldn't say that because I know how ridiculous it sounds and oddly enough, it's more sensible than your argument. That is the kind of wisdom that reason gives me, not a blind belief in a greater power but the ability to figure things out for myself.
I daresay that there are times when Atheism is just as much of a religion as
No, Religion is a belief, atheism is the lack of belief. To use the old example, to say atheism is a religion is to say that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Atheism describes a lack or absence of theism. this is a very large area that covers everyone from non-religious to Buddhists and leVeyan Satanists. The only thing in common is that they dont believe in god but have radically different philosophies.
That may be technically true, but do keep this in mind: The Soviet Union under Stalin -- officially atheistic (and he would gleefully kill you to DEATH if you even suggested otherwise) (yes, my tongue is in cheek -- partially) -- persecuted gays and lesbians FAR worse than the United States ever has. Stalin and Co. considered it a "bourgeois affectation" and killed them by the trainload.
Right, you've just demonstrated your ignorance about the Soviet Union.
Aside from the fact Christianity flourished under the Soviets (opium of the masses is quite useful when the masses are starving) whilst other religious groups were forced out (the odd pogrom), the kind of "atheism" they tried to install was only atheism in name. They replaced blind obedience to god with blind obedience to Marx which was essentially embodied by the state, it was atheism as in "there is no god" it was not atheism as in "no religion".
Lots of people like to create a false equivalency between the Soviets and Atheism, without actually understanding either of them.
You've got two US sources for a British social issue.
Sorry, but the only sources that cite Muslims want a Sharia state are factless media beat ups in Newscorp/Daily Mail or propaganda from the EDL and BNP.
The reality is quite different. Most Muslims want the opposite and would like Newscorp/Daily Mail to stop printing such nonsense.
.. Rupee's or Dollars?
My company used to have 4 offices in India. Now we have only one.
It's not that we don't like to do business with the Indians, it's the government that we can't deal with.
They are worse than the Mafioso.
They can turn the rules around overnight and demand the ransom, and they can do it in a totally legal manner.
The longer the Indian government behaving like this the worse their reputation gonna be - and the less the multinationals will be willing to invest in India.
All third world nations are like this, same in the Philippines, Thailand, China or Dominican Republic.
It's not an Indian specific trait. However companies are still willing to do business with them because whilst they might ask for $3 million, they'll settle for $300,000.
As someone who's also had to deal with local politicians in places like this, it is a complete pain in the arse.
Our data centers on snow covered mountains are the hardest to keep cool. Snow is an excellent insulator.
Why do you have datacenters on snow covered mountains, do you work for a bond villain?
IIRC the British monarchy brings in more revenue than it costs. Those most critical of the monarchy put the annual cost of maintaining it at 400 million GBP (more conservative figures peg that as much lower), but the royal family generates 500 million GBP / year in tourism revenue. I'm sure one can poke holes in this argument, but based on these two figures alone, it sounds like the monarchy is worth it.
The Royal Family certainly doesn't generate £500M/year. The top place given following the reference on your link is the Tower of London, which no longer has anything to do with the Royal Family, except they "own" it.
Oh, they only "own" the tower of London.
So clearly they have nothing to do with it what so ever. Glad you cleared that one up.
I guess I wont drive my car any more now I've found out I only "own" it.
We bailed out the automakers for the same reason we subsidize food production - there is a strategic value in being self-sufficient. If there was another world war or a global catastrophe, we'd be fucked if all our cars and trucks and armored vehicles and tanks were manufactured elsewhere. And what's $10 billion compared to the trillions we already throw away to make sure the oil keeps flowing.
As it was with both world wars, there was not enough manufacturing capacity as it was, even in the US (but doubly so in England and commonwealth countries, lets not even think of Russia). What happened was a massive mobilisation that not only massively enlarged existing industry but created entirely new ones. Soviet Russia went from no car industry to the largest producer of armoured vehicles in the world.
So a future war does not depend on what we have now (that kind of foolishness lead to the folly of the trenches in WWI) but what we can create. The biggest benefit from a war would be the scrapping of the ridiculous patent system that prevents new players from opening in the car market.
Subsidising unprofitable companies is the ideal way to send yourself into economic ruin. GM does not want money to make new designs, develop new technologies or expand their business, these are all great uses of public money. No, GM needs public money just to keep the doors open, this means there is something fundamentally wrong with the way GM is managed.
Why the hell would Nissan, Toyota, Kia, or SAIC want old and busted facilities with only wealthy union workers to hire in a state with strong union laws, in a country with a working EPA?
Yeah, why would these businesses want to do business in Japan or Germany or the UK or Australia?
Unions are not your problem. Environmental protection is not your problem.
The thing is, Nissan has 3 factories in the US, Toyota has 6 and Kia has 1 (does SAIC even sell cars outside of China). They sell cars to make a profit, GM didn't. The thing is, you dont manufacture cheap cars in first world countries, you build the expensive ones because they need highly skilled and motivated labour. This is the reason Porsche hasn't moved to China or Thailand.