Among the healthy and mature, there's no right "not to be offended"; not for men, and not for women. There is 100% equality here.
That is not the equality which feminism is about. Being able to be offended is free speech and has nothing to do with feminism at all. In fact, being offended may be completely false or completely legitimate and none of that is relevant to anything
There is no part of "right" here, and is 100% wrong. You don't combat counterfeit items by destroying them, that doesn't do anything. You build a better product and accept that counterfeit exists because you aren't serving some part of the market. Serve that part, or deal with that the market has routed around your shortcomings via counterfeits.
Feminist blogger? What does that even mean? You're defining something in a way that cannot possibly be correct, because you imply feminist bloggers are women. Your entire concept of "feminist blogger" is wrong. First: There are men who also push for women to have equal rights too.
Second: you've got it backwards. Most of the SJW's are men who say that they're being oppressed by "feminists", or women who push for equality.
Feminism becomes obsolete when women and men are treated equally and with equal privilege, something you very clearly do not understand.
Why pay for TV when you can download the shows you care about?
TV is so terrible at catering to people who only want to pay for what they want to see, so you may as well get it when you want how you want - because they refuse to provide that.
Which is why they went from above the federal minimum of 3 seconds, to exactly the federal minimum and thus below said minimu. This has happened repeatedly.
Look at the existing franchise laws and how they are being used. It's not really a question that bribes are occurring, it's what lobbying is by it's very definition.
Absolutely. You know why? Efficient taxation should result in more tax money coming in. If they can't do so, that's a fault of putting out inefficient taxes.
You know how everything you said is 100% false?
When the captain says "brace for impact", if someone is deaf and on their phones? How much of a difference is it going to make? Zero. Now apply the same to people who can hear, and guess what? Same impact.
Be reasonable. It may have been *sys.
This requires people to install the app. That's a failure right there on many levels.
Not only that, but it cannot tell if you are the driver or the passenger. That's failure #2.
Then you get to the fact that this could stop you from making emergency calls. That's questionable and teeters in the "is this even legal?" quesiton range.
It is not just the implementation - the very concept of "if vehicle is moving you cannot use your phone" will ALWAYS be wrong whether it can figure out you are a passenger or not, if the decision is implemented via software.
It should be the District attorney that is disabled (or never quoted ever again). She is an idiot, because software like the interlock concept doesn't exist on a phone.
Part of the problem is user education and part of it is that an attorney who has no understanding of technology who simply wants to create more business via litigation.
Who the fuck is Kathleen Rice and why should any of us give a shit? Answer: we shouldn't.
Of course an employer can do what they want which includes busywork, but that doesn't mean the employer isn't a complete failure when it comes to defining the scope of a job position. Most employers are too lazy to do this well.
Any employer who can't accept that you won't be busy every second of the day is not an employer worth working for in any country in the world.
It will save a hell of a lot of the settlements they have as a result of illegal police action as it will hold police accountable, too.
That is as long as they can't disable or prevent the recording.
So far, it seems every version of a camera tool lets an officer later review and potentially delete the information, which can lead back to the same coverup/problems.
No, it's not really interesting. It's settled science that wetting the sand and dragging the sled is how it was done. This is in the OP. It's not a question.
"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." -- Bernard Berenson