The text is perfectly ambiguous. He took it one way, and you the other. But he still should have known better, since there were no headlines in 2009 about a lab-made hybrid killing thousands.
Perhaps you should read what you are replying to before replying.
Well said, sir.
The state is never subject to the rules it dictates to its subjects, so there is no contradiction.
For people who understand how pointless it is to perpetually have clocks set one hour off, it should promote Russophilia.
I've worked for everything from tiny startups to massive multinationals, and have never been given that option. The larger companies tend to be paternalistic. They think they know better than you do what's in your interest.
Those exceptions, which authorize insurance companies to provide the coverage instead of the employers
If ever there were a case of smoke-and-mirrors, this is it. Saying that the insurer, not the company paying for the policy, is (wink, wink) paying for a benefit offered to the insured under the policy, a benefit the insurer does not simply give away to all comers, is transparently absurd. Whatever you may think about forcing companies to pay for policies that cover particular things, at least be honest about it.
But an employer has no more right to say how an employee uses a benefit as they do their earned money.
Oh, really? They do it all the time. An employer's very choice to give you a particular defined benefit rather than the money they pay for it is itself saying how you can use it. Just try to get a large employer to give you the money in lieu of the benefit. Or even to buy a different kind of insurance plan than the one they dictate. Good luck with that.
Not a rounding error. A decimal point shifted left three places.
Always self-selecting. If we are to achieve diversity, the US state needs to drop the bourgeois freedom thing altogether, and simply assign its subjects into educational tracks and positions in public corporations.
Any ten-year-old, and any honest judge, knows that "Ikea Hackers" are not Ikea.
If you believe that money which has been taken from you by threat of violence somehow remains "your" money, you are pathetically delusional.
In typical deference to the police, the court has technically ruled against them whilst explicitly communicating to them what will be accepted as a workaround: "a police order to stop filming or leave the area."
This beautifully illustrates the arbitrariness of the whole thing. It costs not a penny more for the signal to cross the political boundary. Even the old Bell system was just one US/CA network, yet they pretended that crossing that imaginary line somehow cost a great deal. It was always a Big Lie, and so is this.
The fundamental flaw in all this is that Google is not a big website full of content that they publish. Google indexes content on other websites. If someone wants to use the state to force others not to publish truthful information about them (questionable in itself), then let them go after those doing the publishing. Google is the wrong target.