I’ve seen that the ambulance crew are in trouble for taking the police officer, but would you be able to say no to a group of armed people who have already shot somebody in the back, and are insisting that you look after their own first?
You probably were right the first time:
Companies fail to meet targets, get a 6% fine.
Countries fail to meet their targets, not their fault.
But fine the companies 6% as they are not following the rules and engaging with the regulators (who don’t exist).
Everyone from the University of Tennessee involved in the patent application should be investigated for academic dishonesty and plagiarism.
Interestingly their website only appears to accept claims of dishonesty by students and not by faculty.
“…. But we will only consider the issue of pink boxer shorts v white as this has not been ruled on previously, and there is no current precedent for this issue.”
Rule on the inconsequential to keep QI alive as long as possible /s
The response to speech should be more speech, so I am going to use some to reply:
You say that you should not get fired for what you say, but if an employee goes around bad mouthing their employer why should they remain employed, and what if they use racist, sexist or otherwise do something that reflects on their employer causing reputational damage?
The employer is exercising their speech by saying “we don’t agree with what you are saying, therefore you no longer work for us.”
Is that censoring you, or is it using their speech in response to yours?
I would say it is the latter.
Twitter and Facebook are not public property, they are more like malls , where anyone is admitted, but if they break the rules they are asked to behave, or leave. You have no right to force your local mall to display posters saying that certain people are sub-human, even if it is legal for you to say it. Similarly websites can say we don’t want that speech here, clean it up, or leave.
We do hear both sides saying something needs to be done, but when one side is saying I want to be a foul mouthed racist, misogynistic a**hole without consequences, and I want to force you to let me do it on your property, and the other side are saying that it should be possible for there to be conditions they are asking for mutually exclusive responses to the current situation.
Re: Who’s fault
I’ve seen that the ambulance crew are in trouble for taking the police officer, but would you be able to say no to a group of armed people who have already shot somebody in the back, and are insisting that you look after their own first?
Re: Re:
I thought cops only hung out with fellow criminals
You probably were right the first time: Companies fail to meet targets, get a 6% fine. Countries fail to meet their targets, not their fault. But fine the companies 6% as they are not following the rules and engaging with the regulators (who don’t exist).
Academic Dishonesty
Everyone from the University of Tennessee involved in the patent application should be investigated for academic dishonesty and plagiarism. Interestingly their website only appears to accept claims of dishonesty by students and not by faculty.
Re: Sped the cruiser (QI)
“…. But we will only consider the issue of pink boxer shorts v white as this has not been ruled on previously, and there is no current precedent for this issue.” Rule on the inconsequential to keep QI alive as long as possible /s
The response to speech should be more speech, so I am going to use some to reply: You say that you should not get fired for what you say, but if an employee goes around bad mouthing their employer why should they remain employed, and what if they use racist, sexist or otherwise do something that reflects on their employer causing reputational damage? The employer is exercising their speech by saying “we don’t agree with what you are saying, therefore you no longer work for us.” Is that censoring you, or is it using their speech in response to yours? I would say it is the latter. Twitter and Facebook are not public property, they are more like malls , where anyone is admitted, but if they break the rules they are asked to behave, or leave. You have no right to force your local mall to display posters saying that certain people are sub-human, even if it is legal for you to say it. Similarly websites can say we don’t want that speech here, clean it up, or leave. We do hear both sides saying something needs to be done, but when one side is saying I want to be a foul mouthed racist, misogynistic a**hole without consequences, and I want to force you to let me do it on your property, and the other side are saying that it should be possible for there to be conditions they are asking for mutually exclusive responses to the current situation.
Re:
“I have the copyright on copycat [no citation needed]. Your money is mine now.”
Re:
It worked last time