Meanwhile, here in Bristol, a whole bunch of sites insist on using a drop down for the county and list "Avon" which doesn't even exist. It should be Bristol or possibly City of Bristol.
I think the county list is set in stone because Royal Mail refuses to update them (for some idiotic reason they still control the postcode database, which I guess lots of websites use and therefore use the old county names / boundaries). For example, it's still Humberside, even though that hasn't existed for decades.
Yep, I recall that Royal Mail is one of the websites that has the "Avon" issue. I don't know why they don't just update it to make it accurate as they update their PAF files for postcode lookups every three months with new postcodes. "Avon" is strange as it's still used in some contexts, such as the police force is known as Avon & Somerset
Allowing employers to fire people at will leads to abuse of their employees. There's also the problem that sexism/racism will be a driver of those sackings too.
The other side of the coin: if it's hard to fire employee, company will not hire extra people and it's hard to get a permanent position in such circumstances.
Yes, but in general, abusive employers are far more common than employers that don't hire people. Companies that are reluctant to employ people due to employee protection laws are very likely to be abusive employers.
No, lawyers will want software patents as that's the only group that would benefit from them, apart from large litigation-happy companies that want to squash any competition.
Not sure I can follow your reasoning. Wouldn't the developer of the software who got a patent for an invention embodied in the software she developed benefit as well?
Not if the developer is employed at the time as contracts will usually mean that the company owns the patents, even if the developer was working on their own time.
The bigger issue is patent abuse - file or buy a few poorly specified patents and then use them along with litigation to shut down competitors. This generally leads to bolstering the bigger companies at the expense of smaller companies due to the costs of litigation.
Basically, software patents can turn developing software into a minefield. It can end up that only people with access to legal departments will be able to sell software.
> The Norwegian Consumer Council has released a video that takes direct aim at what tech repair advocate Louis Rossmann calls “ensh*tification.” It is the practice of degrading products and services after purchase to extract more money from consumers.
> The satirical video features a fictional “ens*ttificator” who proudly describes his work making products worse, highlighting a problem that has become increasingly pervasive in the digital age.
I'm somewhat gluten sensitive (tends to make my psoriasis flare up) but used to have gluten-free oats for breakfast. Then the porridge seemed to increase my uric acid levels, leading to gout attacks, so I've had to stop eating them (oats are usually classified as mid-level purine content and thus should be only eaten once or twice a week for those prone to gout).
You seem to be mixing up "Western values" and "Christian values" whereas Christian values are very much against the accumulation of wealth, whereas "Western values" seem to be all about worshipping wealth to the exclusion of all other considerations and even worshipping those who deliberately exploit others to amass an ungodly amount of wealth.
If you think that small difference means that Western values are not Christian values, then you have no idea how large the gulf between your values and Islamic values are.
Do you value separation of state and religious authority? Women's rights? Minority rights? Human dignity? Equality before the law? Sanctity of life? Individual moral responsibility? Monogamous marriage? The objective study of history? Fair trial? Witnesses at trial? Tolerance of alternative viewpoints?
Most of these arguments on the effect of different religions tend to be a bit silly. Islam is much more related to Christianity and Judaism than either of those two are to each other.
Language, cultural history, and geography tend to play a bigger role on society than the monotheistic religions do.
As neither a Muslim nor a Christian, but have lived among both, the dismissive argument "A is more similar to B than C" should not mean "I don't need to be concerned about A or B or C".
> Radical Christians are no different from radical Muslims who are no different than radical Jews.
Be that as it may, by examining the frequency of terror attacks the percentage of what you call "radical Muslims" is high enough that they do not need to be termed "extremist Muslims". Whereas Jewish and Christian terrorist attacks are attested to such a small percentage of the population that the terms "radical Christian" and "extremist Christian" are effectively synonyms.
Pretty sure Palestinians would take issue with your opinion on that. And that’s not even considering historical records and precedent of any of those religions.
Bashing one monotheistic religion while trying to contort logic around supporting the others is a fruitless endeavor.
So you choose a group who has been murdering our people for over a century, and hold them as an example of a group that would take issue with Jewish radicals?
Let's take your argument at face value - let's assume that Jewish radicals are as common among the Jews as Muslim radicals are among the Muslims. We disagree about the cause and the effect in the holy land, so let's disregard it. Please list for me all terror attacks that are plausibly attributed to Jews - worldwide. Then tell me how much larger the Muslim population is than the Jewish population. I'll use your own numbers to respond with an appropriate number of terror attacks plausibly attributed to Muslims.
If I can't beat the target number I'll rescind my stance.
No. I would choose a group that has been suffering from genocide in one area, and ethnic cleansing in many others. Not a hundred years ago. Not 75 years ago. Today, in the here and now.
We can go back and forth on this however many times you want. The issue I am raising is that all three religions are dangerous when used to justify murderous goals. You unfortunately are hung up on the idea that a religion is less bad or more bad than the others.
That is an irrational foundation for me to spend any more time debating against.
Those values seem to be exactly the ones being discarded by the Christo-fascists of the USA.
My point is that the so-called Christian values are nothing to do with the reported teachings of Jesus and instead are used to justify the exact opposite.
The ACTUAL teachings by Supreme Leader Khamenei (remember, the HIGHEST Shia authority according to some) include that school girls who are to be killed for not wearing hats should be raped, because the Muslim God judges children based on if they have been raped. With teachings like this, I'm OK with muslims not following the teachings.
I did not realize that the point of discussion had changed to specifically Christo-fascists of the USA. My point still stands in regard to the vast majority of Christians you will meet.
One thing that I can not stand about some modern fanatics is the representation of 1% of a population as if they represent the whole. Don't bring up Christo-fascists of the USA as representative of Christian values. That's highjacking the subject to your pet cause.
> Do you value separation of state and religious authority? Women's rights? Minority rights? Human dignity? Equality before the law? Sanctity of life? Individual moral responsibility? Monogamous marriage? The objective study of history? Fair trial? Witnesses at trial? Tolerance of alternative viewpoints?
Sorry, I thought you were pointing out the many issues with the current US administration and you were showing the difference between Christo-fascists and Christians who value the teachings of Jesus.
Scotland is almost certainly innocent, though the Scottish people may not be.
Anyhow, the worst crimes of colonialism/genocide were mainly conducted by the English (including invading/killing plenty of Scottish, Welsh and Irish people).
reply