or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by SDW2001

  I have gained nothing but respect for Mr. Blair over the years.   I didn't care for him much during the Clinton years and Bush years, though I do think his decision to support the US in Iraq and Afghanistan was, frankly, brave (especially given the level public opposition to the Iraq war).  Since then, he has been a leading voice against Islamic extremism.  It's too bad we don't have a President who takes that role. 
 All stereotypes are based in some truth.  They become stereotypes when vast generalizations are made and/or assumptions are drawn thereafter. The implication that women can't answer a quick text with a "yes" or "no" is a perfect example.  I know many women who don't fit the stereotype. iMember's comment was really not pertinent whatsoever.    
 1. Apple hasn't introduced this "feature." It's simply being explored.2. I don't see what a person's gender has to do with it. Females being verbose is a stereotype.
 You can take your little condescending lecture and cram it.     Great, I didn't ask for your advice  You're also totally wrong.  Looking at a map is far more distracting than sending a quick yes or no.  
I am only in favor of this if it can be easily disabled. Moreover, all texting and driving is not created equal. If someone shoots me a yes or no question while I'm on an open highway with no traffic on a bright, sunny day, I can safely respond with a quick "y" or "n" or whatnot. It's no different than using Siri, checking the GPS location on Maps, changing songs or launching the Podcast app. Is that going to be disabled too? I've never been favor of such technology.
 Yeah, it does.  Want to know why?  Because we're on a site where we discuss our opinions. You don't have to care what I think, but what I think matters just as much as what you think.   Speaking of what I think, please refrain from telling me what that might be.  You don't know me, champ.  As for the law, we'll see what comes of it.  I have my doubts that it's actually illegal, but it may be.  
Now hold on...how does that indicate that the anti-poaching agreement "clearly" applied? It could have been something else. And did you suffer economically? Would the raise have been that big? I stand by what I said...I've got no problem with this even if it applied to all employees.
I'm not sure how this will go, but I frankly have absolutely no problem with anti-poaching agreements. Secondly, I don't see how this could have harmed 100,000 people. These agreements usually pertain to higher-level employees, executives, etc. It's very unlikely 100,000 or even 10,000 would be affected. The number is probably more like 500-1000 people. Last, it seems to me that proving damages in a civil action case is going to be an uphill climb. Are we to believe...
 Nah, they'll be silent.  That was my first thought.  Where is Obama.  Where is Harry Reid?  Where is Pelosi?  Where is Schumer?  Durbin?  Where are all the "progressives" who rail against executive compensation?  Oh wait...it doesn't count because Apple's corporate culture is in agreement with their politics.  
You didn't explain how their votes are weighted.  Presumably, the guy who gets 50,000 votes gets twice as many "super" votes counted as the guy who received 25,000.  Right?     Interesting idea, though very complex.  What would be the point of elections?  Wouldn't it lead to literally thousands of people "winning" elections in a single district, many of whom have votes that really don't count anyway?  Also, the idea for the Senate is wholly inconsistent with our...
New Posts  All Forums: