Doesn't this say that even when PayPal provides a sub-par service, you as a seller offering PayPal checkout, must treat and advertise them as equivalently as companies that provide a better/cheaper service?
Your post proved my point...If you cited the ADL, I would maybe think there was some truth to it...but citing the hillary campaign, which needed an entire blog post to paint this far fetched picture, clearly the author is off on their witch hunt, and not actually reporting on anything of true concern.
Real hate speech and real inciting of violence is obvious to the naked eye. It doesn't need a house of cards built under it to come into focus.
Edit: Just to be clear, the original article says nothing about Israel helping censor hate speech, just speech that incites violence. There is nothing slippery or subjective about "calling on the public to stab Israeli's and Jews in the streets"
Ha ha ha, hillaryclinton.com. Pepe is not a white supremacy symbol, however some white supremacists may also use the Pepe frog meme. Declaring an innocent frog used by weirdos on 4chan how just want to be edgy and cool to be a white supremacy symbol is, frankly, naive.
It's not naive, but a well-executed damage-control move to detract attention away from Mrs Clinton's health problems. The ludicrousness of discussing frogs close to the election of the world's sole superpower is part of the effectiveness of the move.
It is posited that in fact it is clear - in the article no less!
>In Mexico, Mr. Shen was implementing an audacious plan, according to people familiar with the matter: A network of trading companies could route hundreds of thousands of tons of aluminum from China to Mexico, where a plant would melt it for shipment to the U.S., evading trade restrictions and claiming North American Free Trade Agreement benefits.
> Meanwhile, setbacks were piling up. Trucks and metal were stolen from the Mexico facility, slowing deliveries, former Aluminicaste employees say. The company failed to obtain Nafta benefits after U.S. authorities concluded that the metal came from China.
And why is that a problem, exactly? In the end aluminum is fungible for aluminum, and the US is getting aluminum from Mexico under NAFTA. Trying to enforce a tariff on element production from a subset of external countries seems sisyphean.
But there are essentially no tariffs any more. Not sure how NAFTA changed that. But assuming its true: aluminum is fungible as mentioned. Providing more to Mexico means they can export more of their own to the US.
If China is greatly subsidizing the aluminum production then then how will US producers compete?
It's in the US's interests that they don't allow another country to manipulate the market to destroy the US production capacity. Once that capacity is online the foreign country can then raise prices.
It's not easy or cheap to bring production capacity online.
It could be well within the Chinese government agenda to have broader control over global productive capacity. Impossible to prove, I know.
Generally I'm pro-free trade, but the issue gets quite messy when you consider government subsidies. As a Canadian, this discussion comes up frequently along the lines of the subsidized agriculture sector.
Worse still, China could actually start enforcing their restrictions on exporting raw aluminium and drive non-Chinese manufacturing industry out of business by cutting off their supply of feedstock, as they also tried to do with rare earth metals.
Do you think it's funny that you titled the interview as you did and chose the first question to be "how conscious are you of being a female engineer as opposed to just an engineer"?
I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the interviewer and assume it's supposed to be interpreted as the presumed perspective of the average programmer.
Best of luck confronting the full force of the producers of caffeinated anything. Coffee, tea, soda, energy drinks. We could probably throw a handful of the pharmaceutical giants in there for good measure.
Great extension. The only annoyance is that when I run ccleaner it wipes the list of sites I want to keep cookies for, so I have to re-add them. But those extra clicks are definitely worth it.
I attended a community college before I went to university. The computer science program was kind of a joke. They did remote classes from partnered state universities where the CC students would watch a live stream of professors at the state unis. I mostly took just Calc, Physics, and some other general requirement classes before transferring, but I did take one CS class. There was myself and two other students doing Intro to Programming (Java).
The same kids who were in Physics, were in Calc, etc. There were only about 20-30 of us. The majority of the student body was there to study Nursing and Law Enforcement.
I found I enjoyed the professors at CC more than most of my state uni professors. At CC, instead of having Physics in a 300 person lecture hall, it was a 20 person classroom. Same with Calc. All of the STEM-related professors at CC had their doctorates, where at state uni I had a bunch of grad students teaching - not that everyone wasn't knowledgeable enough.
This is nothing new. It's probably been going on since the advent of the judicial system. Would this be A-OK if the lawyers had taken the case pro bono? Or would we be crying about how good lawyers should have to charge people equally?
Seems to me that the billion dollar media conglomerates could have funded Gawker's lawyers to protect their ability to release people's sex tapes.
I watched this a while back on the BBC and remember it being pretty interesting. It examines the relationships of the US, UK and Russia with the middle east through the lens of their respective involvements in Afghanistan.
