I believe the last two listed (‘Thou shalt not covet…’) are considered to be the same commandment, although they appear as two separate verses in the Bible.

Interesting. I doubt the source material is copyrightable, but I also doubt the consortium is under any legal obligation to provide copies, unless signed some previous agreement to that effect.

Perhaps worth noting, there was a SCOTUS decision in the early 2000s (New York Times Co. v. Tasini) that held that freelance journalists whose contracts did not specifically include an electronic distribution clause were entitled to damages when those articles were subsequently released on the web and to electronic news services like Lexis/Nexis.

Big publications like the NYT came to settlements that allowed them to pay to redistribute the older articles (by paying the original authors), but smaller publications may not have such a settlement structure in place and may not be allowed to redistribute the original articles without additional permissions.

FYI, I have a copy of the Dragon Magazine Archive CD-ROM version that came out in 2001… only to immediately disappear off the market for this very reason!

Satya Nadella, Microsoft’s CEO, “has taken on the responsibility personally to serve as the senior executive with overall accountability for Microsoft’s security,”

Err. Wasn’t that already true? He’s chief executive officer, not chief some shit that doesn’t include security officer.

It must be Thursday

Fundamentally, it’s the same issue that affected the Stanford Prison Experiment & the Milgram experiment. You can’t claim that the subjects naturally developed certain behaviors, if they were being prompted or saw through the prompts.

Since Sherif proved himself to be untrustworthy after the first experiment failed to provide the results he was looking for, we can’t really trust that any of the conditions of the conflict between the campers arose from the campers themselves.

Robbers Cave has been debunked. Short version:

Muzafer Sherif’s first experiment (“Middle Grove”) failed when the two groups worked together to figure out that they were being manipulated. The second experiment (“Robbers Cave”) was only apparently successful because the “camp counselors” were explicitly aiding and abetting the feud between the two groups.

Of course, Sherif didn’t mention these details when he publicized his results.

The Burns Omni-Net sweeps the sea clean!

“We wouldn’t have to kill so many civilians if the criminals would stop committing crimes.”

A hot room with 10 days worth of poop.

many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice

Not so much a dog whistle, as a dog fog horn.

However, the statement “some white people aren’t white to racists” implies that skin color IS the defining concern. And the direct comparison of white-on-white mistreatment to white-on-nonwhite racist mistreatment is a grasp for moral equivalence.

If Irish immigrants were truly considered nonwhite, maybe they would have been hunted down and slaughtered like indigenous peoples, or separated from their children like African slaves. But these things did NOT happen, and I hold that it is inappropriate to describe the Irish as “not considered white”. Of course they were white. Nobody, not now and not in US history, would describe them as nonwhite. Sure, some people didn’t like the Irish, but that’s a far cry from considering them to be a different race or color.

Irish and Irish-descended could vote, they could go to court to seek redress of grievances, they could marry who they wished, they were not confined to reservations, they could have children without fearing that they would be taken away. Indigenous, African, and sometimes Latino and Asian peoples in the US did not always enjoy such rights, but white people almost always did.

I brought up chattel slavery because the commenter said, “in the US”, and the exemplar for white-on-nonwhite racism in the US is chattel slavery of black Africans. But if one prefers to consider the mistreatment of other nonwhite racial groups, you could certainly hold any of them up to the way Irish were treated, and I daresay that you would have a hard time finding any dimension of mistreatment in which Irish or other white minorities were treated worse than nonwhite peoples.

If Mr. Naumann’s company should make a boatload of cash while supporting his terrible political views, what’s the harm?

/s

Fascists have always used racism as an excuse to define the enemy and back The Great Leader, even when the sides were ethnically similar. It’s not like Poland and France were full of non-white barbarian infiltrators in Europe in the 30s and 40s, but plenty of people used “preservation of the white race” as a reason to back the Nazis.

You should examine that claim critically. The idea that Irish indentured servants were mistreated similarly to their their non-white counterparts in chattel slavery is historical revisionism pushed by white supremacists.

I was ready to dismiss this as hyperbole – after all, there are INNUMERABLE ways that US equipment could make its way to Russian factories.

Then I read the words of the chairman of their board:

Hans Naumann (through interpreter):

I think that Trump, unlike many European politicians, has recognized that the white population must stand together. Americans, Europeans, Australians, they’re roughly 1.5 billion people, but Asians come to six billion.

In my opinion, the world’s demographics compel the two nuclear powers, that’s America and Russia, to stand together.

It turns out they shipped equipment directly from their German facilities to Russian military companies, potentially in violation of the 2014 sanctions.

Well, $20/day was his original planned average daily budget. He did say that Western Europe was the hardest, since his money didn’t go very far.

In any case, with the increasing length of the trip and his solicitation of financial help, I don’t think it’s clear whether his final budget was $20/day.

He shouldn’t have crossed Bane