Slashdot Mirror

It's perfectly clear: http://partiallyclips.com/2005/09/22/witness-stand/

and while we are on the topic, the Erfworld Kickstarter has raised over $64000 with over 880 backers to fund a motion comic

Additional funds will go towards -

        New Erfworld website
        Free Erfworld book 1 for a variety of people
        Funding a reprint of book 1
        Funding to making Hamstard beanies
        Funding for a make-your-own-Hamstard-comic tool
        Funding for a soundtrack album

So if the company does something illegal, let the shareholders be personally responsible and serve time for the company's crime.

Probably a good idea. But it goes against the basic reason that corporations exist. If you dig into the history, you'll find that one of the primary motives in creating such legal entities was to insulate the officers and shareholders from legal liabilities. The whole point of a corporation's existence is to allow the people running it to say "I didn't do it; the corporation did". Stockholders' fines for corporate criminal behavior is usually limited to their investment, and it's exceedingly rare for such fines to be imposed. Instead, the corporation is fined.

Of course, there were and are other reasons for corporations, such as different tax laws. For example, here in the US and many other places, people pay income tax on their full income, while corporations pay tax on only their "profits". A corporation can deduct all expenses of doing business; if a living human tries the equivalent and doesn't pay taxes on the portion that they pay for food and/or shelter, they are likely to end up with a good fine or jail time. (Yes, tax laws often make some portion of such things deductible, but rarely all of them.)

Also, a corporation usually doesn't pay the same taxes on equipment (vehicles, machinery, office supplies, whatever) that a human would pay. This is why individuals or families sometimes form corporations. That way, equipment can be bought and owned by the corporation, not the individual. This is also used to avoid inheritance taxes, since the deceased didn't own the money or building or equipment; the family corporation did, and it didn't die.

In all of these examples, we see that the corporation relieves the people running it from legal liability for something. Usually it's liability for taxes, which are lower for corporations. But all too often, the laws only impose a minor fine on a corporation for actions that would be criminal violations if a human did them.

There was a fun bit of journalistic "research" a few years ago in the US, that consisted in tallying the punishments that the courts gave to corporations for actions that resulted in deaths, such as contaminated food, incorrect medicines, overly dangerous equipment of various sorts, etc. The bottom line was that corporations were on average fined about $300 per documented death. This is a whole lot "better" than the sentences handed down to killers that are humans. It explains why many corporations consider criminal law to be not much more than a minor tax on their business operations, and why such fines often have little effect on corporate behavior. If the likely fine is less than the profit, there's no reason a corporation shouldn't do it.

It's true that in a few especially egregious cases, the officers have been charged and tried for their part in the actions. But it's pretty rare that they are actually convicted of anything.

See also last week's PartiallyClips comic.

There's a relevant comic on the topic over at PartiallyClips. The business world has a long tradition of not distinguishing "unethical" or "immoral" from "illegal". The legal and law enforcement communities do understand the distinction, and generally don't show great interest in going after things that are legal, no matter how unsavory they may be.

Maybe it was a situation like this one.

The basic theory behind global warming and the models is sound. While we might not be able to predict exactly which parts of the planet will be affected and how severely, there's already plenty of confirmation from melting eons-old glaciers that global warming and climate change are happening, and that it's primarily human caused. Sure the last 2 years have been a little cooler compared to 2007 and earlier, but we're also at a minimum in the "11-year" solar cycle and when you take that into account the overall trend is still climbing. So your comments are like someone arguing that there's no cause for alarm on the Titanic and we should just sit and listen to the band - the engineers can't tell exactly how many minutes before the ship sinks so there's no need to worry about the big hole in the bow. Teach the debate.

Merely stating that some racial subgroup is prone to some stereotype is not and should not be a crime.

Well I think the standard defense against slander would be applicable. It wouldn't be a crime if you can show some solid statistical evidence defending your claim that was published in peer reviewed journals. I would also allow exemption for academic research because otherwise you've got a chicken and egg problem.

Otherwise I would be free to proclaim that my experience is that slashdot posters with eastern European and central Asian sounding pseudonyms steal babies for the purposes of child pornography and child molestation. Seems like a catchy troll post to use for the next year or two, no? Or maybe instead that your people tear them apart at the full moon.

Why? How does denying the Holocaust harm anyone? Why should someone be rendered destitute because they choose to believe that the Holocaust never happened in spite of all evidence to the contrary?

Because that's usually only one step in turning "The Holocaust" into a conspiracy by Jews to distract from the fact that they control the world and should be overthrown. It's hard to scapegoat them while they're recognized as victims.

Jews have a culture which respects learning and encourages that pursuit, which means that they will naturally have a competitive advantage in an information economy against your average person/industrial cog who is either ambivalent or outright hostile to book l'arnin'. There's also certain aspects of their religion which facilitate the mistreatment of people outside that religion, but then that's been true of most religions at one point or another. I respect them for the former, and decry the latter behaviour if I see it. They have also historically had a fairly insular culture (probably encouraged by centuries of religious persecution). The three together make them natural targets for prejudice and antipathy. Generally though, when one group of people spread lies about another people, it's rarely in the best interest of the people being lied about and usually to their detriment one way or another. As I said, quantifying it with a dollar value can be hard, but proving that there's been a lie, not so much.

Being murdered because your gay is not worse than being murdered because your ex-lover couldn't stand to see you with someone else.

Yes it is, for a reason very related to your argument above about how lying about the Holocaust isn't a crime. It's inconsistent for you to hold that position as you describe it, and then argue the above statement as well. There is a fundamental qualitative difference in acting violently against someone who you perceive to have wronged you personally directly, versus someone who has never harmed you in any way. It's further along the path of insanity to be willing to commit violence against someone who has done you no wrong just because of who they are, rather than because of something they have done to you. The latter are a greater risk to members of society. It's a comparable difference in risk to the populace and risk of recurrence as there is for someone who will kill someone else in a fit of passion, vs. someone who pre-plans a murder. Assaulting "uppity" well-dressed blacks or guys just for walking down the street holding hands? That shows a deeper and more dangerous sociopathy than your average mugger or punch thrown in a drunken bar brawl.

Obligatory Partiallyclips... http://www.partiallyclips.com/pclipslite.php?id=1047

...
I don't mind the text sometimes, the images it shows.
Running from the Ds and Ls, and killing all the Os.
Faded prints and subtle hints and fortune cookie lies.
You never ID all your stuff, until your @ sign dies.
...

It's not about somehow brain-washing everyone watching/playing extremely violent video or games, or even influencing *most* people to do anything violent. Anecdotal evidence is pretty useless when you're talking about something that won't significantly mess up the majority of people.

No one sensible would argue that a video game *by itself* will turn a kid into a sociopathic mass murderer. But it's not hard to understand how watching a lot of real or realistic violence, and/or playing a game that simulates violence realistically, will affect you.

At a bare minimum it will attenuate the automatic revulsion we have for violence. For most people, this won't result in violent behavior. For other people who are already stewing with impotent rage, frustration, etc., it might make a significant difference.

We don't know how much of a difference it makes yet -- agreed. This study is just a beginning, a pointer to brain reactions with suggestions for further research. And there's also the *huge* discussion of what to actually do about it; rushing in with laws to stop anything "bad" doesn't always work out as planned.

(heh.. I illustrated a point with a webcomic)

Are you implying that if China (and it's population) disappeared, a significant portion of people in the world would die?

I'm reasonably certain the surrounding regions grow their own rice as well (though they may import some from China - but China's likely higher standards of living and transport costs say this probably isn't true)

The rest of the world depends little on Chinese food, or so I would assume... Also, without China consuming oil, we wouldn't need ethanol, and the amount of ethanol needed to fill a hummer's tank is enough food for one person for a year.

Certainly the US is a net producer of food... at least until our aquifers dry up. But that's predicted in 40-50 years. It's practically forever...
http://partiallyclips.com/pclipslite.php?id=1517

You mean something like this?

Amusingly enough, I am 99% sure the story submitter found this article via Penny Arcade.

Story Submitter here, and you're absolutely correct. I did indeed find this linked off of PA, and decided to share it here. Got to find them somehow, right? Though I read PA, I'm actually more of a Sluggy Freelance fan, and was much more interested in the comments about that comic than the others.

Still, I'm sort of disappointed that they didn't comment on Bill Holbrook's Kevin and Kell. We've all seen anthropomorphic comics before, and that's about as close to a mainstream anthro webcomic as you'll find. It is well written, and it would be interesting to see it compared with the mainstream anthro comics, like Over The Hedge, Pearls Before Swine, and others.

The silly side of me would like to have seen them try and analyze the artistic history of something like Partially Clips, just for the hell of it.

http://www.partiallyclips.com/index.php?id=1343

Here's a relevant cartoon to go along with the article.

OObligatory Pclips link