The type of wholesale spying the Bush administration is trying to promote and you seem to be trying to protect not only undermines the Constitution, it doesn't work. All the monitoring we have in place around the world didn't stop these yo-yo's. And it won't stop the next group. So what are you going to do then? Your philosophy is a failure. It's a false sense of security that provides no value in protection.
Combating terrorism by spying on Americans. Brilliant.
It doesn't work? I'm as ready as anyone for Bush to go and also deplore unwarranted spying on Joe America, but we have not had another major terrorist attack on our soil in over seven years. To suggest certain terrorists aren't really trying is silly. Although it does look like they are going after softer targets now.
This might be the ONLY Bush policy that has worked.
We haven't had another successful terrorist attack on our soil.
What was your expectation of the Patriot Act?
More attacks?
Whether it steps over/on civil rights is obviously debatable, but it's efficacy, at this point, is not.
"Unless there is some special language in the company charter, the commonly accepted duty of corporations is to maximize benefits to the shareholder (not saying that it is right, only that it IS)"
All of you citing this commonly referenced provision are apparently not aware of how things actually work on wall street.
Companies bankrupt and reorganize every day and leave common shareholders holding the bag. It's unfortunately common practice for someone to own 3-5 companies, with one being the "loss" holder that is publicly traded and drove into the ground.
They will dilute and then bankrupt every few years without major consequence to their profitable companies or their personal assests.
Look at most stocks trading below $5 that have a long history of steady declines. Many (not all) of these are used just for this purpose.
It's fully sanctioned, legal stealing and it happens every week on wall street.
This isn't what is happening with Craigslist right now, but mainly responding to those who are suggesting a company "can't" do this.
They do it all the time...and without significant consequence.
..and history of milking their position in the market.
Years ago, when there was really no major competitor to Blockbuster besides local mom and pop operations - they took advantage of it with $5 plus dollar a pop movies and ridiculous late return policies.
Blockbuster joined Bellsouth in the "won't see another dime of my family's budget" bucket. And I based that decision completely on their actions when they had little or no competition, and not on current technology & trends.
Conversely, the companies that hold/held a dominant position and used that position to build customer loyalty and satisfaction (Netflix, Google, etc) will always be at the top of the list when it comes to my families disposable income.
It's amazing how companies can become so customer oriented when they actually have to compete!
Slashdot Mirror
The type of wholesale spying the Bush administration is trying to promote and you seem to be trying to protect not only undermines the Constitution, it doesn't work. All the monitoring we have in place around the world didn't stop these yo-yo's. And it won't stop the next group. So what are you going to do then? Your philosophy is a failure. It's a false sense of security that provides no value in protection.
Combating terrorism by spying on Americans. Brilliant.
It doesn't work? I'm as ready as anyone for Bush to go and also deplore unwarranted spying on Joe America, but we have not had another major terrorist attack on our soil in over seven years. To suggest certain terrorists aren't really trying is silly. Although it does look like they are going after softer targets now.
This might be the ONLY Bush policy that has worked.
We haven't had another successful terrorist attack on our soil. What was your expectation of the Patriot Act? More attacks? Whether it steps over/on civil rights is obviously debatable, but it's efficacy, at this point, is not.
An article that could fit on one page, but instead spread over a dozen, is far more annoying than any software mentioned in said article.
Try reading that on a blackberry!
The article is decent, but the irony far over shadows any point the author intended to make, imho.
"Unless there is some special language in the company charter, the commonly accepted duty of corporations is to maximize benefits to the shareholder (not saying that it is right, only that it IS)"
All of you citing this commonly referenced provision are apparently not aware of how things actually work on wall street.
Companies bankrupt and reorganize every day and leave common shareholders holding the bag. It's unfortunately common practice for someone to own 3-5 companies, with one being the "loss" holder that is publicly traded and drove into the ground.
They will dilute and then bankrupt every few years without major consequence to their profitable companies or their personal assests.
Look at most stocks trading below $5 that have a long history of steady declines. Many (not all) of these are used just for this purpose.
It's fully sanctioned, legal stealing and it happens every week on wall street.
This isn't what is happening with Craigslist right now, but mainly responding to those who are suggesting a company "can't" do this.
They do it all the time...and without significant consequence.
..and history of milking their position in the market.
Years ago, when there was really no major competitor to Blockbuster besides local mom and pop operations - they took advantage of it with $5 plus dollar a pop movies and ridiculous late return policies.
Blockbuster joined Bellsouth in the "won't see another dime of my family's budget" bucket. And I based that decision completely on their actions when they had little or no competition, and not on current technology & trends.
Conversely, the companies that hold/held a dominant position and used that position to build customer loyalty and satisfaction (Netflix, Google, etc) will always be at the top of the list when it comes to my families disposable income.
It's amazing how companies can become so customer oriented when they actually have to compete!
If you "believe" in evolution, how could any trait NOT be a product of it?