ORLY? Apple installs lots of interesting 'additional' software on Windows, there are at least 3 system level programs running in the background that 99% users are not even aware of. These are running hidden (no tray bar indication icon or similar hint).
mDNSResponder.exe
AppleMobileDeviceService.exe
iPodService.exe
These programs are running 24/7 in the background eating process time and resources. The question is why does Apple need these kernel services (read rootkit like services) running in the system space ? To pool the iPod you surely do not need to run at this level or stay hidden to the users. I mean normal users that know shit about 'services'.
Ignorance of what these services represent is easily remedied by disabling them via Services.
It strikes me that since the Moon is similar in composition to the Earth, having been essentially "blown off" as a large chunk in its early development, that there would be a vast amount of water beneath the surface. Obviously not in liquid form, but far in excess of what you would find on the surface.
This is slashdot. They aren't looking for one to use their brain and deduce beyond a cursory glance. I agree that the vast storage capacity for water would be akin to our Aquifers in different states that should allow us to drill for it and reconstitute it into the composition we need to live on.
That is indeed the answer, though there is some evidence from symmetry and conservation - which is somewhat circular.
But your answer is totally different from the answer to which I replied. While the linked "physics rebel" blog does not have a more convincing answer among its diatribe and handwaving, that rebel is correct to point out that practically all physics is based on an axiom like inertia/momentum. Which is a matter of faith, as much as "god moves it" was. The answer to which I replied is quite wrong, though widely believed. Which does indeed show that the reality of our sophistication is quite different from our belief in it.
In my opinion this is a really, really dumb move. While its all eye-candy and nice, it brings down the usability a lot. If you want to get to the menu, you have to find some button from somewhere obscure location and then the menu will be vertical to begin with, like right-clicking. On top of that its one extra mouse click. I hate the same thing with Office. Another good example is MSN Messenger. I can never find the menu button, and when I do the menu looks just retarted.
The ironic thing is that a menubar is the least intrusive UI object on the screen. It's small, it doesn't get in the way and it goes nicely along with title bar. And you still find everything easily and fast from it.
This doesn't "tidy up" 'dated' browser. There a lot more issues to look at, like UI responsiveness, fast drawing of loading websites and better & smoother scrolling, in which Firefox is actually lacking behind (still wins IE tho, but thats not much)
Another sad thing about this is that it forges Windows UI style to Linux and other OS, and stops being consistent with the rest of the system.
Gladly I'm not Firefox user, and even less so with this. It seems Firefox is going more and more to the way of grandma-understands-too. While I myself more and more like the approach Opera takes; feels like a complete suite for browsing. Maybe it'll gain more marketshare for Opera in power users, who still value usability and the simple efficient things like menu bars.
How about Firefox get off their asses and achieve 100% CSS2.x/CSS3 and all the specs coming up first, including SVG 1.2, before they deal with such abortions? The same goes with WebKit browsers, Opera and other independent browsers. Changing the interaction menus means little to me when the Window View content is broken or partially implemented.
...
The only reason Washington is bitching is because they have a big budget shortfall....
Actually, Washington has been bitching about this for years (when they've had a surplus). Every year they bring it up MS threatens to leave and they back off. Personally, I think they should say "fine, pay us what you owe us and leave - but you'll never be permitted to sell your products in this state again." They've been extorting the state for years and it needs to stop.
Not to mention their is no goddamn way they would leave. The investment in their campus structure alone would not fly with Shareholders. This is a PUBLIC COMPANY and such threats are laughable, at best.
This is nothing new; you can go back centuries and look at historical peoples' signatures, and see that many of them are not very legible. You might make out the first character or so in each name, and the rest is just a scribble.
Hell, you don't even need to go back in history to see that. Look at the signatures of current heads of state (Wikipedia handily has images of signatures in the articles of most politicians). Barack Obama and Stephen Harper both have such signatures, and Gordon Brown's hardly looks anything like his name. Thorbjorn Jagland's (President of the Sorting in Norway) signature is even worse.
To be fair, though, I suspect you've never seen beautiful handwriting, or its effect on the addressee.
If average people were able to consistently create beautiful script, I would be inclined to agree. However, as the article I've linked to shows, even decent cursive results in loopy, unreadable mess.
Perhaps my comment, "deserves to die", was too strong, but the point still stands -- there's a difference between teaching for utility and teaching for art, and it appears that the schools have confused the two.
Are we striving to make a society of the Average? Average people exist because we push them through. Even a tone-deaf, physically two left footed moron can learn to write beautiful handwriting, period. Much of that responsibility residess with the parents and teachers. We have continued to marginalize the importance of education in these areas and we are now paying the price with a generation of talentless hacks [a far low margin of exceptions being the rule exists today than did in prior generations after the industrial revolution] who all get to participate in the Average.
A legal signature doesn't need to be anything, though. It doesn't even have to be your name, for goodness sake (mine, for the longest time, was not my name at all, in fact) and it certainly doesn't have to be externally legible.
You're so self-important that a symbol is reserved for you? Work in the medical industry by any chance?
Yeah, but icons (like in the car's idiot light example) are standardized, which means you don't need to change them for different markets, which means cheaper production costs, which means more profits.
It's not trying to be cool or modern that's causing it; rather, it's just standardization for the sake of production efficiency.
Icons are useless without first being educated in the words they encapsulate. In short, you still need to learn it. You aren't embedded with this information.
It's a travesty of education that we're turning out college students who have studied cursive for years and will never use it again, yet who have to hunt-and-peck on the keyboard.
Whoa. In the Hungarian school system, you read and write cursive before they let you in second grade. What do you mean by "studied for years"? It's not a fucking PhD.
Exactly! Now it doesn't surprise me how f'n lazy this world has become nor does it surprise me a generation of ingrates brought the markets to a crash.
I have a C&R FFL that requires a bound logbook. I also have a private pilots license which I use a paper logbook for as well.
I've not written a bit of cursive in either. Print works fine in them. To tell the truth, aside from my signature, I haven't written a word of cursive since they stopped requiring students write in it (which was around the 7th grade or so - about 15 years ago).
Then your English professors at the high school and University level failed to do their job. Cursive writing was always required when doing essay exams and more. Only the area where applied mathematical symbolic notation was needed could one be allowed and encourage to take their time writing out non-cursive script to make sure their is no illegibility in their solutions.
I'm left-handed, along with most of my family. We all have very legible cursive handwriting. We all hold our pen/pencil identical to a right handed person [we don't torque our wrist in that hideous position of holding an imaginary ball in your forearm]--the forearm is perpendicular to the page. So the smearing effect never happens. In fact, we were shown how to write this way in Public Schools as well.
Penmanship is a source of pride among many in the family and I can tell you, no matter what the surface, Mother in particular [UPS/FedEx/Retail signature input verification devices come to mind], writes classically balanced, continuous script that would challenge John Hancock for style and appearance. She's 65, a pianist and typed 90 wpm on an old non-IBM manual long-arm typewriter. Cursive fonts could benefit from using her talents to become a standard font script.
At any rate, only a complete moron [due to being too damn lazy and being allowed to crayola their way through school] would find not adding cursive writing as a skill a benefit.
This guy develops proprietary software for a proprietary platform. He doesn't care about freedom, he cares about control. We should pay him no heed that he whines about a wood grain texture (real original there buddy).
He's whining people are integrating this texture in their proprietary iPhone apps being sold at the proprietary iPhone story by the notorious proprietary monolith, Apple.
The story should be: Hoarder hoards, and then when gets hoarded by a hoarder, cries out in pain and tries to Hoard more.
p.s. he's free to make non-free software just as I'm free to never ever use his software.
Grow up. The guy paid an artist to make that look 'n feel. To have to taken freely and put into other applications should be challenged.
But the problem is, Apple has explicitly disallowed "frameworks" -- and this definitely sounds like a framework.
Which is another way of saying, Apple is strongly discouraging if not outright banning one of the best ways to re-use code. Can anyone tell me why Apple is against code re-use on the iPhone?
Yes Mono Frameworks are a POS compared to Cocoa Frameworks. See how substantial your arguement is and how I counter with an equally weighted view? In this case, it's true, but it's just as weak of me to proclaim it simply to defend one or the other. Bottom line, Cocoa Frameworks are unified down to the kernel. Mono would be a second-rate solution.
Because a secret agenda of theirs is to make you use XCode to develop apps. This was made quite clear to my former company on a project. That's why you won't see Java nor Flash any time soon, and the ToS explicitly forbids apps that execute external code. I theorize that by doing this they 1) want control and 2)hope that the iPhone development activity propagates into OS X development activity.
Yes. Use our Development Tools on our Platform. Truly it is a secretive agenda. Get real.
I don't mind progress, and new standards and all that, and the idea of a "user-friendly scheduler" is really nice, but how hard would it be to make this work with just generic callable objects? it's not that hard to implement a closure in C, and it's been done for years for things like boost and libsigc++ (any signal/callback system that doesn't have upvalues is useless to me at this point).
Well, boost and libsigc++ are C++, not C, and Apple doesn't use C++.
And implementing closures in C is exactly what they've done.
There is a helluva lot more than 12 products, but the problem about documentation, useful solutions and more is what makes Microsoft's site a giant clusterf***.
Man, there are a lot of uninformed people posting to this article. Apple has used Uniform Type Identifiers since 10.4 Tiger. Creator codes have been deprecated for years.
Truth to people can be a real bitch I suppose. They could always live like it was 1997.
If, for instance, you prefer one graphics program for editing.jpgs and a different one for viewing them you are now screwed. You can either set.jpgs to open in one, or the other...
Well not exactly. You can still have your default jpeg viewer be Preview, and still have only particular jpegs open in Photoshop. That's easy enough to accomplish. The difference is just that jpegs saved in Photoshop are not automatically associated with Photoshop regardless of the default that the user has set.
And it's not that I fail to recognize how it might be useful to have jpegs created in photoshop always open in Photoshop, automatically. It's just that I don't think it's a very sensible way to handle things. If I really want to use Photoshop most of the time, I can set that as my default jpeg viewer. If I have particular files that I'm opening all the time and want to open them in Photoshop, I can set that manually on a per-file basis. However, when I set a default viewing application for a particular file-type, it's nice for that decision to be honored by the OS.
Another scenario is that files associated in Photoshop sent to you on your machine without Photoshop have to open in something compatible to view them, no? It makes sense to bind native application formats to that specific application and standard formats to be bound by order of precedence you set. This debate is decades old.
Why open a JPEG in photoshop when it's going to take a full minute to load?
Well, it all makes sense now! It's a conspiracy to sell more hardware!
PSD is the native file format in Photoshop. JPEG is a standard output format. Photoshop or any other application like GIMP is overreaching ownership on an operating system when it is not the only application that can natively render JPEG files; hence if I want Preview.app to render them or Safari or Pixelsight, et.al then the.plist association file for that format should be configured and stored in my account's preferences.
I hate to tell you this, but there are many more things other than corporations and natural persons that are considered persons under the law. In addition, there are many different types of corporations and they are not all giant multinational mega-conglomerates like IBM or Microsoft. Finally, there are responsibilities and liabilities that corporations have that people do not have and that most common penalty for corporations is the "death penalty" or disillusion and revoking of their articles of incorporation.
You're correct and it's a misinterpretation of the First Amendment, due to the US Tax Code that classified them as individuals and thus being entitled to a redress of grievances==> thus leading to a corporate entity being an individual lobbying [aka protesting their right peaceably to assemble for a redress of grievances].
Corporations do not have the same rights as natural persons in the USA.
That is a deliberately misleading statement. Shame on you for using it.
Corporations have rights as persons. The distinction of "natural persons" is silly. It should be that persons are human beings. Period. Calling corporations "persons" (but not "natural persons") leads to a class system were some "persons" (corporations) have rights/indemnities that actual human persons do not.
That is [management going to jail for crimes the company commits] already the law in the USA.
Not really. There are situations where that happens, but tell me, how many Ford executives went to prison for the Pinto? Or that guy that owns the peanut factory that was responsible for killing people a year or so ago? Or Gates and Ballmer over MS's anti-trust conviction?
Sure, an executive might go to jail, but unless their crime involves financial misconduct, the odds of them going to jail is infinitesimal. And even in the case of financial misconduct, if their misconduct only ruins the lives of their human customers it's no big deal, only if they defrauded either the "market", the company itself, or rich people, do actual humans go to jail for the crimes of their company.
The fact is, corporations get to have their cake and eat it too. They get rights as persons, but they don't have the responsibilities and liabilities of persons. The notion that people are "natural persons" and corporations are just "persons" is absurd.
Persons should be clarified as actual single entity human beings, by the US Supreme Court so we can get rid of all the douche bag lobbying going on in our Congress and Executive branches by these "corporate persons."
Slashdot Mirror
It's traditionally described as kilometer seconds [km x sec] and not [sec x km].
ORLY? Apple installs lots of interesting 'additional' software on Windows, there are at least 3 system level programs running in the background that 99% users are not even aware of. These are running hidden (no tray bar indication icon or similar hint). mDNSResponder.exe AppleMobileDeviceService.exe iPodService.exe These programs are running 24/7 in the background eating process time and resources. The question is why does Apple need these kernel services (read rootkit like services) running in the system space ? To pool the iPod you surely do not need to run at this level or stay hidden to the users. I mean normal users that know shit about 'services'.
Ignorance of what these services represent is easily remedied by disabling them via Services.
It strikes me that since the Moon is similar in composition to the Earth, having been essentially "blown off" as a large chunk in its early development, that there would be a vast amount of water beneath the surface. Obviously not in liquid form, but far in excess of what you would find on the surface.
This is slashdot. They aren't looking for one to use their brain and deduce beyond a cursory glance. I agree that the vast storage capacity for water would be akin to our Aquifers in different states that should allow us to drill for it and reconstitute it into the composition we need to live on.
That is indeed the answer, though there is some evidence from symmetry and conservation - which is somewhat circular.
But your answer is totally different from the answer to which I replied. While the linked "physics rebel" blog does not have a more convincing answer among its diatribe and handwaving, that rebel is correct to point out that practically all physics is based on an axiom like inertia/momentum. Which is a matter of faith, as much as "god moves it" was. The answer to which I replied is quite wrong, though widely believed. Which does indeed show that the reality of our sophistication is quite different from our belief in it.
It's a matter of Mathematical proofing not faith.
In my opinion this is a really, really dumb move. While its all eye-candy and nice, it brings down the usability a lot. If you want to get to the menu, you have to find some button from somewhere obscure location and then the menu will be vertical to begin with, like right-clicking. On top of that its one extra mouse click. I hate the same thing with Office. Another good example is MSN Messenger. I can never find the menu button, and when I do the menu looks just retarted.
The ironic thing is that a menubar is the least intrusive UI object on the screen. It's small, it doesn't get in the way and it goes nicely along with title bar. And you still find everything easily and fast from it.
This doesn't "tidy up" 'dated' browser. There a lot more issues to look at, like UI responsiveness, fast drawing of loading websites and better & smoother scrolling, in which Firefox is actually lacking behind (still wins IE tho, but thats not much)
Another sad thing about this is that it forges Windows UI style to Linux and other OS, and stops being consistent with the rest of the system.
Gladly I'm not Firefox user, and even less so with this. It seems Firefox is going more and more to the way of grandma-understands-too. While I myself more and more like the approach Opera takes; feels like a complete suite for browsing. Maybe it'll gain more marketshare for Opera in power users, who still value usability and the simple efficient things like menu bars.
How about Firefox get off their asses and achieve 100% CSS2.x/CSS3 and all the specs coming up first, including SVG 1.2, before they deal with such abortions? The same goes with WebKit browsers, Opera and other independent browsers. Changing the interaction menus means little to me when the Window View content is broken or partially implemented.
Actually, Washington has been bitching about this for years (when they've had a surplus). Every year they bring it up MS threatens to leave and they back off. Personally, I think they should say "fine, pay us what you owe us and leave - but you'll never be permitted to sell your products in this state again." They've been extorting the state for years and it needs to stop.
Not to mention their is no goddamn way they would leave. The investment in their campus structure alone would not fly with Shareholders. This is a PUBLIC COMPANY and such threats are laughable, at best.
This is nothing new; you can go back centuries and look at historical peoples' signatures, and see that many of them are not very legible. You might make out the first character or so in each name, and the rest is just a scribble.
Hell, you don't even need to go back in history to see that. Look at the signatures of current heads of state (Wikipedia handily has images of signatures in the articles of most politicians). Barack Obama and Stephen Harper both have such signatures, and Gordon Brown's hardly looks anything like his name. Thorbjorn Jagland's (President of the Sorting in Norway) signature is even worse.
It's a sign of laziness.
If average people were able to consistently create beautiful script, I would be inclined to agree. However, as the article I've linked to shows, even decent cursive results in loopy, unreadable mess.
Perhaps my comment, "deserves to die", was too strong, but the point still stands -- there's a difference between teaching for utility and teaching for art, and it appears that the schools have confused the two.
Are we striving to make a society of the Average? Average people exist because we push them through. Even a tone-deaf, physically two left footed moron can learn to write beautiful handwriting, period. Much of that responsibility residess with the parents and teachers. We have continued to marginalize the importance of education in these areas and we are now paying the price with a generation of talentless hacks [a far low margin of exceptions being the rule exists today than did in prior generations after the industrial revolution] who all get to participate in the Average.
A legal signature doesn't need to be anything, though. It doesn't even have to be your name, for goodness sake (mine, for the longest time, was not my name at all, in fact) and it certainly doesn't have to be externally legible.
You're so self-important that a symbol is reserved for you? Work in the medical industry by any chance?
Yeah, but icons (like in the car's idiot light example) are standardized, which means you don't need to change them for different markets, which means cheaper production costs, which means more profits.
It's not trying to be cool or modern that's causing it; rather, it's just standardization for the sake of production efficiency.
Icons are useless without first being educated in the words they encapsulate. In short, you still need to learn it. You aren't embedded with this information.
It's a travesty of education that we're turning out college students who have studied cursive for years and will never use it again, yet who have to hunt-and-peck on the keyboard.
Whoa. In the Hungarian school system, you read and write cursive before they let you in second grade. What do you mean by "studied for years"? It's not a fucking PhD.
Exactly! Now it doesn't surprise me how f'n lazy this world has become nor does it surprise me a generation of ingrates brought the markets to a crash.
I have a C&R FFL that requires a bound logbook. I also have a private pilots license which I use a paper logbook for as well.
I've not written a bit of cursive in either. Print works fine in them. To tell the truth, aside from my signature, I haven't written a word of cursive since they stopped requiring students write in it (which was around the 7th grade or so - about 15 years ago).
Then your English professors at the high school and University level failed to do their job. Cursive writing was always required when doing essay exams and more. Only the area where applied mathematical symbolic notation was needed could one be allowed and encourage to take their time writing out non-cursive script to make sure their is no illegibility in their solutions.
I'm left-handed, along with most of my family. We all have very legible cursive handwriting. We all hold our pen/pencil identical to a right handed person [we don't torque our wrist in that hideous position of holding an imaginary ball in your forearm]--the forearm is perpendicular to the page. So the smearing effect never happens. In fact, we were shown how to write this way in Public Schools as well.
Penmanship is a source of pride among many in the family and I can tell you, no matter what the surface, Mother in particular [UPS/FedEx/Retail signature input verification devices come to mind], writes classically balanced, continuous script that would challenge John Hancock for style and appearance. She's 65, a pianist and typed 90 wpm on an old non-IBM manual long-arm typewriter. Cursive fonts could benefit from using her talents to become a standard font script.
At any rate, only a complete moron [due to being too damn lazy and being allowed to crayola their way through school] would find not adding cursive writing as a skill a benefit.
Only if you're poor. The republicans do the same if you're rich.
Republicans provide the choice of young male pages or bathroom stall anonymous attendants to hold the tissue.
This guy develops proprietary software for a proprietary platform. He doesn't care about freedom, he cares about control. We should pay him no heed that he whines about a wood grain texture (real original there buddy).
He's whining people are integrating this texture in their proprietary iPhone apps being sold at the proprietary iPhone story by the notorious proprietary monolith, Apple.
The story should be: Hoarder hoards, and then when gets hoarded by a hoarder, cries out in pain and tries to Hoard more.
p.s. he's free to make non-free software just as I'm free to never ever use his software.
Grow up. The guy paid an artist to make that look 'n feel. To have to taken freely and put into other applications should be challenged.
As the AC says, so does gcj.
But the problem is, Apple has explicitly disallowed "frameworks" -- and this definitely sounds like a framework.
Which is another way of saying, Apple is strongly discouraging if not outright banning one of the best ways to re-use code. Can anyone tell me why Apple is against code re-use on the iPhone?
Yes Mono Frameworks are a POS compared to Cocoa Frameworks. See how substantial your arguement is and how I counter with an equally weighted view? In this case, it's true, but it's just as weak of me to proclaim it simply to defend one or the other. Bottom line, Cocoa Frameworks are unified down to the kernel. Mono would be a second-rate solution.
Because a secret agenda of theirs is to make you use XCode to develop apps. This was made quite clear to my former company on a project. That's why you won't see Java nor Flash any time soon, and the ToS explicitly forbids apps that execute external code. I theorize that by doing this they 1) want control and 2)hope that the iPhone development activity propagates into OS X development activity.
Yes. Use our Development Tools on our Platform. Truly it is a secretive agenda. Get real.
Well, boost and libsigc++ are C++, not C, and Apple doesn't use C++.
And implementing closures in C is exactly what they've done.
Co I'm not really sure what your complaint is.
What the hell do you think I/O Kit is written in?
There is a helluva lot more than 12 products, but the problem about documentation, useful solutions and more is what makes Microsoft's site a giant clusterf***.
Man, there are a lot of uninformed people posting to this article. Apple has used Uniform Type Identifiers since 10.4 Tiger. Creator codes have been deprecated for years.
Truth to people can be a real bitch I suppose. They could always live like it was 1997.
If, for instance, you prefer one graphics program for editing .jpgs and a different one for viewing them you are now screwed. You can either set .jpgs to open in one, or the other...
Well not exactly. You can still have your default jpeg viewer be Preview, and still have only particular jpegs open in Photoshop. That's easy enough to accomplish. The difference is just that jpegs saved in Photoshop are not automatically associated with Photoshop regardless of the default that the user has set.
And it's not that I fail to recognize how it might be useful to have jpegs created in photoshop always open in Photoshop, automatically. It's just that I don't think it's a very sensible way to handle things. If I really want to use Photoshop most of the time, I can set that as my default jpeg viewer. If I have particular files that I'm opening all the time and want to open them in Photoshop, I can set that manually on a per-file basis. However, when I set a default viewing application for a particular file-type, it's nice for that decision to be honored by the OS.
Another scenario is that files associated in Photoshop sent to you on your machine without Photoshop have to open in something compatible to view them, no? It makes sense to bind native application formats to that specific application and standard formats to be bound by order of precedence you set. This debate is decades old.
Well, it all makes sense now! It's a conspiracy to sell more hardware!
PSD is the native file format in Photoshop. JPEG is a standard output format. Photoshop or any other application like GIMP is overreaching ownership on an operating system when it is not the only application that can natively render JPEG files; hence if I want Preview.app to render them or Safari or Pixelsight, et.al then the .plist association file for that format should be configured and stored in my account's preferences.
Clear the execute bit and it won't try to execute them.
Correct. We wouldn't want to know anything about Unix file permissions or nothing.
I hate to tell you this, but there are many more things other than corporations and natural persons that are considered persons under the law. In addition, there are many different types of corporations and they are not all giant multinational mega-conglomerates like IBM or Microsoft. Finally, there are responsibilities and liabilities that corporations have that people do not have and that most common penalty for corporations is the "death penalty" or disillusion and revoking of their articles of incorporation.
You're correct and it's a misinterpretation of the First Amendment, due to the US Tax Code that classified them as individuals and thus being entitled to a redress of grievances==> thus leading to a corporate entity being an individual lobbying [aka protesting their right peaceably to assemble for a redress of grievances].
Corporations do not have the same rights as natural persons in the USA.
That is a deliberately misleading statement. Shame on you for using it.
Corporations have rights as persons. The distinction of "natural persons" is silly. It should be that persons are human beings. Period. Calling corporations "persons" (but not "natural persons") leads to a class system were some "persons" (corporations) have rights/indemnities that actual human persons do not.
That is [management going to jail for crimes the company commits] already the law in the USA.
Not really. There are situations where that happens, but tell me, how many Ford executives went to prison for the Pinto? Or that guy that owns the peanut factory that was responsible for killing people a year or so ago? Or Gates and Ballmer over MS's anti-trust conviction?
Sure, an executive might go to jail, but unless their crime involves financial misconduct, the odds of them going to jail is infinitesimal. And even in the case of financial misconduct, if their misconduct only ruins the lives of their human customers it's no big deal, only if they defrauded either the "market", the company itself, or rich people, do actual humans go to jail for the crimes of their company.
The fact is, corporations get to have their cake and eat it too. They get rights as persons, but they don't have the responsibilities and liabilities of persons. The notion that people are "natural persons" and corporations are just "persons" is absurd.
Persons should be clarified as actual single entity human beings, by the US Supreme Court so we can get rid of all the douche bag lobbying going on in our Congress and Executive branches by these "corporate persons."