As I stated, we reached a high water mark in capping the power of sociopaths sometime back in the fifties. The highest tax rate was 90%. Since then, the sociopathic class has fought back with their theories of trickle down economics and government deregulation. This isn't an insolvable problem, all it takes is for the vast majority of decent folks to realize that the rich do not have their best interests at heart, and as they are not sociopaths, they will never be let in the club.
Good, the people who use a resource should pay for the damages the use of that resource causes. It's funny how quickly the idea of personal responsibility gets thrown out the window when it's you that will be accountable.
I've never seen a nuclear bomb that put MORE stuff below it. Usually, they kind of, you know, excavate a huge crater. Think things through, man, there's a reason no one else has seriously proposed this.
Unless we prove they were criminally negligent, the most BP will pay is $75 million. Those are the laws we passed when we opened the Gulf up to drilling. Because, you know, oil companies make so little profit off of all this, there's no way they could afford to pay for their mistakes. And this is America, land of the free! We don't hold corporations accountable for their mistakes here, that would be infringing on their FREEDOMS!
The lengths you go to, to defend BP, are astounding. Are you a stakeholder in the corporation? The article does not say they successfully tested the preventer, it says they claimed to have tested it. Funny you question the worker's word, but not BPs. They also skipped plans to acoustically check the concrete of the plug. The list of criminally negligent activities by BP continues to mount. Surviving rig workers are claiming they were held incommunicado for forty hours and forced to sign false testimony. The Coast Guard, at the behest of BP, has been removing reporters from affected beaches.
There is a cap of $75 million on damages in cases like this. But that does not apply in cases of criminal negligence. BP is attempting to cover up their negligence, I wonder why? But what really gets my goat is all the people who bitch and moan about 'personal responsibility' when it comes to things like health care and social programs, but excuse the most egregious lack of personal responsibility by corporate executives. Why do the rich and powerful get a different set of standards? Its not as though they are going to thank you for defending them by letting you into their little sociopath's club.
What needs to happen now is name the names, and get them into the public news instead of allowing them to cower behind the corporate image. At the end of the day, greedy people fucked up and caused this. Name and shame time.
Kind of defeats the purpose of corporations, if the people who are running it can be exposed and held accountable.
We do it all the time, for fraudulent and criminal organizations. What is the mob, but a corporation? If a corporation commits a crime, the corporate veil is pierced and the individuals are held accountable. I don't think you even understand what 'limited liability' means. It does not mean 'you can not be held accountable for your actions as a corporate officer.' That would be ludicrous. It means 'If the firm goes bankrupt, you are only financially liable for the amount you invested.'
You must have missed the part further down where I excoriate factory farming for unnecessary cruelty. Also, in the above post, I say 'raised right' meaning, in a humane fashion, not factory farmed.
Sometimes, you need to tread a slippery slope to reach reality. While it is not correct to project humanity onto animals, it is correct to note the similarities and differences. According to MRI scans and other experiments, mammals at least have most of the same emotional circuitry as humans.
As adult human beings, we are capable of dealing with fuzziness, uncertainty, and moral gray areas. We can love animals, treat them right, and still enjoy their delicious innards. We can enact certain rights for animals, and this will not necessarily lead to giving them all the rights of humans. It is possible to strike a moral balance on this, despite warning cries of 'slippery slope!' When you stop to think about it, most of life is a slippery slope and it's a wonder more people don't slide down it into madness.
I disagree. Most eco terror is damage to property. Not even close to murder, let alone mass murder and certainly not worth throwing away the constitution over.
Animals don't have a point of view. They don't have the capability for abstraction. They live in the present moment. A human, given the choice you present, would likely say, "Give me freedom." A cow, on the other hand, would say "moo," because I cow doesn't know from freedom or life expectancy, it knows hunger, comfort, love, lust, anger, and so forth. Simple things, in the moment.
Try not to judge things in human terms. The animals we eat are not human. They do not have abstract models of the world. They do, however, have feelings just like you and I, at least the mammals do. I don't know about fish. Things that would not bother us will bother an animal, and vice versa.
I recommend you read any of Temple Grandin's books about animals for some great insight into the animal mind.
You assume right. Feedlots are horrible. As for removing the balls, I've done it. You slip a tight rubber band over the base of the scrotum, pinching off the nerves and blood supply. The animal does not seem to suffer much, and overall, suffering is reduced as the animals fight less.
Your statement simply does not correlate with mine. Humans have different standards than animals, and a life of human slavery is not the same as the life of a free range cow. A human living in those conditions will suffer considerably, not even counting the physical torture. A cow will not. I've lived on farms. Properly raised and well treated farm animals are generally happy and content.
An animal does not know it isn't free. "Freedom" is a high order abstraction that no other animals besides ourselves are capable of. Animals live in the moment, and every moment of a well cared for farm animal's life is pleasant, right up to a split second ending, rather than a horrific, drawn out death from being eaten alive.
I'm not claiming animals are a utility for us to use. I'm claiming something bigger: animals get a better bargain from us than from nature.
And remember, I am not endorsing the horrors of factory farming here. I am talking about free range, cruelty free animals.
Of course it is predation, but when done right, is superior to the alternatives of having your throat ripped out and your guts eaten while you are still alive.
If I had a choice of being eaten by those aliens, and being eaten by a lion, I'd take the aliens.
I'm a fairly radical leftist and even I find PETA to be utterly ridiculous and ineffective. They harm their own cause with their hard line stance and near-terrorist (some would say, get rid of the 'near' part) actions. Sea Kittens? Really? And PETA have 'rescued' animals, only to let them die because they did not know how to care for them or did not have the resources. They are buffoons.
If you want to support a legitimate group with the same or very similar goals, support the SPCA I'm all about reducing suffering and cruelty, in animals and humans. But animals are delicious. An animal, raised right by humans for food, suffers FAR LESS than its wild counterpart. Being raised by a good rancher is a great bargain for a cow. A pleasant life with plentiful food and no predation, in exchange for a quick and painless death. If I were a cow, I'd take that over constant fear of predators and the threat of starvation.
I would say rather, it has changed, to a high water mark in the 1950s, when the top tax bracket was 90%, but has changed back as the monsters fought back. Of course, I'm sure we all agree that we need to stop them at all costs. One can not bargain nor reason with monsters.
That is the true purpose of government, the people banding together to protect themselves from those who would oppress and abuse them. It is our duty, as individuals and citizens, to do everything in our power to stop them.
In any case, whether I am right or you are right about what has come before, I hope we can agree that being led about by monsters is not the optimal state of affairs, and we need to change things so society does not favor sociopaths. Sociopaths do not deserve the freedom to oppress others without consequences. No one does.
You forgot, "never show empathy." And now we have a complete diagnosis: sociopath. Only sociopaths have what it takes to succeed in modern business, everyone else is just too weak. We used to shun or kill monsters, now we elevate them to the status of Gods.
Yup, I've had luck with pmtmr. But if your Mhz setting is 1000, as it is with some older SLES and Red hat kernels, nothing will work. We used to have some servers that were running ntpdate every minute as a cron job:(
Yes, I agree completely, everyone has the potential for just about every human behavior, and it is perception and expectation that move us towards one form or another.
It's a self reinforcing cycle. But there are still a few non-hierarchical societies, where everyone generally acts selflessly. Mostly isolated rainforest tribes, but they do exist.
Slashdot Mirror
That was his wife's idea. He turned it from a purely charitable ideal into a marketing scam.
As I stated, we reached a high water mark in capping the power of sociopaths sometime back in the fifties. The highest tax rate was 90%. Since then, the sociopathic class has fought back with their theories of trickle down economics and government deregulation. This isn't an insolvable problem, all it takes is for the vast majority of decent folks to realize that the rich do not have their best interests at heart, and as they are not sociopaths, they will never be let in the club.
Good, the people who use a resource should pay for the damages the use of that resource causes. It's funny how quickly the idea of personal responsibility gets thrown out the window when it's you that will be accountable.
I've never seen a nuclear bomb that put MORE stuff below it. Usually, they kind of, you know, excavate a huge crater. Think things through, man, there's a reason no one else has seriously proposed this.
Unless we prove they were criminally negligent, the most BP will pay is $75 million. Those are the laws we passed when we opened the Gulf up to drilling. Because, you know, oil companies make so little profit off of all this, there's no way they could afford to pay for their mistakes. And this is America, land of the free! We don't hold corporations accountable for their mistakes here, that would be infringing on their FREEDOMS!
The lengths you go to, to defend BP, are astounding. Are you a stakeholder in the corporation? The article does not say they successfully tested the preventer, it says they claimed to have tested it. Funny you question the worker's word, but not BPs. They also skipped plans to acoustically check the concrete of the plug. The list of criminally negligent activities by BP continues to mount. Surviving rig workers are claiming they were held incommunicado for forty hours and forced to sign false testimony. The Coast Guard, at the behest of BP, has been removing reporters from affected beaches.
There is a cap of $75 million on damages in cases like this. But that does not apply in cases of criminal negligence. BP is attempting to cover up their negligence, I wonder why? But what really gets my goat is all the people who bitch and moan about 'personal responsibility' when it comes to things like health care and social programs, but excuse the most egregious lack of personal responsibility by corporate executives. Why do the rich and powerful get a different set of standards? Its not as though they are going to thank you for defending them by letting you into their little sociopath's club.
What needs to happen now is name the names, and get them into the public news instead of allowing them to cower behind the corporate image. At the end of the day, greedy people fucked up and caused this. Name and shame time.
Kind of defeats the purpose of corporations, if the people who are running it can be exposed and held accountable.
We do it all the time, for fraudulent and criminal organizations. What is the mob, but a corporation? If a corporation commits a crime, the corporate veil is pierced and the individuals are held accountable. I don't think you even understand what 'limited liability' means. It does not mean 'you can not be held accountable for your actions as a corporate officer.' That would be ludicrous. It means 'If the firm goes bankrupt, you are only financially liable for the amount you invested.'
There's an app for that.
You must have missed the part further down where I excoriate factory farming for unnecessary cruelty. Also, in the above post, I say 'raised right' meaning, in a humane fashion, not factory farmed.
Fuck you, that isn't what I believe or have ever stated. You want answers from me? Ask nicely like your mamma taught you.
Sometimes, you need to tread a slippery slope to reach reality. While it is not correct to project humanity onto animals, it is correct to note the similarities and differences. According to MRI scans and other experiments, mammals at least have most of the same emotional circuitry as humans.
As adult human beings, we are capable of dealing with fuzziness, uncertainty, and moral gray areas. We can love animals, treat them right, and still enjoy their delicious innards. We can enact certain rights for animals, and this will not necessarily lead to giving them all the rights of humans. It is possible to strike a moral balance on this, despite warning cries of 'slippery slope!' When you stop to think about it, most of life is a slippery slope and it's a wonder more people don't slide down it into madness.
I disagree. Most eco terror is damage to property. Not even close to murder, let alone mass murder and certainly not worth throwing away the constitution over.
Animals don't have a point of view. They don't have the capability for abstraction. They live in the present moment. A human, given the choice you present, would likely say, "Give me freedom." A cow, on the other hand, would say "moo," because I cow doesn't know from freedom or life expectancy, it knows hunger, comfort, love, lust, anger, and so forth. Simple things, in the moment.
Try not to judge things in human terms. The animals we eat are not human. They do not have abstract models of the world. They do, however, have feelings just like you and I, at least the mammals do. I don't know about fish. Things that would not bother us will bother an animal, and vice versa.
I recommend you read any of Temple Grandin's books about animals for some great insight into the animal mind.
You assume right. Feedlots are horrible. As for removing the balls, I've done it. You slip a tight rubber band over the base of the scrotum, pinching off the nerves and blood supply. The animal does not seem to suffer much, and overall, suffering is reduced as the animals fight less.
Your statement simply does not correlate with mine. Humans have different standards than animals, and a life of human slavery is not the same as the life of a free range cow. A human living in those conditions will suffer considerably, not even counting the physical torture. A cow will not. I've lived on farms. Properly raised and well treated farm animals are generally happy and content.
An animal does not know it isn't free. "Freedom" is a high order abstraction that no other animals besides ourselves are capable of. Animals live in the moment, and every moment of a well cared for farm animal's life is pleasant, right up to a split second ending, rather than a horrific, drawn out death from being eaten alive.
I'm not claiming animals are a utility for us to use. I'm claiming something bigger: animals get a better bargain from us than from nature.
And remember, I am not endorsing the horrors of factory farming here. I am talking about free range, cruelty free animals.
I have spoken to many a cow regarding this subject matter. The general consensus amongst them was "MmmmmmoooOOOOOOooooo".
Take that as you may, I think we can all agree that PETA is crazy.
Yes, but that is a moo point. Like the opinion of a cow, the point is moo.
Of course it is predation, but when done right, is superior to the alternatives of having your throat ripped out and your guts eaten while you are still alive.
If I had a choice of being eaten by those aliens, and being eaten by a lion, I'd take the aliens.
Yet government, just like fire, is essential to modern society.
> If I were a cow, I'd take that over constant fear of predators and the threat of starvation.
You pre-ordered and iPad, didn't you?
No. iPads are not delicious, even blended.
I'm a fairly radical leftist and even I find PETA to be utterly ridiculous and ineffective. They harm their own cause with their hard line stance and near-terrorist (some would say, get rid of the 'near' part) actions. Sea Kittens? Really? And PETA have 'rescued' animals, only to let them die because they did not know how to care for them or did not have the resources. They are buffoons.
If you want to support a legitimate group with the same or very similar goals, support the SPCA I'm all about reducing suffering and cruelty, in animals and humans. But animals are delicious. An animal, raised right by humans for food, suffers FAR LESS than its wild counterpart. Being raised by a good rancher is a great bargain for a cow. A pleasant life with plentiful food and no predation, in exchange for a quick and painless death. If I were a cow, I'd take that over constant fear of predators and the threat of starvation.
I would say rather, it has changed, to a high water mark in the 1950s, when the top tax bracket was 90%, but has changed back as the monsters fought back. Of course, I'm sure we all agree that we need to stop them at all costs. One can not bargain nor reason with monsters.
That is the true purpose of government, the people banding together to protect themselves from those who would oppress and abuse them. It is our duty, as individuals and citizens, to do everything in our power to stop them.
In any case, whether I am right or you are right about what has come before, I hope we can agree that being led about by monsters is not the optimal state of affairs, and we need to change things so society does not favor sociopaths. Sociopaths do not deserve the freedom to oppress others without consequences. No one does.
You forgot, "never show empathy." And now we have a complete diagnosis: sociopath. Only sociopaths have what it takes to succeed in modern business, everyone else is just too weak. We used to shun or kill monsters, now we elevate them to the status of Gods.
Yup, I've had luck with pmtmr. But if your Mhz setting is 1000, as it is with some older SLES and Red hat kernels, nothing will work. We used to have some servers that were running ntpdate every minute as a cron job :(
Yes, I agree completely, everyone has the potential for just about every human behavior, and it is perception and expectation that move us towards one form or another.
It's a self reinforcing cycle. But there are still a few non-hierarchical societies, where everyone generally acts selflessly. Mostly isolated rainforest tribes, but they do exist.