One problem, as I see it, is that the corporation acts as a shield to the individuals. Individuals operating as a corporation are in many cases shielded from liability.
Another problem is that a group is more than the sum of its parts. We recognize that, although a government is made up of individuals, it is more than the sum of those individuals and must be treated differently. It is far more powerful, and far harder to hurt than an individual is, so its power must be limited. Why do we recognize that one group must be limited, but another group must not?
Corporations do not need special rights over and above those of the individuals comprising the corporation. The individuals already have their rights, why does the group need additional rights? That's the way it stands now, and I don't think it makes sense.
Did the universe have a beginning, or is it only the part that we can see? And how do we know that the laws of physics aren't a subset of some larger laws? We don't. And that is more plausible than some invisible friend in the sky.
So our economic system is designed by intelligence, huh? There's some central planner that makes sure everyone has enough steel, cars, underwear and oranges, is that it? I mean, it's darn complex, our world economy, someone must have planned it all.
There are no gaping holes in the theory of evolution. I get tired of pointing this out. I have yet to see one "hole" that was not thoroughly debunked years ago. Every time someone thinks they have found a "hole" it turns out that they were just quoting some preacher who has no idea what he's talking about, or how far the science of evolution has come. If you really think you've found a hole, please, let me know and I will point you to the appropriate FAQ where that hole has been debunked a million times before.
If you can believe in an infinite being that needs no creator, why is it such a stretch to believe in a universe that needs no creator?
I'm saying it is usually more in the public interest to give tax breaks to small companies rather than large. I think that the more a market is dominated by a few large players, the less we see the benefits of the free market system and the more we see the disadvantages of an oligarchy.
Helping poor people is bad because big business wants a large pool of desperate, scared individuals who will do any job for low pay, no matter how dangerous or degrading.
The problem of free riders is real, but our current system only encourages free riders. Our system is adversarial, not cooperative. In a system that is adversarial, where the little guy has no chance of punishing unfairness, most people will try to get away with as much as they can.
Conversely, in a system that is cooperative, where everyone has the ability to punish free riders and reward cooperators, most people will choose to cooperate because it is the most efficient strategy.
Here's a good starting place to explore current research in economics and game theory. It turns out, people do not normally act completely in their own self interest. Most people are more motivated by ideals of fairness and reciprocity.
I don't think most people want to sit on their asses and collect handouts. Most people want respect, and unless the government is seen as an adversary you are conning out of money, no one is going to respect anyone who sits on their ass.
People have strong intrinsic motivations. This "work or die" ethic replaces a strong and rewarding motivation (doing what you love, gaining the respect of your peers) with a weaker, less rewarding, and more limiting motivation (fear of death.)
I agree that our two party system is a failure. I think a Condorcet or other ranked choice voting system might help more than term limits.
Nothing wrong with less content control. Heck, I want less content control. Taxes are another matter. Big companies shouldn't get the tax breaks, small companies should. They are the real engines of wealth and job creation in this country.
By your logic, we should just hand them over all our money, that would allow them to make bigger budget and/or more titles, too.
Hey, I'm just saying, if we can hand out money left and right to people who don't need it, why not to the people that do? Let's be consistent, either no handouts for anyone (in which case the little guy would have a better chance of not needing charity) or handouts for those that need it first.
The people who complain the loudest about the government teat are usually the ones suckling the most frantically. Did you vote for your senator because he can bring home the pork? Most Republican states take more federal funds than they spend in taxes, while most Democratic states pay more in taxes than they take in funds. Funny thing, that.
The NYT is liberal like CNN is conservative, i.e. not very. There is no liberal bias. There is corporate bias, and there is laziness, and that is all you need to know to explain the media.
I grew up in a Newtonian gravity household. Einstein is the devil. Space-time is myth! Anyone can plainly see that space and time are two different things.
Anthropogenic global warming, on the other hand, is like Buddhism. You can tack it onto anything. On Falling Apple Day, we used to bake an apple pie using a solar oven as a tribute to Saint Gore.
It does change in the process of change. For instance, at one time there were no genes, only RNA. Then there was DNA, then DNA coiled into chromosomes, then methylated DNA coiled into chromosomes. Each was a vast change in the way genes were copied and expressed.
You have just restated my point as if I did not understand the point I was making, or as if no one else could understand it. Are you implying that I am an idiot, or that the rest of/. is?
Dude, the hat was on the doorknob. You know that means you can't come in. I'm gonna sue you for infringing on my patented hat security system and making me go limp.
The counter-evolutionistas love to huff and puff until they find a person who so soundly refutes them that they have no possible comeback. Then they ignore that person and go on making their ridiculous claims elsewhere as if they have not just been shown to be absurd.
It's frustrating. You make the same point over and over. You refute the same idiocy over and over. Nothing changes. It's like a sick game to them. They're like the baby that keeps throwing its strained peas on the floor, and we keep picking them up.
It doesn't matter how much evidence we have. It doesn't matter how many times their objections to the theory are answered. It's not about truth to them, its about belief. Specifically, control of belief, which is religion's bread and butter. It's sophistry, plain and simple. They don't argue to arrive at the truth through a dialectic process. They argue to protect their untenable belief system from anything that might threaten it.
I would say that "Deliberate and venal ignorance" is about the best working definition of "Evil" that I can come up with. Counter-evolutionistas are evil.
Did you fail reading comprehension? He claims evolution doesn't have a standpoint, then asks if you would claim that ohm's law is false based on the standpoint that whatever happens to the current is fine from the voltage's standpoint.
Just because someone uses a synonym for the word standpoint in making an analogy about absurd standpoints does not mean you have caught them in some kind of logical fallacy. You are flailing at shadows, and hurting the cause you are trying to help by proving that its supporters are not good at thinking logically.
Standpoint, as it has been used so far in this discussion, in relation to evolution, means a bias towards some objectively measurable improvement or increase in complexity. Evolution does not have such a bias. It is biased towards whatever happens to get the most genes passed on, in a particular time and place, given a particular set of circumstances.
Evolution is hard for people to grasp because they have a hard time grasping how combining very many simple things and processes can make something unimaginably complex. Most people want to break things down into parts to analyze them, and this does not work for evolution, because it is a complex interaction of simple parts. Most people are not good at analyzing whole system, and this is the only way to really think about evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
One problem, as I see it, is that the corporation acts as a shield to the individuals. Individuals operating as a corporation are in many cases shielded from liability.
Another problem is that a group is more than the sum of its parts. We recognize that, although a government is made up of individuals, it is more than the sum of those individuals and must be treated differently. It is far more powerful, and far harder to hurt than an individual is, so its power must be limited. Why do we recognize that one group must be limited, but another group must not?
Corporations do not need special rights over and above those of the individuals comprising the corporation. The individuals already have their rights, why does the group need additional rights? That's the way it stands now, and I don't think it makes sense.
Did the universe have a beginning, or is it only the part that we can see? And how do we know that the laws of physics aren't a subset of some larger laws? We don't. And that is more plausible than some invisible friend in the sky.
So our economic system is designed by intelligence, huh? There's some central planner that makes sure everyone has enough steel, cars, underwear and oranges, is that it? I mean, it's darn complex, our world economy, someone must have planned it all.
Commie. Why do you hate the free market?
There are no gaping holes in the theory of evolution. I get tired of pointing this out. I have yet to see one "hole" that was not thoroughly debunked years ago. Every time someone thinks they have found a "hole" it turns out that they were just quoting some preacher who has no idea what he's talking about, or how far the science of evolution has come. If you really think you've found a hole, please, let me know and I will point you to the appropriate FAQ where that hole has been debunked a million times before.
If you can believe in an infinite being that needs no creator, why is it such a stretch to believe in a universe that needs no creator?
I'm saying it is usually more in the public interest to give tax breaks to small companies rather than large. I think that the more a market is dominated by a few large players, the less we see the benefits of the free market system and the more we see the disadvantages of an oligarchy.
Wait a minute - you can see space and time?
Sure, and with a little ayahuasca, so can you. Just watch out for the self-transforming machine elves.
Helping poor people is bad because big business wants a large pool of desperate, scared individuals who will do any job for low pay, no matter how dangerous or degrading.
The problem of free riders is real, but our current system only encourages free riders. Our system is adversarial, not cooperative. In a system that is adversarial, where the little guy has no chance of punishing unfairness, most people will try to get away with as much as they can.
Conversely, in a system that is cooperative, where everyone has the ability to punish free riders and reward cooperators, most people will choose to cooperate because it is the most efficient strategy.
Here's a good starting place to explore current research in economics and game theory. It turns out, people do not normally act completely in their own self interest. Most people are more motivated by ideals of fairness and reciprocity.
I don't think most people want to sit on their asses and collect handouts. Most people want respect, and unless the government is seen as an adversary you are conning out of money, no one is going to respect anyone who sits on their ass.
People have strong intrinsic motivations. This "work or die" ethic replaces a strong and rewarding motivation (doing what you love, gaining the respect of your peers) with a weaker, less rewarding, and more limiting motivation (fear of death.)
I agree that our two party system is a failure. I think a Condorcet or other ranked choice voting system might help more than term limits.
Nothing wrong with less content control. Heck, I want less content control. Taxes are another matter. Big companies shouldn't get the tax breaks, small companies should. They are the real engines of wealth and job creation in this country.
By your logic, we should just hand them over all our money, that would allow them to make bigger budget and/or more titles, too.
Hey, I'm just saying, if we can hand out money left and right to people who don't need it, why not to the people that do? Let's be consistent, either no handouts for anyone (in which case the little guy would have a better chance of not needing charity) or handouts for those that need it first.
The people who complain the loudest about the government teat are usually the ones suckling the most frantically. Did you vote for your senator because he can bring home the pork? Most Republican states take more federal funds than they spend in taxes, while most Democratic states pay more in taxes than they take in funds. Funny thing, that.
Don't believe me? Look it up yourself
The NYT is liberal like CNN is conservative, i.e. not very. There is no liberal bias. There is corporate bias, and there is laziness, and that is all you need to know to explain the media.
This is just a prelude to the games industry lobbying for more DRM, less content control, tax breaks or some other corporate-socialism handout.
Why can't we have socialism for the little guy? Why is it always handouts for the ones that need them the least?
I grew up in a Newtonian gravity household. Einstein is the devil. Space-time is myth! Anyone can plainly see that space and time are two different things.
Anthropogenic global warming, on the other hand, is like Buddhism. You can tack it onto anything. On Falling Apple Day, we used to bake an apple pie using a solar oven as a tribute to Saint Gore.
We could put them to work in the fields, pollinating plants. Feed them enough sugar and they'd even buzz around like bees.
You people worry to much. No matter how much we fuck things up, we'll always find a way to fix it that doesn't hurt anyone that matters.
I started to watch that when it came out, but some asshole let a jar full of moths loose in the theater.
Where's my check?
Haha, just kidding. I believe in anthropogenic global warming, but I can't resist an easy shot like that.
It does change in the process of change. For instance, at one time there were no genes, only RNA. Then there was DNA, then DNA coiled into chromosomes, then methylated DNA coiled into chromosomes. Each was a vast change in the way genes were copied and expressed.
Having your foot pulverized by an asteroid. Finding a baby mouse in a bottle of beer. Having a circus midget shits on your lawn.
Microsoft should really try for the good wow, not the bad wow.
You have just restated my point as if I did not understand the point I was making, or as if no one else could understand it. Are you implying that I am an idiot, or that the rest of /. is?
You drive your car over public streets, you've got to let the government (i.e. the people) tell you how you can use your car.
There, fixed that for ya'.
I've patented a method for gaining karma by making posts about patenting the patent system. Expect a call from my fully battle-trained law-panthers.
Dude, the hat was on the doorknob. You know that means you can't come in. I'm gonna sue you for infringing on my patented hat security system and making me go limp.
The counter-evolutionistas love to huff and puff until they find a person who so soundly refutes them that they have no possible comeback. Then they ignore that person and go on making their ridiculous claims elsewhere as if they have not just been shown to be absurd.
It's frustrating. You make the same point over and over. You refute the same idiocy over and over. Nothing changes. It's like a sick game to them. They're like the baby that keeps throwing its strained peas on the floor, and we keep picking them up.
It doesn't matter how much evidence we have. It doesn't matter how many times their objections to the theory are answered. It's not about truth to them, its about belief. Specifically, control of belief, which is religion's bread and butter. It's sophistry, plain and simple. They don't argue to arrive at the truth through a dialectic process. They argue to protect their untenable belief system from anything that might threaten it.
I would say that "Deliberate and venal ignorance" is about the best working definition of "Evil" that I can come up with. Counter-evolutionistas are evil.
Did you fail reading comprehension? He claims evolution doesn't have a standpoint, then asks if you would claim that ohm's law is false based on the standpoint that whatever happens to the current is fine from the voltage's standpoint.
Just because someone uses a synonym for the word standpoint in making an analogy about absurd standpoints does not mean you have caught them in some kind of logical fallacy. You are flailing at shadows, and hurting the cause you are trying to help by proving that its supporters are not good at thinking logically.
Standpoint, as it has been used so far in this discussion, in relation to evolution, means a bias towards some objectively measurable improvement or increase in complexity. Evolution does not have such a bias. It is biased towards whatever happens to get the most genes passed on, in a particular time and place, given a particular set of circumstances.
Evolution is hard for people to grasp because they have a hard time grasping how combining very many simple things and processes can make something unimaginably complex. Most people want to break things down into parts to analyze them, and this does not work for evolution, because it is a complex interaction of simple parts. Most people are not good at analyzing whole system, and this is the only way to really think about evolution.