If you believe a company is "socially responsible", you've been duped by its PR firm. Companies are responsible to society only insofar as it increases their profits.
For a public corporation like Novell every decision is simply a matter of short-term financial accounting. Impacts to public welfare, environmental damage, working conditions, patriotism, human safety, morality, etc. are relevant only if there is an anticipated financial impact on the business. Corporations are legally obligated to _maximize_ profits. Profit is the only motive. They can't just earn a decent return, they must maximize.
If a single executive doesn't pursue maximum profit, his boss fires him. If the top executives don't, the shareholders sue.
The classic example is the founding of the Dodge automotive company. Essentially the Dodge Brothers collected the capital to expand their business by suing Henry Ford for paying his workers well. The court decided that Ford set wages too high and therefore had denied profits that rightfully belonged to the shareholders. Since Ford was notoriously fickle, there is some debate if he was actually overpaying, but nonetheless the precedent was set that profits always come first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company
You mentioned it towards the end of your post, but R's plotting functions should really be emphasized. Since I discovered them, I really can't stand to make plots using any other software.
Just to be clear, the US Government does post all types of propaganda to YouTube. For example, they created this channel "to give viewers around the world a 'boots on the ground' perspective of Operation Iraqi Freedom from those who are fighting it."
Propaganda is an important tool of every modern organization, especially for those involved in armed conflicts.
If the cost of energy increases, consumers have a greater incentive to conserve. It happens all the time with gasoline prices: when the price rises, people drive less and buy more fuel efficient autos.
You could argue that consumers aren't currently paying for the total cost of energy anyway, since the government is often responsible for cleaning up pollution.
I think Bill Mahr says it best: if Kerry needed inspiration, he just needed to look back at videos of himself 30 years ago. I guess a lot of Republicans disagree with what he was saying back then, but there was no dobut that he was sincere, geniune, and eloquent. He also displayed a lot of courage. Since then, his record as a politician was horrible. For example, his Senate attendance record is a joke.
Bush ran a great campaign, but that's really no excuse. Lots of people on the left, the smart ones, are fuming that Kerry couldn't defeat what they saw as the worst president in a long, long time: http://counterpunch.org/cockburn11062004.html
I think you proved what I was trying to say in my original post, by writing so much about an issue that probably doesn't have that big of an effect on you. I see what you're saying about the judicial branch overstepping it's bounds (don't agree with it though...), I still don't see how that has a significant effect on your life.
I mean, I only have one vote. And I'm going to spend it on something important to me, like how much of my paycheck I can take home, or whether I have a clean environment to live in, or whether the world will be safer 10 years from now.
Some people think Bush is stupid, and he isn't. His team knows how to push people's buttons to make them go out and vote. And it's not a conspiracy, and it is the opposite of ignorance--his team is organized in what issues they talk about, and how they talk about them, so that they properly mould public discourse. It's just good politics, and I wish the democrats could get their act together in the same way.
(btw, I understand that Democrats have these hot button issues that they also try to exploit. Stems cells and Bush's national guard record aren't going to decide my vote...)
Look. I'm not whining about it. I agree that Kerry was a terrible candidate. It seemed like he always managed to do or say the exact wrong thing.
That doesn't change the fact that 21% of people voted based on 'moral issues' and that those people almost unanimously voted for Bush. I happen to think Bush's policies are asinine...but regardless of what your opinion is on the issues, how does gay marriage become your #1 concern?
By chance? I don't think so. It was an excellent idea and ingeniously executed. Bush 'rallied his base' by stirring up the religious right, and getting them to go and vote. Maybe you and your friends didn't vote that way, but a lot of people did, and it made the difference.
It's not a conspiracy theory, but it's certainly not ignorance. Reagan also wanted people to believe he was a poor, ignorant sap. (Iran-contra affair? Who's Iran??)
It takes some real genius to rob the population of their pensions, lower their wages, plunge the country deep into debt, and then come election time... convince them to ignore all that and to base their vote on 'moral issues'. The fact is: system is designed so that the people at the top wield tremendous power over capital. It's difficult to get to the top of the stack and it requires a lot of favors--once you're there, why would you care about the people at the bottom? You have to repay all those favors... It's no conspiracy, it's just how the system works.
Come in here, dear boy, have a cigar. You're gonna go far, fly high, You're never gonna die, You're gonna make it if you try; They're gonna love you. Well I've always had a deep respect, And I mean that most sincerely. The band is just fantastic, that is really what I think. Oh by the way, which one's Pink? And did we tell you the name of the game, boy, We call it Riding the Gravy Train.
The laws of physics don't change with scale, but their relative importance does change. For example the (surface area / volume) ratio of a real Saturn V is much lower than the model. Therefore aerodynamic drag on the smaller model will be more significant.
The purpose of the ASC isn't to bring solar cars to consumers--that will never be feasible. The purpose is to inform the public about alternate technologies and to encourage young engineers to think about energy efficieny in their future careers. See this faq: http://www.americansolarchallenge.org/pdfs/faqs.pd f
I believe that UMR was travelling at or near the posted speed limit for the entire race, so it's not really possible to finish much faster....yes the teams do have to obey traffic laws.
I would count myself in this category. I'm not a hardcore libertarian but I do share many of the opinions of the libertarian party. Part of the reason I didn't vote for Gore was his history of trying to censor music in the late 80's or early 90's. I'd be more likely to vote for a murderer than a book-burner (sadly, it seems that's the decision I was actually forced to make). Part of the reason that I voted for Bush was I believed Powell would be his adviser and therefore the Powell doctrine would be observed. Little did I know that he would form a cabinet of hawks who had been itching to bomb Arabs, without reason, for almost a decade.
If I could do it over, I'm not sure who I would have voted for. Its that terrible trap of voting for the lesser of two evils. There is a positive from the Bush presidency though, it has solidified how I prioritize the issues.
I heard this point made on NPR recently, I can't remember who made it...
Republicans have decreased government involvement... but only for businesses, corporations and the military, not for individuals. The distinction is especially hypocritical when you look at our economy: Republicans push to deregulate industry, but they wish to further restrict commerce between individuals. The result is that corporations are merging into giant monopolies while individuals are encouraged to form complex black market economies to trade drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, pornography, guns...
Mozilla is not this buggy for most people. Make sure that before you upgrade, you delete all of the files from your previous install. Not doing this has caused crashes for me in the past.
The only major nuclear disaster in history is Chernobyl, which was not a nuclear reaction but a chemical reaction; the graphite coolant caught fire. The graphite reactor was a bad design, and all reactors today are water-cooled. Further, Chernobyl had no containment building to speak of, and was run by idiots.
3 million people didn't die from just a fire in a power plant. The burning graphite was a chemical reaction. When the graphite coolant was gone, the plant's nuclear reaction went out of control. The nuclear reaction heated things up and the graphite burned faster. And so on... The nuclear reaction wasn't as fast as in a bomb, but a significant amount of radiation was released.
It is also not true that all reactors today are water-cooled. Russia currently has 13 Chernobyl-type RBMK reactors (did you think they had enough money to shut down all of their RBMK reactors after Chernobyl??) In fact I think they are starting construction on another one (they like the plutonium that this design produces.) The RBMK design also doesn't have a full containment structure. (For more info, see: http://www.uic.com.au/nip64a.htm and http://engphys.mcmaster.ca/canteach/techdoclib/AEC L-PR/Chernobyl.pdf)
I agree that there are new reactor designs that are more safe, and that new US designs might even be safer than coal in the short-term. Please don't trivialize the issue, though. I would have loved to here your thoughts on the issue in 1979 while you were standing in Pennsylvania.
Slashdot Mirror
You're making a BIG assumption that sending the US military will fix the problem.
Wars are necessarily complicated and messy. No one knows what will happen after the troops are sent in.
If you believe a company is "socially responsible", you've been duped
by its PR firm. Companies are responsible to society only insofar as
it increases their profits.
For a public corporation like Novell every decision is simply a matter
of short-term financial accounting. Impacts to public welfare,
environmental damage, working conditions, patriotism, human safety,
morality, etc. are relevant only if there is an anticipated financial
impact on the business. Corporations are legally obligated to
_maximize_ profits. Profit is the only motive. They can't just earn a
decent return, they must maximize.
If a single executive doesn't pursue maximum profit, his boss fires
him. If the top executives don't, the shareholders sue.
The classic example is the founding of the Dodge automotive company.
Essentially the Dodge Brothers collected the capital to expand their
business by suing Henry Ford for paying his workers well. The court
decided that Ford set wages too high and therefore had denied profits
that rightfully belonged to the shareholders. Since Ford was
notoriously fickle, there is some debate if he was actually
overpaying, but nonetheless the precedent was set that profits always
come first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company
you mean hypocrisy...
You mentioned it towards the end of your post, but R's plotting functions should really be emphasized. Since I discovered them, I really can't stand to make plots using any other software.
Here's a photo of the robot in action.
Here's a photo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lowcarboneconomy/2380068464/sizes/o/
Just to be clear, the US Government does post all types of propaganda to YouTube. For example, they created this channel "to give viewers around the world a 'boots on the ground' perspective of Operation Iraqi Freedom from those who are fighting it."
Propaganda is an important tool of every modern organization, especially for those involved in armed conflicts.
dt_here / dt_somewhereelse
i don't know how you'd measure it...
If the cost of energy increases, consumers have a greater incentive to conserve. It happens all the time with gasoline prices: when the price rises, people drive less and buy more fuel efficient autos.
You could argue that consumers aren't currently paying for the total cost of energy anyway, since the government is often responsible for cleaning up pollution.
Yeah, I see your points.
I think Bill Mahr says it best: if Kerry needed inspiration, he just needed to look back at videos of himself 30 years ago. I guess a lot of Republicans disagree with what he was saying back then, but there was no dobut that he was sincere, geniune, and eloquent. He also displayed a lot of courage. Since then, his record as a politician was horrible. For example, his Senate attendance record is a joke.
Bush ran a great campaign, but that's really no excuse. Lots of people on the left, the smart ones, are fuming that Kerry couldn't defeat what they saw as the worst president in a long, long time: http://counterpunch.org/cockburn11062004.html
I think you proved what I was trying to say in my original post, by writing so much about an issue that probably doesn't have that big of an effect on you. I see what you're saying about the judicial branch overstepping it's bounds (don't agree with it though...), I still don't see how that has a significant effect on your life.
I mean, I only have one vote. And I'm going to spend it on something important to me, like how much of my paycheck I can take home, or whether I have a clean environment to live in, or whether the world will be safer 10 years from now.
Some people think Bush is stupid, and he isn't. His team knows how to push people's buttons to make them go out and vote. And it's not a conspiracy, and it is the opposite of ignorance--his team is organized in what issues they talk about, and how they talk about them, so that they properly mould public discourse. It's just good politics, and I wish the democrats could get their act together in the same way.
(btw, I understand that Democrats have these hot button issues that they also try to exploit. Stems cells and Bush's national guard record aren't going to decide my vote...)
Look. I'm not whining about it. I agree that Kerry was a terrible candidate. It seemed like he always managed to do or say the exact wrong thing.
That doesn't change the fact that 21% of people voted based on 'moral issues' and that those people almost unanimously voted for Bush. I happen to think Bush's policies are asinine...but regardless of what your opinion is on the issues, how does gay marriage become your #1 concern?
By chance? I don't think so. It was an excellent idea and ingeniously executed. Bush 'rallied his base' by stirring up the religious right, and getting them to go and vote. Maybe you and your friends didn't vote that way, but a lot of people did, and it made the difference.
It's not a conspiracy theory, but it's certainly not ignorance. Reagan also wanted people to believe he was a poor, ignorant sap. (Iran-contra affair? Who's Iran??)
It takes some real genius to rob the population of their pensions, lower their wages, plunge the country deep into debt, and then come election time... convince them to ignore all that and to base their vote on 'moral issues'. The fact is: system is designed so that the people at the top wield tremendous power over capital. It's difficult to get to the top of the stack and it requires a lot of favors--once you're there, why would you care about the people at the bottom? You have to repay all those favors... It's no conspiracy, it's just how the system works.
that's nonsense. so you're saying that crystals and bulldozers are alive?
Come in here, dear boy, have a cigar.
You're gonna go far, fly high,
You're never gonna die,
You're gonna make it if you try;
They're gonna love you.
Well I've always had a deep respect,
And I mean that most sincerely.
The band is just fantastic,
that is really what I think.
Oh by the way, which one's Pink?
And did we tell you the name of the game, boy,
We call it Riding the Gravy Train.
The laws of physics don't change with scale, but their relative importance does change. For example the (surface area / volume) ratio of a real Saturn V is much lower than the model. Therefore aerodynamic drag on the smaller model will be more significant.
Any idea where I could find the video? I love Frontline.
The purpose of the ASC isn't to bring solar cars to consumers--that will never be feasible. The purpose is to inform the public about alternate technologies and to encourage young engineers to think about energy efficieny in their future careers. See this faq: http://www.americansolarchallenge.org/pdfs/faqs.pd f
I believe that UMR was travelling at or near the posted speed limit for the entire race, so it's not really possible to finish much faster. ...yes the teams do have to obey traffic laws.
I would count myself in this category. I'm not a hardcore libertarian but I do share many of the opinions of the libertarian party. Part of the reason I didn't vote for Gore was his history of trying to censor music in the late 80's or early 90's. I'd be more likely to vote for a murderer than a book-burner (sadly, it seems that's the decision I was actually forced to make). Part of the reason that I voted for Bush was I believed Powell would be his adviser and therefore the Powell doctrine would be observed. Little did I know that he would form a cabinet of hawks who had been itching to bomb Arabs, without reason, for almost a decade.
If I could do it over, I'm not sure who I would have voted for. Its that terrible trap of voting for the lesser of two evils. There is a positive from the Bush presidency though, it has solidified how I prioritize the issues.
...or the DJ could just use LEDs.
I heard this point made on NPR recently, I can't remember who made it...
Republicans have decreased government involvement... but only for businesses, corporations and the military, not for individuals. The distinction is especially hypocritical when you look at our economy: Republicans push to deregulate industry, but they wish to further restrict commerce between individuals. The result is that corporations are merging into giant monopolies while individuals are encouraged to form complex black market economies to trade drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, pornography, guns...
This is close to what you are looking for.
http://shrike.freshrpms.net/rpm.html?id=404
Mozilla is not this buggy for most people. Make sure that before you upgrade, you delete all of the files from your previous install. Not doing this has caused crashes for me in the past.
The only major nuclear disaster in history is Chernobyl, which was not a nuclear reaction but a chemical reaction; the graphite coolant caught fire. The graphite reactor was a bad design, and all reactors today are water-cooled. Further, Chernobyl had no containment building to speak of, and was run by idiots.
C L-PR/Chernobyl.pdf)
3 million people didn't die from just a fire in a power plant. The burning graphite was a chemical reaction. When the graphite coolant was gone, the plant's nuclear reaction went out of control. The nuclear reaction heated things up and the graphite burned faster. And so on... The nuclear reaction wasn't as fast as in a bomb, but a significant amount of radiation was released.
It is also not true that all reactors today are water-cooled. Russia currently has 13 Chernobyl-type RBMK reactors (did you think they had enough money to shut down all of their RBMK reactors after Chernobyl??) In fact I think they are starting construction on another one (they like the plutonium that this design produces.) The RBMK design also doesn't have a full containment structure. (For more info, see: http://www.uic.com.au/nip64a.htm and http://engphys.mcmaster.ca/canteach/techdoclib/AE
I agree that there are new reactor designs that are more safe, and that new US designs might even be safer than coal in the short-term. Please don't trivialize the issue, though. I would have loved to here your thoughts on the issue in 1979 while you were standing in Pennsylvania.