Since nearly every journalist in the world is acting as the agent of a corporation, I would say that journalist most definitely does equal corporation. At least for the purpose referred to by the GP.
Oh, the horror!!! A corporation formed for the purpose of making a profit while providing a service might actually make a decision to increase its profit.
But, yes having a plane full of overweight passengers means more fuel and less paid cargo = a plane full of overweight passengers means more expense and less income = a plane full of overweight passengers means less profit = a plane full of overweight passengers not paying more means not good business.
At least they didn't kill his wife and child for refusing to go undercover for them like Janet Reno did. I guess Eric Holder might be slightly better than she was.
Bartenders generally only get into trouble when they continue serving someone who has obviously had too many.
Exactly the same way licensed gun dealers can get into trouble for not performing the required NICS (and state equivalent) checks.
The "immunity" that NRA and firearms manufacturers fought for was immunity from being held liable for the illegal misuse of a firearm that was handled legally. In other words, Colt cannot be held liable because someone is killed with a Colt product unless the victim was also the user and the gun malfunctioned horribly. Likewise, no dealer can be held responsible if the checks were done and all relevant government agencies okayed the sale.
This is no different than how Ford is not held liable for any deaths involving Ford manufactured automobiles unless the deaths were a direct result of mechanical failure and such due to design flaws or incorrect assembly and such.
If they are only good for killing people, why aren't they legal to hunt with. People really aren't any easier to kill than most game animals in the US, are they?
Are there any liberal idiots (I know, redundancy should be frowned upon in this establishment) that have heard of TARGET shooting and the level of body control it takes to shoot high scores at 400+ yards?
This is exactly the reason why limited government prevents such abuses and huge, nanny state government promotes it.
But the general liberal views it this way: The corporations have run amok, control them. The politicians pass more regulations that further entrench the power of the existing corporations. The liberals blame the damn corporations and corrupt political process and beg for more ways to remove the actual citizen from the political process.
Yes. An excess of oxygen partial pressure is poisonous to the human body. Look at what the gas ratios were in the Apollo craft or, even more fun, become a certified scuba diver and learn about oxygen toxicity.
In certain contexts, they are not. I understand that "cost" (from the producer perspective) is the actual monetary amount required to provide a good or service while "price" is the monetary value being requested of the purchaser.
Purchasers may also use those definitions when determining whether the asking price is "fair" (definitely a very subjective term).
However, from the accounting perspective of the purchaser, cost and price are the same thing: the amount of money spent on acquiring the good or service.
Only when you count Bush going to the ranch that was his personal property from before he was elected, then yes. Somehow, I don't think Bush was charging the Office of the President for time spent there.
"fair tax" The to 10% of wage earners in the US collectively pay over 70% of the income tax in the US.
I hear many people, usually those paying a negative income tax rate or the politicians playing to them, complaining that "the rich aren't paying their fair share" but they will never define exactly what the fair share should be.
I've even seen polls where the same people agree that the rich aren't paying enough and then when asked what percentage, collectively, the top 10% should be paying the usual response is 40% - 50%.
So, yes, the rich don't actually pay "their fair share". They pay it and more, at least, according the the average US resident when given actual numbers instead of "Look, they have more than you. Pull out your envy and jealousy and get to work."
Uh. teachers in the US almost always get at least 10 - 12 weeks PTO per year that they refuse to count as PTO and then another 2 - 6 that they do count.
"the right to have your previous history expunged"
Excuse me. You have no right whatsoever to force me to forget that I just read what you wrote. What kind of fantasy world do you live in?
I realize that the basement dwellers won't understand this next part but they may have read about these activities so they can use their imaginations.
You walk down the street and other people see you. You walk into stores and the clerks and other shoppers see you. Whether they want to remember those encounters is up to them, not you. You lost the right to "have your previous history expunged" the moment your mother realized she was pregnant.
Or just wait a day and get them after their uploaded to the internet. That way you don't do anything that could be generally construed as illegal. Well, unless your into kids. In that case, you have more serious issues to deal with.
And if you have to drive around, surreptitiously looking for unencrypted and otherwise unprotected cameras from which to pilfer nudie pics because you've "reached the end" of that particularly large back-alley of the internet, then you also have a problem and should probably seek out professional help.
I don't know how many times i've had to try to recover photos because somebody used the delete button....WTF?
Yeah. WTF are you talking about. I've deleted individual photos on camera and on the computer with both Nikon's and Canons. I've even added folders and stored photoshop and word docs on them and put them back in the camera and they work just fine. They simply ignore those files (and folders) and remove the space they use from the available space.
I suggest that the reason you have to recover so many photos is because people, you know, used the delete button and it, you know, performed exactly as advertised: It removed the chosen file from the list of files and added its space back to the free space. Just be glad they didn't implement secure delete functionality.
Uh. The NRA is its members. Yes, manufacturers also support the NRA. Mainly by purchasing advertising in the magazines and space at the conventions but also by donations. So, when 3d printers are capable of producing whole, functioning guns there might be some friction but probably not as most people will still prefer to purchase known, tested designs from known manufacturers.
"only a few rounds are needed to take down any transportation" You actually believed the "Rev." Jesse Jackson when he made that claim about AR-15s firing.223s being able to knock out a train?
Have you ever actually looked at what the NRA is or do you just regurgitate whatever nonsense Nanny Feinstein and Chucky Schumer feed you? If it represents gun manufacturers, then why does it have over 4.5 million members and how the hell did I get my membership? The only "manufacturing" being done by any of the members I know is the assembly of separately purchased parts.
Uh. Kind-of. He was doing it to point out how "Mexican drug lords are buying their guns in US retail stores." His Secretary of State actually said this. And very few in the media, except FoxNews, asked the obvious question: Why would the Mexican drug lords buy semi-auto guns at US retail when the US government either sold them or authorized their sale at wholesale (in)directly via the Mexican military?
The writers of the constitution never claimed to be granting any rights to people. They acknowledged that they were only itemizing some of the rights the people already had simply by being people. That is why we are so screwed up today. People started believing the purpose of government is to grant rights when governments, in reality, only restrict and remove rights.
According to Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries it most definitely was a "natural" right, a right inherited from the "creator" merely by being human. For the non-religious (or anti-religious), just substitute the word "evolution" for "creator" as that is your concept of the creator for the purposes of this discussion.
Why the hell would they bother when the US government authorizes them to buy "the real things" directly from Colt? You know, via their "legal purchasing arm" AKA the Mexican army and other Mexican government agencies.
Citizens United did not say that a corporation is a person. It said that a corporation is a group of persons and therefore can act on behalf of those persons. Everybody (well brain-dead lefties mostly) wants to read the worst into that decision but fail to look at the alternative.
Had the court ruled against Citizens United then the court would have been giving the government the absolute authority to prevent groups of like-minded, non-wealthy individuals from pooling their money to make a political statement.
Seriously. Read the actual case and decision. Remember that the case revolved around a corporation formed for the purpose of distributing a film saying negative things about a US politician. One of the questions asked during oral arguments was whether the federal government had the right to prevent a hypothethetical publisher from publishing a book if the government deemed the content to negative towards itself. The Obama administration's position was that it absolutely has this right. Another questions was why do certain corporations seem entitled to first amendment protections while others do not. How many slashdotters decrying Citizens United because it gives ExxonMobile carte-blanche to say anything (whether it does or not is irrelevant) have stopped to ask themselves why they support the first amendment rights of corporations such as NBC, Slate, Greenpeace, Sierra Club and Mother Jones Magazine? The court was unimpressed by the argument that media companies inherit that right as "members of the press" but others are excluded because they aren't. The court seemed to suggest that freedom of the press meant that anyone (or groups of anyones) were the press whenever they deemed themselves to be "the press" and that letting the government decide who could be the press and thus have the rights of the press would mean that there was no freedom left because the government then only to decide that any person, group, or former member of the press was no longer a member of the press simply because they opposed the current administration.
Slashdot Mirror
Since nearly every journalist in the world is acting as the agent of a corporation, I would say that journalist most definitely does equal corporation. At least for the purpose referred to by the GP.
"Seems like a purely profit driven move"
Oh, the horror!!! A corporation formed for the purpose of making a profit while providing a service might actually make a decision to increase its profit.
But, yes having a plane full of overweight passengers means more fuel and less paid cargo = a plane full of overweight passengers means more expense and less income = a plane full of overweight passengers means less profit = a plane full of overweight passengers not paying more means not good business.
At least they didn't kill his wife and child for refusing to go undercover for them like Janet Reno did. I guess Eric Holder might be slightly better than she was.
Bartenders generally only get into trouble when they continue serving someone who has obviously had too many.
Exactly the same way licensed gun dealers can get into trouble for not performing the required NICS (and state equivalent) checks.
The "immunity" that NRA and firearms manufacturers fought for was immunity from being held liable for the illegal misuse of a firearm that was handled legally. In other words, Colt cannot be held liable because someone is killed with a Colt product unless the victim was also the user and the gun malfunctioned horribly. Likewise, no dealer can be held responsible if the checks were done and all relevant government agencies okayed the sale.
This is no different than how Ford is not held liable for any deaths involving Ford manufactured automobiles unless the deaths were a direct result of mechanical failure and such due to design flaws or incorrect assembly and such.
If they are only good for killing people, why aren't they legal to hunt with. People really aren't any easier to kill than most game animals in the US, are they?
Are there any liberal idiots (I know, redundancy should be frowned upon in this establishment) that have heard of TARGET shooting and the level of body control it takes to shoot high scores at 400+ yards?
Uh. they don't have the same ballistics and kick, etc as the real gun so practicing with them is of absolutely no value.
Very similar to the way that hitting a T-Ball is not very good practice for facing an MLB pitcher.
This is exactly the reason why limited government prevents such abuses and huge, nanny state government promotes it.
But the general liberal views it this way: The corporations have run amok, control them. The politicians pass more regulations that further entrench the power of the existing corporations. The liberals blame the damn corporations and corrupt political process and beg for more ways to remove the actual citizen from the political process.
And then the wonder why they are so screwed.
Yes. An excess of oxygen partial pressure is poisonous to the human body. Look at what the gas ratios were in the Apollo craft or, even more fun, become a certified scuba diver and learn about oxygen toxicity.
In certain contexts, they are not. I understand that "cost" (from the producer perspective) is the actual monetary amount required to provide a good or service while "price" is the monetary value being requested of the purchaser.
Purchasers may also use those definitions when determining whether the asking price is "fair" (definitely a very subjective term).
However, from the accounting perspective of the purchaser, cost and price are the same thing: the amount of money spent on acquiring the good or service.
Sometimes. But if you had accepted the deal then his asking price would have been exactly equal to your cost.
Yeah, I could park my SUV in the beer refrigerator at the convenience store down the street.
Only when you count Bush going to the ranch that was his personal property from before he was elected, then yes. Somehow, I don't think Bush was charging the Office of the President for time spent there.
"fair tax" The to 10% of wage earners in the US collectively pay over 70% of the income tax in the US.
I hear many people, usually those paying a negative income tax rate or the politicians playing to them, complaining that "the rich aren't paying their fair share" but they will never define exactly what the fair share should be.
I've even seen polls where the same people agree that the rich aren't paying enough and then when asked what percentage, collectively, the top 10% should be paying the usual response is 40% - 50%.
So, yes, the rich don't actually pay "their fair share". They pay it and more, at least, according the the average US resident when given actual numbers instead of "Look, they have more than you. Pull out your envy and jealousy and get to work."
Uh. teachers in the US almost always get at least 10 - 12 weeks PTO per year that they refuse to count as PTO and then another 2 - 6 that they do count.
"the right to have your previous history expunged"
Excuse me. You have no right whatsoever to force me to forget that I just read what you wrote. What kind of fantasy world do you live in?
I realize that the basement dwellers won't understand this next part but they may have read about these activities so they can use their imaginations.
You walk down the street and other people see you. You walk into stores and the clerks and other shoppers see you. Whether they want to remember those encounters is up to them, not you. You lost the right to "have your previous history expunged" the moment your mother realized she was pregnant.
Or just wait a day and get them after their uploaded to the internet. That way you don't do anything that could be generally construed as illegal. Well, unless your into kids. In that case, you have more serious issues to deal with.
And if you have to drive around, surreptitiously looking for unencrypted and otherwise unprotected cameras from which to pilfer nudie pics because you've "reached the end" of that particularly large back-alley of the internet, then you also have a problem and should probably seek out professional help.
I don't know how many times i've had to try to recover photos because somebody used the delete button....WTF?
Yeah. WTF are you talking about. I've deleted individual photos on camera and on the computer with both Nikon's and Canons. I've even added folders and stored photoshop and word docs on them and put them back in the camera and they work just fine. They simply ignore those files (and folders) and remove the space they use from the available space.
I suggest that the reason you have to recover so many photos is because people, you know, used the delete button and it, you know, performed exactly as advertised: It removed the chosen file from the list of files and added its space back to the free space. Just be glad they didn't implement secure delete functionality.
Uh. The NRA is its members. Yes, manufacturers also support the NRA. Mainly by purchasing advertising in the magazines and space at the conventions but also by donations. So, when 3d printers are capable of producing whole, functioning guns there might be some friction but probably not as most people will still prefer to purchase known, tested designs from known manufacturers.
"only a few rounds are needed to take down any transportation" You actually believed the "Rev." Jesse Jackson when he made that claim about AR-15s firing .223s being able to knock out a train?
Have you ever actually looked at what the NRA is or do you just regurgitate whatever nonsense Nanny Feinstein and Chucky Schumer feed you? If it represents gun manufacturers, then why does it have over 4.5 million members and how the hell did I get my membership? The only "manufacturing" being done by any of the members I know is the assembly of separately purchased parts.
Uh. Kind-of. He was doing it to point out how "Mexican drug lords are buying their guns in US retail stores." His Secretary of State actually said this. And very few in the media, except FoxNews, asked the obvious question: Why would the Mexican drug lords buy semi-auto guns at US retail when the US government either sold them or authorized their sale at wholesale (in)directly via the Mexican military?
The writers of the constitution never claimed to be granting any rights to people. They acknowledged that they were only itemizing some of the rights the people already had simply by being people. That is why we are so screwed up today. People started believing the purpose of government is to grant rights when governments, in reality, only restrict and remove rights.
According to Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries it most definitely was a "natural" right, a right inherited from the "creator" merely by being human. For the non-religious (or anti-religious), just substitute the word "evolution" for "creator" as that is your concept of the creator for the purposes of this discussion.
Why the hell would they bother when the US government authorizes them to buy "the real things" directly from Colt? You know, via their "legal purchasing arm" AKA the Mexican army and other Mexican government agencies.
Citizens United did not say that a corporation is a person. It said that a corporation is a group of persons and therefore can act on behalf of those persons. Everybody (well brain-dead lefties mostly) wants to read the worst into that decision but fail to look at the alternative. Had the court ruled against Citizens United then the court would have been giving the government the absolute authority to prevent groups of like-minded, non-wealthy individuals from pooling their money to make a political statement. Seriously. Read the actual case and decision. Remember that the case revolved around a corporation formed for the purpose of distributing a film saying negative things about a US politician. One of the questions asked during oral arguments was whether the federal government had the right to prevent a hypothethetical publisher from publishing a book if the government deemed the content to negative towards itself. The Obama administration's position was that it absolutely has this right. Another questions was why do certain corporations seem entitled to first amendment protections while others do not. How many slashdotters decrying Citizens United because it gives ExxonMobile carte-blanche to say anything (whether it does or not is irrelevant) have stopped to ask themselves why they support the first amendment rights of corporations such as NBC, Slate, Greenpeace, Sierra Club and Mother Jones Magazine? The court was unimpressed by the argument that media companies inherit that right as "members of the press" but others are excluded because they aren't. The court seemed to suggest that freedom of the press meant that anyone (or groups of anyones) were the press whenever they deemed themselves to be "the press" and that letting the government decide who could be the press and thus have the rights of the press would mean that there was no freedom left because the government then only to decide that any person, group, or former member of the press was no longer a member of the press simply because they opposed the current administration.