But one needn't be a B Corp to be ethical. Not everyone agrees with each point of those "rigorous standards."
Some companies ideas of decency and social performance mean not working on the Lord's Day, even if it means sacrificing sales (read profit). Chick Fil A and B&H Photo are two that come to mind.
No. The following statement is incorrect: "If a Corp deliberately lowers profits due to ethical concerns, or for any orher reason, their stockholders have grounds for legal action."
Officers in the corporation have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders (Meaning they should be competent and not collude with vendors etc...) Cheap does not mean better from either a consumer or corporate perspective. There are always trade-offs. Do we off-shore to get closer to our customers, pay less in wages, pay less in taxes - but increase response time, lower productivity.... (A million factors both ways).
If cheap was better than why do sport franchises (also a corp) pay millions for their athletes? Sh!t I'll play third base for the Mets and all I'll charge is $250,000/year. I'm much cheaper than David Wright.:-) So why won't the Met's save money by hiring me.
Agree. A legal entity has no feelings. And is neither good nor bad as said entity. (Although the individuals in the company can do good or bad things.)
As far as I'm concerned my cleaning staff wanted X to clean the office. I'm paying X. I don't think about it anymore than I think about the landlord. They wanted a certain amount per month. I'm paying it.
What is your definition of a corporation for you to say they have no decency? As a developer it is not my obligation to pay my cleaning staff more or pay a higher rent than my landlord requires. Is it my responsibility to pay more? If not why is it adidas' responsibility?
Libertarians are not anarchists. Courts are part of the desired any libertarian society. Would you consider George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to be anarchists?
Interesting. I allow myself the "poison"(bread and pasta) on weekends only. Veggie, meat, dairy, eggs during the week.
Perhaps I'm healthy because I limit my intake of "poison." You added legumes to the mix of don't eat..
Why? What sources do you have that indicate that legumes are bad - as for instance a white bean and beef stew casserole.
As far as breads are concerned have you seen the Netflix documentary "Cooked" with Michael Pollan. There is a good one on bread focusing on the difference between traditional bread and mass produced bread.
We're on the same page. I have always ate well but I slowly started putting on weight in my late 30s and I realized that the issue was portion control. I simply ate too much food. Even if the quality of one's food is excellent if you eat too much you will gain weight.
I lost weight and have kept myself at a good weight for years by simply paying attention to calories consumed. Of course this is above and beyond paying attention to what I'm putting into my body and generally eating very well.
And, as you mentioned, I quickly realized that the way to get the protein I wanted in the allowable calories I had to reduce my carb intake. Lucky for me sugars have never been my poison of choice. (Unless you consider potatoes, pasta and bread to be sugar.)
Ultimately, as a point of logic, you will starve to death (lose weight first) if you eat too few calories even if the calories are rubbish (twinkies and rum).
Come on. Are all 8.5" x 11" pieces of paper EXACTLY the same? No. There is tolerance.
Is the speedometer on your car 100% accurate? No. But it gives you a fairly good idea of how fast you're going. Better than looking out the window and guessing.
Are the BMR estimates based on weight, age and height EXACT. No of course not. But they give a very good approximation of where to be and how to modulate your caloric intake.
It's been working for me for years. I track what I eat and go on a weekly basis. Example if you need 2000 calories a day you should eat 14,000 a week. If saturday you have 4000 and sunday you have 3000 then you need to eat 3000 less then following 5 days.
It's works. Is calorie counting exact? No. Not at all.
I happen to think that calorie out is fairly straight forward and is probably the easier of the two. My BMR is 1800 calories. Walk briskly for 20 minutes and I use up 140 calories. The calorie in and calorie out estimates are close enough for me to regulate my weight.
My bad. BMR. No wonder google didn't help.
Basal metabolic rate is the amount of calories you would consume if you were bedridden. We need a huge amount of calories simply for brain and organ function. Basic BMR calculators are a good way to start.
Pick a weight you want to be at (say 225). Find the BMR for that weight and that's what you should eat for the day. Make sure you get enough protein so you may have cut your carbs.
Yes. However I find too many people make excuses based on trivial things. I happen to eat 75% of my calories within an hour or two before going to bed. I'm no longer in my 20s or 30s but I carefully watch my calories. I don't have a six pack but I'm in good shape. I always hear "why are you watching what you're eating - you're not fat."
I'm in good shape because I count calories. (And go to they gym.)
A judge "who leans hard libertarian" wouldn't want to search Congress or Executive Branch employees without a warrant either. That's what makes him a "hard libertarian."
And there are plenty of "wack-job ideologue/extremist judges" in SF and NYC. You needn't go to "some backwater hick jurisdiction" to find them.
You mean like the HUD Secretary under Clinton who sued banks for not making enough sub-prime mortgages (which were created in the first place by government officials in the Carter administration). Are you surprised that banks did not want to keep this paper?
The key people to blame are all kind-hearted progressives who commanded evil bankers to make loans to people the banks knew wouldn't pay back.
As a good progressive you ignore that and blame the banks.
Slashdot Mirror
But one needn't be a B Corp to be ethical. Not everyone agrees with each point of those "rigorous standards."
Some companies ideas of decency and social performance mean not working on the Lord's Day, even if it means sacrificing sales (read profit). Chick Fil A and B&H Photo are two that come to mind.
No. The following statement is incorrect: "If a Corp deliberately lowers profits due to ethical concerns, or for any orher reason, their stockholders have grounds for legal action."
.... (A million factors both ways).
:-) So why won't the Met's save money by hiring me.
Officers in the corporation have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders (Meaning they should be competent and not collude with vendors etc...) Cheap does not mean better from either a consumer or corporate perspective. There are always trade-offs. Do we off-shore to get closer to our customers, pay less in wages, pay less in taxes - but increase response time, lower productivity
If cheap was better than why do sport franchises (also a corp) pay millions for their athletes? Sh!t I'll play third base for the Mets and all I'll charge is $250,000/year. I'm much cheaper than David Wright.
Agree. A legal entity has no feelings. And is neither good nor bad as said entity. (Although the individuals in the company can do good or bad things.)
As far as I'm concerned my cleaning staff wanted X to clean the office. I'm paying X. I don't think about it anymore than I think about the landlord. They wanted a certain amount per month. I'm paying it.
"Corporations by definition have no decency"
What is your definition of a corporation for you to say they have no decency? As a developer it is not my obligation to pay my cleaning staff more or pay a higher rent than my landlord requires. Is it my responsibility to pay more? If not why is it adidas' responsibility?
That does not make one an anarchist. The US Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Federalist Papers are not anarchist documents.
The best word for would be Classical Liberal as the the term liberal has morphed into progressivism one of many collectivist sects.
Libertarians are not anarchists. Courts are part of the desired any libertarian society. Would you consider George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to be anarchists?
Keep creating straw men (and believing in your creations). That's the way to truly understand events and motivations.
Interesting. I allow myself the "poison"(bread and pasta) on weekends only. Veggie, meat, dairy, eggs during the week.
Perhaps I'm healthy because I limit my intake of "poison." You added legumes to the mix of don't eat..
Why? What sources do you have that indicate that legumes are bad - as for instance a white bean and beef stew casserole.
As far as breads are concerned have you seen the Netflix documentary "Cooked" with Michael Pollan. There is a good one on bread focusing on the difference between traditional bread and mass produced bread.
You made sense. No need to be an AC.
We're on the same page. I have always ate well but I slowly started putting on weight in my late 30s and I realized that the issue was portion control. I simply ate too much food. Even if the quality of one's food is excellent if you eat too much you will gain weight.
I lost weight and have kept myself at a good weight for years by simply paying attention to calories consumed. Of course this is above and beyond paying attention to what I'm putting into my body and generally eating very well.
And, as you mentioned, I quickly realized that the way to get the protein I wanted in the allowable calories I had to reduce my carb intake. Lucky for me sugars have never been my poison of choice. (Unless you consider potatoes, pasta and bread to be sugar.)
Ultimately, as a point of logic, you will starve to death (lose weight first) if you eat too few calories even if the calories are rubbish (twinkies and rum).
Come on. Are all 8.5" x 11" pieces of paper EXACTLY the same? No. There is tolerance.
Is the speedometer on your car 100% accurate? No. But it gives you a fairly good idea of how fast you're going. Better than looking out the window and guessing.
Are the BMR estimates based on weight, age and height EXACT. No of course not. But they give a very good approximation of where to be and how to modulate your caloric intake.
It's been working for me for years. I track what I eat and go on a weekly basis. Example if you need 2000 calories a day you should eat 14,000 a week. If saturday you have 4000 and sunday you have 3000 then you need to eat 3000 less then following 5 days.
It's works. Is calorie counting exact? No. Not at all.
I happen to think that calorie out is fairly straight forward and is probably the easier of the two. My BMR is 1800 calories. Walk briskly for 20 minutes and I use up 140 calories. The calorie in and calorie out estimates are close enough for me to regulate my weight.
If you weren't an AC I would have modded you up.
My bad. BMR. No wonder google didn't help. Basal metabolic rate is the amount of calories you would consume if you were bedridden. We need a huge amount of calories simply for brain and organ function. Basic BMR calculators are a good way to start.
After a lot of effort I found that my BMR was within 10% of these basic calculators.
see: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/to...
see: http://www.calculator.net/bmr-...
Pick a weight you want to be at (say 225). Find the BMR for that weight and that's what you should eat for the day. Make sure you get enough protein so you may have cut your carbs.
Yes. However I find too many people make excuses based on trivial things. I happen to eat 75% of my calories within an hour or two before going to bed. I'm no longer in my 20s or 30s but I carefully watch my calories. I don't have a six pack but I'm in good shape. I always hear "why are you watching what you're eating - you're not fat."
I'm in good shape because I count calories. (And go to they gym.)
Ultimately for weight loss it really is in the long run. Now eating healthy is best.
But if you eat under your required daily maintenance level you will lose weight. Even if your diet is twinkies and rum.
Losing weight and keeping the weight off is simple. Ignore everything but calorie in and calorie out.
At 5'10" and 200 pounds your BSR is in the 1900 calorie / day range. (Look it up).
Figure out how much you exercise (walk, stairs, gym, bike, etc..) and work with that.
Keep you calories under that amount and you will lose weight. Above you gain.
Eating one meal or 10; after 8PM or not; it's the calories that count.
There's nothing magical. It's not when you eat. It's calories in versus calories out.
.
Want to lose weight?
Find out your BSR (what you need just to survive)
Count calories.
Try to eat well (within the range of calories)
where did I mention guns?
not to mention the progressives who are anti-individual freedom and pro-nanny state.
Freedom of your own body (abortion) but don't have freedom to decide whether or not to wear seat belts.
Yah. only watchers of "ox" news are this dumb.
A judge "who leans hard libertarian" wouldn't want to search Congress or Executive Branch employees without a warrant either. That's what makes him a "hard libertarian."
And there are plenty of "wack-job ideologue/extremist judges" in SF and NYC. You needn't go to "some backwater hick jurisdiction" to find them.
You mean like the HUD Secretary under Clinton who sued banks for not making enough sub-prime mortgages (which were created in the first place by government officials in the Carter administration). Are you surprised that banks did not want to keep this paper?
The key people to blame are all kind-hearted progressives who commanded evil bankers to make loans to people the banks knew wouldn't pay back.
As a good progressive you ignore that and blame the banks.
Stop repeating that banal sh!t.
A couple generations ago when people said it was all about desire they were wrong.
Now when people are saying it's all about control they are wrong.
Is theft all about control? No.
It's you have what I want. (iPhone)
I'm going to take it.
You have what I want (sex)
I'm going to take it.
Muslim population is 10% and growing. Are they integrating with Post-Catholic France? No.
At what point would you know longer call it a "few muslims"?
You're saying that the US Government (from Eisenhower to Obama) are directly backing Wahhabi preachers?
That the US government (from President to Secretaries of State) have been colluding to give more and more power to these imams?