If a company exposes customer information, then the personal information of all Management and Board of Directors is to be posted in major newspapers across the US for 1 week.
Only one of the 50 United States has ever been an actual state. ( I assume you mean texas?) Um no... look up the articles of confederation. The original colonies were all individual STATES.
The main significance of the new data lies in the high correlation between GTG concentrations and temperature variations over 420,000 years and through four glacial cycles. However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing
unless you think humans are to blame for warming mars as well?
I will grant you that human activity may be causing some of the warming trend. However I think the majority is due to the natural cycle of the sun. That said we as a species have done some really stupid things, i.e. locating all our major cities along the coasts, rampant overpopulation and the removal of population limiting factors (such as malaria etc) without taking into account what the results of these actions would be : less mortality -> population explosion -> mass starvation.
Whether we like to admit it or not, a large part of this problem is the carrying capacity of the earth. With no (or few) natural balancing factors to keep our species in check we will wreck the environment regardless. IMO chances are we will end up limiting ourselves (i.e. war of the thermonuclear variety) when the resource problem becomes acute.
Really, you say that civilians with weapons cannot defeat soldiers?
What the heck do you think Iraq is???? You have the worlds preeminent superpower with armor, airsupport etc against a bunch of insurgents with home-made roadside bombs and rifles.
Granted the insurgents will not win any stand up battles, but there is only so much of the daily grind a military can take. It happend to France and the US in Inodchina. It has happened umptine times to whoever invaded afghanistan.
A government may be able to take and hold a country or a city, but if the local populace does not support them they will eventually lose.
No, I have not forgotten anarchists. They are pretty much IMO at the end of both spectrums closing the circle. Let me clarify by saying I think the people on the "right" the original post was referring to are probably those of a more libertarian bent.
"In your zeal to assign power to corporation or government you forgot us democrats, you remember, the ones who think power should be in the hands of the people. I know it's an unfashionable olde-worldy sentiment and all - government of the people, by the people, for the people, but 'm sticking to it."
LOL! Democrats, you mean the ones who want to force socialized medicine through the use of government power? Democrats and Republicans start from pretty much the same core, e.g. take power from the individual and concentrate it. Where they differ is who they want to give the power to, and what they want to use it for (to some degree).
Your "right" leaning folks are probably more independent/market minded. I.E. if free software does the job then why would I pay for something that may not be as good?
Your "left" leaning folks will probably (IMO) be more willing to follow the "alternative crowd" I.E. Apple. To my line of thought, many on the "left" are just as intolerable of individuality as those on the "right". The difference being one side wants power in the hands of corporations and the government while the other just wants government to have the power.
It will be interesting to see if any of the other republican candidates have the balls to debate him. I think they'll try anything they can think of to keep him out of any potential debates. It would be intersting to see. As far as I know he is the only guy running who opposed the war in iraq, is anti patriot act/ realid act, supports gun rights, and has consistently voted against pork.
Hell I'd just love to see a debate between him and the flunkies the GOP is running.
I've never voted for a Rep, but I'd vote for him in a minute.
It may be peak copper, but there is another possible reason:
Consider for a moment that gold and silver are normally used as a hedge against inflation. Over the last 20 years they have not kept up with inflation though. If you do any reading on the subject some claim this is due to central banks manipulating the price of gold/silver to help disguise inflation. If the above is true, gold and silver prices would stay depressed, but inflation would show up in other commodities. E.G. base metals as they have not been used as a typical investment hedge and thus the central banks would not have tried to manipulate their prices directly.
The Fed quietly announced thanksgiving weekend in 2005 that they would no longer publish the M3 money supply figure. For those who don't know the M3 figure is the estimate of total US dollars out in the world. It was used by many as a direct gauge of US monetary inflation policy.
Here is a link to a reconstituted M3 figure Some think the removal of this information was done to hide the true scope of the impending financial problems that are on the horizon.
The United States Mint, concerned that rising metal prices could lead to widespread recycling of pennies and nickels, has banned melting or exporting them.
Umm how can the US Mint "make" a law? Isn't that the perogative of Congress?
It's funny and sad at the same time. I've been think about this for about a year. It's sad that we have devalued the dollar so much that pennies are now not worth their weight. We saw silver coins horded after 64, I think we'll see pennies and nickels go the same way.
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/ 17/1630255' 'But rather than work out these dilemmas in partnership with their elected leaders, they were encouraged to regard all politicians as corrupt or mendacious by the media, which he described as "a conspiracy to maintain the population in a perpetual state of self-righteous rage." Whether media was left wing or right wing, the message was always that 'leaders are out there to shaft you.'"
Obviously they are. A License to drive has just been turned into a permanent mug shot.
Remember they were using MAYBE a 5 pound weight. If you saw the earlier portion, they had the original test bar deflecting quite a bit, as opposed to Jamie? standing on it with no deflection whatsoever. Like I said I'd be curious to see what size oscillating weight would be needed to cause failure.
As far as I know Tesla did not spec out a size to weight ratio for his claims, he only claimed that an oscillating device could cause structural failures.
Yes, I saw that episode. I also saw that using a VERY small weight (like 5lbs max) they made the entire steel bridge oscillate. I believe Tesla did not specify how long it would take, only that it would do so. So IMO the theory was sound. If run long enough the oscillations should induce metal fatigue causing the bridge to fail. Too bad they don't have a bridge they could try to destroy, I'd like to see them hook up progressively larger weights to see if they could take it down.
Yes I know I would be classified as a Classical Liberal. I would not be classified as a liberal by today's standards however. I.E. I do not believe that it is moral to use the power of the state to equalize income, nor to mold the actions of citizens.
First : "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! " Patrick Henry
Second : "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." Thomas Paine
Third : "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions" --Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788
Fourth : "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin
FYI, I am not a liberal. I did not like clinton, But I detest Bush. He has IMO clearly vioalted his oath of office to preserve protect and defend the constitution.
Lastly,in response to your " I paraphrase the Administration spokesman here, I would rather the government collected my call records than my remains"
Patrick Henry was right, and americans today have become complete pussies to the point that most probably do not deserve freedom because they don't like the cost.
"the war was fought to preserve the union, and "union" was understood, even then, to be the equal partnership of the several states in a federal system. if you don't like the idea of the "United States", that's fine; work to change us to something else. But don't rewrite or misinterpret history."
History HAS been rewritten by the winners (as they always do). The war was about taxation. at the time there was no federal income tax. The fed got its money through tariffs on imported goods. The South was an agrarian society, and thus exported most of its production. They typically recieved finished goods in payment, which when imported was subject to tariffs.
Before the civil war the tariff was around 20%. In the book above, the author looks at federal revenue leading up to the civil war. The sourthern states paid roughly 85-90% of TOTAL federal receipts, while most federal spending was in the northern states (70%+).
The Republican party was started as a regional (north eastern states) party. One of its primary planks was an increase of tariff rates. Shortly after they republicans took office they increased the tariff on imported goods to 50%.
Thus you have a southern economy already paying the lions share of taxes and getting little benefit, and the northern economy paying few taxes and increasing taxes on the rest. Before the new congress came into office the south saw the handwriting on the wall....
The book mentioned above goes into this in detail, including reproductions of political cartoons of the time. My favorite shows pres buchanan as a poor widow, while a southerner holding a bag of money taken from the federal "safe" is walking out of the house.
"There is no equivalences to be found among those things. It's absurd to compare them"
Really? You seek to penalize responsible adults for the irresponsible acts of others when it comes to gun ownership. How does your argument differ from my argument penalizing all drivers for the acts of the irresponsible few?
The UK has tried to ban guns. Now so many people are using knives they are trying to ban them including kitchen knives.
Besides, gun violence is NOTHING when compared to causes of death
My examples regarding the Nazis, etc were there to make the point that simply taking away private gun ownership will not stop gun violence, indeed it will lead to more state sanctioned violence. America is not immune to human nature. People in power will tend to abuse it. The one and only check we have against this tendancy is an armed citizenry.
I will agree that education, and poverty programs CAN mitigate violence. What I do not agree with and what I find immoral is your assumption that it is moral and just for you to force me to fund programs which I may not agree with.
To me there is no real difference in methodology between "progressive liberalism" and neoconservatism. Both seek to enhance and use the power of the state to mold people into what they think a perfect citizen is. They merely differ on what they define as the perfect citizen.
I have no interest in creating the perfect citizen. My only interest is in leading my own life and allowing others to lead theirs with as little intrusion as possible.
"But I have a simpler, safer solution: lose your gun altogether. I think every time a kid is killed by a stray bullet we raise a tax on guns and gun owners. You can get all of that money back with interest if you get rid of your gun. Eventually gun owners will see that it is in their own best interest to work together to make guns safer and out of the hands of kids and the irresponsible. Everyone who owns a gun is partly responsible for the culture of guns and violence. I'm looking at you, libertarians."
Bull. That is like saying everyone who drives is responsible for drunk drivers killing people, or that the library is responsible for weapons of mass destruction because they have chemistry books. A gun is a TOOL. Like every tool it has valid uses and invalid ones.
As for your comment about a culture of violence, get a grip and check out the REAL world. Violence will not disappear if private citizens lose their guns. The Hutus were very effective using machetes. The Nazis and the Soviets both killed millions. Violence is a fact of life. You can not wish it away. If your response when threatened with violence is cowering, then you are cattle and will be treated as such.
I will give you what I consider the most blatant and insane example.
U.S. Constitution article III
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Now to me and I think to 99.999% of americans the phrase ALL clearly means every single instance. To judges and lawyers however this is apparently different. As it currently stands you do not have the right to a jurytrial.
"Multinational maybe, but Multistate is a -ridiculous- thought. There are plenty of Fortune 50 companies that are multistate and not outsourcing shit AT ALL. And what about the small companies that are multistate? I'm 19 years old and working as a programmer for a small communications company that is a multistate company, but no way in hell that they will ever outsource."
Why is the idea of single state corporations ridiculous? That was originally the way corporations were started. What is so bad about limiting production of a corporation to its initially stated purpose FOR incorporating AND its original place of incorporation?
For one thing it would force corps to work and employ people in the state it does business in rather than incorporate in Nevada and work in California. The way it is now many corps do that to avoid taxes, etc. With the current situation corps can play states against one another. E.G. "Texas will give us free land, no taxes for 5 years if we move a plant there, what will Arizona do for us?" Limiting corps to working only in the state of incorporation would stop alot of that.
Another thing to think about, Do you really want to live in a world of Wal-marts? E.G. all the wealth and resources controlled by a few large conglomerates. What is the practical and political effect of multi-state corporations? We can see the result with the media conglomerates.
Slashdot Mirror
If a company exposes customer information, then the personal information of all Management and
Board of Directors is to be posted in major newspapers across the US for 1 week.
Only one of the 50 United States has ever been an actual state.
( I assume you mean texas?)
Um no... look up the articles of confederation. The original colonies were all individual
STATES.
The main significance of the new data lies in the high correlation between GTG concentrations and temperature variations over 420,000 years and through four glacial cycles. However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing
Negative Ghostrider...
unless you think humans are to blame for warming mars as well?
I will grant you that human activity may be causing some of the warming trend. However I think the majority is due to the natural cycle of the sun. That said we as a species have done some really stupid things, i.e. locating all our major cities along the coasts, rampant overpopulation and the removal of population limiting factors (such as malaria etc) without taking into account what the results of these actions would be : less mortality -> population explosion -> mass starvation.
Whether we like to admit it or not, a large part of this problem is the carrying capacity of the earth. With no (or few) natural balancing factors to keep our species in check we will wreck the environment regardless. IMO chances are we will end up limiting ourselves (i.e. war of the thermonuclear variety) when the resource problem becomes acute.
Really, you say that civilians with weapons cannot defeat soldiers?
What the heck do you think Iraq is???? You have the worlds preeminent superpower with armor, airsupport etc against a bunch of insurgents with home-made roadside bombs and rifles.
Granted the insurgents will not win any stand up battles, but there is only so much
of the daily grind a military can take. It happend to France and the US in Inodchina.
It has happened umptine times to whoever invaded afghanistan.
A government may be able to take and hold a country or a city, but if the local populace does not support them they will eventually lose.
No, I have not forgotten anarchists. They are pretty much IMO at the end of both spectrums
closing the circle. Let me clarify by saying I think the people on the "right" the original post was referring to are probably those of a more libertarian bent.
"In your zeal to assign power to corporation or government you forgot us democrats, you remember, the ones who think power should be in the hands of the people. I know it's an unfashionable olde-worldy sentiment and all - government of the people, by the people, for the people, but 'm sticking to it."
LOL! Democrats, you mean the ones who want to force socialized medicine through the use of government power? Democrats and Republicans start from pretty much the same core, e.g.
take power from the individual and concentrate it. Where they differ is who they want
to give the power to, and what they want to use it for (to some degree).
Your "right" leaning folks are probably more independent/market minded. I.E. if free software does the job then why would I pay for something that may not be as good?
Your "left" leaning folks will probably (IMO) be more willing to follow the "alternative crowd" I.E. Apple. To my line of thought, many on the "left" are just as intolerable of individuality as those on the "right". The difference being one
side wants power in the hands of corporations and the government while the other just wants government to have the power.
The Moral is:
Never give the government a power that you would not feel comfortable in having your worst enemy exercise.
(Because someday they will)
It will be interesting to see if any of the other republican candidates have the balls to debate him.
I think they'll try anything they can think of to keep him out of any potential debates. It would be intersting to see. As far as I know he is the only guy running who opposed the war in iraq, is anti
patriot act/ realid act, supports gun rights, and has consistently voted against pork.
Hell I'd just love to see a debate between him and the flunkies the GOP is running.
I've never voted for a Rep, but I'd vote for him in a minute.
It may be peak copper, but there is another possible reason:
Consider for a moment that gold and silver are normally used as a hedge against inflation. Over the last 20 years they have not kept up with inflation though. If you do any reading on the subject some claim this is due to central banks manipulating the price of gold/silver to help disguise inflation. If the above is true, gold and silver prices would stay depressed, but inflation would show up in other commodities. E.G. base metals as they have not been used as a typical investment hedge and thus the central banks would not have tried to manipulate their prices directly.
The Fed quietly announced thanksgiving weekend in 2005 that they would no longer publish the M3 money supply figure. For those who don't know the M3 figure is the estimate of total US dollars out in the world. It was used by many as a direct gauge of US monetary inflation policy.
Here is a link to a reconstituted M3 figure Some think the removal of this information was done to hide the true scope of the impending financial problems that are on the horizon.
From the link
The United States Mint, concerned that rising metal prices could lead to widespread recycling of pennies and nickels, has banned melting or exporting them.
Umm how can the US Mint "make" a law? Isn't that the perogative of Congress?
It's funny and sad at the same time. I've been think about this for about a year. It's sad that we have devalued
the dollar so much that pennies are now not worth their weight. We saw silver coins horded after 64, I think we'll
see pennies and nickels go the same way.
Obviously they are. A License to drive has just been turned into a permanent mug shot.
"Whether media was left wing or right wing, the message was always that 'leaders are out there to shaft you'."
Could it be because its true?
Remember they were using MAYBE a 5 pound weight. If you saw the earlier portion, they had
the original test bar deflecting quite a bit, as opposed to Jamie? standing on it with no deflection whatsoever. Like I said I'd be curious to see what size oscillating weight would be needed to cause failure.
As far as I know Tesla did not spec out a size to weight ratio for his claims, he only claimed that an oscillating device could cause structural failures.
Yes, I saw that episode. I also saw that using a VERY small weight (like 5lbs max) they made the entire steel bridge oscillate. I believe Tesla did not specify how long it would take, only that it would do so. So IMO the theory was sound. If run long enough the oscillations should induce metal fatigue causing the bridge to fail. Too bad they don't have a bridge they could try to destroy, I'd like to see them hook up progressively larger weights to see if they could take it down.
Come On, you KNOW the warning should be:
"Where Do YOU want to go today? (punk)"
Cause you know it runs windows (with dual AK-47 processors no less).
Xyrus,
I do hope you realize I was quoting the asshat in the parent post. I'm with Patrick Henry 100% on this one. It is unfortunate that more people aren't.
Jerk City,
Yes I know I would be classified as a Classical Liberal. I would not be classified as a liberal by today's standards
however. I.E. I do not believe that it is moral to use the power of the state to equalize income, nor to mold the actions of
citizens.
First : "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! " Patrick Henry
Second : "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." Thomas Paine
Third : "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions" --Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788
Fourth : "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin
FYI, I am not a liberal. I did not like clinton, But I detest Bush. He has IMO clearly vioalted his oath of office
to preserve protect and defend the constitution.
Lastly,in response to your " I paraphrase the Administration spokesman here, I would rather the government collected my call records than my remains"
Patrick Henry was right, and americans today have become complete pussies to the point that most probably do not deserve freedom because they don't like the cost.
"the war was fought to preserve the union, and "union" was understood, even then, to be the equal partnership of the several states in a federal system. if you don't like the idea of the "United States", that's fine; work to change us to something else. But don't rewrite or misinterpret history."
History HAS been rewritten by the winners (as they always do). The war was about taxation. at the time there was no federal income tax. The fed got its money through tariffs on imported goods. The South was an agrarian society, and thus exported most of its production. They typically recieved finished goods in payment, which when imported was subject to tariffs.
This book traces the taxation issue.
Before the civil war the tariff was around 20%. In the book above, the author looks at federal revenue leading up to the civil war. The sourthern states paid roughly 85-90% of TOTAL federal receipts, while most federal spending was in the northern states (70%+).
The Republican party was started as a regional (north eastern states) party. One of its primary planks was an increase of tariff rates. Shortly after they republicans took office they increased the tariff on imported goods to 50%.
Thus you have a southern economy already paying the lions share of taxes and getting little benefit, and the northern economy paying few taxes and increasing taxes on the rest. Before the new congress came into office the south saw the handwriting on the wall....
The book mentioned above goes into this in detail, including reproductions of political cartoons of the time. My favorite shows pres buchanan as a poor widow, while a southerner holding a bag of money taken from the federal "safe" is walking out of the house.
"There is no equivalences to be found among those things. It's absurd to compare them"
Really? You seek to penalize responsible adults for the irresponsible acts of others when it comes to gun ownership. How does your argument differ from my argument penalizing all drivers for the acts of the irresponsible few?
The UK has tried to ban guns. Now so many people are using knives they are trying to ban them including kitchen knives.
Besides, gun violence is NOTHING when compared to causes of death
My examples regarding the Nazis, etc were there to make the point that simply taking away private gun ownership will not stop gun violence, indeed it will lead to more state sanctioned violence. America is not immune to human nature. People in power will tend to abuse it. The one and only check we have against this tendancy is an armed citizenry.
I will agree that education, and poverty programs CAN mitigate violence. What I do not agree with and what I find immoral is your assumption that it is moral and just for you to force me to fund programs which I may not agree with.
To me there is no real difference in methodology between "progressive liberalism" and neoconservatism. Both seek to enhance and use the power of the state to mold people into what they think a perfect citizen is. They merely differ on what they define as the perfect citizen.
I have no interest in creating the perfect citizen. My only interest is in leading my own life and allowing others to lead theirs with as little intrusion as possible.
"But I have a simpler, safer solution: lose your gun altogether. I think every time a kid is killed by a stray bullet we raise a tax on guns and gun owners. You can get all of that money back with interest if you get rid of your gun. Eventually gun owners will see that it is in their own best interest to work together to make guns safer and out of the hands of kids and the irresponsible. Everyone who owns a gun is partly responsible for the culture of guns and violence. I'm looking at you, libertarians."
Bull. That is like saying everyone who drives is responsible for drunk drivers killing people, or that the library is responsible for weapons of mass destruction because they have chemistry books. A gun is a TOOL. Like every tool it has valid uses and invalid ones.
As for your comment about a culture of violence, get a grip and check out the REAL world. Violence will not disappear if private citizens lose their guns. The Hutus were very effective using machetes. The Nazis and the Soviets both killed millions. Violence is a fact of life. You can not wish it away. If your response when threatened with violence is cowering, then you are cattle and will be treated as such.
I will give you what I consider the most blatant and insane example.
U.S. Constitution article III
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment
Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Now to me and I think to 99.999% of americans the phrase ALL clearly means every single instance.
To judges and lawyers however this is apparently different. As it currently stands you do not have the right to a jury trial.
"Multinational maybe, but Multistate is a -ridiculous- thought. There are plenty of Fortune 50 companies that are multistate and not outsourcing shit AT ALL. And what about the small companies that are multistate? I'm 19 years old and working as a programmer for a small communications company that is a multistate company, but no way in hell that they will ever outsource."
Why is the idea of single state corporations ridiculous? That was originally the way corporations were started. What is so bad about limiting production of a corporation to its initially stated purpose FOR incorporating AND its original place of incorporation?
For one thing it would force corps to work and employ people in the state it does business in rather than incorporate in Nevada and work in California. The way it is now many corps do that to avoid taxes, etc. With the current situation corps can play states against one another. E.G. "Texas will give us free land, no taxes for 5 years if we move a plant there, what will Arizona do for us?" Limiting corps to working only in the state of incorporation would stop alot of that.
Another thing to think about, Do you really want to live in a world of Wal-marts? E.G. all the wealth and resources controlled by a few large conglomerates. What is the practical and political effect of multi-state corporations? We can see the result with the media conglomerates.