In practice, NO, because race and skin color are special. Better go find a better example; race and gender discrimination are so special and privileged that it is a 'special case', they are blocked/unacceptable in a manner more strongly than almost any other type of business decision.
There's a variety of very good reasons for this. Foremost, is that race and ethnic strife are so sufficiently contentions as to create the most heinous outcomes imaginable: such will start wars, at a very minimum. Which is to say, clearly: a collection of individuals, bound together into common cause as a country, have every reasonable motive to nip this particular freedom in the bud on the grounds that it is necessary to do so to prevent a clear and present danger of unimaginable danger.
...but what about aluminum/ceramic super-capacitors?
The fundamental nature of the problem can be understood if you go online and look up "horsepower to kilowatt". Then enter in an example of the HP rating of your favorite small car and see what number pops out.
From the kilowatts listed, you can decide your minimal accepted run time in kilowatt hours, convert that to joules, and find out how many 3000 farad ultracaps you might need. The answer is a gawdawful lot.
Problem is, chemical energy is very, very dense.
Worse, suppose we posit a magical supercap that can do all that. Where's all the charge go when your car crashes, would you say? That'll cause a bang....
The US has many federal and regional laws restricting speech from official secrets to...
Um. Kinda. There is no prior restraint of the press on official secrets. Whether or not they can be prosecuted after the fact is a separate issue, but they cannot be stopped before the fact; that's a matter of settled case law, I am to understand.
I disagree. There should be laws specific to all public servants, that expressly give them less privacy and hold them to higher legal standards than the ordinary public. In particular, if a public servant willfully violates laws as pertaining to their work in public office, the punishment should be more, and not less, than if a citizen did a similar thing.
My GF spent years getting a "useless" almost-PhD (you know, did the work never did the dissertation thing) in Italian Literature, and along the way became fluent in another 3 languages. After she decided that being a professor wasn't for her, she went into HR and is now an in strategic development, acquisitions, and so forth for the international operations division of one of the world's most well known mega corps. So. Don't worry about not knowing what you are going to do when you grow up. Just don't entirely goof off. Spending your youth learning nothing at all is a bad idea. Other than that, do something and do it very well, and things will work out for you.
Zip of to Europe as soon as you can. Don't let that dream go. Don't look back.
Don't be silly. Big corporations hand out token equity stakes all the time. Typically some kind of vested stock thing, or options to buy shares at $5 higher than the current share price. That's the appropriate response to the genuinely valuable critical engineering assets, when they say they want "an equity share". Like "fine," you want some equity, stick around long enough for this do-daddy here to be worth something.
Of course you wouldn't hand them a percentage of the company, just make them feel valuable.
That's the sort of thing a good manager does, you know. Make their subordinates feel they are valued.
Even big, established companies incentivize employees with various equity-ish options, but they have to be important employees, and the incentives are usually only worth something if the company stock increases. E..g, long term option at current share value. Percentage of the company? LOL
If you behave this way entirely, you can get hurt. Hence, "in practice". In the case of an accusation of child pornography, it doesn't even require the prosecution to prove anything at all for your life to be ruined.
Yeah, they will. If the find remotely that bunches of illegal child porn is downloaded to an IP at your address, they're going to come in and arrest you. THEN they will investigate. During this period, there's a good chance you'll lose many friends, and most likely your job.
I wish they weren't even legal, but they are fully enforceable contracts in the US of A.
But yeah, sharing is perfectly legal. Although I question poptones assertion that if he shares out his connection that he'll get status as a service provider. I doubt a court would agree a'tall.
They completely own the Enterprise, by which I am referring to Active Directory, Exchange, and the like. There is really no substitute for AD and group policy management. Not particularly once you learn that you can join Linux and a plethora of Unix flavors to AD and manage those by group policy as well.
Well, regardless. I don't have a good sense of the moral situation of the ongoing Arab Israeli conflict. However, after looking at the various events over the years, and thinking about the larger scope of conflicts between nations, I'm pretty sure that annexing any bit of country just about anywhere is a pretty dubious thing to do.
Now I'm pretty far from the situation over yonder. But when I hear about the "settlements" on Palestinian land, this does not make me happy. Sure, the Palestinians refuse to accept the legitimacy of Israel at all. This is not just cause for the further erosion of the Palestinian country in my mind.
I did once make a quick study of "Zionism". It started one day when I started wondering why the various Arab countries throw around the term like an epithet. So I did some digging. I wasn't too happy with what I found.
I live in San Diego. I wouldn't be too comfortable with all the Mexicans moving in everywhere (mass immigration) declaring that they achieved critical mass and deserved their own country. Not too comfortable at all.
No, that is not the difference. East Prussia was lost right after WW2 too, and there are still many germans alive who was born there. Same with polish borders and stuff.
One really oughtn't use past moral lapses to justify modern ones.
I am sure this is true. I apply this principle universally, as to who ought to have the highest moral right to any piece of land. To address the matter below with regards to "Prussia" and the like, I do not use this principle to decide where the borders to a country ought to be. I.e., the principle of recent ownership applies to people, and nothing else.
Slashdot Mirror
In practice, NO, because race and skin color are special. Better go find a better example; race and gender discrimination are so special and privileged that it is a 'special case', they are blocked/unacceptable in a manner more strongly than almost any other type of business decision.
There's a variety of very good reasons for this. Foremost, is that race and ethnic strife are so sufficiently contentions as to create the most heinous outcomes imaginable: such will start wars, at a very minimum. Which is to say, clearly: a collection of individuals, bound together into common cause as a country, have every reasonable motive to nip this particular freedom in the bud on the grounds that it is necessary to do so to prevent a clear and present danger of unimaginable danger.
C//
I propose a modification for MacBeth:
"I am not a man of a mother born! I was from my grandmother's womb untimely ripped!"
C//
...but what about aluminum/ceramic super-capacitors?
The fundamental nature of the problem can be understood if you go online and look up "horsepower to kilowatt". Then enter in an example of the HP rating of your favorite small car and see what number pops out.
From the kilowatts listed, you can decide your minimal accepted run time in kilowatt hours, convert that to joules, and find out how many 3000 farad ultracaps you might need. The answer is a gawdawful lot.
Problem is, chemical energy is very, very dense.
Worse, suppose we posit a magical supercap that can do all that. Where's all the charge go when your car crashes, would you say? That'll cause a bang....
C//
The US has many federal and regional laws restricting speech from official secrets to ...
Um. Kinda. There is no prior restraint of the press on official secrets. Whether or not they can be prosecuted after the fact is a separate issue, but they cannot be stopped before the fact; that's a matter of settled case law, I am to understand.
C//
I disagree. There should be laws specific to all public servants, that expressly give them less privacy and hold them to higher legal standards than the ordinary public. In particular, if a public servant willfully violates laws as pertaining to their work in public office, the punishment should be more, and not less, than if a citizen did a similar thing.
C//
My GF spent years getting a "useless" almost-PhD (you know, did the work never did the dissertation thing) in Italian Literature, and along the way became fluent in another 3 languages. After she decided that being a professor wasn't for her, she went into HR and is now an in strategic development, acquisitions, and so forth for the international operations division of one of the world's most well known mega corps. So. Don't worry about not knowing what you are going to do when you grow up. Just don't entirely goof off. Spending your youth learning nothing at all is a bad idea. Other than that, do something and do it very well, and things will work out for you.
Zip of to Europe as soon as you can. Don't let that dream go. Don't look back.
C//
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incentivize
Moreover, I'll warrant that "incentivize" is the more common parlance.
Don't be silly. Big corporations hand out token equity stakes all the time. Typically some kind of vested stock thing, or options to buy shares at $5 higher than the current share price. That's the appropriate response to the genuinely valuable critical engineering assets, when they say they want "an equity share". Like "fine," you want some equity, stick around long enough for this do-daddy here to be worth something.
Of course you wouldn't hand them a percentage of the company, just make them feel valuable.
That's the sort of thing a good manager does, you know. Make their subordinates feel they are valued.
If you were one of the owners, that is.
Even big, established companies incentivize employees with various equity-ish options, but they have to be important employees, and the incentives are usually only worth something if the company stock increases. E..g, long term option at current share value. Percentage of the company? LOL
Just exactly who's tong are you talking about here?!?
Mod -1, no geek potential
Cue sound of Larry Niven crying
If you behave this way entirely, you can get hurt. Hence, "in practice". In the case of an accusation of child pornography, it doesn't even require the prosecution to prove anything at all for your life to be ruined.
C//
You seem to be pretty confused, and projecting your lack of interest over his love the art.
Regardless of how it plays out in court, legally the responsibility of proof rests completely with the state.
Nice theory. In practice...
Yeah, they will. If the find remotely that bunches of illegal child porn is downloaded to an IP at your address, they're going to come in and arrest you. THEN they will investigate. During this period, there's a good chance you'll lose many friends, and most likely your job.
Contracts of adhesion are not "weak".
I wish they weren't even legal, but they are fully enforceable contracts in the US of A.
But yeah, sharing is perfectly legal. Although I question poptones assertion that if he shares out his connection that he'll get status as a service provider. I doubt a court would agree a'tall.
Anything that cannot be separated from revenge-by-cop is something that I question in the utmost terms.
I.e., if it resembles someone complaining about the IRS and then getting audited, I call it a likely government abuse, no matter the "justification".
C//
They completely own the Enterprise, by which I am referring to Active Directory, Exchange, and the like. There is really no substitute for AD and group policy management. Not particularly once you learn that you can join Linux and a plethora of Unix flavors to AD and manage those by group policy as well.
C//
Well, regardless. I don't have a good sense of the moral situation of the ongoing Arab Israeli conflict. However, after looking at the various events over the years, and thinking about the larger scope of conflicts between nations, I'm pretty sure that annexing any bit of country just about anywhere is a pretty dubious thing to do.
Now I'm pretty far from the situation over yonder. But when I hear about the "settlements" on Palestinian land, this does not make me happy. Sure, the Palestinians refuse to accept the legitimacy of Israel at all. This is not just cause for the further erosion of the Palestinian country in my mind.
I did once make a quick study of "Zionism". It started one day when I started wondering why the various Arab countries throw around the term like an epithet. So I did some digging. I wasn't too happy with what I found.
I live in San Diego. I wouldn't be too comfortable with all the Mexicans moving in everywhere (mass immigration) declaring that they achieved critical mass and deserved their own country. Not too comfortable at all.
C//
No, that is not the difference. East Prussia was lost right after WW2 too, and there are still many germans alive who was born there. Same with polish borders and stuff.
One really oughtn't use past moral lapses to justify modern ones.
C//
But you had the right to sell it.
C//
I am sure this is true. I apply this principle universally, as to who ought to have the highest moral right to any piece of land. To address the matter below with regards to "Prussia" and the like, I do not use this principle to decide where the borders to a country ought to be. I.e., the principle of recent ownership applies to people, and nothing else.
C//
I understand the technical reality of what you are saying, however the commonly understood use of the expression is not as you say.
You probably *are* an anti-semite, though.
The difference is this: if someone was born on some land, they have a better moral case than those who were not.