Remember the Sony rootkit? Who went to prison over that one? I'm pretty sure who would have gone to prison if I, a private citizen, had done something like that.
If you, as a private citizen, distributed software by CD that included.... software? Distributing faulty software isn't a crime, by the way.
What crime are you suggesting you would be charged with, and presumably Sony decision makers should have been? Quote the law itself please, handwaving and uttering "thereaouttabealaw!!!11111oneone" isn't sufficient.
Yep corporations can get away with murder. All the CEO or Board needs to do is find an employee willing to do that job (example: dump poisons into drinking water). They will be shielded by the corporate license.
You have an incorrect understanding of limited liability afforded by incorporation. Decision making is an -act-. Deciding that poisons should be dumped into drinking water is a -criminal-act-. Actually engaging in the dumping is a separate criminal act. Both actors are subject to criminal charges, and in practice the dumper tends to get off with lighter sentences than the decider due to assisting prosecution, etc.
It strikes me that you're just upset that the people involved have a presumption of innocence. Too bad.
It seems like a form of double dipping - a mechanism by which business owners may not only vote and contribute personally towards political campaigns, but also utilize the resources of their company or companies to "suggest" legislation, contribute MORE money directly towards their preferred candidates, and make unlimited campaign ads in support of the aforementioned candidates and legislation.
Poppycock. People heading the decision infrastructure of a corporation are simply utilizing the resources of that corporation as they decide, subject to fidicuary duty restraint. This is no more "double dipping" then me pulling money from both my savings and my checking accounts in order to engage in an activity.
Once again, there is nothing special - or in this case unspecial - about money controlled by a corporation. Anything a private citizen may do with their own funds they may also with funds under their control due to heading the decision making process of a corporation. It doesn't matter if they own 100% of the shares, or if they don't own a single one.
In so doing, they presume to speak for everyone under their employ - whether they be a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green or firetruck red Communist. Whether they support net neutrality, gay marriage, UHC or immigration reform.
False. A corporation is not "speaking for" a single person in their employ, and anybody who believes a PR rep personally believes what they say really needs to take their hand off the keyboard and sit and think really hard for a very long time, because their beliefs are embarrassing to themselves. They are speaking for investors in that corporation, but only insofar as much as any investor in question has control of the decision making process. The corporation wholly owned by a single person is of course speaking for that person - because that person is the one deciding the corporation should speak in such a manner. However, just because you own 100 shares of Coke doesn't mean you agree with their statements, political or otherwise. You have no reasonable control over the decisions, and likewise as above anybody who acts like you do should simply stop talking, for their own benefit.
They take a portion of the wealth those employees created through their efforts for the company, and then use it to buy laws and legislation those employees might find disagreeable or abhorrent.
Employers, be they large corporations or small businesses -purchase- the effort of their employees, and as such own it. Of course they take the proceeds of that effort, because it's theirs to take. Neither the size of the company, method of its organization, or what the company chooses to do with those proceeds has any bearing.
Now, suppose that I'm doing something on my own, and as a direct action of something negligent I do somebody dies. I can spend years behind bars for that.
Negligence is a crime. Negligence as an employee of a corporation is -still- a crime.
You're just upset that in some circumstance, something you view as negligence either provably isn't or can't be proven to be in a court of law. So? People still are innocent until proven guilty, even when they work for a corporation.
Refrain from engaging in silly arguments, and I'll refrain from pointing it out.
The RIAA is in organization, made up of organizations, that exist to codify group decision making. People making decisions within that framework -are- speaking for RIAA, even if they're not speaking for an individual member entity.
It's how group consensus works. Don't like it? Don't join a group.
If i person gets someone killed they go to jail - if a company gets someone killed they might get fined..
Err. No.
Corporations and other such organizations cannot be charged with a crime, such charges are applied to people. The actors of the crime. If you commit a non crime killing, you'll be subject to civil charges, not criminal charges. As fines associated with civil charges are generally scaled to your wealth, the fine itself would be a lot loss.
The thing crazy people like to forget is that "imaginary people" such as corporations are....imaginary. They cannot act because they do not exist. Thus actions are always the acts of people. If a crime occurs, it's a person engaging in them. If a right is being exercised, it's a person engaging in them. Corporations in particular, and similarly but differently for PACs and Unions, the organizations exist as a formalized organizational structure to assist investment and decision making. When that decision making leads to illegal activity, the decision makers and actors are both vulnerable to criminal charges. In addition, the people involved -and- the corporation itself is vulnerable to civil charges.
Corporations and PACs and Unions all are made up of people, so you're claiming that the constituent people have no rights simply because they have organized themselves in one of those functions.
I grew up in Oregon, in a time and area when the number of people moving in from California was significant.
The real reason Oregon keeps operator-pump only gasoline? Because people keep asking why Oregon is different.
No, I'm not kidding. Conversation comes up on dropping it occasionally, and the big worry when I was growing up was all the transplanted people would vote for changing it. Seriously, there was more resistance to self-pump gas than to Measure 9 in 1992, which failed.
There's no real caring about jobs, or safety. It's because all the surrounding states have self pump, and Oregon doesn't.
There's more to it than that. As journalism became a profession in the middle of the last century, news organizations would actually compete to be seen as the most factual and least biased sources of news.
BS.
Prior to television, ALL news sources were biased, and wore their bias proudly. Search how many newspapers have "Union" in their name.
With the advance of television, and to a lesser extent radio, it became obvious that a limited availability of transmission capability - not to mention receiver channels - that all parties involved, stations and viewers both decided impartiality was a goal worth having.
Newspapers kinda got drug along for the ride.
Now, with the internet and 1000 television stations, the -mutual- incentive for impartiality is gone, and so the actual impartiality is gone.
I, for one, welcome bias. So long as the participants are clear they're not neutral. It's a shame Fox claims to be "fair and balanced", but it's a larger shame that CNN makes similar claims.
Now everyone is left with either a local monopoly or at best a duopoly of broadband providers
Largely, if not entirely, due to FCC involvement and rent seeking.
The solution is not to restrict even more who can provide broadband, which is the suggestion here, but rather to open it up entirely. No regulation at all. I'm not sure where the gov't gets off regulating something that can't physically harm somebody anyways.
Wow. Your complaint isn't that the claim is incorrect, isn't that the quote wasn't said, but rather as your own personal complaint about the site that hosts the quote.
It is indeed to do with the AKP party - but that is nothing new for turkey - what is new that this time the army has not responded with a coup as it normally does when religious folk get out of control in turkey. I think it has happened at least 3 or 4 times so far.
This is true, and entirely the fault of the EU. The -people- of Turkey want a religious, sharia law based, dictatorship. It's a foreign thought to western minds, but as you point out they've pressured for such a gov't several times. At which point the, highly secular, military comes out in a minor coup and re-establishes what was the second freest nation in the area.
The EU didn't like that, so as such a gov't is being implemented now the military is holding back and not correcting the situation, and we get headlines like this one.
Yet, Turkey is/was a charter nation in the creation of the United Nations; they've also been a member in NATO since the Cold War.
The UN is populated more by dictatorships than anything approaching "free countries", and NATO broke down into a "sign this paper against communism and the US will give you money" almost instantly.
Information like "Africans engaged in the slave trade" and "Entitlements cost more to the gov't than the entire military." We -know- California doesn't want truths like that getting out.
Coke or Soda both work, but if you want to drink your 'Pop', I don't want to hear about it and if you insist on doing it in public I hope you get arrested for incest.
Having grown up in Oregon, theoretically I should accept and embrace drinking "Pop", but it will never happen.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was a kid growing up in Oregon, we kids almost "collected" the Spotted Owl to extinction and we didn't need any Harry Potter books to do it.
Them owls are good eatin.
Actually what's top of the list is the water. Just because you're fixating on the gold doesn't mean that everybody is.
Your nihilistic noise is pathetic. It's ours for the taking because we're here. There isn't any reason needed.
No wai! Cold ribs are blech, and rewarmed arn't much better
Cuz there's all sorts of reasons to -not- strip mine a moon with no atmosphere.
You understand that a barrel of water costs more than a barrel of oil, right?
Truth, and both the Chinese and the "next cheap place" will be happier for it. Even the US will be happier, although perhaps not in the short term.
Remember the Sony rootkit? Who went to prison over that one? I'm pretty sure who would have gone to prison if I, a private citizen, had done something like that.
If you, as a private citizen, distributed software by CD that included .... software? Distributing faulty software isn't a crime, by the way.
What crime are you suggesting you would be charged with, and presumably Sony decision makers should have been? Quote the law itself please, handwaving and uttering "thereaouttabealaw!!!11111oneone" isn't sufficient.
Yep corporations can get away with murder. All the CEO or Board needs to do is find an employee willing to do that job (example: dump poisons into drinking water). They will be shielded by the corporate license.
You have an incorrect understanding of limited liability afforded by incorporation. Decision making is an -act-. Deciding that poisons should be dumped into drinking water is a -criminal-act-. Actually engaging in the dumping is a separate criminal act. Both actors are subject to criminal charges, and in practice the dumper tends to get off with lighter sentences than the decider due to assisting prosecution, etc.
It strikes me that you're just upset that the people involved have a presumption of innocence. Too bad.
It seems like a form of double dipping - a mechanism by which business owners may not only vote and contribute personally towards political campaigns, but also utilize the resources of their company or companies to "suggest" legislation, contribute MORE money directly towards their preferred candidates, and make unlimited campaign ads in support of the aforementioned candidates and legislation.
Poppycock. People heading the decision infrastructure of a corporation are simply utilizing the resources of that corporation as they decide, subject to fidicuary duty restraint. This is no more "double dipping" then me pulling money from both my savings and my checking accounts in order to engage in an activity.
Once again, there is nothing special - or in this case unspecial - about money controlled by a corporation. Anything a private citizen may do with their own funds they may also with funds under their control due to heading the decision making process of a corporation. It doesn't matter if they own 100% of the shares, or if they don't own a single one.
In so doing, they presume to speak for everyone under their employ - whether they be a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green or firetruck red Communist. Whether they support net neutrality, gay marriage, UHC or immigration reform.
False. A corporation is not "speaking for" a single person in their employ, and anybody who believes a PR rep personally believes what they say really needs to take their hand off the keyboard and sit and think really hard for a very long time, because their beliefs are embarrassing to themselves. They are speaking for investors in that corporation, but only insofar as much as any investor in question has control of the decision making process. The corporation wholly owned by a single person is of course speaking for that person - because that person is the one deciding the corporation should speak in such a manner. However, just because you own 100 shares of Coke doesn't mean you agree with their statements, political or otherwise. You have no reasonable control over the decisions, and likewise as above anybody who acts like you do should simply stop talking, for their own benefit.
They take a portion of the wealth those employees created through their efforts for the company, and then use it to buy laws and legislation those employees might find disagreeable or abhorrent.
Employers, be they large corporations or small businesses -purchase- the effort of their employees, and as such own it. Of course they take the proceeds of that effort, because it's theirs to take. Neither the size of the company, method of its organization, or what the company chooses to do with those proceeds has any bearing.
Now, suppose that I'm doing something on my own, and as a direct action of something negligent I do somebody dies. I can spend years behind bars for that.
Negligence is a crime. Negligence as an employee of a corporation is -still- a crime.
You're just upset that in some circumstance, something you view as negligence either provably isn't or can't be proven to be in a court of law. So? People still are innocent until proven guilty, even when they work for a corporation.
Refrain from engaging in silly arguments, and I'll refrain from pointing it out.
The RIAA is in organization, made up of organizations, that exist to codify group decision making. People making decisions within that framework -are- speaking for RIAA, even if they're not speaking for an individual member entity.
It's how group consensus works. Don't like it? Don't join a group.
I hardly find it likely that every person shares the EXACT same ideas.
Such group uniformity isn't necessary. It only requires one person to have rights of speech, political activity, etc.
Once again, imaginary people do not act. So there's always at least one person in agreement.
If i person gets someone killed they go to jail - if a company gets someone killed they might get fined..
Err. No.
Corporations and other such organizations cannot be charged with a crime, such charges are applied to people. The actors of the crime. If you commit a non crime killing, you'll be subject to civil charges, not criminal charges. As fines associated with civil charges are generally scaled to your wealth, the fine itself would be a lot loss.
The thing crazy people like to forget is that "imaginary people" such as corporations are....imaginary. They cannot act because they do not exist. Thus actions are always the acts of people. If a crime occurs, it's a person engaging in them. If a right is being exercised, it's a person engaging in them. Corporations in particular, and similarly but differently for PACs and Unions, the organizations exist as a formalized organizational structure to assist investment and decision making. When that decision making leads to illegal activity, the decision makers and actors are both vulnerable to criminal charges. In addition, the people involved -and- the corporation itself is vulnerable to civil charges.
They don't. The people that comprise them do, and such people can exercise those rights through the organization.
Corporations and PACs and Unions all are made up of people, so you're claiming that the constituent people have no rights simply because they have organized themselves in one of those functions.
Asinine.
I grew up in Oregon, in a time and area when the number of people moving in from California was significant.
The real reason Oregon keeps operator-pump only gasoline? Because people keep asking why Oregon is different.
No, I'm not kidding. Conversation comes up on dropping it occasionally, and the big worry when I was growing up was all the transplanted people would vote for changing it. Seriously, there was more resistance to self-pump gas than to Measure 9 in 1992, which failed.
There's no real caring about jobs, or safety. It's because all the surrounding states have self pump, and Oregon doesn't.
Oregon gas is still cheaper than California.
There's more to it than that. As journalism became a profession in the middle of the last century, news organizations would actually compete to be seen as the most factual and least biased sources of news.
BS.
Prior to television, ALL news sources were biased, and wore their bias proudly. Search how many newspapers have "Union" in their name.
With the advance of television, and to a lesser extent radio, it became obvious that a limited availability of transmission capability - not to mention receiver channels - that all parties involved, stations and viewers both decided impartiality was a goal worth having.
Newspapers kinda got drug along for the ride.
Now, with the internet and 1000 television stations, the -mutual- incentive for impartiality is gone, and so the actual impartiality is gone.
I, for one, welcome bias. So long as the participants are clear they're not neutral. It's a shame Fox claims to be "fair and balanced", but it's a larger shame that CNN makes similar claims.
Now everyone is left with either a local monopoly or at best a duopoly of broadband providers
Largely, if not entirely, due to FCC involvement and rent seeking.
The solution is not to restrict even more who can provide broadband, which is the suggestion here, but rather to open it up entirely. No regulation at all. I'm not sure where the gov't gets off regulating something that can't physically harm somebody anyways.
Wow. Your complaint isn't that the claim is incorrect, isn't that the quote wasn't said, but rather as your own personal complaint about the site that hosts the quote.
Talk about pure partisan noise, coming from you.
(unless Europeans decide they hate their own culture)
Already done.
It is indeed to do with the AKP party - but that is nothing new for turkey - what is new that this time the army has not responded with a coup as it normally does when religious folk get out of control in turkey. I think it has happened at least 3 or 4 times so far.
This is true, and entirely the fault of the EU. The -people- of Turkey want a religious, sharia law based, dictatorship. It's a foreign thought to western minds, but as you point out they've pressured for such a gov't several times. At which point the, highly secular, military comes out in a minor coup and re-establishes what was the second freest nation in the area.
The EU didn't like that, so as such a gov't is being implemented now the military is holding back and not correcting the situation, and we get headlines like this one.
Yet, Turkey is/was a charter nation in the creation of the United Nations; they've also been a member in NATO since the Cold War.
The UN is populated more by dictatorships than anything approaching "free countries", and NATO broke down into a "sign this paper against communism and the US will give you money" almost instantly.
Information like "Africans engaged in the slave trade" and "Entitlements cost more to the gov't than the entire military." We -know- California doesn't want truths like that getting out.
Coke or Soda both work, but if you want to drink your 'Pop', I don't want to hear about it and if you insist on doing it in public I hope you get arrested for incest.
Having grown up in Oregon, theoretically I should accept and embrace drinking "Pop", but it will never happen.
Not everything is regional.