The "job offer" presented to this independent worker is not set in stone!
Yes it is. If I offer you $100,000 to perform a service, the ball is in your court. If you say yes, we have a legally binding contract. If I want to rescind the offer, I must do so -- unless the offer has a particular time limit (e.g., "the job is yours if you want it -- let me know by Friday if you accept").
It is merely an "offer" which she could "apply" for.
When did you last hear of someone applying for an offer? This was not a case of someone saying "you can come in for an interview if you like." It was an offer of employment. Those are two very different things.
She has not lost anything but an opportunity.
Money was not taken away from her.
Untrue. If she intended to accept the offer, she lost $65K. Period.
But a male journalist might not? Please, pulling the sex card is insulting to men and women alike.
Right. Men and women are different. Men are, as a group, physically stronger and more often able to defend themselves. They are seldom, as adults, victims of sexual assaults and rapes. The vast majority of stalkings are men stalking women, not vice-versa or same-sex. Sexual predators are almost always men and their victims are almost always women (or children). Your belief that men and women face the same threats, dangers, etc. just shows how little you know about women.
Unless the ISP was specifically informed that this PARTICULAR email was of the gravest importance BECAUSE it was worth many thousands of dollars, then they should be able to treat it as though it is any generic email and not worth special care. After all, how could they have possibly known? Are they mind-readers? No. It's unfair to punish them for something that's unforeseen.
Since the recipient did not know that the e-mail was there, how was she to notify them of its importance? And the point of this was that the journalist's e-mail was not treated like "generic e-mail." They regularly delivered generic e-mail while intentionally witholding e-mail addressed to her.
While your example of the shipping delay that left the mill out of commission is an interesting case, it does not prove to be totally analogous to this one. In Hadley v. Baxendale, the courier made an error. In this case, the ISP was intentionally holding personal correspondence as a way to force the woman to pay a bill that they thought she owed. In essence, they were holding her property (the e-mail messages) and refusing to release it until she paid them. The ISP did not create the messages and those messages were private communications that had both tangible and intangible value.
It would be like your neighbor signing for a package while you were out of town and then refusing to tell you about the package or give it to you until you repaid some debt that they thought you owed.
This is, by the way, a common and despicable tactic employed by ISPs. When I stopped using Erol's/RCN, they refused to deactivate the e-mail account for some number of months. Why? So that subscribers would think twice before changing services, knowing that possibly important e-mails would languish in a mailbox that they could no longer open. (I just sent messages until the "mailbox" was full and bounces started coming back -- but it pissed me off, nonetheless.)
No one can easily question your intelligence, but your humanity is quite at a doubpt with such a post.
Yes, I'm an inhuman monster because I think that we should consider the plight of people who can't afford the things that we enjoy. I'm inhuman for pointing out that people in China are trying to eek out a living and that we should cut them some slack when they trade in pirated movies and software that they otherwise could not afford.
The phone company screws up, and disconnects your phone, during which time your phone number is pulled from a hat on some radio show and you win a brand new toaster. According to the competition rules, if they can't reach you on the phone, they pull another number from the hat, so they do and that person answers and wins. Now, would you have a case against the phone company?
Yes. It's called "consequential damages."
You like analogies, so consider this one: You buy a new car for your wife. It suddenly comes to a dead stop on the freeway at night with a total electrical failure. She is killed and your son is maimed when a tractor-trailer plows into the unlighted vehicle. You discover that the problem was that the factory left the positive battery cable lying against the exhaust manifold, it melted through, and started an electrical fire that left the car powerless. Do you think all that the car company owes you is a replacement car? Do you think that they should not have to pay out anything for killing your wife and leaving your son permanently disabled?
It's not the ISP's responsibility.
If the ISP is not responsible for their screw-up, who is? Oh, I see... You're one of those right-wingers who thinks that all corporations should get a free pass. Now matter how badly they screw over the consumer, they should be immune from lawsuits.
Most (read: any ISP above moron status- doesnt mean all of them by any means!) have the dreaded "Acceptable Use Policy". Somewhere in the AUP, or some other disclaimer, ISPs have a blurb where they state they cannot be held accountable for financial loss due to system downtime and misconfiguration.
So what? You are not absolved of responsibility for your actions simply because you create an AUP that states that you are not responsible for your actions. Ski rental places have the same thing: You sign a form saying that they are not liable for any injury even if they botch the equipment. That agreement isn't worth the paper that it is printed on. If their screw-up causes you injury, then you have a right to damages.
This is common sense people- would you hire someone who couldnt leave a phone number on their resume?
Read the article next time instead of simply slandering the victim:
When I opened them, one jumped out immediately; it was from the producer of a national daily magazine-style television show asking me to call her about a job opening on her show (I'm a freelance television journalist).
Some points:
1. She is a freelance television journalist. 2. She was approached, via e-mail, with a job offer. 3. There is no evidence that she solicited the offer by distributing her resume. 4. When she did not respond in a timely manner, she apparently missed out on the opportunity. 5. Because the ISP continued to accept mail for the woman but hold it hostage, the potential employer received no bounce and, thus, had no reason to phone. 6. There is no indication that the potential employer even had the woman's phone number. 7. A female journalist might have very good reasons for not widely disseminating her phone number. 8. When there are multiple qualified people available, the potential employer may have simply chosen to contact another one rather than trying to track down someone who did not even answer the e-mail that was sent.
Now for the rest of you who think she should get that 65k from the ISP- the ISP probably is going to be angry, but it's not them who will pay for it- their customers will.
If the ISP's rates go up, then customers switch to more responsible ISPs -- an example of the market punishing incompetent providers. More likely would be that the ISP would change their policies such that they would only turn off e-mail as a last resort and/or that they would bounce messages sent to disabled e-mail addresses.
I equate this to people who sue doctors out of business because in that inevitable mathematical instance of them screwing up
Perhaps you will be that "mathematical instance."
It seems to me that you believe that no one should sue anyone. A doctor can kill patient after patient through malpractice but no one should sue him -- and since no one sues, his incompetence doesn't come to light. Lost a loved one? Tough. Lump it. Lost out on a job because your ISP actively, and wrongfully, shut off your e-mail? Too bad. Don't you dare sue them. You should run for office. You'd get lots of campaign donations from big companies that want to be able to f*** over the consumer without fear of reprisals.
It is very foolish to say the the $800 per year for the Chinese is little money. What counts is his his puchasing power.
His purchasing power is only good for Chinese goods. He has very little purchasing power when it comes to goods manufactured in the U.S. -- like the MGM videos and Adobe software packates (for example) that are pirated there.
Every time something like this comes up some ignorant USian says something like "The yearly income is $x, why would they spend $x/10 for a $item?"
When a U.S. firm exports a video tape or DVD to China, they expect to be paid in U.S. dollars by the importer. They don't give a rat's ass about the cost of living in China. Do you think that MGM will sell a $20 DVD for 44 in China (because China's per-capita income is 1/45th of that in the U.S.)? Do you think that Microsoft will sell them Windows XP upgrades for $4 (US retail of $180 divided by 45)? Do you honestly believe that U.S. firms will sell below their costs?
By your argument, buying a chocolate bar in China would cost about the same as buying a DVD in the US.
As a percentage of income? Probably so if it's a Hershey's or Nestle's chocolate bar. That's why they manufacture their own chocolate bars, paying the going wages in China rather than paying for chocolate bars produced by U.S. workers.
You cannot spend $50 to produce a product in the U.S. (where it sells for $100) and then sell it for $2.22 in China to make up for the per-capita income difference.
P.S. Don't call me "ignorant." As shown above, I am both more knowledgeable and more intelligent than you are.
And, as we all know, only rich people deserve "luxury" items. Poor people in second and third world countries should just eek out a pitiful, impoverished existence, devoid of even the simple pleasure of seeing a movie. How dare they want more than that from life?
You make it sound as though they are a life necessity more important than food, clothing or shelter.
That's the point: They are not more important so the people of China, by and large, will be deprived of them if piracy is substantially eliminated.
Well then, they can't use NY Times, plain and simple.
Actually, they can. There is at least one web site that creates an account automatically with fictitious information.
And if they try to circumvent it, well, there's yet another case of people trying to be dishonest.
If someone has not agreed to the NY Times terms, how is it being dishonest? In order for it to be "dishonest", they would have to agree to the terms and then go back on their agreement.
Or, you can just get the damn account at NYT. It's quick, and it's a quality site.
Many Slashdot users do not do that because the accounts allow the NYTimes (and hence Herr Ashcroft) to more easily track the viewing habits of users. Also, I believe that the registration process asks for information that some people are hesitant to supply. While I have registered to use the site, I certainly respect those who do not trust the NYTimes to protect their privacy and anonymity.
Now the average, urban, Chinese person (who has a yearly income of about $800) can stop buying cheap pirated movies and can, instead, spend a week's wages to buy a commercial video. That is, provided he/she was not planning to squander that money on food, clothing, or shelter.
Those living in rural areas, where the per-capita income is about 1/3 that will just have to sell a family member into slavery if they really want that video.
Maybe before whining about the evil Chinese pirating videos and software, you should consider what their incomes are compared to ours.
"Ralsky said he doesn't send offers for pornography or any messages to people who indicate they don't want them."
I guess that the above statement "could" be legit - but I bet it's more bullshit than anything else
So some ten year old kid gets spam advertising "Fantasy Black: Hot ebony sluts who love gettin' their salad tossed" (taken from an actual ad) and, after being horrified by pictures of tongues in rectums, he can then click on a link to "opt-out." Or someone can get that at their job and have IS report to their boss that they have been for visiting the site -- when it was just their HTML e-mail client picking up the pictures from the web site. (Note: Don't lecture me about how e-mail clients should not do that. I agree, but Joe Average uses the e-mail client he's told to at work.)
There is never an appropriate time to send unsolicited commercial e-mail of any kind -- but that is especially true of porn spam. The sender has no idea whether the recipient is a 20-something guy, an elementary school kid, or an elderly nun. I'd like to see the spammers that send this kind of stuff to little kids be prosecuted just like they would be if they were handing out hardcore porn magazines to little kids in shopping malls.
But you really do have a hard time pointing to compelling applications written in Forth for modern desktop OSes. Python is a good language, so you see some amazing applications written in it (e.g. Zope), but despite all the religion surrounding Forth, you never see much to show for it on the desktop.
As you point out, Forth is not a language for writing GUI applications. It's for things like controlling stepper motors in telescopes. It's an embedded systems language for low-level machine conrol. And for those purposes, it's superb.
I, for one, appreciate its simplicity. The modern C/C++ implementations make my head hurt. I don't want a language where there are countless libraries with which I have to remain familiar. It's astounding to see how many C/C++ programmers believe that various Borland/Microsoft libraries are an inherent part of the language.
I am certain that high-profile news stories on Slashdot, The Register, and elsewhere had nothing to do with PayPal's decision to refund the money to the Abiword account. Now if any of us loses hundreds of dollars off of PayPal, we can be comfortable in the knowledge that PayPal will refund the amount we lost.
If there's a cable company, a DSL provider, a dial-up provider, a satellite provider, and a cellular dial-up provider, then there's not exactly a monopoly, is there?
Dial-up and cellular dial-up are not broadband and, for many purposes (e.g., streaming video, audio, ISO downloads), are worthless. Satellite is only slightly better, but it does not compare to DSL or cable modem. The latency makes it useless for gaming (as an example) and speed that is 20% of a decent cable modem is not very impressive. Also, many people have no way to mount the dish.
In my area, I tried for five years to get DSL and was constantly told "not yet -- call back in a few months." Cable modem came in and that was my only option for broadband. Hence the term "monopoly."
Eat your heart out Mac fans!
on
Water Computing
·
· Score: 3, Funny
They didn't go to prison because their CEO did a runner
"They" should not go to prison. Union Carbide should go to prison. I know that sounds far-fetched, but the way that I see something like that working would be that Union Carbide would be held in limbo for a period of time, during which they could not transact business. It would be analogous to how it is for a private citizen that is jailed -- no ability to earn a living, have contact with others, etc.
Actually, corporate entities are legally afforded many if not all of the same protections afforded individual citizens.
That was my point: They enjoy the rights and protections of people but don't have the responsibilities of people. They do not face criminal prosecution, jail (during which time the corporation would be prohibited from doing business), etc.
Corporations are people to! i'm serious. They also pay taxes!
Paying taxes does not make an entity into a person. While there are lawyers who have perverted the word to refer to both corporations and human beings in the same way, we don't have to accept their twisting of the English language.
If a corporations are people, why didn't Union Carbide get life in prison for the killing 3,800 people in Bhopal, India?
Why are tobacco companies not being "executed" for killing people? They knowingly sold something that was lethal while lying to the purchasers and claiming that the product was not shown to be harmful. If you started selling arsenic-laced lemonade while claiming that it was safe, you would be in prison or the electric chair.
When corporations are jailed for criminal acts and their ability to do business is halted during that time, then I'll think about sharing the title "person" with them. As of now, corporations have the rights of people with none of the responsibilities.
Slashdot Mirror
The "job offer" presented to this independent worker is not set in stone!
Yes it is. If I offer you $100,000 to perform a service, the ball is in your court. If you say yes, we have a legally binding contract. If I want to rescind the offer, I must do so -- unless the offer has a particular time limit (e.g., "the job is yours if you want it -- let me know by Friday if you accept").
It is merely an "offer" which she could "apply" for.
When did you last hear of someone applying for an offer? This was not a case of someone saying "you can come in for an interview if you like." It was an offer of employment. Those are two very different things.
She has not lost anything but an opportunity.
Money was not taken away from her.
Untrue. If she intended to accept the offer, she lost $65K. Period.
But a male journalist might not? Please, pulling the sex card is insulting to men and women alike.
Right. Men and women are different. Men are, as a group, physically stronger and more often able to defend themselves. They are seldom, as adults, victims of sexual assaults and rapes. The vast majority of stalkings are men stalking women, not vice-versa or same-sex. Sexual predators are almost always men and their victims are almost always women (or children). Your belief that men and women face the same threats, dangers, etc. just shows how little you know about women.
Why do you portrait yourself as the victim here, just because someone states a different opinion?
They did not simply state a different opinion. They called into question my very humanity. Reread what they wrote:
your humanity is quite at a doubt with such a post.
Unless the ISP was specifically informed that this PARTICULAR email was of the gravest importance BECAUSE it was worth many thousands of dollars, then they should be able to treat it as though it is any generic email and not worth special care. After all, how could they have possibly known? Are they mind-readers? No. It's unfair to punish them for something that's unforeseen.
Since the recipient did not know that the e-mail was there, how was she to notify them of its importance? And the point of this was that the journalist's e-mail was not treated like "generic e-mail." They regularly delivered generic e-mail while intentionally witholding e-mail addressed to her.
While your example of the shipping delay that left the mill out of commission is an interesting case, it does not prove to be totally analogous to this one. In Hadley v. Baxendale, the courier made an error. In this case, the ISP was intentionally holding personal correspondence as a way to force the woman to pay a bill that they thought she owed. In essence, they were holding her property (the e-mail messages) and refusing to release it until she paid them. The ISP did not create the messages and those messages were private communications that had both tangible and intangible value.
It would be like your neighbor signing for a package while you were out of town and then refusing to tell you about the package or give it to you until you repaid some debt that they thought you owed.
This is, by the way, a common and despicable tactic employed by ISPs. When I stopped using Erol's/RCN, they refused to deactivate the e-mail account for some number of months. Why? So that subscribers would think twice before changing services, knowing that possibly important e-mails would languish in a mailbox that they could no longer open. (I just sent messages until the "mailbox" was full and bounces started coming back -- but it pissed me off, nonetheless.)
Even if you breach, you do not owe unforeseeable damages.
I don't think that someone getting a job offer via e-mail is "unforeseeable." It's commonplace and much business is transacted that way.
No one can easily question your intelligence, but your humanity is quite at a doubpt with such a post.
Yes, I'm an inhuman monster because I think that we should consider the plight of people who can't afford the things that we enjoy. I'm inhuman for pointing out that people in China are trying to eek out a living and that we should cut them some slack when they trade in pirated movies and software that they otherwise could not afford.
Pfft.. anyone with UID > 249000 is an idiot.
And what does that make people who, like you, are too stupid to even create a UID for themselves.
The phone company screws up, and disconnects your phone, during which time your phone number is pulled from a hat on some radio show and you win a brand new toaster. According to the competition rules, if they can't reach you on the phone, they pull another number from the hat, so they do and that person answers and wins. Now, would you have a case against the phone company?
Yes. It's called "consequential damages."
You like analogies, so consider this one: You buy a new car for your wife. It suddenly comes to a dead stop on the freeway at night with a total electrical failure. She is killed and your son is maimed when a tractor-trailer plows into the unlighted vehicle. You discover that the problem was that the factory left the positive battery cable lying against the exhaust manifold, it melted through, and started an electrical fire that left the car powerless. Do you think all that the car company owes you is a replacement car? Do you think that they should not have to pay out anything for killing your wife and leaving your son permanently disabled?
It's not the ISP's responsibility.
If the ISP is not responsible for their screw-up, who is? Oh, I see... You're one of those right-wingers who thinks that all corporations should get a free pass. Now matter how badly they screw over the consumer, they should be immune from lawsuits.
So what? You are not absolved of responsibility for your actions simply because you create an AUP that states that you are not responsible for your actions. Ski rental places have the same thing: You sign a form saying that they are not liable for any injury even if they botch the equipment. That agreement isn't worth the paper that it is printed on. If their screw-up causes you injury, then you have a right to damages.
This is common sense people- would you hire someone who couldnt leave a phone number on their resume?
Read the article next time instead of simply slandering the victim:
Some points:
1. She is a freelance television journalist.
2. She was approached, via e-mail, with a job offer.
3. There is no evidence that she solicited the offer by distributing her resume.
4. When she did not respond in a timely manner, she apparently missed out on the opportunity.
5. Because the ISP continued to accept mail for the woman but hold it hostage, the potential employer received no bounce and, thus, had no reason to phone.
6. There is no indication that the potential employer even had the woman's phone number.
7. A female journalist might have very good reasons for not widely disseminating her phone number.
8. When there are multiple qualified people available, the potential employer may have simply chosen to contact another one rather than trying to track down someone who did not even answer the e-mail that was sent.
Now for the rest of you who think she should get that 65k from the ISP- the ISP probably is going to be angry, but it's not them who will pay for it- their customers will.
If the ISP's rates go up, then customers switch to more responsible ISPs -- an example of the market punishing incompetent providers. More likely would be that the ISP would change their policies such that they would only turn off e-mail as a last resort and/or that they would bounce messages sent to disabled e-mail addresses.
I equate this to people who sue doctors out of business because in that inevitable mathematical instance of them screwing up
Perhaps you will be that "mathematical instance."
It seems to me that you believe that no one should sue anyone. A doctor can kill patient after patient through malpractice but no one should sue him -- and since no one sues, his incompetence doesn't come to light. Lost a loved one? Tough. Lump it. Lost out on a job because your ISP actively, and wrongfully, shut off your e-mail? Too bad. Don't you dare sue them. You should run for office. You'd get lots of campaign donations from big companies that want to be able to f*** over the consumer without fear of reprisals.
It is very foolish to say the the $800 per year for the Chinese is little money. What counts is his his puchasing power.
His purchasing power is only good for Chinese goods. He has very little purchasing power when it comes to goods manufactured in the U.S. -- like the MGM videos and Adobe software packates (for example) that are pirated there.
Every time something like this comes up some ignorant USian says something like "The yearly income is $x, why would they spend $x/10 for a $item?"
When a U.S. firm exports a video tape or DVD to China, they expect to be paid in U.S. dollars by the importer. They don't give a rat's ass about the cost of living in China. Do you think that MGM will sell a $20 DVD for 44 in China (because China's per-capita income is 1/45th of that in the U.S.)? Do you think that Microsoft will sell them Windows XP upgrades for $4 (US retail of $180 divided by 45)? Do you honestly believe that U.S. firms will sell below their costs?
By your argument, buying a chocolate bar in China would cost about the same as buying a DVD in the US.
As a percentage of income? Probably so if it's a Hershey's or Nestle's chocolate bar. That's why they manufacture their own chocolate bars, paying the going wages in China rather than paying for chocolate bars produced by U.S. workers.
You cannot spend $50 to produce a product in the U.S. (where it sells for $100) and then sell it for $2.22 in China to make up for the per-capita income difference.
P.S. Don't call me "ignorant." As shown above, I am both more knowledgeable and more intelligent than you are.
Movies are a luxury item.
And, as we all know, only rich people deserve "luxury" items. Poor people in second and third world countries should just eek out a pitiful, impoverished existence, devoid of even the simple pleasure of seeing a movie. How dare they want more than that from life?
You make it sound as though they are a life necessity more important than food, clothing or shelter.
That's the point: They are not more important so the people of China, by and large, will be deprived of them if piracy is substantially eliminated.
Well then, they can't use NY Times, plain and simple.
Actually, they can. There is at least one web site that creates an account automatically with fictitious information.
And if they try to circumvent it, well, there's yet another case of people trying to be dishonest.
If someone has not agreed to the NY Times terms, how is it being dishonest? In order for it to be "dishonest", they would have to agree to the terms and then go back on their agreement.
Or, you can just get the damn account at NYT. It's quick, and it's a quality site.
Many Slashdot users do not do that because the accounts allow the NYTimes (and hence Herr Ashcroft) to more easily track the viewing habits of users. Also, I believe that the registration process asks for information that some people are hesitant to supply. While I have registered to use the site, I certainly respect those who do not trust the NYTimes to protect their privacy and anonymity.
Now the average, urban, Chinese person (who has a yearly income of about $800) can stop buying cheap pirated movies and can, instead, spend a week's wages to buy a commercial video. That is, provided he/she was not planning to squander that money on food, clothing, or shelter.
Those living in rural areas, where the per-capita income is about 1/3 that will just have to sell a family member into slavery if they really want that video.
Maybe before whining about the evil Chinese pirating videos and software, you should consider what their incomes are compared to ours.
So some ten year old kid gets spam advertising "Fantasy Black: Hot ebony sluts who love gettin' their salad tossed" (taken from an actual ad) and, after being horrified by pictures of tongues in rectums, he can then click on a link to "opt-out." Or someone can get that at their job and have IS report to their boss that they have been for visiting the site -- when it was just their HTML e-mail client picking up the pictures from the web site. (Note: Don't lecture me about how e-mail clients should not do that. I agree, but Joe Average uses the e-mail client he's told to at work.)
There is never an appropriate time to send unsolicited commercial e-mail of any kind -- but that is especially true of porn spam. The sender has no idea whether the recipient is a 20-something guy, an elementary school kid, or an elderly nun. I'd like to see the spammers that send this kind of stuff to little kids be prosecuted just like they would be if they were handing out hardcore porn magazines to little kids in shopping malls.
But you really do have a hard time pointing to compelling applications written in Forth for modern desktop OSes. Python is a good language, so you see some amazing applications written in it (e.g. Zope), but despite all the religion surrounding Forth, you never see much to show for it on the desktop.
As you point out, Forth is not a language for writing GUI applications. It's for things like controlling stepper motors in telescopes. It's an embedded systems language for low-level machine conrol. And for those purposes, it's superb.
I, for one, appreciate its simplicity. The modern C/C++ implementations make my head hurt. I don't want a language where there are countless libraries with which I have to remain familiar. It's astounding to see how many C/C++ programmers believe that various Borland/Microsoft libraries are an inherent part of the language.
schizophrenia is _not_ multiple personality disorder. schizophrenia is a reality-distortion.
So, is that the evil anonymous coward telling us that, or is it the good anonymous coward?
I am certain that high-profile news stories on Slashdot, The Register, and elsewhere had nothing to do with PayPal's decision to refund the money to the Abiword account. Now if any of us loses hundreds of dollars off of PayPal, we can be comfortable in the knowledge that PayPal will refund the amount we lost.
If there's a cable company, a DSL provider, a dial-up provider, a satellite provider, and a cellular dial-up provider, then there's not exactly a monopoly, is there?
Dial-up and cellular dial-up are not broadband and, for many purposes (e.g., streaming video, audio, ISO downloads), are worthless. Satellite is only slightly better, but it does not compare to DSL or cable modem. The latency makes it useless for gaming (as an example) and speed that is 20% of a decent cable modem is not very impressive. Also, many people have no way to mount the dish.
In my area, I tried for five years to get DSL and was constantly told "not yet -- call back in a few months." Cable modem came in and that was my only option for broadband. Hence the term "monopoly."
Here's the real aqua!
handed this address to only four people, two of whom were female, so i knew it was one of them or a friend
Maybe it was one of the men you gave the address to. Perhaps he's just shy and hoping that you, too, secretly have a crush on him.
They didn't go to prison because their CEO did a runner
"They" should not go to prison. Union Carbide should go to prison. I know that sounds far-fetched, but the way that I see something like that working would be that Union Carbide would be held in limbo for a period of time, during which they could not transact business. It would be analogous to how it is for a private citizen that is jailed -- no ability to earn a living, have contact with others, etc.
Actually, corporate entities are legally afforded many if not all of the same protections afforded individual citizens.
That was my point: They enjoy the rights and protections of people but don't have the responsibilities of people. They do not face criminal prosecution, jail (during which time the corporation would be prohibited from doing business), etc.
Corporations are people to! i'm serious. They also pay taxes!
Paying taxes does not make an entity into a person. While there are lawyers who have perverted the word to refer to both corporations and human beings in the same way, we don't have to accept their twisting of the English language.
If a corporations are people, why didn't Union Carbide get life in prison for the killing 3,800 people in Bhopal, India?
Why are tobacco companies not being "executed" for killing people? They knowingly sold something that was lethal while lying to the purchasers and claiming that the product was not shown to be harmful. If you started selling arsenic-laced lemonade while claiming that it was safe, you would be in prison or the electric chair.
When corporations are jailed for criminal acts and their ability to do business is halted during that time, then I'll think about sharing the title "person" with them. As of now, corporations have the rights of people with none of the responsibilities.