That's... exactly what I said. "Democrat Senators" refers to specific members of the Senate that are also Democrats. "Democratic Senators" refers to members of the Senate that are democratic, which is terribly ambiguous considering that the Senate is a democratic body at the heart of a democratic system of government.
Well, since "Democratic" is an adjective, "proper" naming convention would preclude its use as a noun. Democrat and Democracy are nouns, words that identify objects. Democratic describes such objects, but doesn't specify or identify. The Senate is a democratic body, so the adjective describes it and all its members, be they Democrats or Republicans. Note that we do not say "Democratics and Republicans".
But as you said, "Democratic" is an adjective. Names, be they of people or groups, are proper nouns, no? Using the adjective means you are describing something about the nature of the subject, and in this case it would be redundant and ambiguous as all Senators are representatives in a democratic political system, also known as a Democracy.
What struck me was that she wants it banned when it appears to only be a "concern among scientists keeping a close eye on how pollution affects (sic) fish", as opposed to having been demonstrated to be harmful. So it could be a problem, but we don't know for sure yet if it is so calling for a ban is incredibly premature. Bad science!
Those girls work hard for their money and they deserve to shine. Dr. Trisia is just jealous because she has a stripper name but doesn't have the pole-skills for a real career. That's why she's pretending fish are better than strippers.
Seriously, what's the problem? Something stupid came up in autocomplete results, big f'ing deal. Some uptight idiot got wound up over some trivial nonsense so now it's news and Google is embarrassed?
I remember the good old days when an idiot with a bug up their ass about something stupid would just be ignored. The worst part of the internet is that idiots amplify each other's nonsense and get taken seriously.
Because the security level of different areas of the building varies wildly and it would be unreasonable to make tourists or members of the press hand over their phones at the door?
That said, I agree. If you enter the secure areas, your phone shouldn't be coming along. Put stingers, jammers, and faraday cages all over the place just in case.
I don't think he would need to prove it, just report it. Unless he's a prosecutor for HUD, in which case it could be his job. That's a good credit score, and "but we want 780" smells fishy as hell.
Under the Fair Housing Act, it's illegal to restrict who you advertise too on the basis of race, religion,etc., so if you define your high ROI cohorts according to those factors you'll be in trouble. If instead you define your target audience according to income, I think that would pass muster unless it was de facto racial discrimination. Like if in the local market no person of color earned over $40k/year and you only advertise to people making $41k and up. Though intent may be hard to prove, especially if the fair market value of the property is more than someone making $40k could afford.
At first glance, yeah, but consider this: If you extend that logic, why was the Silk Road taken down? Why can't I advertise great deals on bricks of cocaine on Facebook?
The concept of corporate personhood isn't a convenient legal fiction, it is the foundation of the concept. Incorporation is a formal agreement between individual people to act as one legal entity for specific purposes. In other words, we don't call corporations legal persons, we call a certain class of legal person a corporation.
It is what makes it possible for an organized group of people to jointly make contracts, own property, engage in commerce, sue or be sued, employ actual people, and so on. If you like, think of legal persons in general as programming objects, and corporations as arrays.
Furthermore, corporations are not just businesses. Legal persons include both individual people and groups of people who incorporate. Corporations include groups who incorporate for commercial purposes (which you're talking about), but also groups who incorporate for other purposes like holding elections and hiring police, building and running a church, collecting charitable donations and putting them to use (Salvation Army, UNICEF, CCF) engage in political advocacy (i.e. The Sierra Club, NRA, AARP), maintain professional standards and issue certifications (AMA, Bar association, IEEE), found and operate a college or university, etc.
The liability issues get tricky. Because it's an organization and not an individual, liability tends to be indirect. A commercial corporation is generally owned by many shareholders, most of whom have no direct involvement in day-to-day operations so it would be pretty unfair to hold them legally responsible for wrongdoing. However, if the company gets caught doing something wrong, that usually tanks the value of the stock so shareholders cannot avoid the financial consequences. Executives tend to get hit hard by that because the bulk of their compensation is in the form of stock options, as do the board members as they are major shareholders. That said, I would like to see more legal consequences, but at least when there is criminal wrongdoing the responsible decision makers do go to prison and the shareholders can sue them.
As for "too big to fail", yeah, that's BS. But incorporation is not responsible for that nonsense, it was an unusual case where the failing companies provided vital infrastructure. It was the financial equivalent of Level 3, Cogent, and GTT collapsing at the same time, which would take out half the internet's backbone, leading to its complete collapse. Something had to be done to prevent a chain reaction that would have brought down the entire global financial infrastructure (thus everything, it's like the world's cardiovascular system), but "too big to fail" was dumb.
I think I see the problem. You're conflating parties with partisanship. Right now there is a high degree of partisanship causing some distressingly sharp divisions. That is not due to parties themselves. Parties are an inevitable product of electoral democracy, and the number of parties is determined by the voting system (Look up Duverger's Law for more about that). Partisanship is essentially political group-think (in-/out-group dynamic), and can be driven by both political and non-political factors. It fluctuates wildly over time, which, and I think this is neat, can be measured by judicial confirmation votes.
If you give enough members of each side (or possibly only one) an echo chamber and some time for the "us vs. them" mentality to build up, you get the kind of partisanship we see now. So in the contemporary case it isn't parties themselves that are to blame, it's the internet and cable TV for making nearly pure echo chambers both possible and popular. The echo chambers form around parties, but would still form in their absence.
It's like what I told my neighbor with the unkempt lawn, "Let me help out - mow it or I'll tell your wife I saw you with another woman. You're welcome."
Yes supply and demand, but you left out a vital factor - Global competition. WWII left exactly one industrialized nation with its infrastructure intact. It took about 20 years for everyone else to rebuild and catch back up. During that time American industry had no competition.
Parties predated the Constitution, as they are an inevitable byproduct of electoral democracy. Some of the founders hoped to avoid them, but they split into the Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties as the Constitution was being written. Primaries are an internal party matter, each makes its own rules and there was no need for either to be mentioned in the Constitution. The term Gerrymandering didn't exist until 1812 and States draw congressional districts. Corporate personhood is a fundamentally necessary legal concept that predates the Colonies, which were themselves incorporated. As are municipalities, churches, NGOs, unions, non-profits, etc. Their personhood is established in common law, and supported by the Constitutional rights to free association and making contracts.
Slashdot Mirror
That's... exactly what I said. "Democrat Senators" refers to specific members of the Senate that are also Democrats. "Democratic Senators" refers to members of the Senate that are democratic, which is terribly ambiguous considering that the Senate is a democratic body at the heart of a democratic system of government.
It seems this question pops up every couple of months. Does the answer really change that often?
Well, since "Democratic" is an adjective, "proper" naming convention would preclude its use as a noun. Democrat and Democracy are nouns, words that identify objects. Democratic describes such objects, but doesn't specify or identify. The Senate is a democratic body, so the adjective describes it and all its members, be they Democrats or Republicans. Note that we do not say "Democratics and Republicans".
But as you said, "Democratic" is an adjective. Names, be they of people or groups, are proper nouns, no? Using the adjective means you are describing something about the nature of the subject, and in this case it would be redundant and ambiguous as all Senators are representatives in a democratic political system, also known as a Democracy.
What struck me was that she wants it banned when it appears to only be a "concern among scientists keeping a close eye on how pollution affects (sic) fish", as opposed to having been demonstrated to be harmful. So it could be a problem, but we don't know for sure yet if it is so calling for a ban is incredibly premature. Bad science!
Those girls work hard for their money and they deserve to shine. Dr. Trisia is just jealous because she has a stripper name but doesn't have the pole-skills for a real career. That's why she's pretending fish are better than strippers.
Good point. Unless it pulls up instructional videos or demonstrations, it's a non-issue.
I remember the good old days when an idiot with a bug up their ass about something stupid would just be ignored. The worst part of the internet is that idiots amplify each other's nonsense and get taken seriously.
Wait a sec... I don't need to take all the blame, y'all probably did it too! Our fault.
Too bad you don't know what that means.
Might be worth arming the Secret Service with them though.
That said, I agree. If you enter the secure areas, your phone shouldn't be coming along. Put stingers, jammers, and faraday cages all over the place just in case.
I realize that, I just didn't want to delve into it any further as it would have derailed my point.
But certainly not 100x larger, so it is definitely a probe launched ahead of Rama to help determine its course.
I don't think he would need to prove it, just report it. Unless he's a prosecutor for HUD, in which case it could be his job. That's a good credit score, and "but we want 780" smells fishy as hell.
Under the Fair Housing Act, it's illegal to restrict who you advertise too on the basis of race, religion,etc., so if you define your high ROI cohorts according to those factors you'll be in trouble. If instead you define your target audience according to income, I think that would pass muster unless it was de facto racial discrimination. Like if in the local market no person of color earned over $40k/year and you only advertise to people making $41k and up. Though intent may be hard to prove, especially if the fair market value of the property is more than someone making $40k could afford.
At first glance, yeah, but consider this: If you extend that logic, why was the Silk Road taken down? Why can't I advertise great deals on bricks of cocaine on Facebook?
Furthermore, corporations are not just businesses. Legal persons include both individual people and groups of people who incorporate. Corporations include groups who incorporate for commercial purposes (which you're talking about), but also groups who incorporate for other purposes like holding elections and hiring police, building and running a church, collecting charitable donations and putting them to use (Salvation Army, UNICEF, CCF) engage in political advocacy (i.e. The Sierra Club, NRA, AARP), maintain professional standards and issue certifications (AMA, Bar association, IEEE), found and operate a college or university, etc.
The liability issues get tricky. Because it's an organization and not an individual, liability tends to be indirect. A commercial corporation is generally owned by many shareholders, most of whom have no direct involvement in day-to-day operations so it would be pretty unfair to hold them legally responsible for wrongdoing. However, if the company gets caught doing something wrong, that usually tanks the value of the stock so shareholders cannot avoid the financial consequences. Executives tend to get hit hard by that because the bulk of their compensation is in the form of stock options, as do the board members as they are major shareholders. That said, I would like to see more legal consequences, but at least when there is criminal wrongdoing the responsible decision makers do go to prison and the shareholders can sue them.
As for "too big to fail", yeah, that's BS. But incorporation is not responsible for that nonsense, it was an unusual case where the failing companies provided vital infrastructure. It was the financial equivalent of Level 3, Cogent, and GTT collapsing at the same time, which would take out half the internet's backbone, leading to its complete collapse. Something had to be done to prevent a chain reaction that would have brought down the entire global financial infrastructure (thus everything, it's like the world's cardiovascular system), but "too big to fail" was dumb.
If you give enough members of each side (or possibly only one) an echo chamber and some time for the "us vs. them" mentality to build up, you get the kind of partisanship we see now. So in the contemporary case it isn't parties themselves that are to blame, it's the internet and cable TV for making nearly pure echo chambers both possible and popular. The echo chambers form around parties, but would still form in their absence.
It's like what I told my neighbor with the unkempt lawn, "Let me help out - mow it or I'll tell your wife I saw you with another woman. You're welcome."
Extortion isn't helping?
As is dropping an article (I'm a good), which don't exist in Russian.
Yes supply and demand, but you left out a vital factor - Global competition. WWII left exactly one industrialized nation with its infrastructure intact. It took about 20 years for everyone else to rebuild and catch back up. During that time American industry had no competition.
Parties predated the Constitution, as they are an inevitable byproduct of electoral democracy. Some of the founders hoped to avoid them, but they split into the Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties as the Constitution was being written. Primaries are an internal party matter, each makes its own rules and there was no need for either to be mentioned in the Constitution. The term Gerrymandering didn't exist until 1812 and States draw congressional districts. Corporate personhood is a fundamentally necessary legal concept that predates the Colonies, which were themselves incorporated. As are municipalities, churches, NGOs, unions, non-profits, etc. Their personhood is established in common law, and supported by the Constitutional rights to free association and making contracts.
So it's clearly a probe with less impressive mission specs.