In English, words sometimes have more than one meaning. Here is meaning 2 from Meriam-Webster:
kill
verb \ kil \
Definition of kill
transitive verb
...
2. a:to put an end -to kill competition - a change that could kill our chances for success b:defeat, veto - killed the amendment c:to mark for omission; also:delete - kill a quote d:annihilate, destroy - kill an enemy
Yes, I agree. It's not the snow you want to worry about so much, it's the ice and slush and freezing rain on the roads... and the ice and slush and freezing rain that will get caked on the cameras and sensors.
(I think you may be confusing conservatives with libertarians, who would prefer a corporate dictatorship with no government oversight.)
"Corporate dictatorship" is an oxymoron. If an organization is behaving as a dictatorship then they are either a government (if they are claiming "legitimacy") or a criminal organization, not merely a corporation.
Why do you say that? Libertarians say that on my property, I am allowed to require you to obey my rules. If "my property" expands to include the areas you are trying to live in, I become a dictator. That's not an oxymoron.
What, you say you can just move somewhere else? You're making an assumption that other places will always continue to exist, and won't get swallowed up by corporations. And you're saying you have the resources to move elsewhere.
The first rule of money is that people with money use it to get more money, and people with more money use it to control essential goods and services. The more essential goods and services become controlled by monopolies, the less liberty individual people have. In the end case, corporations control all the essential goods and services, own all the property, and individual people control nothing, own nothing, and have no rights other than what corporations grant them.
A perfect dictatorship-- one person owns everything-- is also a perfect libertarian society.
I asked for a citation showing that this is a libertarian position, and you respond with an essay justifying your personal opinion.
You missed the part where I asked for
But: a citation to somebody other that yourself.
But, OK, so you have an ad-hoc, jury-rigged fix to corporate power suggesting that a very powerful corporation could have its power curtailed by individual citizens suing in court, nonwithstanding that the corporation has, to first approximation, roughly a billion dollars to spend on lawyers, and thus the only "people" who could possibly afford such a suit would be other corporations. So, in your lawyertopia we have corporation-to-corporation death battles, with the most well-funded corporations killing the smaller ones. I don't think this is much of a fix for anything, actually, but the main point is that this is your opinion, not anything in libertarianism (other than the fact that I have often heard libertarians suggest that lawsuits are the way to solve most of the world's problems).
By the bye, you said earlier that libertarians want less government, but I'll point out that the "corporate death penalty" doesn't currently exist, and thus you're proposing expanding the power of government, not shrinking it. You just happen to propose expanding it by making lawyers more powerful.
libertarians, who would prefer a corporate dictatorship with no government oversight.
Nice Strawman. It is exactly wrong too.
Unfortunately, it's not a strawman. It is the elephant in the room for libertarian philosophy. Governments limit corporate power. Without governments, there would be no limits on corporate power. Once corporations own everything that can be owned, this is dictatorship. Game over: corporations own everything, you do what they tell you.
Remember who grants Corporate Charters? It isn't the Corporation, it is the Government.
Exactly. Governments are the limit on corporate power
As a Libertarian, I have a simple solution to Corporate malfeasance, the Corporate Death Penalty.
Show me one citation -- just one single citation-- to a libertarian source suggesting that "the corporate death penalty" is something that is considered a good idea anywhere in libertarian philosophy.
Unfortunately, this sounds all too familiar, with attacks on scientists coming from a corporation making money from the product that has negative side effects. Whenever there's profit at risk, the first impulse of corporations seems to be to attack the science.
(In this case, unlike say the attacks on climate scientists, the attackers are at least not hiding who is funding them.)
Ooh! I really really want to implement TCP/IP Over Bongo Drums, but I don't think that's supported on Red Hat. If I install Ubuntu, are there third party bongo providers?
In an equilibrium, on the average every tenured professor would have exactly one graduate student that goes on to become a tenured professor.
To the extent that professors train more than one graduate student, the number of graduate students who become tenured professors will decrease.
(In today's world, what is going to happen is that they take slots as underpaid adjunct professors teaching introductory undergraduate classes for a few years, then eventually turn to something else.)
That's because you don't know the lore. The humans in the star trek universe have a high aversion to genetic engineering in any form because of the eugenics wars.
Interesting comment.
Yes, I've been noticing that the new Trek has had people use the word "eugenics" several times when the correct word should have been "genetics". If this is references to the eugenics wars-- they consider any use of genetic technology applied to humans as a slide toward "eugenics"-- that now makes sense
The Russians didn't hack them - they purchased those ads like any other customer.
Non sequitur. The fact that the Russians purchased ads doesn't mean that they did not also hack them. They could do both.
And, in fact, it's pretty clear that the Russians were doing some explicit hacking-- they were behind the hack into the DNC e-mail (done by Posesta clicking a link in a phishing e-mail).
and for a job that needs the clearance!
if you work for Facebook in a non government roll full time you may just lose that clearance from being out of the position when the renew time comes up.
Right, a secret clearance is not forever. It goes away if you don't have a government requirement for it.
It says that there is a "binding policy issued today by the Deputy U.S. Attorney General" but doesn't give a citation to where we can see that policy. And it doesn't tell us what the word "binding" means-- How "binding"? Just until the next time the Attorney General decides to change it?
Slashdot Mirror
I usually agree with this comment-- I hate TLAs!!!!-- but in this case, the definition is on the first line of the summary.
your mod was not alive, hence you did not kill it
In English, words sometimes have more than one meaning. Here is meaning 2 from Meriam-Webster:
:to put an end -to kill competition - a change that could kill our chances for success
:defeat, veto - killed the amendment
:to mark for omission; also :delete - kill a quote
:annihilate, destroy - kill an enemy
kill verb \ kil \
Definition of kill
transitive verb
...
2. a
b
c
d
Yes, I agree. It's not the snow you want to worry about so much, it's the ice and slush and freezing rain on the roads... and the ice and slush and freezing rain that will get caked on the cameras and sensors.
(I think you may be confusing conservatives with libertarians, who would prefer a corporate dictatorship with no government oversight.)
"Corporate dictatorship" is an oxymoron. If an organization is behaving as a dictatorship then they are either a government (if they are claiming "legitimacy") or a criminal organization, not merely a corporation.
Why do you say that? Libertarians say that on my property, I am allowed to require you to obey my rules. If "my property" expands to include the areas you are trying to live in, I become a dictator. That's not an oxymoron.
What, you say you can just move somewhere else? You're making an assumption that other places will always continue to exist, and won't get swallowed up by corporations. And you're saying you have the resources to move elsewhere.
The first rule of money is that people with money use it to get more money, and people with more money use it to control essential goods and services. The more essential goods and services become controlled by monopolies, the less liberty individual people have. In the end case, corporations control all the essential goods and services, own all the property, and individual people control nothing, own nothing, and have no rights other than what corporations grant them.
A perfect dictatorship-- one person owns everything-- is also a perfect libertarian society.
Corporate power is not dependent on corporate "personhood".
I asked for a citation showing that this is a libertarian position, and you respond with an essay justifying your personal opinion.
You missed the part where I asked for
But: a citation to somebody other that yourself.
But, OK, so you have an ad-hoc, jury-rigged fix to corporate power suggesting that a very powerful corporation could have its power curtailed by individual citizens suing in court, nonwithstanding that the corporation has, to first approximation, roughly a billion dollars to spend on lawyers, and thus the only "people" who could possibly afford such a suit would be other corporations. So, in your lawyertopia we have corporation-to-corporation death battles, with the most well-funded corporations killing the smaller ones. I don't think this is much of a fix for anything, actually, but the main point is that this is your opinion, not anything in libertarianism (other than the fact that I have often heard libertarians suggest that lawsuits are the way to solve most of the world's problems).
By the bye, you said earlier that libertarians want less government, but I'll point out that the "corporate death penalty" doesn't currently exist, and thus you're proposing expanding the power of government, not shrinking it. You just happen to propose expanding it by making lawyers more powerful.
I don't think you even are a libertarian, or for that matter even know anything about it; it just gives you an excuse to troll on the internet.
libertarians, who would prefer a corporate dictatorship with no government oversight.
Nice Strawman. It is exactly wrong too.
Unfortunately, it's not a strawman. It is the elephant in the room for libertarian philosophy. Governments limit corporate power. Without governments, there would be no limits on corporate power. Once corporations own everything that can be owned, this is dictatorship. Game over: corporations own everything, you do what they tell you.
Remember who grants Corporate Charters? It isn't the Corporation, it is the Government.
Exactly. Governments are the limit on corporate power
As a Libertarian, I have a simple solution to Corporate malfeasance, the Corporate Death Penalty.
Show me one citation -- just one single citation-- to a libertarian source suggesting that "the corporate death penalty" is something that is considered a good idea anywhere in libertarian philosophy.
But: a citation to somebody other that yourself.
See Poe's law.
Are you all autistic or what ?
Given that this is an internet forum, the answer to that question is no, not all, only about ten percent of us.
OK, maybe twenty.
"Proving" something is safe is nigh impossible. If there's nothing to suggest it might be, why assume it is?
Indeed, if there's nothing to suggest it might be safe, you might be best to not assume it is.
Particularly when there are many scientists pointing out how the herbicide does not stay in the fields it was sprayed on, but kills crops in other fields far away.
(In this case, unlike say the attacks on climate scientists, the attackers are at least not hiding who is funding them.)
Ooh! I really really want to implement TCP/IP Over Bongo Drums, but I don't think that's supported on Red Hat. If I install Ubuntu, are there third party bongo providers?
What is NFC, and why is that related to clicking noises?
Enough with the TLAs, ok?
Conservatives want less government. Interesting that liberals think that we want government control of anything.
Conservatives claim to want less government, but in fact whenever they have power they expand the powers of government.
(I think you may be confusing conservatives with libertarians, who would prefer a corporate dictatorship with no government oversight.)
Yes, that's why I specified "in an equilibrium".
To the extent that professors train more than one graduate student, the number of graduate students who become tenured professors will decrease.
(In today's world, what is going to happen is that they take slots as underpaid adjunct professors teaching introductory undergraduate classes for a few years, then eventually turn to something else.)
That's because you don't know the lore. The humans in the star trek universe have a high aversion to genetic engineering in any form because of the eugenics wars.
Interesting comment.
Yes, I've been noticing that the new Trek has had people use the word "eugenics" several times when the correct word should have been "genetics". If this is references to the eugenics wars-- they consider any use of genetic technology applied to humans as a slide toward "eugenics"-- that now makes sense
warp field is far more believable than instantaneous travel to anywhere based on mushrooms that exist everywhere at once.
... I would have expected it in Doctor Who, though.
I think you got it! Faster than light space mushrooms would be very much a Dr. Who thing.
I think he's saying you can *simulate* sound coming from all around you, because after all, you only have two ears.
If people never rotated their heads, that would be true.
The Russians didn't hack them - they purchased those ads like any other customer.
Non sequitur. The fact that the Russians purchased ads doesn't mean that they did not also hack them. They could do both.
And, in fact, it's pretty clear that the Russians were doing some explicit hacking-- they were behind the hack into the DNC e-mail (done by Posesta clicking a link in a phishing e-mail).
Why doesn't Facebook and others do what the defense industry does - get one if their employees to apply?
Because you can't just "apply" for a secret clearance; you must show that you have a specific requirement for one.
and for a job that needs the clearance! if you work for Facebook in a non government roll full time you may just lose that clearance from being out of the position when the renew time comes up.
Right, a secret clearance is not forever. It goes away if you don't have a government requirement for it.
It says that there is a "binding policy issued today by the Deputy U.S. Attorney General" but doesn't give a citation to where we can see that policy. And it doesn't tell us what the word "binding" means-- How "binding"? Just until the next time the Attorney General decides to change it?
But I'd like to see good evidince showing that the indefinite secrecy order has actually been changed, and not just that they "promise" to change it.
I think we can assume that any water definitely would be in the form of ice?
Well, we can assume that any water would not be in the form of liquid or vapor.
It could be in the form of permafrost-- ice mixed with crushed rock-- or in the form of water of hydration.