You dont get to change the facts of history buddy.
You're claiming a monopoly on that, yeah?
The redefinition that came afterwards... the one that labeled the Nazi's as "right wing"
Yup, and we've always been at war with Eastasia...
The NSDAP, despite it's name (by the time it came to power it was as "Socialist" as the German Democratic Republic was "democratic"), was clearly understood to be a party of the right, at the time. It is true that at it's inception the NSDAP did include Socialistic aspects, as their pre-Hitler era policy reveals. However, by the time Hitler rose to power the party was explicitly both anti-leftists and anti-semetic, in the extreme. Indeed it took most of it's votes from the old arch-conservative DNVP. Even more tellingly, the NSDAP was part of an ever changing, and often bitterly infighting, right-wing coalition united only by their common aim in the first place to undermine Mueller's Grand Coalition, and then post 1930 to keep the SPD, (still then the largest party in the Reichstag) out of power. Thus, aided and abetted by Hindenburg, the governments of minority party leaders came and (except for the last) went at a furious pace, slipping ever rightwards, from Bruening, von Pappen, von Schleicher and finally Hitler. In direct contradistinction to your Orwellian re-writing of history, it was unambiguous at the time that Hitler stood far to the right on the political spectrum.
Mussolini - Rose to power via PSI
While it is true that Mussolini rose to prominence in the PSI, it is a simple falsehood to claim that he rose to political power in it. Quite the opposite, he rose to political power in the PNF (The National Fascist Party), a party explicitly and very visibly opposed with the PSI. It's also true that the ambiguity of where Italian fascism stood on the political spectrum persisted for longer (even for Mussolini himself). It is fair to say, I think, that the PNF did begin as a pro-militarist, but none the less leftist offshoot (it was, for instance, strongly syndicalist). In the event the PNF was taken to the right, not so much by its founders as by a swelling membership of anti-Socialists. It was seen as the party actively taking the Socialists on, and thus attracted anti-Socialists looking for action. Thus when Mussolini attempted to call off the war with the PSI, the membership revolted, forcing Mussolini to relinquish for a short time the leadership of the PNF.
But again, by the time it came to power, as with the NSDAP, it's alignment was obvious. Unlike the luke-warm contemporary leftist, the aim of Socialists at the time was clear: remove the "means of production" from the "bourgeoisie" and hand them over the the "workers" (which is to say those socialists who control the state apparatus... ahem). Both the NSDAP and the PNF were clearly on the side of industrialists who benefited greatly from their rule. Not only their ideology the, but their actions regarding this central question once in power, mark them out as being anti-left.
As to international appraisal of Italian Fascism at the time, the foreword the Mussolini's English language My Autobiography in the original 1928 edition, by the erstwhile US Ambassador to Italy, Richard Washburn Child, ought to disabuse you regarding your mistaken beliefs as to the political alignment of Fascism.
There are cultural difference between how children are raised in Germany vs America. In Germany, kids are viewed as more of a collective responsibility rather than just the concern of the nuclear family.
This is not about fingerprinting German kids, nor is it really about children at all.
On its face it's about surveilling people thought to be at risk of committing acts of terror. Primarily this would involve listening in on electronic communications and attempting to regulate encryption. As a (minor) part of this initiative, the age at which fingerprinting could be carried out would be lowered from 14 to 6, according to TFA "for asylum seekers" (and I imagine for non-citizen children generally). Now if anyone were going to be fingerprinted under this initiative, it would overwhelmingly be young (ca.16-35) islamic male asylum seekers.
This may look like a simple over-reaction to the recent >weekly Ramadan terror attacks in Europe... think again. What is soon to take place in Germany?
Note especially where this announcement was made: Dresden. That is to say the birthplace of PEGIDA. Is that not pointed enough?
What this is, is the ruling conservative party, the CDU, gearing up to election mode and trying to stem the flow of a portion of their electoral base to the neo-nationalist AfD farther to their right. The centre, as always, is being defined by the extremes.
Electoral politics is what you get when the people are allowed to vote for a government of their choosing. What we are witnessing, though the naive might see it simply as a "lurch towards authoritarianism," is in fact democracy in action... warts and all.
As a consequence of which it has to comply with all the legal stuff such as for example s64(1)(c) of the The Australian Consumer Law
64 (1) A term of a contract (including a term that is not set out in the contract but is incorporated in the contract by another term of the contract) is void to the extent that the term purports to exclude, restrict or modify, or has the effect of excluding, restricting or modifying: ... (c) any liability of a person for a failure to comply with a guarantee that applies under this Division to a supply of goods or services.
You still can't differentiate the state from the corporation.
My ability to distinguish them was never in question. What you have demonstrated is that you suffer no particular lack of discernment on that score either.
You've now had 5 more replies than your orignal jive deserved... enough of your sillyness already.
Yet the very fact that you could write "[t]he government is bound and dominated by corporate funding," or even think/i> it, betrays that even you do not truly believe this quip. That's before we even come to look at concrete historical questions, such as to which particular corporations Stalin, for example, was beholden for "donations, media promotions etc."
It's a rhetorical flourish, not serious analysis. And while your point might hold some glimmer of truth when considering the undue influence trans-national corporations have on liberal-democratic polities, it's entirely beside the point when considering the distinction between left- and right-wing authoritarian dictatorships, which turns most obviously on the relationship of the state to private capital. Given that was the question being addressed your original interjection was simply impertinent (arguable in both senses of the word).
The government is bound and dominated by [state] funding... which will go elsewhere if the state does not play ball.
Given we are examining your assertion that "[c]orporate and state are [sic] a distinction without a difference" I've taken the liberty of substituting 'state' where you wrote 'corporate'. The sentence, I think you must agree, no longer makes much sense. I put it to you that you cannot coherently write what you just wrote without differentiating between 'corporate' and 'state.'
... which I hasten to add does not mean that I feel that Wolin's ideas as described on that page (I haven't read him) are without merit (nor even apparently that distinct from observations I have made about "free-market totalitarianism"* in the past). For present purposes, that is distinguishing left from right authoritarianism, however, conflating even Stalinism with fascism provides no clarity.
[*By which I meant that following the stunning global victory of neo-liberal ideology in the late 1980s, the market merged the sole justification for almost any human activity. Economics, in other words, became not merely a "totalising discourse," to borrow Foucault's term, but the totalising discourse. Rendering it almost inconceivable for generations born thereafter that people may have ever been motivated by anything other than profit, and thus providing self-reinforcement for neo-liberalism, grounded as it is upon the abstraction of the utility maximising individual. But I digress, in a footnote no less...]
Modulo inverted totalitarianism muddying the waters?
Like the 'totalitarianism' trope itself, though perhaps not with the same level of intent, it certainly serves to muddy the waters. By which I mean it serves to obfuscate the real radical differences between left and right-wing authoritarian states (at least at their inception).* US political theorists have busied themselves with this task since at least 1945.
[* that is the case of China, at the very least, serves to illustrate the possibility of nominally leftists dictatorships migrating towards the right economically.]
In an "authoritarian right" state, a small elite owns the means of production. This small elite is also the political elite - or they control politicians through massive campaign donations nobody else can come close to matching.
No, this is not generally true. It may the case that there exists some authoritarian right-wing state or states where the industrial elite and the political elite are the same persons. But that is hardly true for authoritarian right-wing states generally, nor especially for the most iconic examples thereof. Hitler did not own BMW or Krupps, and yet he was explicit that of all the institutions in German society these large industries alone were to be immune from Gleichschaltung. Exactly the same separation of political and industrial elites applied too in Fascist Italy. It was for this reason that C20th Marxists viewed facism(s) as an "extra-ordinary form of the bourgeios State." That is right-wing authoritarianism was seen as an extreme form of capitalism.
And speaking of right-wing authoritarian capitalism we can see that in contemporary Singapore foreign corporations are more than welcome. Which transnational corporations, while local elites may have investment interests, they very clearly do not control.
In either case, a small elite controls government and most of the 'means of production'.
This contention fails to stand up to an examination of real world examples of all, and probably not even most, right-wing authoritarian states. It sounds like something someone dreamt up in their head with little historical or contemporary real world knowledge.
Corporate and state are a distinction without a difference.
Given it was legislated into existence, the corporate form is itself an expression of state power. Creator and creature is fairly obviously not a "distinction without a difference." Just for a start...
So tell me what do you make of a piece of legislation which explicitly applies to corporations but does not bind the Crown?
How faithfully has TRIPS protection for well-known marks been reproduced in US law; is PayPal's trademark a "well-known mark;" could the use by Pandora of a similar logo suggest a connection between the companies; and would PayPal's interest in their mark be harmed by such an implied connection? These would be the questions we need answered before coming to any definitive answer on this point.
But doesn't a trademark only cover a business area?
That certainly used to be the case.
With the introduction of TRIPS, however, special protection for "well-known marks" applies, under certain circumstances "to goods or services which are not similar to those in respect of which a trademark is registered." That is where such use could be taken to indicate a connection with the owner of the famous mark AND where "the interests of the owner of the registered trademark are likely to be damaged by such use." (Article 16(3)). As to what constitutes 'damage' to the trademark holder's interests, the Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks on which the TRIPS provision is based suggest this may include "the use of that mark is likely to impair or dilute in an unfair manner the distinctive character of the well-known mark." (Article 4(1)(b)(ii) [Note however that unlike the actual TRIPS agreement, the Joint Recommendation envisaged that this should be a sufficient condition rather than requiring conjunction with any suggestion of connection].
This 'reform' left me anxious as to whether the basal principle of equality before the law is being offended against, however subtly, since the holder of a well-known mark would seem, at first gloss anyway, to receive more favourable treatment vis à vis other trademark holders.
As to whether PayPal either qualifies as a 'well-known' brand; whether the Pandora mark creates confusion as to connection and would damage the interests of PayPal, I offer no opinion.
I don't know of any PayPal music service. Maybe I confused it with Pandora...
That something being the name of an employee of Evrika, a known Kremlin defense contractor.
Now while it's undeniably a possibility that the metadata was planted as part of a 'false-flag' operation, that theory itself lacks both corroborating evidence and plausible motivation (though other actors certainly have the means). Even at the risk of being wrong, reason requires we apply Occam's razor.
... Trend Micro's report[;]...
Yes, and then there's the public testimony from US intelligence services:
Testifying in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee in Washington on Tuesday, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, said American intelligence agencies had seen the attack unfolding, telling their French counterparts, “Look, we’re watching the Russians. --TFA
... unless they actually bother to give us more data...
Look I know what you mean, it's just so damn annoying that the CIA, NSA, DGSE etc, don't run all their classified material past my desk. Don't the know who the HELL I AM?!... scarily they probably do.:/
Seriously though... while we're not, and are never likely to be, at the beyond reasonable doubt standard, on the balance of probabilities the publicly available evidence points towards Russian involvement. And that is hardly surprising: the Kremlin explicitly favoured Le Pen and we cannot but expect Russia to deploy its capability in favour of Russian national interest.
You can bank on the fact that in any election anywhere in the world where the Kremlin feels it has an interest in the outcome, Russian aligned hackers and (so called) troll-armies (i.e. social media influencers) will be at work in an attempt to influence the outcome (however marginal that influence may be).
That's exactly my point. You cannot do that. You may think you can, but all of the research and evidence available points very strongly towards that not being the case...
I did read your original comment, I realise that's your point. My point is that you are wrong, Oh, and so far as I know, there has been no research whatsoever into my personal lack of objectivity.
[I]f you believe you're special somehow, then you're probably in this group of people: "and worse, they don't recognize that they don't know how."
Of course I'm somehow special, but that is not the point. The point is that there is an ordered methodology by which evidence can be examined. There are canonical presumptions (and they tend to be variations of the null effect presumption... eg. the presumption of innocence) which guide how evidence is correctly to be applied.
Thus the probability that I am in the group of people who "don't recognize that they don't know how," were it based on the fact that the majority of subjects in "confirmation bias" experiments were shown to demonstrate such lack of self-awareness, should not allow you to conclude that I am, in fact, in that group (of course you didn't, you merely spoke to the probability that I would be). In any case this isn't about me, nor my perhaps unique educational background, or a "special" temperament &c.: the methodological analysis of evidence predates my birth and will endure my demise.
[W]hy you really need multiple people on the job with different viewpoints -- attempt to cancel out those built-in biases by averaging across a population sample...
To reduce this methodology to absurdity: we might fill a room with people of various self-declared ideological convictions, dispense with all evidence and simply get the assembled crowd to vote on whether a particular item is "fake news" or real. I trust this is not what you envisage, however the point of my reduction is that it is not the summing of biases, but the application of correct method that is necessary for fact checking. The additional problem is that the unconscious ideology shared by people overtly declaring different political allegiances will merely be re-inscribed by any bias balancing methodology.
Take as an example the Monty Hall problem. Most people incline to the wrong answer on first being confronted by it, which most likely reflects a systematic cognitive error which humans in general share. Yet the application of the correct conditional probability will arrive at the correct answer. The human mind is indeed subject to cognitive error, yet it has also been able to devise methods by which our limits may be overcome. I would rather trust fact checking that is not some supposed balancing of biases, but the application of rigorous methodology.
My main objection to your argument, what motivated me to write, is that it constitutes an abrogation of responsibility to endeavour to transcend one's biases. The point of studying cognitive failings is not to throw one's hands up in the air and to declare "I cannot challenge my biases!" but rather the opposite.
[S]imple confirmation bias will ensure that you disproportionately trust things you already believe. And there's nothing you can do about it. Our brains are just wired to work that way.
I don't disagree with the general tenor of your argument, but to this I must object. There's plenty we can do about it: it starts with honestly questioning ourselves as to whether we are letting our biases colour our understanding, and it proceeds by the applying the evidence in attempts to rebut those presumptions ordered thinking demands. Even if few people are motivated to do it, dispassionate fact-checking is possible. While here is no guarantee the conclusions will always be correct (Type I and II errors suck!), we can adopt correct methodologies, which, it is hoped, will draw correct conclusions more often than not and which, most importantly, allow for subsequent correction in light of the evidence (as methodologies built upon poor presumptions may not).
It's the essence of the "If you haven't done anything wrong, why is your privacy so important to you" argument.
The salient difference being that privacy is to be enjoyed in abundance by citizens qua private individuals, but should to be afforded only sparingly to public officials qua public officials. Transparency, not privacy, is the the expectation we should have of government.
History shows that the privacy enjoyed by individual citizens is inversely proportional to the privacy government officials are permitted in the exercise of their power.
No they were exploring etymologically, why it is that Corporations are persons ('people' is not exactly the correct word even though the idea is the same).
Also, a corporation/incorporated business consists of investors that aren't really have anything much to do together besides "business".
The same might be said of an unincorporated company. What primarily distinguishes a corporation from an unincorporated company, is that the corporation is a person in its own right (and can therefore enter into contract, sue and be sued etc), whereas the unincorporated company can only conduct itself in the name of the people.. sorry the persons.. it comprises.
People are humans.
Natural persons are humans, corporate persons are corporations.
The abortion question comes down to one thing.... when does a human life begin? Everything else is irrelevant.
Life, in the biological sense, cannot begin at conception obviously, since a dead sperm or a dead ovum cannot make in living diploid human. Much less can it begin at birth for obvious reasons. Life doesn't begin it's passed on, so the question lacks coherence and we can easily reject a life-based analysis for resolving this question. That is, of course, unless you are using some specialised defintion of 'human life.' But this means this question resolves itself to how it is that we define the term.
Now we can sensibly ask when some form of legal personhood begins (which some people might mean by 'a human life'), which at common law is birth (but being law subject to re-definition). That this is arbitrary, and therefore philosophically unsatisfying, has at least the benefit of producing a definitive answer.
Philosophically we might consider the fact of individual human consciousness (which does have a beginning) that might more sensibly be considered in resolving the ethics of abortion. The question would be, at what point does the possibility of some form of rudimentary self-awareness begin? Which, I suspect, would lie at some point after conception, but before birth.
HOWEVER, there is also the question of the individual human consciousness and the bodily autonomy of the human who is to host the fetus. To sit around and insist that "the abortion question comes down to... [the question of] when does a human life begin" or even "when does an individual human consciousness begin" is a characteristic of those whose bodies are unlikely ever to be called upon to act as a host. The abortion question, for many in the debate, comes down to one thing, whose has the right to decide what a woman may do with her own body (including carrying or not carrying a fetus from conception to birth). Everything else, they might insist, is irrelevant.
Speaking of reading skills. OP quoted the report to the effect that:
It found that white women with four years or less of experience actually ask for more...
Which you will find is not invalidated by the observation that:
A gap in the other direction begins to appear in candidates with six or more years of experience, however, with white women in tech both asking for less...
So women ask for less...and they get it.
Yes and, taking the above changes in asking behaviour into consideration, the order might run: women get less and learn to stop asking for more. That's only one explanation, of course, it might also be a generational issue.
That's individuals undervaluing they're worth,
It's a class of individuals undervaluing their worth. If it was just an unbiased sample of individuals you wouldn't see so obvious a gap based on gender. Or is it simply that men who ask for pay rises are seen as suitably ambitious while women who do the same are seen as greedy? Whatever the cause, the takeaway is that women qua women are being made to feel that it is inappropriate to ask for as much as their male counterparts occupying same skill positions. How the fuck is that not "sexist"?! Srsly.
The claim is untrue. The full text of the legislative acts (statutory text) are freely available on the public website as is mandated by law, and they are not copyrighted...
I suspect the claim may be untrue, but you have not answered it. That Lexis makes a stripped down version available as it is required to do by law is not contested. To repeat: the claim being made is that the official version... is the annotated version. So which is the authorised version, the annoted version, the stripped down version or neither?
The annotations are not generated by a legislative act and are not the law.
Obviously! Hence the concern expressed in the second leg of my comment. Anyone can annotate legislation and it would be wrong for one publisher to be granted a monopoly by making their particular annotated version of legislation the authorised version of legislation for that jurisdiction.
Perhaps if you saw some annotations it would be more clear.
Thanks, but IAAL who works in legal publishing, so I get what annotations are.
The link works fine for me...Georgia law is also available for free at the Library of Congress website [loc.gov].
It links back to the same source. In any case the official version of legislation is, almost by definition, not "also available" elsewhere.
Fake news and garbage journalism, designed to manufacture outrage and generate clicks, rather than inform.
The claim being made is that the official version (i.e. the law) is the annotated version and that consequently you cannot freely access the actual legislation, such as it would be proper to rely on in court. Is that claim untrue?
Additionally, were the claim true, there would also be the serious issue, raised by the promoted comment of ip_what to TFA, that this outsources to an un-elected and non-public body, and exclusive right to change the face of the official legislation of the state. Which would be rather worrying.
Slashdot Mirror
You dont get to change the facts of history buddy.
You're claiming a monopoly on that, yeah?
The redefinition that came afterwards ... the one that labeled the Nazi's as "right wing"
Yup, and we've always been at war with Eastasia ...
The NSDAP, despite it's name (by the time it came to power it was as "Socialist" as the German Democratic Republic was "democratic"), was clearly understood to be a party of the right, at the time. It is true that at it's inception the NSDAP did include Socialistic aspects, as their pre-Hitler era policy reveals. However, by the time Hitler rose to power the party was explicitly both anti-leftists and anti-semetic, in the extreme. Indeed it took most of it's votes from the old arch-conservative DNVP. Even more tellingly, the NSDAP was part of an ever changing, and often bitterly infighting, right-wing coalition united only by their common aim in the first place to undermine Mueller's Grand Coalition, and then post 1930 to keep the SPD, (still then the largest party in the Reichstag) out of power. Thus, aided and abetted by Hindenburg, the governments of minority party leaders came and (except for the last) went at a furious pace, slipping ever rightwards, from Bruening, von Pappen, von Schleicher and finally Hitler. In direct contradistinction to your Orwellian re-writing of history, it was unambiguous at the time that Hitler stood far to the right on the political spectrum.
Mussolini - Rose to power via PSI
While it is true that Mussolini rose to prominence in the PSI, it is a simple falsehood to claim that he rose to political power in it. Quite the opposite, he rose to political power in the PNF (The National Fascist Party), a party explicitly and very visibly opposed with the PSI. It's also true that the ambiguity of where Italian fascism stood on the political spectrum persisted for longer (even for Mussolini himself). It is fair to say, I think, that the PNF did begin as a pro-militarist, but none the less leftist offshoot (it was, for instance, strongly syndicalist). In the event the PNF was taken to the right, not so much by its founders as by a swelling membership of anti-Socialists. It was seen as the party actively taking the Socialists on, and thus attracted anti-Socialists looking for action. Thus when Mussolini attempted to call off the war with the PSI, the membership revolted, forcing Mussolini to relinquish for a short time the leadership of the PNF.
But again, by the time it came to power, as with the NSDAP, it's alignment was obvious. Unlike the luke-warm contemporary leftist, the aim of Socialists at the time was clear: remove the "means of production" from the "bourgeoisie" and hand them over the the "workers" (which is to say those socialists who control the state apparatus ... ahem). Both the NSDAP and the PNF were clearly on the side of industrialists who benefited greatly from their rule. Not only their ideology the, but their actions regarding this central question once in power, mark them out as being anti-left.
As to international appraisal of Italian Fascism at the time, the foreword the Mussolini's English language My Autobiography in the original 1928 edition, by the erstwhile US Ambassador to Italy, Richard Washburn Child, ought to disabuse you regarding your mistaken beliefs as to the political alignment of Fascism.
There are cultural difference between how children are raised in Germany vs America. In Germany, kids are viewed as more of a collective responsibility rather than just the concern of the nuclear family.
This is not about fingerprinting German kids, nor is it really about children at all.
On its face it's about surveilling people thought to be at risk of committing acts of terror. Primarily this would involve listening in on electronic communications and attempting to regulate encryption. As a (minor) part of this initiative, the age at which fingerprinting could be carried out would be lowered from 14 to 6, according to TFA "for asylum seekers" (and I imagine for non-citizen children generally). Now if anyone were going to be fingerprinted under this initiative, it would overwhelmingly be young (ca.16-35) islamic male asylum seekers.
This may look like a simple over-reaction to the recent >weekly Ramadan terror attacks in Europe ... think again. What is soon to take place in Germany?
Note especially where this announcement was made: Dresden. That is to say the birthplace of PEGIDA . Is that not pointed enough?
What this is, is the ruling conservative party, the CDU , gearing up to election mode and trying to stem the flow of a portion of their electoral base to the neo-nationalist AfD farther to their right. The centre, as always, is being defined by the extremes.
Electoral politics is what you get when the people are allowed to vote for a government of their choosing. What we are witnessing, though the naive might see it simply as a "lurch towards authoritarianism," is in fact democracy in action ... warts and all.
It's a contract so it's legal.
As a consequence of which it has to comply with all the legal stuff such as for example s64(1)(c) of the The Australian Consumer Law
64 (1) A term of a contract (including a term that is not set out in the contract but is incorporated in the contract by another term of the contract) is void to the extent that the term purports to exclude, restrict or modify, or has the effect of excluding, restricting or modifying:
...
(c) any liability of a person for a failure to comply with a guarantee that applies under this Division to a supply of goods or services.
You still can't differentiate the state from the corporation.
My ability to distinguish them was never in question. What you have demonstrated is that you suffer no particular lack of discernment on that score either.
You've now had 5 more replies than your orignal jive deserved ... enough of your sillyness already.
I'll take that a concession as to the point under dispute.
Cheers.
They are simply one in the same and inseparable.
Yet the very fact that you could write "[t]he government is bound and dominated by corporate funding," or even think/i> it, betrays that even you do not truly believe this quip. That's before we even come to look at concrete historical questions, such as to which particular corporations Stalin, for example, was beholden for "donations, media promotions etc."
It's a rhetorical flourish, not serious analysis. And while your point might hold some glimmer of truth when considering the undue influence trans-national corporations have on liberal-democratic polities, it's entirely beside the point when considering the distinction between left- and right-wing authoritarian dictatorships, which turns most obviously on the relationship of the state to private capital. Given that was the question being addressed your original interjection was simply impertinent (arguable in both senses of the word).
The government is bound and dominated by [state] funding ... which will go elsewhere if the state does not play ball.
Given we are examining your assertion that "[c]orporate and state are [sic] a distinction without a difference" I've taken the liberty of substituting 'state' where you wrote 'corporate'. The sentence, I think you must agree, no longer makes much sense. I put it to you that you cannot coherently write what you just wrote without differentiating between 'corporate' and 'state.'
[*By which I meant that following the stunning global victory of neo-liberal ideology in the late 1980s, the market merged the sole justification for almost any human activity. Economics, in other words, became not merely a "totalising discourse," to borrow Foucault's term, but the totalising discourse. Rendering it almost inconceivable for generations born thereafter that people may have ever been motivated by anything other than profit, and thus providing self-reinforcement for neo-liberalism, grounded as it is upon the abstraction of the utility maximising individual. But I digress, in a footnote no less ...]
Modulo inverted totalitarianism muddying the waters?
Like the 'totalitarianism' trope itself, though perhaps not with the same level of intent, it certainly serves to muddy the waters. By which I mean it serves to obfuscate the real radical differences between left and right-wing authoritarian states (at least at their inception).* US political theorists have busied themselves with this task since at least 1945.
[* that is the case of China, at the very least, serves to illustrate the possibility of nominally leftists dictatorships migrating towards the right economically.]
Sorry cut myself off ...
In an "authoritarian right" state, a small elite owns the means of production. This small elite is also the political elite - or they control politicians through massive campaign donations nobody else can come close to matching.
No, this is not generally true. It may the case that there exists some authoritarian right-wing state or states where the industrial elite and the political elite are the same persons. But that is hardly true for authoritarian right-wing states generally, nor especially for the most iconic examples thereof. Hitler did not own BMW or Krupps, and yet he was explicit that of all the institutions in German society these large industries alone were to be immune from Gleichschaltung. Exactly the same separation of political and industrial elites applied too in Fascist Italy. It was for this reason that C20th Marxists viewed facism(s) as an "extra-ordinary form of the bourgeios State." That is right-wing authoritarianism was seen as an extreme form of capitalism.
And speaking of right-wing authoritarian capitalism we can see that in contemporary Singapore foreign corporations are more than welcome. Which transnational corporations, while local elites may have investment interests, they very clearly do not control.
In either case, a small elite controls government and most of the 'means of production'.
This contention fails to stand up to an examination of real world examples of all, and probably not even most, right-wing authoritarian states. It sounds like something someone dreamt up in their head with little historical or contemporary real world knowledge.
Corporate and state are a distinction without a difference.
Given it was legislated into existence, the corporate form is itself an expression of state power. Creator and creature is fairly obviously not a "distinction without a difference." Just for a start ...
So tell me what do you make of a piece of legislation which explicitly applies to corporations but does not bind the Crown?
The authoritarian leftist state (controlled by a small elite, certianly not "the people") owns the means of production.
Which is, of course, the reason I chose to describe it as "state" ownership, rather than public ownership.
Now, can you tell us the difference, if there really is any, between the two?
The most obvious difference is whether the "means of production" are held in private or state ownership.
But trademarks are only valid within the industry the company does business in.
Except in those circumstances where they are valid irrespective of the goods and/or services for which a mark is used.
How faithfully has TRIPS protection for well-known marks been reproduced in US law; is PayPal's trademark a "well-known mark;" could the use by Pandora of a similar logo suggest a connection between the companies; and would PayPal's interest in their mark be harmed by such an implied connection? These would be the questions we need answered before coming to any definitive answer on this point.
But doesn't a trademark only cover a business area?
That certainly used to be the case.
With the introduction of TRIPS , however, special protection for "well-known marks" applies, under certain circumstances "to goods or services which are not similar to those in respect of which a trademark is registered." That is where such use could be taken to indicate a connection with the owner of the famous mark AND where "the interests of the owner of the registered trademark are likely to be damaged by such use." (Article 16(3)). As to what constitutes 'damage' to the trademark holder's interests, the Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks on which the TRIPS provision is based suggest this may include "the use of that mark is likely to impair or dilute in an unfair manner the distinctive character of the well-known mark." (Article 4(1)(b)(ii) [Note however that unlike the actual TRIPS agreement, the Joint Recommendation envisaged that this should be a sufficient condition rather than requiring conjunction with any suggestion of connection].
This 'reform' left me anxious as to whether the basal principle of equality before the law is being offended against, however subtly, since the holder of a well-known mark would seem, at first gloss anyway, to receive more favourable treatment vis à vis other trademark holders.
As to whether PayPal either qualifies as a 'well-known' brand; whether the Pandora mark creates confusion as to connection and would damage the interests of PayPal, I offer no opinion.
I don't know of any PayPal music service. Maybe I confused it with Pandora...
Well yes, who knows who owns whom these days. ;)
So, what is that evidence?
Motivation; ability; ...
That something being the name of an employee of Evrika, a known Kremlin defense contractor.
Now while it's undeniably a possibility that the metadata was planted as part of a 'false-flag' operation, that theory itself lacks both corroborating evidence and plausible motivation (though other actors certainly have the means). Even at the risk of being wrong, reason requires we apply Occam's razor.
Yes, and then there's the public testimony from US intelligence services:
Testifying in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee in Washington on Tuesday, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, said American intelligence agencies had seen the attack unfolding, telling their French counterparts, “Look, we’re watching the Russians. --TFA
Look I know what you mean, it's just so damn annoying that the CIA, NSA, DGSE etc, don't run all their classified material past my desk. Don't the know who the HELL I AM?! ... scarily they probably do. :/
Seriously though ... while we're not, and are never likely to be, at the beyond reasonable doubt standard, on the balance of probabilities the publicly available evidence points towards Russian involvement. And that is hardly surprising: the Kremlin explicitly favoured Le Pen and we cannot but expect Russia to deploy its capability in favour of Russian national interest.
You can bank on the fact that in any election anywhere in the world where the Kremlin feels it has an interest in the outcome, Russian aligned hackers and (so called) troll-armies (i.e. social media influencers) will be at work in an attempt to influence the outcome (however marginal that influence may be).
That's exactly my point. You cannot do that. You may think you can, but all of the research and evidence available points very strongly towards that not being the case ...
I did read your original comment, I realise that's your point. My point is that you are wrong, Oh, and so far as I know, there has been no research whatsoever into my personal lack of objectivity.
[I]f you believe you're special somehow, then you're probably in this group of people: "and worse, they don't recognize that they don't know how."
Of course I'm somehow special, but that is not the point. The point is that there is an ordered methodology by which evidence can be examined. There are canonical presumptions (and they tend to be variations of the null effect presumption ... eg. the presumption of innocence) which guide how evidence is correctly to be applied.
Thus the probability that I am in the group of people who "don't recognize that they don't know how," were it based on the fact that the majority of subjects in "confirmation bias" experiments were shown to demonstrate such lack of self-awareness, should not allow you to conclude that I am, in fact, in that group (of course you didn't, you merely spoke to the probability that I would be). In any case this isn't about me, nor my perhaps unique educational background, or a "special" temperament &c.: the methodological analysis of evidence predates my birth and will endure my demise.
[W]hy you really need multiple people on the job with different viewpoints -- attempt to cancel out those built-in biases by averaging across a population sample ...
To reduce this methodology to absurdity: we might fill a room with people of various self-declared ideological convictions, dispense with all evidence and simply get the assembled crowd to vote on whether a particular item is "fake news" or real. I trust this is not what you envisage, however the point of my reduction is that it is not the summing of biases, but the application of correct method that is necessary for fact checking. The additional problem is that the unconscious ideology shared by people overtly declaring different political allegiances will merely be re-inscribed by any bias balancing methodology.
Take as an example the Monty Hall problem. Most people incline to the wrong answer on first being confronted by it, which most likely reflects a systematic cognitive error which humans in general share. Yet the application of the correct conditional probability will arrive at the correct answer. The human mind is indeed subject to cognitive error, yet it has also been able to devise methods by which our limits may be overcome. I would rather trust fact checking that is not some supposed balancing of biases, but the application of rigorous methodology.
FB's plan is ...
... in part at least, to leverage professional fact-checkers.
My main objection to your argument, what motivated me to write, is that it constitutes an abrogation of responsibility to endeavour to transcend one's biases. The point of studying cognitive failings is not to throw one's hands up in the air and to declare "I cannot challenge my biases!" but rather the opposite.
[S]imple confirmation bias will ensure that you disproportionately trust things you already believe. And there's nothing you can do about it. Our brains are just wired to work that way.
I don't disagree with the general tenor of your argument, but to this I must object. There's plenty we can do about it: it starts with honestly questioning ourselves as to whether we are letting our biases colour our understanding, and it proceeds by the applying the evidence in attempts to rebut those presumptions ordered thinking demands. Even if few people are motivated to do it, dispassionate fact-checking is possible. While here is no guarantee the conclusions will always be correct (Type I and II errors suck!), we can adopt correct methodologies, which, it is hoped, will draw correct conclusions more often than not and which, most importantly, allow for subsequent correction in light of the evidence (as methodologies built upon poor presumptions may not).
It's the essence of the "If you haven't done anything wrong, why is your privacy so important to you" argument.
The salient difference being that privacy is to be enjoyed in abundance by citizens qua private individuals, but should to be afforded only sparingly to public officials qua public officials. Transparency, not privacy, is the the expectation we should have of government.
History shows that the privacy enjoyed by individual citizens is inversely proportional to the privacy government officials are permitted in the exercise of their power.
You attempt to mislead others ...
No they were exploring etymologically, why it is that Corporations are persons ('people' is not exactly the correct word even though the idea is the same).
Also, a corporation/incorporated business consists of investors that aren't really have anything much to do together besides "business".
The same might be said of an unincorporated company. What primarily distinguishes a corporation from an unincorporated company, is that the corporation is a person in its own right (and can therefore enter into contract, sue and be sued etc), whereas the unincorporated company can only conduct itself in the name of the people .. sorry the persons .. it comprises.
People are humans.
Natural persons are humans, corporate persons are corporations.
The abortion question comes down to one thing.... when does a human life begin? Everything else is irrelevant.
Life, in the biological sense, cannot begin at conception obviously, since a dead sperm or a dead ovum cannot make in living diploid human. Much less can it begin at birth for obvious reasons. Life doesn't begin it's passed on, so the question lacks coherence and we can easily reject a life-based analysis for resolving this question. That is, of course, unless you are using some specialised defintion of 'human life.' But this means this question resolves itself to how it is that we define the term.
Now we can sensibly ask when some form of legal personhood begins (which some people might mean by 'a human life'), which at common law is birth (but being law subject to re-definition). That this is arbitrary, and therefore philosophically unsatisfying, has at least the benefit of producing a definitive answer.
Philosophically we might consider the fact of individual human consciousness (which does have a beginning) that might more sensibly be considered in resolving the ethics of abortion. The question would be, at what point does the possibility of some form of rudimentary self-awareness begin? Which, I suspect, would lie at some point after conception, but before birth.
HOWEVER, there is also the question of the individual human consciousness and the bodily autonomy of the human who is to host the fetus. To sit around and insist that "the abortion question comes down to ... [the question of] when does a human life begin" or even "when does an individual human consciousness begin" is a characteristic of those whose bodies are unlikely ever to be called upon to act as a host. The abortion question, for many in the debate, comes down to one thing, whose has the right to decide what a woman may do with her own body (including carrying or not carrying a fetus from conception to birth). Everything else, they might insist, is irrelevant.
Speaking of reading skills. OP quoted the report to the effect that:
It found that white women with four years or less of experience actually ask for more ...
Which you will find is not invalidated by the observation that:
A gap in the other direction begins to appear in candidates with six or more years of experience, however, with white women in tech both asking for less ...
So women ask for less...and they get it.
Yes and, taking the above changes in asking behaviour into consideration, the order might run: women get less and learn to stop asking for more. That's only one explanation, of course, it might also be a generational issue.
That's individuals undervaluing they're worth,
It's a class of individuals undervaluing their worth. If it was just an unbiased sample of individuals you wouldn't see so obvious a gap based on gender. Or is it simply that men who ask for pay rises are seen as suitably ambitious while women who do the same are seen as greedy? Whatever the cause, the takeaway is that women qua women are being made to feel that it is inappropriate to ask for as much as their male counterparts occupying same skill positions. How the fuck is that not "sexist"?! Srsly.
being a nerd or not is purely something you decide about yourself
Surely it's just as much a judgement others make about you. Matters of social recognition are hardly "insignificant" here.
The claim is untrue. The full text of the legislative acts (statutory text) are freely available on the public website as is mandated by law, and they are not copyrighted ...
I suspect the claim may be untrue, but you have not answered it. That Lexis makes a stripped down version available as it is required to do by law is not contested. To repeat: the claim being made is that the official version ... is the annotated version. So which is the authorised version, the annoted version, the stripped down version or neither?
The annotations are not generated by a legislative act and are not the law.
Obviously! Hence the concern expressed in the second leg of my comment. Anyone can annotate legislation and it would be wrong for one publisher to be granted a monopoly by making their particular annotated version of legislation the authorised version of legislation for that jurisdiction.
Perhaps if you saw some annotations it would be more clear.
Thanks, but IAAL who works in legal publishing, so I get what annotations are.
The link works fine for me ...Georgia law is also available for free at the Library of Congress website [loc.gov].
It links back to the same source. In any case the official version of legislation is, almost by definition, not "also available" elsewhere.
Fake news and garbage journalism, designed to manufacture outrage and generate clicks, rather than inform.
The claim being made is that the official version (i.e. the law) is the annotated version and that consequently you cannot freely access the actual legislation, such as it would be proper to rely on in court. Is that claim untrue?
Additionally, were the claim true, there would also be the serious issue, raised by the promoted comment of ip_what to TFA, that this outsources to an un-elected and non-public body, and exclusive right to change the face of the official legislation of the state. Which would be rather worrying.