No you didn't say the US started the slave business. You implied that all white people in the US owned slaves, and that no other people did.
As others pointed out, only a few rich white people in the south owned slaves. I just filled in the rest of the picture. In Africa, you didn't have to be rich and white to own slaves, just victorious and black.
As for the colonial empires argument, slavery existed in Africa long before white people ever went there. So don't blame Europeans for that too. Sure they were bastards that bought human lives like cattle. But those people would have been slaves one way or another. That is what tribal warfare was like back then.
By the way, I am not from the south, and am hardly an apologist for them. I just don't care much about people that let themselves be held as slaves. White or black. They had the choice of being a good little slave, or escaping and facing death. Most chose to stay in chains. Would you choose that? Would you allow it for your wife or kids?
Rather than paying 9 credit cards $100 each, at 15-22% interest, we are paying one loan $400 at 9% interest. Oh, and I just took here last two store credit cards away from her.
"you can't pick and choose the laws you feel like supporting."
Yeah, how the hell did that Martin Luther King Jr guy ever get supporters, when everyone knew he was breaking the law like that. He even got arrested and stuff. Man, everyone should follow every law ever made, rather that voicing their opinion that some of those laws should be revoked. Because everyone knows it was wrong to drink alcohol in the 1920's, but it is OK to drink it now. It was OK to smoke marijuana in the 1920's, but it is wrong to smoke it now.
Unless she get Alzheimers she will. She will treasure those memories much more than a trinket when she is old.
Have you ever been there by the way? My mother went there on vacation. I'm pretty sure she would prefer that as a honeymoon spot over a diamond ring any day.
Shall I give you a listing of her purchases this year from the department stores?
She won't spend $100 on a purse, because she knows we can't afford it. But she will spend $20 on a purse, $30 on slacks, $40 on shoes, and $20 on makeup. And I can't say anything, because at least she didn't buy the other purse for $100. And besides, the stuff is all on sale. Otherwise it would have cost twice that.
Why does it seem the stores always have a 30% sale going on?
And my computer at home is a Pentium 133 that we bought in 1996. My kids have faster systems. And I drive a 10-year-old Nissan. My biggest expense is buying 3 or 4 Mountain Dews during the day, so I can stay awake, because I was up all night working on someone's computer to make a few extra dollars to pay the bills.
How about politically correct revision, which is flourishing nowadays?
You seem to ignore where black slaves used in the Southern US states came from. Africa. Not the coast of Africa, where it would be easy for white crews to catch them. They came from all across Africa, where white men dared not go. The Africans who were sold as slaves in the ports of Africa were usually prisoners of other Africans. When two tribes warred, the winners took the losers as slaves. When Europeans started showing up with gold, iron, cattle, glass, etc. to trade for the slaves of Africans, the slaves were sold to them for transport to America. Not the US, as it started long before the United States became a nation.
So, if you want to draw attention to the real cause of slavery in the US, look at the Africans who started the whole deal.
"What if the moon money was pumped *directly* into technology research instead?"
Wouldn't have happened. Too many politicians would have taken bits and pieces of that pie. It would have been squandered making their re-elections easier.
With the moon program, there was a well-defined goal. "We're going to the Moon!" All the money necessary could be pumped straight to the space program. And not just for rockets or computers, but every aspect of supporting humans outside of Earth's atmoshpere. It also sounds much better than "We're going to produce a new technological leap in every field currently in existance, as well as invent whole new areas of development for things which we can't even imagine today!"
"Next thing you know, they'll be enforcing all the laws on the books in an equitable, reliable manner"
Keep this in mind when you are sent to prison for engaging in oral sex. It is illegal in many areas of the country. Even if you are at home, in bed, shades drawn, under the covers, lights off, and it's just you and your spouse. They can send you to jail if it is found out.
Don't forget that many of "all the laws on the books" were written over a century ago, and never have been rescinded.
As for speeding, I go whatever speed I feel is safe. Especially on a open highway with light traffic, 90% of which is going above the legal limit. Not that the 90% makes it 'right' or 'morally legal' or some shit. But 90% travelling at 65mph in a 55mph zone shows the legal speed limit is lower than it should be, and that 65mph is safe. The 55 limit on highways was only put in place because of gas shortages anyhow. Not safety.
Thanks. I don't write code personally, just dabbled a bit. It just seemed like floating point was made for interest calculations. But I will accept your word on it.
Just, as I said, make sure there are enough places in the fixed decimal for thousandths of a cent, or smaller units.
If you are doing interest calculations, you have to use something a lot smaller than cents. My credit card multiplies my daily balance by ~0.032876% (approximation, don't have my statement handy), which is the 12% APR divided by the 365 days in a year.
Maybe you could use a fixed decimal notation, but it has to have a lot of extra space for those thousandths of a cent that make up the interest.
I think the other response was in consideration of the weaker gravity at the top of high mountains. The gravity at the base of Mt. Everest is slightly higher than the gravity at the summit.
I think it's because there is so little extra mass, the bulk of Mt. Everest, between the summit and the center of the Earth, as opposed to between the mountain's base and the center of the Earth. The increase in gravity from more mass is out-weighed by the lessening of the gravitational pull as you go up the mountain-side, away from the source of the gravity.
Your disk example adds a considerable amount of mass not only between the person at the outer edge, but also to the opposite side of the disk. This would add more gravitational pull as the disk gets larger. Although as it got even larger, and much thinner, the gravity may drop again.
Have a rule that says one organization can only run one....
I think the term you are looking for is "TLD". By the way, that does mean a domain.:^)
I like your idea. But I would increase the TLD length from 2-3 letters to 1-5 letters. Even 1-(whatever the limit is). So if some smartass wants to conrtol the TLD called.abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz they can. Two or three letters is too constrictive nowadays.
Of course I understand about suing someone in a court in another country, and how people are doing it already. Local 'morality squads' have been doing it in the US for decades even. Some self-righteous jackass in BFE would bring a lawsuit against the porno mags, in that county, trying to either shut the magazine down for indecency, or fine it out of existance. So far, the Supreme Court has kept it limited. Thankfully. In my first response I was making a joke. Lighten up.
Second, as I said, if you want your own Internet, build it yourself. If "the largest backbone network in Europe is European-owned," then why do they bother allow the US "to control European internet policy?" They could make their own rules, their own registry, their own TLDs, their own everything else.
But they didn't. They decided to be compatible with the American part of the Internet. So they play by the rules that were already established. The fact that the rules were established by the US is immaterial.
And besides, there are companies based in other countries that have a.com address. It may redirect to a country specific address, but that is their choice. No one is forcing the British Broadcasting Corporation to not have a full website at www.bbc.com. I just typed that in the address bar, hit ENTER, and watched it move me to http://www.bbc.co.uk/?ok . So guess what, BBC does own bbc.com. Notice the lack of the two-letter country code on it. So they choose to have it be just a redirect to their 'official' homepage. That is BBC's choice. Why do you want to restrict their right to having the domain name they choose? Especially since one is easier to remember than another.
What if a company in Egypt has an ad in a magazine, I glance over it, but don't memorize the webpage URL. Later I want to check out the company, and stop, because I have no idea what Egypt's two letter code is. Or Switzerland's, or Sweden's, or Madagascar, or India. They are not something I use everyday. But if a company in any of those countries has a www.companyname.com website, I can find it. Why do you feel you have the right to limit that?
First, why would a Swedish porn producer be in Saudi Arabia?
Second, the US does own the Internet. The US government invented the Internet. Most of the Internet hardware, software, and protocols were developed in the US, by US corporations, universities, and the military.
If you want to go invent your own Internet, and put your own transmission network in place, and get people to sign up for it, go ahead. No one is stopping you. But be warned, others have tried it, and it didn't work.
Oh, I thought you meant they were fighting after the prey is already dead, and can't possibly escape. The two t rex's fighting wouldn't make a difference then.
"the reality is, almost any business would run the same way as M$, given the chance and the resources. "
This is untrue. Most businesses in the US are considered 'small business'. They have a few employees, up to a couple hundred employees. They may be run from the owner's home, or have a storefront, or several locations in an area. These businesses have the same chance and resources that Bill Gates and company had in the early 80's.
The difference is most of these companies are run by people with a conscience. They have decided to conduct their business ethically, treat their customers well, and not use business deals as stepping stones to vast wealth and power. (The rest are run by incompetent people who, though greedy and unethical, are too stupid or lazy to actually follow Bill's lead.;^P )
While we see many stories of the corrupt big business, and think that is how MOST business are run, we tend to forget that MOST businesses never hit the media radar because they are too small to matter. And while the owners would like to be bigger, they aren't going to cut their competitor's throat to get more business.
Maybe the fact small businesses usually are not incorporated and have no public stock also plays a part in it. No need to hide financial matters like non-profitability from stock-holders.
No, I am not condoning ICANN either. I just don't want the government to take Verisign at face value. The fact that ICANN let Verisign be the bastards they are condemns them. But making ICANN a toothless figurehead won't hurt Verisign at all. It will just validate their business strategy.
No, that's 'silicone'. Breast implants, which there are plenty of on any beach, are made out of silicone. Silicon is used to make computer chips. In nature, it often is in the form of beach sand.
Now some breast implants are made out of saline, which is a more expensive term for salt-water. So keep the computer away from beach bimbos who say they have nothing to fear from silicone. If one of those things burst, there goes your only source of entertainment.
Oh come on. There is no Slippery Slope leading to your front door. It's more like a path leading to your side windows, and the path is clear of land mines. As long as they warn you that they are looking in at you as you are sleeping, there's no harm being done, right?
Re:How to take care of the situation you describe
on
Copyright as Cudgel
·
· Score: 1
Student and farmer, been there, done that...until I was 12. I grew up on a small (20 acre) family produce farm. Spent all spring planting, all summer weeding, and all fall picking vegetables. And just ask my mom about the canning. Just lately we were talking about it, and I found out that she didn't enjoy canning 1500 quarts as much as us kids did. Of course she did most of the really hot part, we just had to peel, core, slice, etc. Oh, and the couple dozen buckets of pickles were good too. (And at the time, I was making straight A's, as a child, ha-ha):^)
Oh yes, the memories.
Now about minimum wage: The backers of minimum wage are not in it for the benefit of the workers who earn minimum wage. They are in it for the votes. "Look what I am doing for you. You now make $6 an hour, when 10 years ago you were only making $4 an hour. If you re-elect me...." As I say, the main effect of it is to raise prices at the stores where these same people buy their bread and milk. So for every 'raise' they get, they pay more for what they need.
My plan for business would be better. The main reason would be that the customers would have to decide if they want to support businesses with offensive practices. Keep the anti-trust laws, but clean them up, make them very definite so there's no loophole for devious bastards. Then remove most of the present regulations on business operations -- not the ones outlawing dumping chemicals into lakes, but the ones that are more pet peeves of various groups. Make one all-encompassing law:
Every business must publicly state company policy on all major issues.
They must state if they are for Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity, or Discrimination. So the private colleges may go for Affirmative Action to give a better chance to minority students. A bank may go for Equal Opportunity because they want to only hire smart and honest people of any group. Or a bank may for for Discrimination, because they only want to hire smart and honest women who are also attractive to be tellers. (How many male tellers do you see nowadays anyhow?)
Even more, businesses would have the freedom to choose their patrons. While an expensive restaurant in a rich neighborhood may want to be "Whites Only", another one may be "Blacks Only", or "Anyone but Whites".
The important thing is, every business has to state their company policy clearly. If they are caught going against it, they are in much hot water. And not just about who they hire or serve. They must state policy on many issues such as environmental, government, meat vs vegetarian vs vegan, employee benefits such as parental leave, pay of top executives, and others. Basically, what any group thinks the public should know, the business has to decide their position, and state it clearly. The businesses would have to list the major ones with every mailing, every ad, every office. Then the customers, partners, employees, and applicants can see just what the company believes, and decide for themselves if they want to support those policies.
While their would be some arguments against this, it couldn't possibly be any worse than it is now. Basically, everyone can pick to patronize the businesses that they agree with, and avoid those they don't, just as mature adults choose their freinds. And present laws against polluting, stealing, killing, etc., would keep businesses from being totally evil. But the people would choose what they want to support as far as how businesses are run.
Slashdot Mirror
No you didn't say the US started the slave business. You implied that all white people in the US owned slaves, and that no other people did.
As others pointed out, only a few rich white people in the south owned slaves. I just filled in the rest of the picture. In Africa, you didn't have to be rich and white to own slaves, just victorious and black.
As for the colonial empires argument, slavery existed in Africa long before white people ever went there. So don't blame Europeans for that too. Sure they were bastards that bought human lives like cattle. But those people would have been slaves one way or another. That is what tribal warfare was like back then.
By the way, I am not from the south, and am hardly an apologist for them. I just don't care much about people that let themselves be held as slaves. White or black. They had the choice of being a good little slave, or escaping and facing death. Most chose to stay in chains. Would you choose that? Would you allow it for your wife or kids?
Three words:
Debt consolidation loan.
Rather than paying 9 credit cards $100 each, at 15-22% interest, we are paying one loan $400 at 9% interest. Oh, and I just took here last two store credit cards away from her.
"you can't pick and choose the laws you feel like supporting."
Yeah, how the hell did that Martin Luther King Jr guy ever get supporters, when everyone knew he was breaking the law like that. He even got arrested and stuff. Man, everyone should follow every law ever made, rather that voicing their opinion that some of those laws should be revoked. Because everyone knows it was wrong to drink alcohol in the 1920's, but it is OK to drink it now. It was OK to smoke marijuana in the 1920's, but it is wrong to smoke it now.
Unless she get Alzheimers she will. She will treasure those memories much more than a trinket when she is old.
Have you ever been there by the way? My mother went there on vacation. I'm pretty sure she would prefer that as a honeymoon spot over a diamond ring any day.
Shall I give you a listing of her purchases this year from the department stores?
She won't spend $100 on a purse, because she knows we can't afford it. But she will spend $20 on a purse, $30 on slacks, $40 on shoes, and $20 on makeup. And I can't say anything, because at least she didn't buy the other purse for $100. And besides, the stuff is all on sale. Otherwise it would have cost twice that.
Why does it seem the stores always have a 30% sale going on?
And my computer at home is a Pentium 133 that we bought in 1996. My kids have faster systems. And I drive a 10-year-old Nissan. My biggest expense is buying 3 or 4 Mountain Dews during the day, so I can stay awake, because I was up all night working on someone's computer to make a few extra dollars to pay the bills.
How about politically correct revision, which is flourishing nowadays?
You seem to ignore where black slaves used in the Southern US states came from. Africa. Not the coast of Africa, where it would be easy for white crews to catch them. They came from all across Africa, where white men dared not go. The Africans who were sold as slaves in the ports of Africa were usually prisoners of other Africans. When two tribes warred, the winners took the losers as slaves. When Europeans started showing up with gold, iron, cattle, glass, etc. to trade for the slaves of Africans, the slaves were sold to them for transport to America. Not the US, as it started long before the United States became a nation.
So, if you want to draw attention to the real cause of slavery in the US, look at the Africans who started the whole deal.
"What if the moon money was pumped *directly* into technology research instead?"
Wouldn't have happened. Too many politicians would have taken bits and pieces of that pie. It would have been squandered making their re-elections easier.
With the moon program, there was a well-defined goal. "We're going to the Moon!" All the money necessary could be pumped straight to the space program. And not just for rockets or computers, but every aspect of supporting humans outside of Earth's atmoshpere. It also sounds much better than "We're going to produce a new technological leap in every field currently in existance, as well as invent whole new areas of development for things which we can't even imagine today!"
"Next thing you know, they'll be enforcing all the laws on the books in an equitable, reliable manner"
Keep this in mind when you are sent to prison for engaging in oral sex. It is illegal in many areas of the country. Even if you are at home, in bed, shades drawn, under the covers, lights off, and it's just you and your spouse. They can send you to jail if it is found out.
Don't forget that many of "all the laws on the books" were written over a century ago, and never have been rescinded.
As for speeding, I go whatever speed I feel is safe. Especially on a open highway with light traffic, 90% of which is going above the legal limit. Not that the 90% makes it 'right' or 'morally legal' or some shit. But 90% travelling at 65mph in a 55mph zone shows the legal speed limit is lower than it should be, and that 65mph is safe. The 55 limit on highways was only put in place because of gas shortages anyhow. Not safety.
But...but...but....
Thay all got MODDED UP to 2. See, the Anonymous Coward was right.
By the way, who the hell is Bruce Perens?
(PS. For the humor impaired, part of this posting is intended as sarcasm.)
Thanks.
I don't write code personally, just dabbled a bit. It just seemed like floating point was made for interest calculations. But I will accept your word on it.
Just, as I said, make sure there are enough places in the fixed decimal for thousandths of a cent, or smaller units.
If you are doing interest calculations, you have to use something a lot smaller than cents. My credit card multiplies my daily balance by ~0.032876% (approximation, don't have my statement handy), which is the 12% APR divided by the 365 days in a year.
Maybe you could use a fixed decimal notation, but it has to have a lot of extra space for those thousandths of a cent that make up the interest.
"would anybody notice if something snuck up and landed on the dark side of the moon? "
Sure. If it happened two weeks after the full moon.
No, it's not.
I think the other response was in consideration of the weaker gravity at the top of high mountains. The gravity at the base of Mt. Everest is slightly higher than the gravity at the summit.
I think it's because there is so little extra mass, the bulk of Mt. Everest, between the summit and the center of the Earth, as opposed to between the mountain's base and the center of the Earth. The increase in gravity from more mass is out-weighed by the lessening of the gravitational pull as you go up the mountain-side, away from the source of the gravity.
Your disk example adds a considerable amount of mass not only between the person at the outer edge, but also to the opposite side of the disk. This would add more gravitational pull as the disk gets larger. Although as it got even larger, and much thinner, the gravity may drop again.
You mean that little bump on the northern border of Minnesotta? Separated by the Lake of the Woods I believe?
It's my favorite trivia question.
Of the 48 contiguous states, which one is further north?
Most people say Maine.
Don't you hate brainfarts like that.
....
:^)
.abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz they can. Two or three letters is too constrictive nowadays.
Have a rule that says one organization can only run one
I think the term you are looking for is "TLD". By the way, that does mean a domain.
I like your idea. But I would increase the TLD length from 2-3 letters to 1-5 letters. Even 1-(whatever the limit is). So if some smartass wants to conrtol the TLD called
Of course I understand about suing someone in a court in another country, and how people are doing it already. Local 'morality squads' have been doing it in the US for decades even. Some self-righteous jackass in BFE would bring a lawsuit against the porno mags, in that county, trying to either shut the magazine down for indecency, or fine it out of existance. So far, the Supreme Court has kept it limited. Thankfully. In my first response I was making a joke. Lighten up.
.com address. It may redirect to a country specific address, but that is their choice. No one is forcing the British Broadcasting Corporation to not have a full website at www.bbc.com. I just typed that in the address bar, hit ENTER, and watched it move me to http://www.bbc.co.uk/?ok . So guess what, BBC does own bbc.com. Notice the lack of the two-letter country code on it. So they choose to have it be just a redirect to their 'official' homepage. That is BBC's choice. Why do you want to restrict their right to having the domain name they choose? Especially since one is easier to remember than another.
Second, as I said, if you want your own Internet, build it yourself. If "the largest backbone network in Europe is European-owned," then why do they bother allow the US "to control European internet policy?" They could make their own rules, their own registry, their own TLDs, their own everything else.
But they didn't. They decided to be compatible with the American part of the Internet. So they play by the rules that were already established. The fact that the rules were established by the US is immaterial.
And besides, there are companies based in other countries that have a
What if a company in Egypt has an ad in a magazine, I glance over it, but don't memorize the webpage URL. Later I want to check out the company, and stop, because I have no idea what Egypt's two letter code is. Or Switzerland's, or Sweden's, or Madagascar, or India. They are not something I use everyday. But if a company in any of those countries has a www.companyname.com website, I can find it. Why do you feel you have the right to limit that?
First, why would a Swedish porn producer be in Saudi Arabia?
Second, the US does own the Internet. The US government invented the Internet. Most of the Internet hardware, software, and protocols were developed in the US, by US corporations, universities, and the military.
If you want to go invent your own Internet, and put your own transmission network in place, and get people to sign up for it, go ahead. No one is stopping you. But be warned, others have tried it, and it didn't work.
Oh, I thought you meant they were fighting after the prey is already dead, and can't possibly escape. The two t rex's fighting wouldn't make a difference then.
I have to disagree with one part of your post.
;^P )
"the reality is, almost any business would run the same way as M$, given the chance and the resources. "
This is untrue. Most businesses in the US are considered 'small business'. They have a few employees, up to a couple hundred employees. They may be run from the owner's home, or have a storefront, or several locations in an area. These businesses have the same chance and resources that Bill Gates and company had in the early 80's.
The difference is most of these companies are run by people with a conscience. They have decided to conduct their business ethically, treat their customers well, and not use business deals as stepping stones to vast wealth and power. (The rest are run by incompetent people who, though greedy and unethical, are too stupid or lazy to actually follow Bill's lead.
While we see many stories of the corrupt big business, and think that is how MOST business are run, we tend to forget that MOST businesses never hit the media radar because they are too small to matter. And while the owners would like to be bigger, they aren't going to cut their competitor's throat to get more business.
Maybe the fact small businesses usually are not incorporated and have no public stock also plays a part in it. No need to hide financial matters like non-profitability from stock-holders.
No, I am not condoning ICANN either. I just don't want the government to take Verisign at face value. The fact that ICANN let Verisign be the bastards they are condemns them. But making ICANN a toothless figurehead won't hurt Verisign at all. It will just validate their business strategy.
So after they make a fortune because of the ICANN does business, they want to change it so they can rape another group of customers?
They are not the ones I would listen to for policy changes.
No, that's 'silicone'. Breast implants, which there are plenty of on any beach, are made out of silicone. Silicon is used to make computer chips. In nature, it often is in the form of beach sand.
Now some breast implants are made out of saline, which is a more expensive term for salt-water. So keep the computer away from beach bimbos who say they have nothing to fear from silicone. If one of those things burst, there goes your only source of entertainment.
Oh come on. There is no Slippery Slope leading to your front door. It's more like a path leading to your side windows, and the path is clear of land mines. As long as they warn you that they are looking in at you as you are sleeping, there's no harm being done, right?
Student and farmer, been there, done that...until I was 12. I grew up on a small (20 acre) family produce farm. Spent all spring planting, all summer weeding, and all fall picking vegetables. And just ask my mom about the canning. Just lately we were talking about it, and I found out that she didn't enjoy canning 1500 quarts as much as us kids did. Of course she did most of the really hot part, we just had to peel, core, slice, etc. Oh, and the couple dozen buckets of pickles were good too. (And at the time, I was making straight A's, as a child, ha-ha) :^)
Oh yes, the memories.
Now about minimum wage: The backers of minimum wage are not in it for the benefit of the workers who earn minimum wage. They are in it for the votes. "Look what I am doing for you. You now make $6 an hour, when 10 years ago you were only making $4 an hour. If you re-elect me...." As I say, the main effect of it is to raise prices at the stores where these same people buy their bread and milk. So for every 'raise' they get, they pay more for what they need.
My plan for business would be better. The main reason would be that the customers would have to decide if they want to support businesses with offensive practices. Keep the anti-trust laws, but clean them up, make them very definite so there's no loophole for devious bastards. Then remove most of the present regulations on business operations -- not the ones outlawing dumping chemicals into lakes, but the ones that are more pet peeves of various groups. Make one all-encompassing law:
Every business must publicly state company policy on all major issues.
They must state if they are for Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity, or Discrimination. So the private colleges may go for Affirmative Action to give a better chance to minority students. A bank may go for Equal Opportunity because they want to only hire smart and honest people of any group. Or a bank may for for Discrimination, because they only want to hire smart and honest women who are also attractive to be tellers. (How many male tellers do you see nowadays anyhow?)
Even more, businesses would have the freedom to choose their patrons. While an expensive restaurant in a rich neighborhood may want to be "Whites Only", another one may be "Blacks Only", or "Anyone but Whites".
The important thing is, every business has to state their company policy clearly. If they are caught going against it, they are in much hot water. And not just about who they hire or serve. They must state policy on many issues such as environmental, government, meat vs vegetarian vs vegan, employee benefits such as parental leave, pay of top executives, and others. Basically, what any group thinks the public should know, the business has to decide their position, and state it clearly. The businesses would have to list the major ones with every mailing, every ad, every office. Then the customers, partners, employees, and applicants can see just what the company believes, and decide for themselves if they want to support those policies.
While their would be some arguments against this, it couldn't possibly be any worse than it is now. Basically, everyone can pick to patronize the businesses that they agree with, and avoid those they don't, just as mature adults choose their freinds. And present laws against polluting, stealing, killing, etc., would keep businesses from being totally evil. But the people would choose what they want to support as far as how businesses are run.