Do you see anywhere that fiduciary duty definition says "unless you feel bad about it"? Your moral qualms are "personal interests", which must not be put ahead of fiduciary duty. It's that simple.
If you just define fiduciary duty as "maximising profit at any cost". Where do you see that definition? If that were the LEGAL case, it would be spelled out. If you are acting on behalf of a company, say, you can certainly, legally, choose not to be an asshole, even at a financial cost to the company. As long as you are doing it because you believe it is in the (perhaps long term) benefit of the company and not just to benefit yourself personally. And being seen as "good" and not "evil" does impact on the value, and income, of a company.
Achieving independance = bloody revolution or coup or betrayal, power changing hands in any direction is brutal.
Again, your argument is to simply submit in the hope the tyrant will leave you alone. Even Gandhi did not advocate submission to avoid violence. And anyway, your generalisation is not true. Most of the former British Empire made a peaceful transition to independence. Some screwed up afterwards, but that's a different matter. And even most of the former Soviet Bloc made an orderly transition to independence.
You go right ahead and hold an full and impartial vote in tibet
Ho ho ho. Living in Hong Kong as I do, I can assure you China doesn't allow things like that. Even though Hong Kong was promised democracy, somehow, ten years after China taking over, elections that mean anything are still as far away as ever.
Morality doesn't enter into it, but legality does. Corps are obliged to boil babies *wherever legal* if it is the best use of funds. Directors have a fiduciary duty to the stockholders, which as Wikipedia explains is a strong obligation.
Perhaps you could explain just which part of that article you're talking about. Because I can't see it.
A fiduciary is expected to be extremely loyal to the person to whom they owe the duty (the "principal"): they must not put their personal interests before the duty, and must not profit from their position as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents.
Which part of that requires, or even condones, being an amoral asshole? So many MBA types think they have a licence to kill by just saying "Fiduciary duty compels me to...". They're lying. You have no more right or obligation, moral or legal, to be an asshole as a fiduciary than you do as a "person". The Nuremberg defence didn't work then, and doesn't work now.
And in any case, once a country becomes united, as you admit happened in 1950, the internal separatist power can't just say 50 years later...
Who "admits" the country "became united"? Your argument is that anyone who sends their army into another country automatically becomes the legitimate government from that day on. Or just "might makes right".
Point being it works both ways.
No, it does not. There is a VAST difference between achieving independence and BEING INVADED AND OCCUPIED BY A FOREIGN POWER. You can't equate the legitimacy of these acts.
Anyway, by your logic, Taiwan, independent of the Mainland since about 1900, must remain so. Or do you have a different "works both ways" argument for them?
he only rule i could think of was who has had the area longer in recent times.
The only rule that I can think of is WHAT DO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE WANT.
You can ask every single Chinese who are not Falun Gong about this group, you will get the same answer, "yes, they are anti-chinese".
Since most Falun Gongers ARE Chinese, this is an absurd statement to make. Falun Gongers do protest about the Chinese government's persecution, that does not make them "anti-Chinese".
I live in Hong Kong, and Falun Gong are free to practise their religion here. And most Hongkongers (Chinese) think the Falun Gong are basically harmless, though a bit crazy.
Source? Authority? -- can I suggest this is a Chinese version of history. China has a habit of claiming sovereignty over much of the world. Everybody who sent an envoy to Peking was considered to be a "vassal".
And in any case, once a country becomes independent, as you admit happened in 1904, the foreign imperial power can't just say 50 years later "We want it back". Or should Mongolia claim the right to rule China because they conquered it once? Can Japan claim Manchuria and Korea? Can the UK take back the USA? Can the French take back Britain? Can the Romans take back all of Europe? Can the Macedonians take back Iran?
And consider: If "China" ever has sovereignty, that was Imperial China, a country that ceased to exist in 1911. And that was succeeded by the Republic of China, which exists now only in Taiwan. And the PRC has existed only from 1949.
China's claim on Tibet is simply based on force of arms, they have no right, moral or legal.
Mmmm... As far as I understand, Tibet was invaded in 1710 by the Manchu dynasty and has been part of China ever since. From 1904 - 1951 it was de facto independant but no other country recognised this independance.
"Part of China" since 1710? Bollocks. Claimed as a vassal state, perhaps. China periodically invaded many neighbouring countries and demanded tribute. That's not the same as establishing legitimate sovereignty. And during the same period, Nepal and Britain both briefly invaded and occupied Tibet. Only Chinese invasions and claims count? And why stop at 1710? A thousand years before that, the TIBETAN empire was as large as China, comprising Nepal and much of today's western China. But that doesn't count either. And why stop at 1904? I like the way you just brush off the 50 years of "de facto independence". They WERE independent. That negates everything that went before. An independent country was invaded occupied.
but in 1951 the average life span in Tibet was 35; it's now 67.
Is that an average of the Han immigrants and Tibetans, perhaps? How long do Tibetans live? And how much of that is due to immunisation and other simple modern (Western) medical care? Why assume that Tibet alone would not have achieved that?
Check out the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_unrest_in_Tibet) , for instance, where CCP communist shills in the diaspora have been edit-warring in gangs to make the Tibetans look like the bad guys
And I was disgusted to see the article "Tibet", supposedly about the history and culture of the regon, mostly devoted to a long rationalisation of why it is and always has been a part of China (excpet for when it was influenced by Evil Western Colonialists).
Most Falun Gong ARE Chinese. The government does not like them, fearing an organised group, though religious, could turn political, but to identify this as "anti-Chinese" is really nonsensical. (Americans might like to compare with the "Why do you hate America?" jibes made to demonise political opponents.)
Don't get me started on Tibet. The country has basically been under Chinese rule until 1904 where the brits invaded. Tibet signed a treaty with the brits seperate from China. Then China retook the area in 1950. The country has been under chinese control currently LONGER than it had ever been apart from China.
Don't get ME started on what a load of bullshit that is.
China claimed sovereignty of Tibet, as it did for many neighbouring countries, such as Vietnam and Korea at various times. In practice, these countries may have paid tribute to Beijing, but Beijing never administered these regions. Tibet was an independent kingdom for most of the last two or three thousand years. A thousand years ago it actually controlled a large part of what is now China.
The dalai lama doesn't even want independence.
Of course he does. But he knows China would destroy Tibet rather than grant it. He's no fool. Asking for that would just give China another stick to beat him with.
China is wiping out Tibetan culture at a fast pace, the only leverage the Tibetans have is international pressure, and in the Olympic year China cannot simply ignore it as it would do normally. They have little hope of success, but this is their last chance before their country is swamped by Chinese immigration and they become fringe slum dwellers in their own land.
No, actually I do lock down my wifi. But not because I'm afraid of some pedophile setting me up for the FBI. As I said, that's a bogeyman. There are millions of unsecured wifi points and have been for years; IT'S NEVER HAPPENED.
But in the real world there are plenty of teenagers who would not hesitate to max out my connections with torrents, or try to crack my router and network just for laughs. I've logged onto a neighbour's unsecured wifi router, used the default admin password and poked around -- I can be trusted, but I wouldn't like anyone to do that to me.
hmm, you know, this is a good example of why we should secure out networks. I personally run my network wide open, but have mac filters so only my devices can connect. But should i just completely conceal my network?
MAC addresses can easily be spoofed, use WPA passwords and you'll be pretty safe. And you can't "conceal" your network unless you turn it off. If it's usable by you, it's detectable. (I hope you're not talking about hiding SSIDs. That is just fooling yourself.)
I wonder how many people don't realize the trouble they can get into if someone is piggybacking on their internet connection and doing illegal things.
Me for one. I don't "realize" it because it has never "really" happened. For at least five years this has been the bogeyman of the wifi security debate. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, despite all the tens of millions of unsecured wifi access points, NO ONE HAS BEEN ARRESTED FOR DOWNLOADING PORN BECAUSE OF THIS. Maybe people interested in kiddie porn and with the technical ability (minimal) to "steal" wifi are smart enough to work out safer ways than cruising around using a laptop in public. Or maybe the cops really aren't as stupid as they're painted. I'm pretty sure we would have heard about it if it had happened. This is about as "real" a threat as the liquid bombs the TFA gets their undies in a bunch about. Theoretical, never happened in real life, a waste of everyone's time.
A child can talk, and a child can invite somebody in. That doesn't stop it from being trespassing. ...
property is generally accepted as being inviolate, with a handful of exceptions, unless a reasonably explicit invitation is issued to the contrary by a legitimate issuing authority.
These are the kind of misleading, wrongheaded and inflammatory analogies that probably led to this stupid legislation being suggested. First you have the sinister implication of pedophilia: "your child invites someone in". The you talk about "trespass", invoking violation of personal property rights. These red herrings are so irrelevant to the real question that it's hard not to just throw your hands up in trying to address them. But one point: there is no trespass. The freeloader is not in your physical property. In fact, your wifi radio is broadcasting, unencrypted, inviting connections, into public open space. There is no privacy intrusion if the freeloader simply connects to the Internet via your router. (If he goes on to hack the router settings or your PC itself, that's a whole other ballgame, and certainly already illegal.)
At least you didn't use the ubiquitous car analogy.
Wait, so basically what you are saying is that it shouldn't be illegal to steal something if it is stolen easily. Leaving your car unlocked doesn't make it legal for someone else to use it. Easier maybe, but not legal.
Comparing using a radio signal to stealing a car. Are you really so stupid, or are you just trolling?
I know bright light can certainly do that. I was working as an extra on a movie night shoot. They had banks of thousand Watt lights all over. I was up till dawn but never felt drowsy at all.
Yes, but that was written by Charles Dickens and was in innumerable adaptations of his book before (and since) "Oliver!". Or would any remake of Shakespeare be immediately nominated for best script?
Slashdot Mirror
Wait for what? There are dozens of other TLDs, aside from .com and .net. But despite the price rise, I think .com is still the cheapest.
Why does a few extra ground wires cost $20 more? Ultimately, it's just a bundle of copper wires and couple of connectors.
If you just define fiduciary duty as "maximising profit at any cost". Where do you see that definition? If that were the LEGAL case, it would be spelled out. If you are acting on behalf of a company, say, you can certainly, legally, choose not to be an asshole, even at a financial cost to the company. As long as you are doing it because you believe it is in the (perhaps long term) benefit of the company and not just to benefit yourself personally. And being seen as "good" and not "evil" does impact on the value, and income, of a company.
But why does a SCSI cable have to cost 20 times as much as any other cable I've ever bought?
Again, your argument is to simply submit in the hope the tyrant will leave you alone. Even Gandhi did not advocate submission to avoid violence. And anyway, your generalisation is not true. Most of the former British Empire made a peaceful transition to independence. Some screwed up afterwards, but that's a different matter. And even most of the former Soviet Bloc made an orderly transition to independence.
You go right ahead and hold an full and impartial vote in tibet
Ho ho ho. Living in Hong Kong as I do, I can assure you China doesn't allow things like that. Even though Hong Kong was promised democracy, somehow, ten years after China taking over, elections that mean anything are still as far away as ever.
Perhaps you could explain just which part of that article you're talking about. Because I can't see it.
Which part of that requires, or even condones, being an amoral asshole? So many MBA types think they have a licence to kill by just saying "Fiduciary duty compels me toWho "admits" the country "became united"? Your argument is that anyone who sends their army into another country automatically becomes the legitimate government from that day on. Or just "might makes right".
Point being it works both ways.
No, it does not. There is a VAST difference between achieving independence and BEING INVADED AND OCCUPIED BY A FOREIGN POWER. You can't equate the legitimacy of these acts.
Anyway, by your logic, Taiwan, independent of the Mainland since about 1900, must remain so. Or do you have a different "works both ways" argument for them? he only rule i could think of was who has had the area longer in recent times.
The only rule that I can think of is WHAT DO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE WANT.
Since most Falun Gongers ARE Chinese, this is an absurd statement to make. Falun Gongers do protest about the Chinese government's persecution, that does not make them "anti-Chinese".
I live in Hong Kong, and Falun Gong are free to practise their religion here. And most Hongkongers (Chinese) think the Falun Gong are basically harmless, though a bit crazy.
Source? Authority? -- can I suggest this is a Chinese version of history. China has a habit of claiming sovereignty over much of the world. Everybody who sent an envoy to Peking was considered to be a "vassal".
And in any case, once a country becomes independent, as you admit happened in 1904, the foreign imperial power can't just say 50 years later "We want it back". Or should Mongolia claim the right to rule China because they conquered it once? Can Japan claim Manchuria and Korea? Can the UK take back the USA? Can the French take back Britain? Can the Romans take back all of Europe? Can the Macedonians take back Iran?
And consider: If "China" ever has sovereignty, that was Imperial China, a country that ceased to exist in 1911. And that was succeeded by the Republic of China, which exists now only in Taiwan. And the PRC has existed only from 1949.
China's claim on Tibet is simply based on force of arms, they have no right, moral or legal.
"Part of China" since 1710? Bollocks. Claimed as a vassal state, perhaps. China periodically invaded many neighbouring countries and demanded tribute. That's not the same as establishing legitimate sovereignty. And during the same period, Nepal and Britain both briefly invaded and occupied Tibet. Only Chinese invasions and claims count? And why stop at 1710? A thousand years before that, the TIBETAN empire was as large as China, comprising Nepal and much of today's western China. But that doesn't count either. And why stop at 1904? I like the way you just brush off the 50 years of "de facto independence". They WERE independent. That negates everything that went before. An independent country was invaded occupied.
but in 1951 the average life span in Tibet was 35; it's now 67.
Is that an average of the Han immigrants and Tibetans, perhaps? How long do Tibetans live? And how much of that is due to immunisation and other simple modern (Western) medical care? Why assume that Tibet alone would not have achieved that?
And I was disgusted to see the article "Tibet", supposedly about the history and culture of the regon, mostly devoted to a long rationalisation of why it is and always has been a part of China (excpet for when it was influenced by Evil Western Colonialists).
Most Falun Gong ARE Chinese. The government does not like them, fearing an organised group, though religious, could turn political, but to identify this as "anti-Chinese" is really nonsensical. (Americans might like to compare with the "Why do you hate America?" jibes made to demonise political opponents.)
Excellent parody!
Don't get ME started on what a load of bullshit that is.
China claimed sovereignty of Tibet, as it did for many neighbouring countries, such as Vietnam and Korea at various times. In practice, these countries may have paid tribute to Beijing, but Beijing never administered these regions. Tibet was an independent kingdom for most of the last two or three thousand years. A thousand years ago it actually controlled a large part of what is now China.
The dalai lama doesn't even want independence.
Of course he does. But he knows China would destroy Tibet rather than grant it. He's no fool. Asking for that would just give China another stick to beat him with.
China is wiping out Tibetan culture at a fast pace, the only leverage the Tibetans have is international pressure, and in the Olympic year China cannot simply ignore it as it would do normally. They have little hope of success, but this is their last chance before their country is swamped by Chinese immigration and they become fringe slum dwellers in their own land.
No, actually I do lock down my wifi. But not because I'm afraid of some pedophile setting me up for the FBI. As I said, that's a bogeyman. There are millions of unsecured wifi points and have been for years; IT'S NEVER HAPPENED.
But in the real world there are plenty of teenagers who would not hesitate to max out my connections with torrents, or try to crack my router and network just for laughs. I've logged onto a neighbour's unsecured wifi router, used the default admin password and poked around -- I can be trusted, but I wouldn't like anyone to do that to me.
No, it is not. And every analogy that starts with that premise is worthless.
Good. Keep that tinfoil cap on tight.
MAC addresses can easily be spoofed, use WPA passwords and you'll be pretty safe. And you can't "conceal" your network unless you turn it off. If it's usable by you, it's detectable. (I hope you're not talking about hiding SSIDs. That is just fooling yourself.)
Me for one. I don't "realize" it because it has never "really" happened. For at least five years this has been the bogeyman of the wifi security debate. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, despite all the tens of millions of unsecured wifi access points, NO ONE HAS BEEN ARRESTED FOR DOWNLOADING PORN BECAUSE OF THIS. Maybe people interested in kiddie porn and with the technical ability (minimal) to "steal" wifi are smart enough to work out safer ways than cruising around using a laptop in public. Or maybe the cops really aren't as stupid as they're painted. I'm pretty sure we would have heard about it if it had happened. This is about as "real" a threat as the liquid bombs the TFA gets their undies in a bunch about. Theoretical, never happened in real life, a waste of everyone's time.
These are the kind of misleading, wrongheaded and inflammatory analogies that probably led to this stupid legislation being suggested. First you have the sinister implication of pedophilia: "your child invites someone in". The you talk about "trespass", invoking violation of personal property rights. These red herrings are so irrelevant to the real question that it's hard not to just throw your hands up in trying to address them. But one point: there is no trespass. The freeloader is not in your physical property. In fact, your wifi radio is broadcasting, unencrypted, inviting connections, into public open space. There is no privacy intrusion if the freeloader simply connects to the Internet via your router. (If he goes on to hack the router settings or your PC itself, that's a whole other ballgame, and certainly already illegal.)
At least you didn't use the ubiquitous car analogy.
Comparing using a radio signal to stealing a car. Are you really so stupid, or are you just trolling?
I know bright light can certainly do that. I was working as an extra on a movie night shoot. They had banks of thousand Watt lights all over. I was up till dawn but never felt drowsy at all.
Yeah, so point it out in a reply to his post, not mine.
Yes, but that was written by Charles Dickens and was in innumerable adaptations of his book before (and since) "Oliver!". Or would any remake of Shakespeare be immediately nominated for best script?
If you're implying that was deliberate not to use 1968, it's meaningless. Seems more like a mistake.
to the OP's original point, other films don't have to suck for 2001 to be good.
That was obvious.