They still have every right they had before, only they have to exercise those rights in their individual capacity.
And they do. Corporate personhood is just a legal fiction to enable that.
What really reduces people's rights is the fact that your boss has every right to censor your personal speech with threats of starvation if he doesn't like what you say.
Get another job, if you don't like the current one. No reason to starve. I find it interesting how you advocate destroying a lot of the legal protections that job creating corporations need in order to function, and then turn around and complain indirectly that it's not convenient enough to find jobs. Well, I suppose it might be a good idea in that light to stop trying to kill the golden goose.
Corporations have *extra rights* that individuals do not have, in particular limited liability.
It's not a right, but a privilege of shareholders, not the corporation. And if you're deeply involved in the operation of the corporation, limited liability isn't going to protect you.
I see no point to the rest of your post, since corporations don't actually get rights beyond what their shareholders and employees enjoy.
Even after taking into account various things like education and occupation
I wonder if the study takes into account pregnancy? Taking a few months off does affect your salary. As it stands, 91 cents on the dollar isn't much, if anything, of a discrepancy. I don't see the need for further effort here.
Easy.
You state that corporations are not human, and don't have human rights.
Then you're suppressing the rights of the people who make up that corporation. "Easy." It's funny how people casually take away other peoples' rights without even thinking about it.
We think we're so advanced evolutionarily, but really we're one of the least adapted species on the planet, in terms of survivability.
We'd be better off than any other large animal (say using the arbitrary floor of 45 kg, which apparently is sometimes used to define the minimum size of "megafauna") on Earth. So I wouldn't call us the "least adapted". And we've since learned the trick of adapting the environment to us rather than vice versa, which puts us in a unique place as far as large animals go.
Check out this nuclear blast effects "simulator". The overpressure region for a 1 megaton blast is only a bit over double the radius of a 100 kiloton blast. So ten 100 kiloton bombs would destroy (assuming no overlap) roughly twice the surface area of a 1 megaton blast.
Similar range increases are seen for the thermal effects which drop off as one over the radius squared plus a little extra due to the curvature of the Earth.
These people are a large enough voting block to influence public education and government research. So, yes, they very much do block science. Their influence is growing smaller, but it is still a force to be dealt with in the US.
Influence != block. It's also worth noting that they're a large enough voting block to influence road construction or military spending. Do they by default "block" those as well?
...are still a big enough percentage of the US population that they feel...
There could be just one of them and they would still feel that they are a big enough percentage to do that. There's a difference between how they feel and what actual effects that their actions have on scientific progress. My take is that they have little effect on scientific research.
Instead, I'd say that environmentalists and animal rights people have had a more significant effect on research and science than the few creationists and I.D. people.
Yes, but not as much as they hurt. I still encounter Christians today who are certain that dinosaur bones were put in place by lawyers and the devil or that the world is only thousands of years old.
So what? They're not blocking the science. You aren't less rational or scientific in your thinking just because someone out there believes crazy things.
That's the thing I don't understand. What's the point of colonies on Mars and Venus when you can't actually use all that land surface without building structures that practically cover the entire land surface in use (to keep people, livestock, plants etc alive)? It's not like surrounding a large area with fencing/walls and letting the cows/crops just grow. You have to cover all those areas or your crops/livestock will die. And the soil might not even be that productive.
What's the point when we do it now with buildings in cities? It's to make the land in question more useful to us.
As to the soil itself, it's has advantages and drawbacks. Apparently, it is to a large part, volcanic soil, which tends to be very fertile once it is weathered by terrestrial processes. That is, of course, countered by the fact that it hasn't been exposed to terrestrial processes. So there will some period of time when soil in the astrogeology sense gets turned into soil in the agricultural sense.
There also appears to be some level of toxic chemicals in the soil, such as chromium and perchlorates. Those would have to be removed in order for the soil to grow food plants.
True, but there's not much point in building weapons today to defend against people that might build weapons in the future, is there?
To the contrary, that helps prevent such people from controlling the world.
As for nukes - unless they have a serious missile defense program it's unlikely to take more than a handful to incapacitate them.
Ok, so there's one possibility right there. That someone gets a pretty good missile defense system working. Second, is the possibility of someone willing to take a hit from a certain number of missiles.
My view on this is that the US (and the rest of the world for that matter) can have long term security with fewer missiles, but it requires a couple of things in order to work. First, that the US (and again, this holds for the rest of the world) has a capability to monitor anyone, including our allies, in case someone is building up either a large armory of nuclear weapons or capable defense systems (this can include hardened defenses).
Second, it requires appropriate responses when someone (including the US) starts building up such nuclear capability. This can include diplomatic and economic disincentives or building up your own nuclear capability in response. I think a couple of well known examples will serve to illustrate why I'm concerned here.
The classic case study is Nazi Germany's build up prior to the Second World War. For most people, it was a terrifyingly short period from Hitler's rise to power to the beginning of the largest war in history. But how did a bunch of political hacks, even though intelligent and ruthless, manage to build up a world class military from the weak military under the Wiemar Republic mandated by the Treaty of Versailles?
The answer is that the Nazis didn't do it. Instead it was the German military operating outside of international law for the entire time since the Treaty had been signed. They created a "shadow" general staff and ran a variety of illegal projects, such as designing new tanks and planes jointly with the USSR, developing new strategies (particular the concept of combination arms, different arms of the military, such as air force and army, acting together and blitzkrieg, mobile "lightning" warfare), maintaining a core of experienced soldiers, and apparently, even killing people who reported violations of the Treaty of Versailles.
It appears to me that Hitler's main contribution was to be the power that couldn't be ignored and a silver tongue that would disarm Germany's foes for long enough. The German military and their many supporters couldn't go on with the project without the support of the Nazis. And the price for support, was that Hitler would be in charge.
Anyway, as I understand it, the strategy was simply to develop advanced weapons and tactics during the Wiemar Republic days, then when that government was deposed, start a massive buildup of military force, catching the many opponents of a resurgent Germany by surprise. I doubt that the original planners had the many conquests of Nazi Germany in mind. But they probably did have plans for crippling their natural enemies, the USSR, France, and England as well as the initial conquests (the Rhine, Austria, the Polish corridor, western Czechoslovakia, Alsace-Loraine, etc).
During the Cold War, there was another such build up. As I understand it, back in 1967, the USSR had determined that it was possible to win a nuclear war in the sense that the USSR could be in a dominant position after a large scale nuclear exchange. To this end, they built up their nuclear arsenal to astounding levels, ending up with 30,000 nuclear warheads in 1986 (according to Wikipedia).
As part of this build up, they embarked on a moderately successful program of deception. For a period of something like a decade, the US was consistently underestimating the size and capability of the USSR's nuclear pro
Well, I wouldn't solely blame NASA, but they are the ones with the responsibility to do such things and they're getting quite a bit of money for their efforts.
Also the B53 (9mt) was replaced by the B41 (25mt), and has been replaced again.
Replaced by weapons of smaller yield. It turns out to be a more effective use of nuclear material to launch a bunch of small warheads rather than one big one.
It isn't the initial hellfire, but the radiation, contaminated water supply, and destruction of arable lands that is the real threat. It would be a slow death.
I have to agree with the original poster. It's not much of a "slow death" to shave perhaps a few years off a person's life from cancer and whatnot from fallout. If most people can still breed and work, then that's good enough for a nuclear war strategy.
Can you name anyone besides Russia who might offer a credible threat?
China, the EU, Japan, some combination of middle east countries, India, Brazil, etc. Basically anyone with a big enough economy. Note that I didn't consider current military capability or ideological outlook since that can change rather fast. Both the US and the USSR went from no nukes to thousands of nukes inside of two decades.
I'm not. Hypocrisy gives us a means for correcting bad behavior. The subject may not care if its behavior is evil or incompetent, but it does care if such hypocritical behavior is revealed. The relative transparency of the US to hypocritical actions is something where the US is superior to China FWIW.
Thing is, when you go green with your industrial process, it usually means you save money too.
Not in my experience. Sure, there is some benefit to making an effort to make your process more efficient or to the PR you might get from such activities. But the rest of the "green" program is oversold.
Corporatism is giving rights to corporations that supersede what we in Europe call human rights.
It's worth noting that the start of the "corporate personhood" legal fiction in the US was an attempted grab of Dartmouth College by the legislature of New Hampshire. So the start in the US of what is currently called "corporatism" was the defense of a college.
Personally I prefer universities when they fight corporatism
You do realize that almost all universities (including Harvard) are corporations? Corporatism is hard to fight when it is the default organizational style for everything beyond the size of a few people.
Someone said there is enough oil, gas and coal to turn Earth into another Venus.
I think that's outright wrong. There's roughly 80 times as much carbon dioxide in Venus's atmosphere as there is total atmosphere on Earth. That's a lot of carbon. But even if there was enough carbon, there isn't enough oxygen in the atmosphere. We're about two orders of magnitude too short.
Slashdot Mirror
They still have every right they had before, only they have to exercise those rights in their individual capacity.
And they do. Corporate personhood is just a legal fiction to enable that.
What really reduces people's rights is the fact that your boss has every right to censor your personal speech with threats of starvation if he doesn't like what you say.
Get another job, if you don't like the current one. No reason to starve. I find it interesting how you advocate destroying a lot of the legal protections that job creating corporations need in order to function, and then turn around and complain indirectly that it's not convenient enough to find jobs. Well, I suppose it might be a good idea in that light to stop trying to kill the golden goose.
Corporations have *extra rights* that individuals do not have, in particular limited liability.
It's not a right, but a privilege of shareholders, not the corporation. And if you're deeply involved in the operation of the corporation, limited liability isn't going to protect you.
I see no point to the rest of your post, since corporations don't actually get rights beyond what their shareholders and employees enjoy.
Even after taking into account various things like education and occupation
I wonder if the study takes into account pregnancy? Taking a few months off does affect your salary. As it stands, 91 cents on the dollar isn't much, if anything, of a discrepancy. I don't see the need for further effort here.
It baffles me that there are men out there so oblivious to the impact of sexist advertising on women and women's role in society.
If women don't like it, then don't be impacted by it. It's not government's job to regulate how we think.
Easy.
You state that corporations are not human, and don't have human rights.
Then you're suppressing the rights of the people who make up that corporation. "Easy." It's funny how people casually take away other peoples' rights without even thinking about it.
We think we're so advanced evolutionarily, but really we're one of the least adapted species on the planet, in terms of survivability.
We'd be better off than any other large animal (say using the arbitrary floor of 45 kg, which apparently is sometimes used to define the minimum size of "megafauna") on Earth. So I wouldn't call us the "least adapted". And we've since learned the trick of adapting the environment to us rather than vice versa, which puts us in a unique place as far as large animals go.
Check out this nuclear blast effects "simulator". The overpressure region for a 1 megaton blast is only a bit over double the radius of a 100 kiloton blast. So ten 100 kiloton bombs would destroy (assuming no overlap) roughly twice the surface area of a 1 megaton blast.
Similar range increases are seen for the thermal effects which drop off as one over the radius squared plus a little extra due to the curvature of the Earth.
Actually, the ones that campaign to dilute the science curriculum in schools with non-scientific crap like ID
They are attempting to do so. It's worth noting here that at least in the US school boards and such get voted out whenever they do that.
These people are a large enough voting block to influence public education and government research. So, yes, they very much do block science. Their influence is growing smaller, but it is still a force to be dealt with in the US.
Influence != block. It's also worth noting that they're a large enough voting block to influence road construction or military spending. Do they by default "block" those as well?
...are still a big enough percentage of the US population that they feel...
There could be just one of them and they would still feel that they are a big enough percentage to do that. There's a difference between how they feel and what actual effects that their actions have on scientific progress. My take is that they have little effect on scientific research.
Instead, I'd say that environmentalists and animal rights people have had a more significant effect on research and science than the few creationists and I.D. people.
Yes, but not as much as they hurt. I still encounter Christians today who are certain that dinosaur bones were put in place by lawyers and the devil or that the world is only thousands of years old.
So what? They're not blocking the science. You aren't less rational or scientific in your thinking just because someone out there believes crazy things.
That's the thing I don't understand. What's the point of colonies on Mars and Venus when you can't actually use all that land surface without building structures that practically cover the entire land surface in use (to keep people, livestock, plants etc alive)? It's not like surrounding a large area with fencing/walls and letting the cows/crops just grow. You have to cover all those areas or your crops/livestock will die. And the soil might not even be that productive.
What's the point when we do it now with buildings in cities? It's to make the land in question more useful to us.
As to the soil itself, it's has advantages and drawbacks. Apparently, it is to a large part, volcanic soil, which tends to be very fertile once it is weathered by terrestrial processes. That is, of course, countered by the fact that it hasn't been exposed to terrestrial processes. So there will some period of time when soil in the astrogeology sense gets turned into soil in the agricultural sense.
There also appears to be some level of toxic chemicals in the soil, such as chromium and perchlorates. Those would have to be removed in order for the soil to grow food plants.
By number of cells, the bacteria we carry, outnumber our own cells by an order of magnitude.
True, but there's not much point in building weapons today to defend against people that might build weapons in the future, is there?
To the contrary, that helps prevent such people from controlling the world.
As for nukes - unless they have a serious missile defense program it's unlikely to take more than a handful to incapacitate them.
Ok, so there's one possibility right there. That someone gets a pretty good missile defense system working. Second, is the possibility of someone willing to take a hit from a certain number of missiles.
My view on this is that the US (and the rest of the world for that matter) can have long term security with fewer missiles, but it requires a couple of things in order to work. First, that the US (and again, this holds for the rest of the world) has a capability to monitor anyone, including our allies, in case someone is building up either a large armory of nuclear weapons or capable defense systems (this can include hardened defenses).
Second, it requires appropriate responses when someone (including the US) starts building up such nuclear capability. This can include diplomatic and economic disincentives or building up your own nuclear capability in response. I think a couple of well known examples will serve to illustrate why I'm concerned here.
The classic case study is Nazi Germany's build up prior to the Second World War. For most people, it was a terrifyingly short period from Hitler's rise to power to the beginning of the largest war in history. But how did a bunch of political hacks, even though intelligent and ruthless, manage to build up a world class military from the weak military under the Wiemar Republic mandated by the Treaty of Versailles?
The answer is that the Nazis didn't do it. Instead it was the German military operating outside of international law for the entire time since the Treaty had been signed. They created a "shadow" general staff and ran a variety of illegal projects, such as designing new tanks and planes jointly with the USSR, developing new strategies (particular the concept of combination arms, different arms of the military, such as air force and army, acting together and blitzkrieg, mobile "lightning" warfare), maintaining a core of experienced soldiers, and apparently, even killing people who reported violations of the Treaty of Versailles.
It appears to me that Hitler's main contribution was to be the power that couldn't be ignored and a silver tongue that would disarm Germany's foes for long enough. The German military and their many supporters couldn't go on with the project without the support of the Nazis. And the price for support, was that Hitler would be in charge.
Anyway, as I understand it, the strategy was simply to develop advanced weapons and tactics during the Wiemar Republic days, then when that government was deposed, start a massive buildup of military force, catching the many opponents of a resurgent Germany by surprise. I doubt that the original planners had the many conquests of Nazi Germany in mind. But they probably did have plans for crippling their natural enemies, the USSR, France, and England as well as the initial conquests (the Rhine, Austria, the Polish corridor, western Czechoslovakia, Alsace-Loraine, etc).
During the Cold War, there was another such build up. As I understand it, back in 1967, the USSR had determined that it was possible to win a nuclear war in the sense that the USSR could be in a dominant position after a large scale nuclear exchange. To this end, they built up their nuclear arsenal to astounding levels, ending up with 30,000 nuclear warheads in 1986 (according to Wikipedia).
As part of this build up, they embarked on a moderately successful program of deception. For a period of something like a decade, the US was consistently underestimating the size and capability of the USSR's nuclear pro
Well, I wouldn't solely blame NASA, but they are the ones with the responsibility to do such things and they're getting quite a bit of money for their efforts.
Also the B53 (9mt) was replaced by the B41 (25mt), and has been replaced again.
Replaced by weapons of smaller yield. It turns out to be a more effective use of nuclear material to launch a bunch of small warheads rather than one big one.
It isn't the initial hellfire, but the radiation, contaminated water supply, and destruction of arable lands that is the real threat. It would be a slow death.
I have to agree with the original poster. It's not much of a "slow death" to shave perhaps a few years off a person's life from cancer and whatnot from fallout. If most people can still breed and work, then that's good enough for a nuclear war strategy.
One shooting a bit over twenty years ago?
Can you name anyone besides Russia who might offer a credible threat?
China, the EU, Japan, some combination of middle east countries, India, Brazil, etc. Basically anyone with a big enough economy. Note that I didn't consider current military capability or ideological outlook since that can change rather fast. Both the US and the USSR went from no nukes to thousands of nukes inside of two decades.
I'm concerned with hypocrisy
I'm not. Hypocrisy gives us a means for correcting bad behavior. The subject may not care if its behavior is evil or incompetent, but it does care if such hypocritical behavior is revealed. The relative transparency of the US to hypocritical actions is something where the US is superior to China FWIW.
Thing is, when you go green with your industrial process, it usually means you save money too.
Not in my experience. Sure, there is some benefit to making an effort to make your process more efficient or to the PR you might get from such activities. But the rest of the "green" program is oversold.
Corporatism is giving rights to corporations that supersede what we in Europe call human rights.
It's worth noting that the start of the "corporate personhood" legal fiction in the US was an attempted grab of Dartmouth College by the legislature of New Hampshire. So the start in the US of what is currently called "corporatism" was the defense of a college.
And this is distinctive from America how?
Why ask this question. Not everyone in the world resides in the US or China.
Personally I prefer universities when they fight corporatism
You do realize that almost all universities (including Harvard) are corporations? Corporatism is hard to fight when it is the default organizational style for everything beyond the size of a few people.
Someone said there is enough oil, gas and coal to turn Earth into another Venus.
I think that's outright wrong. There's roughly 80 times as much carbon dioxide in Venus's atmosphere as there is total atmosphere on Earth. That's a lot of carbon. But even if there was enough carbon, there isn't enough oxygen in the atmosphere. We're about two orders of magnitude too short.