Corporations are not the only type of business. If you're going to tax businesses, you'll have to tax proprietorships and partnerships, and that's going to get dirty again.
Why have an age limit on voting anyway? If we wanted to have only qualified people voting, we would eliminate a good many people from the pool. A ten-year-old is not necessarily any less competent than a good many adults. (At ten, I read the campaign positions of Johnson and Goldwater, and made an informed decision. It wasn't a well-informed decision, but we don't seem to worry about that.)
Sure, parents of small children will have more influence in elections, but is that a bad thing?
Particularly, in the US, money is security. Suppose you're injured and have medical expenses and loss of work. Are you going to be able to continue living where you do? Will you still have retirement savings? In civilized countries, the medical expenses aren't an issue, and there's typically more of a safety net.
They'll do a large amount of damage before they go down, and police atrocities will be great for the media business. There's no way they can win, but if they're beyond caring about winning they become incredibly dangerous.
Sounds like an admin that needed firing. If the admin is the only one who knows the passwords, the company is in real trouble if anything happens to him. The company should always have access to the passwords, and a good admin would make sure there was a way for the company to access them in case of his death, disability, or departure.
Unions are NOT the solution, an end to global corporations pushing open borders, global "free trade", and treaties like TPP (which gives almost unlimited power to corporations and frees them from oversight/limitation by nations) are what is needed.
I'm not about to defend the TPP, but global free trade is an effective way to increase the total wealth of the world. Countries that embrace it will do significantly better than countries that don't. It's pretty much inevitable.
Lots of people see problems with global free trade because of disruption to large numbers of workers, but that isn't a necessary part of it. That happens because we allow the financially elite to claim most of the benefits for themselves. If we had a strong political movement representing those workers, we'd find ways to benefit from global free trade without hurting many millions of people.
A virtue signal is a statement or position that is intended to make people think that the signaler has some virtue. For example, those who claim to be Christian (the virtue signal) while advocating for hatred and special material benefits.
How often does that happen? Currently, the majority of my stock holdings are indirect, in mutual funds and the like. Those shares will almost certainly be voted as the board recommends. As far as I can tell, I have very little ability to get together with other shareholders (assuming I can get in contact with them) and get anything done.
I'm atheist but part of the problem is the loss of shame and kindness associated with religion becoming entangled with politics and the decline of religion in our society generally.
I really don't see that. Historically, the worst excesses of capitalism happened when Christianity was much more influential than it is today. I can find you any number of Christian politicians and aristocrats who did horrible things. Politicians and business leaders have normally had religious beliefs that allowed them to do whatever they decided.
Don't confuse being Christian with trying to emulate Jesus, or indeed paying any attention to what he said. I do know Christians who are legitimately trying to live Christ-like lives, and I admire them. Not nearly all Christians do that.
I don't feel like we should interfere with the environment too much either.
Too late. We've already raised the CO2 level from about 280 to about 400 parts per million, and significantly affected the pH of the more interesting parts of the oceans. I believe that qualifies as "too much".
I'd bet that most residential ISP contracts say that you get up to a certain bandwidth, and the ISP tries (to some extent) to give you that bandwidth most of the time. In other words, they're putting the effects of overselling in the contract, so it's legal. If you want guaranteed bandwidth, you can often get it at a considerably higher price (often these are considered business accounts).
Know what you're buying before you file complaints.
A lot of C code will fail in low-memory situations. If the program doesn't test every return from malloc() or calloc(), it will potentially do operations on the null pointer. As long as you stay out of embedded software, a low memory situation is probably from the process using all available memory, and the question is not whether it will fail but when.
The alternative would seem to be to find people who appear to be experts, and just trust them. That can backfire. For matters of policy, it's very useful to have determined who the actual experts are and what the basic situation is like.
Assume, as an example, that half the people are perfectly happy by themselves most of the time, and half really really need human contact. Then loneliness might still bring a 30% increase in mortality, all from one group, and over half the people who say they're happy and lonely are telling the truth. Statistics are very useful if you know what you're doing, and can be very misleading when you don't.
Most of my insurance dollars go to cover quantifiable risks. Something can happen to my house. I can make mistakes while driving, and those can get real expensive. (If you've got insufficient insurance, you're counting on going bankrupt in case of a really serious accident, and leaving the other party with woefully inadequate compensation for medical bills.) I'm also insured against most liability suits above and beyond that, and that's actually quite inexpensive. I figure my insurance company knows the risks better than I do, so I figure that outrageous liability suits are rare.
Whether more spending is good for the economy depends on how it's doing. More spending is good for the economy in recessions and depressions, not so good during boom times.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. Saying that a group is mostly white men is not saying anything in general about white men. There are other unpleasant groups that are primarily not white, but bringing those up wasn't relevant.
I don't know how to point out that there's lots of racism in our society without sounding like I'm saying some people are racist. If you're not racist, good. I'm not talking about you. If you are, it's your fault, not mine. Am I supposed to not say what I see because it will offend special right-wing snowflakes? Should I give trigger warnings when I say something I've noticed? Those of you who are white racist and sexist men (and there's lots of you) can certainly come up with safe places.
Immigration isn't as big a deal as it was early in the Twentieth Century, when people complained about the influx of largely Catholic populations like Irish and Polish. Learn some history.
Sure. How do you tell the difference between people attempting to follow the law and people saying they attempted to follow the law? I understand what good faith means. I just don't believe in it as an excuse, because it's so often and easily abused.
Slashdot Mirror
Corporations are not the only type of business. If you're going to tax businesses, you'll have to tax proprietorships and partnerships, and that's going to get dirty again.
Couldn't find that on Google. If you haven't just made this up, how about giving us the newspaper name?
I figure that, if you haven't grown up by age sixty, you don't have to.
Why have an age limit on voting anyway? If we wanted to have only qualified people voting, we would eliminate a good many people from the pool. A ten-year-old is not necessarily any less competent than a good many adults. (At ten, I read the campaign positions of Johnson and Goldwater, and made an informed decision. It wasn't a well-informed decision, but we don't seem to worry about that.)
Sure, parents of small children will have more influence in elections, but is that a bad thing?
Particularly, in the US, money is security. Suppose you're injured and have medical expenses and loss of work. Are you going to be able to continue living where you do? Will you still have retirement savings? In civilized countries, the medical expenses aren't an issue, and there's typically more of a safety net.
They'll do a large amount of damage before they go down, and police atrocities will be great for the media business. There's no way they can win, but if they're beyond caring about winning they become incredibly dangerous.
They've already voted for Trump, and if things don't change they'll continue to do harm.
Sure I know about Trump's plan. It requires Congress to implement, and it's stupid. Trade wars will benefit no country.
Sounds like an admin that needed firing. If the admin is the only one who knows the passwords, the company is in real trouble if anything happens to him. The company should always have access to the passwords, and a good admin would make sure there was a way for the company to access them in case of his death, disability, or departure.
How many companies do you think will agree to those contract terms? I believe the technical term for people who insist on those is "unemployed".
I'm not about to defend the TPP, but global free trade is an effective way to increase the total wealth of the world. Countries that embrace it will do significantly better than countries that don't. It's pretty much inevitable.
Lots of people see problems with global free trade because of disruption to large numbers of workers, but that isn't a necessary part of it. That happens because we allow the financially elite to claim most of the benefits for themselves. If we had a strong political movement representing those workers, we'd find ways to benefit from global free trade without hurting many millions of people.
A virtue signal is a statement or position that is intended to make people think that the signaler has some virtue. For example, those who claim to be Christian (the virtue signal) while advocating for hatred and special material benefits.
How often does that happen? Currently, the majority of my stock holdings are indirect, in mutual funds and the like. Those shares will almost certainly be voted as the board recommends. As far as I can tell, I have very little ability to get together with other shareholders (assuming I can get in contact with them) and get anything done.
I really don't see that. Historically, the worst excesses of capitalism happened when Christianity was much more influential than it is today. I can find you any number of Christian politicians and aristocrats who did horrible things. Politicians and business leaders have normally had religious beliefs that allowed them to do whatever they decided.
Don't confuse being Christian with trying to emulate Jesus, or indeed paying any attention to what he said. I do know Christians who are legitimately trying to live Christ-like lives, and I admire them. Not nearly all Christians do that.
Good.
Too late. We've already raised the CO2 level from about 280 to about 400 parts per million, and significantly affected the pH of the more interesting parts of the oceans. I believe that qualifies as "too much".
I'd bet that most residential ISP contracts say that you get up to a certain bandwidth, and the ISP tries (to some extent) to give you that bandwidth most of the time. In other words, they're putting the effects of overselling in the contract, so it's legal. If you want guaranteed bandwidth, you can often get it at a considerably higher price (often these are considered business accounts).
Know what you're buying before you file complaints.
A lot of C code will fail in low-memory situations. If the program doesn't test every return from malloc() or calloc(), it will potentially do operations on the null pointer. As long as you stay out of embedded software, a low memory situation is probably from the process using all available memory, and the question is not whether it will fail but when.
The alternative would seem to be to find people who appear to be experts, and just trust them. That can backfire. For matters of policy, it's very useful to have determined who the actual experts are and what the basic situation is like.
Assume, as an example, that half the people are perfectly happy by themselves most of the time, and half really really need human contact. Then loneliness might still bring a 30% increase in mortality, all from one group, and over half the people who say they're happy and lonely are telling the truth. Statistics are very useful if you know what you're doing, and can be very misleading when you don't.
Most of my insurance dollars go to cover quantifiable risks. Something can happen to my house. I can make mistakes while driving, and those can get real expensive. (If you've got insufficient insurance, you're counting on going bankrupt in case of a really serious accident, and leaving the other party with woefully inadequate compensation for medical bills.) I'm also insured against most liability suits above and beyond that, and that's actually quite inexpensive. I figure my insurance company knows the risks better than I do, so I figure that outrageous liability suits are rare.
Whether more spending is good for the economy depends on how it's doing. More spending is good for the economy in recessions and depressions, not so good during boom times.
Divorce rates are falling, actually, so it would seem that more people are happy in their marriages.
I don't personally know any woman like the ones you describe. I don't know where you meet women, but you really really need to look elsewhere.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. Saying that a group is mostly white men is not saying anything in general about white men. There are other unpleasant groups that are primarily not white, but bringing those up wasn't relevant.
I don't know how to point out that there's lots of racism in our society without sounding like I'm saying some people are racist. If you're not racist, good. I'm not talking about you. If you are, it's your fault, not mine. Am I supposed to not say what I see because it will offend special right-wing snowflakes? Should I give trigger warnings when I say something I've noticed? Those of you who are white racist and sexist men (and there's lots of you) can certainly come up with safe places.
Immigration isn't as big a deal as it was early in the Twentieth Century, when people complained about the influx of largely Catholic populations like Irish and Polish. Learn some history.
Sure. How do you tell the difference between people attempting to follow the law and people saying they attempted to follow the law? I understand what good faith means. I just don't believe in it as an excuse, because it's so often and easily abused.
So science is bogus because some scientists screw up? Most scientists are overconservative.