I'm not going to say much, except that the parent was mostly correct except that he said "Republicans" and "Conservatives" and not "our current administration and their followers". Because if there is one thing I've learned in the last 4 years from observing him and talking with real Conservatives is that Bush ain't a traditional Republican. I mean, really, can anyone really call him a conservative? And have the word still mean something? Anyway, let me ask you to forgive the parent for mistaking Bush for the average, typical, median, or what have you Republican.
Whenever someone is criticizing "Republicans" and "Democrats", usually they're talking about the politicians wearing those labels, not the general public who holds those views. That's why both Dems and Repubs get lambasted for selling out to special interests and big corporations. Very few people actually believe in doing those things, but pretty much all of our wonderful congress-critters do. That's why I was torn so much in 2000 -- whatever the flavors of syrup the candidates applied to themselves, I knew their core was a double-scoop rocky road of graft and authoritarianism. Since then, Bush has done an admirable job of demonstrating the subtle differences I had missed.
Last thing -- don't assume evolution is so simple. It isn't at all. A member of the species who bears no offspring can still see provide for the survival of the species, and thus ensure the survival of gene carriers. Completely contrived example to bring the point home: Your gay older brother never has kids. However, he saved your life when you were eight, allowing you to grow up and have kids of your own. The trait was carried by your parents genes, which were passed on to you, and thusly does the trait survive.
Basically, the rule is: that which survives, survives. There's no rule that says how that has to occur.
Actual last thing: Seriously, it's because the drugs he used are legal? Wouldn't he have had to get them illegally? What's the difference between damaging addictive legal drugs and damaging addictive illegal drugs? Is it just the arbitrary rules of what's legal and not that are defining morality now? It doesn't make sense to me.
Don't let the difference between our system in which corporations get the same rights as actual humans and a laissez-faire system cause you to fail to see the point, which is about corparate behavior.
The unfortunate decision that corporations are "persons" in the 14th Ammendment sense is merely used as a justification for performing the analysis on corporate behavior as if they were people who could actually be psychotic. Corporations aren't people; they can no more be psychotic than my chair can. The authors simply said "well, if you're going to call a corporation a person, lets see what kind of person they would be".
The analysis is equally valid in a laissez-faire system that doesn't personify corporations -- their behavior would be identical, and it is that behavior that is analyzed.
If anyone is dumb enough to conenct one of these to the net and run a telnet/ssh daemon that allows logging in as root, then yeah, they're pretty hosed.
Aside from that, how does having the root password help? Someone would have to gain access to the system as a normal user in the first place, which would still let them run a spam relay.
There was a "hack the OpenBSD box"-type contest some time ago, and the webserver on port 80 displayed the root password for all to see. As people quickly found out, that didn't really do any potential hacker a lot of good.
Granted, it'd be better for security if they didn't publish it, but in general you don't want unauthorized people gaining any access to the system in the first place.
That sounds like exactly what they're doing. Why the "technically speaking" or the "actually qualifies"? It is flat-out full-on compliance.
Yeah, the posts in this article are about 50% depressing. Starting with the jackass submitter. "Any license issues?" Not if they supply the source! Are they? Yes? Then what's the problem?
The problem is people who have heard of the GPL, understand it means some stuff about giving away source code, but have never actually read the damn thing.
Your insightful comment made me realize why Everquest won out over the pioneer in the "really big graphical mud" genre, Ultima Online. UO made a lot of basic mistakes that the late comer could capitalize on, such as forgetting to make their game like crack-cocaine.
You know, the really shitty ones where they took a shitty game, replaced the main character with Moses, added some Bible phrases, and foisted it upon the unsuspecting children of foolish religious parents.
Seriously. Way too many Christians will buy any crap that has Jesus on it. No idea if that applies to Passion, but I'm certain you're right and the actual quality of the film has little to do with it.
Sorry, but I take my faith a little too seriously to be tricked into buying any trinket that somehow claims to represent that faith.
But since corporations have been given the same rights as citizens, it is correct (from a legal standpoint, anyway) to use the singular - after all, not everyone at Microsoft is a strutting prick.
A huge mistake that we need not incorporate into our language.
God knows, I'd hate to be blamed/associated with everything my company does...
Maybe if we were, we'd care a little more about the things our company does, and that includes the managers. Being able to hide behind the "corporate person" is how executives do incredibly shady crap and walk away.
I'm sorry, but you're being too simplistic. Current copyright law protects even unpublished works. Every work I create is protected automatically, whether I publish it or not. If I'm walking down the street and an article I've written flies out of my briefcase and lands on the ground, you cannot pick it up and publish it in your magazine. So in a sense, copyright law is what allows me to decide that I'm not going to publish something in the first place.
Yes, yes, I know that. I'm saying that if you have published your work, and later decide to stop, or that you never wanted to in the first place -- tough. Your work is going to eventually (sooner than later if the Kahle/Prelinger v. Ashcroft goes through, and you don't renew your copyright) become public domain, and you can't stop that just because you wish it wouldn't happen, nor should you be able to.
If your story flies out of your briefcase, then of course nobody is allowed to publish it.
Until your copyright expires. Then they can.
And yes, I am the public. So the public does benefit.
No, you're the author. "The public" means "the people" not "one person, who happens to be one of the people".
The only reason we allow the author to have an unnatural monopoly on his idea is so that it is easier for them to attempt to profit off the idea, as an incentive to create the idea in the first place. Eventually, that idea is supposed to pass into and enrich the public domain. That is the purpose of copyright.
If you are no longer making that idea available, then what exactly are the people gaining from your artificial monopoly? What are you gaining? Nothing. The reason for the monopoly is no longer valid.
If you don't want a work published, the solution is simple: Don't publish. If you have published it, but later decided you didn't want to... Well, it's too late, in any event.
Copyright is a bargain between the public and authors. When the public is not benefitting from the bargain, then it should be reevaluated. When neither side is benefitting, then the bargain should be abandoned.
It's hard to believe there was a time when CGA was worth coveting, but it did offer 320x240 in 16 colors.:)
Naw, that was EGA. CGA only offered four colors, and your choices were generally black, white, and either cyan and magenta or green and red. EGA made a big difference when playing Bard's Tale or Champions of Krynn.:)
Deimos and Phobos are the moons of Mars and they are not round.
We're talking about planets here, not moons. While many moons could be planets if they orbited the sun under this definition, that doesn't mean a moon must always be that large.
Um, unless I'm missing something.
Ceres doesn't even have its own orbit (it shares it with other asteroids).
God bless the internet, destroyer of ignorance. Your comment made me wonder what is going to happen to Ceres. I was thinking maybe it would form a planet. Turns out it probably was forming one, and was pulled apart once Jupiter formed. So you could consider Ceres to be a slowly dying planet, and the rest of the asteroids are part of the remains. Neat, eh?
How about the simple argument that planets are gravitationally strong enough to pull themselves into nearly spherical objects, whereas asteroids are not.
I like this definition a lot. While it does leave some wiggle room as to what exactly constitutes "spherical", it is still based on a physical property of the object related to its mass. This makes it better than any arbitrary size/mass requirement (e.g. "Anything as big or bigger than Pluto").
Pluto, BTW, Sedna, and many of the largest moons can all do this.
I'm going to be extremely unhappy with any definition that demotes Pluto. Also, anything that makes Pluto not a planet is going to be close to making Mercury not a planet, and that's just not acceptable.:)
I also think, for the record, that if something as large as Luna, or Titan, or Europa were out floating in space orbiting the sun and not another planet, they would be considered planets too.
Titan is bigger than Mercury, so a Sun-orbiting Titan not being considered a planet is unacceptable.:) But clearly a planet-sized object orbiting another planet is a moon. Again, this definition makes perfect sense.
I'm not an astronomer (but I play one on occasional weekends), but of all the definitions I've heard, "big enough to be spherical and orbiting a star" is the simplest and most logical.
And for the record -- if there was some comet out in the Ort cloud with an incredibly eccentric orbit around the sun that was the size of Titan, that'd be a planet too. IMHO.:)
Gates went on to say "... In my case, I went to the garbage cans at the Computer Science Center and I fished out listings of their operating systems."
Doesn't he realize those operating systems are copyrighted? Bill Gates programming knowledge, and thus his entire empire, is based on copyright infringement. The shock! The horror! How dare he learn from the efforts of others without paying a licensing fee!
Seriously, the irony is killing me. I mean making me laugh.
Oh.... I put my own backdoor in the Man's ICBM so when he pushed the button it would fall right back on him. When they come after me for all the life that's lost I'll tell them "Hey it wasn't me it was all Microsoft!"
It's just another component of the MAD doctrine, which in spite of everything else at least has kept nukes from falling since the second nation aquired them.
The only thing is, some parties might think they can get around the rules of MAD. That's what the missle shield is for, for example, because it would prevent a first strike, or prevent a retaliatory strike. Then the USA would be unconstrained by the MAD doctrine. If they could convince anyone it worked, hardy har har. Which brings us to this article, because others might be thinking they can get around MAD by being sneaky, and say launching the nuke from another country, a sub, or what have you. So we develop forensics to track exploded nukes back to where they came from, make a press release, and try to assure our enemies that no sneakiness will escape the 'M' in 'MAD'.
I agree, this is money that is actually well-spent in making us safer. MAD is the best missle shield we've come up with yet.
I'll give an example, an absurd one. Somebody actually succeeded in getting a patent for a helmet that you wore on your head that was airtight - except you would be breathing oxygen generated by little cactus's that sat on a shelf near your ears inside the helmet !!!! No, it's not a gag!
What are you saying? That's an awesome idea! Assuming you can get a cactus that could match a human beings CO2 emissions/O2 requirements, which seems doubtful...
But I see it doing two things -- first, providing divers, astronauts, and people living in Gary, IN with a continuous source of clean air that lasts much longer than the tanks they currently have to use. And second, as an aid to teach irresponsible people to take care of their plants.
There should be a unified development tool/library that includes them all. E.g. I can install "blah" and boom I got 3d graphics, sound support, joystick/keyboard support, timers/interrupt/callback etc...
Okay then... I'll just take OpenGL, SDL, and ALSA, put them in one Debian meta-package, call it Universal Games API or "blah" or whatever makes you happy, and there you go.
SDL, OpenGL, ALSA all solve one problem well. They also work together well. Writing OpenGL apps using SDL is simple.
I'm not really sure what you want or why you want it. Yes, all of these libraries are "UNIX philosophy". That means that not only do they do one thing well, they are designed to be easy to make work with other programs that do other things, so you can easily get one program that does both.
In the space elevator plans I've read, you don't "anchor" it. The elevator has a counter weight on the other end, so that the center of mass is at geosynchronous orbit. It isn't anchored; it's suspended in the air. They attach the bottom to some floating platform in the ocean so you can actually get on the elevator, but at that point the tension should be essentially zero.
Companies are owned by their shareholders. Directors have a fiduciary duty to their owners: they must manage the business in their interest. They aren't there to manage "expectations", or to drive their stock price. The job of a company is to make money for its owners, plain and simple.
I can see the Director, his expression firm with resolve: "I'm only here to ensure our investors see a return. If that means laying off our workforce and then giving myself a big bonus followed by cashing out my now more valuable stock options, then so be it."
Sorry, but I don't buy that at all. That's what stinks about globalization -- no matter the harm or benefit to us or India, you can guarantee that the CEOs, the Directors, the VPs will all be seeing nice, healthy benefits to themselves.
So they get rich, screw their workers, and tell us they were "just doing their job". They shake their heads sadly and say "I greatly regret having to do this..." before they swing the axe. Oh yeah, I can see them crying all the way to the bank.
Look at HP: struggling in many ways, huge layoffs, morale is low -- then the execs go off and buy themselves a nice fleet of corporate jets so they can cruise about the country making their deals in style. "Fiduciary duty" my ass.
If you want Amercan companies to be run for the benefit of the - abstractly - American economy, or American workers, then that's fine.
Stop making things abstract, so it sounds impossible or unreasonable. There is nothing abstract at all about a CEO axing a US job, hiring an Indian worker, and pocketing the difference in salary (or generously sharing it with the stockholders, one of the major ones of course being themself).
There is no reason a company can't be run for the benefit of its own employees. I guarantee you I have more invested in my company than any of the VCs or fund managers that have purchased our stock. So why must my company be run in a way where they are encouraged to screw me and help the VCs?
The corporation, despite unfortunate 14th Ammendment interpretations, is nothing more than a legal construct. The rules governing this construct are arbitrary, not a law of nature. Acting like the complete lack of responsibility to anyone but stock holders is an inevitable and inescapable feature of the corporation is a self-serving lie the beneficiaries of the lie enjoy telling far too much.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not going to say much, except that the parent was mostly correct except that he said "Republicans" and "Conservatives" and not "our current administration and their followers". Because if there is one thing I've learned in the last 4 years from observing him and talking with real Conservatives is that Bush ain't a traditional Republican. I mean, really, can anyone really call him a conservative? And have the word still mean something? Anyway, let me ask you to forgive the parent for mistaking Bush for the average, typical, median, or what have you Republican.
Whenever someone is criticizing "Republicans" and "Democrats", usually they're talking about the politicians wearing those labels, not the general public who holds those views. That's why both Dems and Repubs get lambasted for selling out to special interests and big corporations. Very few people actually believe in doing those things, but pretty much all of our wonderful congress-critters do. That's why I was torn so much in 2000 -- whatever the flavors of syrup the candidates applied to themselves, I knew their core was a double-scoop rocky road of graft and authoritarianism. Since then, Bush has done an admirable job of demonstrating the subtle differences I had missed.
Last thing -- don't assume evolution is so simple. It isn't at all. A member of the species who bears no offspring can still see provide for the survival of the species, and thus ensure the survival of gene carriers. Completely contrived example to bring the point home: Your gay older brother never has kids. However, he saved your life when you were eight, allowing you to grow up and have kids of your own. The trait was carried by your parents genes, which were passed on to you, and thusly does the trait survive.
Basically, the rule is: that which survives, survives. There's no rule that says how that has to occur.
Actual last thing: Seriously, it's because the drugs he used are legal? Wouldn't he have had to get them illegally? What's the difference between damaging addictive legal drugs and damaging addictive illegal drugs? Is it just the arbitrary rules of what's legal and not that are defining morality now? It doesn't make sense to me.
Don't let the difference between our system in which corporations get the same rights as actual humans and a laissez-faire system cause you to fail to see the point, which is about corparate behavior.
The unfortunate decision that corporations are "persons" in the 14th Ammendment sense is merely used as a justification for performing the analysis on corporate behavior as if they were people who could actually be psychotic. Corporations aren't people; they can no more be psychotic than my chair can. The authors simply said "well, if you're going to call a corporation a person, lets see what kind of person they would be".
The analysis is equally valid in a laissez-faire system that doesn't personify corporations -- their behavior would be identical, and it is that behavior that is analyzed.
he still has his deal with SCO but gets to portray himself as a hapless victim.
Maybe he can put that in their future promotions. "EV1 Servers: Hapless Victims! Honestly, we have no clue what we're doing!"
If anyone is dumb enough to conenct one of these to the net and run a telnet/ssh daemon that allows logging in as root, then yeah, they're pretty hosed.
Aside from that, how does having the root password help? Someone would have to gain access to the system as a normal user in the first place, which would still let them run a spam relay.
There was a "hack the OpenBSD box"-type contest some time ago, and the webserver on port 80 displayed the root password for all to see. As people quickly found out, that didn't really do any potential hacker a lot of good.
Granted, it'd be better for security if they didn't publish it, but in general you don't want unauthorized people gaining any access to the system in the first place.
That sounds like exactly what they're doing. Why the "technically speaking" or the "actually qualifies"? It is flat-out full-on compliance.
Yeah, the posts in this article are about 50% depressing. Starting with the jackass submitter. "Any license issues?" Not if they supply the source! Are they? Yes? Then what's the problem?
The problem is people who have heard of the GPL, understand it means some stuff about giving away source code, but have never actually read the damn thing.
Your insightful comment made me realize why Everquest won out over the pioneer in the "really big graphical mud" genre, Ultima Online. UO made a lot of basic mistakes that the late comer could capitalize on, such as forgetting to make their game like crack-cocaine.
You know, the really shitty ones where they took a shitty game, replaced the main character with Moses, added some Bible phrases, and foisted it upon the unsuspecting children of foolish religious parents.
Seriously. Way too many Christians will buy any crap that has Jesus on it. No idea if that applies to Passion, but I'm certain you're right and the actual quality of the film has little to do with it.
Sorry, but I take my faith a little too seriously to be tricked into buying any trinket that somehow claims to represent that faith.
But since corporations have been given the same rights as citizens, it is correct (from a legal standpoint, anyway) to use the singular - after all, not everyone at Microsoft is a strutting prick.
A huge mistake that we need not incorporate into our language.
God knows, I'd hate to be blamed/associated with everything my company does...
Maybe if we were, we'd care a little more about the things our company does, and that includes the managers. Being able to hide behind the "corporate person" is how executives do incredibly shady crap and walk away.
I'm sorry, but you're being too simplistic. Current copyright law protects even unpublished works. Every work I create is protected automatically, whether I publish it or not. If I'm walking down the street and an article I've written flies out of my briefcase and lands on the ground, you cannot pick it up and publish it in your magazine. So in a sense, copyright law is what allows me to decide that I'm not going to publish something in the first place.
Yes, yes, I know that. I'm saying that if you have published your work, and later decide to stop, or that you never wanted to in the first place -- tough. Your work is going to eventually (sooner than later if the Kahle/Prelinger v. Ashcroft goes through, and you don't renew your copyright) become public domain, and you can't stop that just because you wish it wouldn't happen, nor should you be able to.
If your story flies out of your briefcase, then of course nobody is allowed to publish it.
Until your copyright expires. Then they can.
And yes, I am the public. So the public does benefit.
No, you're the author. "The public" means "the people" not "one person, who happens to be one of the people".
The only reason we allow the author to have an unnatural monopoly on his idea is so that it is easier for them to attempt to profit off the idea, as an incentive to create the idea in the first place. Eventually, that idea is supposed to pass into and enrich the public domain. That is the purpose of copyright.
If you are no longer making that idea available, then what exactly are the people gaining from your artificial monopoly? What are you gaining? Nothing. The reason for the monopoly is no longer valid.
If you don't want a work published, the solution is simple: Don't publish. If you have published it, but later decided you didn't want to... Well, it's too late, in any event.
Copyright is a bargain between the public and authors. When the public is not benefitting from the bargain, then it should be reevaluated. When neither side is benefitting, then the bargain should be abandoned.
It's hard to believe there was a time when CGA was worth coveting, but it did offer 320x240 in 16 colors. :)
:)
Naw, that was EGA. CGA only offered four colors, and your choices were generally black, white, and either cyan and magenta or green and red. EGA made a big difference when playing Bard's Tale or Champions of Krynn.
I think the parent answered this, obliquely:
Clearly, Uranus is Heaven!
And you thought going to mars was a waste. It's a stepping stone to paradise!
Deimos and Phobos are the moons of Mars and they are not round.
We're talking about planets here, not moons. While many moons could be planets if they orbited the sun under this definition, that doesn't mean a moon must always be that large.
Um, unless I'm missing something.
Ceres doesn't even have its own orbit (it shares it with other asteroids).
God bless the internet, destroyer of ignorance. Your comment made me wonder what is going to happen to Ceres. I was thinking maybe it would form a planet. Turns out it probably was forming one, and was pulled apart once Jupiter formed. So you could consider Ceres to be a slowly dying planet, and the rest of the asteroids are part of the remains. Neat, eh?
How about the simple argument that planets are gravitationally strong enough to pull themselves into nearly spherical objects, whereas asteroids are not.
:)
:) But clearly a planet-sized object orbiting another planet is a moon. Again, this definition makes perfect sense.
:)
I like this definition a lot. While it does leave some wiggle room as to what exactly constitutes "spherical", it is still based on a physical property of the object related to its mass. This makes it better than any arbitrary size/mass requirement (e.g. "Anything as big or bigger than Pluto").
Pluto, BTW, Sedna, and many of the largest moons can all do this.
I'm going to be extremely unhappy with any definition that demotes Pluto. Also, anything that makes Pluto not a planet is going to be close to making Mercury not a planet, and that's just not acceptable.
I also think, for the record, that if something as large as Luna, or Titan, or Europa were out floating in space orbiting the sun and not another planet, they would be considered planets too.
Titan is bigger than Mercury, so a Sun-orbiting Titan not being considered a planet is unacceptable.
I'm not an astronomer (but I play one on occasional weekends), but of all the definitions I've heard, "big enough to be spherical and orbiting a star" is the simplest and most logical.
And for the record -- if there was some comet out in the Ort cloud with an incredibly eccentric orbit around the sun that was the size of Titan, that'd be a planet too. IMHO.
We need a Slashdot Orkut whore!
Why not cut out the middleman?
Gates went on to say "... In my case, I went to the garbage cans at the Computer Science Center and I fished out listings of their operating systems."
Doesn't he realize those operating systems are copyrighted? Bill Gates programming knowledge, and thus his entire empire, is based on copyright infringement. The shock! The horror! How dare he learn from the efforts of others without paying a licensing fee!
Seriously, the irony is killing me. I mean making me laugh.
Singing...
Oh.... I put my own backdoor
in the Man's ICBM
so when he pushed the button
it would fall right back on him.
When they come after me
for all the life that's lost
I'll tell them "Hey it wasn't me
it was all Microsoft!"
But you're correct, it does.
It's just another component of the MAD doctrine, which in spite of everything else at least has kept nukes from falling since the second nation aquired them.
The only thing is, some parties might think they can get around the rules of MAD. That's what the missle shield is for, for example, because it would prevent a first strike, or prevent a retaliatory strike. Then the USA would be unconstrained by the MAD doctrine. If they could convince anyone it worked, hardy har har. Which brings us to this article, because others might be thinking they can get around MAD by being sneaky, and say launching the nuke from another country, a sub, or what have you. So we develop forensics to track exploded nukes back to where they came from, make a press release, and try to assure our enemies that no sneakiness will escape the 'M' in 'MAD'.
I agree, this is money that is actually well-spent in making us safer. MAD is the best missle shield we've come up with yet.
Being about the size of a quarter, wouldn't it be 2 bits?
Which is what you need to encode all possibilites of getting a shave and/or haircut, coincidentally enough.
Have you EVER seen a styrofoam recycling bin where they were serving things in styrofoam containers?
I'll give an example, an absurd one. Somebody actually succeeded in getting a patent for a helmet that you wore on your head that was airtight - except you would be breathing oxygen generated by little cactus's that sat on a shelf near your ears inside the helmet !!!! No, it's not a gag!
What are you saying? That's an awesome idea! Assuming you can get a cactus that could match a human beings CO2 emissions/O2 requirements, which seems doubtful...
But I see it doing two things -- first, providing divers, astronauts, and people living in Gary, IN with a continuous source of clean air that lasts much longer than the tanks they currently have to use. And second, as an aid to teach irresponsible people to take care of their plants.
There should be a unified development tool/library that includes them all. E.g. I can install "blah" and boom I got 3d graphics, sound support, joystick/keyboard support, timers/interrupt/callback etc...
Okay then... I'll just take OpenGL, SDL, and ALSA, put them in one Debian meta-package, call it Universal Games API or "blah" or whatever makes you happy, and there you go.
SDL, OpenGL, ALSA all solve one problem well. They also work together well. Writing OpenGL apps using SDL is simple.
I'm not really sure what you want or why you want it. Yes, all of these libraries are "UNIX philosophy". That means that not only do they do one thing well, they are designed to be easy to make work with other programs that do other things, so you can easily get one program that does both.
What more do you want?
1. Beer.
2. Cure for Cancer.
Sounds about right to me. Without the former, the latter is pointless!
In the space elevator plans I've read, you don't "anchor" it. The elevator has a counter weight on the other end, so that the center of mass is at geosynchronous orbit. It isn't anchored; it's suspended in the air. They attach the bottom to some floating platform in the ocean so you can actually get on the elevator, but at that point the tension should be essentially zero.
Companies are owned by their shareholders. Directors have a fiduciary duty to their owners: they must manage the business in their interest. They aren't there to manage "expectations", or to drive their stock price. The job of a company is to make money for its owners, plain and simple.
I can see the Director, his expression firm with resolve: "I'm only here to ensure our investors see a return. If that means laying off our workforce and then giving myself a big bonus followed by cashing out my now more valuable stock options, then so be it."
Sorry, but I don't buy that at all. That's what stinks about globalization -- no matter the harm or benefit to us or India, you can guarantee that the CEOs, the Directors, the VPs will all be seeing nice, healthy benefits to themselves.
So they get rich, screw their workers, and tell us they were "just doing their job". They shake their heads sadly and say "I greatly regret having to do this..." before they swing the axe. Oh yeah, I can see them crying all the way to the bank.
Look at HP: struggling in many ways, huge layoffs, morale is low -- then the execs go off and buy themselves a nice fleet of corporate jets so they can cruise about the country making their deals in style. "Fiduciary duty" my ass.
If you want Amercan companies to be run for the benefit of the - abstractly - American economy, or American workers, then that's fine.
Stop making things abstract, so it sounds impossible or unreasonable. There is nothing abstract at all about a CEO axing a US job, hiring an Indian worker, and pocketing the difference in salary (or generously sharing it with the stockholders, one of the major ones of course being themself).
There is no reason a company can't be run for the benefit of its own employees. I guarantee you I have more invested in my company than any of the VCs or fund managers that have purchased our stock. So why must my company be run in a way where they are encouraged to screw me and help the VCs?
The corporation, despite unfortunate 14th Ammendment interpretations, is nothing more than a legal construct. The rules governing this construct are arbitrary, not a law of nature. Acting like the complete lack of responsibility to anyone but stock holders is an inevitable and inescapable feature of the corporation is a self-serving lie the beneficiaries of the lie enjoy telling far too much.
Me, I'm not eating that bullshit any more.