Look at a 24 hour clock when you are too far from the numbers. Tell me the time. Now repeat with a 12-hour clock.
Alternately, how many 24-hour analog wristwatches do you encounter? They exist, but what a PITA. When you do find one, look how enormous they make the numbers, often only printing every other. This is because you need to be able to read the numbers to make the clock usable.
The military uses 24-hour time to remove the ambiguous AM/PM nature of the 12-hour clock. And for the past 30 years, they can put digital clocks everywhere so the accuracy problem goes away.
I'm sure his family connections helped. Nevertheless, he was objectively very bright. He was nearly perfect on his SATs and he wrote a "pancake" sorting algorithm that went unchallenged as "fastest" for 30 years.
Yes, that would be a free press - it's just that your average citizen would not be able to invest in such a scenario and access to capital would be limited for the organization. In other words, only rich people could start newspapers (or in modern terms, online media).
In any event, I don't think that a solution requiring the abandonment of corporations will occur anytime soon. It's a sound idea, but not realistic politically.
It seems a lot of American's have been conned into thinking "free market" means a market that is free from government oversight,
I actually screwed up when I typed that. I didn't mean to invoke the free market, which wasn't really the topic. The Libertarian objection to corporations is the limited liability part. You can't rely on property rights when the power to bring a suit is so limited. The people calling the shots at a corporation don't necessarily have much skin in the game. At the very least, it seriously screws with the ideal order of things.
Corporations are also a huge example of government regulation of the free markets, but as you say, not everyone will disagree with regulated markets. The only thing the government has done to regulate the free market that might have more impact is the concept of intellectual property. It's hard to think of anything with a larger economic impact than corporations and intellectual property.
the people would still lose their commons.
Yes, I don't think I'm too keen on that idea. It's also not clear to me how you would work out water use rights. I guess private contracts - seems like a mess that would ultimately require a judge to sort out anyway. Might as well sort it out with legislation instead.
You can't tell me you believe it was OK to pump benzene into your water treatment facilities without disclosing it.
I would say it rather depends on whether or not the facility was equipped to handle benzene.
Furthermore, why do you want public health facilities (in this case water treatment plants) to become de facto dumping grounds for anything industry might wish to use in its operations, especially when the chemicals become more dilute and therefore more difficult and costly to extract from you drinking water?
I want them to pay for whatever they use. If they make the chemicals harder to extract, then they should pay for that additional capability as well. This certainly shouldn't be rocket science.
But keep in mind that as a contractor you have no obligation to share any of your coding "secrets" with anyone, or teach anyone else how to code.
If you consider yourself to be a professional, you will always do work that you take pride in. As you get older, it's amazing how small the world becomes - your reputation needs to precede you. At worst, you leave this job with everyone happy with you. At best, you have a new code monkey that sees you as a guru and future consultant and a former client who would happily recommend your work. There is nothing better for your word-of-mouth than having a brilliant protege.
Of course, for Libertarian ideals to stand a chance of working, we would need to get rid of government interferences in the free market - such as corporations.
I'm not sure you fix could be considered "easier".:)
Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
You can still gauge an upper limit to the expense, though. It can't cost more than $3.25 to go 37 miles - $0.09 per mile is the max cost here. The same trip would cost you about $0.13, assuming a gas price of $4/gallon and a sedan getting 30MPG. So even if we assume the worst, it's like driving a car that gets 45MPG.
Like I said, kudos to the Gates Foundation. My mother-in-law worked for an NGO that was funded by them, and they really did a good job. It was a bit bureaucratic, but they really wanted to account for where the money went. A little money can go a long way in Africa, where even basic medical laboratories are not yet common.
I don't want "leaders", I want "public servants". There are occasions when we need leaders, but these tend to be during a crises of some sort. People who fancy themselves to be leaders is what gets us to the state we are in.
What they forgot was that the very existence of a corporation is a privilege granted by government.
They didn't forget that at all - it's stated in the decision.
How about we have neither? Free speech for individuals, and only individuals. A corporate press is simply too dangerous, individuals cannot compete with it. And I include the government in this too, the government as an entity should be making no speech at all, except for legislation and official policy statements. It certainly should not be lobbying its constituents.
This is a totally reasonable standpoint. We could, with an Amendment, make certain that only individuals have a right to free speech. I don't think you'll get much popular support, though - a free press is a very popular thing.
I'm glad it worked for you - even surgery is usually not any more effective than placebo with back pain, so what the hell - you might as well try, right? My mom's chronic back pain went away when she was bucked off of a horse.
That said, if the chiropractor doesn't work - if your back is so damaged that you are talking about narcotic dependence - then it is definitely the lesser of two evils to be physically dependent on opiates.
According to the Citizen's United case, A Corporation now == A Person, right?
Not quite. They found that, since a corporation was just a collection of people, you could not restrict their right to free speech. If you replace "evil lobbyist group" with "New York Times" it begins to make some sense. I think we can probably engineer some way to have both a free corporate press and restricted corporate political speech - but I'm not smart enough to say how.
Slashdot Mirror
give the pilots polarized glasses
But most of them don't fly over the North Pole?
You are caught up in a semantic argument that means nothing.
Because the minority has never been persecuted in a democracy - democracy is perfect.
Look at a 24 hour clock when you are too far from the numbers. Tell me the time. Now repeat with a 12-hour clock.
Alternately, how many 24-hour analog wristwatches do you encounter? They exist, but what a PITA. When you do find one, look how enormous they make the numbers, often only printing every other. This is because you need to be able to read the numbers to make the clock usable.
The military uses 24-hour time to remove the ambiguous AM/PM nature of the 12-hour clock. And for the past 30 years, they can put digital clocks everywhere so the accuracy problem goes away.
As a practical matter, you also need to be smart. It is an edge case to be a complete moron attending Harvard.
12-hour analog clock is less error-prone than the 24-hour version. If you are willing to go all-digital then this advantage disappears.
I'm sure his family connections helped. Nevertheless, he was objectively very bright. He was nearly perfect on his SATs and he wrote a "pancake" sorting algorithm that went unchallenged as "fastest" for 30 years.
So are you trolling, or are you suggesting that Bill Gates benefited from racial quotas?
He dropped out of college, but because he decided to found Microsoft. He did not get kicked out, and he didn't get to Harvard by being an idiot.
Yes, that would be a free press - it's just that your average citizen would not be able to invest in such a scenario and access to capital would be limited for the organization. In other words, only rich people could start newspapers (or in modern terms, online media).
In any event, I don't think that a solution requiring the abandonment of corporations will occur anytime soon. It's a sound idea, but not realistic politically.
It seems a lot of American's have been conned into thinking "free market" means a market that is free from government oversight,
I actually screwed up when I typed that. I didn't mean to invoke the free market, which wasn't really the topic. The Libertarian objection to corporations is the limited liability part. You can't rely on property rights when the power to bring a suit is so limited. The people calling the shots at a corporation don't necessarily have much skin in the game. At the very least, it seriously screws with the ideal order of things.
Corporations are also a huge example of government regulation of the free markets, but as you say, not everyone will disagree with regulated markets. The only thing the government has done to regulate the free market that might have more impact is the concept of intellectual property. It's hard to think of anything with a larger economic impact than corporations and intellectual property.
the people would still lose their commons.
Yes, I don't think I'm too keen on that idea. It's also not clear to me how you would work out water use rights. I guess private contracts - seems like a mess that would ultimately require a judge to sort out anyway. Might as well sort it out with legislation instead.
You can't tell me you believe it was OK to pump benzene into your water treatment facilities without disclosing it.
I would say it rather depends on whether or not the facility was equipped to handle benzene.
Furthermore, why do you want public health facilities (in this case water treatment plants) to become de facto dumping grounds for anything industry might wish to use in its operations, especially when the chemicals become more dilute and therefore more difficult and costly to extract from you drinking water?
I want them to pay for whatever they use. If they make the chemicals harder to extract, then they should pay for that additional capability as well. This certainly shouldn't be rocket science.
But keep in mind that as a contractor you have no obligation to share any of your coding "secrets" with anyone, or teach anyone else how to code.
If you consider yourself to be a professional, you will always do work that you take pride in. As you get older, it's amazing how small the world becomes - your reputation needs to precede you. At worst, you leave this job with everyone happy with you. At best, you have a new code monkey that sees you as a guru and future consultant and a former client who would happily recommend your work. There is nothing better for your word-of-mouth than having a brilliant protege.
Can I have your address? I need to send some people over with some... literature.
Of course, for Libertarian ideals to stand a chance of working, we would need to get rid of government interferences in the free market - such as corporations.
I'm not sure you fix could be considered "easier". :)
I would think that it would create a boon in waste plant worker jobs.
This one is particularly easy to fix - make them pay for upgrades to the plants.
Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
You can still gauge an upper limit to the expense, though. It can't cost more than $3.25 to go 37 miles - $0.09 per mile is the max cost here. The same trip would cost you about $0.13, assuming a gas price of $4/gallon and a sedan getting 30MPG. So even if we assume the worst, it's like driving a car that gets 45MPG.
Like I said, kudos to the Gates Foundation. My mother-in-law worked for an NGO that was funded by them, and they really did a good job. It was a bit bureaucratic, but they really wanted to account for where the money went. A little money can go a long way in Africa, where even basic medical laboratories are not yet common.
I don't want "leaders", I want "public servants". There are occasions when we need leaders, but these tend to be during a crises of some sort. People who fancy themselves to be leaders is what gets us to the state we are in.
What they forgot was that the very existence of a corporation is a privilege granted by government.
They didn't forget that at all - it's stated in the decision.
How about we have neither? Free speech for individuals, and only individuals. A corporate press is simply too dangerous, individuals cannot compete with it. And I include the government in this too, the government as an entity should be making no speech at all, except for legislation and official policy statements. It certainly should not be lobbying its constituents.
This is a totally reasonable standpoint. We could, with an Amendment, make certain that only individuals have a right to free speech. I don't think you'll get much popular support, though - a free press is a very popular thing.
I'm glad it worked for you - even surgery is usually not any more effective than placebo with back pain, so what the hell - you might as well try, right? My mom's chronic back pain went away when she was bucked off of a horse.
That said, if the chiropractor doesn't work - if your back is so damaged that you are talking about narcotic dependence - then it is definitely the lesser of two evils to be physically dependent on opiates.
"It's 1000 kilometers to Estonia. We've got a full charge, half a packet of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses... Hit it."
According to the Citizen's United case, A Corporation now == A Person, right?
Not quite. They found that, since a corporation was just a collection of people, you could not restrict their right to free speech. If you replace "evil lobbyist group" with "New York Times" it begins to make some sense. I think we can probably engineer some way to have both a free corporate press and restricted corporate political speech - but I'm not smart enough to say how.