Yes, a number of times I've written to my Congresspeople decrying one issue or another, and they send back a form letter stating that they support the exact opposite view that I hold. No indication that even a staffer acknowledged that I disagreed with them at all. If I had said I believed the opposite they could have simply sent the exact same letter.
Let me rephrase - they'd build new gated communities that contain all the things they'd need and want, including farms and factories. Then they could hire on a fraction of the remaining people as guards to keep out everybody else.
Or, they could just develop robot soldiers or sentries.
Why complain they will need brains to work those cities and repair the robots, if such drastic measures actualize most of Slashdot will be fine.
Well, generally most people don't want there to be hundreds of thousands of people starving on the streets, even simply for the reasons of self-interest. People facing death have little to fear from the justice system, so mugging you might be a fairly attractive option.
When there are no jobs for simpletons what are you going to do?
Simpletons OR the inexperienced. I mean, why bother with interns when robots take care of all the low level work? Why have entry level jobs when the only jobs are for managers of hordes of robots? When 90% of the population simply becomes unnecessary?
Will the rich simply raise the walls on their gated communities and wait for the rest of us to starve?
Corporations have no right to free speech guaranteed by the Constitution.
Unfortunately, according to the interpretations of the SC that go back several decades, corporations are legally persons, and therefore have the rights of persons. Changing that will take so much doing that by the time we could accomplish this we would probably have already established a reasonable political system.
Corp A wants to buy a few politicians. So, they start buying television air time and airing commercials that support those politicians. You can't stop that without changing the first amendment, opening up a whole other can of worms.
But, even if it were true, all the extra cash would most likely go into a bunch of a-holes pockets who would then use it buy another Mercedes or two. So, what was the point of this research again?
To buy a bunch of a-holes Mercedes. What did YOU think it was for?
It's a mega-store - basically, they sell all kinds of things, including food, clothing, games, gardening stuff, etc. They have fast food restaurants on site, banking facilities, and numerous other departments.
They're also one of the most evil companies in existance.
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
*SPOILER*
Well, he did go back in time where he could have prevented himself from falling into the chamber (preventing him from saving the universe, though).
By "anti-taxes", we mean in favor of cutting taxes even before you've cut spending, thus running up huge deficits (which is not traditionally a conservative trait, but seems to be popular with current Republicans).
This is actually a particularly favorite strategy of arch-conservatives like Grover Norquist, who said -
'"My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years," he says, "to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."'
The "Starve the Beast" strategy. They want to do this to force the destruction of certain government programs, because they would never be able to get rid of them for any reason other than we simply can't afford them anymore (because of giant deficits).
Not true. All they have to do is make sure that nobody's going to bother trying to get their money back, and as long as doing so requires a lawyer, the cost would be far higher than the money you spent on, say, a video game.
Cash transactions at retail stores are called implied contracts. Just because you don't sign anything doesn't mean there isn't a contract. A contract can be entirely verbal - the only problem with verbal contracts are proving what the terms are.
Hey, can you have more than one woman at a time in the game? I don't have the PC version...:0
Yes. Yes you can. You can, in fact, "date" every datable woman in the game at the same time. And you can also go get a prostitute while you're "dating" these other women.
There's a way that parents groups could make sure that no game shop sells a mature game to a child ever again, or really any game.
Legally, a contract involving a minor is voidable by that minor at any time. This is why with things like cars, dealerships require an adult cosigner for any purchase by a minor.
Basically, it means that a child could by a game, take it home and play it, and then return it to get their money back, despite what the companies say. It might require getting a lawyer involved, but it's doable.
The reason why this almost never happens is because for relatively small purchases, the lawyer's bill would cost far more than the amount of money you'd get back. But people spend tons of cash on political issues all the time, so getting the money back would be incidental.
Do this enough times and game stores will stop selling M+ games to minors to avoid the hassle.
The company pays the fines instead of hiring more workers and expanding the plant.
Bullshit.
People don't hire more workers because they have extra cash laying around. They hire more workers because they need them. If they're making any profit at all, then they're not hiring the extra workers because they don't need them.
And I still say we should stop trading with China, a country that is (supposedly) Communist, employs slave labor, executes dissidents, and fully intends to destroy the US.
If there were no government police, people would hire private police.
Yeah, that's what the mafia does.
And a union provides a valuable service to its members - it raises their wages. OSHA does the same - it improves the safety of workers at their jobs. And so on.
It's a detriment to employers who would prefer to use up employees like they use up gasoline, but so are police a detriment to criminals.
Slashdot Mirror
"Hey, baby. Wanna kill all humans?"
Yes, because sodomizing children isn't torture. Sure.
Yes, a number of times I've written to my Congresspeople decrying one issue or another, and they send back a form letter stating that they support the exact opposite view that I hold. No indication that even a staffer acknowledged that I disagreed with them at all. If I had said I believed the opposite they could have simply sent the exact same letter.
Let me rephrase - they'd build new gated communities that contain all the things they'd need and want, including farms and factories. Then they could hire on a fraction of the remaining people as guards to keep out everybody else.
Or, they could just develop robot soldiers or sentries.
Will the rich simply raise the walls on their gated communities and wait for the rest of us to starve?
Indeed. You can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn.
Here's a way around that -
Corp A wants to buy a few politicians. So, they start buying television air time and airing commercials that support those politicians. You can't stop that without changing the first amendment, opening up a whole other can of worms.
It's a mega-store - basically, they sell all kinds of things, including food, clothing, games, gardening stuff, etc. They have fast food restaurants on site, banking facilities, and numerous other departments.
They're also one of the most evil companies in existance.
*SPOILER* *SPOILER* *SPOILER* Well, he did go back in time where he could have prevented himself from falling into the chamber (preventing him from saving the universe, though).
Yes. It's a shame that in politics bickering and name-calling actually work better than reasoned discourse.
Unless, of course, their goal was to show a demo rigged in favor of Windows.
Not true. All they have to do is make sure that nobody's going to bother trying to get their money back, and as long as doing so requires a lawyer, the cost would be far higher than the money you spent on, say, a video game.
Cash transactions at retail stores are called implied contracts. Just because you don't sign anything doesn't mean there isn't a contract. A contract can be entirely verbal - the only problem with verbal contracts are proving what the terms are.
There's a way that parents groups could make sure that no game shop sells a mature game to a child ever again, or really any game.
Legally, a contract involving a minor is voidable by that minor at any time. This is why with things like cars, dealerships require an adult cosigner for any purchase by a minor.
Basically, it means that a child could by a game, take it home and play it, and then return it to get their money back, despite what the companies say. It might require getting a lawyer involved, but it's doable.
The reason why this almost never happens is because for relatively small purchases, the lawyer's bill would cost far more than the amount of money you'd get back. But people spend tons of cash on political issues all the time, so getting the money back would be incidental.
Do this enough times and game stores will stop selling M+ games to minors to avoid the hassle.
People don't hire more workers because they have extra cash laying around. They hire more workers because they need them. If they're making any profit at all, then they're not hiring the extra workers because they don't need them.
And I still say we should stop trading with China, a country that is (supposedly) Communist, employs slave labor, executes dissidents, and fully intends to destroy the US.
And a union provides a valuable service to its members - it raises their wages. OSHA does the same - it improves the safety of workers at their jobs. And so on.
It's a detriment to employers who would prefer to use up employees like they use up gasoline, but so are police a detriment to criminals.
Actually, I think that unused votes in most companies by default go to the board of directors. So control is still very centralized.