Corporations should have rights. To solve for their excess of power, lobbying by corporations should be banished, and replaced. The people at the company should have to use their personal funds and not corporate funds to push their agendas. Those funds should be severely capped.
Thought experiment: You, I, and some of our friends and neighbors decide that we don't like the budding police state that our nation has become. Being good citizens, we elect to start our campaign to change this with the first box of liberty (the soap box). Obviously, we need resources to do this--none of us can afford to take out a full page ad in the New York Times on our salaries--so we're going to have to collect money.
To enable our project, we set up "The Patriot Act Fucking Sucks, Incorporated." PAFSI is the label we're going to use to solicit our funds, how we're going to establish bank accounts to keep the money in, make sure all of the IRS reporting is handled properly, make sure none of the people we appoint to run this operation are robbing us blind, by having yearly audits of our books, and pay the New York Times, the Washington Post, and everyone else we can use to carry our message.
But wait--because "corporations do not have rights" PAFSI has no right to free speech, or a free press, so we cannot give our dirty corporate money to the New York Times to carry our message. Alas! We are thwarted! End of thought experiment.
That's the problem with the position you're taking. While it has a noble aim (I'm making assumptions about your aims, but I'm reasonably certain those assumptions are accurate) it intersects messily with the real world, and is decidedly at odds with the notion of liberty. I do not have solutions to offer to the general problem you're trying to eliminate, and am completely sympathetic to your aims--indeed, we share those. I can only say that "this is not the way to go about solving this problem, because the cure is worse than the disease."
Touche, sir. I had not considered this issue from that particular perspective. Your inspired conversation and appeal to logic have won me over. Truly, you are a master of debate, and all would benefit from learning your ways. Though, really, I can see you're just like the crybullies: anyone who does not share your position isn't worth talking to and should just be shouted down, amiright?
Corporations should NOT be able to toss money around to buy politicians... PERIOD.
Oh, you actually had a point that doesn't involve childish name calling? I'd question why you single out corporations, when the "1%" have the resources to go out and buy their politicians without using corporate money? That said, I do agree politicians should not be for sale. The outright sale of power should have drastic consequences (20-life is a good start) for the so-called public servant who dares to do so. That said, there is an, unfortunately, very fine line between "legitimate lobbying" and "politician buying." I do not believe that attacking the first amendment is the solution to that particular problem (while it may be A solution, it has all sorts of unfortunate side effects).
Which brings me back to my point: I never claimed corporations were or should be people (you brought that up). I never claimed that politicians should be for sale (that, too, was your strawman). I am still waiting to hear your reasoning on why "corporate entities should not enjoy the same rights of the people who compose them" and how you work around the problem that when you go down that rabbit hole, you've eviscerated any semblance of a free press, at the very least.
I'm sure I'll get another non-sequitur, or some other childish name calling response, as your comments thus far have indicated an individual who has poorly developed critical thinking skills and no ability to cogently argue a point, but hey, maybe I'll get lucky and you'll surprise me.
Who said anything about corporations being a person? I sure didn't. You're completely ignoring the point that, in your world, "The New York Times" is not protected by the freedom of the press.
"zOMG! Teh corporations are bads!!!!1111one" may, in fact, be a reasonable position to hold. "So let's gut the bill of rights!" is not a reasonable course of action in light of that position.
Of course all news does not have to be produced by corporations. You've built a strawman there, though, and you've neatly dodged the point I replied to: in your world, "The New York Times" does not enjoy the rights afforded by the freedom of the press. I'd LOVE to hear your thoughts on how this passes constitutional muster (much less the smell test)?
The New York Times is a corporation and shouldn't have rights. Therefore the government should be able to compel them to print only pro-government articles and editorials.
I've made this same argument numerous times when arguing about the "Citizens United" decision. People opposed to the ideas that "corporations" can "have rights" are really throwing out the baby with the bath water. The corporation itself really does not have the rights--it's the people who form that corporation (stakeholders, employees/volunteers, what have you). Arguing "corporations shouldn't have rights" is to argue that people, when acting in concert, lose rights that they have individually.
Just want to say that your presence in some of these threads reminds me a lot of the old days, when Taco et al. would post about what was going on, what they were doing, even comment in stories. It's been sincerely missed, and it's a VERY welcome return.
Thanks for buying this place. It will be nice to have/. actually turn back into the awesome site that it once was. Before the dark times. Before the Empire.
What was there in the Western hemisphere worth having a presence over? And there certainly wasn't a military power over in the New World capable of giving a small Mongolian army a challenge.
The point is immaterial. You can't be a "global" power if you don't even know half the globe exists. If you're going down that rabbit hole, there are more empires you can add to the list (at least Rome, probably the Dutch) and it's starting to become a fairly meaningless definition.
As far as "what was there worth having?" ask the Spanish--they found one or two things worth keeping.
Only if we ignore the Chinese, Mongolians, and English.
I was going to make pretty much the same point. I would also include Spain (and possibly the French, though on the fence there) along with the UK, and I question your inclusion of the Mongolians and the Chinese (while they have had extraordinarily large empires, I would not call them "global" since neither one (as far as I know) had any presence in the western hemisphere). But regardless of the minutiae, the point remains that the US is decidedly NOT the first global power.
I have an LG G4. Not long after I got it, I was in an automobile accident that damaged the screen. The phone was insured from the carrier, but the carrier insisted for no reason I can think of that it should be an issue for my auto insurance policy.
On the plus side, you got a fairly cheap life lesson: never provide more information than necessary. "The screen on my phone is broken" was sufficient to have the phone insurance take care of the problem. "The screen on my phone got broken in a car accident" made it someone else's problem. Pretty much every insurance policy you'll find in almost any area you can buy insurance says something to the effect of "if you have other insurance that covers this, we won't." Since the property was damaged in the accident, your auto insurance would likely have covered the damage, had you submitted that as part of your claim.
Unless those officers are physically at the nuke plant
They are, as required by law--every facility handing nuclear fuel (be it reactor, reprocessing, etc) is required to have a response team. That response team is well armed (they get access to fully automatic weapons) and required to train regularly.
I really really really hope you are wrong. NK isn't free to nuke someone. if they nuke someone the rules are going to die along with a lot of other people. But it will be using conventional weapons.
If the US starts using long range or sub deployed nukes the risk of China panicking are too high. One missile wrongly identified as headed towards a Chinese population centre and we are all dead.
If thousands and thousands of US troops land in NK and Kim et all are executed no other country is going to think it's ok to nuke the US. There is no need to risk Armageddon to make that point.
It has been the policy of the US since there have been nuclear weapons that if you hit us with nuclear weapons we will hit you back with nuclear weapons. It's a reasonable conclusion that, yes, it is extremely likely that our leadership will "risk Armageddon to make that point."
That said, I think it's extremely unlikely that they would get the chance. My money says Beijing nukes Pyongyang before we ever get the chance to, precisely because of the point you just made. It also reinforces the position that China appears to be taking today (with regard to the South China Sea, among other things) that the region is their sphere of influence, thank you very much, and they're perfectly capable of policing it.
Are you from the State of New York? I remember that curriculum, and the books (Integrated Mathematics I, II, and III--the red, blue, and green books) that went along with it. I actually enjoyed that particular path, and thought they were great books--I actually still have copies of them somewhere, and I'm a bit disheartened that you say "used to." On the other hand, I also remember hearing recently that the New York Board of Education is working on seriously devaluing the regents diploma as a means of boosting self esteem, so I guess it is to be expected.
Losing the $20M in sales might actually have been the smart play. Just think of all the crap that Microsoft got when they bought hotmail: "hahahaha windows and exchange suck so much that you run your email service on BSD!" Running your main competitor's products has some serious marketing issues associated with it.
The problem with the above is "vote for $CANDIDATE or I will break your daughter's arm" now has a means for the nefarious party to audit the vote. I'm not a fan of black box voting, but unless and until you can solve the above problem, every "you can verify your own personal vote after the fact" system constitutes an epic fail. If electronic voting cannot be made secure and reliable, we should go back to scantron sheets and punch cards. If you can't make that work (I'm looking at you, Florida) you probably shouldn't be voting, anyway.
Fair enough. The next question is "what is the impact of not producing a second car?" as it offsets the additional miles driven in the single vehicle. Also, since the vehicle is going to drive a more constant (and likely slower) speed, it's likely to be more fuel efficient than if the same vehicle were operated by a human.
A "megadose of deflation" is the Fight Club solution. Sure, in the long term, everything might be better, but you're going to have a REALLY FUCKING PAINFUL short to medium term. Massive deflation means anything bought on credit is suddenly MUCH more expensive.
That's exactly my point, though: what you are calling an irresponsible decision (I say "you" only for the sake of argument, no personal criticism implied) may not actually be one. To suggest that someone who has never been exposed to a similar situation is the only person qualified to judge it is insane. We have military courts for a reason--because military justice and civil justice are two different things with two different aims. Military justice accepts that sometimes "friendly fire" is an acceptable decision. That civilian casualties are an acceptable outcome. That killing someone rather than capturing them is an acceptable response.
It's horrible. It's disturbing. It's something that I hope to never, personally, have to deal with. It's also sometimes necessary, because it's a fucking war, and people die, and no matter how smart the weapon, and how precise the targeting, shit happens.
Somebody who was NOT there has to decide what "could be avoided" means, because merely being there must inevitably compromise your judgement.
Somebody who was NOT there has the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and history shows they will crucify the poor son of a bitch who was in the bad situation at the time, ignoring that sometimes you do NOT have the luxury of deep thought. Things like Abu Ghraib can be judged by anyone--there was no element of "you need to do this immediately or you and your friends will die." When it comes to "why did you shoot at that house full of civilians?" the issue is a LOT more complicated.
Discounting someone's judgement "because they were there" is inexcusable. Doing so on the topic in question ("Your weapon doesn't work properly because you're a murdering bastard and this is a safety feature to keep you from murdering more people") does, indeed, merit the response "Go fuck yourself."
Would people be okay with the idea of Exxon helping to design AP Environmental Science curriculum?
No, because they have a vested interest obfuscating the issue, and a history of doing so in the past. Designing a curriculum in geology, or mineral extraction? Why not, they probably have quite a bit to offer, here.
Should criminal justice coursework be overseen by Smith and Wesson?
No, because they're a manufacturer of precision machined products, and have no core competency in law. I'm sure, though,they their engineers and machinists would do a hell of a job in educating those on the vo/tech side of the high school educational path.
Should Microsoft be able to contribute to CSCI educational coursework? (I'm putting words in your mouth, for the sake of argument)
Yes, yes, they should. Apple, Google, Cisco, HP or whatever they're calling themselves these days, etc, yes, they can absolutely play an important role, here.
Corporate sponsors don't belong in these roles
Now we come to the crux of the issue. Despite my statements above, the idea that Microsoft should be interesting themselves in the AP process to the point where they must be included on all correspondence is absolutely ridiculous and should NOT be allowed. "Giving back" by devoting some of the talent an experience these companies have at their disposal? Yes, absolutely. Being part of the "process?" Fuck no.
If you said that aloud, it would probably be, based on your tone and body language, clearly sarcasm. When it's in written form, though, you are mistaken--it is NOT clear. If, for example, this was being said by Rush Limbaugh, it would obviously be a tongue-in-cheek reference to Trump, but otherwise straight communication.
Speaking as someone who overuses sarcasm, I've found that no matter how clear *I* think I am being, others do not always see it that way.
I agree with this completely. That said, the OP I was responding to claimed that HSR was efficient in Europe because everything is close together. That's simply not true--more distance = more gain with HSR. Less distance = inefficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
Corporations should have rights. To solve for their excess of power, lobbying by corporations should be banished, and replaced. The people at the company should have to use their personal funds and not corporate funds to push their agendas. Those funds should be severely capped.
Thought experiment: You, I, and some of our friends and neighbors decide that we don't like the budding police state that our nation has become. Being good citizens, we elect to start our campaign to change this with the first box of liberty (the soap box). Obviously, we need resources to do this--none of us can afford to take out a full page ad in the New York Times on our salaries--so we're going to have to collect money.
To enable our project, we set up "The Patriot Act Fucking Sucks, Incorporated." PAFSI is the label we're going to use to solicit our funds, how we're going to establish bank accounts to keep the money in, make sure all of the IRS reporting is handled properly, make sure none of the people we appoint to run this operation are robbing us blind, by having yearly audits of our books, and pay the New York Times, the Washington Post, and everyone else we can use to carry our message.
But wait--because "corporations do not have rights" PAFSI has no right to free speech, or a free press, so we cannot give our dirty corporate money to the New York Times to carry our message. Alas! We are thwarted! End of thought experiment.
That's the problem with the position you're taking. While it has a noble aim (I'm making assumptions about your aims, but I'm reasonably certain those assumptions are accurate) it intersects messily with the real world, and is decidedly at odds with the notion of liberty. I do not have solutions to offer to the general problem you're trying to eliminate, and am completely sympathetic to your aims--indeed, we share those. I can only say that "this is not the way to go about solving this problem, because the cure is worse than the disease."
No, you're just a dumb ass.
Touche, sir. I had not considered this issue from that particular perspective. Your inspired conversation and appeal to logic have won me over. Truly, you are a master of debate, and all would benefit from learning your ways. Though, really, I can see you're just like the crybullies: anyone who does not share your position isn't worth talking to and should just be shouted down, amiright?
Corporations should NOT be able to toss money around to buy politicians... PERIOD.
Oh, you actually had a point that doesn't involve childish name calling? I'd question why you single out corporations, when the "1%" have the resources to go out and buy their politicians without using corporate money? That said, I do agree politicians should not be for sale. The outright sale of power should have drastic consequences (20-life is a good start) for the so-called public servant who dares to do so. That said, there is an, unfortunately, very fine line between "legitimate lobbying" and "politician buying." I do not believe that attacking the first amendment is the solution to that particular problem (while it may be A solution, it has all sorts of unfortunate side effects).
Which brings me back to my point: I never claimed corporations were or should be people (you brought that up). I never claimed that politicians should be for sale (that, too, was your strawman). I am still waiting to hear your reasoning on why "corporate entities should not enjoy the same rights of the people who compose them" and how you work around the problem that when you go down that rabbit hole, you've eviscerated any semblance of a free press, at the very least.
I'm sure I'll get another non-sequitur, or some other childish name calling response, as your comments thus far have indicated an individual who has poorly developed critical thinking skills and no ability to cogently argue a point, but hey, maybe I'll get lucky and you'll surprise me.
Who said anything about corporations being a person? I sure didn't. You're completely ignoring the point that, in your world, "The New York Times" is not protected by the freedom of the press.
"zOMG! Teh corporations are bads!!!!1111one" may, in fact, be a reasonable position to hold. "So let's gut the bill of rights!" is not a reasonable course of action in light of that position.
Of course all news does not have to be produced by corporations. You've built a strawman there, though, and you've neatly dodged the point I replied to: in your world, "The New York Times" does not enjoy the rights afforded by the freedom of the press. I'd LOVE to hear your thoughts on how this passes constitutional muster (much less the smell test)?
Apple is a corporation and shouldn't have rights.
The New York Times is a corporation and shouldn't have rights. Therefore the government should be able to compel them to print only pro-government articles and editorials.
I've made this same argument numerous times when arguing about the "Citizens United" decision. People opposed to the ideas that "corporations" can "have rights" are really throwing out the baby with the bath water. The corporation itself really does not have the rights--it's the people who form that corporation (stakeholders, employees/volunteers, what have you). Arguing "corporations shouldn't have rights" is to argue that people, when acting in concert, lose rights that they have individually.
I cannot support that notion.
Just want to say that your presence in some of these threads reminds me a lot of the old days, when Taco et al. would post about what was going on, what they were doing, even comment in stories. It's been sincerely missed, and it's a VERY welcome return.
Thanks for buying this place. It will be nice to have /. actually turn back into the awesome site that it once was. Before the dark times. Before the Empire.
What was there in the Western hemisphere worth having a presence over? And there certainly wasn't a military power over in the New World capable of giving a small Mongolian army a challenge.
The point is immaterial. You can't be a "global" power if you don't even know half the globe exists. If you're going down that rabbit hole, there are more empires you can add to the list (at least Rome, probably the Dutch) and it's starting to become a fairly meaningless definition.
As far as "what was there worth having?" ask the Spanish--they found one or two things worth keeping.
the first truly global power
Only if we ignore the Chinese, Mongolians, and English.
I was going to make pretty much the same point. I would also include Spain (and possibly the French, though on the fence there) along with the UK, and I question your inclusion of the Mongolians and the Chinese (while they have had extraordinarily large empires, I would not call them "global" since neither one (as far as I know) had any presence in the western hemisphere). But regardless of the minutiae, the point remains that the US is decidedly NOT the first global power.
I have an LG G4. Not long after I got it, I was in an automobile accident that damaged the screen. The phone was insured from the carrier, but the carrier insisted for no reason I can think of that it should be an issue for my auto insurance policy.
On the plus side, you got a fairly cheap life lesson: never provide more information than necessary. "The screen on my phone is broken" was sufficient to have the phone insurance take care of the problem. "The screen on my phone got broken in a car accident" made it someone else's problem. Pretty much every insurance policy you'll find in almost any area you can buy insurance says something to the effect of "if you have other insurance that covers this, we won't." Since the property was damaged in the accident, your auto insurance would likely have covered the damage, had you submitted that as part of your claim.
Unless those officers are physically at the nuke plant
They are, as required by law--every facility handing nuclear fuel (be it reactor, reprocessing, etc) is required to have a response team. That response team is well armed (they get access to fully automatic weapons) and required to train regularly.
I really really really hope you are wrong. NK isn't free to nuke someone. if they nuke someone the rules are going to die along with a lot of other people. But it will be using conventional weapons.
If the US starts using long range or sub deployed nukes the risk of China panicking are too high. One missile wrongly identified as headed towards a Chinese population centre and we are all dead.
If thousands and thousands of US troops land in NK and Kim et all are executed no other country is going to think it's ok to nuke the US. There is no need to risk Armageddon to make that point.
It has been the policy of the US since there have been nuclear weapons that if you hit us with nuclear weapons we will hit you back with nuclear weapons. It's a reasonable conclusion that, yes, it is extremely likely that our leadership will "risk Armageddon to make that point."
That said, I think it's extremely unlikely that they would get the chance. My money says Beijing nukes Pyongyang before we ever get the chance to, precisely because of the point you just made. It also reinforces the position that China appears to be taking today (with regard to the South China Sea, among other things) that the region is their sphere of influence, thank you very much, and they're perfectly capable of policing it.
Are you from the State of New York? I remember that curriculum, and the books (Integrated Mathematics I, II, and III--the red, blue, and green books) that went along with it. I actually enjoyed that particular path, and thought they were great books--I actually still have copies of them somewhere, and I'm a bit disheartened that you say "used to." On the other hand, I also remember hearing recently that the New York Board of Education is working on seriously devaluing the regents diploma as a means of boosting self esteem, so I guess it is to be expected.
Losing the $20M in sales might actually have been the smart play. Just think of all the crap that Microsoft got when they bought hotmail: "hahahaha windows and exchange suck so much that you run your email service on BSD!" Running your main competitor's products has some serious marketing issues associated with it.
Give everyone a hash when they register to vote.
The problem with the above is "vote for $CANDIDATE or I will break your daughter's arm" now has a means for the nefarious party to audit the vote. I'm not a fan of black box voting, but unless and until you can solve the above problem, every "you can verify your own personal vote after the fact" system constitutes an epic fail. If electronic voting cannot be made secure and reliable, we should go back to scantron sheets and punch cards. If you can't make that work (I'm looking at you, Florida) you probably shouldn't be voting, anyway.
Referring to the US as "America" is pretty much accepted by everyone other than pedants and people with an axe to grind .
FTFY.
What Nikwe said. If the fire alarms going off for no reason is causing lost productivity, maybe they should fix the fire alarm.
Management was furious that we abandoned our posts and wanted to know who called for an evacuation.
Management can go fuck themselves, and should be in prison. Conditioning people to NOT act in the event of a fire alarm is morally bankrupt.
Fair enough. The next question is "what is the impact of not producing a second car?" as it offsets the additional miles driven in the single vehicle. Also, since the vehicle is going to drive a more constant (and likely slower) speed, it's likely to be more fuel efficient than if the same vehicle were operated by a human.
A "megadose of deflation" is the Fight Club solution. Sure, in the long term, everything might be better, but you're going to have a REALLY FUCKING PAINFUL short to medium term. Massive deflation means anything bought on credit is suddenly MUCH more expensive.
You're destroying the village to save it.
That's exactly my point, though: what you are calling an irresponsible decision (I say "you" only for the sake of argument, no personal criticism implied) may not actually be one. To suggest that someone who has never been exposed to a similar situation is the only person qualified to judge it is insane. We have military courts for a reason--because military justice and civil justice are two different things with two different aims. Military justice accepts that sometimes "friendly fire" is an acceptable decision. That civilian casualties are an acceptable outcome. That killing someone rather than capturing them is an acceptable response.
It's horrible. It's disturbing. It's something that I hope to never, personally, have to deal with. It's also sometimes necessary, because it's a fucking war, and people die, and no matter how smart the weapon, and how precise the targeting, shit happens.
.
I don't know if I've ever seen concrete evidence of the powder being intentionally changed to sabotage it or not.
Powder was not changed to intentionally sabotage. It's actually worse than that--congress mandated the change for Pork reasons.
Somebody who was NOT there has to decide what "could be avoided" means, because merely being there must inevitably compromise your judgement.
Somebody who was NOT there has the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and history shows they will crucify the poor son of a bitch who was in the bad situation at the time, ignoring that sometimes you do NOT have the luxury of deep thought. Things like Abu Ghraib can be judged by anyone--there was no element of "you need to do this immediately or you and your friends will die." When it comes to "why did you shoot at that house full of civilians?" the issue is a LOT more complicated.
Discounting someone's judgement "because they were there" is inexcusable. Doing so on the topic in question ("Your weapon doesn't work properly because you're a murdering bastard and this is a safety feature to keep you from murdering more people") does, indeed, merit the response "Go fuck yourself."
Would people be okay with the idea of Exxon helping to design AP Environmental Science curriculum?
No, because they have a vested interest obfuscating the issue, and a history of doing so in the past. Designing a curriculum in geology, or mineral extraction? Why not, they probably have quite a bit to offer, here.
Should criminal justice coursework be overseen by Smith and Wesson?
No, because they're a manufacturer of precision machined products, and have no core competency in law. I'm sure, though,they their engineers and machinists would do a hell of a job in educating those on the vo/tech side of the high school educational path.
Should Microsoft be able to contribute to CSCI educational coursework? (I'm putting words in your mouth, for the sake of argument)
Yes, yes, they should. Apple, Google, Cisco, HP or whatever they're calling themselves these days, etc, yes, they can absolutely play an important role, here.
Corporate sponsors don't belong in these roles
Now we come to the crux of the issue. Despite my statements above, the idea that Microsoft should be interesting themselves in the AP process to the point where they must be included on all correspondence is absolutely ridiculous and should NOT be allowed. "Giving back" by devoting some of the talent an experience these companies have at their disposal? Yes, absolutely. Being part of the "process?" Fuck no.
If you said that aloud, it would probably be, based on your tone and body language, clearly sarcasm. When it's in written form, though, you are mistaken--it is NOT clear. If, for example, this was being said by Rush Limbaugh, it would obviously be a tongue-in-cheek reference to Trump, but otherwise straight communication.
Speaking as someone who overuses sarcasm, I've found that no matter how clear *I* think I am being, others do not always see it that way.
I agree with this completely. That said, the OP I was responding to claimed that HSR was efficient in Europe because everything is close together. That's simply not true--more distance = more gain with HSR. Less distance = inefficiency.