There is a line about diet that says something about how the PH of your body can affect cancer cell growth or something like that. I guess the more acidic it is, the easier it is for the cancer to grow and spread. No one says it will cure cancer, but they seem to claim it will slow it's progress and prevent it in most cases.
However, I heard it from some radio doctor who pushes alternative treatments so I don't know how much value I would place in it. Seems to me if this was true more then a couple anecdotal incidents it might be a common practice. I know Jane Fonda attempted to treat her ass cancer with diet. My brother nad a friend of ours swears up and down that our friend's grandmother was dieing from cancer and our friend gave her some hash because the pain pills were making her nauseous and she perked up and lived somewhat well for about a year and six months longer then the doctors said she should (wasn't bed ridden either where before she was). They claim that she ran out and didn't tell anybody to get more and died about 3 weeks later. I don't think the hashish fixed her cancer or helped her outside of maybe dealing with pain in a seemingly less toxic way though. But none of us are doctors. I do know that when my back was blown out, the Vicodin and Morphine would get me that way sometimes when I would take too much. Taking a couple one-hits masked the pain enough to tolerate it but didn't have the side effects of the other drugs.
That's the traditional definition but recently Biden decided that âoebullets designed to inflict maximum damage.â are cop killer bullets in the recent gun control pushes so it is no wonder why people are confused.
All they should have to do is paint the blades a color that significantly contrasts the background and place a few streamers on the tips. The spinning blades will appear as a wall when moving fast and a predator when moving slow. Perhaps stripes could make the slow moving blades appear to be more of a threat.
Eagles are off the endangered species lists now. But they are still protected under the migratory bird treaty or something like that.
So your solution is to point out that not everyone is the ideal person and they should uproot their entire lives, leave their friends and families behind and live somewhere else?
I mean that is so Hitler of you. You might as well go the extra mile and suggest he be sent to the t4 and be put out of his misery while you are at it.
I simply do not understand the Naziism in some of you people. You are seriously worse then those jingoist who say if you don't like it, get out of the country as if like it or leave it is the only option. Instead, you say you aren't as worthy as the rest and you need to torture yourself or leave because you are defective.
That all depends on what type of war they intend to fight in Iran. The one described is not the same that was fought in Afghanistan so your comparison is moot.
We have not fought a war of annihilation like WWII since then. Every war we have been involved with has always attempted to preserve resources for future use by factions within the waring country. That's a lot different then trying to conquer a nation. When you are willing to go Sherman on them and burn a trail to their capitol or bomb every single factory or annihilate entire cities, your efforts find a lot more victories then trying to distinguish between good and bad guys dressed similarly and in an area you are wanting to protect.
Even Germany who fought parts of the European war the same as we are fighting in Afghanistan, had troubles with resistance pockets except they didn't really care about killing innocents.
The FBI is a police organisation, not a spy organisation (though catching spies is also part of their duties). So everything you said about spying is not relevant in this context.
You are right. I took the context of how they solved the issue to be part of the bigger picture of government spying though.
You have a point in that they first needed to find out what country the person of interest was in. When they found out it was Iran, it should have become the responsibility of Iranian police.
According to the article, all they have done so far is generally locate the person by installing the software. It is yet to be seen if anything else, including cooperation with Iranian authorities, would happen. So I guess arguing that would be pointless on my part.
It is possible (IANAL) that the FBI violated Iranian laws by installing spyware on someone elses computer in Iran. (They didn't have a warrant from an Iranian judge.) Would the USA be willing to deliver those responsible, or would they rather harbour criminals within their borders and make war "a necessity"?
I doubt the US would ever hand someone over for doing something under color of law or as an official state action. Wars will be fought if it happens just like those European courts who indicted Bush and Cheney knew that it was all symbolic and the governments would never arrest them when they showed up for state visits because the US would respond militarily if they did. As a matter of fact, even if the current president didn't respond that way, I'm pretty sure one will be elected on the promise to do so.
As for calling the FBI criminals, I don't think that could technically be possible unless Yahoo has a server located somewhere in Iran and he logged into that server. But it would be just as ridiculous to imagine a law banning the installation of spyware being carried into extraterritorial matters of law as Iran simply does not have that stretch of influence. I know it sounds like a matter of double standard and it is, but the influence you have determines a lot about what local laws can be enforced outside your country. And to that matter, even the US laws being enforced in other countries are largely parts of treaties like copyright and trade treaties with the exception that I know of with the computer tresspass law enforce on that kid in England. There they took the concept of the person logging into US government computers as if he traveled to the US which would be the concept carried about logging into a yahoo server outside of Iran.
So I don't think they could be called criminals and if war is a necessity, it will be because of crazy leaders in Iran more then anything else. Installing software that exposes the location of a computer used in violation of a country's laws should not be an act of war under any sane interpretation of any country's sovereignty.
It is not exactly the same. The difference is between something like that happening and being able to make it happen or encourage it to happen. I don't know of any christian groups that think they can do anything to make it happen where the 13th Imam groups believe if there is enough chaos in the world, it will force it to happen and by creating the chaos they can aid in it.
Outside that, yes, it is very close.. But this shouldn't surprise anyone. Islam is more or less a contrived version of Judaism or the correct version depending on the beliefs of who you talk to. Christianity is more or less an extension to Judaism revolving around a new covenant that was prophesied by the Judaism portions of the bible (which is mainly why the old testament is included- Jesus was a Jew). So it shouldn't surprise many if the culmination of the three have similar but different concepts. Even if those differences and similarities are expounded by differing sects within each religion.
I'm not sure I have ever seen Americans trying to force the second coming of Christ. Could you provide some examples? I do know there are some who think the chaos in the world is signs of the tribulations and will end with the second coming and they welcome that but none that I know of who take the position that they can make it happen.
You see, one would be ancillary to the other as in if it happens, I will be happy. The other seems to think they can make it happen and they will be happy. A big difference just like the difference between wishing someone was dead or harmed so you will be happy and then being happy when they drive drunk and wrap themselves around a telephone pole and you actually killing them or harming them so you will be happy.
But yes, it is a strange concept of Jesus coming to aid a Muslim if you take the Christian religion into account.
They do to some extent. However, which exact country should the government work with when they do not know the exact location or country of the foreign person under investigation?
As for spying on foreigners, most of the spying is done on countries that are enemies, potential enemies and those in positions to aid them. While it is true that some spying happens on allied countries, is it better to find out you are being betrayed by an ally before or after they betray you? Working with those countries would sort of defeat the purpose of spying on them wouldn't it?
There are some things that a Utopian world simply cannot support. We don't live in a utopian world and allies do betray enemies and enemies do attack allies. Criminals who operate with impunity in other countries and commit crimes against your country exist in real life. Do you think Iran would have found this person and handed them over to the US or any other country? We went to war in Afghanistan because they gave Al Qeada safe harbor after 9/11 and refused to allow the US to go after them or pursue them on our behalf. If this was the utopian world you suggest with everyone working together and following the laws of all other nations, war wouldn't have been a necessity, neither would 9/11 either but sadly, we do not have a world like that so we do what works or appears will work to the best of our abilities.
You may call that uncivilized, it might be, in reality too. But the alternative currently in available is far worse from many perspectives. It is simply the reality we live in. The large difference is that doing it to other countries and their people means we have no power over them so it cannot be immediately abused without a potential for a greater conflict. That's a big difference from doing it to your own people.
If the value of it, offset by the amount of insurance paying out is more then the adjudicated values of the lives, then yes it is.
They do not value lives by the wealth of some entity connected to the death of it. If that was the case, then someone murdered by a homeless man would be worthless where a homeless man hit by a rich bitch in their Bentley would be worth loads more. The courts, law, and legal apparatus determines the value of the lost life through a variety of means including people left behind and their conditions without that person and assess it against the corporations through the course of law. If the corporation has enough funds through insurance and assets, then their assets could be worth more. If they do not, then they will not be worth more.
If the courts say each and every person's life was worth 1 million dollars which most are not (legally), then 300 people dieing is only 300 million dollars which is generally not more then the assets of a multinational corporation. Of course there will be penalties by law and other costs associated with it and if the accidents are not intentional or due to deliberate disregard to safety regulations, then insurance will kick in and cover portions of that also.
If you closed down every corporation and take all their wealth and assets, you will end up with way more people being negatively effected by unemployment and the lack of products at reasonable prices then were effected by the deaths. That is not to say corporations should not pay, but unless they are consistently having accidents and killing people, 10 times what they would ever earn in a life time or whatever mode they use to determine the value in court should be sufficiently capable of compensating for the loss.
No, the article and summery make it clear the errors they are talking about are introduced by the website. Read the entire sentence being used to discover the meaning of what is being said.
Perhaps we are seeing a domestic LEA heading being used for a much larger apparatus though. I mean if the FBI contracted with private entities, it still would be considered the FBI doing it. So if the FBI said to the NSA or CIA, we have this domestic issue but it appears to be originating from overseas and the NSA steps in to do the dirty work, it could still be claimed that the FBI did it just like if they contracted with some private company.
But as it appears, we wouldn't know if there was any inter-agency cooperation happening like that from the wordings available and it does appear as if they FBI duplicated the efforts of the NSA and other signtel efforts. If nothing else, a total and complete waste of resources and efforts and a situation that could allow another 9/11 or Boston bombing to happen when different 3 letter agencies do not communicate and share information like this. I would think someone making direct threats would be cause for the cooperation to be unquestioned.
You don't need a warrant for people in other countries. US law only covers US persons and foreign persons on US soil/territory. FISA is generally what covers foreigners and to that extent, only when US persons are involved needs a warrant.
You are so close then lose it fabulously in your emotional rants. I'm sort of wondering if you are actually arguing for the sake of arguing or buffaloed into believing what you say to miss your obvious contradictions.
You see, what you said is somewhat true, the people who run the corporations are the people being evil and not caring. Those people are facing the death penalty when you can prove their guilt. One of the problems is that you often cannot prove guilt that high up but make no mistake, people do go to prison and face the death penalty when they are responsible for someone's death while working at a corporation. As for the death penalty, well, that depends on the law itself. You do not automatically face the death penalty for killing someone and you do not automatically face prison time either. The facts surrounding each death come into play like motivation, mens rea or state of the mind, circumstances surrounding the death like was it an automobile accident or shooting, was it in response to being attacked or a robbery. The lists go on. Now negligence which is what most people working for corporations actualy do is a lot less of a penalty.
As for the corporates assets, they already do get liquidated, and given to it's victims when the amount of vicarious liability is larger then their worth. The problem you have is that a lot of times the value of the corporation is much larger then the value of the claims against them which is why they survive. The value of the claims are often guided by law but generally set by people just like you who sat on juries and made awards.
For those who don't know, the 13-Imam nut-cases believe in sort of a second coming of Christ type event when the world is embroiled in conflict and chaos that will destroy all infidels and bring the world back in line with Islam to create a paradise on earth situation. The scary part we should note is that some of these people think if they help the world go into chaos, it will hasten the return or appearance sort of like forcing the second coming of Jesus.
An no, you do not have to believe in any God or religion to be concerned about this. If they are wrong but have their way, the results will be the same, war and conflicts all around.
Why do you automatically expect that if somebody posts a reply to your comment which attempts to run counter to it they're directly attacking you and your argument?
There, fixed that for you.
Are you attempting to say that your comment was not in reply to mine and that you were just spouting musing randomly or something? Or are you suggesting that what you said somehow supported what I said?
when the corporation is used as a person, it is only done in reference to it's own behalf separated from non-controlling owners in compliance with its fiduciary responsibility. If it wasn't, any contract made would have the same effect as you making a contract with your lawnmower in that if it doesn't start, you cannot take legal action to make it start. Therefore, it has to be considered it's own person for a set of interactions normally present in commerce.
A corporation is not capable of good and evil, capable of saving a life, or taking a life. It is however capable of being obligated to contracts, following laws, rules, and regulation, and being held accountable vicariously when it fails to do so. A corporation is a tool that separates owners and investors/owners from actions they do not participate in which is essential for investing.
It cannot be a person, not now, not ever
The law has, always did, and always will allow it to be a person. You arguing it isn't just means you are either confused or willfully ignoring that.
An estimated one in four user applications sent from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' HealthCare.gov to insurance providers have errors introduced by the website,
Introduced by the website seems to imply they are because of the website. Both the article and summery say that.
Now from what I have been told, you don't fill out specific forms. You enter specific information into the website and it fills the forms out for you based on the plans you pick. It is supposed to stop you from filling forms out incorrectly or getting confused on wording and so on. It also allows you to do direct comparisons without having to fill 20 forms out for 10 different providers offering 2 plans each.
It's my understanding that this is happening with no user error at all. It's as if they load all the information into a database then when you select a plan, it retrieves the information and places what it thinks it needs on the forms it thinks it needs and that is where the errors are occurring. So it would actually be the website's problem as it attempts to collect the information and place it into the application forms as needed and failing there.
While it is true that corporations act in their own interests, they simply cannot act without someone actually acting. Even if it is run by computers, someone has to direct them to respond in specific ways. The entire idea of a corporation being a person is that it needs to be an entity separate from the owners who take no control in it's operations.
This is why referring to a corporation as an entity is proper in some respects but when it violates a law, it is actually those inside it that violate the law. No corporation can exist if it's policy is to violate the law or to cause a person's death (unless you are some kind of mercenary or something). If a corporation does something and people die, it is people inside the corporation that did something and people died. Sometimes nothing happens and a defect causes the death (like a weld in a tank corroding away due to some unseen and unknown impurities in the welding rod and the resulting rupture releases poison into the air) and that would be a lot like a tree falling and killing people. You certainly can't put nature in jail nor could we sue God and get payment. There are remedies if the home owner knew the tree was about to fall and didn't take steps but that is more of an example of someone choosing to act or not act in a certain way.
The FDA endorses false and misleading information all the time. For instance, look at their line on smoking in which they claim or support others making claims about the number of people with lung cancer who smoked showing you have a high risk of getting it if you do. They almost say it is a certainty that if you smoke or even be around people who smoke, you will get cancer and die. But the facts are that fewer then 10% of life long smokers will get lung cancer and to that, cancer deaths from smoking only make up 30% of all deaths from cancer (which is why it probably isn't outright banned). But when you look solely at lung cancer deaths, 87% smoked which gets turned into the you will get cancer and die claim.
Corporate creates something- the CEO files the patent or copyright or leases it from the real person exclusively with all rights until the end of the person's term.
You see, nothing different would come from having two separate spans. Keep them relatively equal and somewhat moderate in term length and things should get a lot better.
You seem to think a corporation is a sentient being or something. The fact of the matter is that a corporation cannot and will not act on anything unless someone at the wheel makes it do so. This person and these people are the ones who bear most of the responsibilities, criminal and civil liabilities, and so on. And as such, the liabilities are only to the point that it can be proven they acted wrongly or in some way that exposed their liabilities. The corporation is also liable vicariously to some extend and in some situations, statutorily in others.
A corporation is nothing but a took to protect you from liabilities for the actions of others. Those others and their actions are still completely answerable just as you might be- especially if it is a board member or anything other management or officer in the company. If you have proof they are behind something, then they can be held to answer for it.
But they didn't imprison the German Americans or the Italian Americans. So maybe, just maybe, there was something about the Japanese Americans and Japanese born legal residents that the armed forces saw differently. Just maybe there was something different about the US back then. "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership" comes to mind but I'm not sure how loudly it gets said when it is talking about FDR.
And that is not to mention that Japanese Americans were in the armed forces during the same time period too.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a line about diet that says something about how the PH of your body can affect cancer cell growth or something like that. I guess the more acidic it is, the easier it is for the cancer to grow and spread. No one says it will cure cancer, but they seem to claim it will slow it's progress and prevent it in most cases.
However, I heard it from some radio doctor who pushes alternative treatments so I don't know how much value I would place in it. Seems to me if this was true more then a couple anecdotal incidents it might be a common practice. I know Jane Fonda attempted to treat her ass cancer with diet. My brother nad a friend of ours swears up and down that our friend's grandmother was dieing from cancer and our friend gave her some hash because the pain pills were making her nauseous and she perked up and lived somewhat well for about a year and six months longer then the doctors said she should (wasn't bed ridden either where before she was). They claim that she ran out and didn't tell anybody to get more and died about 3 weeks later. I don't think the hashish fixed her cancer or helped her outside of maybe dealing with pain in a seemingly less toxic way though. But none of us are doctors. I do know that when my back was blown out, the Vicodin and Morphine would get me that way sometimes when I would take too much. Taking a couple one-hits masked the pain enough to tolerate it but didn't have the side effects of the other drugs.
That's the traditional definition but recently Biden decided that âoebullets designed to inflict maximum damage.â are cop killer bullets in the recent gun control pushes so it is no wonder why people are confused.
All they should have to do is paint the blades a color that significantly contrasts the background and place a few streamers on the tips. The spinning blades will appear as a wall when moving fast and a predator when moving slow. Perhaps stripes could make the slow moving blades appear to be more of a threat.
Eagles are off the endangered species lists now. But they are still protected under the migratory bird treaty or something like that.
So your solution is to point out that not everyone is the ideal person and they should uproot their entire lives, leave their friends and families behind and live somewhere else?
I mean that is so Hitler of you. You might as well go the extra mile and suggest he be sent to the t4 and be put out of his misery while you are at it.
I simply do not understand the Naziism in some of you people. You are seriously worse then those jingoist who say if you don't like it, get out of the country as if like it or leave it is the only option. Instead, you say you aren't as worthy as the rest and you need to torture yourself or leave because you are defective.
That all depends on what type of war they intend to fight in Iran. The one described is not the same that was fought in Afghanistan so your comparison is moot.
We have not fought a war of annihilation like WWII since then. Every war we have been involved with has always attempted to preserve resources for future use by factions within the waring country. That's a lot different then trying to conquer a nation. When you are willing to go Sherman on them and burn a trail to their capitol or bomb every single factory or annihilate entire cities, your efforts find a lot more victories then trying to distinguish between good and bad guys dressed similarly and in an area you are wanting to protect.
Even Germany who fought parts of the European war the same as we are fighting in Afghanistan, had troubles with resistance pockets except they didn't really care about killing innocents.
You are right. I took the context of how they solved the issue to be part of the bigger picture of government spying though.
According to the article, all they have done so far is generally locate the person by installing the software. It is yet to be seen if anything else, including cooperation with Iranian authorities, would happen. So I guess arguing that would be pointless on my part.
I doubt the US would ever hand someone over for doing something under color of law or as an official state action. Wars will be fought if it happens just like those European courts who indicted Bush and Cheney knew that it was all symbolic and the governments would never arrest them when they showed up for state visits because the US would respond militarily if they did. As a matter of fact, even if the current president didn't respond that way, I'm pretty sure one will be elected on the promise to do so.
As for calling the FBI criminals, I don't think that could technically be possible unless Yahoo has a server located somewhere in Iran and he logged into that server. But it would be just as ridiculous to imagine a law banning the installation of spyware being carried into extraterritorial matters of law as Iran simply does not have that stretch of influence. I know it sounds like a matter of double standard and it is, but the influence you have determines a lot about what local laws can be enforced outside your country. And to that matter, even the US laws being enforced in other countries are largely parts of treaties like copyright and trade treaties with the exception that I know of with the computer tresspass law enforce on that kid in England. There they took the concept of the person logging into US government computers as if he traveled to the US which would be the concept carried about logging into a yahoo server outside of Iran.
So I don't think they could be called criminals and if war is a necessity, it will be because of crazy leaders in Iran more then anything else. Installing software that exposes the location of a computer used in violation of a country's laws should not be an act of war under any sane interpretation of any country's sovereignty.
It is not exactly the same. The difference is between something like that happening and being able to make it happen or encourage it to happen. I don't know of any christian groups that think they can do anything to make it happen where the 13th Imam groups believe if there is enough chaos in the world, it will force it to happen and by creating the chaos they can aid in it.
Outside that, yes, it is very close.. But this shouldn't surprise anyone. Islam is more or less a contrived version of Judaism or the correct version depending on the beliefs of who you talk to. Christianity is more or less an extension to Judaism revolving around a new covenant that was prophesied by the Judaism portions of the bible (which is mainly why the old testament is included- Jesus was a Jew). So it shouldn't surprise many if the culmination of the three have similar but different concepts. Even if those differences and similarities are expounded by differing sects within each religion.
I'm not sure I have ever seen Americans trying to force the second coming of Christ. Could you provide some examples? I do know there are some who think the chaos in the world is signs of the tribulations and will end with the second coming and they welcome that but none that I know of who take the position that they can make it happen.
You see, one would be ancillary to the other as in if it happens, I will be happy. The other seems to think they can make it happen and they will be happy. A big difference just like the difference between wishing someone was dead or harmed so you will be happy and then being happy when they drive drunk and wrap themselves around a telephone pole and you actually killing them or harming them so you will be happy.
But yes, it is a strange concept of Jesus coming to aid a Muslim if you take the Christian religion into account.
They do to some extent. However, which exact country should the government work with when they do not know the exact location or country of the foreign person under investigation?
As for spying on foreigners, most of the spying is done on countries that are enemies, potential enemies and those in positions to aid them. While it is true that some spying happens on allied countries, is it better to find out you are being betrayed by an ally before or after they betray you? Working with those countries would sort of defeat the purpose of spying on them wouldn't it?
There are some things that a Utopian world simply cannot support. We don't live in a utopian world and allies do betray enemies and enemies do attack allies. Criminals who operate with impunity in other countries and commit crimes against your country exist in real life. Do you think Iran would have found this person and handed them over to the US or any other country? We went to war in Afghanistan because they gave Al Qeada safe harbor after 9/11 and refused to allow the US to go after them or pursue them on our behalf. If this was the utopian world you suggest with everyone working together and following the laws of all other nations, war wouldn't have been a necessity, neither would 9/11 either but sadly, we do not have a world like that so we do what works or appears will work to the best of our abilities.
You may call that uncivilized, it might be, in reality too. But the alternative currently in available is far worse from many perspectives. It is simply the reality we live in. The large difference is that doing it to other countries and their people means we have no power over them so it cannot be immediately abused without a potential for a greater conflict. That's a big difference from doing it to your own people.
If the value of it, offset by the amount of insurance paying out is more then the adjudicated values of the lives, then yes it is.
They do not value lives by the wealth of some entity connected to the death of it. If that was the case, then someone murdered by a homeless man would be worthless where a homeless man hit by a rich bitch in their Bentley would be worth loads more. The courts, law, and legal apparatus determines the value of the lost life through a variety of means including people left behind and their conditions without that person and assess it against the corporations through the course of law. If the corporation has enough funds through insurance and assets, then their assets could be worth more. If they do not, then they will not be worth more.
If the courts say each and every person's life was worth 1 million dollars which most are not (legally), then 300 people dieing is only 300 million dollars which is generally not more then the assets of a multinational corporation. Of course there will be penalties by law and other costs associated with it and if the accidents are not intentional or due to deliberate disregard to safety regulations, then insurance will kick in and cover portions of that also.
If you closed down every corporation and take all their wealth and assets, you will end up with way more people being negatively effected by unemployment and the lack of products at reasonable prices then were effected by the deaths. That is not to say corporations should not pay, but unless they are consistently having accidents and killing people, 10 times what they would ever earn in a life time or whatever mode they use to determine the value in court should be sufficiently capable of compensating for the loss.
No, the article and summery make it clear the errors they are talking about are introduced by the website. Read the entire sentence being used to discover the meaning of what is being said.
I couldn't agree more.
Perhaps we are seeing a domestic LEA heading being used for a much larger apparatus though. I mean if the FBI contracted with private entities, it still would be considered the FBI doing it. So if the FBI said to the NSA or CIA, we have this domestic issue but it appears to be originating from overseas and the NSA steps in to do the dirty work, it could still be claimed that the FBI did it just like if they contracted with some private company.
But as it appears, we wouldn't know if there was any inter-agency cooperation happening like that from the wordings available and it does appear as if they FBI duplicated the efforts of the NSA and other signtel efforts. If nothing else, a total and complete waste of resources and efforts and a situation that could allow another 9/11 or Boston bombing to happen when different 3 letter agencies do not communicate and share information like this. I would think someone making direct threats would be cause for the cooperation to be unquestioned.
You don't need a warrant for people in other countries. US law only covers US persons and foreign persons on US soil/territory. FISA is generally what covers foreigners and to that extent, only when US persons are involved needs a warrant.
You are so close then lose it fabulously in your emotional rants. I'm sort of wondering if you are actually arguing for the sake of arguing or buffaloed into believing what you say to miss your obvious contradictions.
You see, what you said is somewhat true, the people who run the corporations are the people being evil and not caring. Those people are facing the death penalty when you can prove their guilt. One of the problems is that you often cannot prove guilt that high up but make no mistake, people do go to prison and face the death penalty when they are responsible for someone's death while working at a corporation. As for the death penalty, well, that depends on the law itself. You do not automatically face the death penalty for killing someone and you do not automatically face prison time either. The facts surrounding each death come into play like motivation, mens rea or state of the mind, circumstances surrounding the death like was it an automobile accident or shooting, was it in response to being attacked or a robbery. The lists go on. Now negligence which is what most people working for corporations actualy do is a lot less of a penalty.
As for the corporates assets, they already do get liquidated, and given to it's victims when the amount of vicarious liability is larger then their worth. The problem you have is that a lot of times the value of the corporation is much larger then the value of the claims against them which is why they survive. The value of the claims are often guided by law but generally set by people just like you who sat on juries and made awards.
For those who don't know, the 13-Imam nut-cases believe in sort of a second coming of Christ type event when the world is embroiled in conflict and chaos that will destroy all infidels and bring the world back in line with Islam to create a paradise on earth situation. The scary part we should note is that some of these people think if they help the world go into chaos, it will hasten the return or appearance sort of like forcing the second coming of Jesus.
An no, you do not have to believe in any God or religion to be concerned about this. If they are wrong but have their way, the results will be the same, war and conflicts all around.
There, fixed that for you.
Are you attempting to say that your comment was not in reply to mine and that you were just spouting musing randomly or something? Or are you suggesting that what you said somehow supported what I said?
when the corporation is used as a person, it is only done in reference to it's own behalf separated from non-controlling owners in compliance with its fiduciary responsibility. If it wasn't, any contract made would have the same effect as you making a contract with your lawnmower in that if it doesn't start, you cannot take legal action to make it start. Therefore, it has to be considered it's own person for a set of interactions normally present in commerce.
A corporation is not capable of good and evil, capable of saving a life, or taking a life. It is however capable of being obligated to contracts, following laws, rules, and regulation, and being held accountable vicariously when it fails to do so. A corporation is a tool that separates owners and investors/owners from actions they do not participate in which is essential for investing.
The law has, always did, and always will allow it to be a person. You arguing it isn't just means you are either confused or willfully ignoring that.
Introduced by the website seems to imply they are because of the website. Both the article and summery say that.
Now from what I have been told, you don't fill out specific forms. You enter specific information into the website and it fills the forms out for you based on the plans you pick. It is supposed to stop you from filling forms out incorrectly or getting confused on wording and so on. It also allows you to do direct comparisons without having to fill 20 forms out for 10 different providers offering 2 plans each.
It's my understanding that this is happening with no user error at all. It's as if they load all the information into a database then when you select a plan, it retrieves the information and places what it thinks it needs on the forms it thinks it needs and that is where the errors are occurring. So it would actually be the website's problem as it attempts to collect the information and place it into the application forms as needed and failing there.
While it is true that corporations act in their own interests, they simply cannot act without someone actually acting. Even if it is run by computers, someone has to direct them to respond in specific ways. The entire idea of a corporation being a person is that it needs to be an entity separate from the owners who take no control in it's operations.
This is why referring to a corporation as an entity is proper in some respects but when it violates a law, it is actually those inside it that violate the law. No corporation can exist if it's policy is to violate the law or to cause a person's death (unless you are some kind of mercenary or something). If a corporation does something and people die, it is people inside the corporation that did something and people died. Sometimes nothing happens and a defect causes the death (like a weld in a tank corroding away due to some unseen and unknown impurities in the welding rod and the resulting rupture releases poison into the air) and that would be a lot like a tree falling and killing people. You certainly can't put nature in jail nor could we sue God and get payment. There are remedies if the home owner knew the tree was about to fall and didn't take steps but that is more of an example of someone choosing to act or not act in a certain way.
The FDA endorses false and misleading information all the time. For instance, look at their line on smoking in which they claim or support others making claims about the number of people with lung cancer who smoked showing you have a high risk of getting it if you do. They almost say it is a certainty that if you smoke or even be around people who smoke, you will get cancer and die. But the facts are that fewer then 10% of life long smokers will get lung cancer and to that, cancer deaths from smoking only make up 30% of all deaths from cancer (which is why it probably isn't outright banned). But when you look solely at lung cancer deaths, 87% smoked which gets turned into the you will get cancer and die claim.
Do you really equate slaves and beatings to being employed and producing something in that employment for compensation?
I have a hard time thinking you are serious. But if you are, you definitely should not be listened to.
Corporate creates something- the CEO files the patent or copyright or leases it from the real person exclusively with all rights until the end of the person's term.
You see, nothing different would come from having two separate spans. Keep them relatively equal and somewhat moderate in term length and things should get a lot better.
You seem to think a corporation is a sentient being or something. The fact of the matter is that a corporation cannot and will not act on anything unless someone at the wheel makes it do so. This person and these people are the ones who bear most of the responsibilities, criminal and civil liabilities, and so on. And as such, the liabilities are only to the point that it can be proven they acted wrongly or in some way that exposed their liabilities. The corporation is also liable vicariously to some extend and in some situations, statutorily in others.
A corporation is nothing but a took to protect you from liabilities for the actions of others. Those others and their actions are still completely answerable just as you might be- especially if it is a board member or anything other management or officer in the company. If you have proof they are behind something, then they can be held to answer for it.
But they didn't imprison the German Americans or the Italian Americans. So maybe, just maybe, there was something about the Japanese Americans and Japanese born legal residents that the armed forces saw differently. Just maybe there was something different about the US back then. "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership" comes to mind but I'm not sure how loudly it gets said when it is talking about FDR.
And that is not to mention that Japanese Americans were in the armed forces during the same time period too.