Prison cells is all they'd be, and I imagine any humans living there would have to be criminals given the option of the Moon or a slow and painful death, much like early transportees to Australia..
No one in their right mind woul choose to live there. At least with Oz you could breathe the air and swim in the sea there, however hellish it was otherwise.
There are 3d printers that use concrete media, and can print you a house?
That's right, using only some detailed blueprints, many tons of reinforced concrete and a team of builders they can "print" you a house in a way that has been almost impossible up to now using only the old-fashioned methods of some detailed blueprints, many tons of reinforced concrete and a team of builders.
Can you blame Chavez for kicking the jerks out of Venezuela? Sure he is an idiot and a dictator
He's a pretty fucking funny sort of dictator if he wins in a closely fought but honest democratic election. I know he's a fucking socialist and therefore evil, but you do need to try a bit harder.
So log in, and tweak your homepage settings to not include 'your rights online'
Problem solved.
GP didn't say he wanted no legal/rights stories, he just said that he would like them to be "edited" by someone who had a vague clue what they were talking about.
This presumes that board members, major investors, and the CEO were both aware of, and actively refusing to do something about safety and environmental concerns.
In a company the size of BP, it's flatly unreasonable to expect that the board & CEO will be aware of every minor decision and safety concern anywhere in the company the moment it is raised. Now, if there is evidence that those people were negligent in responding to, addressing, or correcting issues that they were clearly informed of, then you'd have a good argument for "jail terms" for these people. Without it, the blame rests with the people who FAILED to raise those safety concerns, or ignored those safety concerns, when it was their job to care about and address them - i.e., the supervisors, and the executive being charged.
This "string up the board" argument is as stupid as it is misguided. It plays well to the idiotic "Occupy Wall Street" crowd; thankfully it doesn't play as well to an educated judiciary.
The whole point about a corporation is that it is not just an assembly of individuals. I know this annoys all you Rugged American Individualists but it's true. If you didn't have limited liability corporations, then the government would just have to sue/prosecute/fine/imprison each shareholder individually, and they would say exactly the same thing as the CEO, namely "it wasn't my personal fault".
Obama just needs someone to put the blame on. Doesn't matter if they are actually involved or not. Look how he threw that movie maker in prison, even though we now know that he had nothing to do with killing the diplomat
If you mean the creep that did the anti-Islam film, hadn't he broken his parole conditions or something?
I calculated the amount of oil once. Based on the size of the Gulf of Mexico, and the high estimate for how much oil was pumped in, IIRC it came out to the equivalent of about a teaspoon or so in an Olympic-sized swimming pool. Not exactly devastating.
The obvious flaw there is that the oil wasn't evenly fuckingly distributed throughout the whole body of the Gulf of Mexico. But apart from that, thanks, you've got a great legal future ahead of you.
That is actually a wonderful idea. BP would essentially shut down. Their employees will have to go work elsewhere. They would go out of business and better companies would take their place and good employees. It would be a natural deterrent to big companies.
I wonder if you'd be saying this if (say) the EU tried to force a US company out of business?
A company is not magically split into "management" and "other". It's a whole. If the CEO is responsible, then so is the office cleaner. Sorry, but this is the correct line of argument that was used at the Nuremberg Trials. The concentration camp guard doesn't get to blame the Camp Commandant and get off scot free himself.
When "BP" has to spend 180 days in prison like a regular person convicted of manslaughter then I'll believe it.
Rather more than 180 days for manslaughter surely? Even here in the wishy-washy liberal UK you can get life for manslaughter; that's rare, but certainly a few years would normally be the minimum.
Anyway, that aside, your comment is really silly. There is no exact equivalent of incarceration for a non-corporeal entity. That's why they fine companies large amounts instead: it's only things which affect their profit that "hurt" a business.
You've got to have payment systems to attract the best & brightest
Why? You can either do your job well or you can't. Paying someone more doesn't make them any better at their job. A large organisation depends on all the people in it doing their jobs properly, it's not all down to the CEO.
How is this an ethical matter? Or more precisely, how are people studying ethics qualified to speak about what is really a matter of finance or economics?
It's not like in (academic) finance and economics they ignore the overall net benefit of trading rules to society. In fact, this is usually all that is considered.
Finance and economics are not divorced from ethics. And the finance industry's self-policing of its own practices and ethics hasn't worked out too well. Nationalise the lot of the bastards.
The stock exchange is supposed to be about providing finance for companies, not generating ourobos-like activity for its own sake. If shares in Company A are traded back and forth in their millions over a millisecond and the share value goes up or down by 5%, this has precisely no connection to the actual value of Company A, or any real world event.
The way to prevent this kind of mistaken (or even malicious) trade is to stop protecting the trader by canceling the trade as soon as the mistake is realized. If you issue a trade order, you should be liable for paying for it. If you can't, normal bankruptcy laws should apply.
"OK, you owe me $69 trillion. I'm prepared to settle at $69 billion, that's my final offer."
Signs you haven't been to the US: mentioning that "what goes for beer in the US" is low alcohol...
Standard draft or canned beer in the US is (a) tasteless and (b) not very alcoholic. Yes, I know you have organic microbreweries in Seattle making 13% ABV stouts (or whatever), but when Joe Sixpack gets his beer it will normally be some variant of Miller/Bud/Coors Light. Those are by far the top-selling beers in America, and are 4% alcohol, which is pretty much the minimum you can make something and still call it beer.
Or you can go solo in your parents basement and do the same thing, learn much more, and get usually 100x better, and be so enlightened, so much more smarter than then government that you become a 'terrorist' to their plans.
You become a terrorist when you act criminally against the democratically elected legitimate government in order to further your own vision of society. Whether you do this by blowing up a dam with your advanced explosives knowledge or vandalising the IRS website with your 1337 haxorz skillz is irrelevant.
...when all the work is done by machines, and we are all out of jobs, what other things will we do apart from go mad, and be clubbed down by various forces in various interesting ways?
When no one has to work, hopefully we can spend our time enjoying ourselves rather than utterly wasting a third to a half of our waking lives.
But we need to diversify our civilization's base. Staying on this planet, only here, is suicide. Mathematically certain as a meteor strike.
Being able to get a few people into oribt and living in space stations is not going to save the human race when a meteor destroys all life on Earth. The prospect of our being able to visit and colonise planets in the forseeable future is...slim.
What we would need would be some breakthrough on the level of acquiring FTL travel in order to make the idea of travelling outside of our solar system to find habitable planets feasible.
No, you equated Nazi Germany (defeated by the USSR and USA) with "love of government power", thereby implying that anyone who wasn't anti-government like US libertarians was a Nazi. Quite how this fits in with the fact that (a) the USSR was pretty big on government power too and (b) both the USSR and USA required governments to finance and organise their militaries, I don't know.
And a pneumatic drill to dig up the floor when you need to trace a cable. And a Surface to Air Missile launcher in case of attack by terrorists in helicopters.
What the fuck is up with slashdot and these stupid fucking questions?
Don't forget this the UK; crowbars may be a bit difficult to come by.
I'm beginning to think that either this whole thing is all just some big American troll by you or else you have literally never been out of your mum's basement. If you actually were from the UK, and had ever been shopping, you would know that you can get crowbars (along with knives, axes, chainsaws, sledgehammers and all sorts of other useful tools) from places like B&Q or Homebase.
As my friend said, we should attempt extraditing a large, random sample of US population on possession of handgun charges (Illegal under UK law.)
Ooh, I like this. A nice little earner. We'll send each adult US citizen a letter asking for a thousand quid and no more questions asked. 250 million (guess) times a thousand quid should sort out our financial worries for a while.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd love to architect living spaces on the moon.
Prison cells is all they'd be, and I imagine any humans living there would have to be criminals given the option of the Moon or a slow and painful death, much like early transportees to Australia..
No one in their right mind woul choose to live there. At least with Oz you could breathe the air and swim in the sea there, however hellish it was otherwise.
There are 3d printers that use concrete media, and can print you a house?
That's right, using only some detailed blueprints, many tons of reinforced concrete and a team of builders they can "print" you a house in a way that has been almost impossible up to now using only the old-fashioned methods of some detailed blueprints, many tons of reinforced concrete and a team of builders.
Does this mean rich people can just kill the poor and pay fines now?
Taking a life illegally should at least warrant some jail time.
You can't put "BP plc" in prison and it would be arbitrary just to jail the CEO or something.
Corporations are financial entities and can only be punished financially.
Can you blame Chavez for kicking the jerks out of Venezuela? Sure he is an idiot and a dictator
He's a pretty fucking funny sort of dictator if he wins in a closely fought but honest democratic election. I know he's a fucking socialist and therefore evil, but you do need to try a bit harder.
Would be nice if us proles could get out of a manslaughter charge by relinquishing a mere 3% of our equity.
But just think, if you owed tons of money on credit cards and had negative equity on your house, the government would have to pay YOU.
So log in, and tweak your homepage settings to not include 'your rights online'
Problem solved.
GP didn't say he wanted no legal/rights stories, he just said that he would like them to be "edited" by someone who had a vague clue what they were talking about.
This presumes that board members, major investors, and the CEO were both aware of, and actively refusing to do something about safety and environmental concerns.
In a company the size of BP, it's flatly unreasonable to expect that the board & CEO will be aware of every minor decision and safety concern anywhere in the company the moment it is raised. Now, if there is evidence that those people were negligent in responding to, addressing, or correcting issues that they were clearly informed of, then you'd have a good argument for "jail terms" for these people. Without it, the blame rests with the people who FAILED to raise those safety concerns, or ignored those safety concerns, when it was their job to care about and address them - i.e., the supervisors, and the executive being charged.
This "string up the board" argument is as stupid as it is misguided. It plays well to the idiotic "Occupy Wall Street" crowd; thankfully it doesn't play as well to an educated judiciary.
The whole point about a corporation is that it is not just an assembly of individuals. I know this annoys all you Rugged American Individualists but it's true. If you didn't have limited liability corporations, then the government would just have to sue/prosecute/fine/imprison each shareholder individually, and they would say exactly the same thing as the CEO, namely "it wasn't my personal fault".
You do realise that the company is owned by the shareholders, not the directors, right?
Obama just needs someone to put the blame on. Doesn't matter if they are actually involved or not. Look how he threw that movie maker in prison, even though we now know that he had nothing to do with killing the diplomat
If you mean the creep that did the anti-Islam film, hadn't he broken his parole conditions or something?
I calculated the amount of oil once. Based on the size of the Gulf of Mexico, and the high estimate for how much oil was pumped in, IIRC it came out to the equivalent of about a teaspoon or so in an Olympic-sized swimming pool. Not exactly devastating.
The obvious flaw there is that the oil wasn't evenly fuckingly distributed throughout the whole body of the Gulf of Mexico. But apart from that, thanks, you've got a great legal future ahead of you.
That is actually a wonderful idea. BP would essentially shut down. Their employees will have to go work elsewhere. They would go out of business and better companies would take their place and good employees. It would be a natural deterrent to big companies.
I wonder if you'd be saying this if (say) the EU tried to force a US company out of business?
A company is not magically split into "management" and "other". It's a whole. If the CEO is responsible, then so is the office cleaner. Sorry, but this is the correct line of argument that was used at the Nuremberg Trials. The concentration camp guard doesn't get to blame the Camp Commandant and get off scot free himself.
When "BP" has to spend 180 days in prison like a regular person convicted of manslaughter then I'll believe it.
Rather more than 180 days for manslaughter surely? Even here in the wishy-washy liberal UK you can get life for manslaughter; that's rare, but certainly a few years would normally be the minimum.
Anyway, that aside, your comment is really silly. There is no exact equivalent of incarceration for a non-corporeal entity. That's why they fine companies large amounts instead: it's only things which affect their profit that "hurt" a business.
You've got to have payment systems to attract the best & brightest
Why? You can either do your job well or you can't. Paying someone more doesn't make them any better at their job. A large organisation depends on all the people in it doing their jobs properly, it's not all down to the CEO.
How is this an ethical matter? Or more precisely, how are people studying ethics qualified to speak about what is really a matter of finance or economics?
It's not like in (academic) finance and economics they ignore the overall net benefit of trading rules to society. In fact, this is usually all that is considered.
Finance and economics are not divorced from ethics. And the finance industry's self-policing of its own practices and ethics hasn't worked out too well. Nationalise the lot of the bastards.
The stock exchange is supposed to be about providing finance for companies, not generating ourobos-like activity for its own sake. If shares in Company A are traded back and forth in their millions over a millisecond and the share value goes up or down by 5%, this has precisely no connection to the actual value of Company A, or any real world event.
The way to prevent this kind of mistaken (or even malicious) trade is to stop protecting the trader by canceling the trade as soon as the mistake is realized. If you issue a trade order, you should be liable for paying for it. If you can't, normal bankruptcy laws should apply.
"OK, you owe me $69 trillion. I'm prepared to settle at $69 billion, that's my final offer."
Signs you haven't been to the US: mentioning that "what goes for beer in the US" is low alcohol...
Standard draft or canned beer in the US is (a) tasteless and (b) not very alcoholic. Yes, I know you have organic microbreweries in Seattle making 13% ABV stouts (or whatever), but when Joe Sixpack gets his beer it will normally be some variant of Miller/Bud/Coors Light. Those are by far the top-selling beers in America, and are 4% alcohol, which is pretty much the minimum you can make something and still call it beer.
Or you can go solo in your parents basement and do the same thing, learn much more, and get usually 100x better, and be so enlightened, so much more smarter than then government that you become a 'terrorist' to their plans.
You become a terrorist when you act criminally against the democratically elected legitimate government in order to further your own vision of society. Whether you do this by blowing up a dam with your advanced explosives knowledge or vandalising the IRS website with your 1337 haxorz skillz is irrelevant.
...when all the work is done by machines, and we are all out of jobs, what other things will we do apart from go mad, and be clubbed down by various forces in various interesting ways?
When no one has to work, hopefully we can spend our time enjoying ourselves rather than utterly wasting a third to a half of our waking lives.
Anyone who would go mad without work is mad.
But we need to diversify our civilization's base. Staying on this planet, only here, is suicide. Mathematically certain as a meteor strike.
Being able to get a few people into oribt and living in space stations is not going to save the human race when a meteor destroys all life on Earth. The prospect of our being able to visit and colonise planets in the forseeable future is...slim.
What we would need would be some breakthrough on the level of acquiring FTL travel in order to make the idea of travelling outside of our solar system to find habitable planets feasible.
No, you equated Nazi Germany (defeated by the USSR and USA) with "love of government power", thereby implying that anyone who wasn't anti-government like US libertarians was a Nazi. Quite how this fits in with the fact that (a) the USSR was pretty big on government power too and (b) both the USSR and USA required governments to finance and organise their militaries, I don't know.
Many Europeans are terrible at geography.
Oh, the fucking irony.
You definitely need a chainsaw.
And a pneumatic drill to dig up the floor when you need to trace a cable. And a Surface to Air Missile launcher in case of attack by terrorists in helicopters.
What the fuck is up with slashdot and these stupid fucking questions?
Don't forget this the UK; crowbars may be a bit difficult to come by.
I'm beginning to think that either this whole thing is all just some big American troll by you or else you have literally never been out of your mum's basement. If you actually were from the UK, and had ever been shopping, you would know that you can get crowbars (along with knives, axes, chainsaws, sledgehammers and all sorts of other useful tools) from places like B&Q or Homebase.
As my friend said, we should attempt extraditing a large, random sample of US population on possession of handgun charges (Illegal under UK law.)
Ooh, I like this. A nice little earner. We'll send each adult US citizen a letter asking for a thousand quid and no more questions asked. 250 million (guess) times a thousand quid should sort out our financial worries for a while.