While showing that the CEO should have known is enough for a civil case (where negligence is enough of a basis for damages to be awarded), criminal cases usually require showing at least reckless involvement (i.e. that he knew the crime was happening and chose not to do anything about it), if not knowing or intentional participation.
The problem is then that you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that person's involvement with each element of the crime. Part of the reason we tend to prosecute the corporation as a whole is that it's often not easy to pin the whole crime on any specific person given the distributed nature of responsibility in most large corporations.
If an entity can not vote, then it should not have rights.
So non-citizens residing the US have no rights? Or children?
Also, have you considered the full implications of that stance? Could the US, for example, censor Busboy Productions, Inc. on the grounds it has no first ammendment rights? Could they sieze Twitter's computer servers without a warrant on the grounds it has no fourth ammendment rights? Can they tap your wokplace phone without a warrant because your employer has no expectation of privacy?
I wonder if all the people saying "Corporations are not people" have fully thought through the implications of that stance. For one, if corporations lack personhood then they can't be charged with crimes. Policing them will be much harder when criminal charges all have to be tied to a specific person within the corporation rather than the organization as a whole.
So explain to me, if after 4 years of "study", given technical documentation and a beginner level exercise (experienced people can solve my test in under 15 minutes) and you can't figure a solution out in less than 3 hours... why should I spend any time on you?
People experienced in your particular flavor of SQL. There's dozens of different ways of implement SQL access to a databse within a program. Back when I was in school, my databse course mostly used Oracle embedded SQL in C programs. Since then I've been in assignments that primarily used Oracle PL/SQL, Microsoft ODBC, SAS ODBC, JDBC, Microsoft Jet, Enterpise Java Beans, etc. Even though the core knowledge for each of those methods is the same, the specifics differ from one to the next, so in each case I had to read the manuals for a day or two and look at other code to figure how to apply my knowledge to the new system. If interviewing focuses too much on specific technologies, you're going to miss a lot of good employees who have the skills you're looking for, but just don't meet your flavor filter.
The point of a degree isn't to learn language X, then language Y, then language Z so that five years later their training is useless because things have moved on to language A, lanugage B, and langugage C. The point is to learn how a RDMS works, so you can pick up whatever particular flavor a given shop is using quick as well as easily move on to whatever "the next big thing is". The problem here is that you're expecting the university to make up for the fact your company has no training budget even if it causes long term damage to their students careers. You should be asking questions like: "Given a particular problem description, show me how you'd develop a properly normalized set of relations to capture the database". That's where the value is. Figuring out how to translate that table schema into whatever syntax your database tool uses is relatively trivial once that happens.
Good on Microsoft. They shouldn't be releasing the private details of customers' accounts to the public. The need for privacy protection doesn't end just because a bunch of Gladys Kravitzes have declared themselves the Internet Police.
1) That could far more easily and more reliably done by a computer. 2) That's not what pharmacists actually do. The pharmacy I go to has never asked if I'm on other medication or why I'm taking whatever it is I just ordered.
He didn't say to eliminate all licensing, he just said that their should be more. Right now, the licensing process in most states is controlled by the state medical association, that is a group composed of all the existing doctors. Not suprisingly, they have a big incentive to limit the number of new doctors that are licensed every year so they can charge more.
It also extends to things beyond doctors. Why, for example, does all prescription medicine need to be bought from a licensed pharmacist? This made sense back when the pharmacist had to make all the medicine themselves, but now adays, the vast majority of cases, they're just reading a slip of paper, going to the appropriate shelf, and bringing back one container. That's not something that should require six years of post secondary education.
Lots of people pointed out that the whole "Net Neutrality" thing was just an excuse to get the camel's nose into the tent and that once a precendet for the FCC being able to regulate the internet was in place, all sorts of things would be following.
At least I'll get to enjoy all the wailing from the Free Software types when the law mandating only authorized commercial (e.g. closed) operating systems be allowed to connect to the internet, to make sure you're not subeverting all their requirements.
The dolphins in nets that have been pulled out of the water are fine, since they can breathe until someone untangles them. It's the dolphins that get stuck in nets under the surface that are in trouble; without the ability to surface they eventually drown.
6) Libertarians (independents) realize that while she is religious, she's not about forcing religion on people and is the closest thing they will ever find to a mainstream Libertarian, vote for her en masse.
Ah, so the standard Republican strategy: "Let's tell the libertarians we really believe in small government this time and see if they fall for it again".
Although in the Republicans favor, we do always seem to fall for it.
Everyone is always trying to figure out who the next Hitler is. The problem is that by the time Hitler shows up, it's already to late to stop them. We should be more worried about figuring out who the next President Hindenburg is: the politicians that for their own convenience start creating the mechanisms for subverting the system that end up being used by the Hitler.
IRV has a few truly weird ones. For example, it's non-monotonic, which means it's possible to lose because too many people voted for you.
It can also result in more extreme office holders because candidates with small but enthusiastic followings are favored over candidates with broad but lukewarm support. Consider candidates A, B, C, D, E: A through D are the first choice of 25% of the electorate each. Candidate E has no first place votes but is everybody's second choice. It should be obvious E is the best selection, but they're the first eliminated, which means 75% of the electorate ends up with their third choice or worse.
Depends how you define "representative". Districts should represent groups of people with roughly similar views so that they can choose a person that is representative of them as a group. Weirdly shape districts that cross several groups with wildly different worldviews (e.g. urban voters and rural voters) creates a district where half the people end up with no real representation at all.
What we really need to do is greatly increase the size of the house. When the country first started, a congressional district had roughly 30,000 people in it. Now they have almost 700,000 in them. It's hard to say that a group of people that size can possibly be represented by one person in any meaningful sense.
These companies have a kind of power we haven't seen since the days when there were only three TV networks. Probably even more.
Except that this isn't being driven by some "let's be evil today" impulse on Amazon's part. It's being done because it fears consumers. We've enabled the government to go around essentially mugging corporations everytime some random mob of people starts yelling for it loud enough and that unfortunately means corporations have to bow to the whims of those mobs (in this case the moral outrage busybodies) in order to survive.
I'd argue that this specific problem is occuring not because Corporations have to much power (in some ways they do), but because in some ways they don't have enough power.
Slashdot Mirror
List of Companies Convicted of Felony Offenses in the United States
List of Companies Convicted of Felony Offenses in the United States
List of Companies Convicted of Felony Offenses in the United States
While showing that the CEO should have known is enough for a civil case (where negligence is enough of a basis for damages to be awarded), criminal cases usually require showing at least reckless involvement (i.e. that he knew the crime was happening and chose not to do anything about it), if not knowing or intentional participation.
No, but they've been fined millions of dollars or ordered to do various things.
The problem is then that you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that person's involvement with each element of the crime. Part of the reason we tend to prosecute the corporation as a whole is that it's often not easy to pin the whole crime on any specific person given the distributed nature of responsibility in most large corporations.
So non-citizens residing the US have no rights? Or children?
Also, have you considered the full implications of that stance? Could the US, for example, censor Busboy Productions, Inc. on the grounds it has no first ammendment rights? Could they sieze Twitter's computer servers without a warrant on the grounds it has no fourth ammendment rights? Can they tap your wokplace phone without a warrant because your employer has no expectation of privacy?
I wonder if all the people saying "Corporations are not people" have fully thought through the implications of that stance. For one, if corporations lack personhood then they can't be charged with crimes. Policing them will be much harder when criminal charges all have to be tied to a specific person within the corporation rather than the organization as a whole.
This collection is only recursively enumerable?
People experienced in your particular flavor of SQL. There's dozens of different ways of implement SQL access to a databse within a program. Back when I was in school, my databse course mostly used Oracle embedded SQL in C programs. Since then I've been in assignments that primarily used Oracle PL/SQL, Microsoft ODBC, SAS ODBC, JDBC, Microsoft Jet, Enterpise Java Beans, etc. Even though the core knowledge for each of those methods is the same, the specifics differ from one to the next, so in each case I had to read the manuals for a day or two and look at other code to figure how to apply my knowledge to the new system. If interviewing focuses too much on specific technologies, you're going to miss a lot of good employees who have the skills you're looking for, but just don't meet your flavor filter.
The point of a degree isn't to learn language X, then language Y, then language Z so that five years later their training is useless because things have moved on to language A, lanugage B, and langugage C. The point is to learn how a RDMS works, so you can pick up whatever particular flavor a given shop is using quick as well as easily move on to whatever "the next big thing is". The problem here is that you're expecting the university to make up for the fact your company has no training budget even if it causes long term damage to their students careers. You should be asking questions like: "Given a particular problem description, show me how you'd develop a properly normalized set of relations to capture the database". That's where the value is. Figuring out how to translate that table schema into whatever syntax your database tool uses is relatively trivial once that happens.
Easy way to get women to correct more Wikipedia articles: change the template so that every article starts out with "Your husband says that..."
Good on Microsoft. They shouldn't be releasing the private details of customers' accounts to the public. The need for privacy protection doesn't end just because a bunch of Gladys Kravitzes have declared themselves the Internet Police.
1) That could far more easily and more reliably done by a computer.
2) That's not what pharmacists actually do. The pharmacy I go to has never asked if I'm on other medication or why I'm taking whatever it is I just ordered.
He didn't say to eliminate all licensing, he just said that their should be more. Right now, the licensing process in most states is controlled by the state medical association, that is a group composed of all the existing doctors. Not suprisingly, they have a big incentive to limit the number of new doctors that are licensed every year so they can charge more.
It also extends to things beyond doctors. Why, for example, does all prescription medicine need to be bought from a licensed pharmacist? This made sense back when the pharmacist had to make all the medicine themselves, but now adays, the vast majority of cases, they're just reading a slip of paper, going to the appropriate shelf, and bringing back one container. That's not something that should require six years of post secondary education.
Lots of people pointed out that the whole "Net Neutrality" thing was just an excuse to get the camel's nose into the tent and that once a precendet for the FCC being able to regulate the internet was in place, all sorts of things would be following.
Enjoy your trusted identities, mandatory DRM, broadcast-style content restrictions, etc.
At least I'll get to enjoy all the wailing from the Free Software types when the law mandating only authorized commercial (e.g. closed) operating systems be allowed to connect to the internet, to make sure you're not subeverting all their requirements.
The dolphins in nets that have been pulled out of the water are fine, since they can breathe until someone untangles them. It's the dolphins that get stuck in nets under the surface that are in trouble; without the ability to surface they eventually drown.
Ah, so the standard Republican strategy: "Let's tell the libertarians we really believe in small government this time and see if they fall for it again".
Although in the Republicans favor, we do always seem to fall for it.
Yes, because with only two years until the election, no one could possibly switch parties in closed primary states!
Everyone is always trying to figure out who the next Hitler is. The problem is that by the time Hitler shows up, it's already to late to stop them. We should be more worried about figuring out who the next President Hindenburg is: the politicians that for their own convenience start creating the mechanisms for subverting the system that end up being used by the Hitler.
People gaming the electoral system are partisans, not ideologues.
Every voting system has it's own problems (c.f. Arrow's Impossibility Theorem).
IRV has a few truly weird ones. For example, it's non-monotonic, which means it's possible to lose because too many people voted for you.
It can also result in more extreme office holders because candidates with small but enthusiastic followings are favored over candidates with broad but lukewarm support. Consider candidates A, B, C, D, E: A through D are the first choice of 25% of the electorate each. Candidate E has no first place votes but is everybody's second choice. It should be obvious E is the best selection, but they're the first eliminated, which means 75% of the electorate ends up with their third choice or worse.
Depends how you define "representative". Districts should represent groups of people with roughly similar views so that they can choose a person that is representative of them as a group. Weirdly shape districts that cross several groups with wildly different worldviews (e.g. urban voters and rural voters) creates a district where half the people end up with no real representation at all.
What we really need to do is greatly increase the size of the house. When the country first started, a congressional district had roughly 30,000 people in it. Now they have almost 700,000 in them. It's hard to say that a group of people that size can possibly be represented by one person in any meaningful sense.
Oh yeah, public libraries NEVER ban books because of political pressure.
Except that this isn't being driven by some "let's be evil today" impulse on Amazon's part. It's being done because it fears consumers. We've enabled the government to go around essentially mugging corporations everytime some random mob of people starts yelling for it loud enough and that unfortunately means corporations have to bow to the whims of those mobs (in this case the moral outrage busybodies) in order to survive.
I'd argue that this specific problem is occuring not because Corporations have to much power (in some ways they do), but because in some ways they don't have enough power.