But folks around here absolutely insist that no company should ever make employment decisions based on your personally stated views. If you want to be a Neo-nazi in your off hours, why, the company should have no right to say "We don't want a Neo-Nazi working for us..." Or, if you're the prospective CEO of a company with a diverse workforce including LGBT individuals, the Board should have no right to disqualify you if you go around declaring "Gays are evil..."
Just because you think some tax is "extortionistic" doesn't mean it is, and if you don't like the taxes you pay, then convince enough of your fellow citizens to elect a different government. But quit pretending that your personal objections are universal or that you have some special right not to.pay taxes beyond your fellow citizens. It's "no taxation without representation", not simply "no taxation".
In most jurisdictions, the executives in question are already open to potential legal proceedings. Corporations do not confer absolute immunity upon executives or officers of a company. While civil findings would almost certainly paid by the company (and ultimately the shareholders), seeing as the company and its shareholders received a real benefit from the emissions cheating, if it is determined there was criminal wrongdoing, it's very possible that executives could end up in the dock.
Perhaps the parent is a Volkswagen shareholder. I can well imagine they'd much prefer it if no level of government in any affected country did anything to punish VW, or even better just shrugged and went "Yeah, we don't give a crap about our citizens' health!"
I don't even know why I'm bothering responding, but at any rate, London has, historically, and even today, the same problem many large urban centers have, and that is significant air quality problems. The solutions are pretty obvious:
1. Do nothing, and allow air quality to get worse and worse, costing taxpayers ever more money to treat the growing number of health problems that come from breathing in pollution from internal combustion engines, not to mention reducing quality of life of people whose only sin, apparently, is that they have to breath the same fucking air that's being polluted. 2. Outlaw polluting vehicles - This, of course, will have a whole bunch of people up in arms because they can't drive their aging diesel burning car that vomits NOX, carbon monoxide and probably dozens of other equally nasty chemicals in lower ratios. 3. Take a middle ground approach, understanding that many people can't afford to get rid of polluting vehicles all at once, but giving some sort of monetary advantage to those who do use cleaner less polluting vehicles in the urban area you wish to maintain some level of decent air quality, while monetarily disadvantaging those who are driving more polluting vehicles.
You will furthr notice that option 3 tacitly invokes a free market principle, that something that costs less will inevitably overtake a similar product or activity that costs more. Isn't the free market the best way to solve problems? If it's not, then perhaps option 2 is better, and vehicles that don't meet minimum pollution standards are outright banned from driving in the areas in question. Option 2 and option 3 further recognize a rather old adage by now, that your right to swing your fist ends at my face. In much the same way, your right to vomit damaging levels of dangerous compounds out your tailpipe ends at my fucking lungs.
Then you're free to vote for a government that won't institute such a toll, which will of course mainly benefit people with more money, as the poor in most major urban centers don't drive at all. The poor, of course, must gain some benefit from breathing in more NOX, right?
Government official wants the money that said government was cheated out of by a scheming corporation that sought to break the law to achieve greater profits.
This is no different than demanding a tax evader pay back the taxes that weren't paid. In fact, that's exactly what it is.
Metaphysical what ifs don't seem terribly useful to me. Everything we've learned about the brain over the last two centuries suggest that the mind; the person, their emotions, their personality, are built of physical pieces, much of it built out of the chordate central nervous system that's been around for over 500 million years. The human mind is the product of a lot of parts, obviously important aspects of which lie in the prefontal cortex, but with all kinds of functions scattered not only through the higher centers but also with some aspects in much more ancient areas of the brain like the hypothalamus. That "sense of self" that we have is something we do appear to share with a number of other animals, like the other great apes, at least Asian elephants, and cetaceans, which means they must share some of the higher executive functions of our brain. The whole point of this long diatribe is for me to suggest that the mind is simply a product of complex interactions in the central nervous system, and while ours may be the most complex example of a brain producing a self-knowing sentient mind, we're not the only example.
And who is going to teach this supposed ethics? Sites like Breitbarts?
Journalism has its flaws, more often than not to do with a lack of complete information. But having alt-right types lecture the MSM on ethics is pretty ridiculous, considering the alt-right is literally fueled by people who have absolutely no problem inventing complete fabrications, and who readily admit that truth is irrelevant.
I don't think anyone is suggesting censoring fake news. But I do think organizations like Facebook, if they're going to get into the game in any way, have an obligation to fact check anything they're claiming is news. It will never be perfect, even where you have perfect journalistic ethics, but at the moment we are literally seeing people fabricating stories out of thin air and then getting them promoted by the likes of Facebook as actual news.
That would mean that someone is keeping a running back up of mental states, to be restored when the soul departs. It strikes me that this is what makes the Dualist argument so absurd. As we learn more and more about how the brain works and about what constitutes the "mind", and the more we determine that who we are is the product of biological processes, it makes Dualist explanations ever more tortured and absurd.
No, the mainstream media is not as bad as the fake news. It's not perfect, but the idea that it is as bad as people who just willfully invent rumors out of thin air and disseminate them as truth is absurd. It's a classic fallacy of the false equivalency.
I'd say that's the least of the Dualists problems. I have yet to have one adequately explain what happens to the soul when someone suffers a serious brain injury that alters personality or cognitive ability. Does the soul get damaged as well? If someone suffers a traumatic brain injury that leaves them in a persistent vegetative state, does that mean the soul is also PVS?
Let's be pretty clear here. The likelihood of her ever being brought back to life are exceedingly low. This strikes me as a fierce debate about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin.
Powershell is a shitty scripting language, but it's the only one that puts all the admin capabilities I need under one roof, so I use it. But I loath it intensely, and wonder why kind of idiots would build a language like that.
And not to mention when I click on my CMD.EXE link, a CLI window with a command prompt appears almost instantly, but with Powershell, I can wait several seconds while it gathers together all the.NET bits it needs to run before I can actually enter a command. Whatever else one may think of Powershell (and I think it is overly verbose and just plain fucking awful), resource friendly it most definitely is not.
Slashdot Mirror
But folks around here absolutely insist that no company should ever make employment decisions based on your personally stated views. If you want to be a Neo-nazi in your off hours, why, the company should have no right to say "We don't want a Neo-Nazi working for us..." Or, if you're the prospective CEO of a company with a diverse workforce including LGBT individuals, the Board should have no right to disqualify you if you go around declaring "Gays are evil..."
So far as I can tell Trump's proposals will end up costing taxpayers.
Which would serve the purposes of drinking water, but watering entire forests? Impractical doesn't even begin to describe it.
Just because you think some tax is "extortionistic" doesn't mean it is, and if you don't like the taxes you pay, then convince enough of your fellow citizens to elect a different government. But quit pretending that your personal objections are universal or that you have some special right not to.pay taxes beyond your fellow citizens. It's "no taxation without representation", not simply "no taxation".
I'm a little unclear here. Do you believe droughts are visited on states that vote Democrat?
In most jurisdictions, the executives in question are already open to potential legal proceedings. Corporations do not confer absolute immunity upon executives or officers of a company. While civil findings would almost certainly paid by the company (and ultimately the shareholders), seeing as the company and its shareholders received a real benefit from the emissions cheating, if it is determined there was criminal wrongdoing, it's very possible that executives could end up in the dock.
Perhaps the parent is a Volkswagen shareholder. I can well imagine they'd much prefer it if no level of government in any affected country did anything to punish VW, or even better just shrugged and went "Yeah, we don't give a crap about our citizens' health!"
I don't even know why I'm bothering responding, but at any rate, London has, historically, and even today, the same problem many large urban centers have, and that is significant air quality problems. The solutions are pretty obvious:
1. Do nothing, and allow air quality to get worse and worse, costing taxpayers ever more money to treat the growing number of health problems that come from breathing in pollution from internal combustion engines, not to mention reducing quality of life of people whose only sin, apparently, is that they have to breath the same fucking air that's being polluted.
2. Outlaw polluting vehicles - This, of course, will have a whole bunch of people up in arms because they can't drive their aging diesel burning car that vomits NOX, carbon monoxide and probably dozens of other equally nasty chemicals in lower ratios.
3. Take a middle ground approach, understanding that many people can't afford to get rid of polluting vehicles all at once, but giving some sort of monetary advantage to those who do use cleaner less polluting vehicles in the urban area you wish to maintain some level of decent air quality, while monetarily disadvantaging those who are driving more polluting vehicles.
You will furthr notice that option 3 tacitly invokes a free market principle, that something that costs less will inevitably overtake a similar product or activity that costs more. Isn't the free market the best way to solve problems? If it's not, then perhaps option 2 is better, and vehicles that don't meet minimum pollution standards are outright banned from driving in the areas in question. Option 2 and option 3 further recognize a rather old adage by now, that your right to swing your fist ends at my face. In much the same way, your right to vomit damaging levels of dangerous compounds out your tailpipe ends at my fucking lungs.
Not to mention the benefit of being poisoned by NOX!
Civilization wouldn't exist without taxation. You're libertarianism is a fantasy and it is best if you finally grow up.
Then you're free to vote for a government that won't institute such a toll, which will of course mainly benefit people with more money, as the poor in most major urban centers don't drive at all. The poor, of course, must gain some benefit from breathing in more NOX, right?
Government official wants the money that said government was cheated out of by a scheming corporation that sought to break the law to achieve greater profits.
This is no different than demanding a tax evader pay back the taxes that weren't paid. In fact, that's exactly what it is.
Wish the eagles out my way would attack drones.
Metaphysical what ifs don't seem terribly useful to me. Everything we've learned about the brain over the last two centuries suggest that the mind; the person, their emotions, their personality, are built of physical pieces, much of it built out of the chordate central nervous system that's been around for over 500 million years. The human mind is the product of a lot of parts, obviously important aspects of which lie in the prefontal cortex, but with all kinds of functions scattered not only through the higher centers but also with some aspects in much more ancient areas of the brain like the hypothalamus. That "sense of self" that we have is something we do appear to share with a number of other animals, like the other great apes, at least Asian elephants, and cetaceans, which means they must share some of the higher executive functions of our brain. The whole point of this long diatribe is for me to suggest that the mind is simply a product of complex interactions in the central nervous system, and while ours may be the most complex example of a brain producing a self-knowing sentient mind, we're not the only example.
And look at the new swamp he's building.
And who is going to teach this supposed ethics? Sites like Breitbarts?
Journalism has its flaws, more often than not to do with a lack of complete information. But having alt-right types lecture the MSM on ethics is pretty ridiculous, considering the alt-right is literally fueled by people who have absolutely no problem inventing complete fabrications, and who readily admit that truth is irrelevant.
Sure. They played along with the whole "new batch of emails" claim that probably sunk Clinton's campaign.
Yes, that's what I'm stating. Stories may have been wrong in part, but the main news outlets weren't inventing news.
I don't think anyone is suggesting censoring fake news. But I do think organizations like Facebook, if they're going to get into the game in any way, have an obligation to fact check anything they're claiming is news. It will never be perfect, even where you have perfect journalistic ethics, but at the moment we are literally seeing people fabricating stories out of thin air and then getting them promoted by the likes of Facebook as actual news.
That would mean that someone is keeping a running back up of mental states, to be restored when the soul departs. It strikes me that this is what makes the Dualist argument so absurd. As we learn more and more about how the brain works and about what constitutes the "mind", and the more we determine that who we are is the product of biological processes, it makes Dualist explanations ever more tortured and absurd.
No, the mainstream media is not as bad as the fake news. It's not perfect, but the idea that it is as bad as people who just willfully invent rumors out of thin air and disseminate them as truth is absurd. It's a classic fallacy of the false equivalency.
I'd say that's the least of the Dualists problems. I have yet to have one adequately explain what happens to the soul when someone suffers a serious brain injury that alters personality or cognitive ability. Does the soul get damaged as well? If someone suffers a traumatic brain injury that leaves them in a persistent vegetative state, does that mean the soul is also PVS?
Let's be pretty clear here. The likelihood of her ever being brought back to life are exceedingly low. This strikes me as a fierce debate about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin.
Powershell is a shitty scripting language, but it's the only one that puts all the admin capabilities I need under one roof, so I use it. But I loath it intensely, and wonder why kind of idiots would build a language like that.
And not to mention when I click on my CMD.EXE link, a CLI window with a command prompt appears almost instantly, but with Powershell, I can wait several seconds while it gathers together all the .NET bits it needs to run before I can actually enter a command. Whatever else one may think of Powershell (and I think it is overly verbose and just plain fucking awful), resource friendly it most definitely is not.