Um, the positions of the parties have been shifting more authoritarian, on average.
The USA was kind of founded on radical individual liberty and freedom. Today you can't find a party wanting to touch the war machine, drug laws, social security, or other massive programs that the Framers couldn't even have dreamt about.
Go back and look at the conflicts that the two parties fought over back then. It seems like a joke now. There was a time we actually fought over a centralized banking system? Light houses? Slavery?
We were able to do that without that legal shenanigans (just like other countries do).
What legal shenanigans? It's much simpler just to say "Hey, I can form a corporation that can make contracts and conduct business just like a sole proprietor can". You know, instead of having to write into the law "An individual or civil union or LLC or LLP or corporation or..." every time you want to refer to the concept.
Are you suggesting I should be able to sue chimps but not corporations?
1. False dichotomy.
It can't be a false dichotomy, it has a yes or no answer (or maybe "sometimes").
2. A better suggestion would be to sue individuals on whose behalf, by virtue of negligence or criminality, a corporation became liable for debts and crimes (specially crimes.)
Would you go to work knowing you could become liable for a botched order, or if your employer went bankrupt? Possibly losing your second car, maybe have to sell your house? Didn't think so. (That can and does happen to sole proprietors.)
Also, you are using misdirection. Corporate person hood refers to more than the ability to hold a corporation liable. It refers to giving the corporation rights and protections in addition to those already enjoyed by the individuals who make up the corporation.
The ability to enter into a contract necessarily implies you have rights to own property, and trade that property with whoever you wish. Corporations have just as much right to buy or sell bananas or advertisements or widgets as I do.
The concept taken to it's extreme would give my wife and I (who now hold control of a corporation) an extra vote in an election.
In the US, votes aren't given to persons, but to individuals who are citizens of a certain age, and possibly other restrictions depending on state. Do mind the semantics, because corporate persons obviously don't fit in here.
If a different standard for voting was used, e.g. "Property owners cast votes proportional to how much land they own", then yes, corporations would cast votes. This is how it already works for voting for membership of corporate boards, so I don't see a problem with this. Obviously, that's a big "if".
Most importantly, from the liability you aspect you mentioned, is that instead of my wife and I being responsible for the crimes we collectively commit under the umbrella of that piece of paper, the paper is liable. We can do all sorts of unethical and evil using it's name, then fold that paper up and put it away if it doesn't all work out.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Marriage means you and your wife are considered a single person for certain purposes. Even if you have an LLC, you can't commit fraud - that's criminal, and you could be individually found guilty.
Acme. You do not need corporate personhood to sue Acme.
If the company is a single-person entity, yeah, pretty much. If it is a LLC, then you go after the corp's asset. And if it is a corporation, you go after the corporation's assets.
Regular individuals can't bring a lawsuit against property ("John Doe v. Three gallons of milk" makes as much sense as "John Doe v. 60 shares of Acme, Inc."). Hence, corporate personhood.
Any intelligent business entity would never entered into a contract under such conditions. Also, contracts spell out responsibilities (who pays what and how much when defaulting a contract), in a document enforced by the law.
How much commerce do you think we do without the ability to enter into high-value contracts? Virtually none.
How do you think we enforce contracts against corporations? Corporate personhood.
You do not need corporate personhood. It is a stupid American legal aberration. How the hell do you think developed countries like Japan or Germany that do not have such a notion handle violation of contracts or trials against corporations?
They aren't Common Law states (countries), but nonetheless it's handled roughly the same.
That's how criminal negligence already works, when's the last time a corporation was tried in court for murder?
I'm talking about enforcing contracts. My company orders a million dollars of widgets from Acme and they're never delivered. Who's responsible? I don't want to sue an individual, I'm never seeing my money back if that's the only option available. And if I did, some poor employee for Acme is going to lose their second car and probably have to sell their house.
Corporate personhood refers to the ability to hold a corporation liable for debts and crimes. Are you suggesting I should be able to sue chimps but not corporations?
It didn't need to, the study was on twins. Further, testing on both identical and fraternal twins allowed researchers to calculate how much genetics plays into it, because the genetic makeup for both kinds of twins is highly predictable.
Failed projects are unusual enough that that's why they make the news. Do you have some data to the contrary you'd like to share?
Contributor to three successful and delivered Kickstarter projects speaking (one late by a year, but for an awesome reason), and backer to another handful, all delivered or on schedule (so they tell me).
The vulnerability is that a string that looks like a function definition can be constructed to be immediately executed prior to execution of the bash script. (This is to support truly ancient bash scripts back when functions were defined as VARIABLE()="() { body }".) However, a bug in that code means the entire value gets executed as a bash script, and so it's possible to append code to the function definition, and it'll get executed as bash code.
Essentially, it's lesson #1 why not to use eval() in your programs.
The danger is that user inputs in Web programs are frequently passed as environment variables to programs. This is especially true in CGI, where the request URI and HTTP headers are passed as environment variables.
This means if you use bash in your CGI, you can execute whatever command you like, as "apache" or whoever you're executing your CGI as. Remotely.
You can't say that because we're assuming ceteris paribus and we've already defined our control as the productivity of food on a given plot of land.
Our food production per plot of land has gone up; or, our required size of land to produce the same amount of food has gone down.
We can't say for sure if one person's profits will go up or down, at least not without additional information about the particularities and price elasticity stats of the market, because both their costs and their revenue have changed. But markets change all the time, people (and farmers especially) know they have to change produce from time to time, depending on what's profitable. Overall, though, lower costs are a good thing. Always. That's exactly what's happening here.
Societies where most people are in agriculture tend to be societies where most people are poor, and this is a causal effect: Their costs are so high for farming they can't afford to have industry elsewhere. Reducing costs means fewer people have to be in agriculture, and this is good.
This isn't even a feedback loop, although sometimes people will make a similar argument around other phenomenon assuming all feedback loops must be a positive feedback loop that never decays, incorrectly reaching the conclusion the economy will eventually collapse. (E.g. "Prices went up, therefore the cost of producing/refining oil/gas will go up, therefore the cost of producing many products will go up, until all products cost infinity!")
If you have literally nothing to spend, then your elasticity of demand is undefined. It's a division by zero error.
However in general, the law of diminishing marginal utility necessarily implies that as your income shrinks, your elasticity of demand becomes perfectly elastic (i.e. -infinity).
Let's backtrack to Econ 101: This is a change in supply, i.e. a movement of the supply curve on a plot of supply and demand, specifically, a movement to the right.
This causes the market price of the good (food, here) to fall.
It's possible to do quite a lot of things that we don't do, the question the economist faces is at what cost?
The demand curve for food by most people in the middle class and above is somewhat inelastic. I think it's fair to say the extra food production, to the extent there is any, is going to make for fewer hungry people, whose lower income makes their spending on food more elastic.
All donors to the Center--and to Stanford more generally--agree to give their funds as unrestricted gifts, for which there is no contractual agreement and no promised products, results, or deliverables.
But this makes absolutely no sense. If all money goes into a general fund, there's no distinguishing "whose" money it is, it's Stanford's money.
Most of the "weighing in" so far is about, among other things, not screwing over your customers with a bloated sysadmin nightmare of an init program. The closest you're going to get to a study is The Art of Unix Programming.
There's Encrypted Media Extensions, which everyone says is "ZOMG DRM", but it's an entirely separate document, and no more insidious than EncryptedXML.
You can't "standardize" DRM, it's literally impossible.
The metric you're looking for, and the only meaningful one for your point, is called Real GDP Per Capita. And it's up. Subcatagories of durable goods are also up. Up in real terms, per capita.
If you want to say we would be manufacturing more if not due to bad economic policy, fine. I agree.
But don't spread this nonsense that is technically the same thing as saying we're in a recession.
GDP measures the growth of the economy as a whole, over time, within a particular geographical area.
If you say that share of GDP of a certain industry to nationwide GDP has changed from 28% to 12%, but overall GDP grew 600% (or whatever), then mathematically, said industry grew -- it wasn't #1 in growth, but it still grew.
Nor does manufacturing need to be #1. The service sector can grow without sucking up other industry's resources, so naturally the GDP-share of other industry is going to shrink.
These are well-defined terms in economics. You're just being obtuse.
The issue is ISPs throttling based upon provider source.
Now there's an actual Net Neutrality violation. But...
If you pay for a 100Mbps connection I imagine you expect it should be pretty close to 100Mbps to any endpoint on the internet barring their end having a slower connection, not you can only get 2.5Mbps to Netflix because ISP don't like them but you can have your full 100Mbps to app store owned by ISP.
You don't need legislation for that, isn't that called fraud?
Slashdot Mirror
Um, the positions of the parties have been shifting more authoritarian, on average.
The USA was kind of founded on radical individual liberty and freedom. Today you can't find a party wanting to touch the war machine, drug laws, social security, or other massive programs that the Framers couldn't even have dreamt about.
Go back and look at the conflicts that the two parties fought over back then. It seems like a joke now. There was a time we actually fought over a centralized banking system? Light houses? Slavery?
We were able to do that without that legal shenanigans (just like other countries do).
What legal shenanigans? It's much simpler just to say "Hey, I can form a corporation that can make contracts and conduct business just like a sole proprietor can". You know, instead of having to write into the law "An individual or civil union or LLC or LLP or corporation or..." every time you want to refer to the concept.
Are you suggesting I should be able to sue chimps but not corporations?
1. False dichotomy.
It can't be a false dichotomy, it has a yes or no answer (or maybe "sometimes").
2. A better suggestion would be to sue individuals on whose behalf, by virtue of negligence or criminality, a corporation became liable for debts and crimes (specially crimes.)
Would you go to work knowing you could become liable for a botched order, or if your employer went bankrupt? Possibly losing your second car, maybe have to sell your house? Didn't think so. (That can and does happen to sole proprietors.)
Also, you are using misdirection. Corporate person hood refers to more than the ability to hold a corporation liable. It refers to giving the corporation rights and protections in addition to those already enjoyed by the individuals who make up the corporation.
The ability to enter into a contract necessarily implies you have rights to own property, and trade that property with whoever you wish. Corporations have just as much right to buy or sell bananas or advertisements or widgets as I do.
The concept taken to it's extreme would give my wife and I (who now hold control of a corporation) an extra vote in an election.
In the US, votes aren't given to persons, but to individuals who are citizens of a certain age, and possibly other restrictions depending on state. Do mind the semantics, because corporate persons obviously don't fit in here.
If a different standard for voting was used, e.g. "Property owners cast votes proportional to how much land they own", then yes, corporations would cast votes. This is how it already works for voting for membership of corporate boards, so I don't see a problem with this. Obviously, that's a big "if".
Most importantly, from the liability you aspect you mentioned, is that instead of my wife and I being responsible for the crimes we collectively commit under the umbrella of that piece of paper, the paper is liable. We can do all sorts of unethical and evil using it's name, then fold that paper up and put it away if it doesn't all work out.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Marriage means you and your wife are considered a single person for certain purposes. Even if you have an LLC, you can't commit fraud - that's criminal, and you could be individually found guilty.
Acme. You do not need corporate personhood to sue Acme.
If the company is a single-person entity, yeah, pretty much. If it is a LLC, then you go after the corp's asset. And if it is a corporation, you go after the corporation's assets.
Regular individuals can't bring a lawsuit against property ("John Doe v. Three gallons of milk" makes as much sense as "John Doe v. 60 shares of Acme, Inc."). Hence, corporate personhood.
Any intelligent business entity would never entered into a contract under such conditions. Also, contracts spell out responsibilities (who pays what and how much when defaulting a contract), in a document enforced by the law.
How much commerce do you think we do without the ability to enter into high-value contracts? Virtually none.
How do you think we enforce contracts against corporations? Corporate personhood.
You do not need corporate personhood. It is a stupid American legal aberration. How the hell do you think developed countries like Japan or Germany that do not have such a notion handle violation of contracts or trials against corporations?
They aren't Common Law states (countries), but nonetheless it's handled roughly the same.
That's how criminal negligence already works, when's the last time a corporation was tried in court for murder?
I'm talking about enforcing contracts. My company orders a million dollars of widgets from Acme and they're never delivered. Who's responsible? I don't want to sue an individual, I'm never seeing my money back if that's the only option available. And if I did, some poor employee for Acme is going to lose their second car and probably have to sell their house.
You actually think a single person would be able to pay all the damages asked in many of today's lawsuits against corporations?
You think most people are willing to accept liability on behalf of their employer, with the potential to lose most all their property if found guilty?
Corporate personhood refers to the ability to hold a corporation liable for debts and crimes. Are you suggesting I should be able to sue chimps but not corporations?
It didn't need to, the study was on twins. Further, testing on both identical and fraternal twins allowed researchers to calculate how much genetics plays into it, because the genetic makeup for both kinds of twins is highly predictable.
Don't confuse ethical for moral.
People do A/B testing all the time, that's perfectly legitimate and therefore ethical. What's any different when Facebook does it?
That's called "dedicated". You can ask for it, but it's ridiculously expensive.
As in, two to three orders of magnitude more expensive, depending on the SLA that you want.
Failed projects are unusual enough that that's why they make the news. Do you have some data to the contrary you'd like to share?
Contributor to three successful and delivered Kickstarter projects speaking (one late by a year, but for an awesome reason), and backer to another handful, all delivered or on schedule (so they tell me).
Commerce is either interstate or intrastate.
Many of their business operations might be interstate - and thus subject to federal law - but a sale in Iowa from Iowa to Iowa is not.
The vulnerability is that a string that looks like a function definition can be constructed to be immediately executed prior to execution of the bash script. (This is to support truly ancient bash scripts back when functions were defined as VARIABLE()="() { body }".) However, a bug in that code means the entire value gets executed as a bash script, and so it's possible to append code to the function definition, and it'll get executed as bash code.
Essentially, it's lesson #1 why not to use eval() in your programs.
The danger is that user inputs in Web programs are frequently passed as environment variables to programs. This is especially true in CGI, where the request URI and HTTP headers are passed as environment variables.
This means if you use bash in your CGI, you can execute whatever command you like, as "apache" or whoever you're executing your CGI as. Remotely.
You can't say that because we're assuming ceteris paribus and we've already defined our control as the productivity of food on a given plot of land.
Our food production per plot of land has gone up; or, our required size of land to produce the same amount of food has gone down.
We can't say for sure if one person's profits will go up or down, at least not without additional information about the particularities and price elasticity stats of the market, because both their costs and their revenue have changed. But markets change all the time, people (and farmers especially) know they have to change produce from time to time, depending on what's profitable. Overall, though, lower costs are a good thing. Always. That's exactly what's happening here.
Societies where most people are in agriculture tend to be societies where most people are poor, and this is a causal effect: Their costs are so high for farming they can't afford to have industry elsewhere. Reducing costs means fewer people have to be in agriculture, and this is good.
This isn't even a feedback loop, although sometimes people will make a similar argument around other phenomenon assuming all feedback loops must be a positive feedback loop that never decays, incorrectly reaching the conclusion the economy will eventually collapse. (E.g. "Prices went up, therefore the cost of producing/refining oil/gas will go up, therefore the cost of producing many products will go up, until all products cost infinity!")
If you have literally nothing to spend, then your elasticity of demand is undefined. It's a division by zero error.
However in general, the law of diminishing marginal utility necessarily implies that as your income shrinks, your elasticity of demand becomes perfectly elastic (i.e. -infinity).
Let's backtrack to Econ 101: This is a change in supply, i.e. a movement of the supply curve on a plot of supply and demand, specifically, a movement to the right.
This causes the market price of the good (food, here) to fall.
It's possible to do quite a lot of things that we don't do, the question the economist faces is at what cost?
The demand curve for food by most people in the middle class and above is somewhat inelastic. I think it's fair to say the extra food production, to the extent there is any, is going to make for fewer hungry people, whose lower income makes their spending on food more elastic.
Stanford says it's an "internal policy": https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/...
But this makes absolutely no sense. If all money goes into a general fund, there's no distinguishing "whose" money it is, it's Stanford's money.
UX is about more than just UI.
Most of the "weighing in" so far is about, among other things, not screwing over your customers with a bloated sysadmin nightmare of an init program. The closest you're going to get to a study is The Art of Unix Programming .
I can't find any actual instances of it happening, but this appears to mention the rumor you're talking about: http://whatis.techtarget.com/d...
HTML doesn't mention DRM. See for yourself: http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/PR-h...
There's Encrypted Media Extensions, which everyone says is "ZOMG DRM", but it's an entirely separate document, and no more insidious than EncryptedXML.
You can't "standardize" DRM, it's literally impossible.
As a respected M.D. at least Dre has some validity as a good ear, and he can evaluate the results of different parametric curves on tone signature
Fixed
The metric you're looking for, and the only meaningful one for your point, is called Real GDP Per Capita. And it's up. Subcatagories of durable goods are also up. Up in real terms, per capita.
If you want to say we would be manufacturing more if not due to bad economic policy, fine. I agree.
But don't spread this nonsense that is technically the same thing as saying we're in a recession.
GDP measures the growth of the economy as a whole, over time, within a particular geographical area.
If you say that share of GDP of a certain industry to nationwide GDP has changed from 28% to 12%, but overall GDP grew 600% (or whatever), then mathematically, said industry grew -- it wasn't #1 in growth, but it still grew.
Nor does manufacturing need to be #1. The service sector can grow without sucking up other industry's resources, so naturally the GDP-share of other industry is going to shrink.
These are well-defined terms in economics. You're just being obtuse.
That sounds like "throttling" and in the particular way they're doing it, "fraud." I still fail to see how Net Neutrality comes in here.
The issue is ISPs throttling based upon provider source.
Now there's an actual Net Neutrality violation. But...
If you pay for a 100Mbps connection I imagine you expect it should be pretty close to 100Mbps to any endpoint on the internet barring their end having a slower connection, not you can only get 2.5Mbps to Netflix because ISP don't like them but you can have your full 100Mbps to app store owned by ISP.
You don't need legislation for that, isn't that called fraud?