Who's to say there was not an agreements in place that allowed the sharing of newspaper articles without attributing to the source, it may be that as long as no one put their name atop the article that it was acceptable with the other papers. Writing anything anti-colonial may not have been attributed to the writer to protect the writer from imprisonment or the gallows. Many of the major newspapers owners did know each other and were sympathetic to the cause so a simple arrangement is a very likely scenario. It is more likely that this was a distributed propaganda network then a shift in plagiarism values. Unless other articles not related to the revolution can be found to be treated in the same way before, during, and after the revolution it would be reckless to call this a change in values.
But it's exactly like having twenty police officers on every single street corner hand writing voluminous logs of every plate they see, along with the current date and time.
Since that could be done without warrant, this is obviously perfectly fine, and not even worth thinking about.
It may be perfectly legal to do but I know I wouldn't support any elected official that supported these measures.
Just because they hive a right to do it doesn't make it right.
The problem as I see it is to figure out how to exercise the code that unlocks the key used to decrypt the payload. Brute force to crack the payload is going about it the hard way. When dealing with criminals, never play by their rules.
The reason the payload exists is so that it can be decrypted and used. Both the algorithm and the key are in there somewhere. The problem is discovering under what conditions it is exercised and halt the process after the decryption but before the key is removed from memory. Timing is the key to success.
Load the code in a hardware virtualization monitoring environement with an emulated CPU clock and let it run. Analyse the code execution and discover the branches not taken and then force it to take each branch the next time around, and watch/trace what it does. If you find ant-debugging protections along that path then you are probably on the right track to recover the key. There is no singular trick in their little-black-bag-of-tricks that can't be worked around. Be persistant and the key will be recovered, and a lot sooner than trying to brute-force decrypt the payload without the key.
The algorithm can be know and still does not make it easier to decrypt, the key does not have to be know by the program rather is it used to decrypt the actual code. There are two parts to the code the encrypted and the unencrypted, the unencrypted will use certain settings on the target computer that are unique as the key. The program then decrypts the encrypted part of program, verifies that the decryption was successful using a hash function and comparing it to a different section of the encrypted data, then executes the formerly encrypted payload. At no point does the program verify the key, the hash can be used to verify a successful brute force decryption but the hash will not lead you to a complete decryption. At no time does the program need a copy of the true key to work is simply runs the code through a hash function and compares it.
The problem with recycling electronics is first that the process to remove the metals from the recycled oar will be different then getting the material from the ground, the cost to refine those materials is more expensive. It's no so simple to say just refine the precious metals from the pile of waste the refining process of one material might make refining the waste from another impossible so pulling out the gold and indium may not be possible. Then there are the environmental concerns too these products contain lead, arsenic, and mercury that must be handled properly along with the chemicals needed to refine the metals you have a lot of costs in managing the toxic chemicals. A material is only called oar if it can be mined and refined for a profit, it may well be that the electronics waste are considered oar for only one or two of the metals and that the waste from the 1st round of recycling has caused the material to no longer be considered oar.
One salaried teacher working extra hours costs the district the same as if he was not working extra hours. Not until he got 4 hours a week to get donations could you argue there was cost even then they may have exchanged his planning period for the teaching leave to find more computers.
cherry pick a scenario? Women make up over 75% of education employees and there are millions of education jobs, 3% of the female population are teachers this includes children and the retired that is no small amount.
so you want to cherry pick scenarios rather than simply admit a common and serious problem?
you really do have issues. really. you have a chip on your shoulder, you view yourself as the victim, perpetually. you're at the gateway of madness
I won't be fed a load of BS, you exclaimed that every woman has a story to tell, and I replied that using absolutes make you look like you are out of touch, and then you reiterated that every woman has one if not more stories to tell. I think you are projecting the victim issues on everyone else, people don't think of themselves as the victim just because they think the PC culture has gone off the deep end. I don't know what happened to you but your incident is not the norm at least in my experience and the experiences of my peers. Your crazed fixation that every woman is a victim got a bucked of reality dumped on it, and instead of defending your point or conceding your statement as hyperbole you decide to attack me. Who has the chip again?
no you should be punished for calling someone a dumbass. yes you should get punished for asking your penis to be sucked or the employee loses her job
get it einstein?
What if the female was blond and after doing something stupid the comment blond moment was said? If reported you would certainly get into hot water in your Utopian PC culture. I distinctly remember having to sit through a PC training course and an example of bad behavior was after a pregnant woman bumped into a male coworker he remarked that she needed a backup beeping system to warn other people, our HR rep was not amused when I chuckled. These are the things that PC enthusiast like your self push onto everyone else and take attention away from the true problem.
every single woman has a story to tell, or multiple stories, of a man who has attempted to extort sexual favors from them. wake up!
So females that have only worked in a family business have attempted to be extorted for sexual favors? What about women in female dominated careers where their supervisors are typically female as well. Once you start using every and all or none your argument losses weight because intelligent people see you through your hyperbole and rhetoric. You do a disservice to your cause by using absolutes, it makes people see how out of touch with reality you are.
"Verbal statements, directed towards anyone, or simply overheard is not abuse."
Let me get this straight if I say something and someone else finds it offensive it's abuse and we should sound the alarms. Calling someone a dumbass because they just did something incredibility stupid should not be a problem, but in your PC world it is. This has a direct effect on reporting of actual issues because the BS ones minimise actual problems and may even be used to intimidate the victim into not reporting.
"touch my junk or your fired"
"let me give you a bank rub or i don't think we'll be hiring you"
"if you want to meet potential employers at DEFCON, you'll have to have your ass grabbed and listen to neanderthals make ugly remarks at you"
All these are real issues that get minimized because of the over the top PC crap that gets shoved down every one's throat.
if i were a woman faced with these scenarios, the way i would deal with it, on my own (that seems important to you somehow, as if society can't or should not protect her?), is to complain, sue, make noise and otherwise force the ABUSIVE asshole into contrition or punishment
you have a problem with that? yeah, you do. then go whine about it. you're good at it. but you're going to have to buck up and deal with: all women have stories about workplace or social scenario power being twisted into requests for sexual favors by douchebags. you say about that: "Verbal statements, directed towards anyone, or simply overheard is not abuse." that makes your understanding about what women face pretty fucking stupid. you are basically utterly clueless about what actually goes on in the real world. try to grow up and understand
I work in a male dominated field and have not witnessed any of these problems, I'm not saying they don't exist but saying all women have faced these issues is absolutely absurd.
You can either be "Equal" or you can be a delicate flower that needs special protection. You can't be both.
Exactly, my boss once sent me a message that was intended for his wife it went something like this I'll be home in a few days Love you honey. In today's culture if I had been a women that could have been a serious mistake instead I interpreted for what it truly was, a mistake and I made sure to reply back I love you too Honey. Nothing sexual or demeaning but could easily be misinterpreted by a person that looks for issues. The problem is that the pendulum has swung too far and now we over react to everything, this may have been due to the workplace 30 years ago when most sales teams had a girl that would show the customers a good time. These attitudes are not a part of the workplace yet the witch hunt still goes on.
Right now, there's just too much a chance of this never even being released for me to pre-order. And even if it does come out, there's a large chance that it won't have any good, interesting games come out.
Now, if it does come out and live up to its promises, I'll buy one. No problem there. But I'm just still too apprehensive about it to commit to it until it's solid.
Current limits of cellphones are 2W for digital and 3.6 for analog most cell phones only emit.3W peak. Increasing the legal Tx power will not endanger your balls, as radiating you balls with 2W would drain your battery in about a half an hour giving you at most 5 hours a day of ball nuking, (16 waking hours, 1 hour charge,.5 hours ball nuke). It would be similar to radiating you nuts with a.4W source 24hours a day.
In low density areas, high broadcast strength antennas and towers are sensible.
The trouble is that cellular companies want a one size fits all tower deployment plan, and want to put high energy towers in or near urban areas, resulting in the congestions that plaugue them, and cause them to argue for bandwidth caps.
The solution is to implement mixed bag deployment, but that increases logistical costs.
For an urban areas, which is what the GGP was explicitly referring to, many small towers at lower broadcast power make all the sense in the word.
The GP, arguing that it makes perfect sense technologically to raise power to get more people on fewer towers, over greater distances is either explicitly referring to completely rural roverage zones, or is an idiot.
For the sake of civility, I will assume the former.
Still, as a rural subscriber, I am happy with T-mobile's wifi hotspot support for android handsets. It also comes in really handy for office building deadzones and other service nightmare situations in ruban settings as well.
Clearly a hybrid solution is ideal.
They all ready do this, mostly because in urban areas cranking the signal up to 11 hurts your transmission because the signal bounces around so much you induce noise with multibounce. The only solution in urban areas is more towers with less power, out in suburban and rural areas the signal can be transmitted at the max level and not increase the noise floor drastically. In suburban and rural areas a perimeter can be set up fairly cheaply that could allow the tower to broadcast above the current legal Tx power and still have less power outside the perimeter then the lower power ones in cities do. The Tx power is currently what is regulated by the FCC as it is the easiest way to regulate, but a tower on top of a residential building will radiate the population at much higher levels then a tower on some farmland or on top a water tower, this is one of the things that needs to be taken into account when determining the allowable Tx power.
You should receive 0.00000001% of the blame and resulting judgments.
You think that the people that had pension's through Enron should have had not only their retirement wiped out but also seize more money from them since their pensions would not cover the huge amount of debt Enron racked up?
"Unless you think that the ability to gather is a special privilege granted by the government your argument has a huge flaw."
BY pooling that many resource, it does give corporation undo influence over the government.
So you think Unions, are a bad thing them? The only reason corporations and unions have undo influence is because our elected officials have no morals, if our politicians were not for sale corporations would not have as much influence.
. Corporation ran amok in England then. When a system emerges to remove responsibility from the owners, why would they act responsible?
The corporation will have its assets seized and charge any individuals responsible for wrong doing criminally, not going after a shareholder's personal assets if the company they they invested in doesn't have enough assets.
The problem with all this Randism is that it doesn't account for failure. If the bank where I put my savings fail, my savings are gone, even though I didn't made an error in judgement when I put my money there long ago. If I don't have the resources to diversify my savings enough to put them into different banks, and if not only a single bank but a whole system of banks fails, I lose. Regulation is not primarily about infringment on individual freedom and trade, it is about limiting the effect an error, a fraud, or a failure have on innocent bystanders. Regulations are not primarily about control, they are about the containment of catastrophical events. And moreso: Disincentives are also just another type of regulation. Laws forbidding fraud, murder or theft are regulation. And courts upholding contracts and a police enforcing the court decisions are the judictive and the executive branch of those laws and regulations.
It does, if you put your money in a bank and they fail then you fail, just as if you put your money in d'Anconia copper and if fails do to intentional negligence of the owner you fail as well. Investing money in anything has risks, you accept those risks by investing your money. What you are asking for is a place where you can invest your money and get growth without worrying about risk, that is nonsense.
If it helps you, stop thinking about "corporate welfare" and think of your own, because all trade is a two-way street.
I could stop thinking about "corporate welfare", if the very existence of corporations wasn't a government-granted privilege that shielded the owners (who will reap the profits) from personal responsibility. But since it is, it would seem that they should be subject to the control of the greater society. "Corporations" have no natural existence, no natural rights, they're a creature of government, a special privilege granted to a group that should be expected to act in ways that will benefit all of society, not just their shareholders. If they don't like that, let them return to being partnerships, as they were before the invention of the corporation.
If you own 0.00000001% of a company and they do nefarious things should your house be seized because of this transgression? If you think eliminating limited liability would stop any current practices you are wrong, shares would be sold and the people left holding the bag would be the people who had no input on the bad decision? Corporations are simply a group of people who have decided to invest into their group for a common purpose. Unless you think that the ability to gather is a special privilege granted by the government your argument has a huge flaw.
When 50% of GDP growth since WW2 has come directly from science, this short-sighted non-funding view will cripple us.
Ultimately, there are projects where profits cannot be privatized. In these instances, government funding is the only way to go. But this doesn't get votes, so we are stuck.
Cynically Yours,
MyLongNickName
There is a ton of government funding going into science, composites got a huge boost from the R&D of building lighter planes. Darpa spends defense money and much of that research goes on to commercial applications, many colleges and universities receive federal grants to conduct research. The notion that the US does not spend money on research is foolish there are billions of dollars spend on just that, the only reason you think the amount of money spent on research is small is because the research facilities are scattered, the US doesn't have a ministry of Science to control all research. The US government spends about $140 billion per year, 75 Billion on defense R&D and 65 Billion is classified as non-defense. This does not include and private companies R&D which would easily put the number over 200 billion which is more then any other country.
Actually, a good portion of human activity can be explained by that simple phrase. In this case, it's about enforcing rules guaranteeing BT certain amounts of money.
BT paid to be the sole wifi provider of the Olympic games and at Olympic Venues, if the Venues are private property they have done nothing wrong, just as a home owner has the right throw someone off their property they have the right to do the same. Now if you were directly across the street you can do what ever you please as long at it is within the the Ofcom regulations. They are not saying you can't set up a wifi hub in London they are saying you can't set up a wifi hub at an Olympic venue on private property. If the venues are on public property then they have no ground to stand on as they don't have the authority to remove people from public property.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's to say there was not an agreements in place that allowed the sharing of newspaper articles without attributing to the source, it may be that as long as no one put their name atop the article that it was acceptable with the other papers. Writing anything anti-colonial may not have been attributed to the writer to protect the writer from imprisonment or the gallows. Many of the major newspapers owners did know each other and were sympathetic to the cause so a simple arrangement is a very likely scenario. It is more likely that this was a distributed propaganda network then a shift in plagiarism values. Unless other articles not related to the revolution can be found to be treated in the same way before, during, and after the revolution it would be reckless to call this a change in values.
T-mobile has no roaming charges, the only way you might get hit is if you live on a US boarder town.
But it's exactly like having twenty police officers on every single street corner hand writing voluminous logs of every plate they see, along with the current date and time.
Since that could be done without warrant, this is obviously perfectly fine, and not even worth thinking about.
It may be perfectly legal to do but I know I wouldn't support any elected official that supported these measures.
Just because they hive a right to do it doesn't make it right.
But how do you separate out the different metals?
The problem as I see it is to figure out how to exercise the code that unlocks the key used to decrypt the payload. Brute force to crack the payload is going about it the hard way. When dealing with criminals, never play by their rules.
The reason the payload exists is so that it can be decrypted and used. Both the algorithm and the key are in there somewhere. The problem is discovering under what conditions it is exercised and halt the process after the decryption but before the key is removed from memory. Timing is the key to success.
Load the code in a hardware virtualization monitoring environement with an emulated CPU clock and let it run. Analyse the code execution and discover the branches not taken and then force it to take each branch the next time around, and watch/trace what it does. If you find ant-debugging protections along that path then you are probably on the right track to recover the key. There is no singular trick in their little-black-bag-of-tricks that can't be worked around. Be persistant and the key will be recovered, and a lot sooner than trying to brute-force decrypt the payload without the key.
The algorithm can be know and still does not make it easier to decrypt, the key does not have to be know by the program rather is it used to decrypt the actual code. There are two parts to the code the encrypted and the unencrypted, the unencrypted will use certain settings on the target computer that are unique as the key. The program then decrypts the encrypted part of program, verifies that the decryption was successful using a hash function and comparing it to a different section of the encrypted data, then executes the formerly encrypted payload. At no point does the program verify the key, the hash can be used to verify a successful brute force decryption but the hash will not lead you to a complete decryption. At no time does the program need a copy of the true key to work is simply runs the code through a hash function and compares it.
Huh? They are a publicly traded company. They have financial reporting, and a lot of it, too.
So was Enron
The problem with recycling electronics is first that the process to remove the metals from the recycled oar will be different then getting the material from the ground, the cost to refine those materials is more expensive. It's no so simple to say just refine the precious metals from the pile of waste the refining process of one material might make refining the waste from another impossible so pulling out the gold and indium may not be possible. Then there are the environmental concerns too these products contain lead, arsenic, and mercury that must be handled properly along with the chemicals needed to refine the metals you have a lot of costs in managing the toxic chemicals. A material is only called oar if it can be mined and refined for a profit, it may well be that the electronics waste are considered oar for only one or two of the metals and that the waste from the 1st round of recycling has caused the material to no longer be considered oar.
One salaried teacher working extra hours costs the district the same as if he was not working extra hours. Not until he got 4 hours a week to get donations could you argue there was cost even then they may have exchanged his planning period for the teaching leave to find more computers.
I just want more than a friggin advertisment for an article.
There isn't an existing product or even one in the forseeable future, so what exactly do you think they are advertising?
Funding?
cherry pick a scenario? Women make up over 75% of education employees and there are millions of education jobs, 3% of the female population are teachers this includes children and the retired that is no small amount.
Thanks for proving my point, you can't counter my argument so you decide to call names.
so you want to cherry pick scenarios rather than simply admit a common and serious problem?
you really do have issues. really. you have a chip on your shoulder, you view yourself as the victim, perpetually. you're at the gateway of madness
I won't be fed a load of BS, you exclaimed that every woman has a story to tell, and I replied that using absolutes make you look like you are out of touch, and then you reiterated that every woman has one if not more stories to tell. I think you are projecting the victim issues on everyone else, people don't think of themselves as the victim just because they think the PC culture has gone off the deep end. I don't know what happened to you but your incident is not the norm at least in my experience and the experiences of my peers. Your crazed fixation that every woman is a victim got a bucked of reality dumped on it, and instead of defending your point or conceding your statement as hyperbole you decide to attack me. Who has the chip again?
no you should be punished for calling someone a dumbass. yes you should get punished for asking your penis to be sucked or the employee loses her job
get it einstein?
What if the female was blond and after doing something stupid the comment blond moment was said? If reported you would certainly get into hot water in your Utopian PC culture. I distinctly remember having to sit through a PC training course and an example of bad behavior was after a pregnant woman bumped into a male coworker he remarked that she needed a backup beeping system to warn other people, our HR rep was not amused when I chuckled. These are the things that PC enthusiast like your self push onto everyone else and take attention away from the true problem.
every single woman has a story to tell, or multiple stories, of a man who has attempted to extort sexual favors from them. wake up!
So females that have only worked in a family business have attempted to be extorted for sexual favors? What about women in female dominated careers where their supervisors are typically female as well. Once you start using every and all or none your argument losses weight because intelligent people see you through your hyperbole and rhetoric. You do a disservice to your cause by using absolutes, it makes people see how out of touch with reality you are.
A female teacher received No JAIL TIME/ for Molesting a 13year old male student. So no jail time looks like the answer.
"Verbal statements, directed towards anyone, or simply overheard is not abuse."
Let me get this straight if I say something and someone else finds it offensive it's abuse and we should sound the alarms. Calling someone a dumbass because they just did something incredibility stupid should not be a problem, but in your PC world it is. This has a direct effect on reporting of actual issues because the BS ones minimise actual problems and may even be used to intimidate the victim into not reporting.
"touch my junk or your fired"
"let me give you a bank rub or i don't think we'll be hiring you"
"if you want to meet potential employers at DEFCON, you'll have to have your ass grabbed and listen to neanderthals make ugly remarks at you"
All these are real issues that get minimized because of the over the top PC crap that gets shoved down every one's throat.
if i were a woman faced with these scenarios, the way i would deal with it, on my own (that seems important to you somehow, as if society can't or should not protect her?), is to complain, sue, make noise and otherwise force the ABUSIVE asshole into contrition or punishment
you have a problem with that? yeah, you do. then go whine about it. you're good at it. but you're going to have to buck up and deal with: all women have stories about workplace or social scenario power being twisted into requests for sexual favors by douchebags. you say about that: "Verbal statements, directed towards anyone, or simply overheard is not abuse." that makes your understanding about what women face pretty fucking stupid. you are basically utterly clueless about what actually goes on in the real world. try to grow up and understand
I work in a male dominated field and have not witnessed any of these problems, I'm not saying they don't exist but saying all women have faced these issues is absolutely absurd.
You can either be "Equal" or you can be a delicate flower that needs special protection. You can't be both.
Exactly, my boss once sent me a message that was intended for his wife it went something like this I'll be home in a few days Love you honey. In today's culture if I had been a women that could have been a serious mistake instead I interpreted for what it truly was, a mistake and I made sure to reply back I love you too Honey. Nothing sexual or demeaning but could easily be misinterpreted by a person that looks for issues. The problem is that the pendulum has swung too far and now we over react to everything, this may have been due to the workplace 30 years ago when most sales teams had a girl that would show the customers a good time. These attitudes are not a part of the workplace yet the witch hunt still goes on.
Right now, there's just too much a chance of this never even being released for me to pre-order. And even if it does come out, there's a large chance that it won't have any good, interesting games come out.
Now, if it does come out and live up to its promises, I'll buy one. No problem there. But I'm just still too apprehensive about it to commit to it until it's solid.
Did you preorder Duke Nukem Forever?
Current limits of cellphones are 2W for digital and 3.6 for analog most cell phones only emit .3W peak. Increasing the legal Tx power will not endanger your balls, as radiating you balls with 2W would drain your battery in about a half an hour giving you at most 5 hours a day of ball nuking, (16 waking hours, 1 hour charge, .5 hours ball nuke). It would be similar to radiating you nuts with a .4W source 24hours a day.
In low density areas, high broadcast strength antennas and towers are sensible.
The trouble is that cellular companies want a one size fits all tower deployment plan, and want to put high energy towers in or near urban areas, resulting in the congestions that plaugue them, and cause them to argue for bandwidth caps.
The solution is to implement mixed bag deployment, but that increases logistical costs.
For an urban areas, which is what the GGP was explicitly referring to, many small towers at lower broadcast power make all the sense in the word.
The GP, arguing that it makes perfect sense technologically to raise power to get more people on fewer towers, over greater distances is either explicitly referring to completely rural roverage zones, or is an idiot.
For the sake of civility, I will assume the former.
Still, as a rural subscriber, I am happy with T-mobile's wifi hotspot support for android handsets. It also comes in really handy for office building deadzones and other service nightmare situations in ruban settings as well.
Clearly a hybrid solution is ideal.
They all ready do this, mostly because in urban areas cranking the signal up to 11 hurts your transmission because the signal bounces around so much you induce noise with multibounce. The only solution in urban areas is more towers with less power, out in suburban and rural areas the signal can be transmitted at the max level and not increase the noise floor drastically. In suburban and rural areas a perimeter can be set up fairly cheaply that could allow the tower to broadcast above the current legal Tx power and still have less power outside the perimeter then the lower power ones in cities do. The Tx power is currently what is regulated by the FCC as it is the easiest way to regulate, but a tower on top of a residential building will radiate the population at much higher levels then a tower on some farmland or on top a water tower, this is one of the things that needs to be taken into account when determining the allowable Tx power.
You should receive 0.00000001% of the blame and resulting judgments.
You think that the people that had pension's through Enron should have had not only their retirement wiped out but also seize more money from them since their pensions would not cover the huge amount of debt Enron racked up?
"Unless you think that the ability to gather is a special privilege granted by the government your argument has a huge flaw." BY pooling that many resource, it does give corporation undo influence over the government.
So you think Unions, are a bad thing them? The only reason corporations and unions have undo influence is because our elected officials have no morals, if our politicians were not for sale corporations would not have as much influence.
. Corporation ran amok in England then. When a system emerges to remove responsibility from the owners, why would they act responsible?
The corporation will have its assets seized and charge any individuals responsible for wrong doing criminally, not going after a shareholder's personal assets if the company they they invested in doesn't have enough assets.
A safety deposit box would do perfectly then.
The problem with all this Randism is that it doesn't account for failure. If the bank where I put my savings fail, my savings are gone, even though I didn't made an error in judgement when I put my money there long ago. If I don't have the resources to diversify my savings enough to put them into different banks, and if not only a single bank but a whole system of banks fails, I lose. Regulation is not primarily about infringment on individual freedom and trade, it is about limiting the effect an error, a fraud, or a failure have on innocent bystanders. Regulations are not primarily about control, they are about the containment of catastrophical events. And moreso: Disincentives are also just another type of regulation. Laws forbidding fraud, murder or theft are regulation. And courts upholding contracts and a police enforcing the court decisions are the judictive and the executive branch of those laws and regulations.
It does, if you put your money in a bank and they fail then you fail, just as if you put your money in d'Anconia copper and if fails do to intentional negligence of the owner you fail as well. Investing money in anything has risks, you accept those risks by investing your money. What you are asking for is a place where you can invest your money and get growth without worrying about risk, that is nonsense.
If it helps you, stop thinking about "corporate welfare" and think of your own, because all trade is a two-way street.
I could stop thinking about "corporate welfare", if the very existence of corporations wasn't a government-granted privilege that shielded the owners (who will reap the profits) from personal responsibility. But since it is, it would seem that they should be subject to the control of the greater society. "Corporations" have no natural existence, no natural rights, they're a creature of government, a special privilege granted to a group that should be expected to act in ways that will benefit all of society, not just their shareholders. If they don't like that, let them return to being partnerships, as they were before the invention of the corporation.
If you own 0.00000001% of a company and they do nefarious things should your house be seized because of this transgression? If you think eliminating limited liability would stop any current practices you are wrong, shares would be sold and the people left holding the bag would be the people who had no input on the bad decision? Corporations are simply a group of people who have decided to invest into their group for a common purpose. Unless you think that the ability to gather is a special privilege granted by the government your argument has a huge flaw.
When 50% of GDP growth since WW2 has come directly from science, this short-sighted non-funding view will cripple us.
Ultimately, there are projects where profits cannot be privatized. In these instances, government funding is the only way to go. But this doesn't get votes, so we are stuck.
Cynically Yours, MyLongNickName
There is a ton of government funding going into science, composites got a huge boost from the R&D of building lighter planes. Darpa spends defense money and much of that research goes on to commercial applications, many colleges and universities receive federal grants to conduct research. The notion that the US does not spend money on research is foolish there are billions of dollars spend on just that, the only reason you think the amount of money spent on research is small is because the research facilities are scattered, the US doesn't have a ministry of Science to control all research. The US government spends about $140 billion per year, 75 Billion on defense R&D and 65 Billion is classified as non-defense. This does not include and private companies R&D which would easily put the number over 200 billion which is more then any other country.
"We want more money."
Actually, a good portion of human activity can be explained by that simple phrase. In this case, it's about enforcing rules guaranteeing BT certain amounts of money.
BT paid to be the sole wifi provider of the Olympic games and at Olympic Venues, if the Venues are private property they have done nothing wrong, just as a home owner has the right throw someone off their property they have the right to do the same. Now if you were directly across the street you can do what ever you please as long at it is within the the Ofcom regulations. They are not saying you can't set up a wifi hub in London they are saying you can't set up a wifi hub at an Olympic venue on private property. If the venues are on public property then they have no ground to stand on as they don't have the authority to remove people from public property.