Sure. Consider the difference between "da" and "a". Telling the airport screener that your traveling companion is da bomb may have different results than telling them your friend is a bomb...
Unfortunately, I have people above me who insist on only using Microsoft's Windows Defender (aka antispyware). Poor misinformed souls.
If you're only going to use one, the one from MS is not such a bad choice, in my experience - it's really pretty thorough. Of course, when I'm being rewarded with beer for fixing machines from friends and relatives, I never use just one, because there doesn't seem to be one single product that can do it all. YMMV.
It's early, but I've had my coffee and I'm feeling pedantic enough for/.;)
Anyway, this is from the Guardian (UK), and while it's not exactly the Queen's English, "crap" as an adjective seems to be a reasonably common Britishism. "Shit" works the same way on the other side of the pond - you'd know exactly what I meant if I told you that I have a shit car.;)
If the rats don't feel fear, do they also lose understanding of danger? That would be a pretty bad mutation.
My first thought also. There are some situations where fear is an entirely appropriate response - lose it, and unwarranted risks may start to become a problem.
As a noncommercial end-user, MP3 licensing is not a problem for you. If you were developing software to implement MP3, either encoding or decoding, or your MP3-encoded content were part of a commercial (i.e., revenue generating) enterprise, then you would need a license. Since neither of those apply, MP3 is free for you to use.
Sucks to be you - I can get four weeks of a 30-sheet for $1100 around here. Piss me off enough, and I'll consider it money well spent, so try not to offend anyone too well-heeled.
I don't believe in libel or slander. Words, in the long run, can damage a reputation -- but creating a quality product will always trump it.
So then, as a matter of principle, you won't be suing me when I rent a few billboards near your house and put your name, address, and photo on them, along with labeling you a known liar, thief, and pedophile. Hope you produce some seriously high-quality products, my man.
I just scanned the article but where did they get these numbers from?
Like many analysts, he pulled it straight from his butt. Or, more specifically, he gathered a few anecdotes from Apple salesmen and extrapolated them to cover the entire universe.
No, arguement was what I gave when I disputed your 'facts' (sucessfully, as you were simply wrong). - The real question is simple. Do you still want to claim that the modern corporation existed in the 1600's, given that the U.S. Supreme Court decision on corporations having the status of legal persons dates only from over two hundred and fifty years later?
You seem to consider that "personhood" is a critical element required in order to constitute a "corporation" - I do not.
Are you somehow asserting that this decision and subsequent extensions have only a trivial effect on the legal accountability of corporations?
I have neither asserted nor denied any such thing.
Alternately, are you claiming that the full weight of the 14th amendment has only minor significance here?
I have neither claimed nor denied any such thing.
For that matter, do you want to claim that the U.S. government's general take on corporations in the 1770's to 1870's was functionally identical to European precident, in the face of everything from the federalist papers onward that shows it wasn't?
I'm sure that if I wanted to claim such a thing, I would.
While we're at it, what's the point in comparing old models of corporation and new, within the particular context of predicting abuses of power?
I don't know - this "context" seems to be your cross to bear, as I'm not especially interested in that particular crystal ball.
Even if you could somehow prove overwhelming similarity exists, overiding any significant distinctions, you'ld have to also claim examples such as the East India Company's actions re. British colonialism weren't proof of an underlieing problem with corporate power, or you've only refuted half the original poster's arguement, at the very most.
Whack one link, and the whole chain falls apart.
As long as you are unable or unwilling to answer those questions, there is no rational debate possible, through your choice.
Oh, I don't know about that - you seem quite willing to hold up both ends of the discussion here by ascribing all sorts of things to me. I'm not sure that my participation is really required to continue, but there you go.
I've stopped argueing...
Hmmmm. Perhaps you'll be good enough to back up and point out where you started arguing.
There is nothing at all preventing the formation of cooperative or employee-owned enterprises now - in fact, they already exist on several levels, from the local farmer's co-op all the way up to sizeable corporations such as SAIC. If, as you assert, such entities can provide goods and services even better than publicly traded corporations, you can expect to see more such ventures due to the competitive advantages they presumably possess. Personally, I'm not sure I buy it, but if we take your post at face value, what you want is probably only a matter of time.
As a matter of logic, when the facts are so fundamentally in error, the conclusion is worthless.
My post that you are responding to merely raised a salient point - it contained no argument, let alone a conclusion, so I assume you meant to direct this comment to someone else.
Corporations in the modern sense, with the rights and legal treatment of human beings, have only been around since the mid-to-late 19th century, when our "modern" lifestyle was being put into place by certain upper-class factions in England and America.
If you look at the structure of early corporations, such as the Dutch East India Company, it's pretty clear that the major hallmarks of modern corporations were in place - limited liability, functioning as an entity separate from its directors or owners, etc. What really happened in the latter half of the 19th century was a loosening of the procedures required to create a corporation - prior to that time, creating a corporation required a government charter which was generally only obtainable from the sovereign or the legislature directly. Typically, the only thing required now is filing the paperwork.
As for the legal fiction of corporate personhood, it's a mixed bag. Corporations do enjoy some of the rights of natural persons, including the right to own property and enter into contracts, and be held responsible for breach of same.
On the other hand, corporations are not pass-through tax entities the way sole proprietorships, meaning that profits are double-taxed - as a matter of fact, the state of New York still calls the corporate tax a "franchise tax", which is a throwback to the days when corporations were directly chartered by the state. The free speech rights of corporations, falling under the rubric of "commercial speech" as they do, are really quite limited compared to an individual's right to speak. The long and the short of it is that the rights of personhood that corporations enjoy tend to be directed at those necessary to conduct business - e.g., the owning of property and so forth.
Anyway, we may certainly quibble about the negative impact of corporate personhood, but in the end a corporation is merely a collection of individuals, working towards a common goal, with certain legal structures intended to facilitate those goals - the economic benefits of which are really quite undeniable. Virtually everything you own and enjoy was made possible by some corporate entity or another, from the computer you're typing on to the plates and flatware you ate dinner with. Your material wealth is very much facilitated by the free flow of investment capital made possible by corporate personhood, so perhaps we should examine the negatives of such structures in light of the tremendous benefits to society they provide. That may be unfashionable these days, to say that corporations really do quite a lot of good for society, but it's the truth - if anything, the material comfort that makes it possible for modern activists to decry corporations is itself facilitated by corporations.;)
Furthermore, the dominance of corporations within various spheres of life has expanded greatly, and thus the serious problem that the OP mentions is naturally more recent than that.
You've got better eyes than I do - the only "serious problem" I saw in that post was an assertion that we're going to hell in a handbasket, with nary a mention of how or why, other than some vague handwaving about corporations.
Thus, the fact that you cite (existence of corporations as early as 1600) is irrelevant to his point entirely since they must necessarily have come into existence prior to posing any sort of societal problem.
Allow me to expand - if someone would kindly explicate the "societal problem" in question, perhaps this would be more productive. Until then, you have you same problem as the original poster. You are both quite literally begging the question by assuming the truth of the thing that you are supposed to be demonstrating - namely, that corporations are responsible for the downfall of society, or whatever "logical outcome", to borrow the original poster's words, is supposedly inevitable. You do not get a pass on showing your work merely by asserting that the conclusion is a necessary consequence of some invisible premises.
Damn intellectual snobbery... this attitude is what people see when dealing with the "intelligensia" or "academia", and it is one of the primary reasons why there is a negative attitude toward science and higher learning in America.
How elitist of me - asking for coherent thoughts and rational arguments. Perhaps it's my intellectual snobbery coming to the fore here, but I just don't see a problem there that needs solving, particularly when it sounds like the "solution" is for everyone to uncritically swallow whatever's put on their plates. Sorry, but I don't think I'll be joining you on that particular bus.
If you take that stance, then the Bible and the Koran are old enough to be meaningless, but they arent. Closer to home: Guess what, money has been around for a long time- Still here, still relevant.
You misunderstand - to call those things "new" renders the concept of new meaningless, not the things themselves.
You also have misformed his conclusion, which can be better expressed that corporations are a significant negative draw on humanity, and enough of a negative draw will doom humanity.
That's not an especially coherent argument either, unless you intend to fill in the blanks a bit.
I mean, John Williams does not, to my knowledge, have a degree in filmmaking. Your friend is probably better off putting together a portfolio of his compositions, and then shopping it around until he drops. Covering both theme and incidental music would probably be wise, as well as a variety of genres. Don't bother with scores - the people who would hire him likely can't make sense of them anyway. Tell him to call in every favor he's got, get some musician friends into the studio, and do some recording. Lotsa luck to him.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. Consider the difference between "da" and "a". Telling the airport screener that your traveling companion is da bomb may have different results than telling them your friend is a bomb...
If you're only going to use one, the one from MS is not such a bad choice, in my experience - it's really pretty thorough. Of course, when I'm being rewarded with beer for fixing machines from friends and relatives, I never use just one, because there doesn't seem to be one single product that can do it all. YMMV.
Anyway, this is from the Guardian (UK), and while it's not exactly the Queen's English, "crap" as an adjective seems to be a reasonably common Britishism. "Shit" works the same way on the other side of the pond - you'd know exactly what I meant if I told you that I have a shit car. ;)
My first thought also. There are some situations where fear is an entirely appropriate response - lose it, and unwarranted risks may start to become a problem.
More: http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/index.html
As a noncommercial end-user, MP3 licensing is not a problem for you. If you were developing software to implement MP3, either encoding or decoding, or your MP3-encoded content were part of a commercial (i.e., revenue generating) enterprise, then you would need a license. Since neither of those apply, MP3 is free for you to use.
Sucks to be you - I can get four weeks of a 30-sheet for $1100 around here. Piss me off enough, and I'll consider it money well spent, so try not to offend anyone too well-heeled.
Great minds and all that :)
So then, as a matter of principle, you won't be suing me when I rent a few billboards near your house and put your name, address, and photo on them, along with labeling you a known liar, thief, and pedophile. Hope you produce some seriously high-quality products, my man.
You can be stupid and still get rich. Being stupid and staying rich is a whole other kettle of fish, though.
Like many analysts, he pulled it straight from his butt. Or, more specifically, he gathered a few anecdotes from Apple salesmen and extrapolated them to cover the entire universe.
You seem to consider that "personhood" is a critical element required in order to constitute a "corporation" - I do not.
Are you somehow asserting that this decision and subsequent extensions have only a trivial effect on the legal accountability of corporations?
I have neither asserted nor denied any such thing.
Alternately, are you claiming that the full weight of the 14th amendment has only minor significance here?
I have neither claimed nor denied any such thing.
For that matter, do you want to claim that the U.S. government's general take on corporations in the 1770's to 1870's was functionally identical to European precident, in the face of everything from the federalist papers onward that shows it wasn't?
I'm sure that if I wanted to claim such a thing, I would.
While we're at it, what's the point in comparing old models of corporation and new, within the particular context of predicting abuses of power?
I don't know - this "context" seems to be your cross to bear, as I'm not especially interested in that particular crystal ball.
Even if you could somehow prove overwhelming similarity exists, overiding any significant distinctions, you'ld have to also claim examples such as the East India Company's actions re. British colonialism weren't proof of an underlieing problem with corporate power, or you've only refuted half the original poster's arguement, at the very most.
Whack one link, and the whole chain falls apart.
As long as you are unable or unwilling to answer those questions, there is no rational debate possible, through your choice.
Oh, I don't know about that - you seem quite willing to hold up both ends of the discussion here by ascribing all sorts of things to me. I'm not sure that my participation is really required to continue, but there you go.
I've stopped argueing...
Hmmmm. Perhaps you'll be good enough to back up and point out where you started arguing.
thechipmerchantsucks.com is currently available. ;)
There is nothing at all preventing the formation of cooperative or employee-owned enterprises now - in fact, they already exist on several levels, from the local farmer's co-op all the way up to sizeable corporations such as SAIC. If, as you assert, such entities can provide goods and services even better than publicly traded corporations, you can expect to see more such ventures due to the competitive advantages they presumably possess. Personally, I'm not sure I buy it, but if we take your post at face value, what you want is probably only a matter of time.
This is what passes for argument in your circles, is it?
My post that you are responding to merely raised a salient point - it contained no argument, let alone a conclusion, so I assume you meant to direct this comment to someone else.
If you look at the structure of early corporations, such as the Dutch East India Company, it's pretty clear that the major hallmarks of modern corporations were in place - limited liability, functioning as an entity separate from its directors or owners, etc. What really happened in the latter half of the 19th century was a loosening of the procedures required to create a corporation - prior to that time, creating a corporation required a government charter which was generally only obtainable from the sovereign or the legislature directly. Typically, the only thing required now is filing the paperwork.
As for the legal fiction of corporate personhood, it's a mixed bag. Corporations do enjoy some of the rights of natural persons, including the right to own property and enter into contracts, and be held responsible for breach of same.
On the other hand, corporations are not pass-through tax entities the way sole proprietorships, meaning that profits are double-taxed - as a matter of fact, the state of New York still calls the corporate tax a "franchise tax", which is a throwback to the days when corporations were directly chartered by the state. The free speech rights of corporations, falling under the rubric of "commercial speech" as they do, are really quite limited compared to an individual's right to speak. The long and the short of it is that the rights of personhood that corporations enjoy tend to be directed at those necessary to conduct business - e.g., the owning of property and so forth.
Anyway, we may certainly quibble about the negative impact of corporate personhood, but in the end a corporation is merely a collection of individuals, working towards a common goal, with certain legal structures intended to facilitate those goals - the economic benefits of which are really quite undeniable. Virtually everything you own and enjoy was made possible by some corporate entity or another, from the computer you're typing on to the plates and flatware you ate dinner with. Your material wealth is very much facilitated by the free flow of investment capital made possible by corporate personhood, so perhaps we should examine the negatives of such structures in light of the tremendous benefits to society they provide. That may be unfashionable these days, to say that corporations really do quite a lot of good for society, but it's the truth - if anything, the material comfort that makes it possible for modern activists to decry corporations is itself facilitated by corporations. ;)
You've got better eyes than I do - the only "serious problem" I saw in that post was an assertion that we're going to hell in a handbasket, with nary a mention of how or why, other than some vague handwaving about corporations.
Thus, the fact that you cite (existence of corporations as early as 1600) is irrelevant to his point entirely since they must necessarily have come into existence prior to posing any sort of societal problem.
Allow me to expand - if someone would kindly explicate the "societal problem" in question, perhaps this would be more productive. Until then, you have you same problem as the original poster. You are both quite literally begging the question by assuming the truth of the thing that you are supposed to be demonstrating - namely, that corporations are responsible for the downfall of society, or whatever "logical outcome", to borrow the original poster's words, is supposedly inevitable. You do not get a pass on showing your work merely by asserting that the conclusion is a necessary consequence of some invisible premises.
Damn intellectual snobbery... this attitude is what people see when dealing with the "intelligensia" or "academia", and it is one of the primary reasons why there is a negative attitude toward science and higher learning in America.
How elitist of me - asking for coherent thoughts and rational arguments. Perhaps it's my intellectual snobbery coming to the fore here, but I just don't see a problem there that needs solving, particularly when it sounds like the "solution" is for everyone to uncritically swallow whatever's put on their plates. Sorry, but I don't think I'll be joining you on that particular bus.
Ah, so by failing to define the scope as the original post did, you can make "new" mean anything you want. Clever, that.
You misunderstand - to call those things "new" renders the concept of new meaningless, not the things themselves.
You also have misformed his conclusion, which can be better expressed that corporations are a significant negative draw on humanity, and enough of a negative draw will doom humanity.
That's not an especially coherent argument either, unless you intend to fill in the blanks a bit.
I'm sorry, I was distracted by this book from those newfangled printing presses.
Your sense of "historically new" is long enough to be meaningless.
As for your argument, you don't appear to have one, as nearly as I can tell. Breaking it down formally, it appears to be akin to the following:
P1: Corporations exist to pursue profit.
C1: Therefore, humanity is doomed.
Spotting the holes in such a construct is left as an exercise for the reader.
Corporations in the modern sense have been around since the 1600's. As a matter of logic, when your premises are bad, the conclusion is worthless.
I mean, John Williams does not, to my knowledge, have a degree in filmmaking. Your friend is probably better off putting together a portfolio of his compositions, and then shopping it around until he drops. Covering both theme and incidental music would probably be wise, as well as a variety of genres. Don't bother with scores - the people who would hire him likely can't make sense of them anyway. Tell him to call in every favor he's got, get some musician friends into the studio, and do some recording. Lotsa luck to him.
Now that I can heartily endorse. Whoops, I did say you could have the last word, didn't I? :)
Precious little point in continuing then. The last word is yours if you want it.