Furthermore, if I, in my role as officer of a corporation, commit a crime against you, then the prosecutors assigned to the case will "pierce the corporate veil" like it meant nothing whatsoever IF it is the appropriate action.
This isn't about officers of the corporation, it's about owners of the corporation.
I didn't make any value judgments in my post. You inferred them from nothing. I merely pointed out the massiver error in the parent to my post.
Corporations are bodies created to remove people from the equation. When an entity is incorporated, the shareholders are absolved of personal responsibility for the actions of the corporation (aside from their financial interest).
A corporation is a tool, nothing more than a way for many not-so-rich people to fund an effort and own the result (...) Like any tool, it can be used for good or evil.
No. Corporations also shelter the investors from personal responsibility. If a corporation is made of people, why is that those people are not personally liable for the actions of the corporation?
Corporations are likely to be used for evil because the perpetrators (the investors) are not personally responsible for the evil outcomes of the corporation's activities.
1) Shock absorbers. They work. Also, I drive on paved roads. Jiggling of the mirrors has never been a problem for me in any of the four cars I or my wife have owned that had child seats in them ('96 Civic, '99 Accord, '05 Camry, '11 Fit). This was true even of the '96 Civic six months ago. Are you basing your argument on any kind of relevant experience, or are you just pissing in the wind?
2) You're right, they won't show that. Instead, they'll show that crashes are much safer when the child is in the rear of the vehicle. However, based on that, the burden should be on you to cite studies showing that parents are less likely to get in accidents when the child is in the front seat. Your inane claims that drivers need to contort themselves to check on kids is not sufficient basis for your conclusion. I could just as easily counter your claim by saying that children in the front seat would be much more generally distracting to drivers.
Except Time has never bestowed its Person of the Year honor on a dead person. One of the members of the selection committee was asked about Bouazizi on NPR this morning, and that was (part of) his response.
The figures in the article are not lies. But your attempt to use those figures to dispute the other poster's claim is dishonest. The deficit during Obama's first year as president was due to Bush's budget, not Obama's.
Yes, Bush's deficits were lower, on average, than Obama's so far. But that ignores what Bush did to the annual deficit while he was in office -- by the end of his second term, he increased the budgetary deficit to an astounding 1.55 trillion. Under Obama, the FY10 deficit increased slightly to 1.63 trillion, and the FY11 budget is projected to be 1.27 trillion.
Bush inherited a good fiscal situation, and turned it to crap. Obama inherited a crap fiscal situation, and it's yet to be seen what he does with it -- but so far it appears he is starting to undo some of the harm Bush did re: the deficit.
My sources are the same sources used by the article you cited.
You sir, are the one who is being dishonest or horribly ignorant -- but it seems to me to be the former.
I also have yet to see any human that can safely drive while facing backwards in their car. Those with the Rube Goldberg mirror systems are even worse as they stare intently at the front mirror trying to focus across to small giggling mirrors to see if the baby is OK.
Quite simply, that's horsepoop. I don't understand your opposition to using mirrors to check on your child. No "Rube Goldberg" about it. For an older child in a forward-facing seat, it's just an additional mirror extension you attach to your rear-view mirror. For an infant in a rear-facing seat, it's another simple mirror on the back seat headrest. There is no jiggling, in both cases the mirrors are fastened securely.
All of the studies point out that in the event of an accident, children and babies are less likly to be injured if they are in the back seat. Not once did I see any of those studies look at the number of accidents that happened with the child in the back seat as compared to the same number of miles driven with the child in the front seat.
How about the studies using CTDs in controlled impact experiments? Do those count?
The OP wrote that the products must be equivalently good, since they have approximately the same consumer rating. This is not a valid conclusion, for the reason pointed out in my prior post.
Both the article and the summary point out the feature/flaw gaps between the two products.
To spell out my point again, since you seemed to have missed it the first time:
You cannot use 5-point overall consumer review ratings as the end-all of product comparison, since the consumer ratings used for the different products are not equivalent. The Fire was not rated according to the same set of specifications that the iPad was rated. Qualitative analysis is much more useful, which is where we find the feature and flaw gaps between the products, which is described in the article and the summary.
Was this article funded by Apple? It's very biased, as demonstrated by the fact that they cite the 22% of people who don't like the Fire rather than the 88% who clearly do.
When I read consumer reviews, it's always the negative reviews that have the most useful information. And FWIW, 22% dislike rate is pretty damn high. Over one-fifth of the purchasers are unhappy with their purchase? Ouch. That's quite a hit to brand reputation.
Overly simple quantitative consumer reviews measure performance against expectation (plus, a healthy dose of astroturfing sometimes). They can't really be used to compare inequivalent products, like the iPad and the Fire.
I've been boycotting Amazon ever since they started bullying states into dropping sales taxes.
I bought my girlfriend a Kindle and a couple gift cards, but aside from maybe a few more books for her Kindle, Amazon won't be getting any more of my money.
That word... I do not think it means what you think it means.
Apple is tough to beat because most of its mistakes are user based.
Huh? What does that mean?
It means that the users make the mistake of using the device incorrectly.
For instance, if you recall, Apple users held their iPhones incorrectly, thereby causing antenna malfunction. Steve Jobs (RIP, Hallowed be His Name) was forced to publicly instruct iPhone users in the correct method of holding their iPhones, since their ignorance was not surmountable through regular support channels.
Another example would be with the early iPod. As you recall, users were not treating their iPods as the holy relics they rightfully should have been treated as, and instead subjected them to all kinds of profane abuse -- like putting them in their pocket with their keys. This resulted in desecration of the viewing screen on those iPods, again, totally caused by the user.
And, lest ye forget, it would be remiss of me not to mention the abhorrent failure of users to recharge their iPod batteries every two hours when using iOS4.
Seriously, though, Apple gets a pass on a lot of mistakes because they do a lot of things right. They also have major brand loyalty, which is kind of unique in the gadget world, where most people judge on features, not on styling or brand ("no wireless... less space than a Nomad... lame" is the relevant quote, I believe).
Your concept that the Senate and House have different rules because they have different purposes is partially correct.
However, the statement
The House is for the people, the Senate represents the states.
is false.
The House and the Senate are both intended to represent both people and states (keep in mind that states are proxies for the people in those states) . The reason they apportion their membership differently is because there was a compromise between the populous states and the smaller states when the Constitution was being drafted. It has absoutely nothing to do with who/what they are intended to represent.
1. Your link has no definition for periodic (not sure if that was the case when you posted it).
2. the definition you quote is down the list of accepted definitions. Especially for mathematic and scientific use, periodic means "happening or appearing at regular intervals". The general definition is
periodic (pîr-dk)
adj.
1. Having or marked by repeated cycles.
2. Happening or appearing at regular intervals.
3. Recurring or reappearing from time to time; intermittent.
4. Characterized by periodic sentences.
Well, to be pedantic, it's not updated periodically -- that would imply that it gets updated on a regular basis with a predictable cycle. It's updated sporadically.
To be more specific, the periodic table can be thought of as a fungus. The elements are the mycelia of the fungus, and once in a while the table produces fruiting bodies (like mushrooms) that will produce spores for the periodic table to reproduce. It is these fruiting bodies that are the new elements. The spores will be released from these new elements when moisture and temperature conditions are right -- and with luck, a given spore may land upon the wall of another elementary school classroom and become a new periodic table of the elements.
But the fundamental, absolute value of pure CO2 when viewed over a much longer timescale during which fossil resources will be exhausted, is much higher.
There is no such thing as fundamental, absolute value. I think you might be confused on the terminology, here. With regards to the very specific scenario where currency == energy, then there is an absolute value. But we're not talking about that scenario.
Furthermore, there is a carbon cycle that exists, that will not make CO2 prohibitively expensive in the long run. CO2 is one of the easiest, cheapest things to manufacture, and that's not going to change. We have plenty of non-fossil fuel sources of carbon we could burn if it's the CO2 we're after.
My point, which you appeared to have missed entirely, is that considering the loss of resources due to entropic pollution is an incomplete view of pollution. We must ALSO consider the impact that specific pollutants have once they are "released" into the system at large.
I'm in the US and everything our government does is stupid. I don't know what the product labeling requirements are in the UK but in the US not only is there the "recycle" symbol on the bottom of plastics but there's a little number. Well, I have no idea what that little number is but some numbers I can recycle and some numbers I can't. As a result, I don't recycle.
Wait, the US government is stupid because you're too lazy to remember (or post a chart on your fridge) what #s are recyclable and what ones aren't?
You don't understand what internalizing costs means.
It's not about internalizing *your* costs -- it's about internalizing *society's* costs caused by *your* actions. Your failure to compost is costing the rest of us, and by simply paying someone to haul away your trash you are not absolving yourself of the cost to the rest of us. You would only be internalizing the cost of your waste if the landfill operators had to internalize their costs, pass that on to the waste collection companies, who then passed it on to you. Since the landfill operators are not forced to internalize all their costs, *you* are not internalizing all the costs you create.
Because we have not been able to force the end-producer of pollution (also, in this case, the end-user of land) to internalize their costs to society, we are seeking to mitigate those costs via regulation of their activities. This is what the debate on mandatory composting is about.
(1) Some pollution is composed of resources we have failed to make use of. But CO2 pollution, for example, is not really a resource we are failing to collect. The cost of collecting it far exceeds the utility of the resource, so there is no economic argument for collecting excess CO2 if we only consider the utility of the captured CO2.
Aside from the opportunity cost of not collecting pollutants for their resource value, pollutants actually cost us by causing damage once they're released. Bucky's statement ignores this cost, which is the root of why government regulation is required to force polluters to internalize the public costs of pollution.
I read an interesting article a while ago in NG or Nature or some other magazine regarding the elimination of sharks from reefs. Turns out sharks are vital to reef ecosystems, since they keep smaller predators under control. Without the sharks (top predators in these ecosystems), the smaller carnivorous fish wipe out the even-smaller carnivorous fish that keep the reef-destroying coral-eaters from overrunning the coral.
Banning the harvest of sharks in these reefs resulted in much greater biomass for the reef system, healthier corals more resistant to higher temps and disease, and a fishing industry with a sustainable higher yield.
A judge ruling in favor of a company seeking to protect their trademarks is not government censorship.
That depends entirely on how the judge implements enforcement of his ruling.
A judge ruling that search engines must de-index sites offering counterfeit wares is stupid and practically unenforceable, but not censorship.
I disagree.
The search engines are publishing the existence of the counterfeit wares sites upon the request of the people using the search engines. The judge is telling the SEs that they are not allowed to report facts (that is, the existence and location of those sites).
This is censorship any way you slice it, even if you agree with the motivation of the judge.
In most States it is required to have identification, and that is handled by their DMV-like institution.
Citation, pls?
AFAIK, it is generally *not* required to have identification. It is, however, required that you present identification for certain functions (like getting a job, though it's federal regs that govern I9 verification).
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't about officers of the corporation, it's about owners of the corporation.
I didn't make any value judgments in my post. You inferred them from nothing. I merely pointed out the massiver error in the parent to my post.
No, corporations are made of *money*.
Corporations are bodies created to remove people from the equation. When an entity is incorporated, the shareholders are absolved of personal responsibility for the actions of the corporation (aside from their financial interest).
No. Corporations also shelter the investors from personal responsibility. If a corporation is made of people, why is that those people are not personally liable for the actions of the corporation?
Corporations are likely to be used for evil because the perpetrators (the investors) are not personally responsible for the evil outcomes of the corporation's activities.
Not if you're in NJ. The cheapest state school in NJ is roughly $15k/yr for in-state students.
1) Shock absorbers. They work. Also, I drive on paved roads. Jiggling of the mirrors has never been a problem for me in any of the four cars I or my wife have owned that had child seats in them ('96 Civic, '99 Accord, '05 Camry, '11 Fit). This was true even of the '96 Civic six months ago. Are you basing your argument on any kind of relevant experience, or are you just pissing in the wind?
2) You're right, they won't show that. Instead, they'll show that crashes are much safer when the child is in the rear of the vehicle. However, based on that, the burden should be on you to cite studies showing that parents are less likely to get in accidents when the child is in the front seat. Your inane claims that drivers need to contort themselves to check on kids is not sufficient basis for your conclusion. I could just as easily counter your claim by saying that children in the front seat would be much more generally distracting to drivers.
Except Time has never bestowed its Person of the Year honor on a dead person. One of the members of the selection committee was asked about Bouazizi on NPR this morning, and that was (part of) his response.
The figures in the article are not lies. But your attempt to use those figures to dispute the other poster's claim is dishonest. The deficit during Obama's first year as president was due to Bush's budget, not Obama's.
Yes, Bush's deficits were lower, on average, than Obama's so far. But that ignores what Bush did to the annual deficit while he was in office -- by the end of his second term, he increased the budgetary deficit to an astounding 1.55 trillion. Under Obama, the FY10 deficit increased slightly to 1.63 trillion, and the FY11 budget is projected to be 1.27 trillion.
Bush inherited a good fiscal situation, and turned it to crap. Obama inherited a crap fiscal situation, and it's yet to be seen what he does with it -- but so far it appears he is starting to undo some of the harm Bush did re: the deficit.
My sources are the same sources used by the article you cited.
You sir, are the one who is being dishonest or horribly ignorant -- but it seems to me to be the former.
Quite simply, that's horsepoop. I don't understand your opposition to using mirrors to check on your child. No "Rube Goldberg" about it. For an older child in a forward-facing seat, it's just an additional mirror extension you attach to your rear-view mirror. For an infant in a rear-facing seat, it's another simple mirror on the back seat headrest. There is no jiggling, in both cases the mirrors are fastened securely.
How about the studies using CTDs in controlled impact experiments? Do those count?
No, my issue is with the poster.
The OP wrote that the products must be equivalently good, since they have approximately the same consumer rating. This is not a valid conclusion, for the reason pointed out in my prior post.
Both the article and the summary point out the feature/flaw gaps between the two products.
To spell out my point again, since you seemed to have missed it the first time:
You cannot use 5-point overall consumer review ratings as the end-all of product comparison, since the consumer ratings used for the different products are not equivalent. The Fire was not rated according to the same set of specifications that the iPad was rated. Qualitative analysis is much more useful, which is where we find the feature and flaw gaps between the products, which is described in the article and the summary.
When I read consumer reviews, it's always the negative reviews that have the most useful information. And FWIW, 22% dislike rate is pretty damn high. Over one-fifth of the purchasers are unhappy with their purchase? Ouch. That's quite a hit to brand reputation.
Overly simple quantitative consumer reviews measure performance against expectation (plus, a healthy dose of astroturfing sometimes). They can't really be used to compare inequivalent products, like the iPad and the Fire.
TFA is about specific features.
That word... I do not think it means what you think it means.
It means that the users make the mistake of using the device incorrectly.
For instance, if you recall, Apple users held their iPhones incorrectly, thereby causing antenna malfunction. Steve Jobs (RIP, Hallowed be His Name) was forced to publicly instruct iPhone users in the correct method of holding their iPhones, since their ignorance was not surmountable through regular support channels.
Another example would be with the early iPod. As you recall, users were not treating their iPods as the holy relics they rightfully should have been treated as, and instead subjected them to all kinds of profane abuse -- like putting them in their pocket with their keys. This resulted in desecration of the viewing screen on those iPods, again, totally caused by the user.
And, lest ye forget, it would be remiss of me not to mention the abhorrent failure of users to recharge their iPod batteries every two hours when using iOS4.
Seriously, though, Apple gets a pass on a lot of mistakes because they do a lot of things right. They also have major brand loyalty, which is kind of unique in the gadget world, where most people judge on features, not on styling or brand ("no wireless... less space than a Nomad... lame" is the relevant quote, I believe).
However, the statement
is false.
The House and the Senate are both intended to represent both people and states (keep in mind that states are proxies for the people in those states) . The reason they apportion their membership differently is because there was a compromise between the populous states and the smaller states when the Constitution was being drafted. It has absoutely nothing to do with who/what they are intended to represent.
I'm sad to see that this comment sits in the wasteland at a score of 1. It should be modded up as informative.
I'm going to repeat the single piece of info in your post that should have the most attention, IMO:
The article summary calls Falcone a "Democratic donor" but neglects to mention that he gives more to Republicans than Democrats.
Someone please mod parent up.
2. the definition you quote is down the list of accepted definitions. Especially for mathematic and scientific use, periodic means "happening or appearing at regular intervals". The general definition is
Source
Well, to be pedantic, it's not updated periodically -- that would imply that it gets updated on a regular basis with a predictable cycle. It's updated sporadically.
To be more specific, the periodic table can be thought of as a fungus. The elements are the mycelia of the fungus, and once in a while the table produces fruiting bodies (like mushrooms) that will produce spores for the periodic table to reproduce. It is these fruiting bodies that are the new elements. The spores will be released from these new elements when moisture and temperature conditions are right -- and with luck, a given spore may land upon the wall of another elementary school classroom and become a new periodic table of the elements.
There is no such thing as fundamental, absolute value. I think you might be confused on the terminology, here. With regards to the very specific scenario where currency == energy, then there is an absolute value. But we're not talking about that scenario.
Furthermore, there is a carbon cycle that exists, that will not make CO2 prohibitively expensive in the long run. CO2 is one of the easiest, cheapest things to manufacture, and that's not going to change. We have plenty of non-fossil fuel sources of carbon we could burn if it's the CO2 we're after.
My point, which you appeared to have missed entirely, is that considering the loss of resources due to entropic pollution is an incomplete view of pollution. We must ALSO consider the impact that specific pollutants have once they are "released" into the system at large.
Wait, the US government is stupid because you're too lazy to remember (or post a chart on your fridge) what #s are recyclable and what ones aren't?
You don't understand what internalizing costs means.
It's not about internalizing *your* costs -- it's about internalizing *society's* costs caused by *your* actions. Your failure to compost is costing the rest of us, and by simply paying someone to haul away your trash you are not absolving yourself of the cost to the rest of us. You would only be internalizing the cost of your waste if the landfill operators had to internalize their costs, pass that on to the waste collection companies, who then passed it on to you. Since the landfill operators are not forced to internalize all their costs, *you* are not internalizing all the costs you create.
Because we have not been able to force the end-producer of pollution (also, in this case, the end-user of land) to internalize their costs to society, we are seeking to mitigate those costs via regulation of their activities. This is what the debate on mandatory composting is about.
I think Fuller was wrong in that quote.
(1) Some pollution is composed of resources we have failed to make use of. But CO2 pollution, for example, is not really a resource we are failing to collect. The cost of collecting it far exceeds the utility of the resource, so there is no economic argument for collecting excess CO2 if we only consider the utility of the captured CO2.
Aside from the opportunity cost of not collecting pollutants for their resource value, pollutants actually cost us by causing damage once they're released. Bucky's statement ignores this cost, which is the root of why government regulation is required to force polluters to internalize the public costs of pollution.
That assumes that A,B, and C occupy the same niche. There is no guarantee that B and C will make up the biomass lost by the extinction of A.
I read an interesting article a while ago in NG or Nature or some other magazine regarding the elimination of sharks from reefs. Turns out sharks are vital to reef ecosystems, since they keep smaller predators under control. Without the sharks (top predators in these ecosystems), the smaller carnivorous fish wipe out the even-smaller carnivorous fish that keep the reef-destroying coral-eaters from overrunning the coral.
Banning the harvest of sharks in these reefs resulted in much greater biomass for the reef system, healthier corals more resistant to higher temps and disease, and a fishing industry with a sustainable higher yield.
Now if only I could find that article...
That depends entirely on how the judge implements enforcement of his ruling.
I disagree.
The search engines are publishing the existence of the counterfeit wares sites upon the request of the people using the search engines. The judge is telling the SEs that they are not allowed to report facts (that is, the existence and location of those sites).
This is censorship any way you slice it, even if you agree with the motivation of the judge.
Source, please. I can't find anything to support that claim.
Citation, pls?
AFAIK, it is generally *not* required to have identification. It is, however, required that you present identification for certain functions (like getting a job, though it's federal regs that govern I9 verification).