All of them. They just redefined population in such a way that they could arrest and kill people who disagreed with them. The biggest danger isn't a lack of arms, it's the redefining of others as sub-human.
And if he can't or doesn't want to pay that? You sue, get in held up in court, add lawyer costs, add load to the court system.... To fully allow the city and the county to break even, it will be even more than that. A few people like that, and your fire department goes quickly bankrupt.
What you're missing is that in the private case, you have a direct incentive to run the racket, and the negotiation is legal (only the arson is illegal). In the public case, the arson is illegal, as well as the negotiation. Furthermore, it is exponentially harder to hide the negotiation and the its results.
Which means that the private fire depot has both more incentive to engage in this behavior, and less of an opportunity to get caught. A public fire depot significantly reduces the likelihood of this type of racket.
Yes, we know you're not kidding. The reason no one can believe you is because everyone sees the clusterfuck that comes from your position. You're sacrificing economies of scale and preventative efficiencies for an ideology that is as idiotic as the pure communism preached by some bearded people in the figurative wilderness.
If you want to be taken seriously, it might be time to set aside all that aristocracy and "House of Lords" stuff. I'd say it's "so last-century" but really it was "so last century" last century.
Easy, tiger. Someone might point out that generations of politicians are quite common in the US. In fact, the Kennedys were about as close to royalty as you could get without actually wearing a crown.
And it lends further credence to the fact that in order to have your genius recognized and have your ideas propagate, you need to know how to interact with people. Tesla is another example. Brilliance means nothing if no one understands you and no one wants to understand you.
Even if the AI would be fully demonstrated to the public, it will be a long time before we will recognize that the computers we have are actually artificially intelligent. It's not hard to see why: think back to the 18th century with its thoughts on black people and today's discussion around what constitutes artificial intelligence. My AI prof summed it up nicely (in the last century, yikes): if it works, it's an engineering problem. If it doesn't work, it's an AI problem.
Of course, the only way to tell whether you're looking for flaws where there are none is to show two pictures, and ask you tell us which one is WebP and which one is jpg. The only thing this is for is to introduce the technology and to show people what the new tech is capable of. The details will have to wait for a more serious presentation.
You're letting your own bias show. Unless you have some proof that the editors went through that exact thought process, you're part of the huge problem of people thinking with their gut.
The Supreme Court has been all over this for the past couple of centuries. Bottom line is that they strongly disagree.
No one is debating whether the decision of the Supreme Court happened. What is being debated is what the consequences of their decisions are. Not to mention that I'm starting to think that you're misreading their decisions. After all, your citations directly contradict your argument.
All speech is issued by people and directed at people.[...]There should be no distinction with their rights when they're acting independently or acting on behalf of another party.
The point that you are missing is that depending on their positions in an organizations, people are already restricted in what they can and cannot say. We're merely debating what those restrictions are when it comes to corporate officers acting on behalf of the corporation, and what the implications of those restrictions are.
In civil engineering, every safety/reliability choice they make, such as adding a large factor of safety to most things, is based on people dying and property being destroyed (which BTW sounds like a "problem" to me!).
You clearly have no idea how Civil Engineers operate. They're liable for the designs they submit.
So even if it were like an auction where the highest bidder could somehow lead the US voter by the nose (which they can't), they have to spend a lot of money in order to enact their will. What makes this a problem, much less one that requires us to trample on the rights of groups of people?
I was going to just dismiss your ignorance, but here's another thought you should consider: what's the point of an election if the voting process is heavily influenced by a party that is not directly represented, and whose interests are antagonistic to those of the voters? Note that this goes to the core of the Enlightenment and American Revolution.
Corporations were always able to plow money into elections. The label "directly" means that you at least know where the money comes from.
Playing games with the definition of the word "able" doesn't help you make your case.
The second is any organized group of people (see the Dartmouth v. Woodward case [wikipedia.org] for an example of a ruling that addresses the latter).
The ruling didn't address what a corporation is, it dealt with contract law. In the context of the ruling, Marshall defined what he considered a corporation to be: "Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental to its very existence." Notice how it doesn't say anything about speech, and how restrictive the definition is? I guess I shouldn't expect more from someone who thinks providing a link to Wikipedia is authoritative.
Physician heal thyself. It's remarkable how many people on Slashdot tell me good advice, but disregard their own advice utterly.
Which is why I said that it is more complicated than the simple number indicates. One example that would have the winning candidate receive the most contributions, but still have received the most money is if several individuals contribute very large sums of money. Again, just an example, and there are more twists to this than just that. But it's something to consider.
Conflating: to bring together, to fuse. You might want to understand the way I'm using a word in order to understand what I'm saying.
The whole does not have to inherit the rights of its parts. Does a government have the same rights as the individuals it is made up of? Of course not. There is a reason for it, and it has to do with the pragmatism of creating a government that can actually benefit society.
You're also inventing a new definition for "corporation" when you say that it is any organization of people. It isn't. There are very specific rules that organizations have to obey in order to enjoy the benefits of a corporation. You can find that definition in any federal or state law dealing with "corporations'. This also means that rules for corporations are already different from the ones governing the superset of "any organization". This in turn means that your argument that any infringement on corporate right implies infringement of any organization's right is nonsense.
any analogy that attempts to explain corporate personhood by starting with "You do/want"
Didn't happen in the chain of the thread leading up to this point.
True, literally, it didn't. However, your driver's license argument did involve the argument of "your free speech", which implies that it is directed at a person. Your analogy implicitly requires that a corporation is a person, and explains nothing about how that similarity arises. In other words, your analogy is begging the question. In further words, your analogy doesn't and can't work.
The push against corporate personhood is a direct assault on the individual rights of the people who participate in that corporation. It's interesting that you mention the Citizens United case. That was a clear cut example of government power being used to infringe the First Amendment rights of the people who made up the Citizens United organization.
Bullshit. Each individual in that organization has the exact same rights as any individual outside that organization, once they stop acting on behalf of that organization. See the difference? They're either acting on their behalf, or on the behalf of the organization - which, in the problem we're discussing, is a corporation. It's like a lawyer discussing legal arguments: there is a significant in how they can talk about a case, depending on whether they're directly involved in it or not. Same applies to people involved in a corporation. There are differences in how they can participate in the democratic process, depending on whether they're acting on behalf of themselves or the corporation. At least, there was until the Citizens United case.
To reply to your specific points: 1) Do we have to wait until something becomes a problem before we attempt to solve it? I hope you're not a civil engineer. Just to give you something to think about: what if CNOOC plows a couple of $100M into the 2012 elections? 2) Statement of opinion that you pass of as fact. The entire discussion is around whether this is true - and so far, you haven't shown anything that indicates you're right. 3) Corporations were able to function just fine before they were allowed to directly plow money into elections. Your premise is wrong. 4) Considering you don't even have a clue how a corporation is defined, I'd be careful throwing around the clueless argument. Not to mention that an ad hominem argument doesn't work, even if it might be true.
If you think these arguments are setting anybody straight, you're delusional. Start with getting some basic facts right, drop the personal attacks and stop putting words in other people's mouths, and we might go somewhere. In the meantime, have a nice day.
Let me just make it clear: any analogy that attempts to explain corporate personhood by starting with "You do/want" is so fundamentally flawed that I'm not sure we're living on the same planet. A corporation is an artificial construct whose only purpose is to optimize productivity. Just to be clear, this means that your driver's license analogy explains and illustrates absolutely nothing about corporate personhood.
To dissect your argument further: disallowing a corporation to spend money on elections is not the same as the government removing the owner of a privately held company for objectionable political views. It's not happening here either. That's Venezuela you're looking for there. No one is also punishing a corporation if its members exercise their free speech as individual citizens. Hasn't happened, and it didn't need the Citizen United case to keep it from happening.
Yes. The candidate with the biggest campaign expenditure generally wins. It's more complicated than that, but that alone should raise an eyebrow.
Finally, if corporations would be a person, they'd all be sociopaths. You don't find anything wrong with giving sociopaths billions of dollars to influence campaigns?
You're conflating people and corporations. Corporations are constructs supported by government edict. They are not people. As they are made by government edicts, they can be remade. Which means that the first amendment doesn't apply.
If a few friends can't start an organization with the goal of promoting their political views without the government telling them what they may and may not say
You're completely missing the plot. It was already legal to do so. Look up what a PAC is. It is the embodiment of your definition. What is different now is that an organization set up with the only goal to make money as effectively as possible is now allowed to participate in the voting process in all but name.
That doesn't strike you as odd? A collection of people whose leaders are required by their organizations' charters to act like sociopaths can now directly influence the democratic process? You need to make a choice at this point: would you like to live in a functioning society, or in one where sociopaths can leverage more money than many nation states to advance their personal desires?
Wow - you're saying that being able to even be accessed is the same as being able to display your marketing material somewhere? And let's not kid ourselves - an incumbent with cash to burn will be able to relegate an upstart competitor to the equivalent of a geocities page if this becomes common practice.
As khasim already set, bandwidth in the current set up is largely a zero-sum game. There isn't much headroom into which ISPs can put priority traffic.
Horseshit. What I wanted was someone who sounded like he actually thought about something before acting. He also had the advantage that he wasn't Campaign-McCain or Palin. The fact that he was turned into a rockstar had more to do with how abjectly bad Bush had been for an entire 8 years. After him, LISA and a poo-flinging ape would have gotten a rock-star billing.
It's this kind of smug hyperbole that's destroying the country by making an informed discussion impossible. So what kind of information sources is acceptable in your view? Breitbartt? Limbaugh? Malkin? Random blog #3216272432369?
Slashdot Mirror
All of them. They just redefined population in such a way that they could arrest and kill people who disagreed with them. The biggest danger isn't a lack of arms, it's the redefining of others as sub-human.
And if he can't or doesn't want to pay that? You sue, get in held up in court, add lawyer costs, add load to the court system.... To fully allow the city and the county to break even, it will be even more than that. A few people like that, and your fire department goes quickly bankrupt.
What you're missing is that in the private case, you have a direct incentive to run the racket, and the negotiation is legal (only the arson is illegal). In the public case, the arson is illegal, as well as the negotiation. Furthermore, it is exponentially harder to hide the negotiation and the its results.
Which means that the private fire depot has both more incentive to engage in this behavior, and less of an opportunity to get caught. A public fire depot significantly reduces the likelihood of this type of racket.
Yes, we know you're not kidding. The reason no one can believe you is because everyone sees the clusterfuck that comes from your position. You're sacrificing economies of scale and preventative efficiencies for an ideology that is as idiotic as the pure communism preached by some bearded people in the figurative wilderness.
If you want to be taken seriously, it might be time to set aside all that aristocracy and "House of Lords" stuff. I'd say it's "so last-century" but really it was "so last century" last century.
Easy, tiger. Someone might point out that generations of politicians are quite common in the US. In fact, the Kennedys were about as close to royalty as you could get without actually wearing a crown.
And it lends further credence to the fact that in order to have your genius recognized and have your ideas propagate, you need to know how to interact with people. Tesla is another example. Brilliance means nothing if no one understands you and no one wants to understand you.
Even if the AI would be fully demonstrated to the public, it will be a long time before we will recognize that the computers we have are actually artificially intelligent. It's not hard to see why: think back to the 18th century with its thoughts on black people and today's discussion around what constitutes artificial intelligence. My AI prof summed it up nicely (in the last century, yikes): if it works, it's an engineering problem. If it doesn't work, it's an AI problem.
Of course, the only way to tell whether you're looking for flaws where there are none is to show two pictures, and ask you tell us which one is WebP and which one is jpg. The only thing this is for is to introduce the technology and to show people what the new tech is capable of. The details will have to wait for a more serious presentation.
Stop making shit up to feel better about your world.
Have you ever misspoken? Wrote A, said B, thought C and meant D? Never? Really? You're delusion is strong.
You're letting your own bias show. Unless you have some proof that the editors went through that exact thought process, you're part of the huge problem of people thinking with their gut.
I looked at the other candidates. They were all worse than McCain. And that includes that loon Ron Paul.
The Supreme Court has been all over this for the past couple of centuries. Bottom line is that they strongly disagree.
No one is debating whether the decision of the Supreme Court happened. What is being debated is what the consequences of their decisions are. Not to mention that I'm starting to think that you're misreading their decisions. After all, your citations directly contradict your argument.
All speech is issued by people and directed at people.[...]There should be no distinction with their rights when they're acting independently or acting on behalf of another party.
The point that you are missing is that depending on their positions in an organizations, people are already restricted in what they can and cannot say. We're merely debating what those restrictions are when it comes to corporate officers acting on behalf of the corporation, and what the implications of those restrictions are.
In civil engineering, every safety/reliability choice they make, such as adding a large factor of safety to most things, is based on people dying and property being destroyed (which BTW sounds like a "problem" to me!).
You clearly have no idea how Civil Engineers operate. They're liable for the designs they submit.
So even if it were like an auction where the highest bidder could somehow lead the US voter by the nose (which they can't), they have to spend a lot of money in order to enact their will. What makes this a problem, much less one that requires us to trample on the rights of groups of people?
I was going to just dismiss your ignorance, but here's another thought you should consider: what's the point of an election if the voting process is heavily influenced by a party that is not directly represented, and whose interests are antagonistic to those of the voters? Note that this goes to the core of the Enlightenment and American Revolution.
Corporations were always able to plow money into elections. The label "directly" means that you at least know where the money comes from.
Playing games with the definition of the word "able" doesn't help you make your case.
The second is any organized group of people (see the Dartmouth v. Woodward case [wikipedia.org] for an example of a ruling that addresses the latter).
The ruling didn't address what a corporation is, it dealt with contract law. In the context of the ruling, Marshall defined what he considered a corporation to be: "Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental to its very existence." Notice how it doesn't say anything about speech, and how restrictive the definition is? I guess I shouldn't expect more from someone who thinks providing a link to Wikipedia is authoritative.
Physician heal thyself. It's remarkable how many people on Slashdot tell me good advice, but disregard their own advice utterly.
The irony is palpable.
Which is why I said that it is more complicated than the simple number indicates. One example that would have the winning candidate receive the most contributions, but still have received the most money is if several individuals contribute very large sums of money. Again, just an example, and there are more twists to this than just that. But it's something to consider.
Conflating: to bring together, to fuse. You might want to understand the way I'm using a word in order to understand what I'm saying.
The whole does not have to inherit the rights of its parts. Does a government have the same rights as the individuals it is made up of? Of course not. There is a reason for it, and it has to do with the pragmatism of creating a government that can actually benefit society.
You're also inventing a new definition for "corporation" when you say that it is any organization of people. It isn't. There are very specific rules that organizations have to obey in order to enjoy the benefits of a corporation. You can find that definition in any federal or state law dealing with "corporations'. This also means that rules for corporations are already different from the ones governing the superset of "any organization". This in turn means that your argument that any infringement on corporate right implies infringement of any organization's right is nonsense.
any analogy that attempts to explain corporate personhood by starting with "You do/want"
Didn't happen in the chain of the thread leading up to this point.
True, literally, it didn't. However, your driver's license argument did involve the argument of "your free speech", which implies that it is directed at a person. Your analogy implicitly requires that a corporation is a person, and explains nothing about how that similarity arises. In other words, your analogy is begging the question. In further words, your analogy doesn't and can't work.
The push against corporate personhood is a direct assault on the individual rights of the people who participate in that corporation. It's interesting that you mention the Citizens United case. That was a clear cut example of government power being used to infringe the First Amendment rights of the people who made up the Citizens United organization.
Bullshit. Each individual in that organization has the exact same rights as any individual outside that organization, once they stop acting on behalf of that organization. See the difference? They're either acting on their behalf, or on the behalf of the organization - which, in the problem we're discussing, is a corporation. It's like a lawyer discussing legal arguments: there is a significant in how they can talk about a case, depending on whether they're directly involved in it or not. Same applies to people involved in a corporation. There are differences in how they can participate in the democratic process, depending on whether they're acting on behalf of themselves or the corporation. At least, there was until the Citizens United case.
To reply to your specific points:
1) Do we have to wait until something becomes a problem before we attempt to solve it? I hope you're not a civil engineer. Just to give you something to think about: what if CNOOC plows a couple of $100M into the 2012 elections?
2) Statement of opinion that you pass of as fact. The entire discussion is around whether this is true - and so far, you haven't shown anything that indicates you're right.
3) Corporations were able to function just fine before they were allowed to directly plow money into elections. Your premise is wrong.
4) Considering you don't even have a clue how a corporation is defined, I'd be careful throwing around the clueless argument. Not to mention that an ad hominem argument doesn't work, even if it might be true.
If you think these arguments are setting anybody straight, you're delusional. Start with getting some basic facts right, drop the personal attacks and stop putting words in other people's mouths, and we might go somewhere. In the meantime, have a nice day.
You're also conflating people and corporations.
Let me just make it clear: any analogy that attempts to explain corporate personhood by starting with "You do/want" is so fundamentally flawed that I'm not sure we're living on the same planet. A corporation is an artificial construct whose only purpose is to optimize productivity. Just to be clear, this means that your driver's license analogy explains and illustrates absolutely nothing about corporate personhood.
To dissect your argument further: disallowing a corporation to spend money on elections is not the same as the government removing the owner of a privately held company for objectionable political views. It's not happening here either. That's Venezuela you're looking for there. No one is also punishing a corporation if its members exercise their free speech as individual citizens. Hasn't happened, and it didn't need the Citizen United case to keep it from happening.
Yes. The candidate with the biggest campaign expenditure generally wins. It's more complicated than that, but that alone should raise an eyebrow.
Finally, if corporations would be a person, they'd all be sociopaths. You don't find anything wrong with giving sociopaths billions of dollars to influence campaigns?
You're conflating people and corporations. Corporations are constructs supported by government edict. They are not people. As they are made by government edicts, they can be remade. Which means that the first amendment doesn't apply.
If a few friends can't start an organization with the goal of promoting their political views without the government telling them what they may and may not say
You're completely missing the plot. It was already legal to do so. Look up what a PAC is. It is the embodiment of your definition. What is different now is that an organization set up with the only goal to make money as effectively as possible is now allowed to participate in the voting process in all but name.
That doesn't strike you as odd? A collection of people whose leaders are required by their organizations' charters to act like sociopaths can now directly influence the democratic process? You need to make a choice at this point: would you like to live in a functioning society, or in one where sociopaths can leverage more money than many nation states to advance their personal desires?
Because if Wikiquote doesn't have it, it doesn't exist? Someone wasn't there when they explained how to use encyclopedias.
And if they don't, what will people like you say to the astronomers when an asteroid really comes close?
Oh, right. You'll bitch they didn't tell anyone.
Wow - you're saying that being able to even be accessed is the same as being able to display your marketing material somewhere? And let's not kid ourselves - an incumbent with cash to burn will be able to relegate an upstart competitor to the equivalent of a geocities page if this becomes common practice.
As khasim already set, bandwidth in the current set up is largely a zero-sum game. There isn't much headroom into which ISPs can put priority traffic.
Better than any alternative.
Horseshit. What I wanted was someone who sounded like he actually thought about something before acting. He also had the advantage that he wasn't Campaign-McCain or Palin. The fact that he was turned into a rockstar had more to do with how abjectly bad Bush had been for an entire 8 years. After him, LISA and a poo-flinging ape would have gotten a rock-star billing.
It's this kind of smug hyperbole that's destroying the country by making an informed discussion impossible. So what kind of information sources is acceptable in your view? Breitbartt? Limbaugh? Malkin? Random blog #3216272432369?