It makes no difference when you're making the company money.
Save the "if he lied about x then what about y..." nonsense. If i were to poll the entire world, my guess is that the most common form of "lying" is doctoring your resume. So let's stop acting like it matters, especially when the job is to make money.
"Not to mention it's also false (i.e. it's not the only gambling game that requires skill.)"
Where did I say it was?
Why are you such a flaming idiot that you make up argumnets and read things that don't exist?
As to the strength, California says poker is a skill. I really don't think anyone gives two shits about your opinion, especially since it's stupid (because you make up arguments and can't read for comprehension)
Look at the dramatic rise in online poker, and the MASSIVE increase in tournament poker in casinos, and you have a hard time convincing me the casinos don't make money off of online gaming.
"I'd certainly feel more comfortable playing online Texas Hold'em..."
Poker isn't gambling. At least, not everywhere (see California) so this is a point I'd like to see specifically addressed. AS very serious poker player, I would have to agree, it isn't gambling. There is a reason you always see the same people late in tournaments.
I suspect online poker is in large part responsible for this bill, but it may not be covered at all.
"The US should clean up its own dirty laundry before they attack others. There is clearly no point in talking about human rights as long as you ROUTINELY break them yourself."
First of all, "the US" isn't one bloc of like minded followers. I would expect someone who claimed to live here would know that.
Second this statement
"The US should clean up its own dirty laundry before they attack others. There is clearly no point in talking about human rights as long as you ROUTINELY break them yourself."
Is just plain stupid. Did it ever occur to you that both can be done? I much prefer the idea of improving human rights in many places to your idea.
And MAYBE, the people trying to improve human rights in China are ALSO trying to improve humna rights in the US.
No, stop lying about your motives. It's obvious to everyone your posts are just more anti-US screed. At least be a man and own up to it.
"I did not specify that references had to be 'net based. Neither have I said I'd consider an Internet based reference to be sufficient to convince me (or otherwise). I'm happy to accept in advance your apology for misrepresenting me by saying otherwise"
Where did I claim that you said any of those things? Well? So, are YOU now going to apologize for exactly the thing you so pompously tried to denounce me for? We'll see...
"Can you provide actual evidence that the detainees are all terrorists, or linked to terrorism? And can you further provide justification for the flagrant abuses of their civil liberties?"
That was my point, such evidence doesn't exist EITHER way. I didn;t speak to the PROCEDURES in use, only the facts of the case.
If you'd bothered to ask me what I thought about holding people for that long with no transparency, I would have told you. But THAT WASN'T WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT, so stop trying to change the subject.
"Obviously those infringements of civil liberties can be referenced through multiple US court representations, speeches and comments by American political figures and government and military staff, and numerous print media outlets, quite apart from the recently published United Nations paper that led to Koffi Annan calling for the camp to be closed."
And how do we know those accounts are factually accurate? MY point, again because you're more interested in forcing your opinion on others than listening, is that WE DON'T KNOW.
The problem is a total lack of transparency and review, yet you seem to have drawn conclusions. I asked for the FACTS you used to draw these conclusions, and you provided NOTHING.
Either read my post, and respond to my post, or don't respond at all. I'm not interested in reading your exposition on what you think is wrong with the situation.
"Puzzling why anyone with a clue would balk at the use of that term."
Well, perhaps I wasn't balking, but was instead CLARIFYING.
I realize you pompous assholes think you know everything, but when someone says something I'm not clear on, I like to make an attempt to understand what they are saying. You know, so I don't come off like you just did.
So, apart from drawing attention to the fact that you're a pedantic dickhead, what was your point?
Becuase you obviously didn't, here's the part that makes you wrong.
"Understandably, Ford didn't want to take this sitting down, so he took the case to the Supreme Court of Michigan. Their opinion, sans dissent, said:
A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end and does not extend to a change in the end itself, to the reduction of profits or to the nondistribution of profits among stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes."
The court stated in its opinion "A BUSINESS CORPORATION IS ORGANIZED AND CARRIED ON PRIMARILY FOR THE PROFIT OF THE STOCKHOLDERS"
Stop moving the goalposts, you're wrong, take the opportunity to learn something.
"As a EUROPEAN, previously living in the US for a long time, and later living in China, I can tell you that I will choose China over America at ANY TIME."
That makes me very happy. As an American, I will gladly choose sending you to China over putting up with you ANY TIME.
"Bullshit. Utter tosh and nonsense. Please provide references."
You first. Seriously. You're very insistent, so I assume you have them. Of course, then the argument degrades into "your references are biased" and flame wars ensue. Which is why TAKING REFERENCES OFF OF THE INTERNET, which used to be so ridiculous that it was the source of many jokes, is now considered proof to people like you.
Why do so many people seem to think that there is some ultimate "truth" regarding these issues? The law isn't clear, the facts aren't clear, yet you've made up your mind.
"That's hardly significant. Statistically, you can't really call that a correlation."
Ok, Statty Mc Statenstein, do the math for us. I've included a handy link to test for significance, all you have to do is plug in the numbers and give us your answers.
"It would not surprise me one bit if there were state laws that force corporations to maximize profit, but I am not aware of any federal law that says so."
You clearly had an agenda in mind when replying, or you'd have realized THAT WAS MY ENTIRE POINT.
Each state has laws about this subject. When I said there is no "US code" I meant in regards to this subject.
"Further, the GP said "US-American law," not "state law."
Pedantry. United STATES of AMERICA. Don't know what you were trying to prove here, but you failed.
My point (please read it this time) is that the IDEA of corporate responsibility is very much real, and present in STATE statutes, which appear in veitually every state.
Slashdot Mirror
"The american military could wipe the american public off the map..."
This is dumb for two reasons.
1) the military IS the American Public
2) Why hasn't such a wiping off the map occurred in Iraq? Do they have some magical powers that make them impervious to the military?
"If if you're lying on your resum..."
It makes no difference when you're making the company money.
Save the "if he lied about x then what about y..." nonsense. If i were to poll the entire world, my guess is that the most common form of "lying" is doctoring your resume. So let's stop acting like it matters, especially when the job is to make money.
No, it doesn't make it right, just irrelevant.
It doesn't require that they make stupid decisions, so what was your point?
I did, and he told me that was a vastly, colossally ignorant statement.
I agree, so would you care to display your stupidity again? Please do, we're all laughing at you and we'd like the fun to continue.
"Not to mention it's also false (i.e. it's not the only gambling game that requires skill.)"
Where did I say it was?
Why are you such a flaming idiot that you make up argumnets and read things that don't exist?
As to the strength, California says poker is a skill. I really don't think anyone gives two shits about your opinion, especially since it's stupid (because you make up arguments and can't read for comprehension)
The answer here is the same as for brick and mortar casinos.
There are tons of money to be made legitimately, what's the incentive to risk your reputation?
"Poker is a game of skill and chance (read luck.)"
There is an element of chance in all games, so this is an impossible test.
The question is, can you through application of your skill, consistently win more than chance accounts for.
It is possible in poker.
Look at the dramatic rise in online poker, and the MASSIVE increase in tournament poker in casinos, and you have a hard time convincing me the casinos don't make money off of online gaming.
"I'd certainly feel more comfortable playing online Texas Hold'em..."
Poker isn't gambling. At least, not everywhere (see California) so this is a point I'd like to see specifically addressed. AS very serious poker player, I would have to agree, it isn't gambling. There is a reason you always see the same people late in tournaments.
I suspect online poker is in large part responsible for this bill, but it may not be covered at all.
"The US should clean up its own dirty laundry before they attack others. There is clearly no point in talking about human rights as long as you ROUTINELY break them yourself."
First of all, "the US" isn't one bloc of like minded followers. I would expect someone who claimed to live here would know that.
Second this statement
"The US should clean up its own dirty laundry before they attack others. There is clearly no point in talking about human rights as long as you ROUTINELY break them yourself."
Is just plain stupid. Did it ever occur to you that both can be done? I much prefer the idea of improving human rights in many places to your idea.
And MAYBE, the people trying to improve human rights in China are ALSO trying to improve humna rights in the US.
No, stop lying about your motives. It's obvious to everyone your posts are just more anti-US screed. At least be a man and own up to it.
There are more federal laws than just the US code.
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/cfr.html
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/fed_register.html
So, next time you decide to clarify something for me, make sure you're clear on it yourself first.
that you're a twit.
But thanks for confriming it.
"I did not specify that references had to be 'net based. Neither have I said I'd consider an Internet based reference to be sufficient to convince me (or otherwise). I'm happy to accept in advance your apology for misrepresenting me by saying otherwise"
Where did I claim that you said any of those things? Well? So, are YOU now going to apologize for exactly the thing you so pompously tried to denounce me for? We'll see...
"Can you provide actual evidence that the detainees are all terrorists, or linked to terrorism? And can you further provide justification for the flagrant abuses of their civil liberties?"
That was my point, such evidence doesn't exist EITHER way. I didn;t speak to the PROCEDURES in use, only the facts of the case.
If you'd bothered to ask me what I thought about holding people for that long with no transparency, I would have told you. But THAT WASN'T WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT, so stop trying to change the subject.
"Obviously those infringements of civil liberties can be referenced through multiple US court representations, speeches and comments by American political figures and government and military staff, and numerous print media outlets, quite apart from the recently published United Nations paper that led to Koffi Annan calling for the camp to be closed."
And how do we know those accounts are factually accurate? MY point, again because you're more interested in forcing your opinion on others than listening, is that WE DON'T KNOW.
The problem is a total lack of transparency and review, yet you seem to have drawn conclusions. I asked for the FACTS you used to draw these conclusions, and you provided NOTHING.
Either read my post, and respond to my post, or don't respond at all. I'm not interested in reading your exposition on what you think is wrong with the situation.
Explain to me how this is flamebait when someone is touting China? Is their history of murdering female babies not relevant to the discussion?
Or is it that I'm right, and someone with no way to refute me chose to misuse their mod points?
That's just fucking sad.
"Puzzling why anyone with a clue would balk at the use of that term."
Well, perhaps I wasn't balking, but was instead CLARIFYING.
I realize you pompous assholes think you know everything, but when someone says something I'm not clear on, I like to make an attempt to understand what they are saying. You know, so I don't come off like you just did.
So, apart from drawing attention to the fact that you're a pedantic dickhead, what was your point?
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech.php?can_id=H02711 03
Maybe this will help you answer your question.
Becuase you obviously didn't, here's the part that makes you wrong.
"Understandably, Ford didn't want to take this sitting down, so he took the case to the Supreme Court of Michigan. Their opinion, sans dissent, said:
A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end and does not extend to a change in the end itself, to the reduction of profits or to the nondistribution of profits among stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes."
The court stated in its opinion "A BUSINESS CORPORATION IS ORGANIZED AND CARRIED ON PRIMARILY FOR THE PROFIT OF THE STOCKHOLDERS"
Stop moving the goalposts, you're wrong, take the opportunity to learn something.
"As a EUROPEAN, previously living in the US for a long time, and later living in China, I can tell you that I will choose China over America at ANY TIME."
That makes me very happy. As an American, I will gladly choose sending you to China over putting up with you ANY TIME.
Please keep your word, we don't want you.
Female children
"Bullshit. Utter tosh and nonsense. Please provide references."
You first. Seriously. You're very insistent, so I assume you have them. Of course, then the argument degrades into "your references are biased" and flame wars ensue. Which is why TAKING REFERENCES OFF OF THE INTERNET, which used to be so ridiculous that it was the source of many jokes, is now considered proof to people like you.
Why do so many people seem to think that there is some ultimate "truth" regarding these issues? The law isn't clear, the facts aren't clear, yet you've made up your mind.
Why?
"China is communist ergo *all* trade with China furthers Chinese censorship."
So Communism equals censorship huh?
"and it should be in the Government's interest to keep people happy and safe across the world..."
I really don't know what you were trying to say in your post, because it wasa all over the place, but this caught my eye.
A government isn't elected to take care of the world. It's elected to take care of its consititutents.
"That's hardly significant. Statistically, you can't really call that a correlation."
t echbrief5.htmc s%20Multimedia/z_square_ratio.htm
Ok, Statty Mc Statenstein, do the math for us. I've included a handy link to test for significance, all you have to do is plug in the numbers and give us your answers.
http://www.coolth.com/siginsig.htm
http://www.infoworks.ride.uri.edu/2000/techbrief/
http://www.visualstatistics.net/Visual%20Statisti
Since we all like to have facts that support our arguments, all you have to do is present your math so we can verify that the is "hardly significant".
"Is that why they been dumbing down..."
Oops.
"It would not surprise me one bit if there were state laws that force corporations to maximize profit, but I am not aware of any federal law that says so."
You clearly had an agenda in mind when replying, or you'd have realized THAT WAS MY ENTIRE POINT.
Each state has laws about this subject. When I said there is no "US code" I meant in regards to this subject.
"Further, the GP said "US-American law," not "state law."
Pedantry. United STATES of AMERICA. Don't know what you were trying to prove here, but you failed.
My point (please read it this time) is that the IDEA of corporate responsibility is very much real, and present in STATE statutes, which appear in veitually every state.