There's no constitutional basis for a group of people united for a political purpose to be denied their rights because of how they pool their money. However, that doesn't describe most large corporations: they clearly exist for commerce...
The boundary between those is very fuzzy and easy to manipulate.
I have not seen anywhere where the SCOTUS limited which co's their ruling applies to. They may have considered certain kinds of co's for that particular ruling, but left open the interpretation of scope to lower courts.
It's a very liberal university, so I'm not surprised they're on board with gene-editing and the eugenics program.
You imply left-leaning people are more likely to support eugenics/modification than right-leaning people. Do you have any statistically-valid evidence for such a preference, or is that just a personal guess?
While examples of both sides suggesting variations of such can be found, my general impression is that the right is more likely to support modification via breeding over modification via DNA engineering, typically by killing off, sterilizing, or banning entry of "races" they deem to be inferior. The guy with the small mustache comes to mind, and the orange guy's wish to curtail immigration from countries he deems inferior, preferring European immigrants.
If "designer humans" (DH) become an economic advantage for one country such that others feel at risk, then pressure will be to join the DH club even over ethics fears. Fear of being militarily overwhelmed will override ethics fears. The nasty radiation experiments and risks taken by both sides of the cold-war should serve as a warning.
I would hope the major power countries agree to ban or limit such rather than create a DH arms race that would create pressure to rush things, risking Frankenstein-eque fopas.
attempts to publish his quasar ejection model famously led to his removal from the world's largest optical telescope
Looking at the birth of controversial theories, it seems its better to emphasize the oddity instead of the new interpretation.
If Galileo had said, "Hmmm, look at these interesting observations. It looks as if all the planets go around the Sun, not Earth. Let's investigate further...", he probably wouldn't have got into trouble. Propose the alternative, but don't insist on anything. Just collect more data until it's obvious to peers.
Office politics is still alive and well in science.
To put it another way, the American car companies have never been able to shed the reputation they gained in the 1970s for making lousy sedans. [Even though newer sedans are comparable]
Once you get a bad broad reputation, it's hard to kick. Your newer stuff has to be better than the competition to correct the reputation. "Equal" is not strong enough. That's just human psychology in action.
It's like somebody with a notorious reputation for lying. To clean their reputation, they'd have to lie less than average for a good while to get back in good graces. Lying the same amount would supply enough lies to reinforce their existing reputation.
You hear that Microsoft, Oracle, Comcast, and IBM?
I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't look like it has formal legal meaning; it's only a short-hand concept. Your link gives no specific quantity (Integer) thresholds nor defines "often" in "often listed". I see fuzzy words.
If the DMCA stymies free speech in practice, then it could be considered a violation of the 1st Amendment. Form a coalition to sue all the way up to the Supreme Court.
A similar situation has arisen for the recent "Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017", which is so vague that it makes hosting any kind of online romantic discussion or message group too risky. One could end up in jail because they don't police content tightly enough.
(Craigslist removed the "personals" discussion group because that Act. Ads for shady services now spill over into other discussion groups, often ruining them. Craig may end up in jail anyhow for not scrubbing hard enough.)
Both laws have "excessive side-effects" on legitimate free speech.
The SCOTUS ruled that a closely-held corporation was the same as a partnership, and thus the rights of members are preserved. It said nothing about "corporations are people", nor did it apply to corporations in general.
As written, the first sentence seems to be contradicting the second.
Sentence 1: Corporation = partnership = people
Sentence 2: Corporations != people
Unless "closely held" means something significant? I invite you to clarify.
(There may need to be a way to distinguish organizations that broadcast political commentary, but that's another matter.)
Anyone know why you'd want to script CAD documents anyway?
Automation and factoring. Why repeat a similar sub-structure 200 times when you can describe it once, with parameters controlling any minor variations. If you later change the design of that part/pattern, you then don't have to hand-edit all 200 copies, but merely adjust the subroutine and re-run it.
However, using some kind of "auto-start" script to generate or render designs instead of regenerating explicitly as-needed is probably not a good idea.
The US is becoming more like Europe where generations tend to live together instead of each new generation setting out on their own. It's from a combination of 3 things:
1) Running out of land due to population growth. The remaining areas are either desert or mountainous. The rest competes with farming.
2) Jobs are less stable these days, making it harder to purchase a house. Lack of career stability also means you select "nimble" dwellings over big dwellings because you may have to move quickly for work change.
3) The wealth is log-jamming at the top. Most GDP growth is not trickling down to the middle class. The Great Recession merely accelerated the trend.
ARM still lacks mature "big server" features. If anything, it's more a matter of specialty. x86 (currently) does "big iron" better, and ARM does mobile/small better.
Someday ARM may improve enough on the high-end to render x86 obsolete, but it's also possible it may lose its inherent advantages in that niche when it piles on features to compete with x86 and gathers similar cruft.
The fact there are big companies overseas by itself shouldn't be an alarm. Taiwan is a (relatively) healthy democracy. We should expect and welcome strong industry from such. More industry means more choice, more R&D, and more products.
As far as China, we couldn't compete with them on manufacturing because they are (or were) willing to pollute, and have slave-like labor practices. Citizens don't have enough political power to affect changes in these.
I believe we should tariff countries who create imbalanced trade via low pollution & labor standards. We don't have to trade with jerks.
Slashdot Mirror
The boundary between those is very fuzzy and easy to manipulate.
So, my point stands.
I have not seen anywhere where the SCOTUS limited which co's their ruling applies to. They may have considered certain kinds of co's for that particular ruling, but left open the interpretation of scope to lower courts.
You imply left-leaning people are more likely to support eugenics/modification than right-leaning people. Do you have any statistically-valid evidence for such a preference, or is that just a personal guess?
While examples of both sides suggesting variations of such can be found, my general impression is that the right is more likely to support modification via breeding over modification via DNA engineering, typically by killing off, sterilizing, or banning entry of "races" they deem to be inferior. The guy with the small mustache comes to mind, and the orange guy's wish to curtail immigration from countries he deems inferior, preferring European immigrants.
Correction: "Frankenstein-eque" should be "Frankenstein-esque". That is, Frankenstein-monster-like.
If "designer humans" (DH) become an economic advantage for one country such that others feel at risk, then pressure will be to join the DH club even over ethics fears. Fear of being militarily overwhelmed will override ethics fears. The nasty radiation experiments and risks taken by both sides of the cold-war should serve as a warning.
I would hope the major power countries agree to ban or limit such rather than create a DH arms race that would create pressure to rush things, risking Frankenstein-eque fopas.
Looking at the birth of controversial theories, it seems its better to emphasize the oddity instead of the new interpretation.
If Galileo had said, "Hmmm, look at these interesting observations. It looks as if all the planets go around the Sun, not Earth. Let's investigate further...", he probably wouldn't have got into trouble. Propose the alternative, but don't insist on anything. Just collect more data until it's obvious to peers.
Office politics is still alive and well in science.
"I just had a hell of a dream. What the?!..."
Once you get a bad broad reputation, it's hard to kick. Your newer stuff has to be better than the competition to correct the reputation. "Equal" is not strong enough. That's just human psychology in action.
It's like somebody with a notorious reputation for lying. To clean their reputation, they'd have to lie less than average for a good while to get back in good graces. Lying the same amount would supply enough lies to reinforce their existing reputation.
You hear that Microsoft, Oracle, Comcast, and IBM?
There goes their profits on "hot whipped & frothy" lattes.
I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't look like it has formal legal meaning; it's only a short-hand concept. Your link gives no specific quantity (Integer) thresholds nor defines "often" in "often listed". I see fuzzy words.
If the DMCA stymies free speech in practice, then it could be considered a violation of the 1st Amendment. Form a coalition to sue all the way up to the Supreme Court.
A similar situation has arisen for the recent "Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017", which is so vague that it makes hosting any kind of online romantic discussion
or message group too risky. One could end up in jail because they don't police content tightly enough.
(Craigslist removed the "personals" discussion group because that Act. Ads for shady services now spill over into other discussion groups, often ruining them. Craig may end up in jail anyhow for not scrubbing hard enough.)
Both laws have "excessive side-effects" on legitimate free speech.
Before WW2, you headed out west and built your own house.
As written, the first sentence seems to be contradicting the second.
Sentence 1: Corporation = partnership = people
Sentence 2: Corporations != people
Unless "closely held" means something significant? I invite you to clarify.
(There may need to be a way to distinguish organizations that broadcast political commentary, but that's another matter.)
Automation and factoring. Why repeat a similar sub-structure 200 times when you can describe it once, with parameters controlling any minor variations. If you later change the design of that part/pattern, you then don't have to hand-edit all 200 copies, but merely adjust the subroutine and re-run it.
However, using some kind of "auto-start" script to generate or render designs instead of regenerating explicitly as-needed is probably not a good idea.
The US is becoming more like Europe where generations tend to live together instead of each new generation setting out on their own. It's from a combination of 3 things:
1) Running out of land due to population growth. The remaining areas are either desert or mountainous. The rest competes with farming.
2) Jobs are less stable these days, making it harder to purchase a house. Lack of career stability also means you select "nimble" dwellings over big dwellings because you may have to move quickly for work change.
3) The wealth is log-jamming at the top. Most GDP growth is not trickling down to the middle class. The Great Recession merely accelerated the trend.
He's agitated from his dental visit where he had all his muellers extracted.
Finally, YOU will have a shot at a date.
That's revenge for yanking his chips and making him sing "Daisy" at half speed.
And legally bribe Congress to keep it that way, thanks to the partisan Citizens United ruling.
Correction, 300 million clones to mirror the population of the USA.
Big corporations have big pockets to write big bribes (campaign donations) to get their way.
ARM still lacks mature "big server" features. If anything, it's more a matter of specialty. x86 (currently) does "big iron" better, and ARM does mobile/small better.
Someday ARM may improve enough on the high-end to render x86 obsolete, but it's also possible it may lose its inherent advantages in that niche when it piles on features to compete with x86 and gathers similar cruft.
The fact there are big companies overseas by itself shouldn't be an alarm. Taiwan is a (relatively) healthy democracy. We should expect and welcome strong industry from such. More industry means more choice, more R&D, and more products.
As far as China, we couldn't compete with them on manufacturing because they are (or were) willing to pollute, and have slave-like labor practices. Citizens don't have enough political power to affect changes in these.
I believe we should tariff countries who create imbalanced trade via low pollution & labor standards. We don't have to trade with jerks.
If horizontal resolution is 10nm and vertical is 7nm, then calling it "8.5nm" may make more sense when doing quick and dirty comparing.
Their heads are too small to hold them. Try sharks instead.