*claiming the controller uses six axes *claiming vibration impedes motion sensing *claiming there were giant crabs in medieval Japan (there were... but not as big as the one depicted in the demo)
Okay, but I think you mean "parentus getting maddus at the kiddus and performing the shakus operation for which they don't want to take the responsibilitus".
I think that "abnormality in the brain stem" is itself due to the parentus getting maddus at the kiddus and giving him a slappus for which they don't want to take the responsibilitus.
Well, here goes: I mentioned how woodburning in my area bothers me. I then referred to an instance of woodburning bothering me (e.g., someone burning deciding to burn wood). That should have alerted you that I wasn't talking about the wood pellets, that supposedly don't pollute. The mere fact that I was talking about woodburning bothering me in the first place should have showed that you didn't need to inform me that it's possible for wood not to pollute, because that obviously wasn't happening here.
So, you had quite enough to realize your comment that it's possible for wood not to pollute, which clearly was not the case here, was irrelevant.
Oh, then I guess my question is why you don't understand the concept of "context". Obviously, I was referring to one person burning wood as woodburning is done in my area.
You should study journalism when you get into college -- you seem to have the "take quotes out of context" thing down pat. Or "spot on", I should say? "Smashing"? "Tip top"?
I never said it can't be done, kid. I just said it isn't currently being done, and my air is suffering because of it, and people make more noise over the significantly-less pollution of corporations than the wood burning currently being done, and I can't ascertain why.
Now, where does this bit about wood pellets play into that?
Reality has proved you wrong. Even small companies dumping toxic waste...
You're not listening. My point was, I can use the same trick you did, and subdivide low enough to where the pollution is not a problem, and then make the unfair comparison of that one small amount, to a larger polluter. It's STILL an invalid comparison. You couldn't dismiss the damage of wood burning just because one person plus or minus doesn't make a difference. (I can imagine your reaction to "Ford's vehicles shutting down forever would make no difference in global warming, so Ford should be exempt from any carbon emissions standards." !)
Of course, I don't even need to rely on this, like I said last time. In the argument I made that you ignored, I pointed out that one person DOES make a difference TO ME. If ONE person burns wood, I can tell.
Well, it's simply not true that individuals have free reigh to pollute air. There ARE regulations...
Fine. So they can't burn leaves. (Though I've never seen incredibly vigorous enforcement of this, to be honest.) They still have free reign to burn logs. That was my point.
Maybe. If a jury can't be convinced that UPS was negligent, then they'll not be held liable. Of course a case where UPS isn't liable would likely never even get to a jury.
Right, because juries NEVER ignore the evidence and vote on envy, esp. with wealth corporations.
Well, because corporations have a lot more power than you do.
Aha! FINALLY we get to the hard core of why you think there's a distinction. (Wish it didn't take this long to get you to admit to this justification, but whatever.) Because of your childish envy -- the kind the rest of us grew out of at about six. Oh, I know, you cloak in terms of "power", but we all know what you're talking about.
me:Many groups are out to pursue their interests at the expense of others. Instead of money, they may be after the shutdown of industrial society, or conversion to some type of Christianity, or sending blacks back to Africa. You can find these supposed impurities in anyone's motives. What makes "the pursuit of money" different?
you: There's nothing wrong with the pursuit of money, and I never said anything of the sort. There is something wrong, in my opinion, with letting the pursuit of money trump what is best for society as a whole.
Okay, sure -- just as there's something wrong with letting the pursuit of {the shutdown of industrial society, conversion of everyone to some type of Christianity, sending blacks back to Africa} to trump what is best for society has a whole. Why is the "money" motive so much more a target of approbation, even if, the wrong commited to that end isn't as bad as that committed to other ends?
Why not pursue a solution to this problem, then? Why not go to your local government and propose restrictions on wood burning? You can't be the only person out there who finds it offensive, and you can make a solid case that it's in the best interest of your community to restrict the burning of wood.
Of course I'm not. And of course I've tried. But I'll always run into the wall: people have more relaxed standards for those polluting to "create the mood" than for those polluting to "earn money". My question here is: why?
It might not perfectly match, but it probably wouldn't be signficantly below current employer contributions. Consider:
-Right now, the employer can profitably employ you with costs of X (salary plus everything else they must pay for you to be there). -Your costs (hypothetically) drop by Y (the contribution they no longer have to make). -They attempt to keep your salary the same. -Then someone tries to poach workers by diverting part of Y to salaries. -Current employers respond by diverting the same. -Process repeats until salary has increased by about Y.
First of all, plumbers aren't cheap. Definitely not minimum wage.
I know. That was just an example of a labor law. There is a labyrinthine network of them, all of which I have to comply with... but only if I'm a big evil corporation.
A corporation will offer medical and dental insurances in addition to wages as an incentive for that person to plumb exclusively for the corporation.
Money does the same thing. These are "offered" either because laws require benefits to be paid when "full time" status is reached, or because the corporation is given favorable tax treatment when buying them for employees. The ones that don't have time to figure out this loophole -- well, who cares about them?
Corporations do not contribute to Social Security. Do not. Social Security is taken out of your wages.
??? Yes, they do. Get a clue, kid. The employer pays a tax that matches the amount shown on your paystub. It is in addition to your deduction. Now, there's an important point to make here, which is that the *economic incidence* of BOTH parts falls on the worker. That is, if corporations weren't made to match it, market wages would rise by that amount. But the point is, the corporation has to go through the hassle of properly registering you and making sure that portion goes to that tax, while you don't have to do the same thing for a one-time plumbing job.
As for discriminatory lawsuits. If you think a business has to treat all patrons equally, then they must hire equally as well.
Uh huh. The point is, those laws only attach when it's a "big evil corporation". If you personally wanted to turn away every plumber when you found out he was black, you wouldn't have to worry about being sued. Corproations, on the other hand, have their hiring patterns monitored. Fair, eh?
I *did* speculate with you. I showed that your policies fail by your very own standards. That is, what you propose will not accomplish what you want it to, so quit griping that it hasn't happened yet.
One guy burning wood in his fireplace has very little impact on anything.
Fallacy of composition -- I'm sure one small corporation's pollution wouldn't have much impact on anything either.
Even so, it's false. If even one person burns wood, that signficantly affects my personal air quality, more than any corporation, or all the autos in my city ever have. I understand that corporations now have regulations to comply with (your next point), but that misses the point! Why must they adhere to these regulations, but individuals are given free reign to pollute MY AIR with their stupid woodburning, without having to get anyone's by-your-leave? We all know the answer: because they're not trying to make a profit doing it. The moment Globocorp sets up a similar-scaled operation that burns wood, THEN the protestors appear. Go fig.
A $200,000 judgement against an individual is a huge amount and is an effective deterent. A $200,000 judgement against a large corporation like UPS is peanuts and does exactly nothing to prevent them from having these entirely made up policies
And what if the UPS driver's just an idiot? You think UPS is off the hook? In any case, if it were really about punishing the lawbreaker, the award net of real damages should go to a fund to pay for cases where the real perpetrator can't be found. But then again, it was never about making the victim whole, was it?
If the insurance company or HMO is at fault, they should have punitive damages against them otherwise they'll do little to correct the problem.
The insurance company merely pools the risk and pay the damange. They don't perform the operation. Yet juries ROUTINELY award huge damages to insured doctors solely on the grounds that they know someone with deep pockets will be paying. It has nothing to do with the insurance company's acts.
There's a difference between an independant contractor, and an employee. Corporations hire indendent contractors all the time to fix toilets or whatever. What they can't and shouldn't do is pretend an employee is an independant contractor just to avoid paying benefits, SS, and liability.
WHY? The "difference" you've cited is just an attempt to equate the "law as it stands" with "justification for the law as it stands". I know the law treats these alleged "separate cases" differently; the question is why it does so. Why can I get away with hiring someone repeatedly -- as contract labor and not have to worry about charges that I'm not paying the "benefits" that are supposed to accrue to regular employees, but corporations have to walk on eggshells when hiring the labor of others?
The basic thing here is that corporations shouldn't be treated like normal citizens because they're a lot more immune to damage. You can't put a company in jail, fine them a (relatively) small amount of money, etc.
Yes, you can always jail the individuals criminally culpable for their actions. Why do people always assume otherwise? An individual or individuals always bear the cost of fines and regulations, regardless of the overlying legal structures that are set up. You're just making the fallacy that says "Corporations don't have free speech rights!" Ignoring that the same right can be equivalently expressed as the rights of individuals.
Many groups are out to pursue their interests at the expense of others. Instead of money, they may be after the shutdown of industrial society, or conversion to some type of Christianity, or sending blacks back to Africa. You can find these supposed impurities in anyone's motives. What makes "the pursuit of money" different?
In any case, my air is dirty around Winter. The fact that it's non-profit, non-corporations burning the wood is little consolation.
Are you kidding me? The air I breathe sucks, more than anything resulting from factories or cars, because non-corporations burn wood and (until I can move to a better area) I have to tolerate non-corporation-operated Harleys making horrible noise and non-corporation operated Cadillacs belching bass music...
But that's somehow "less bad" because it's a not a corporation doing it?
Wow, that post is an excellent example of what's wrong with the world today. Everything is evil if and only if a big corporation does it.
-Pollution is evil if corporations do it, but if you're burning wood in your fireplace, and impacting my life much more, that's okay. -If you kill someone wtih your car, you're on the hook for, what, $200,000? If a UPS driver does it, bump that up to a million. -If a doctor botches an operation and kills someone, yep, $200,000. But if he has a big evil insurance corporation backing him, meh, they can afford a million or so, right? -If the Graemen Bank empowers people through microloans, that's SO GREAT. But if a regular for-profit bank did it, that would be evil. -If you want to hire someone to fix your toilet, you pay whatever they agree to. But if you're a corporation that wants to hire someoen to regularly fix toilets, well, that's just evil. You're going to have to pay his medical and dental, pay minimum wage, contribute to his social security account, be on the hook for discriminatory lawsuits, etc.
And now:
-If a corporation annoys you to no end with autodialing, SHUT EM DOWN. But if it's "just" a non-profit organization doing the exact same thing, nah, let it slip.
I was just reminding you that it's not going to accomplish what you want it to.
And besides, if you revoke their corporate charter, I guess they no longer pay the corporate tax? Or are you still writing from the Cake Having/Eating Department?
I didn't assume that. I just "assumed" (quite reasonably) that people wouldn't start agitating for the death penalty for accidental deaths when these "corporate legal protections" were removed.
First of all, neither Texas, nor any other US state would execute anyone over an accidental death. Second, incorporation does not protect individuals from criminal prosecution nor civil liability for torts they commit. Third, if there were no Big Evil Corporation to sue, only the managers could be sued individually. If history is any guide, with less-deep pockets, they'd have to pay fewer damages (faceless corporations always get hit with the big judgments), but the... er, "firm"... would cover it anyway -- sounds like it would save them money. Fourth, when has a corporation been unable to pay its (reasonable) judgments after all assets have been liquidated? Think hard. Okay, got one? Now, explain why that's so bad, but it's 100% acceptable that all the poor people who commit premeditated murder never end up paying the victims' families anything, and why you don't support requiring all of them to carry indemnity policies against that possibility.
Slashdot Mirror
I want to know, did they factor in the advertisement spending on the BBC?
and:
... but not as big as the one depicted in the demo)
*claiming the controller uses six axes
*claiming vibration impedes motion sensing
*claiming there were giant crabs in medieval Japan (there were
Okay, but I think you mean "parentus getting maddus at the kiddus and performing the shakus operation for which they don't want to take the responsibilitus".
Let's try to stick to proper terminology here.
I think that "abnormality in the brain stem" is itself due to the parentus getting maddus at the kiddus and giving him a slappus for which they don't want to take the responsibilitus.
If you know what I mean.
Well, here goes: I mentioned how woodburning in my area bothers me. I then referred to an instance of woodburning bothering me (e.g., someone burning deciding to burn wood). That should have alerted you that I wasn't talking about the wood pellets, that supposedly don't pollute. The mere fact that I was talking about woodburning bothering me in the first place should have showed that you didn't need to inform me that it's possible for wood not to pollute, because that obviously wasn't happening here.
So, you had quite enough to realize your comment that it's possible for wood not to pollute, which clearly was not the case here, was irrelevant.
Next time, you can do your own reasoning.
So now your comment has just turned into, "Let's do X so we can find out what would happen, because I would find that interesting."
Well, that's a tough act to follow, so I'll just depart here.
Oh, then I guess my question is why you don't understand the concept of "context". Obviously, I was referring to one person burning wood as woodburning is done in my area.
You should study journalism when you get into college -- you seem to have the "take quotes out of context" thing down pat. Or "spot on", I should say? "Smashing"? "Tip top"?
I never said it can't be done, kid. I just said it isn't currently being done, and my air is suffering because of it, and people make more noise over the significantly-less pollution of corporations than the wood burning currently being done, and I can't ascertain why.
Now, where does this bit about wood pellets play into that?
Um ... people don't burn those where I live ... or anywhere I've lived. They burn ... logs.
The relevance of your post is...?
Reality has proved you wrong. Even small companies dumping toxic waste ...
...
You're not listening. My point was, I can use the same trick you did, and subdivide low enough to where the pollution is not a problem, and then make the unfair comparison of that one small amount, to a larger polluter. It's STILL an invalid comparison. You couldn't dismiss the damage of wood burning just because one person plus or minus doesn't make a difference. (I can imagine your reaction to "Ford's vehicles shutting down forever would make no difference in global warming, so Ford should be exempt from any carbon emissions standards." !)
Of course, I don't even need to rely on this, like I said last time. In the argument I made that you ignored, I pointed out that one person DOES make a difference TO ME. If ONE person burns wood, I can tell.
Well, it's simply not true that individuals have free reigh to pollute air. There ARE regulations
Fine. So they can't burn leaves. (Though I've never seen incredibly vigorous enforcement of this, to be honest.) They still have free reign to burn logs. That was my point.
Maybe. If a jury can't be convinced that UPS was negligent, then they'll not be held liable. Of course a case where UPS isn't liable would likely never even get to a jury.
Right, because juries NEVER ignore the evidence and vote on envy, esp. with wealth corporations.
Well, because corporations have a lot more power than you do.
Aha! FINALLY we get to the hard core of why you think there's a distinction. (Wish it didn't take this long to get you to admit to this justification, but whatever.) Because of your childish envy -- the kind the rest of us grew out of at about six. Oh, I know, you cloak in terms of "power", but we all know what you're talking about.
me:Many groups are out to pursue their interests at the expense of others. Instead of money, they may be after the shutdown of industrial society, or conversion to some type of Christianity, or sending blacks back to Africa. You can find these supposed impurities in anyone's motives. What makes "the pursuit of money" different?
you: There's nothing wrong with the pursuit of money, and I never said anything of the sort. There is something wrong, in my opinion, with letting the pursuit of money trump what is best for society as a whole.
Okay, sure -- just as there's something wrong with letting the pursuit of {the shutdown of industrial society, conversion of everyone to some type of Christianity, sending blacks back to Africa} to trump what is best for society has a whole. Why is the "money" motive so much more a target of approbation, even if, the wrong commited to that end isn't as bad as that committed to other ends?
Why not pursue a solution to this problem, then? Why not go to your local government and propose restrictions on wood burning? You can't be the only person out there who finds it offensive, and you can make a solid case that it's in the best interest of your community to restrict the burning of wood.
Of course I'm not. And of course I've tried. But I'll always run into the wall: people have more relaxed standards for those polluting to "create the mood" than for those polluting to "earn money". My question here is: why?
It might not perfectly match, but it probably wouldn't be signficantly below current employer contributions. Consider:
-Right now, the employer can profitably employ you with costs of X (salary plus everything else they must pay for you to be there).
-Your costs (hypothetically) drop by Y (the contribution they no longer have to make).
-They attempt to keep your salary the same.
-Then someone tries to poach workers by diverting part of Y to salaries.
-Current employers respond by diverting the same.
-Process repeats until salary has increased by about Y.
First of all, plumbers aren't cheap. Definitely not minimum wage.
I know. That was just an example of a labor law. There is a labyrinthine network of them, all of which I have to comply with... but only if I'm a big evil corporation.
A corporation will offer medical and dental insurances in addition to wages as an incentive for that person to plumb exclusively for the corporation.
Money does the same thing. These are "offered" either because laws require benefits to be paid when "full time" status is reached, or because the corporation is given favorable tax treatment when buying them for employees. The ones that don't have time to figure out this loophole -- well, who cares about them?
Corporations do not contribute to Social Security. Do not. Social Security is taken out of your wages.
??? Yes, they do. Get a clue, kid. The employer pays a tax that matches the amount shown on your paystub. It is in addition to your deduction. Now, there's an important point to make here, which is that the *economic incidence* of BOTH parts falls on the worker. That is, if corporations weren't made to match it, market wages would rise by that amount. But the point is, the corporation has to go through the hassle of properly registering you and making sure that portion goes to that tax, while you don't have to do the same thing for a one-time plumbing job.
As for discriminatory lawsuits. If you think a business has to treat all patrons equally, then they must hire equally as well.
Uh huh. The point is, those laws only attach when it's a "big evil corporation". If you personally wanted to turn away every plumber when you found out he was black, you wouldn't have to worry about being sued. Corproations, on the other hand, have their hiring patterns monitored. Fair, eh?
I *did* speculate with you. I showed that your policies fail by your very own standards. That is, what you propose will not accomplish what you want it to, so quit griping that it hasn't happened yet.
One guy burning wood in his fireplace has very little impact on anything.
Fallacy of composition -- I'm sure one small corporation's pollution wouldn't have much impact on anything either.
Even so, it's false. If even one person burns wood, that signficantly affects my personal air quality, more than any corporation, or all the autos in my city ever have. I understand that corporations now have regulations to comply with (your next point), but that misses the point! Why must they adhere to these regulations, but individuals are given free reign to pollute MY AIR with their stupid woodburning, without having to get anyone's by-your-leave? We all know the answer: because they're not trying to make a profit doing it. The moment Globocorp sets up a similar-scaled operation that burns wood, THEN the protestors appear. Go fig.
A $200,000 judgement against an individual is a huge amount and is an effective deterent. A $200,000 judgement against a large corporation like UPS is peanuts and does exactly nothing to prevent them from having these entirely made up policies
And what if the UPS driver's just an idiot? You think UPS is off the hook? In any case, if it were really about punishing the lawbreaker, the award net of real damages should go to a fund to pay for cases where the real perpetrator can't be found. But then again, it was never about making the victim whole, was it?
If the insurance company or HMO is at fault, they should have punitive damages against them otherwise they'll do little to correct the problem.
The insurance company merely pools the risk and pay the damange. They don't perform the operation. Yet juries ROUTINELY award huge damages to insured doctors solely on the grounds that they know someone with deep pockets will be paying. It has nothing to do with the insurance company's acts.
There's a difference between an independant contractor, and an employee. Corporations hire indendent contractors all the time to fix toilets or whatever. What they can't and shouldn't do is pretend an employee is an independant contractor just to avoid paying benefits, SS, and liability.
WHY? The "difference" you've cited is just an attempt to equate the "law as it stands" with "justification for the law as it stands". I know the law treats these alleged "separate cases" differently; the question is why it does so. Why can I get away with hiring someone repeatedly -- as contract labor and not have to worry about charges that I'm not paying the "benefits" that are supposed to accrue to regular employees, but corporations have to walk on eggshells when hiring the labor of others?
The basic thing here is that corporations shouldn't be treated like normal citizens because they're a lot more immune to damage. You can't put a company in jail, fine them a (relatively) small amount of money, etc.
Yes, you can always jail the individuals criminally culpable for their actions. Why do people always assume otherwise? An individual or individuals always bear the cost of fines and regulations, regardless of the overlying legal structures that are set up. You're just making the fallacy that says "Corporations don't have free speech rights!" Ignoring that the same right can be equivalently expressed as the rights of individuals.
Many groups are out to pursue their interests at the expense of others. Instead of money, they may be after the shutdown of industrial society, or conversion to some type of Christianity, or sending blacks back to Africa. You can find these supposed impurities in anyone's motives. What makes "the pursuit of money" different?
In any case, my air is dirty around Winter. The fact that it's non-profit, non-corporations burning the wood is little consolation.
Are you kidding me? The air I breathe sucks, more than anything resulting from factories or cars, because non-corporations burn wood and (until I can move to a better area) I have to tolerate non-corporation-operated Harleys making horrible noise and non-corporation operated Cadillacs belching bass music ...
But that's somehow "less bad" because it's a not a corporation doing it?
Wow, that post is an excellent example of what's wrong with the world today. Everything is evil if and only if a big corporation does it.
-Pollution is evil if corporations do it, but if you're burning wood in your fireplace, and impacting my life much more, that's okay.
-If you kill someone wtih your car, you're on the hook for, what, $200,000? If a UPS driver does it, bump that up to a million.
-If a doctor botches an operation and kills someone, yep, $200,000. But if he has a big evil insurance corporation backing him, meh, they can afford a million or so, right?
-If the Graemen Bank empowers people through microloans, that's SO GREAT. But if a regular for-profit bank did it, that would be evil.
-If you want to hire someone to fix your toilet, you pay whatever they agree to. But if you're a corporation that wants to hire someoen to regularly fix toilets, well, that's just evil. You're going to have to pay his medical and dental, pay minimum wage, contribute to his social security account, be on the hook for discriminatory lawsuits, etc.
And now:
-If a corporation annoys you to no end with autodialing, SHUT EM DOWN. But if it's "just" a non-profit organization doing the exact same thing, nah, let it slip.
I'm serious -- can someone explain this to me?
I was just reminding you that it's not going to accomplish what you want it to.
And besides, if you revoke their corporate charter, I guess they no longer pay the corporate tax? Or are you still writing from the Cake Having/Eating Department?
Well, let no one say your /. name is fraudulent.
(cur) (last) 02:09, 27 October 2006 CIALuvR (Talk | contribs) (rm unsourced edit -- no proof CIA did that)
(cur) (last) 01:31, 24 October 2006 DodDude(Talk | contribs) (added pt a/b selling drugs in inner city)
I didn't assume that. I just "assumed" (quite reasonably) that people wouldn't start agitating for the death penalty for accidental deaths when these "corporate legal protections" were removed.
Yeah, but it was pretty clear he was just making an over the top joke about Texas
I don't think it's *ever* clear when he's being serious and when his posts are just satire. And that's not a good thing.
Do you understand the difference between "serious jail time" and "execution"? The GGP was claiming it would lead to execution. See sig.
Wow. Where to begin.
... er, "firm" ... would cover it anyway -- sounds like it would save them money. Fourth, when has a corporation been unable to pay its (reasonable) judgments after all assets have been liquidated? Think hard. Okay, got one? Now, explain why that's so bad, but it's 100% acceptable that all the poor people who commit premeditated murder never end up paying the victims' families anything, and why you don't support requiring all of them to carry indemnity policies against that possibility.
First of all, neither Texas, nor any other US state would execute anyone over an accidental death. Second, incorporation does not protect individuals from criminal prosecution nor civil liability for torts they commit. Third, if there were no Big Evil Corporation to sue, only the managers could be sued individually. If history is any guide, with less-deep pockets, they'd have to pay fewer damages (faceless corporations always get hit with the big judgments), but the