A nit but corporations are groups of people with all the rights and responsibilities of those individuals. We only treat them as "a person" as legal shorthand.
Not quite. The whole point of a incorporated / limited liability company and equivalent entities (Inc, llc, Ltd, SA, GmbH, NV, etc) is that owners are only liable up to their investment, i.e. you are not responsible for the debts of the corporation; not individually and not as a group. You can lose your investment, but that's the limit of your liability. If the group of owners of e.g. a coal plant would have the "rights and responsibilities" of the entity, they would be collectively responsible for its debts, e.g. cleanup costst, if it goes bankrupt. As a corporation, the plant goes bankrupt, the owners lose their investments (their shares are worthless), but remaining debts and liabilities cannot be collected.
Because this creates moral hazard and can cause society to be left with unpaid liabilities (tax, legal liabilities such as cleanup costs) historically they could only be created by special government fiat ("royal charter"), an implicit collective acceptance that the benefits outweigh the risk to society, and their number was quite limited for a long time, with famous corporations like the Dutch and British East India Companies among the earliest examples. Now, however, anybody and their uncle can start a llc/corporation, and while in theory the managers can be held responsible if they act in bad faith (e.g. take out loans, funnel the money to Caymans, declare bankruptcy) this is not prosecuted nearly often enough.
From my understanding, a president has two options: he can pardon someone, meaning the whole conviction is removed and things like e.g. voting rights are restored; or he can commute a sentence, which lowers the penalty but upholds the original conviction. So, after being released from her commuted sentence, Manning will still be a convicted felon and traitor, probably won't be eligible to vote or stand for election, will never get security clearance, etc etc. Also emotionally, a pardon would acknowledge that what she did was (somewhat) right, while a commutation means that she is still guilty and her acts were wrong, just not deserving of such a hash treatment. This also sends quite a different message to would-be whistleblowers.
So, the difference between pardon and commutation is not a technicality, it is very real.
If your hope in humanity was pinned on underpaid mall shop staffers knowing about DAC I think you had it coming:)
I'm curious though, do you really hear/appreciate the sound quality while you're cycling? I can maybe understand it in an environment where you can concentrate on the music, but on a bike...?
Nucular from the '50's' works as good today and tomorrow as it always have. Trust me. I know. I am a nucular enginer in charged of safeney.
I can see "nucular" as being sort of witty (or at least a cheap dig at the previous POTUS), but I would hope that an "enginer in charged of safeney" could pay a little bit more attention to detail...
I think you underestimate how hard killing a lot of people is.
The nazi's spent ~4 years setting up a formidable killing industry, partly automated and partly mechanised (especially in Eastern Europe most jews and other victims were killed by (machine)gunfire, not in the extermination camps), which resulted in around ~10 million deaths (of 6 million jews and of which 3 million in extermination camps), or 2.5 million people per year. Stalin took around 20 years to kill 10-60 million people, so a similar death rate, and communist China also has similar numbers per annum, depending on whether famine counts or not.
Compare that withthe current global population growth is 1%, or about 70 million people per year. So, to keep the population from growing, you need to setup killing at 25 times the rate of Hitler or Stalin. To significantly decrease the world population in a 'reasonable' time frame you would need to up that by at least an order of magnitude again.
tl;dr: you can kill some people some of the time, but it gets really tough to do do so in demographically significant way
Interesting. I learned the 'speed' meaning first as I guess that is the more common, but the Dutch (and Germanic) root is the "fixed" meaning (vast in Dutch). Apparently, fast=fixed -> firm -> vigorous -> fast=speedy
From what I read, they want to prevent having a noise source that could interfere with future missions. I'm not sure I buy that, with what power the satellite could get from broken solar panels on the comet surely the noise would be quite limited, but that's what the local newspaper said.
Also, I guess they just want to wrap up the project, shut off the receivers, and move on.
[In the UK], it's really easy to avoid [eating added sugar] - just stay away from all processed foods and ready to eat products. E.g. a ready-to-eat chicken from the local supermarket has added sugar!
As far as I understand the ruling, the infringement is *not* that GS linked to a site where it is legally hosted, but that they are linking to a site that hosts the pictures illegally, and the GS should have known that it was illegal (and you can be damn sure they knew that the linked site was not authorized by the copyright holder)
So, this case is more akin to pirate bay, which also just hosts links to places where stuff is hosted illegally; and has little to do with linking to something someone intended to distribute on the web.
Now, whether it should be legal to link to something you know is illegal is another matter. I for one am curious whether the court proceedings contain the hyperlink itself. While the central government is not liable for criminal persecution, it is liable for civil suits...
I don't think "own" means what you think it means:-). If there were no government, you would "own" something until someone with a bigger club comes around. If there is a government obeying the rule of law, you "own" something until your ownership is removed by due legal process. Expropriation is limited in scope and requires renumeration (U.S.C. 5th amendment: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."), so ownership is more than a temporary lease, but it is certainly no unlimited perpetual right. Hint: there's not an awful lot of those:).
In Dutch law, ownership is defined as the maximal rights that one can enjoy on a good. Not "full" or "unrestricted" rights, but "maximal".
(and yes, if you start breaking the law, either by refusing to pay taxes or in some other way, you will find that a lot of your rights are quite relative, including ownership, freedom of movement and ultimately freedom from physical abuse)
Surely, an update should not kill your partition. But if you have any data that resides on a single hard disk, expect to lose it. Drives will crash, updates will fail, hackers will hack, and users will do stupid shit.
This is 2016. Put everything you can into github, as much as possible of the rest in some sort of cloud drive (dropbox etc), and sync the rest to another computer somewhere. And if something is really dear to you (or to your customers, tax department, or government) back it up somewhere safe. Frankly, for me github+dropbox does the trick. Sure, dropbox or github *could* go out, but then I still have my multiple local copies and I can switch provider at any time if needed.
I agree that the sample size of 7 is rot, the 95% confidence interval around a binomial with 3/7 is 10%-82%, in other words: "we don't have a clue". However, neither TFA nor the/. summary actually link to the source, so here it is:
I've seen this argument before and I'm (genuinely) curious where the 1-fatality-in-96 million miles is based on. Wikipedia lists 1.27 casulaties per 100M miles, which is close enough, but that statistic is for all roads. AFAIK, interstates are the safest road type, and most casualties are on local roads and non-divided highways. I would like to know what the fatality rate would be for the same conditions that people use autopilot on, I would expect it to be much lower than 1 per 130MM?
I think the only reasonable system possible is one which has private ownership, free and competitive enterprise, and a government providing basic services, ensuring security and regulation, and promoting fairness and equality by e.g. making sure everyone has access to health care and education.
If this is 'capitalism', I'll take it. You can also call it the Rhineland model or social market economics, or whatever you want. I want it:)
What we're seeing now is: - wage share of income falling relative to capital's share [1] - real median income stagnant for the past 20 years even though real average income has increased by 25% [2]. Over 50 years median income increased by 25% (not even.5% per annum), while average income increased by 100%. In other words: the economic growth since the seventies has almost entirely gone to the above-median earners: the top 1% share of income jumped from 10% in the seventies to over 20% now, with a large part of this increase going to the top 0.1% (i.e., not us). - governments are unable to provide basic services because the rich don't pay their fair share of tax [4] - governments are unable to provide basic services because they are unable to reform entitlement/welfare systems which are in fact transferring money from the relatively poor young to the relatively well-off old [5] - markets aren't acutally well regulated, especially in the US, and too many industries have (near-)monopolies, causing profits to be historically way too high [6]
In Europe, 'capitalism' means that old people have either permanent contracts with generous benefits, or are already enjoying their equally generous retirement which they entered between 55 and 65. Young people have temporary contracts at stagnant wages, are unable to buy a house because of (1) inflated prices due to government meddling (green belts, mortgage interest deductability); (2) they don't have a permanent contract; and (3) new lending regulations means banks are a lot more stingy than even 10 years ago; and will not retire before 67 on a defined contribution scheme, which is pretty bad news especially given the essentially zero interest rates and government bond yields. In the US (and increasingly the UK), added to this is a nice pile of student debt. If I were young(er), I'm not sure I would think this is such a good bargain...
Yep, tax gas cars enough and provide large enough EV incentives, and people will do that sort of thing...
Doesn't make it a rational market nor mean it will work elsewhere.:)
Purely "rational" / "homo economicus" behaviour is very far away in the mobility market even without EVs:
- Passenger trains are (often) subsidized directly and indirectly by not having to pay full cost for using rails, stations etc. - Cars are subsidized indirectly by building roads, but taxed directly with sales tax and (often) extra vehicle tax or import tax - Gasoline is taxed with sales tax and other taxes, but subsidized indirectly by military interventions / protecting shipping lanes
So let's see what your rational mobility decision is in a country without a functioning government to 'distort' the market. My bet is going to be on walking, especially walking away:).
I live in Amsterdam, and there would only be one reason to get an EV: to be allowed to park on the EV-only spots with charger ports:-)
We bought a new car a year ago, but my daily commute is by bicyle and I use the car for longer trips. So, EV would only make sense once the charging-on-the-road is really solved. Now we just bought a cheap and light city car (VW UP) which supposedly gets 5l/100km (1:20, 47mpg), in reality gets between that and 5.5l/100 (1:17, 43mpg), but that is partly due to 'bad' driving on my part
Slashdot Mirror
A nit but corporations are groups of people with all the rights and responsibilities of those individuals. We only treat them as "a person" as legal shorthand.
Not quite. The whole point of a incorporated / limited liability company and equivalent entities (Inc, llc, Ltd, SA, GmbH, NV, etc) is that owners are only liable up to their investment, i.e. you are not responsible for the debts of the corporation; not individually and not as a group. You can lose your investment, but that's the limit of your liability. If the group of owners of e.g. a coal plant would have the "rights and responsibilities" of the entity, they would be collectively responsible for its debts, e.g. cleanup costst, if it goes bankrupt. As a corporation, the plant goes bankrupt, the owners lose their investments (their shares are worthless), but remaining debts and liabilities cannot be collected.
Because this creates moral hazard and can cause society to be left with unpaid liabilities (tax, legal liabilities such as cleanup costs) historically they could only be created by special government fiat ("royal charter"), an implicit collective acceptance that the benefits outweigh the risk to society, and their number was quite limited for a long time, with famous corporations like the Dutch and British East India Companies among the earliest examples. Now, however, anybody and their uncle can start a llc/corporation, and while in theory the managers can be held responsible if they act in bad faith (e.g. take out loans, funnel the money to Caymans, declare bankruptcy) this is not prosecuted nearly often enough.
I think this study actually raises more questions than it answers: If we sleep to forget, than what is the purpose of drinking?
I hear it runs Cygwin so there's that.
I'm trying to figure out why the heck anyone would want to do that, since both Mac and Linux offer a complete (and superior) shell already.
It's called a joke, you might want to read up on that :)
From my understanding, a president has two options: he can pardon someone, meaning the whole conviction is removed and things like e.g. voting rights are restored; or he can commute a sentence, which lowers the penalty but upholds the original conviction. So, after being released from her commuted sentence, Manning will still be a convicted felon and traitor, probably won't be eligible to vote or stand for election, will never get security clearance, etc etc. Also emotionally, a pardon would acknowledge that what she did was (somewhat) right, while a commutation means that she is still guilty and her acts were wrong, just not deserving of such a hash treatment. This also sends quite a different message to would-be whistleblowers.
So, the difference between pardon and commutation is not a technicality, it is very real.
If your hope in humanity was pinned on underpaid mall shop staffers knowing about DAC I think you had it coming :)
I'm curious though, do you really hear/appreciate the sound quality while you're cycling? I can maybe understand it in an environment where you can concentrate on the music, but on a bike...?
Nucular from the '50's' works as good today and tomorrow as it always have. Trust me. I know. I am a nucular enginer in charged of safeney.
I can see "nucular" as being sort of witty (or at least a cheap dig at the previous POTUS), but I would hope that an "enginer in charged of safeney" could pay a little bit more attention to detail...
This is why you should have an emergency hammer in your car, preferably one with a belt slicer in the handle.
I think you underestimate how hard killing a lot of people is.
The nazi's spent ~4 years setting up a formidable killing industry, partly automated and partly mechanised (especially in Eastern Europe most jews and other victims were killed by (machine)gunfire, not in the extermination camps), which resulted in around ~10 million deaths (of 6 million jews and of which 3 million in extermination camps), or 2.5 million people per year. Stalin took around 20 years to kill 10-60 million people, so a similar death rate, and communist China also has similar numbers per annum, depending on whether famine counts or not.
Compare that withthe current global population growth is 1%, or about 70 million people per year. So, to keep the population from growing, you need to setup killing at 25 times the rate of Hitler or Stalin. To significantly decrease the world population in a 'reasonable' time frame you would need to up that by at least an order of magnitude again.
tl;dr: you can kill some people some of the time, but it gets really tough to do do so in demographically significant way
[see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., and references therein]
Interesting. I learned the 'speed' meaning first as I guess that is the more common, but the Dutch (and Germanic) root is the "fixed" meaning (vast in Dutch). Apparently, fast=fixed -> firm -> vigorous -> fast=speedy
http://www.etymonline.com/inde...
My guess* is that they are from separate stems. In Dutch, kleven (clay-vun) is to stick together, and klieven (clee-vun) is to split apart.
No idea where the contradictory meaning in sanction comes from, in Dutch 'sanctioneren' (v) also has both meanings and people get confused.
*) And Internet confirms it :) http://www.etymonline.com/inde...
From what I read, they want to prevent having a noise source that could interfere with future missions. I'm not sure I buy that, with what power the satellite could get from broken solar panels on the comet surely the noise would be quite limited, but that's what the local newspaper said.
Also, I guess they just want to wrap up the project, shut off the receivers, and move on.
[In the UK], it's really easy to avoid [eating added sugar] - just stay away from all processed foods and ready to eat products. E.g. a ready-to-eat chicken from the local supermarket has added sugar!
FTFY!
As far as I understand the ruling, the infringement is *not* that GS linked to a site where it is legally hosted, but that they are linking to a site that hosts the pictures illegally, and the GS should have known that it was illegal (and you can be damn sure they knew that the linked site was not authorized by the copyright holder)
So, this case is more akin to pirate bay, which also just hosts links to places where stuff is hosted illegally; and has little to do with linking to something someone intended to distribute on the web.
Now, whether it should be legal to link to something you know is illegal is another matter. I for one am curious whether the court proceedings contain the hyperlink itself. While the central government is not liable for criminal persecution, it is liable for civil suits...
You don't have a very high standard for t-shirts do you? :)
Yes, Yes, NA/Yes/Fuck yeah/depends*/NA
*) After firing the King I guess we would need a new one, and our queen is kinda hot ;-)
Heh, thanks, I guess it makes sense if it has the same root as money...
Sorry, not a native speaker... but isn't renumeration simply the nominalization of renumerate?
I don't think "own" means what you think it means :-). If there were no government, you would "own" something until someone with a bigger club comes around. If there is a government obeying the rule of law, you "own" something until your ownership is removed by due legal process. Expropriation is limited in scope and requires renumeration (U.S.C. 5th amendment: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."), so ownership is more than a temporary lease, but it is certainly no unlimited perpetual right. Hint: there's not an awful lot of those :).
In Dutch law, ownership is defined as the maximal rights that one can enjoy on a good. Not "full" or "unrestricted" rights, but "maximal".
(and yes, if you start breaking the law, either by refusing to pay taxes or in some other way, you will find that a lot of your rights are quite relative, including ownership, freedom of movement and ultimately freedom from physical abuse)
Surely, an update should not kill your partition. But if you have any data that resides on a single hard disk, expect to lose it. Drives will crash, updates will fail, hackers will hack, and users will do stupid shit.
This is 2016. Put everything you can into github, as much as possible of the rest in some sort of cloud drive (dropbox etc), and sync the rest to another computer somewhere. And if something is really dear to you (or to your customers, tax department, or government) back it up somewhere safe. Frankly, for me github+dropbox does the trick. Sure, dropbox or github *could* go out, but then I still have my multiple local copies and I can switch provider at any time if needed.
I agree that the sample size of 7 is rot, the 95% confidence interval around a binomial with 3/7 is 10%-82%, in other words: "we don't have a clue". /. summary actually link to the source, so here it is:
However, neither TFA nor the
Michael D. Delp, Jacqueline M. Charvat, Charles L. Limoli, Ruth K. Globus & Payal Ghosh, Apollo Lunar Astronauts Show Higher Cardiovascular Disease Mortality: Possible Deep Space Radiation Effects on the Vascular Endothelium, Nature Scientific Reports (open ac
Interestingly, they do claim statistical significance on the 7 astronaut "study", but I don't have time atm to have a better look...
I've seen this argument before and I'm (genuinely) curious where the 1-fatality-in-96 million miles is based on. Wikipedia lists 1.27 casulaties per 100M miles, which is close enough, but that statistic is for all roads. AFAIK, interstates are the safest road type, and most casualties are on local roads and non-divided highways. I would like to know what the fatality rate would be for the same conditions that people use autopilot on, I would expect it to be much lower than 1 per 130MM?
I can't blame them either.
I think the only reasonable system possible is one which has private ownership, free and competitive enterprise, and a government providing basic services, ensuring security and regulation, and promoting fairness and equality by e.g. making sure everyone has access to health care and education.
If this is 'capitalism', I'll take it. You can also call it the Rhineland model or social market economics, or whatever you want. I want it :)
What we're seeing now is: .5% per annum), while average income increased by 100%. In other words: the economic growth since the seventies has almost entirely gone to the above-median earners: the top 1% share of income jumped from 10% in the seventies to over 20% now, with a large part of this increase going to the top 0.1% (i.e., not us).
- wage share of income falling relative to capital's share [1]
- real median income stagnant for the past 20 years even though real average income has increased by 25% [2]. Over 50 years median income increased by 25% (not even
- governments are unable to provide basic services because the rich don't pay their fair share of tax [4]
- governments are unable to provide basic services because they are unable to reform entitlement/welfare systems which are in fact transferring money from the relatively poor young to the relatively well-off old [5]
- markets aren't acutally well regulated, especially in the US, and too many industries have (near-)monopolies, causing profits to be historically way too high [6]
In Europe, 'capitalism' means that old people have either permanent contracts with generous benefits, or are already enjoying their equally generous retirement which they entered between 55 and 65. Young people have temporary contracts at stagnant wages, are unable to buy a house because of (1) inflated prices due to government meddling (green belts, mortgage interest deductability); (2) they don't have a permanent contract; and (3) new lending regulations means banks are a lot more stingy than even 10 years ago; and will not retire before 67 on a defined contribution scheme, which is pretty bad news especially given the essentially zero interest rates and government bond yields. In the US (and increasingly the UK), added to this is a nice pile of student debt. If I were young(er), I'm not sure I would think this is such a good bargain...
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
2) https://research.stlouisfed.or...
3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
5) http://www.economist.com/news/...
5) http://www.economist.com/news/...
Am I the only one to have downloaded a linux ISO using 4G? It's south of 1G, but around 0.7 or so I think...
(I'm on a 4G/month plan, so I shouldn't do it every day, but I can do it every week if I want :))
Yep, tax gas cars enough and provide large enough EV incentives, and people will do that sort of thing...
Doesn't make it a rational market nor mean it will work elsewhere. :)
Purely "rational" / "homo economicus" behaviour is very far away in the mobility market even without EVs:
- Passenger trains are (often) subsidized directly and indirectly by not having to pay full cost for using rails, stations etc.
- Cars are subsidized indirectly by building roads, but taxed directly with sales tax and (often) extra vehicle tax or import tax
- Gasoline is taxed with sales tax and other taxes, but subsidized indirectly by military interventions / protecting shipping lanes
So let's see what your rational mobility decision is in a country without a functioning government to 'distort' the market. My bet is going to be on walking, especially walking away :).
I live in Amsterdam, and there would only be one reason to get an EV: to be allowed to park on the EV-only spots with charger ports :-)
We bought a new car a year ago, but my daily commute is by bicyle and I use the car for longer trips. So, EV would only make sense once the charging-on-the-road is really solved. Now we just bought a cheap and light city car (VW UP) which supposedly gets 5l/100km (1:20, 47mpg), in reality gets between that and 5.5l/100 (1:17, 43mpg), but that is partly due to 'bad' driving on my part