There is a diffrence to having speech and having the right to free speech. There is no fundemental reason that a coorporation should have "rights" as they are regarded and defined in the Constitution. That doesn't mean that they don't have the ability to exercise the same functions, which they obviously do. What it does mean is that law can be constructed to limit their exercise of the same function.
For example, a corporation doesn't have the right to own a handgun. The Government hasn't made a law restricting a corporation from owning a handgun. The Corporation may buy and possess a handgun, should it's officers decide to do so.
This is the line of thinking that citizens united over turned.
In the above mentioned example, modified to refelect the personhood of a corporation: A corporation has the right to own a handgun. The Government may not restrict a corporation from to own a handgun. The Corporation may decided to possess any number of handguns, should it decided to do so.
If you replace all mentions of people/citizens with corporation in the Amendments it is pretty scary. I was going to post it here, but after doing the 9th I couldn't go on.
I looked for it too, and was unable to find it. I was however frightened by the TSA Blog page about kids traveling, where they so gleefully talk about how much fun getting searched, probed and poked is going to be.
Does Mars have ferrous in it's core? Wikipedia (I know, grain of salt) says Current models of the planet's interior imply a core region about 1,794 km ± 65 km (1,115 mi ± 40 mi) in radius, consisting primarily of iron and nickel with about 16–17% sulfur.
How much energy would need to be directed to Mars to melt the core, and would it naturally create a magnetic feild strong enough to protect the atmosphere?
Commets might be a bit of a blunt instrument for such an endevor, and certainly wouldn't work to keep the core liquid unless we added a lot of mass. I don't beleive there is a way we can accomplish the reheating the core, while still preserving the planet in a fashion that we could terraform. There has to be some wacky idea to do it.
But they have seen it. That's why they started creating their own content. They aren't going to be able to buy all the IP out there, and they can't lease what isn't up for grabs. However, if they can get into quality content generation, they have cost savings from vertical integration, and enough of a unique draw that they can put up with any IP owner that would deny access to their content. Granted, they aren't very prolific yet. They described it as being the HBO of the Internet before HBO can be the HBO of Internet.
The point being that the capital depreciation can be offset making the TCO lower. It is an important factor in the math. You want to compare TCO of your current kit vs. TCO of optional kit, and a 4K swing might change the winner.
Or have a closed loop exchange heat with an open loop, depending on the relative tempratures. If you have a liquid that significantly exceeds the boiling point of water in the closed loop there should be enough room to operate. Your going to loose effiency, there is a ton of Sun and open area in many dry places.
The point is that full service used to be so affordable that most of society were okay with paying for it. Now the alternative is so much less expensive that only people who are well off or find it very valuable to have "what they grew up with" will pay for it.
But Anonymous Coward, that isn't really the whole situation.
The idea that economics is a zero sum game where one person can only get rich if they make others poor is a Marxist viewpoint, not a conservative viewpoint. Economic conservatives recognize that the surest way to increase the wealth of as many individuals as possible is to promote wealth creation by maximizing economic freedom through low taxes, low regulation and strong protection of private property rights.
Why would you accuse conservatives of having Marxist economic views?
It isn't actully either, it is an over simplification. In the short run, it is true. There is a limit to productivity due to technology, and due to resources, so while in the long run the whole pie can increase as processes become more effient, as more resources come online, and products provide more utility this only effects the long run. Neither conservatives, nor marxists make the claim that the only way you can be made richer is to make other's poorer in the long run. Conservatives like Trickle Down, where you depend on the benevolence of the rich to make everyone better off. Marxists, consider profit to be theft. These are not the only theories of wealth distribution, and they aren't in direct opposition, and both have been proven in the real world to be bad for the middle-class.
Conservatives don't oppose giving employees raises. They oppose govt mandates that force businesses to pay employees above labor market rates.
Conservatives generally favor anything that limits the power and reach of corporations. labor unions, safety regulations, enviromental standards, basically anything which prevents a corporation from taking an action that damages the larger community, but nets them larger profits. If you will recall 5 of them decided that corporations are people, and then that corporations rights outweight the rights of actual people.
Spare us your histrionics. Forcing businesses to pay employees a wage determined by politics will either 1) be irrelevant because the the minimum wage is set below labor market rates or 2) cost jobs and, if the minimum wage is set very high, cause businesses to close.
If you don't believe 2), then consider what would happen if the govt required all McDonald's employees to be paid at least $300/hr. How much would fries and a burger cost at McD's if every one of their employees were paid that much? Would you buy a McD's burger if it cost > $15? Of course, you wouldn't and no one else would either and so a $300/hr. minimum wage would kill businesses and jobs. A less extreme minimum wage would have the same effect although the magnitude would be smaller.
Yes, at current production levels a $300/h entry level wage would be damaging to the economy. It would cost jobs. However it doesn't stay true for all wages. Wage is also not the only factor in determining jobs. I agree that politically dicatated minimum wage is silly, we have let is get to an appalingly low rate by having it politically dictated. Way back in the 1972, it was decoupled from how it had been calculated. It was tied to worker productivity, ie how much value a worker can generate in an hour. If we stayed on pace it would be about $30 an hour now, at today's prices. We haven't even paced inflation since then. That margin is going into corporate profits (highest in our history currently), and to pay for return on capital. However, currently corporations, in general, are holding on all those extra dollars instead of trickling them down, either to avoid repatriating the currency from their tax loopholes(our taxes on the very wealthy and on corporations have been falling like a stone for about 30 years, why pay taxes today, when you can hold the funds and pay less taxes next year) or because there is no good place to invest due to supression in demand for goods and services. If that money had been paid out in wages we wouldn't be able to i
We will only be able to effectively change Mexican Law is to first march troops all the way to Guatemala. Not that I'm opposed to homogenizing the continent a bit, but it seems extreme.
I understand that there is alot of hatred twords "illegals", and doing anything to drive them out gets alot of peoples positive attention. Why not enfranchize the migrant population. Let's open the boarders, and adjust benifits for non-citizens. Give everyone who isn't a violent criminal and who wants it a path to citizenship. Get everyone on the tax rolls, and out of black markets.
We could just return immigration policy to how the founding fathers intended. Anyone is free to come, Citizenship after 14 years. Then just withold the benifits of Citizenship from those who aren't Citizens.
But that isn't really what the article outlines. What it does say is that normally upon cesation of retrovirals that the HIV Infection comes back in weeks. It shows that they posted they came to their conclusion that the child might be cured about 16 months ago. When the child would have been 3. After the child re-emerged from the 18 month black out. It never states in there that a Doctor said anything nearly as unfounded or reackless as, "Inspite of this never happening before in the history of human endevor, we are pretty sure your 18 month old is cured." One would expect that they would have been informed that retrovirals are for life, they are not a cure they are a treatment.
Only after the irrational cessation of treatment, and then the followup testing later was there cause to think, how ever fleeting, that she was cured.
It also seems unlikely that a rational parent would forgo medical treatment for their child for a year and a half. Or would have passed on the chance to prevent initial infection be seeking appropriate treatment during the pregnancy. Or not abandon treatment for another 2 years on a whim. You give her too much credit. She clearly isn't acting in her childs best intrests.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a diffrence to having speech and having the right to free speech. There is no fundemental reason that a coorporation should have "rights" as they are regarded and defined in the Constitution. That doesn't mean that they don't have the ability to exercise the same functions, which they obviously do. What it does mean is that law can be constructed to limit their exercise of the same function.
For example, a corporation doesn't have the right to own a handgun.
The Government hasn't made a law restricting a corporation from owning a handgun.
The Corporation may buy and possess a handgun, should it's officers decide to do so.
This is the line of thinking that citizens united over turned.
In the above mentioned example, modified to refelect the personhood of a corporation:
A corporation has the right to own a handgun.
The Government may not restrict a corporation from to own a handgun.
The Corporation may decided to possess any number of handguns, should it decided to do so.
If you replace all mentions of people/citizens with corporation in the Amendments it is pretty scary. I was going to post it here, but after doing the 9th I couldn't go on.
Sounds really workable. Good thinking.
There is also the high pressure that the fracking soulutions are placed under, and impropper containment.
I looked for it too, and was unable to find it. I was however frightened by the TSA Blog page about kids traveling, where they so gleefully talk about how much fun getting searched, probed and poked is going to be.
They are 6 and 9. It is in the summary and the article.
Easier, cheaper and a larger return, but it doesn't fail safe.
Does Mars have ferrous in it's core? Wikipedia (I know, grain of salt) says Current models of the planet's interior imply a core region about 1,794 km ± 65 km (1,115 mi ± 40 mi) in radius, consisting primarily of iron and nickel with about 16–17% sulfur.
How much energy would need to be directed to Mars to melt the core, and would it naturally create a magnetic feild strong enough to protect the atmosphere?
Commets might be a bit of a blunt instrument for such an endevor, and certainly wouldn't work to keep the core liquid unless we added a lot of mass. I don't beleive there is a way we can accomplish the reheating the core, while still preserving the planet in a fashion that we could terraform. There has to be some wacky idea to do it.
Why wouldn't you be able to opt-out? They want to compete with, not ban the other Telco's.
But they have seen it. That's why they started creating their own content. They aren't going to be able to buy all the IP out there, and they can't lease what isn't up for grabs. However, if they can get into quality content generation, they have cost savings from vertical integration, and enough of a unique draw that they can put up with any IP owner that would deny access to their content. Granted, they aren't very prolific yet. They described it as being the HBO of the Internet before HBO can be the HBO of Internet.
The point being that the capital depreciation can be offset making the TCO lower. It is an important factor in the math. You want to compare TCO of your current kit vs. TCO of optional kit, and a 4K swing might change the winner.
Or have a closed loop exchange heat with an open loop, depending on the relative tempratures. If you have a liquid that significantly exceeds the boiling point of water in the closed loop there should be enough room to operate. Your going to loose effiency, there is a ton of Sun and open area in many dry places.
This should have been the first and only post. Very well done, clean concise facts.
And ofcourse OPEC.
The point is that full service used to be so affordable that most of society were okay with paying for it. Now the alternative is so much less expensive that only people who are well off or find it very valuable to have "what they grew up with" will pay for it.
But Anonymous Coward, that isn't really the whole situation.
The idea that economics is a zero sum game where one person can only get rich if they make others poor is a Marxist viewpoint, not a conservative viewpoint. Economic conservatives recognize that the surest way to increase the wealth of as many individuals as possible is to promote wealth creation by maximizing economic freedom through low taxes, low regulation and strong protection of private property rights.
Why would you accuse conservatives of having Marxist economic views?
It isn't actully either, it is an over simplification. In the short run, it is true. There is a limit to productivity due to technology, and due to resources, so while in the long run the whole pie can increase as processes become more effient, as more resources come online, and products provide more utility this only effects the long run. Neither conservatives, nor marxists make the claim that the only way you can be made richer is to make other's poorer in the long run. Conservatives like Trickle Down, where you depend on the benevolence of the rich to make everyone better off. Marxists, consider profit to be theft. These are not the only theories of wealth distribution, and they aren't in direct opposition, and both have been proven in the real world to be bad for the middle-class.
Conservatives don't oppose giving employees raises. They oppose govt mandates that force businesses to pay employees above labor market rates.
Conservatives generally favor anything that limits the power and reach of corporations. labor unions, safety regulations, enviromental standards, basically anything which prevents a corporation from taking an action that damages the larger community, but nets them larger profits. If you will recall 5 of them decided that corporations are people, and then that corporations rights outweight the rights of actual people.
Spare us your histrionics. Forcing businesses to pay employees a wage determined by politics will either 1) be irrelevant because the the minimum wage is set below labor market rates or 2) cost jobs and, if the minimum wage is set very high, cause businesses to close.
If you don't believe 2), then consider what would happen if the govt required all McDonald's employees to be paid at least $300/hr. How much would fries and a burger cost at McD's if every one of their employees were paid that much? Would you buy a McD's burger if it cost > $15? Of course, you wouldn't and no one else would either and so a $300/hr. minimum wage would kill businesses and jobs. A less extreme minimum wage would have the same effect although the magnitude would be smaller.
Yes, at current production levels a $300/h entry level wage would be damaging to the economy. It would cost jobs. However it doesn't stay true for all wages. Wage is also not the only factor in determining jobs. I agree that politically dicatated minimum wage is silly, we have let is get to an appalingly low rate by having it politically dictated. Way back in the 1972, it was decoupled from how it had been calculated. It was tied to worker productivity, ie how much value a worker can generate in an hour. If we stayed on pace it would be about $30 an hour now, at today's prices. We haven't even paced inflation since then. That margin is going into corporate profits (highest in our history currently), and to pay for return on capital. However, currently corporations, in general, are holding on all those extra dollars instead of trickling them down, either to avoid repatriating the currency from their tax loopholes(our taxes on the very wealthy and on corporations have been falling like a stone for about 30 years, why pay taxes today, when you can hold the funds and pay less taxes next year) or because there is no good place to invest due to supression in demand for goods and services. If that money had been paid out in wages we wouldn't be able to i
We will only be able to effectively change Mexican Law is to first march troops all the way to Guatemala. Not that I'm opposed to homogenizing the continent a bit, but it seems extreme.
But what about when you can't prove date of hire?
I understand that there is alot of hatred twords "illegals", and doing anything to drive them out gets alot of peoples positive attention. Why not enfranchize the migrant population. Let's open the boarders, and adjust benifits for non-citizens. Give everyone who isn't a violent criminal and who wants it a path to citizenship. Get everyone on the tax rolls, and out of black markets.
We could just return immigration policy to how the founding fathers intended. Anyone is free to come, Citizenship after 14 years. Then just withold the benifits of Citizenship from those who aren't Citizens.
So enforcing some kind of minimum price floor on wages, and severely punishing those who pay less? Would that do it?
America only recognizes 2 oceans. The Left and the Right.
But that isn't really what the article outlines. What it does say is that normally upon cesation of retrovirals that the HIV Infection comes back in weeks. It shows that they posted they came to their conclusion that the child might be cured about 16 months ago. When the child would have been 3. After the child re-emerged from the 18 month black out. It never states in there that a Doctor said anything nearly as unfounded or reackless as, "Inspite of this never happening before in the history of human endevor, we are pretty sure your 18 month old is cured." One would expect that they would have been informed that retrovirals are for life, they are not a cure they are a treatment.
Only after the irrational cessation of treatment, and then the followup testing later was there cause to think, how ever fleeting, that she was cured.
It also seems unlikely that a rational parent would forgo medical treatment for their child for a year and a half. Or would have passed on the chance to prevent initial infection be seeking appropriate treatment during the pregnancy. Or not abandon treatment for another 2 years on a whim. You give her too much credit. She clearly isn't acting in her childs best intrests.
Yeah, failing to persue life saving medical care for your child for 18 months indicates that she isn't the best kind person.
No, because she abandon treating her child for HIV for 18 Months.
Well, we know Mom is degenerate in some capacity. My first thought was intentional exposure by Mom.