Why should they get them again as part of a corporation?

No, the proper form of that question is: "why should they lose those rights as part of a corporation?" Or as a part of a union, or religious organization, or civic organization, or minority organization, or political party?

Unless you are advocating for a complete ban on all "collective" political speech - including collective organizations like unions, religious groups, civic groups, minority groups, and any other form of grouping you care to name, then your position is logically incoherent, and amounts to wishing away the rights of some people whose views you disagree with and wish to silence. It really is that simple. And even if your position were logically coherent and you wished to ban all collective speech, it would be a fundamental violation of the rights of individuals.

The Constitution specifically affirms that the people have the right to engage in these activities - individually, or collectively. For someone who claims to be "very careful of rights," you seem to be missing that very clear point. Rather than seeking to silence your opponents (curious undemocratic, that!), you should be seeking to propose better opposing ideas, better arguments, and better solutions - and you're free to do so by grouping together with like-minded friends and neighbors and engaging in collective political speech.

And that's WHY I point out the damage that corporations lobbying politicians does to democracy.

Ah yes, lobbying is evil! Well, as long as we disagree with the goals of the lobbyist organization, amirite?

The NRA? Oh they're evil, they lobby the government!
The EFF? They're saints! They fight for our freedoms!

Campaign for Liberty? LOL LIBERTARDIANS! They're stupid and lobby the government with their backwards ideas!
MoveOn.org? They're brave soldiers fighting the good fight for democracy!

But corporations are collections of people - and those individuals making up the corporation have the rights of free assembly and association, free speech, and petition.

A group of people - whether it's a union, a religious group, a minority coalition, a corporation, or some sort of other collective - have the right to pool their resources for a common cause because of those rights, and trying to restrict them from doing so violates anywhere from one to all of those rights.

Be careful which rights of others you start wishing away - you might not always be in the majority.

Well yes, nobody ever means we should eliminate those rights. What the "why should corporations be allowed to donate" questioner generally means is, "why should people I have political disagreements with be allowed to participate at all? Why can't we just shut them up so I can do what I want?"

The letdown that I see to PMC is that it is mandated ONLY for NIH-funded research, and allows for a delay of up to 12 months.

It seems that PMC also relies on the journals it is archiving to handle the review process for papers - managing this is probably a significant expense that the journals must still spend, and recoup somehow. I'd be interested to see what portion of the 30-some billion dollar NIH budget goes to operation of the PMC and affiliated programs, and what portion of the full publishing process PMC covers.

Which costs do you imagine will disappear?

They still have to accept submissions, evaluate them, farm them out for review, decide which to accept, publish them, and then make them available in perpetuity.

I find it doubtful that any of these costs would be reduced in any substantial fashion by a transition to open access publication. In fact, it's likely that "easy, free, open access" to 250,000 articles per year would require them to invest in significant upgrades of their infrastructure, with attendant staff and hardware expansion to go along with that. So they lose a few sales people, and have to hire a bunch of new IT guys to build out a new data center or two.

It's really not "huge compensation" until they've scaled their organization to thousands of employees around the world, publishing thousands of journals & tens of thousands of books. On a per-unit basis, their profits are pretty modest.

250,000 articles, 2.7 bn in revenues, of which 1 bn is profit - that means each article generates $10,800 in revenue, which means there's a breakdown of $4000 in 'profit' from each article, and $6,800 in 'expenses,' assuming all revenues come from publication activities. It costs money to manage and publish these articles, and you don't do away with that cost by getting mad at Elsevier. If you want everything to be "free to anybody who wants a copy," you have two choices:

1) Create a federal agency that does the job Elsevier does, funded with taxpayer money, which isn't trying to earn a profit, and mandate that all taxpayer funded scientific research must be published through that federal agency;

2) Mandate that all grant money MUST publish to "some open access" platform, and make that a condition of the grant award.

If you do #1, you've created what's almost certain to be a politicized, inefficient government bureaucracy which will arguably find a way to simply cost more than the 2.7 bn in revenues Elsevier takes in, and you've also essentially "nationalized" Elsevier by legislating them out of existence, because as others have pointed out... there's a massive amount of research that's funded by taxes these days.

If you do #2, well, the situation remains the same as it is today - Elsevier will still be a for-profit agency charging an average of $10,800 per paper to publish, and researchers will just ask for a little more money to cover their anticipated publishing costs.

Really, this isn't exactly "fuck you" money that's being gouged out of every researcher. I'm not sure I think either solution is an improvement, but I'd favor #2 if it came down to it. On a per-paper basis, Elsevier isn't exactly making "fuck you" money, I'm not sure that getting mad at them (instead of the government, for not mandating Open Access publication) makes sense.

Not a particular fan of Mr. Card, but I'm genuinely curious - for all the people trying to split hairs and convince us that Card is a reprehensible human being, and his writing deserves no attention from anybody, etc. etc. Where do you draw the line?

Are you totally fine with the public schools using Ender's Game in a classroom setting?
How about including it on a suggested reading list?
Is it okay to have his books in the school library, where any student can find it?
What will your response be the day your child comes home with one of Card's books, having borrowed it from a friend?
If supporting him supports hate speech, will you begin boycotting retail stores that sell his work?

After all, we keep hearing the term hate speech bandied about... hate speech has been criminalized in many situations, and we keep hearing that "hate speech can't go unchallenged" - so where do you draw the line, if you're not advocating censorship?

So what you're saying is the link I provided showed that the researchers arrived at 'unexplained' salary numbers from 2 to 15% lower for women than for men.

How does that support the contention that "No, men don't get paid more than women," which is, specifically, what was asserted by hedwards?

He went on to argue that the "only" studies that show this discrepancy "gerrymander" their samples to support a predetermined conclusion. Yet he falls silent when asked to provide an example of a study that doesn't "gerrymander" the samples. Any study I've found shows there is some discrepancy that the researchers can't explain even with controlling for the numerous "time off" factors he's citing, yet he still maintains that there is no discrepancy, and dismisses a multitude of studies as flawed while offering none to support his own argument.

There's a word for the tendency to draw this sort of unsubstantiated conclusion based on opinion rather than fact. It's not "science," and it's not "logic."

Strangely the government report stating all of that was publicised with the headlines "Men still earn more than women". Because if you look at all men and all women, average pay for men is higher.

Same question I asked hedwards above: which report is that? Love to see the actual report(s) you're citing, rather than just read your assertions. Surely ONE of you you can provide an example of a study that supports your argument.

And yet it seems that numerous such studies have been conducted, and concluded the precise opposite of what you just asserted:

Using Current Population Survey (CPS) data for 1979 and 1995 and controlling for education, experience, personal characteristics, parental status, city and region, occupation, industry, government employment, and part-time status, Yale University economics professor Joseph G. Altonji and the United States Secretary of Commerce Rebecca M. Blank found that only about 27% of the gender wage gap in each year is explained by differences in such characteristics.

[...]

Similarly, a comprehensive study by the staff of the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that the gender wage gap can only be partially explained by human capital factors and "work patterns." The GAO study, released in 2003, was based on data from 1983 through 2000 from a representative sample of Americans between the ages of 25 and 65. The researchers controlled for "work patterns," including years of work experience, education, and hours of work per year, as well as differences in industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure. With controls for these variables in place, the data showed that women earned, on average, 20% less than men during the entire period 1983 to 2000. In a subsequent study, GAO found that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Labor "should better monitor their performance in enforcing anti-discrimination laws."

More examples abound, with references and sources, at that link. Perhaps you have some counterexamples to offer which show that all of the disparity can be adequately explained by non-discriminatory factors? Other than blanket assertions, I mean?

Not all that much different than an underpowered smartphone with voice commands, strapped to your head.

Well when you put it like that, it's hard to see any way that Google Glasses could possibly be a failure in the market!

I'm sold.

Half right. It doesn't say "the checksum doesn't change" - it points out that cPanel doesn't use a packaging system to install apache - and so rpm -V won't detect changes made to files that weren't installed by rpm in the first place.

Tripwire (or other similar admin tools) can easily detect changes to the binary since a known-good baseline was taken, and report those out to you, as well.

rpm -V also checks the MD5 sum of the file - if it's been modified, it should flag a difference in checksums, even if every other bit of metadata is the same.

That said, it's quite easy to believe that lots of people aren't running "rpm -V httpd" regularly on their Linux servers, so all the people responding "DUH, NOOBZ" just sound like dicks. Next time, they should probably try showing off their deep knowledge of rpm by helpfully suggesting "rpm -V will find this, and you should be running this on all your systems regularly," rather than shitting up the comment thread with "I'm not vulnerable, anybody who is must be a fucking idiot."

Those drugs are the primary influences that are resulting in drug resistant bacteria and viruses.

You do realize that the non-drug resistant bacteria and viruses will kill you just as easily as the drug resistant ones - right? Plenty of non-resistant bacteria killed plenty of people in the LONG years before the development of antibiotics. These weren't "completely harmless" bacteria that decided to go on a killing spree after we started using antibiotics. To be sure, MRSA is a much trickier bacteria to eliminate than a plain old staph infection, but either one can kill you just as easily if you don't treat it.

Interesting how you neglected where I pointed out the fact that without your allotment of bacteria you would soon die

Yeah, except where I wrote, "In some cases, they do so in a symbiotic relationship that is not harmful to either us or the bacteria," you're right - I totally ignored that point.

But it's interesting to me how you neglected where I pointed out the fact that many bacteria out there are not symbiotes, and will easily kill a person if left untreated, as they did in the literal millennia before the development of antibiotics.

Even more interesting is how you neglect to understand that even E. coli, one of the most common bacteria in the human gut, will kill you dead as a motherfucker if it gets out of your gut and into other parts of your body and goes untreated, too.

No violence, just the birth and death rate would be more in-line with the local food, water, and predator supply.

I never said you wanted "violent" genocide. I said you wanted "genocide." Restricting access to life-saving medications, in the hopes that the bacteria won't continue infecting us like they did for thousands of years before antibiotics were developed for human use is certainly a kinder, gentler genocide - but make no mistake about it, what you've proposed IS a genocide. Those people with limited access to clean water & proper sanitary technique, proper nutrition, and modern medicine (what few medicines you've decided are still 'allowable') will be the ones killed by your proposal.

If the net effect of your proposal is to send billions of poor people to their deaths because you're really really upset about animal testing and the medical advances they've produced, well - a genocide by any other name still smells the same. If you don't like your words being characterized that way, maybe you should consider the logical consequences (and the practical implementation) of what you're proposing.

that's why I proposed curtailing the chemical assault and conditions which lead to their further evolution.

Antibiotics and other therapeutic drugs certainly contribute a strong evolutionary pressure, but they are FAR from the only evolutionary force acting on bacteria, viruses, and other pathogens. Bacterial conjugation, random mutation, and other environmental pressures all contribute a significant amount of pressure.

These organisms aren't "happy to coexist with us" in any way - they are not sentient, they have no emotions or feelings as we know them. They simply - grow and reproduce. In some cases, they do so in a symbiotic relationship that is not harmful to either us or the bacteria. In other cases, they do so in a harmful pathogenic manner, and the only response is to kill them, or die. Diseases were around a long time before antibiotics, suggesting that we simply stop using pharmaceuticals basically says "I'm okay with millions dying to preventable disease."

The poor would have agreed to have reduced their population to a sustainable level too, if corporatoins weren't only too happy to destroy their aboriginal way of life and supply them with cheap carbohydrates and sugar in the name of charity and progress.

I love the mild, passive way you suggest killing off (or "reducing to a sustainable level") billions of people! Tell me, were you born with a thirst for genocide, or did it develop over time?

After reading your posts, it's truly amazing - absolutely shocking! - to me that people would conclude many animal rights activists are actually misanthropes who care more about killing off humans than they do about saving animals.