If we are going to classify Kickstarter Projects as an investment, then we have to understand this: The maximum possible ROI is 0% (value of product equals what you put in ), and it goes down from there.

The government didn't violate the 1st amendment. He has a right to say whatever he wants, but that doesn't mean they have to give him a microphone and speakers to do it. The government also has a duty to protect the citizens. There was concern that if this violent man was allowed to perform, then his encouragement of violence could lead to violence. So the venue and the promoter agreed that he would not perform. And then he performed anyway.
If the venue has to allow violent rappers like this to perform, then they have to also allow nazis, KKK, or whoever else wants to perform.

The crime he committed was not violent, but his refusal to show up to hearings indicates that he has no respect for society. I was not referring to his alleged crime, but just to the fact that he instigates violence through his music and lyrics. This is not the sort of person you want at a rally against violence.

Maybe this is a regional thing, and it could be worse where roads are salted in the winter or near oceans. Neither of these applies to me. I have never really noticed any issues with any Honda factory paint job. Aftermarket paint jobs, on the other hand, I have never seen a good looking aftermarket paintjob on a Honda.

That's true, if you have white ancestry from overseas one or two generations back, then you are just a plain old American and expected to behave as such.

If they were truly motivated by profits, they would make a safe product. A safe product does not result in hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits over wrongful deaths.
Unfortunately, they are not JUST motivated by profits, but by profits THIS QUARTER. Who cares what happens the quarter after that. Nevermind that the guy in charge two quarters ago had the same mentality and now there is probably a sword of Damocles hovering above somewhere. We can't even really blame the company for this attitude. It is the company's investors, aka the American public, that demand profits every quarter at the expense of the future. America used to invest their money for long term growth, and this ultimately fed the growth of technology from the 50s through the 70s, but then Americans turned into Traders instead of Investors, and by demanding short term growth, we cripple, if not kill, long term growth. It has resulted in companies having to make poor decisions like eliminating research, outsourcing work to other countries, where it will be performed more cheaply this quarter, but result in huge maintenance costs due to poor quality in the next quarter, and so on and so forth.
To change this attitude, the majority of American public has to change their mindset about investing. We have to decide that we would rather have our money multiply by 10 over a 10 year period, than go up by half a percent this quarter. That a bird in the hand is not necessarily worth more than 1000 in the bush. That "me, me me, now, now now" is not a sustainable or desirable attitude.

Normally I side with the engineers when management makes stupid decisions, but in this instance, I just don't see how this could possibly be the execs fault. Did they direct the Engineers to design faulty suspension? Did they direct the Engineers to make cars wireless systems vulnerable to hacking? Did they direct engineers to make the gas tank likely to catch on fire?
The execs probably share some blame on the wireless thing because they probably read all about wireless stuff in some stupid management magazine and told the engineers to put in wireless. There are zero reasons for having wireless access to a cars systems.

But corporations are not people.

See my post, above, pointing out that corporations are groups of people, with all the rights guaranteed to people, who don't lose those rights just because they're acting together for a common purpose.

The legal system DOES, in some situations, treat corporations as pseudo-people. But that's just a convenient way to interact with the corporation's members/stockholders/what-have-you when they're acting together to advance the common purpose that the corporation was chartered to handle.

fuck off you right-wing scum.

In the immortal words of Red Skelton and Mel Blank: "He don't know me very well, do he?"

corporations aren't people.

Au contraire: Though they DO exhibit most of the characteristics of independent lifeforms, corporations are GROUPS of people, working together for a defined purpose. This is true whether they're businesses, schools, labor unions, churches, political parties, special-interest group, or whatever.

I assume we're agreed that people working together as a corporation shouldn't have any extra rights beyond the pooled rights of the individual members. But should these people LOSE any of their rights, just because they're working together?

Should spokesmen for a corporation with ten thousand stockholders, when speaking on issues related to the corporation's purpose, interaction with laws, and its stockholders' interests, have any less access to the ear of a legislator than the ten thousand stockholders themselves? A corporate lobbyist is just a representative of those ten thousand people when they're acting on this particular common interest.

The legal system treats corporations as pseudo-people because it's a convenient way to interact with the people making up the corporation when they're acting as a group.

I can't imagine they could fill up a whole semester with it either, but it is a course listed in the curriculum, not a study point in a health class.

For all you know they get the same viewpoint at home. That doesn't mean it should part of the core curriculum. Should we remove arithmetic altogether and teach tolerance? Should we remove reading and teach conservation? I'm sure those are all fine with the PC crowd. But if they decided to even offer a counter-viewpoint to PC as an ELECTIVE, people would scream and shout. The kids have the rest of their lives to have ideology shoved down their throat. Why don't we teach them to think first, instead of trying to shove ideaology at them?

That's all well and good, but how do you tell when the Boy Who Cried Wolf really saw a wolf?

I agree. It's a shame that companies are willing to put in the effort. They expect people coming out of a CS degree (theory of Computer Science) or MIS (Managing Programmers), and expect them to perform like a 10 year coding veteran.
Companies USED to understand that someone coming fresh out of school was someone who was ripe and ready to be trained on how to do a job. Now they for some reason expect that someone coming fresh out of school ought to be able to hang with 10 year coding veterans.

Well, if it is really Computer Science, then it won't be about any particular hardware or software system, but will be just theory, algorithms, data structures, and the like.

Yep, that's what they said in the 1970s, and the 1980s, and the 1990s, and the 2000s.