Sole props have a single member, partnerships have multiple members. In some jurisdictions there are also limited liability companies with membership.

Which is why I continued to say "some have members". A sole proprietorship has one member, a partnership has several, some other forms allow limited liability with members.

ALL companies have shareholders; even privately held ones. Oh, wait, some have members; which are pretty much, umm shareholders. Publicly held just means the shareholders can trade their shares openly on a stock exchange. Privately held means that either the shares just aren't listed, OR that a shareholders agreement limits the sale of shares too.

They DID attack military targets; even the Magoo's Bar which was bombed was largely frequented by military and police.

As for an apology; the ANC convened the TRC which found their attacks against civilian targets to have been a gross human rights violation. But, no, there was no direct apology. The ANC argued that they were fighting against the most powerful military and police state in Africa and had to fight with whatever means were necessary.

And it worked.

What would have had them do? March to an army base and attack?

Maybe you should study and understand the history behind why your "family and friends" were blown up by car bombs. Interesting use of the plural BTW, I was only aware of one car bomb detonated; the one at Ellis Park (2 of the bombers apologized BTW). That would mean that you're either a Clucas or Marais yes? They were the two deaths in that bombing. As a matter of interest the bomb was supposed to be heard and seen, but the intention was not to hurt anyone, since it was not MK policy to attack soft targets.

The value the UN offers can sometimes be debatable. But, in recent history the US got UN support for:

• Throwing Iraq out of Kuwait
• Helping the rebels against Gadhaffi
• East Timor

They IGNORED the UN in order to invade Iraq. Here's the thing; most Americans seem to see the UN as a coalition of nations trying bring down the Americans. Ironically the opposite tends to be true. The United Nations generally sides with the US unless the US is being clearly wrongheaded; in which case you'd EXPECT your friends to disagree with you.

Now, it is true that some dodgy nations get elected to some strange positions. However that's usually due to regional politics rather than anyone believing that nation is an ideal champion. As an example; Africa (via the African Union) has an agreement that positions allocated to Africa be shared out among it's members. So, sometimes you get Zimbabwe elected to some human rights position. To think of this as a failing of the UN is wrong; it's a failing of the regional politics that led to it.

Another common reason for these "funny" election results is drumroll please, the Palestinian issue! To a great many countries; Israel is a violent state that brutally oppresses an occupied country. You have Palestinian children being born today to a third-class citizenship in their own country because of (admittedly stupid) mistakes their great grandparents made. Many see this as unfair, and the Israeli approach to be reminiscent of apartheid. So they elect countries on to bodies that they know will place pressure on what many of them consider the greatest human rights travesty of our current age. You get Iran elected to a human rights body; not because anyone thinks they're great shakes at human rights, but because they'll apply pressure about Israel. If anyone thought the US would be an honest broker, the US would be elected; but the US is clearly partial; and thus is not elected.

But, much as I have my doubts about the efficacy of the UN's peacekeeping operations; there's one stat that is indisputable:
Number of World Wars since the UN founded: 0
Number of World Wars before the UN founded: 2
You can argue about correlation and causation; and I personally am doubtful about it myself; but any entity that even MIGHT have a chance of averting a World War should be supported with everything we have. Logically; if a World War would kill a billion people, and the UN has a 5% chance of stopping a World War then it has saved 50,000,000.

I shouldn't have to say this; but I suspect I do - please note that the above is describing the opinions of others not myself. Personally I have a great deal of sympathy for both sides of the Israel/Palestine issue and do not believe it is as simple as oppressor/oppressed or terrorized/terrorists.

Well placed nukes might change the pattern of eruption slightly

Yeah, they'd make it radioactive lava, which would add an extra element of fun.

With a very few exceptions, we'd be king-hell fucked as a species.

Nah, not that bad. We'd survive quite happily. Our civilization might to hell in a handbasket, but our species would be just fine. As an aside; you know when people say "I couldn't possibly live without [insert technology]?"

They're wrong.

1) End the Collusion Between Government and Large Corporations/Banks

How? The USA has instituted legal corruption (campaign contributions) and it's Supreme Court has defended that as "free speech". Short of a Constitutional Amendment, not going to happen.

2) Investigate Wall Street and Hold Senior Executives Accountable for the Destruction in Wealth that has Devastated Millions of People.

Really?!? It was all Wall Street's fault? Not perhaps because consumers ran up massive unsustainable debt? Not because people bought houses they knew they couldn't afford? Take some responsibility for your own culpability in this crisis.

3) Return the Power of Coining Money to the U.S. Treasury and Return to Sound Money

Gold standard I assume? Okay, well once we find a couple trillion tons of gold in order to back said money, then we can talk. Until then this is a pipe dream as there is vastly more money currently in circulation than any gold standard could back.

4) Limit the Size, Scope and Power of Banks so that None are Ever Again âoeToo Big to Failâ and in Need to Taxpayer Bailouts

Hey! A reasonable and achievable goal. Cool!

5) Eliminate âoePersonhoodâ Legal Status for Corporations

Not sure how that's going to pan out. This would mean that corporations would not be able to enter into contracts. Which would mean they couldn't operate. Which would mean they would cease to exist and you wouldn't be able to buy the latest iPhone to go with your faux-poor garb. The legal personhood thing is just a grant of some rights that people hold to corporations. We can debate which rights, sure, but some like ability to enter contracts are a neccesity. Maybe we should instead be talking about real corporate penalties for crimes.

6) Repeal the Patriot Act, End the War on Drugs and Protect Civil Liberties

I'm alongside all that.

7) End All Imperial Wars of Aggression, Bring the Troops Home from All Countries, Cut the Military Budget and Limit The Military Role to Protection of the Homeland

Yeah, you guys tried that. Twice. World War I, World War II anyone? Either that or kiss your world dominant status goodbye and become a bit player in global politics. Your economy is a disaster and your main strategic advantage is your military power and reach. Voluntarily limiting that is just plain stupid. It would be quite nice if you'd stop invading countries just because you've decided you don't like their leader though.

A cute screed thumped out by a student with no idea about economics, politics or history. Less uplifting than "Liberté, égalité, fraternité", less idealistic than "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.", and less practical than "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". I despair of our protesters today. This is the best they could come up with? A half-baked list of stupid and introverted ideas which speak nothing to the human condition and basically boil down to the whine of "we wanted to get rich without working, we bought with money we didn't have, and now that our chickens have come home to roost we want to blame all the people who focused on making money rather than spending it."

Did I miss something? I seem to remember when I was being brought up that one should work hard, spend wisely and save for a rainy day. Apparently that's now a crime against humanity, whereas watching hours of reality TV and spending all the money you have is somehow noble? Nope. I think a lot of people made way too much money, yes. But it was your money, and you weren't watching it because you gave it to these unscrupulous crooks, because you couldn't be bothered to look after it yourself! A business owner who doesn't check his accountant's figures is a fool; and a private person who doesn't check up on his investments and funds is an even bigger one.

Banking should be a service to industry that facilitates socially useful capital and equity, not be an industry in its own right.

Absolutely agreed.

The social good derived from (say) derivatives shorting is vanishingly close to zero.

Hmmmm, not so much. Actually it helps increase liquidity in the market, making it more likely that when you want to sell your shares and exit the market, someone will be there to buy from you at a reasonable price. Without liquidity you could wait days or weeks for a buyer to appear, as the share price drops and drops. So, assuming that people being able to sell what they have decided to sell is a social good, then derivatives shorting helps accomplish that goal.

Re-introduce the Glass-Steagall Act, impose a transaction tax (eg 0.01%) on every trade of any kind performed on the stock markets, and re-balance shareholders' interests against equity build using suitable regulatory legislation.

Agreed on all counts. Except....ummm, that actually won't solve many of the problems. Oh sure, it'll help with the boom-bust cycle of the financial industry; but it won't stop the Gordon Gekko "greed is good" philosophy; it won't reduce corporate influence on politicians and it won't create jobs.

A profound change in behaviour is needed. For too long there's been an "every man for himself" attitude. I'm not talking about socialism or anything like that; I'm talking about trying to create a society in which contributing to the overall benefit of society is lauded and held up as an example. Where stockbrokers are respectful to their child's teachers, where bankers tip their hats to the neighbourhood policeman. In short where money and fame are not seen as the sign of social worth.

Majority can't tell = a minority CAN

Really? You think that automatically follows?

How exactly? Do they have some strange sense that science hasn't yet discovered and for which no plausible mechanism has been proposed?

Yes, I grasped that. Since there is more Homo Sapiens genetic variation IN Africa than out of it; that IMPLIES that Homo Sapiens evolved there. Any Eurasian Homo Erectus either:

• Is not a direct ancestor
• Moved back to Africa
• Has older cousin fossils awaiting discovery in Africa

Hmmmm, let's see. There's more genetic variation IN Africa than out of it. Almost ALL major human ancestor fossils have been found IN Africa. Almost ALL major human cultural innovations have been found EARLIEST in Africa. The Out of Africa theory implied that the last African exodus would have moved through populations which were more primitive than us (e.g. Neanderthals) and we found 4% Neanderthal DNA in all non-Africans.

Sorry, WHICH weak foundation are you referring to?

A "purist" Out of Africa theory is indeed dead since there is evidence of SOME movement back and forth; but the needle is firmly on the "Africa" side of the clock. Oh, and BTW, the Multi-Regionalism theory is bunk. Not only is it outdated, but also based on an very poor understanding of how evolution and genetics works. Now is it possible that some particular fossil may have arisen first outside of Africa? Yes, but highly unlikely, and if so would not be likely to have been a direct ancestor of Homo Sapiens (although some of it's African cousins could have been).

As an aside, I didn't bother disputing the article you sent, since it's rubbish.

Xerox can copyright a shortening of the term Xerography ("dry printing").

Umm, no. In fact the original term was "Electro-photography". Xerox strenuously objected to the usage of "xerography" when it first surfaced in 1965 (13 years after Haloid became Xerox).

Microsoft copyrighted a network centric API called .Net and uses that suffix.

Nope, they've trademarked "Microsoft .NET". I'd balk at calling it a network centric API as well.

Microsoft copyright a window manager called Windows

Nope they've trademarked "Windows", and it's most likely an indefensible trademark which is why they're so damn careful to say "Microsoft Windows" everywhere.

So if Windows can bar Lindows

By "bar" you mean "buy for US$20 million", right? MS paid that money because the court was going to invalidate the "Windows" trademark on the grounds it was too generic, so they decided to settle.

Amazon could bar apple from calling one of it's regional stores Amazon

No, if it was in the Amazon I suspect they would not be able to bar this.

slang can't be copyrighted

Please, please, please read up on the differences between trademarks and copyright.

Go ask Yahoo if Yahoo is copyrighted.

It's TRADEMARKED!, and it's trademarked for specific purposes.

Likewise apple wins because App is a word invented like Xerox.

ALL words are invented. However you're not supposed to be able to trademark common parlance, especially in the context in which it's used. I guess I could go and trademark "App Store" for my coffee bar. It's not common parlance for a coffee bar, and might be okay. It could cause confusion though, which is something a trademark is not allowed to do. Apple is trying to enforce a trademark for a common term in it's usual context in a manner which could cause confusion. They will probably lose.

There was a brilliant short story by Arthur C. Clarke (I think) where the world population was in the trillions, and they were about to reach the point at which all the earth's resources were entirely dedicated to humanity. Accordingly the last zoo (comprising a couple guinea pigs and rabbits and a square meter or two of grass) was to be demolished to allow this milestone to be reached.

When we cast our eyes to the ground all we eat is dust, when we look to the heavens our feast is the stars.

Every society which has focused on their navels as the idiot above suggests has failed. Every single one. No exceptions. Only societies which explore and question and try for audacious goals succeed. By all means, encourage your politician-critters to drive your society to follow the Mayans to extinction. I'll applaud the net loss of stupidity, ignorance and cowardice.

...the amount of calling home Windows does...

Ummm, which home calling? Are you talking about those "Improve your XYZ Experience"; because those are opt-in.

...number of security holes in Windows enabling a breach of privacy...

These days most such holes are in IE, drivers and third party software. Not excusing them; just pointing out that the situation is vastly better than it was a few years ago.

But keep in mind that your second point talks to an inadvertent loss of privacy which MS usually does it's best to fix quickly. Unlike the Sony debacle, normally only a small subset of customers are affected before the patch is put in place. Unlike Google and the others, MS doesn't have a policy of denying you privacy, quite the reverse.

You speak as if Linux is a monolithic company

Umm, I did not, and neither did anyone else in this discussion.

As a user, I don't really give two ...

Yes, but you see the context of the discussion was why Linux isn't a popular desktop OS. My point was that it has little to do with technology and a lot to do with familiarity and marketing. The old saw that Linux is too difficult for the end user is bunk with modern distros; so we're discussing other barriers to it's adoption on the desktop. Going on about how Linux has conquered everything else is an interesting tangent; but not really germane to the discussion. Although I appreciate your insight that the "desktop is morphing into mobile": certainly true, it will be interesting to see where (or if) that trend slows, stops or reverses.

Microsoft has come out and said they are ignoring the mobile computing market

citation needed