But both people and corporations are legal entities that can own property and be subject to contracts, liens, lawsuits, etc. It is silly to have two entire separate sets of laws, so it is reasonable to apply the same laws to both, unless the law specifically distinguishes between people and corporations (as some laws do, and some laws don't).
Except we already do have two separate sets of laws. For example, the duration of copyrights as owned an individual versus a corporation is different. This is especially true in the case of criminal law. Corporations cannot be imprisoned, and they are rarely (if ever) put to death (i.e., broken up). Most crimes which impose serious penalties for individuals are met with mere fines if anything when a corporation commits them. Instead, when a corporation does something bad, any potential punishment must usually be done via civil law (aka lawsuits).
Why do Yanks have to do every fucking single thing in their schools in a maximum privacy-invading way with overly convoluted use of technology?
Because the end goal is to make people acclimate to the idea that they do not and should not have privacy and that they should submit to authority. The free lunches are just a carrot to lead them around.
I hope they guan get visual studio working on other platforms
To that end, you could try out Visual Studio Code, which was introduced at the build conference this year.
...only if you buy into the idea that it should be illegal to transfer $10k or greater without having to report it to the government. Why is that a given?
The original 1980s laws are pretty appalling, too.
Even if that Rand Paul guy has done only one thing right that ONE THING still represents one thing MORE than all the other congress-critters (plus senate critters) on the Congressional Hill!
While I applaud him for so openly opposing the bill, he's not the only one in Congress who has. There were 121 votes against the bill in the House.
Also, just because something is "your own work" in the sense that you created it doesn't necessarily make you the copyright holder at all.
Please explain how "reviewing Hillary Clinton's emails from her time in office" automatically constitutes "publishing pro-GOP progaganda"?
It's the "on Benghazi" part you omitted. You know, the tragedy where four people were killed, and Fox elevated it to 24/7 coverage, national crisis levels for multiple years trying to uncover a cover-up conspiracy that didn't exist.
you forgot to add the recurring charges
He mentioned the wife and kids, and then stated the $99 is negligible in comparison. What did he forget?
Sure. Of course, you're going to prove that it was a management directive, and not just plain old IT incompetence or malice that led to "deleted" profiles being left around in the system, right?
If the IT guys are partly to blame, they should be lined up right alongside their managers for those whippings. And I'm pretty sure that you'll find more often than not that the IT guys are just as clueless and incompetent as their clueless and incompetent bosses.
Obviously, if it was a management directive, it's management's fault. However, if the lack of security is due to ignorance/incompetence on the part of IT, it's still management's fault, as it's their job to hire and/or train IT for security (and fire if necessary).
Internally, management is free to assign blame and take action against IT, be it through improvement plants, pink slips, or (in the case of malice) lawsuits. But make no mistake - management holds final responsibility - that's part of being in leadership.