The article states outright that the category includes "computer facilities management" and "other computer related services" and mentions "IT wage and employment trends." Including so many tangentially related positions makes it hard to draw any conclusions about software development trends.

That's true. But it does allow you to "shoot" with the laser without missing with a bullet

According to the article that is exactly how it works.

When you create a child you're on the hook for raising it. You don't start out knowing everything about it so you have to learn about it at the same time you teach it. That's moral. A new form of life is necessarily going to require more learning on our part in order to raise well. We will make mistakes. We will hurt it. But that's life. The only realistic other option is not to create it to begin with. Better to exist imperfectly than not all.

14th Amendment, due process and equal protection. The government is barred from abridging privileges, taking property, etc. of citizens without due process. I'll grant that it would be constitutional, if somewhat capricious, to ban non-citizens from participating in such a corporation.

The people can assemble. Having assembled they have their other rights. You do not have to allow corporations at all. Bad idea, but you could ban them. You couldn't ban group economic activity altogether though. Nor could you ban group protests, political parties, community groups, etc. You also can't ban a group from getting together to be a social club and also to be a political. All a corporation is is a group of people getting together to do some economic activity. You don't have to permit that group the various extras like limited liability that corporation get. But you can't take away the rights that those people enjoy individual or collectively either.

Lack of corporations doesn't deprive anyone of liberty in the same way that failure to exist doesn't deprive the person who never existed his liberty. There's nothing tortuous or fantastic about this reasoning. People have rights. People organize. People still have rights. Pretty simple. Corporate personhood doesn't matter. A corporation doesn't have rights because it is a person, but because it is a group of people. The whole personhood thing is just a useful abstraction because the corporation acts as a unit.

As I said I know nothing other than what you've stated about the farming laws. I assume there's a lot more to it that "corporations can't run farms" since that would be unconstitutional. And no, I have no idea what that might be.

You could legitimately get rid of limited liability for corporate shareholders. I don't know whether that would be wise, but you could do it. You cannot legitimately restrict the rights of the people on the basis of their having organized themselves.

As for your Nebraska example, I don't know anything about such laws. If they are as simple as you imply, corporation can't farm, then not only would it be a reprehensible and arbitrary restriction on liberty, it would be pretty obviously in violation of the 5th abd 14th ammendments.

You accidentally bring up a good point. I didn't address the "should." In principle I think these things are right. You do have a freedom to speak your opinion, and you do have the opinion to get together with others and speak your collective opinion collectively. It is bad when people try and prevent these things in the general case. (Of course there are times when it is reasonable to do so, like kicking people out of your restaurant for being a nuisance.) It is particularly bad when the biggest bully around, government, tries to do it. This is a nice feature about the US constitution. While your thesis that the constitution isn't as good as most think may be valid, this example is definitely not evidence of that.

The first ammendment of the constitution of the US, among other things, recognizes:
1) A freedom of speech,
2) A right of assembly, and
3) A right to petition the government

It would be pretty starling if you weren't allowed to exercise these rights in concert, for example by assembling into a corporation and lobbying or contributing to a campaign.

You may be right that we don't need the cheaper food. But that isn't your call to make. If a person wants to eat himself to obesity, that's his business, and you are wrong to deny him the opportunity just because you disagree with it.

If that gene transferred to weeds we wouldn't be in a very different place than we were before the modification to begin with. A roundup resistant weed isn't some super predator that kills all your plants. It just doesn't cooperate with the fancy new tool you've invented.

It was insensitive? Does the IRS think that the issue is that they insulted a particular group by singling them out? That's what it would have been if you'd just called them mean names. Actually using your authority as part of the government to target them is bit worse than "insensitive."

First thing I looked for. Astounding when you consider the scale of it.

I've had two projectors. The first had $400 replacement lamps, while the second had $300 replacements. That was MSRP, comparison shopping yielded $300 and $250 respectively (knock another $100 off for knock-offs with extremely bad reviews). At the time mackcam offered lamp replacement warranties for $110 that covered two replacements during the first two years. Both times I got two replacements lamps out of the warranty with no hassle at all. Definitely worth the price.

The value of the warranty was so great it was a major reason I bought the second projector when the third lamp wore out. The next two lamps would have cost $700. Instead I bought a $600 projector, a $110 dollar warranty, and got an extra lamp and an upgrade to 720p for $10.

The information is asymmetric both ways when accidental damage is covered. They are going to charge enough to make a profit overall. That is true. But if you know you are accident prone, or have kids that break everything, or something to that effect that is covered, and the warranty company does not know that, you can still have an expected positive return.

It's discrimination in the sense that a distinguishment is being made. But it's not really being made on the basis of sex, which would be wrong. It's being made on the basis of differing biological roles. They'd probably give those benefits to men who gave birth too. As a father I'd be happy for such a generous leave, and I wouldn't mind getting one equal to a woman's. But I aslo wouldn't begrudge the mothers their larger leave or get up in arms about it.

Do the benefits between men and women differ for adoptions? That would actually be wrong in my opinion.