and Nadella has been replaced
Any sources for this? According to Wikipedia, he still is the current CEO of Microsoft.
"The corporations that operate in this country have an obligation to the society that makes it possible for them to successfully conduct business."
I see this bogus argument a lot. It always ignores the benefits society has for the people.
The roads don't just exist so corporations can make money -- they bring food in so that people can eat.
Laws and enforcement agencies don't just exist to protect corporations money -- they protect the people trying to work and live.
How long would society last if the food is cut off? Or water? Or random bands of raiders attacking and stealing resources? People in general and not corporations see far more of a benefit from these things.
A corporation has absolutely no obligation to any society other than to follow it's laws. And when those laws become harmful to corporations, what do they do? They move away or go out of business. And then where does that leave the (former) employees? Repeat that enough and you'll have ghost towns falling apart as people move to towns that aren't scary to businesses.
"The current corporate belief is that they have no duty or obligation to their employees."
Rightly so. And employees have no duty or obligation to their employer. There is an exchange of labor for money -- period.
No, why not make a good argument as to why it's a bad idea for HB1s to drive down the cost of labor and displace native workers? THAT is an easy and good argument to make. But suggesting an employer has any obligation other than to exchange money for labor to any employee willing to exchange labor for money is just a bogus argument.
"Except going to Mars is propaganda and not science. "
Actually it's both -- and more. Is the goal to JUST send robots to probe our solar system? Or to actually make a human presence? I believe the latter and I believe it's important for many reasons which should be obvious.
> Of course they are doing better because of it...
This isn't science though. A dad who was never there, but the child was none the wiser (aka double blind) would not be expected, scientifically, to have any differences in outcome.
Is he really this stupid? Nothing in those first two months gives the kid the advantage. For a good chunk of that time the child will be functionally unable to see much of anything. Bonding with the mother and establishing healthy sleeping and feeding habits will be more important than having him around.
The point of these studies are that the ability to take time off CORRELATES to better outcomes, not that they are CAUSED by taking this time off. Being the type of dad who can take time off, who is financially stable, who is involved, who is willing, etc are all related to having better outcomes at all the little points in time that add up to influence the outcomes of a child.
Zuckerberg is probably missing the pages of virtually every long-term study every performed which show, pretty decisively, that parental income is the single best indicator to positive educational and life outcomes.
I will support this "zero knowledge" key escrow when I have three assurances:
1. Death penalty for any government employee who misuses data. You look up data about a girlfriend, or an enemy, or a political opponent? No problem, enjoy your Federal death penalty.
2. Death penalty for the cabinet level director for any agency who abuses or has a single employee who abuses data. Oh, sorry, low-level contractor abused data? Enjoy your needle.
3. Excess funding to 0 for any agency that abuses data - no health insurance, no travel, no coffee in the lounge, no flat screen TVs, no car repairs, no vending machine fixes, nothing. No comforts at all, for 1 year.
I've had mealworms - they were enjoyable and easy to cook, so I'd be game, but the rest of the house might not like it.
"It's got electrolytes -- It's got what plants crave".
Yeah... I meant "attorney" -- not "client". I originally had "client" and "attorney" but decided to change it to "attorney" and "accused" but didn't change ALL of it.
And the act of recording it doesn't defacto make it "illegal". Both parties know it's being recorded. They also know it will not and cannot be used. If it is the trial is effectively over and the accused walks. Not to mention police can loose their jobs and prosecutors can be disbarred. Have you SEEN the chain of custody of those recording and transcripts? They are pretty detailed.
If it's not collectively managed it will destroy the economy when it comes to market.
Unless "coming to market" means "making craters where cities used to be," I don't understand how it would destroy the economy. Perhaps you meant it would aid the economy, by making metal a lot cheaper?
"If they are laboring under all those advantages and prosecutors get to listen to their calls to their attorney, apparently without bothering to disclose this fact, it's hard to even pretend that something remotely close to justice is being done."
I posted this earlier:
"My family was involved with a fairly complex trial recently (hah -- 'recently' took over 2.5 years from start to finish).
What I recall was that ALL calls were recorded and then screened (I honestly don't recall how) and the defense was notified of each recording between client and 'accused'. The post-screened calls were then filtered (removing privileged calls) to the police. All recordings (including privileged calls which were separate and sealed) were submitted to the defense as part of discovery."
The shortest distance between two points is under construction. -- Noelie Alito