Jump to content


Planes, Trains and T110s


  • Please log in to reply
41940 replies to this topic

DerViktim #41461 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 15:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 18344 battles
  • 7,120
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-02-2011

View PostKilljoyCutter, on Oct 11 2019 - 08:24, said:

 

Companies are not actual living thinking entities, they're a legal contrivance.

 

They're made up of people.  Those people make the decisions, and hiding behind the buggered notions of "corporate amorality" doesn't absolve them of their responsibility for those decisions.

 

Sure it does. Legally the only responsibility a company has is to make money. Legally the only responsibility a CEO has is to increase the value for the shareholder (in a publicly traded company).
 

The view you are expressing is typically expressed as "stakeholder value". Meaning that a company has a responsibility to every entity that has a stake in the success of the company. Stakeholders include the localities where the company operates, the employees, the customers, and the shareholders. The pervading point of view that exists today is very much "shareholder value". This means that the only point of view that matters is whatever maximizes shareholder return on investment. That is the point of view that Activision is very clearly taking.

I agree that a stakeholder value point of view is the better point of view and that companies do have a responsibility to all the stakeholders in a company. However, I understand the entirely amoral point of view of the "shareholder value" perspective. I may think it is entirely short-sighted and incredibly toxic, but unfortunately it is the pervading point of view of most of the corporate world right now.



KilljoyCutter #41462 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 16:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 26,676
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostDerViktim, on Oct 11 2019 - 09:56, said:

 

Sure it does. Legally the only responsibility a company has is to make money. Legally the only responsibility a CEO has is to increase the value for the shareholder (in a publicly traded company).
 

The view you are expressing is typically expressed as "stakeholder value". Meaning that a company has a responsibility to every entity that has a stake in the success of the company. Stakeholders include the localities where the company operates, the employees, the customers, and the shareholders. The pervading point of view that exists today is very much "shareholder value". This means that the only point of view that matters is whatever maximizes shareholder return on investment. That is the point of view that Activision is very clearly taking.

I agree that a stakeholder value point of view is the better point of view and that companies do have a responsibility to all the stakeholders in a company. However, I understand the entirely amoral point of view of the "shareholder value" perspective. I may think it is entirely short-sighted and incredibly toxic, but unfortunately it is the pervading point of view of most of the corporate world right now.

 

 

I need to dig up those articles on "shareholder value being the sole and only concern of the company" as a recent fiction and self-destructive at best.  The author of one book calls it "the dumbest idea ever".  Frankly, I have no sympathy whatsoever for the "shareholder value uber alles" approach.  Any company that operates under that approach can go bankrupt for all I care.   "Shareholder value" doesn't absolve anyone of responsibility for their actions, regardless of what the law might say.

 

But, if you made me President today, one of the things I'd push hard on is changing corporate governance laws and regulations to favor the "stakeholder value" approach.


 


Edited by KilljoyCutter, Oct 11 2019 - 16:37.


KilljoyCutter #41463 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 16:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 26,676
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

George Will weighs in on Trump, impeachment, and the Senate Republicans' apparent dereliction of duty:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-spiraling-president-adds-self-impeachment-to-his-repertoire/2019/10/10/8c1a739c-eb7c-11e9-9c6d-436a0df4f31d_story.html

 

 

Spoiler

 


Edited by KilljoyCutter, Oct 11 2019 - 16:36.


DerViktim #41464 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 16:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 18344 battles
  • 7,120
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-02-2011

Yes please. Get here season 4 of The Expanse. I particularly love that they chose to use J.F.K.'s space race speech for this.

 

 

 



SpectreHD #41465 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 16:49

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16907 battles
  • 17,342
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

Lol. WG's WoT tank fantasy La La Land has the T54E2 going into full production and is now called the M54:rolleyes:

 

Of course with accompanying nickname "Renegade".

 

Freaking "M54". What crap show. Is the "M54" related to the M56 Scorpion!?


Edited by SpectreHD, Oct 11 2019 - 18:18.


Mermaid_Witch #41466 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 18:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 12848 battles
  • 13,906
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011

View PostSpectreHD, on Oct 11 2019 - 10:49, said:

Lol. WG's WoT tank fantasy La La Land has the T54E2 going into full production and is now called the M54:rolleyes:

 

Of course with accompanying nickname "Renegade".


Meanwhile, the stupid double-gun ST-I is getting its own tech tree of fantasy heavies to enable it to cap tier 10.  Gotta keep those Russians happy, after all.  God forbid they use actual tanks to make an American tech tree, though.  Nope, gotta use those for premium tanks, because the Americans are rich and should have to pay real money for their nation's tanks.



SpectreHD #41467 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 18:16

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16907 battles
  • 17,342
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostMermaid_Witch, on Oct 12 2019 - 01:05, said:


Meanwhile, the stupid double-gun ST-I is getting its own tech tree of fantasy heavies to enable it to cap tier 10.  Gotta keep those Russians happy, after all.  God forbid they use actual tanks to make an American tech tree, though.  Nope, gotta use those for premium tanks, because the Americans are rich and should have to pay real money for their nation's tanks.

 

Of course! The Russian tree is the only tree with the privilege of getting more conventional vehicles to make more tank lines. As you said, premiums, premiums for the US tree. Those who want more American tanks must play CWs, refer a friend to suffer in this game and of course fork out money.



KilljoyCutter #41468 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 18:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 26,676
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

Trump lawyers' "we reject your impeachment and won't cooperate" letter might be a wet squib:

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/limits-trumps-obstruction/599869/


Yovanovitch and Sondland are both testifying despite the letter and despite State Department (read, enabler Pompeo) "requests" that they not testify.   In Sondland's case, I do have to wonder if it's part of an effort to muddy the waters with testimony that contradicts the known evidence, or if he's decided to cover his own behind at this point by getting out ahead of things.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/after-uncertainty-yovanovitch-arrives-capitol-hill-testify-trump-impeachment-inquiry-n1064996


 


Edited by KilljoyCutter, Oct 11 2019 - 19:03.


Mermaid_Witch #41469 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 18:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 12848 battles
  • 13,906
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011


SpectreHD #41470 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 18:51

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16907 battles
  • 17,342
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostMermaid_Witch, on Oct 12 2019 - 01:45, said:

 

Would also like to know what that bracket was for he was referring to at 3:33.



DerViktim #41471 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 19:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 18344 battles
  • 7,120
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-02-2011

In regards to Apple removing the police tracking app. On the face of it the initial reaction to its removal seemed like its removal was specifically targeting the protesters. In reality it looks like the situation wasn't quite that simple.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protest-cook/apples-cook-defends-decision-to-remove-police-tracking-app-used-in-hong-kong-idUSKBN1WP2SZ



godofdun #41472 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 19:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 15879 battles
  • 5,965
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011

View PostKilljoyCutter, on Oct 11 2019 - 08:22, said:

George Will weighs in on Trump, impeachment, and the Senate Republicans' apparent dereliction of duty:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-spiraling-president-adds-self-impeachment-to-his-repertoire/2019/10/10/8c1a739c-eb7c-11e9-9c6d-436a0df4f31d_story.html

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

There are any number of things I disagree with George Will on, but he does seem like a good guy.  Here's an interview I heard with him about his latest book the other day.

https://art19.com/shows/larry-wilmore/episodes/c0ab8ef6-e41f-4cee-b8c7-a30116b22a46



KilljoyCutter #41473 Posted Oct 11 2019 - 20:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 26,676
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View Postgodofdun, on Oct 11 2019 - 13:56, said:

 

There are any number of things I disagree with George Will on, but he does seem like a good guy.  Here's an interview I heard with him about his latest book the other day.

https://art19.com/shows/larry-wilmore/episodes/c0ab8ef6-e41f-4cee-b8c7-a30116b22a46

 

 

 

The Conservative Intellectual Crisis -- https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/opinion/the-conservative-intellectual-crisis.html

 


 



godofdun #41474 Posted Oct 12 2019 - 00:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 15879 battles
  • 5,965
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011

View PostKilljoyCutter, on Oct 11 2019 - 12:29, said:

 

That was 2016, wonder if he feels as confident about the future when the young conservative voices with the most reach are people like Shapiro, Kirk, and Crowder.

 

Also waxing nostalgic about William Buckley still curdles my stomach a bit.

 

hmmm, Barr meets with Murdoch, then Shep Smith leaves Fox?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/10/us/politics/fox-news-poll-trump-impeachment.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AtmlozSpm0



KilljoyCutter #41475 Posted Oct 12 2019 - 04:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 26,676
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View Postgodofdun, on Oct 11 2019 - 18:14, said:

 

That was 2016, wonder if he feels as confident about the future when the young conservative voices with the most reach are people like Shapiro, Kirk, and Crowder.

 

Also waxing nostalgic about William Buckley still curdles my stomach a bit.

 

hmmm, Barr meets with Murdoch, then Shep Smith leaves Fox?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/10/us/politics/fox-news-poll-trump-impeachment.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AtmlozSpm0

 


 Posting that was more just me grieving for the fact that intellectual conservatism is on life support right now.

 

And yeah, the AG running propaganda errands for the "president" should be an impeachable offense all on its own.


 



The_Chieftain #41476 Posted Oct 12 2019 - 04:43

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13686 battles
  • 9,914
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

In fascinating legal news, apparently some chap who the ATF was prosecuting for illegally selling AR15s had the case dropped when his lawyer told the judge that AR15s are not subject to federal regulation by the ATF.

 

Once everybody stopped laughing, and actually looked up the legislation, instead of just presuming that everybody had it right all the time, they realised he was right.

 

The problem is that legally, the “receiver” of the rifle is the gun. The receiver is defined in the US Code. Your challenge is as follows. Looking at the definition, what component of an AR15, or AUG, for example, meets the definition?

 

Someone in Congress needs to get that fixed, or every illegal AR15 defendant is going to pull the same defense.



PrimarchRogalDorn #41477 Posted Oct 12 2019 - 05:20

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 25 battles
  • 1,840
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017
Isn't it the lower of an AR-15 the part that's considered the "firearm" legally?

Edited by PrimarchRogalDorn, Oct 12 2019 - 05:21.


The_Chieftain #41478 Posted Oct 12 2019 - 06:10

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13686 battles
  • 9,914
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostPrimarchRogalDorn, on Oct 11 2019 - 22:20, said:

Isn't it the lower of an AR-15 the part that's considered the "firearm" legally?


It’s the “legally” bit which is causing the problem. It is how ATF regulates them, and we have been working on that basis for decades. Apparently, however, up until recently, nobody actually bothered to look up the laws the regulations are based on. This goes back to the challenge in the previous post. What part of an AR15 meets the legal definition of “receiver”, given the ATF regulates receivers?



Ed_the_Baker #41479 Posted Oct 12 2019 - 13:17

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 9741 battles
  • 266
  • Member since:
    11-29-2013

View PostSpectreHD, on Oct 11 2019 - 13:51, said:

 

Would also like to know what that bracket was for he was referring to at 3:33.

photo at 5:25 shows the cal .50 mounted on it .  Ed



KilljoyCutter #41480 Posted Oct 12 2019 - 13:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 26,676
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Oct 11 2019 - 22:43, said:

In fascinating legal news, apparently some chap who the ATF was prosecuting for illegally selling AR15s had the case dropped when his lawyer told the judge that AR15s are not subject to federal regulation by the ATF.

 

Once everybody stopped laughing, and actually looked up the legislation, instead of just presuming that everybody had it right all the time, they realised he was right.

 

The problem is that legally, the “receiver” of the rifle is the gun. The receiver is defined in the US Code. Your challenge is as follows. Looking at the definition, what component of an AR15, or AUG, for example, meets the definition?

 

Someone in Congress needs to get that fixed, or every illegal AR15 defendant is going to pull the same defense.

 

View PostPrimarchRogalDorn, on Oct 11 2019 - 23:20, said:

Isn't it the lower of an AR-15 the part that's considered the "firearm" legally?

 

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Oct 12 2019 - 00:10, said:


It’s the “legally” bit which is causing the problem. It is how ATF regulates them, and we have been working on that basis for decades. Apparently, however, up until recently, nobody actually bothered to look up the laws the regulations are based on. This goes back to the challenge in the previous post. What part of an AR15 meets the legal definition of “receiver”, given the ATF regulates receivers?

 


 The ATF and federal prosecutors don't actually know what the law says when it comes to firearms?  I'm so shocked.

 

Hits two of my buttons... firearms, and the abdication of power from elected legislators, to regulators given free reign to interpret the law as they wish.


 


Edited by KilljoyCutter, Oct 12 2019 - 13:26.





35 user(s) are reading this topic

7 members, 28 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Tjtod, Apache1990, ChairmanMilo, MechaGuppy, Mermaid_Witch, cipher12, avenue94