mike741

the persons in the corporation would not lose their vote. the corporation is just one additional person, meaning someone could create multiple corporate persons and multiply their vote (at least, in OP's hypothetical scenario)

ah ok that makes more sense, thanks for that pic. too cool!

amazing, is the car strapped to the outside of the rest of the ship? how does it remain so stable after the separation? by "sphere" i just meant the case it is shown inside of at the start, since the markings on the wall resemble motion tracking panels used for 3d projection. perhaps I just underestimate the precision and smoothness of the fairing separation, or am misunderstanding how the car is rigged so as to remain so stable.

the car is not actually in the vacuum AFAI can tell from their GIF: https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/spacero...

id imagine a 360-camera is projected onto the inside of the sphere/case the car is actually inside of.

why not just kick out people who use their phones? that's what the AMC where I live does and it seems to work well AFAI can tell. I used my phone to text and got kicked out (I underestimated their resolve) once but now I know better and haven't done it since. If I had to wait in a second line before and after a movie, I just wouldn't bother seeing the movie.

it would primarily be helpful for cross-checking (dont kill me) "fake news" stories against.

Why not just kick people out that raise their phones? Seems like a waste of time and resources to me. I'd much rather have to deal with the occasional camera blocking my view than having to wait in yet ANOTHER line before and after the show.

Ok, but what about philosophical positions that CAN be defended? For example, your statement is a philosophical position in itself, no? A position, I assume, you believe to be "defensible?"

"Scientists say New York will be Underwater by 2015"

isn't every concept you could name right now a human concept which may not exist objectively?

"Words ought not be judged solely on their truthiness independent of their person."

Ok... so who are you? Since I don't know you, I can't judge your statement with any respect to you, so your statement cannot be considered true, so why say it? Truth is quite obviously the sole standard a statement should be judged by. If you give up on the analysis and are looking for a shortcut, then that is something else entirely. Our "ability to discuss" is hampered when your opening statement is self-evidently false circular reasoning.

are there non-theoretical interpretations?

for some perspective, Youtube has an estimated 46,000,000 channels.

there are over 7,000,000,000 people in the world

100 channels is not even close to enough, especially when they're all funneled through the same 2 or 3 providers

"Seems GREAT on my 60 inch. Hope that helps!"