Slashdot Mirror
Why Everyone Should Hate Cellphone Carriers
The Byelorrusian Spamtrap writes "Wired Magazine's made its position clear on the state of play in America's cellular industry, delivering a long, satisfying screed on why all of us should stop complaining and do something about it. 'They own politicians - Sure, it's just phones. In a world where worse things happen all the time amid the muck and despair of human existence, having to pay for premium text is hardly worth worrying about, is it? You can (and should) opt out, and not sign on the dotted line to begin with. But today's cell towers might be tomorrow's Pony Express: they're TV stations, internet access, emergency 911 and news networks all rolled into one. WWAN could well end up supplanting copper sooner than anyone expects: do you want these companies in charge of it?'"
In the "real world" people get along just fine without cell phones. In the "real world" people make ethical decisions for their company every single day even when the "real world" makes that supposedly impossible. In the "real world" people get the companies they pay for and the government they deserve. In the "real world" not everyone waffles on their principles because they are afraid or because someone waives a dollar under their nose. In the "real world" dollars often speak more loudly than votes. And in the "real world" claiming something is unavoidable and not in our control (especially when we're funding it!) is just a way to apologize for our own hypocrisy.
You've got the problem down pat, but your solution boils down to banging your head against a different wall to see if the hurting stops. The philosophies backing the major parties and most of the third parties (except the libertarians, who are philosophically bankrupt) accept that it is sometimes necessary for government to coerce individuals to serve its needs. As long as this is the case, business will be dominated by those who can wheedle the most stolen money and favors into the coffers.
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
the resources that distributions 40,,00 coming Are about 7000/5 my efforts were PROVIDE SODAS,
I have a hard time giving credence to anyone who thinks it's clever to deliberately misspell words to give them extra meaning. You may have had good points, but your insistence on demonstrating just how funny you are with your feral government crap has rendered your message silly in my eyes.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Don't be such an idiot.
Make a rational argument.
Do you or do you not think giving money which is being used to support government corruption while denigrating others for not doing enough to stop government corruption is hypocrisy? If not, explain. Does the difficulty of an action (or lack of action) really have any bearing on whether hypocrisy has occurred?
Many people have jobs which require them to be on call. What would you say to them? Quit? I guess you don't really want medical care, right?
Strawman. You can get medical care working a job at McDonald's which does not require being on call. People who have jobs which require them to be on call typically have more than a subsistence lifestyle. People who have jobs which require them to be on call typically use their employers services and provide no direct source of income to the cell companies.
Regardless, this has jack all to do with whether or not the original poster is a hypocrite.
What does this have to do with anything? I never advocated making unethical decisions while on the job.
The point is that your assertion about the impossibility to function within society without supporting unethical action is absurd.
However, lots of companies make unethical decisions all the time, and there's nothing you can do about it.
I disagree, but this is not relevant to the issue.
Maybe so, at the societal level, but at the individual level, there's nothing you can do about what everyone else does. You can become a hermit if you wish.
Society is made of individuals.
Right, those are the hermits. Everyone else has to compromise because they have to live in a society with other people, who don't abide by the same principles.
You seem to think that principles which do not precisely match are necessarily conflicting. I get along just fine in society without compromising my principles.
Do you buy services from any large, evil company like Comcast, Cox, Verizon, etc.?
Are we talking about corruption or this nebulous 'evil' term you are throwing about?
After all, you're here on Slashdot, so I presume you have an internet service provider. Well, you just compromised on principles by buying from a company with poor ethics.
Considering how little you know about me this is a rather bold statement. As a matter of fact, my ISP has a record of doing the right thing. This is one reason among many why I chose them rather than, shall we say, less discreet providers.
Do you grow your own food? If not, you're probably buying from some large agribusiness with poor ethics. I can cite lots of other examples.
Sure, it is possible; however, the point is, I do not knowingly and intentionally support unethical practices and then denigrate others when they chose to stand by their principles as the OP has done.
So you think you're not a hypocrite?
I know I'm a hypocrite. Everyone is, especially parents like myself.
However, when it comes to my principles, I'm not willing to violate them. Paying someone else to violate them is the same damn thing. In that regard, no, I'm not a hypocrite.
How do you explain your post here? You're using the products and services of large companies which have committed ethical transgressions in the interest of profit. It sounds like you're the hypocrite.
How do you plan to support your claim without knowing the slightest thing about me?