if you need to be protected from yourself go buy an iphone
Or indeed, if you need a smartphone that just works rather than being a tinker-toy and a time-sink, get an iPhone.
...or an android phone like the Wildfire (or Desire if it needs to look smart) which costs less, can do about the same and just don't fiddle with it till you need to...
Seriously? If an iPhone is easier to use, it's because it steers away from tough stuff like syncing with exchange, widgets and multitasking. If you use only the features an iPhone has, an android is just as easy.
Neither phone needs a support department, though. But some people would rather hand over the responsibility of setting up mail, syncing calendars, installing apps, etc. That's fine. But I doubt the iPhone is able to do those things without some sort of user interaction...
PS: Also, you are obviously just plain wrong that an iPhone would never need a factory reset. PPS: When the battery needs changing, can she also be on her own?
Agreed. People who download Quicktime probably want the plugin. One case of a program installing what people wanted is no argument that other programs should install stuff people did not want or request, however.
I don't think people want the Windows Live Photo Gallery, unless they ask for it. That other people did click the "let me watch this video in my browser"-button simply is not relevant.
No. They want the program that installed the programs against their wishes and without their consent.
The 0.01% who don't are either idiots or live in a mental institution with an aluminum foil hat on their head to keep out the alien and CIA transmissions from their brain.
People who do not want Windows Live Photo Gallery or the Google Update plugin are certifiably insane? Really?
If you think this stuff is evil, sell your computer and stay off the internet.
So I should stop using a phone altogether because I think telemarketers are bad? Or does your reasoning only extend to computers and/or stuff you personally happen to like and want?
The human body is very easy to puncture with a knife, this does not make slashing open your neighbour OK. Cars can drive beyond the speed limit, houses can be broken into, people can be swindled, telephones called by telemarketers, etc. etc.
None of this makes it OK to do any of these things, and just because Firefox is built around a certain design principle (that it should be easy to modify) does not make it OK for others to modify it against the user's wishes.
Ignore the dir, but use another one? And what will MS, A and G do next?
Non-standardisation as a way to make it harder for others to do something to your installation is... just not the way to go.
Others respecting the standards would be preferable. I shouldn't have to not pick up my phone until the third ring to make sure no telemarketers got through - telemarketers should stop calling.
Welll, since you might as well have said that a spork is a fork of a fork, a spork can't really be a fork of either a spoon or a fork. A fork is a fork of one thing; be it a fork or spoon - only one of them forked (code is nonsexually reproductive at it's core, which might explain a whole lot and lead to a lot of bad slashdot jokes if we're not careful). So the spork cannot have been created through a fork, neither from a fork or a spoon.
PS: I must have gotten something wrong there. Let the pedantry ensue!
I can't believe you couldn't tell that it was sarcastic.
Me neither, But then again, the original argument "who would fund the creation of new music if everyone shared it freely?" makes the exact same amount of sense. It is only detectable as non-sarcasm because of who is saying it, who they are suing, etc.
Not that I find the theory particularly convincing, but for the sake of argument...
If you did have a gizmo that disabled nuclear missiles, you wouldn't want to advertise that fact to anyone before you were ready and sure it worked, could be replicated, you had enough, etc. And if some missile fails somewhere, suspicion is going to fall on the big nations, leading to increasing spying (that might work, without labelling the thing USAF), international tension, what have you.
The main thing wrong with this theory is; why test it in secret? Why expose personnel who have not been cleared at the highest level to any part of the testing procedure. And testing whether you can stop fission, activation, guidance, or whatever in no way necessitates a test where some fraction of the personnel is not "in on it"...
Also, dismissing a discipline without empirical testing is holding it to a non-empirical yardstick - so such an argument does, apparently, accept the non-empirical as valid reasoning. If only we had a discipline that investigated the boundaries of such reasoning...
Yeah, I'm a philosopher (some would say pedant):-)
Ford has no power over you? Interesting. How were you included in the decision-making process that allows their vehicles to travel above the legal speed limit, endagering you and your loved ones? How were you included in the decision on how many cars and how much public transportation is best for the environment, traffic safety and you daily life?
Does Google, Yahoo, et al call you with regards to what information they publish and how this affects you? Have they promised to delete all the emails you send to their account holders, or not to datamine it?
How exactly are you free from Apple and Microsofts changes to web standards - or have you never accesed a webpage that was influenced by IE-conforming standards?
With corporations *every time* I spend (or keep) a dollar, I am voting to support (or reject) the corporation and its policies. We the People have the power to make a corporation succeed or fail.
And you think the individual corporation matters? I am sorry, but whatever corporation succeeds, it will (have done so because it did) whatever was most profitable - and despite Smith's unchallenged (unanswered and ignored the challenges, more like it) Invisible Hand, that is not necessarily best for you or people in general.
And even if you were right, that you do indeed vote with every dollar in a meaningful way, this is 100% incompatible with the democracy you seem to want. Because if a dollar is a vote, some people have seem to have a lot more of those votes than others! We have a name for such systems, and it ain't democracy - sorry...
You're missing the point. The point is that this does not yet exist, but should. It is meant to be a replacement, not a claim that this is a currently existing possibility for the end user.
Furthermore, the existence of the software will lead to the adoption of the hardware, which is getting cheaper by the minute. Oh, and the software is mostly written. And it will do much, much more than social networking...
Precisely. The "free market" simply means "power to the citizen".
...And "power to every corporation, even to the degree that such corporations will hold much more influence than the combined citizenry, but still enjoy zero accountability".
To be fair, no debate in the history of the world has ever actually changed the truth of any matter.
Nothing in the history of the world has ever changed the truth in any matter!
But debate has frequently been key in bringing it out. If, as you seem to point out, it is based on evidence and reasoning and not mere oratory. You are, of course, also spot on with regards to why they are refusing. This is a FUD-like campaign and cares not one whit for the truth.
For some things (not including cut & paste from the get-go, say), they can get away with this tactic. But stonewalling in the face of an issue this big is likely to blow up in their faces.
I certainly hope so! And maybe we are really seeing a bit of corporate inertia, where Apple simply uses the propaganda tactic that has worked before (Stupendous Arrogance) without really thinking through how big this issue really is. Maybe they have been taking in a bit by their own 'can-do-no-wrong'-attitude...?
All they had to do was say 'oops, our bad, we messed up but here is a free case' and the problem would have been effectively solved, and they would have saved face.
Apple's success is predicated on an image that they can do no wrong, and that if they appear to have done wrong, you are a douchebag for not recognising that they are merely ahead of the curve. They simply cannot acknowledge a blunder of this magnitude, any more than the pope can acknowledge that he is not infallible...
But when their employees do not like them, and cannot feed themselves off it, and are prevented from quitting by unconsciable contracts or force... it is slavery.
Actually if you bothered to do some research, you'd find that the conditions you use in your argument don't exist. The employees may be far from rich, but having a $3 / hr job in a 3rd world country provides food and shelter.
I would love to live in your world. When does the next shuttle leave?
Are you seriously saying that no one is going hungry or deprived of basic human needs and dignity, while working at consumer goods for the Western world? Seriously?
I'm sure the people who are now unemployed are real grateful that people like you decided you knew what was best for them and caused them to lose their jobs.
This is both stupid, arrogant and misguided. A straw man rolled up into an ad hominem, shrouded in a false dilemma.
No, it's not. It's economics and facts (you know, economics, the study people like you despise because it shatters your delusions about the world). Idiots spouting off the same crap as you cause wages to be artificially inflated and as a result, people lose their jobs. Read some economics textbooks and you might learn something.
It is a strawman because I never 'decided what was best' for anyone, and did not cause the problems you claim exist. It is an ad hominem attack because you are trying to paint me as arrogant. It is a false dilemma because you are bundling all solutions to the problem of underpaid labourers together as all failing.
It is arrogant because you you have no knowledge of what solutions I would point to, and hence no idea what effects they would cause.
It is misguided and stupid for all the above reasons.
My mistake. Where is this eternal well-spring of oil located exactly? Or did you just invent the whole 'soon'-part of my position? I believe you did! If you are going to respond to my posts, please have the decency to also respond to what I am actually saying.
First, I never said oil was infinite, merely that we're not "running out of it soon". Second, if you learned to read, you'd see that you DID say that it will soon run out. Don't believe me? Go back and read your previous post. Not only are you spouting off fanatic BS as "fact", you then lie and say you never said that afterwards.
Right. Sorry about the 'soon' part. My position is and was that we will run out, and that our consumption is not going down in anything remotely close to a curve that will make this event anything less than catastrophic.
I did not mean 'soon' as in any hard prediction - like the fearmongering you referred to, does. I am sorry that I did not catch the understandable confusion between the two.
Again: the case was interesting, because it shows how the corporation will not act out of any real compassion or humanity, but will only _attempt to be seen as doing so_ when a camera appears out of the crowd.
Not only is that false, it proves your anti-corporation fanaticism. Your argument is that all corporations are evil because they are corporations. That's one of the most fallacious arguments imaginable.
That would be a circular argument, yes. But is is not the one I put forward. My argument is simple: 1) A corporation will do anything to make profit, if it does less than anything possible, it's shareholders will either change it's leadership, or abandon it for a corporation that is willing to do anything. 2) Willingness to do anything includes the willingness to ignore all other considerations. 3) A corporation has no considerations for "doing the decent thing", unless that _incidentally_ is part of a plan to make the most profit (typically for PR reasons).
So, you think that because her husband died, she should be allowed to skip out on paying her bills?
No.
A bill specifically relating to service for him (such as his personal cell phone) should be (and legally is) voided because he's dead and not using the service anymore. However, since the bill she wanted (and got) waived had nothing to do with him, she should be required to pay it.
Because whether I do business with Nike or not, they will use slave labour.
Just because you don't like the wages they pay, doesn't make it slave labor.
Of course not. But when their employees do not like them, and cannot feed themselves off it, and are prevented from quitting by unconsciable contracts or force... it is slavery.
...I'm sure the people who are now unemployed are real grateful that people like you decided you knew what was best for them and caused them to lose their jobs.
This is both stupid, arrogant and misguided. A straw man rolled up into an ad hominem, shrouded in a false dilemma. Read up on those and you can come back to apologise...
...the myth that we are "running out of oil soon" is FUD that's been spread since the late 1800's.
My mistake. Where is this eternal well-spring of oil located exactly? Or did you just invent the whole 'soon'-part of my position? I believe you did! If you are going to respond to my posts, please have the decency to also respond to what I am actually saying.
...the case is only relevant as an example that corporations will only do 'the decent thing' when forced by public opinion.
No, it's an example of companies NOT doing the right thing and letting people skip out on their bills because emotional and irrational people like you scream "But something sad that's totally unrelated to her ability to pay her bills happened! She shouldn't have to pay her bills!" As I pointed out before, the only reason that Verizon caved is because he was a Marine and this fucked up society worships the military as infallible, so they don't want to risk getting labeled as anti-military.
Sigh. I never said she should not pay her bill. Never.
You have, again, misunderstood my position. Please try to read my posts more carefully - this is at least the third time this happens to you...
In fact, following the sentence you quoted, I said the exact same thing you are going on about here: that what Verizon did had nothing to do with being decent, but had to do with being perceived as decent.
You even quote it:
As you yourself pointed out, there is no particularly compelling moral reason this woman shoud be excempt from her contract - but Verizon cares naught for the actual moral issues, the troops, whatever; they have an obligation to their shareholders only to care about one thing!
Ok, see, now you're just not even making sense anymore. You acknowledge that there's no reason for them to let her off the hook, yet then demand that if it wasn't for those "evil shareholders" that they would let her off the hook.
No, I never said the latter part.
Really, your foaming at the mouth rage over people doing business with each other is way past being annoyed when companies do something bad (I'm with you on going after them when they do something bad) and has now passed into the inane ravings of a lunatic.
OK. I'd state it this way: Corporations doing something bad is not a lonely incidents, but a natural consequence of being what they are; only interested in profit. Again: the case was interesting, because it shows how the corporation will not act out of any real compassion or humanity, but will only _attempt to be seen as doing so_ when a camera appears out of the crowd.
You say you want to 'go after them when they do something bad' - I am pointing out that it is in the inherent nature of a corporations to be 100% self-interested. And that such self-interest will of course hurt people (when there is no camera).
If you're that upset that sometimes when people interact they make choices of their own free will that you don't like, then I suggest building a hut in the wilderness where you'll never have to interact w
Slashdot Mirror
Or indeed, if you need a smartphone that just works rather than being a tinker-toy and a time-sink, get an iPhone.
...or an android phone like the Wildfire (or Desire if it needs to look smart) which costs less, can do about the same and just don't fiddle with it till you need to...
Or, they want an iPhone until they start shopping and more than price might make them change their mind. Maybe the feature list.
I do think you are mostly right, though, except I wouldn't call it "second best", but "second choice" :-)
Seriously? If an iPhone is easier to use, it's because it steers away from tough stuff like syncing with exchange, widgets and multitasking. If you use only the features an iPhone has, an android is just as easy.
Neither phone needs a support department, though. But some people would rather hand over the responsibility of setting up mail, syncing calendars, installing apps, etc. That's fine. But I doubt the iPhone is able to do those things without some sort of user interaction...
PS: Also, you are obviously just plain wrong that an iPhone would never need a factory reset.
PPS: When the battery needs changing, can she also be on her own?
You, sir, should be in marketing!
All true.
Of course Mozilla has to make some judgement call here; openness/ease or security (from installers granted filesystem access).
And I for one do not want a world where every house is an armed fortress, nor one of paranoid software that has to assume even root is up to no good.
But you are all too right. Doesn't mean MS, A and G aren't to blame :-)
Agreed. People who download Quicktime probably want the plugin.
One case of a program installing what people wanted is no argument that other programs should install stuff people did not want or request, however.
I don't think people want the Windows Live Photo Gallery, unless they ask for it. That other people did click the "let me watch this video in my browser"-button simply is not relevant.
Most users (99.99%) "want" the plugins...
No. They want the program that installed the programs against their wishes and without their consent.
The 0.01% who don't are either idiots or live in a mental institution with an aluminum foil hat on their head to keep out the alien and CIA transmissions from their brain.
People who do not want Windows Live Photo Gallery or the Google Update plugin are certifiably insane? Really?
If you think this stuff is evil, sell your computer and stay off the internet.
So I should stop using a phone altogether because I think telemarketers are bad? Or does your reasoning only extend to computers and/or stuff you personally happen to like and want?
Yes. It is the other's fault.
The human body is very easy to puncture with a knife, this does not make slashing open your neighbour OK.
Cars can drive beyond the speed limit, houses can be broken into, people can be swindled, telephones called by telemarketers, etc. etc.
None of this makes it OK to do any of these things, and just because Firefox is built around a certain design principle (that it should be easy to modify) does not make it OK for others to modify it against the user's wishes.
Ignore the dir, but use another one? And what will MS, A and G do next?
Non-standardisation as a way to make it harder for others to do something to your installation is... just not the way to go.
Others respecting the standards would be preferable. I shouldn't have to not pick up my phone until the third ring to make sure no telemarketers got through - telemarketers should stop calling.
Welll, since you might as well have said that a spork is a fork of a fork, a spork can't really be a fork of either a spoon or a fork. A fork is a fork of one thing; be it a fork or spoon - only one of them forked (code is nonsexually reproductive at it's core, which might explain a whole lot and lead to a lot of bad slashdot jokes if we're not careful). So the spork cannot have been created through a fork, neither from a fork or a spoon.
PS: I must have gotten something wrong there. Let the pedantry ensue!
I can't believe you couldn't tell that it was sarcastic.
Me neither, But then again, the original argument "who would fund the creation of new music if everyone shared it freely?" makes the exact same amount of sense. It is only detectable as non-sarcasm because of who is saying it, who they are suing, etc.
Not that I find the theory particularly convincing, but for the sake of argument...
If you did have a gizmo that disabled nuclear missiles, you wouldn't want to advertise that fact to anyone before you were ready and sure it worked, could be replicated, you had enough, etc. And if some missile fails somewhere, suspicion is going to fall on the big nations, leading to increasing spying (that might work, without labelling the thing USAF), international tension, what have you.
The main thing wrong with this theory is; why test it in secret? Why expose personnel who have not been cleared at the highest level to any part of the testing procedure. And testing whether you can stop fission, activation, guidance, or whatever in no way necessitates a test where some fraction of the personnel is not "in on it"...
Also, dismissing a discipline without empirical testing is holding it to a non-empirical yardstick - so such an argument does, apparently, accept the non-empirical as valid reasoning. If only we had a discipline that investigated the boundaries of such reasoning...
Yeah, I'm a philosopher (some would say pedant) :-)
...state religion of Atheism...
If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair colour.
Ford has no power over you? Interesting. How were you included in the decision-making process that allows their vehicles to travel above the legal speed limit, endagering you and your loved ones? How were you included in the decision on how many cars and how much public transportation is best for the environment, traffic safety and you daily life?
Does Google, Yahoo, et al call you with regards to what information they publish and how this affects you? Have they promised to delete all the emails you send to their account holders, or not to datamine it?
How exactly are you free from Apple and Microsofts changes to web standards - or have you never accesed a webpage that was influenced by IE-conforming standards?
With corporations *every time* I spend (or keep) a dollar, I am voting to support (or reject) the corporation and its policies. We the People have the power to make a corporation succeed or fail.
And you think the individual corporation matters? I am sorry, but whatever corporation succeeds, it will (have done so because it did) whatever was most profitable - and despite Smith's unchallenged (unanswered and ignored the challenges, more like it) Invisible Hand, that is not necessarily best for you or people in general.
And even if you were right, that you do indeed vote with every dollar in a meaningful way, this is 100% incompatible with the democracy you seem to want. Because if a dollar is a vote, some people have seem to have a lot more of those votes than others! We have a name for such systems, and it ain't democracy - sorry...
You're missing the point. The point is that this does not yet exist, but should. It is meant to be a replacement, not a claim that this is a currently existing possibility for the end user.
Furthermore, the existence of the software will lead to the adoption of the hardware, which is getting cheaper by the minute. Oh, and the software is mostly written. And it will do much, much more than social networking...
Precisely. The "free market" simply means "power to the citizen".
...And "power to every corporation, even to the degree that such corporations will hold much more influence than the combined citizenry, but still enjoy zero accountability".
As a consumer, I want IP to exist solely for selfish reasons. Do you not agree?
You should really read some Lessig (http://www.free-culture.cc/) - the most restrictive IP laws may not be the ones that bring about the best results.
To be fair, no debate in the history of the world has ever actually changed the truth of any matter.
Nothing in the history of the world has ever changed the truth in any matter!
But debate has frequently been key in bringing it out.
If, as you seem to point out, it is based on evidence and reasoning and not mere oratory. You are, of course, also spot on with regards to why they are refusing. This is a FUD-like campaign and cares not one whit for the truth.
So, no more sociable gaming sessions where a couple of people take their turn race/fight/whatever and other people watch.
Use your normal 3D glasses from the cinema, and change player POV by closing one eye or the other...
For some things (not including cut & paste from the get-go, say), they can get away with this tactic. But stonewalling in the face of an issue this big is likely to blow up in their faces.
I certainly hope so! And maybe we are really seeing a bit of corporate inertia, where Apple simply uses the propaganda tactic that has worked before (Stupendous Arrogance) without really thinking through how big this issue really is. Maybe they have been taking in a bit by their own 'can-do-no-wrong'-attitude...?
All they had to do was say 'oops, our bad, we messed up but here is a free case' and the problem would have been effectively solved, and they would have saved face.
Apple's success is predicated on an image that they can do no wrong, and that if they appear to have done wrong, you are a douchebag for not recognising that they are merely ahead of the curve.
They simply cannot acknowledge a blunder of this magnitude, any more than the pope can acknowledge that he is not infallible...
But when their employees do not like them, and cannot feed themselves off it, and are prevented from quitting by unconsciable contracts or force... it is slavery.
Actually if you bothered to do some research, you'd find that the conditions you use in your argument don't exist. The employees may be far from rich, but having a $3 / hr job in a 3rd world country provides food and shelter.
I would love to live in your world. When does the next shuttle leave?
Are you seriously saying that no one is going hungry or deprived of basic human needs and dignity, while working at consumer goods for the Western world? Seriously?
I'm sure the people who are now unemployed are real grateful that people like you decided you knew what was best for them and caused them to lose their jobs.
This is both stupid, arrogant and misguided. A straw man rolled up into an ad hominem, shrouded in a false dilemma.
No, it's not. It's economics and facts (you know, economics, the study people like you despise because it shatters your delusions about the world). Idiots spouting off the same crap as you cause wages to be artificially inflated and as a result, people lose their jobs. Read some economics textbooks and you might learn something.
It is a strawman because I never 'decided what was best' for anyone, and did not cause the problems you claim exist.
It is an ad hominem attack because you are trying to paint me as arrogant.
It is a false dilemma because you are bundling all solutions to the problem of underpaid labourers together as all failing.
It is arrogant because you you have no knowledge of what solutions I would point to, and hence no idea what effects they would cause.
It is misguided and stupid for all the above reasons.
My mistake. Where is this eternal well-spring of oil located exactly?
Or did you just invent the whole 'soon'-part of my position? I believe you did! If you are going to respond to my posts, please have the decency to also respond to what I am actually saying.
First, I never said oil was infinite, merely that we're not "running out of it soon". Second, if you learned to read, you'd see that you DID say that it will soon run out. Don't believe me? Go back and read your previous post. Not only are you spouting off fanatic BS as "fact", you then lie and say you never said that afterwards.
Right. Sorry about the 'soon' part. My position is and was that we will run out, and that our consumption is not going down in anything remotely close to a curve that will make this event anything less than catastrophic.
I did not mean 'soon' as in any hard prediction - like the fearmongering you referred to, does. I am sorry that I did not catch the understandable confusion between the two.
Again: the case was interesting, because it shows how the corporation will not act out of any real compassion or humanity, but will only _attempt to be seen as doing so_ when a camera appears out of the crowd.
Not only is that false, it proves your anti-corporation fanaticism. Your argument is that all corporations are evil because they are corporations. That's one of the most fallacious arguments imaginable.
That would be a circular argument, yes. But is is not the one I put forward. My argument is simple:
1) A corporation will do anything to make profit, if it does less than anything possible, it's shareholders will either change it's leadership, or abandon it for a corporation that is willing to do anything.
2) Willingness to do anything includes the willingness to ignore all other considerations.
3) A corporation has no considerations for "doing the decent thing", unless that _incidentally_ is part of a plan to make the most profit (typically for PR reasons).
You can either point of what is wrong wit
Just to be clear:
So, you think that because her husband died, she should be allowed to skip out on paying her bills?
No.
A bill specifically relating to service for him (such as his personal cell phone) should be (and legally is) voided because he's dead and not using the service anymore. However, since the bill she wanted (and got) waived had nothing to do with him, she should be required to pay it.
I agree completely.
Because whether I do business with Nike or not, they will use slave labour.
Just because you don't like the wages they pay, doesn't make it slave labor.
Of course not. But when their employees do not like them, and cannot feed themselves off it, and are prevented from quitting by unconsciable contracts or force... it is slavery.
...I'm sure the people who are now unemployed are real grateful that people like you decided you knew what was best for them and caused them to lose their jobs.
This is both stupid, arrogant and misguided. A straw man rolled up into an ad hominem, shrouded in a false dilemma. Read up on those and you can come back to apologise...
...the myth that we are "running out of oil soon" is FUD that's been spread since the late 1800's.
My mistake. Where is this eternal well-spring of oil located exactly?
Or did you just invent the whole 'soon'-part of my position? I believe you did! If you are going to respond to my posts, please have the decency to also respond to what I am actually saying.
...the case is only relevant as an example that corporations will only do 'the decent thing' when forced by public opinion.
No, it's an example of companies NOT doing the right thing and letting people skip out on their bills because emotional and irrational people like you scream "But something sad that's totally unrelated to her ability to pay her bills happened! She shouldn't have to pay her bills!" As I pointed out before, the only reason that Verizon caved is because he was a Marine and this fucked up society worships the military as infallible, so they don't want to risk getting labeled as anti-military.
Sigh. I never said she should not pay her bill. Never.
You have, again, misunderstood my position. Please try to read my posts more carefully - this is at least the third time this happens to you...
In fact, following the sentence you quoted, I said the exact same thing you are going on about here: that what Verizon did had nothing to do with being decent, but had to do with being perceived as decent.
You even quote it:
As you yourself pointed out, there is no particularly compelling moral reason this woman shoud be excempt from her contract - but Verizon cares naught for the actual moral issues, the troops, whatever; they have an obligation to their shareholders only to care about one thing!
Ok, see, now you're just not even making sense anymore. You acknowledge that there's no reason for them to let her off the hook, yet then demand that if it wasn't for those "evil shareholders" that they would let her off the hook.
No, I never said the latter part.
Really, your foaming at the mouth rage over people doing business with each other is way past being annoyed when companies do something bad (I'm with you on going after them when they do something bad) and has now passed into the inane ravings of a lunatic.
OK. I'd state it this way: Corporations doing something bad is not a lonely incidents, but a natural consequence of being what they are; only interested in profit.
Again: the case was interesting, because it shows how the corporation will not act out of any real compassion or humanity, but will only _attempt to be seen as doing so_ when a camera appears out of the crowd.
You say you want to 'go after them when they do something bad' - I am pointing out that it is in the inherent nature of a corporations to be 100% self-interested. And that such self-interest will of course hurt people (when there is no camera).
If you're that upset that sometimes when people interact they make choices of their own free will that you don't like, then I suggest building a hut in the wilderness where you'll never have to interact w