I see your reasoning as holding no value whatsoever.
Your examples of conditions are found in highly taxed societies on a regular basis. There's always someone willing to take a little less money to get out of a situation they find intolerable. There's also always a boss ready to tell their employees that they can find someone who will work for less money too. The tighter the job market, the more bosses threaten their employees. The more opportunity for the employees the less it happens. Job availability is the determining factor for the frequency of instances in both examples. Wages are unrelated to either, unless the wage is so low the employee goes elsewhere.
That you claim to see these common examples of working life as a justification for high taxes stretches my credulity to the breaking point. I believe you're either not serious, or if you are. that you have given no real thought to your position. Your logic is terrible.
I would have to say the coward part of the AC sobriquet is quite appropriate for you. You don't even have enough courage to state your convictions as yourself. How sad....
My stepdaughter went, and both currently and always will, go through the same emotional trauma your friend does because she too got a abortion. I don't see your friend, or my stepdaughter, as whores. They are people who made a mistake that has had major, life-changing consequences for them.
The sad truth is that we never stop paying for some of our mistakes. I've made some of those types of mistakes, and will always pay for those, as well as some mistakes that other people made which involved my life.
The point, no matter the choice but especially with abortion, is there will always be consequences. I look at my stepdaughter and can see where if she hadn't made both mistakes, getting pregnant and getting an abortion, but had only made the one mistake, getting pregnant, her life would have been much, much better over the last almost 20 years. Had she kept her child she would have never married the abusive jackass she married. She would have had enough self respect to tell him to get lost.
Abortion in case of a rape, or some other form of sexual abuse, can very much be a case of the lesser of two evils, depending on the individual involved. Some women, and their mate, might be able to handle carrying a baby conceived in a rape, other women and their mates wouldn't. In that case the abortion is obviously the lesser of the two evils.
But, an abortion just because a woman doesn't want to have a baby is another matter altogether. I know women who, under those circumstances, have made the choice to abort, and women who made the choice to keep the life, and I know which ones are the happier persons years later. Both groups went through really tough times, psychologically, but the ones who didn't have the abortion have something that THEY say makes all the makes all the pain, shame, and financial struggles they went through worth it: their child. They wouldn't change their choice for the world. The others almost always have sense of regret. They always wonder, what if? And that's a really bad way to have go through life. I live with regrets so I speak from experience.
Do I condemn a woman who has gotten an abortion? Nope. I can't. I've made too many mistakes in my life to condemn her for her mistake. But, I can, and do, acknowledge that there was a better moral choice available to her, and to me when I've screwed up.
Without condemning anyone, it's still possible, and the right thing to do, to acknowledge that some choices are the better moral options, and have better endings, in the vast majority of cases, than the other options that were available at the time the choice was made.
If we did eliminate that income tax as you suggest, I predict the first impact would be lower wages. People would be willing to work less since they get to keep more of it. After an adjustment period, most people would be right back where they were in terms of net income.
You're trolling right? People will stop putting forth effort because they get to keep more of what they put forth effort to get? It's a disincentive to keep what you earn?
So, tell me, truthfully, if I keep you working for 8 hours a day, but only let you keep the rewards from 4 hours of your work, this will be more of a motivation to put forth more effort than if I allow you keep the rewards of 7 out of the 8 hours you work? If I ask you to work an extra 4 hours which reward system would make you more willing to work the extra hours? The reward system that allows you to keep only 2 hours of rewards, or the system that allows you to keep 3.5 hours of rewards?
Under which scheme, the first or the second, would you put more money into the economy? Under which scheme would you have more disposable income, a greater chance of owning your own home, of buying a new car, of being debt-free, of being able to afford putting your kids through college?
A Pro-Lifer seeking to save unborn fetuses or a Pro-Choicer seeking to allow woman the freedom to make decisions regarding their own body?
Well, you tell me. Which is is more honorable? Being fully accountable for, and respecting the life you just started, or getting rid of a life you brought into being because respecting and honoring that life is inconvenient for you?
My idea for seating these devs? I haven't read all 150+ comments so don't know if anyone else has suggested it, but I think you ought to put them in chairs, rather than seating them directly on the floor.
I see, in your world one or the other, corporations or government, has the right to abuse people? How about neither?
To tell the truth I don't see how you made the leap to the idea that I support invasion of an individual's personal privacy by corporations, or by anyone/any_organization, for that matter.
Our constitution guarantees us the right to be secure in our persons and papers. And, I truly believe that if the founders of our constitution had understood what technology was to come they would have named this type of abuse of our freedoms specifically, as they specifically named the technologies/methods used in their day.
Oh, for Pete's sake. The progressives/liberals name call on this site on a daily basis. There's probably close to 50 posts a day denigrating Christians, Republicans, conservatives of any stripe, etc... and they aren't modded as trolls every time they appear, even though many of them are gratuitous examples of intolerance and hatred of opposing points of view. The double standard exhibited here is incredible, especially as it comes from the group of people who preach tolerance to the point that tolerance must equal acceptance of an opposing point of view. Bunch of damn hypocrites if you ask me.
Yes, I should have probably said, "the only politically-aware people who can't see the difference are socialists and communists. Why is it true? Because both groups see it as the governments responsibility to take the resources of one person and then give those resources to other people. Thus they are far less likely to see a conceptual difference between the government forcing a person to help their neighbor and a person volunteering to help their neighbor.
Well, the mantra of communism is "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." That's... pretty much exactly how open source works.
Well, except for that "small bit" of difference between enforced_by_the_government and given_voluntarily. It's sort of like the government telling you that you must build your neighbor's house, and you volunteering to help him out because he needs the help. Other than that, it's exactly the same....
IMHO, the only people who can't see the difference are communists and socialists.
do you mean force it to be deleted on the grounds that the data was obtained unethically? Because that would actually be an even creepier precedent.
The research should absolutely be deleted as it was done on subjects without their consent or knowledge. The precedent set by using that research would be the total violation of privacy, as it says its alright for government institutions to use deceit to get personal information.
That you see a problem with stopping this type of action on the part of the government says a lot about you. It says you think the government has the right to deceive you and abuse the agreements it makes with you.
I say you haven't given this subject any thought at all. If you have, then it says a lot about how you value your, and more importantly your neighbor's right to privacy. To me it's really scary that you would want to steal my privacy.
I don't think MS will ever die, but if they ever lose their grip on the desktop market, it won't have anything to do with linux (I'm typing this on FC-12 so I'm not a hater, just a realist). IMO it'll be increasing Apple market share in laptops (mostly young people) and secondly more and more people simply not caring what OS they are running as more stuff is done through the browser.
This is just anecdotal, but in the small town, but with 2 colleges and 2 universities within 30 miles, where I live I see more high school and college age kids running Linux installations on their laptops than I see Apple laptops. Probably at a 4 or 5 to 1 margin in favor of Linux. Go back in time 2 or 3 years and that most definitely wasn't the case. Three years ago I couldn't find a Linux laptop in the area other than my own. Now that's most definitely not the case.
There appears to have been a sea change around here as talking to kids about what excites them has them talking about Linux, not OS X or Windows. It seems they have teachers, dads, uncles, etc... introducing them to Linux and getting them excited about it. It's typical grass roots expansion.
I think what you're referring to, mistakenly in my opinion, is that many bands when they first come out, like BTO in '71 and '72, play a wide variety of music styles early on in their careers. When BTO became popular they dropped all but one style of music, and what had been very enjoyable albums and concerts with a wide variety of music styles, became boring as every song sounded alike.
Randy Bachman is a very skilled, very versatile, very creative, musician and he showed what he was capable of in BTO's first two albums. Their first album is a work of art. After those first two though, it seemed like he just wrote music for one section of their fan base. Yes, he still wrote some hits for their later albums, but if you go back and listen to BTO's first two albums you'll hear a much different composer at work. So, did he "sell out" by listening to the record companies and creating only what "they" thought would make the most money? It appears so to me.
I've seen many bands do the same thing over the decades. They start out very creatively and then after a while their music all starts to sound the same. To me that comes from the big record companies unwillingness to allow the bands to produce truly creative music. The record companies want to have a marketable "sound" that sells, and then just rinse and repeat in each successive release, as they don't care about the music. All the corporations care about is the money, and since they have the bands under contract they can specify what the bands release, and rather than have their contracts voided the bands release what the corporation wants. Ergo, you get a "formulaic" sound. That's what's viewed as "selling out" by the artists.
I don't know about you, but I can see why having two drinks, along with a burrito as big as your head, in your hands while you're attempting to drive would get you a ticket. The cops would pull you over for being a freak with three hands.
Yeah, no corporation has a duty to make sure they aren't supporting slave labor. So, give MS a pass. They couldn't have possibly known, as they wouldn't have actually looked. The profit was too attractive to look deeply.
Now MS can have their cake and eat it too: Oh, we didn't know anything like this existed as we didn't bother to look. We'll investigate this now that someone has investigated it and made it public.
And I guess your gut feeling loses out to their terabytes of data.
Nope. It doesn't. I consistently use Adblock anymore simply because the ads are annoying. If the ad exec's terabytes of data actually did overcome my gut feeling, I'd still be seeing ads, and I'm not. So, their terabytes of data lose with me every time.
Whether ad execs win with other people is of no concern to me. If they're crazy enough to watch all those annoying ads, so be it. I basically do the same with TV. Anything I want to watch I record on the DVR first and then ff through all the commercials.
If my wife is watching something I sit and pick the commercials apart by finding the logical fallacies they employ, or point out the incongruencies the ads expose in the product. I amuse myself with ads for prescription medicines by counting the number of fatal side effects the ad narrator lists. There's such a long list of serious side effects for most drugs that they have to digitally compress the voice overs to get the entire list mentioned in the time the ads run. Much of the time the drug's side effects are more serious than the condition it is supposed to cure.
Big deal. I'm in my mid-fifties and have yet to see a summer in the UK. Well, OK, I've never been there either, but I haven't been there for almost 20 years longer than you haven't been there....
Every party thinks this about themselves, and all of them are wrong.
This is absolutely false. The Tea Party is made up of those who have never spoken up before or been at a political demonstration: the average American who holds down a job, has kids and maybe grandkids, is fiscally conservative, judges people by what they do, not what they say or what they look like, and has a good sense of the history of this country. That is a perfect description of the "silent majority" since the days of Nixon.
If you're really so disgusted with my point of view, and think I'm so wrong, why not do the sensible thing and prove me wrong? You would think, if you're so sure you're right, that you would be rubbing your hands with glee in expectation of publicly proving me wrong and generating more support for Obama's agendas.
Modding posts like mine to oblivion only proves you're afraid of publicly discussing the issues and that you can't really support your ideas. Honest discussion is needed for those with opposing ideas to ever come to a common point of view. What are you so afraid of?
Really? Laughable? We've already had the first administration-mandated change of a business leadership position. GM was told that they would change CEO's, and it happened, simply because the administration didn't like GM's policies and the CEO at the time wasn't going to change them.
Once the government holds a majority of the stock they control the company. And as far as Obama care goes, well, the bill is written so that the government will have to take control of many parts of the health care industry. The predicted costs of the bill are estimated at an ~21% cut in existing medicare/medicaid payments, with no allowances for increases in funding for the next decade.
The current payment schedule is so bad that doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies are losing money on anything related to medicare/medicaid, and all three provider groups are not taking new medicare/medicaid patients. Some pharmacies are already refusing to fill prescription from medicare/medicaid patients. With the scheduled drop in payments the monetary loss on medicare/medicaid patients is going to be so great the providers simply will have to stop treating all medicare/medicaid patients to survive financially.
What happens then? All the promises made in Obama care will be shown to be false if Obama doesn't force the health care providers to treat the medicare/medicaid patients anyway. What's his next step then? There's no money to give increases, we're too far in debt now. We're also going to face a shortage of doctors, an estimated shortfall of 150,000 doctors. So, who's supposed to treat these 30 million people? It's for sure the existing structure can't handle that many more patients. What's the solution? Obama will use this expand the government's role even more. That's nationalization, a step at a time.
Tell me, would you accept a 20% cut in your paycheck without the hope of a raise for the next 10 years? What would you do if the government forced it on you? That's what Obama care is doing to the entire medical provider community.
Obama is a ardent Corporatist which you can see by his "Health Care" Bill, the bailouts and his undying advocacy for all RIAA, MPAA and Big Media causes (ACTA for one).
Wow. Are you misreading Obama. He gave out government money to get government control of, not support, business. That's what his Obama care is all about too. It's all about ultimately nationalizing all these industries and total government control of everything, including the citizens.
You don't believe me, take a look at his long-term associates, his closest advisors, his mentors when he was young, all of his family, etc.... They all taught him Marxism/Socialism, or ran in the same Marxist/Socialist circles he did, and he became dedicated to turning the US into a Marxist/Socialist state.
So, MS has no duty whatsoever to notify people that they know have compromised machines? Sorry, but that's pure horseshit and symptomatic of everything that's wrong with our society.
The principle behind it is no different than a neighbor watching someone back a truck up to your back door and load up all your furniture, appliances, safes, etc..., drive away with everything you own, and never say a word to you about it or call the cops. Does your neighbor have a moral duty to call both you and the cops? Yes. We all have a moral duty to protect each other.
MS has the same moral duty to those who buy their products when MS discovers their machines are compromised. MS shouldn't be snooping, but if they discover this type of problem during normal operations, like installing updates, then they most certainly have a moral obligation to help those people.
If you can't understand, or disagree with, the above concepts, I certainly wouldn't want you for a neighbor or acquaintance, or be part of the same workplace with you, and most certainly would never call you friend, as you are not trustworthy.
As to you, personally, not having a root kitted computer, well, your comments just show you have no empathy as you can't identify with someone else's problem nor visualize what you would want someone to do for you if you were in the victim's shoes. That pretty much explains your lack of understanding with regard to moral obligations.
Slashdot Mirror
I see your reasoning as holding no value whatsoever.
Your examples of conditions are found in highly taxed societies on a regular basis. There's always someone willing to take a little less money to get out of a situation they find intolerable. There's also always a boss ready to tell their employees that they can find someone who will work for less money too. The tighter the job market, the more bosses threaten their employees. The more opportunity for the employees the less it happens. Job availability is the determining factor for the frequency of instances in both examples. Wages are unrelated to either, unless the wage is so low the employee goes elsewhere.
That you claim to see these common examples of working life as a justification for high taxes stretches my credulity to the breaking point. I believe you're either not serious, or if you are. that you have given no real thought to your position. Your logic is terrible.
I would have to say the coward part of the AC sobriquet is quite appropriate for you. You don't even have enough courage to state your convictions as yourself. How sad....
My stepdaughter went, and both currently and always will, go through the same emotional trauma your friend does because she too got a abortion. I don't see your friend, or my stepdaughter, as whores. They are people who made a mistake that has had major, life-changing consequences for them.
The sad truth is that we never stop paying for some of our mistakes. I've made some of those types of mistakes, and will always pay for those, as well as some mistakes that other people made which involved my life.
The point, no matter the choice but especially with abortion, is there will always be consequences. I look at my stepdaughter and can see where if she hadn't made both mistakes, getting pregnant and getting an abortion, but had only made the one mistake, getting pregnant, her life would have been much, much better over the last almost 20 years. Had she kept her child she would have never married the abusive jackass she married. She would have had enough self respect to tell him to get lost.
Abortion in case of a rape, or some other form of sexual abuse, can very much be a case of the lesser of two evils, depending on the individual involved. Some women, and their mate, might be able to handle carrying a baby conceived in a rape, other women and their mates wouldn't. In that case the abortion is obviously the lesser of the two evils.
But, an abortion just because a woman doesn't want to have a baby is another matter altogether. I know women who, under those circumstances, have made the choice to abort, and women who made the choice to keep the life, and I know which ones are the happier persons years later. Both groups went through really tough times, psychologically, but the ones who didn't have the abortion have something that THEY say makes all the makes all the pain, shame, and financial struggles they went through worth it: their child. They wouldn't change their choice for the world. The others almost always have sense of regret. They always wonder, what if? And that's a really bad way to have go through life. I live with regrets so I speak from experience.
Do I condemn a woman who has gotten an abortion? Nope. I can't. I've made too many mistakes in my life to condemn her for her mistake. But, I can, and do, acknowledge that there was a better moral choice available to her, and to me when I've screwed up.
Without condemning anyone, it's still possible, and the right thing to do, to acknowledge that some choices are the better moral options, and have better endings, in the vast majority of cases, than the other options that were available at the time the choice was made.
If we did eliminate that income tax as you suggest, I predict the first impact would be lower wages. People would be willing to work less since they get to keep more of it. After an adjustment period, most people would be right back where they were in terms of net income.
You're trolling right? People will stop putting forth effort because they get to keep more of what they put forth effort to get? It's a disincentive to keep what you earn?
So, tell me, truthfully, if I keep you working for 8 hours a day, but only let you keep the rewards from 4 hours of your work, this will be more of a motivation to put forth more effort than if I allow you keep the rewards of 7 out of the 8 hours you work? If I ask you to work an extra 4 hours which reward system would make you more willing to work the extra hours? The reward system that allows you to keep only 2 hours of rewards, or the system that allows you to keep 3.5 hours of rewards?
Under which scheme, the first or the second, would you put more money into the economy? Under which scheme would you have more disposable income, a greater chance of owning your own home, of buying a new car, of being debt-free, of being able to afford putting your kids through college?
A Pro-Lifer seeking to save unborn fetuses or a Pro-Choicer seeking to allow woman the freedom to make decisions regarding their own body?
Well, you tell me. Which is is more honorable? Being fully accountable for, and respecting the life you just started, or getting rid of a life you brought into being because respecting and honoring that life is inconvenient for you?
My idea for seating these devs? I haven't read all 150+ comments so don't know if anyone else has suggested it, but I think you ought to put them in chairs, rather than seating them directly on the floor.
I see, in your world one or the other, corporations or government, has the right to abuse people? How about neither?
To tell the truth I don't see how you made the leap to the idea that I support invasion of an individual's personal privacy by corporations, or by anyone/any_organization, for that matter.
Our constitution guarantees us the right to be secure in our persons and papers. And, I truly believe that if the founders of our constitution had understood what technology was to come they would have named this type of abuse of our freedoms specifically, as they specifically named the technologies/methods used in their day.
Oh, for Pete's sake. The progressives/liberals name call on this site on a daily basis. There's probably close to 50 posts a day denigrating Christians, Republicans, conservatives of any stripe, etc... and they aren't modded as trolls every time they appear, even though many of them are gratuitous examples of intolerance and hatred of opposing points of view. The double standard exhibited here is incredible, especially as it comes from the group of people who preach tolerance to the point that tolerance must equal acceptance of an opposing point of view. Bunch of damn hypocrites if you ask me.
Yes, I should have probably said, "the only politically-aware people who can't see the difference are socialists and communists. Why is it true? Because both groups see it as the governments responsibility to take the resources of one person and then give those resources to other people. Thus they are far less likely to see a conceptual difference between the government forcing a person to help their neighbor and a person volunteering to help their neighbor.
Well, the mantra of communism is "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." That's... pretty much exactly how open source works.
Well, except for that "small bit" of difference between enforced_by_the_government and given_voluntarily. It's sort of like the government telling you that you must build your neighbor's house, and you volunteering to help him out because he needs the help. Other than that, it's exactly the same....
IMHO, the only people who can't see the difference are communists and socialists.
Mod this man up. He gets it.
do you mean force it to be deleted on the grounds that the data was obtained unethically? Because that would actually be an even creepier precedent.
The research should absolutely be deleted as it was done on subjects without their consent or knowledge. The precedent set by using that research would be the total violation of privacy, as it says its alright for government institutions to use deceit to get personal information.
That you see a problem with stopping this type of action on the part of the government says a lot about you. It says you think the government has the right to deceive you and abuse the agreements it makes with you.
I say you haven't given this subject any thought at all. If you have, then it says a lot about how you value your, and more importantly your neighbor's right to privacy. To me it's really scary that you would want to steal my privacy.
I don't think MS will ever die, but if they ever lose their grip on the desktop market, it won't have anything to do with linux (I'm typing this on FC-12 so I'm not a hater, just a realist). IMO it'll be increasing Apple market share in laptops (mostly young people) and secondly more and more people simply not caring what OS they are running as more stuff is done through the browser.
This is just anecdotal, but in the small town, but with 2 colleges and 2 universities within 30 miles, where I live I see more high school and college age kids running Linux installations on their laptops than I see Apple laptops. Probably at a 4 or 5 to 1 margin in favor of Linux. Go back in time 2 or 3 years and that most definitely wasn't the case. Three years ago I couldn't find a Linux laptop in the area other than my own. Now that's most definitely not the case.
There appears to have been a sea change around here as talking to kids about what excites them has them talking about Linux, not OS X or Windows. It seems they have teachers, dads, uncles, etc... introducing them to Linux and getting them excited about it. It's typical grass roots expansion.
I think what you're referring to, mistakenly in my opinion, is that many bands when they first come out, like BTO in '71 and '72, play a wide variety of music styles early on in their careers. When BTO became popular they dropped all but one style of music, and what had been very enjoyable albums and concerts with a wide variety of music styles, became boring as every song sounded alike.
Randy Bachman is a very skilled, very versatile, very creative, musician and he showed what he was capable of in BTO's first two albums. Their first album is a work of art. After those first two though, it seemed like he just wrote music for one section of their fan base. Yes, he still wrote some hits for their later albums, but if you go back and listen to BTO's first two albums you'll hear a much different composer at work. So, did he "sell out" by listening to the record companies and creating only what "they" thought would make the most money? It appears so to me.
I've seen many bands do the same thing over the decades. They start out very creatively and then after a while their music all starts to sound the same. To me that comes from the big record companies unwillingness to allow the bands to produce truly creative music. The record companies want to have a marketable "sound" that sells, and then just rinse and repeat in each successive release, as they don't care about the music. All the corporations care about is the money, and since they have the bands under contract they can specify what the bands release, and rather than have their contracts voided the bands release what the corporation wants. Ergo, you get a "formulaic" sound. That's what's viewed as "selling out" by the artists.
I don't know about you, but I can see why having two drinks, along with a burrito as big as your head, in your hands while you're attempting to drive would get you a ticket. The cops would pull you over for being a freak with three hands.
Yeah, and 2 pints contain 33% more alcohol than 2 12 ounce beers, as a pint is 16 fluid ounces.
LOL. Yeah, I like ambiguous humor that can be taken on at least a couple of levels.
Say what? And here I thought "summer in the UK" was the joke.... ;)
Yeah, no corporation has a duty to make sure they aren't supporting slave labor. So, give MS a pass. They couldn't have possibly known, as they wouldn't have actually looked. The profit was too attractive to look deeply.
Now MS can have their cake and eat it too: Oh, we didn't know anything like this existed as we didn't bother to look. We'll investigate this now that someone has investigated it and made it public.
More self-serving bs from MS.
And I guess your gut feeling loses out to their terabytes of data.
Nope. It doesn't. I consistently use Adblock anymore simply because the ads are annoying. If the ad exec's terabytes of data actually did overcome my gut feeling, I'd still be seeing ads, and I'm not. So, their terabytes of data lose with me every time.
Whether ad execs win with other people is of no concern to me. If they're crazy enough to watch all those annoying ads, so be it. I basically do the same with TV. Anything I want to watch I record on the DVR first and then ff through all the commercials.
If my wife is watching something I sit and pick the commercials apart by finding the logical fallacies they employ, or point out the incongruencies the ads expose in the product. I amuse myself with ads for prescription medicines by counting the number of fatal side effects the ad narrator lists. There's such a long list of serious side effects for most drugs that they have to digitally compress the voice overs to get the entire list mentioned in the time the ads run. Much of the time the drug's side effects are more serious than the condition it is supposed to cure.
Big deal. I'm in my mid-fifties and have yet to see a summer in the UK. Well, OK, I've never been there either, but I haven't been there for almost 20 years longer than you haven't been there....
Every party thinks this about themselves, and all of them are wrong.
This is absolutely false. The Tea Party is made up of those who have never spoken up before or been at a political demonstration: the average American who holds down a job, has kids and maybe grandkids, is fiscally conservative, judges people by what they do, not what they say or what they look like, and has a good sense of the history of this country. That is a perfect description of the "silent majority" since the days of Nixon.
To the mods who claim this post was flamebait....
If you're really so disgusted with my point of view, and think I'm so wrong, why not do the sensible thing and prove me wrong? You would think, if you're so sure you're right, that you would be rubbing your hands with glee in expectation of publicly proving me wrong and generating more support for Obama's agendas.
Modding posts like mine to oblivion only proves you're afraid of publicly discussing the issues and that you can't really support your ideas. Honest discussion is needed for those with opposing ideas to ever come to a common point of view. What are you so afraid of?
Really? Laughable? We've already had the first administration-mandated change of a business leadership position. GM was told that they would change CEO's, and it happened, simply because the administration didn't like GM's policies and the CEO at the time wasn't going to change them.
Once the government holds a majority of the stock they control the company. And as far as Obama care goes, well, the bill is written so that the government will have to take control of many parts of the health care industry. The predicted costs of the bill are estimated at an ~21% cut in existing medicare/medicaid payments, with no allowances for increases in funding for the next decade.
The current payment schedule is so bad that doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies are losing money on anything related to medicare/medicaid, and all three provider groups are not taking new medicare/medicaid patients. Some pharmacies are already refusing to fill prescription from medicare/medicaid patients. With the scheduled drop in payments the monetary loss on medicare/medicaid patients is going to be so great the providers simply will have to stop treating all medicare/medicaid patients to survive financially.
What happens then? All the promises made in Obama care will be shown to be false if Obama doesn't force the health care providers to treat the medicare/medicaid patients anyway. What's his next step then? There's no money to give increases, we're too far in debt now. We're also going to face a shortage of doctors, an estimated shortfall of 150,000 doctors. So, who's supposed to treat these 30 million people? It's for sure the existing structure can't handle that many more patients. What's the solution? Obama will use this expand the government's role even more. That's nationalization, a step at a time.
Tell me, would you accept a 20% cut in your paycheck without the hope of a raise for the next 10 years? What would you do if the government forced it on you? That's what Obama care is doing to the entire medical provider community.
Obama is a ardent Corporatist which you can see by his "Health Care" Bill, the bailouts and his undying advocacy for all RIAA, MPAA and Big Media causes (ACTA for one).
Wow. Are you misreading Obama. He gave out government money to get government control of, not support, business. That's what his Obama care is all about too. It's all about ultimately nationalizing all these industries and total government control of everything, including the citizens.
You don't believe me, take a look at his long-term associates, his closest advisors, his mentors when he was young, all of his family, etc.... They all taught him Marxism/Socialism, or ran in the same Marxist/Socialist circles he did, and he became dedicated to turning the US into a Marxist/Socialist state.
So, MS has no duty whatsoever to notify people that they know have compromised machines? Sorry, but that's pure horseshit and symptomatic of everything that's wrong with our society.
The principle behind it is no different than a neighbor watching someone back a truck up to your back door and load up all your furniture, appliances, safes, etc..., drive away with everything you own, and never say a word to you about it or call the cops. Does your neighbor have a moral duty to call both you and the cops? Yes. We all have a moral duty to protect each other.
MS has the same moral duty to those who buy their products when MS discovers their machines are compromised. MS shouldn't be snooping, but if they discover this type of problem during normal operations, like installing updates, then they most certainly have a moral obligation to help those people.
If you can't understand, or disagree with, the above concepts, I certainly wouldn't want you for a neighbor or acquaintance, or be part of the same workplace with you, and most certainly would never call you friend, as you are not trustworthy.
As to you, personally, not having a root kitted computer, well, your comments just show you have no empathy as you can't identify with someone else's problem nor visualize what you would want someone to do for you if you were in the victim's shoes. That pretty much explains your lack of understanding with regard to moral obligations.