Your number 3 assumes that those apps are actually meaningful to the user (I'd bet they aren't nearly as meaningful as the quantity available on Windows)
Your number 4 is true...only because of the slower adoption rate of Linux.
Keep in mind I'm not saying Linux is bad... I'm saying XP isn't "as bad" as Linux fans would want people to believe. The more people you have using an operating system, the more applications and the more devices... the greater the likely hood of having exactly the kinds of problems Windows has.
Granted it's likely Windows has some "baggage" that needs cleaned out of the OS... but be careful what you wish for... clearing out baggage might mean such an overhaul that users are essentially forced to start from square one...
I'm a power user and I never plan on switching to Linux. It boggles my mind that I can see these blanket "you will save much time in the long run..." exactly how? Are you adding up the seconds that the OS will boot faster (mainly because there are less apps available to install and run, and devices, so it may have less to load) or something else? Exactly how does Linux save me time that has any real meaning?
As for Vista, I'm with the vast majority in that MS screwed the pooch badly, but in reality IF you make the switch it's overall a very good OS. The networking subsystem is much better, 3D performance is, ultimately, better if you are running Vista 64 as well as it being the only viable 64bit Windows platform... It's also considerably more forgiving to problem applications than XP. But XP is certainly viable as well and is a lighter snappier OS than Vista.
Now if it was 15 years ago and we were starting this all over again all of this might be a different story but people need to remember that Linux with a decent GUI has had a lot less history than Windows. Windows has carried the baggage of having to support a vastly larger user and application/device base than Linux. That monumental task is far beyond the capabilities of the Linux community even today, I'd suggest, simply because it has a smaller support base. But like I said, if this was 15 years ago and Linux was developed to be more of a consumer OS things might be different, but that's not the case.
Comments about Linux being better because it's faster, lighter, "better designed" or whatever have to be taken with the understanding that it's developers have had much smaller project to tackle than the Windows teams.
So they returned it because they expected Windows but got Linux and not because it was difficult to learn for them? I think not, read the interview.
Oh, they should blame the install, which was poor? Exactly how?
Oh, power users are the cause...the ones that probably have hacked copies of Windows waiting around to install over Linux (as you say, that's what they wanted...)
I think you are simply trying to divert the fact that Linux is not some kind of magical operating system that every user should embrace as the panacea to Windows. That's not the case and everyone knows it.
Right now the ONLY logical reasons to move to a Linux based PC is 1) cost and 2) boot time when run in minimalist mode. Otherwise an XP machine is far better for the availability of apps and consistency of experience.
It's just not going to happen. We like to think that "everyone" is capable of understanding what is going on when they browse the web, but that's wishful thinking.
It will be a LONG time until you can ever hope that the general public is as smart as the malicious few out there. Until then technology solutions will continue to be needed, desired and our best bet in combating this. Hell, they always will.
There's a reason why you never saw the things IceDiver decribed, it's because it's either 1) he's creating his own reality or 2) he doesn't know how to work with Windows.
I run Vista Ultimate at home and it's run pretty much flawlessly. Certainly there are changes that you need to learn, and there have been bugs (there's bugs in ALL software, Linux included) that need fixed, that's what service packs are for.
People need to understand the difference between fact and self serving fiction. Vista may not have been everything it was hyped to be, but with service pack one it's certainly a usable OS. There are things I dislike as well things that are poorly designed, that's the nature of the beast.
In other words you didn't want to pay for XP so you moved to Linux. It has nothing to do with it's activation requirement (other than that it stopped you from using stolen software.)
Now if you were to admit it was the fact that you didn't want to pay the price for Windows and felt that the loss of ability to play virtually any of the popular games out there, or run many applications, was ok with you, then I'd say more power to you.
Linux is NOT a better consumer operating system than Windows and anyone who says it is is fooling themselves.
Fonts are not designed in pixel measurements and are not what designers expect to be exactly positioned. They flow and designs will take that into account. All other elements, including images which may contain text, are rendered exact. That is all part of layout.
As for wishing designers would stop dictating look and feel to end users... huh? That is exactly what they do and should do. IF the design is intended to be flexible in layout, ie the user has the option to widen the browser so that the page content will widen as well, then they need to design page elements for that situation. And the look of the page should retain it's "exact" layout relative to the intended movement of page elements on a resize.
For example a designer may state that this or that column can widen and flow, and that this element is left justified, 10 pixels from the left border, etc.
I think we all understand this. The argument here is simple, conformance to the standard should be uniform across browsers. If the standard is weak it should be strengthened, if the browser implimentation is inaccurate it should be fixed. Designers should be able to design to the standard and not the browser. It's the browser folks who are making life miserable for web designers and developers not the other way around.
I'm pretty sure. No one wants to hear they are poor designers, they try hard. I can't imagine not wanting to do well.
Remember this thread is about Lucas, they/he have the money and have spent it. The question is whether they have the right team. Being "truely good" at game design, top to bottom, is rare, hence so many mediocre games. Not because they want them to be mediocre but rather because that's all they are capable of.
During game development there probably comes a time when someone realizes the game isn't as good as it was intended to be and that's when you have to decide whether to keep trying to fix it (with the fear you can't) or release it as good as you can. Pretty much a matter of economics at that point, but it's not how it starts out.
Good designers most certainly do build to convey information effectively. If they don't then they are bad designers. Remember, a good design will both convey information as well as conveying the company's brand and "visual ID" which is also a method of brand association. It's very important and it's an element of deisgn, not web site building.
As for the standards I'm somewhat suprised at your statement that it's not designed to allow for rendering pages identically. The standard is not written around browsers (which is what you imply if you understand the logic of your statement), it's written as THE standard. While it may allow for flexibility in certain situations it also provides design specific features and tools, such as table widths, border sizes, font sizes, typefaces, stylesheets and the like, all of which are designed to allow the "designer" to build a site that "should" display the way intended, when the standard is followed.
That has always been a goal of improving HTML design capabilities into the standard, whether you want to believe it or not. If that wasn't the case the standard would simply be written to provide for the placement of image blocks and be done.
Thankfully most good design houses have both designers and web developers that understand these things. They also know how to work around the improper implementations in browsers that cause rendering to fail to be true to the standard or the designers intended design.
Remember you as a web developer don't dictate look and feel (even though many developers wish they could design). A web developer's job is to impliment the designers "design" into a website and make it 1) work and 2) be true to the design.
However, as a web developer you also know that you can dictate to the designer certain limits so that the designer can develop to a rigid design. You can enforce the exact pixel width of the display area, you can enforce font use and font size, you can enforce margins. My point is that as long as you do so within the features available in the target standard you should, assuming a proper implementation of the standard end up with a "pixel perfect" (not my phrase but I'll use it anyway) rendition of the original design.
Let's not confuse the issue with the user missing fonts, increasing text size, or running at a different dpi than expected. Those things are not in the control of the standard or designer.
This is all about whether or not the renderer properly implements the standard and if it does it should look the same on Firefox, IE or Chrome.
I never used the words "pixel level-accurate" you did. And all you are trying to do is make that case that bad rendering, which "differs from the intent of the designer" is ok.
Also, I said "Designer" not "Print" or "Magazine", designer, period. IF you are involved in any way in the design, oops I said the D word, of websites, or anything that requires, yes, design, you'd know what it means.
Most web "coders" or "programmers" or even "builders" if you will, will produce their pages with inherent capabilities to adapt to some variety of HTML version support. However that is not the same as what the designer intended, NOR is it the same as a rendering engine improperly displaying content.
Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Oh, and more advanced HTML with CSS and other "design" features are absolutely intended to allow for rigid design implementations. However how capable is an issue that web designers, in this case, have to take into account when they design so that their design is... interpreted rigidly. If they design for some engine that they know does not conform to a standard but has some special nifty rendering capabilities then they will expect it to display improperly. But that's not what is at issue here.
Comparing the capabilities of the different rendering engines with the INTENT of the content designer is, to use your words, utterly stupid.
DESIGNERS build pages to look ONE way, not "oh I want it to look like this on Firefox, and this on IE, oh oh and this on Chrome!" That's not how it works. Speak to a designer and you'll see.
So, the fact is, in an ideal world rendering engines will ALL do it right, which is to say the SAME and according to the STANDARDS which if are bad get CHANGED to render properly.
That is how it works and how it should work. The fact that it doesn't IS a problem and needs corrected, and it's improving all the time because developers don't think like you do... that this is some kind of "my way or the highway" kind of thing.
"You know that the standards allow me to render things in slightly different ways, don't you? It's one of the most abused principles behind HTML. if you need pixel perfect rendering web designers like me aren't the right targets. I don't design for that."
Microsoft's problem is pretty simple, hubris. It's illustrated quite well when you look at the kind of management practices taken by Ballmer and to a lesser extent Gates.
Microsoft has been so enamored of their own success that they believe that they cannot go wrong, simply because of who they are. They are also more than willing to pursue business with the kinds of principles and ethics that you'd expect from a used car salesperson. They really don't care what the customer experience is, they care about making money and believe that no matter what they do, they will succeed regardless.
Well to some extent that's true, or was true in the past, as mass and momentum are real. However it's also very clear that eventually momentum decreases and customer loyalty is a fickle thing. MS is already seeing the fruits of their poor judgement. Apple is selling more Mac's than ever, and I'd argue that Vista has played a big part in that success. I for one don't own an Xbox 360, I own a PS3. I probably won't ever buy a 360.
I'm sure Microsoft will recover, but to what extent remains to be seen. But unless they change their principles and work toward attracting the kind of loyalty through quality and connecting with your customers that Apple has enjoyed they will continue to see, if nothing else, a customer base that will be willing to jump ship at the first opportunity.
It's a barrier if it's considered very difficult to break. It's used all the time in this kind of context. But you'd know that if you weren't just grasping for something to say that you could attach an insult to.
A "mark" implies nothing to do with difficulty, it's just a level, or stage, or, well, a mark.
Nice argument but a rule is a rule. If you are going to commit fraud in order to get your way, and possibly create an uneven playing field while doing so, then you should suffer the penalty, period.
There's nothing meaningless about this argument. Having kids compete at an Olympic level before they've even had a chance to properly form emotionally is certainly not a good thing.
If you want to participate you participate under the same rules as everyone else and the message that needs to be made clear is that committing fraud to do so is not going to be tolerated.
Has nothing to do with beliefs or western "mores". If they want it changed they can make a proposal and have it approved or not, end of story.
How do you figure it's essentially zero cost to ship? Ever see those store shelves with copies of Microsoft and other products? See the trucks that ship them?
Any why in the hell should they sell Vista for free (other than that's about all it's been worth, functionally)? This isn't a charity and the Linux providers have nothing close to the type of infrastructure that surrounds Windows and products that run on it. You may be a Linux fan (or not) but it's clearly not the consumer OS of choice nor will it be for the forseeable future. So you cannot compare it with Windows or Office from the perspective of cost to develop, deliver and support.
How about driver makers start producing open source drivers when the PC vendors start releasing the full design documents and specifications for all of their hardware? Yeah I don't think so either.
As far as I'm concerned lowering the yellow time in order to increase revenue should be grounds for criminal proceedings against those that made those decisions. It boils down to knowingly increasing public risk for money. It should be delt with as any other activity that negligently puts the public at risk is.
It's time to hold the watchers accountable like the watched.
CoS or not CoS, besides the point.
Whoever did this needs to be strung up by their privates and then flayed alive. This type of behavior cannot be tolerated. This isn't griefing, this is akin to assault and even attempted murder (if someone was to fall, hit their head and die, it would be murder).
It's time people wise up and start behaving like civilized adults. If you know who did this it's time to turn them in to pay for their actions.
Capturing another persons fingerprint and then distributing it to the general public ostensibly for "faking" the identity of that individual... sure seems like grounds for criminal action to me.
First off you are naive.
Secondly I think everyone but you knows what the real deal is with Verizon and their trade practices. Wordplay won't change that one bit.
And what does nationalizing the phone companies have to do with it? Or is that simply an attempt to make your point by implying some kind of political position on your opponents?
Oh, and YES they should be made to pay for their sins. Far as I'm concerned they should be fined out the waazoo for some of their practices.
As for price freezing, not a bad idea! Maybe we should start talking about the oil companies. Oh, but they aren't doing anything wrong either, are they. After all, the price increases there are simply due to demand right? I mean the prices raise but profits don't... err wait... profits are up astronomically... hmm wonder if there's a correlation here.
Again, a non response. It's like saying if you don't like gas prices stop driving (ignoring the results of such an action).
Stop trying to put the blame for corporate greed on the consumer who is subjected to it. Have some guts and point to the real culprit, the greedy immoral corporations who take advantage of it and do so in such a way as to hide their purposefully misleading marketing practices.
Slashdot Mirror
Your number 3 assumes that those apps are actually meaningful to the user (I'd bet they aren't nearly as meaningful as the quantity available on Windows)
Your number 4 is true...only because of the slower adoption rate of Linux.
Keep in mind I'm not saying Linux is bad... I'm saying XP isn't "as bad" as Linux fans would want people to believe. The more people you have using an operating system, the more applications and the more devices... the greater the likely hood of having exactly the kinds of problems Windows has.
Granted it's likely Windows has some "baggage" that needs cleaned out of the OS... but be careful what you wish for... clearing out baggage might mean such an overhaul that users are essentially forced to start from square one...
No it won't.
I'm a power user and I never plan on switching to Linux. It boggles my mind that I can see these blanket "you will save much time in the long run..." exactly how? Are you adding up the seconds that the OS will boot faster (mainly because there are less apps available to install and run, and devices, so it may have less to load) or something else? Exactly how does Linux save me time that has any real meaning?
As for Vista, I'm with the vast majority in that MS screwed the pooch badly, but in reality IF you make the switch it's overall a very good OS. The networking subsystem is much better, 3D performance is, ultimately, better if you are running Vista 64 as well as it being the only viable 64bit Windows platform... It's also considerably more forgiving to problem applications than XP. But XP is certainly viable as well and is a lighter snappier OS than Vista.
Now if it was 15 years ago and we were starting this all over again all of this might be a different story but people need to remember that Linux with a decent GUI has had a lot less history than Windows. Windows has carried the baggage of having to support a vastly larger user and application/device base than Linux. That monumental task is far beyond the capabilities of the Linux community even today, I'd suggest, simply because it has a smaller support base. But like I said, if this was 15 years ago and Linux was developed to be more of a consumer OS things might be different, but that's not the case.
Comments about Linux being better because it's faster, lighter, "better designed" or whatever have to be taken with the understanding that it's developers have had much smaller project to tackle than the Windows teams.
So they returned it because they expected Windows but got Linux and not because it was difficult to learn for them? I think not, read the interview.
Oh, they should blame the install, which was poor? Exactly how?
Oh, power users are the cause...the ones that probably have hacked copies of Windows waiting around to install over Linux (as you say, that's what they wanted...)
I think you are simply trying to divert the fact that Linux is not some kind of magical operating system that every user should embrace as the panacea to Windows. That's not the case and everyone knows it.
Right now the ONLY logical reasons to move to a Linux based PC is 1) cost and 2) boot time when run in minimalist mode. Otherwise an XP machine is far better for the availability of apps and consistency of experience.
It's just not going to happen. We like to think that "everyone" is capable of understanding what is going on when they browse the web, but that's wishful thinking.
It will be a LONG time until you can ever hope that the general public is as smart as the malicious few out there. Until then technology solutions will continue to be needed, desired and our best bet in combating this. Hell, they always will.
There's a reason why you never saw the things IceDiver decribed, it's because it's either 1) he's creating his own reality or 2) he doesn't know how to work with Windows.
I run Vista Ultimate at home and it's run pretty much flawlessly. Certainly there are changes that you need to learn, and there have been bugs (there's bugs in ALL software, Linux included) that need fixed, that's what service packs are for.
People need to understand the difference between fact and self serving fiction. Vista may not have been everything it was hyped to be, but with service pack one it's certainly a usable OS. There are things I dislike as well things that are poorly designed, that's the nature of the beast.
In other words you didn't want to pay for XP so you moved to Linux. It has nothing to do with it's activation requirement (other than that it stopped you from using stolen software.)
Now if you were to admit it was the fact that you didn't want to pay the price for Windows and felt that the loss of ability to play virtually any of the popular games out there, or run many applications, was ok with you, then I'd say more power to you.
Linux is NOT a better consumer operating system than Windows and anyone who says it is is fooling themselves.
Fonts are not designed in pixel measurements and are not what designers expect to be exactly positioned. They flow and designs will take that into account. All other elements, including images which may contain text, are rendered exact. That is all part of layout.
As for wishing designers would stop dictating look and feel to end users... huh? That is exactly what they do and should do. IF the design is intended to be flexible in layout, ie the user has the option to widen the browser so that the page content will widen as well, then they need to design page elements for that situation. And the look of the page should retain it's "exact" layout relative to the intended movement of page elements on a resize.
For example a designer may state that this or that column can widen and flow, and that this element is left justified, 10 pixels from the left border, etc.
I think we all understand this. The argument here is simple, conformance to the standard should be uniform across browsers. If the standard is weak it should be strengthened, if the browser implimentation is inaccurate it should be fixed. Designers should be able to design to the standard and not the browser. It's the browser folks who are making life miserable for web designers and developers not the other way around.
I'm pretty sure. No one wants to hear they are poor designers, they try hard. I can't imagine not wanting to do well.
Remember this thread is about Lucas, they/he have the money and have spent it. The question is whether they have the right team. Being "truely good" at game design, top to bottom, is rare, hence so many mediocre games. Not because they want them to be mediocre but rather because that's all they are capable of.
During game development there probably comes a time when someone realizes the game isn't as good as it was intended to be and that's when you have to decide whether to keep trying to fix it (with the fear you can't) or release it as good as you can. Pretty much a matter of economics at that point, but it's not how it starts out.
Do you really think that they sit in some board room and say "let's not worry about quality, just add a bunch of Star Wars filler, it will sell"?
Of course they want great gameplay. They want a great game. No developer doesn't and it's absurd to assume they do. Especially houses like Lucas Arts.
Sometimes they just don't get it right. It happens all the time. It's not some kind of conspiracy.
Good designers most certainly do build to convey information effectively. If they don't then they are bad designers. Remember, a good design will both convey information as well as conveying the company's brand and "visual ID" which is also a method of brand association. It's very important and it's an element of deisgn, not web site building.
As for the standards I'm somewhat suprised at your statement that it's not designed to allow for rendering pages identically. The standard is not written around browsers (which is what you imply if you understand the logic of your statement), it's written as THE standard. While it may allow for flexibility in certain situations it also provides design specific features and tools, such as table widths, border sizes, font sizes, typefaces, stylesheets and the like, all of which are designed to allow the "designer" to build a site that "should" display the way intended, when the standard is followed.
That has always been a goal of improving HTML design capabilities into the standard, whether you want to believe it or not. If that wasn't the case the standard would simply be written to provide for the placement of image blocks and be done.
Thankfully most good design houses have both designers and web developers that understand these things. They also know how to work around the improper implementations in browsers that cause rendering to fail to be true to the standard or the designers intended design.
Remember you as a web developer don't dictate look and feel (even though many developers wish they could design). A web developer's job is to impliment the designers "design" into a website and make it 1) work and 2) be true to the design.
This time your comment makes sense.
However, as a web developer you also know that you can dictate to the designer certain limits so that the designer can develop to a rigid design. You can enforce the exact pixel width of the display area, you can enforce font use and font size, you can enforce margins. My point is that as long as you do so within the features available in the target standard you should, assuming a proper implementation of the standard end up with a "pixel perfect" (not my phrase but I'll use it anyway) rendition of the original design.
Let's not confuse the issue with the user missing fonts, increasing text size, or running at a different dpi than expected. Those things are not in the control of the standard or designer.
This is all about whether or not the renderer properly implements the standard and if it does it should look the same on Firefox, IE or Chrome.
I never used the words "pixel level-accurate" you did. And all you are trying to do is make that case that bad rendering, which "differs from the intent of the designer" is ok.
Also, I said "Designer" not "Print" or "Magazine", designer, period. IF you are involved in any way in the design, oops I said the D word, of websites, or anything that requires, yes, design, you'd know what it means.
Most web "coders" or "programmers" or even "builders" if you will, will produce their pages with inherent capabilities to adapt to some variety of HTML version support. However that is not the same as what the designer intended, NOR is it the same as a rendering engine improperly displaying content.
Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Oh, and more advanced HTML with CSS and other "design" features are absolutely intended to allow for rigid design implementations. However how capable is an issue that web designers, in this case, have to take into account when they design so that their design is... interpreted rigidly. If they design for some engine that they know does not conform to a standard but has some special nifty rendering capabilities then they will expect it to display improperly. But that's not what is at issue here.
Ok, time for an education.
Comparing the capabilities of the different rendering engines with the INTENT of the content designer is, to use your words, utterly stupid.
DESIGNERS build pages to look ONE way, not "oh I want it to look like this on Firefox, and this on IE, oh oh and this on Chrome!" That's not how it works. Speak to a designer and you'll see.
So, the fact is, in an ideal world rendering engines will ALL do it right, which is to say the SAME and according to the STANDARDS which if are bad get CHANGED to render properly.
That is how it works and how it should work. The fact that it doesn't IS a problem and needs corrected, and it's improving all the time because developers don't think like you do... that this is some kind of "my way or the highway" kind of thing.
"You know that the standards allow me to render things in slightly different ways, don't you? It's one of the most abused principles behind HTML. if you need pixel perfect rendering web designers like me aren't the right targets. I don't design for that."
Corrected.
Microsoft's problem is pretty simple, hubris. It's illustrated quite well when you look at the kind of management practices taken by Ballmer and to a lesser extent Gates.
Microsoft has been so enamored of their own success that they believe that they cannot go wrong, simply because of who they are. They are also more than willing to pursue business with the kinds of principles and ethics that you'd expect from a used car salesperson. They really don't care what the customer experience is, they care about making money and believe that no matter what they do, they will succeed regardless.
Well to some extent that's true, or was true in the past, as mass and momentum are real. However it's also very clear that eventually momentum decreases and customer loyalty is a fickle thing. MS is already seeing the fruits of their poor judgement. Apple is selling more Mac's than ever, and I'd argue that Vista has played a big part in that success. I for one don't own an Xbox 360, I own a PS3. I probably won't ever buy a 360.
I'm sure Microsoft will recover, but to what extent remains to be seen. But unless they change their principles and work toward attracting the kind of loyalty through quality and connecting with your customers that Apple has enjoyed they will continue to see, if nothing else, a customer base that will be willing to jump ship at the first opportunity.
It's a barrier if it's considered very difficult to break. It's used all the time in this kind of context. But you'd know that if you weren't just grasping for something to say that you could attach an insult to. A "mark" implies nothing to do with difficulty, it's just a level, or stage, or, well, a mark.
Nice argument but a rule is a rule. If you are going to commit fraud in order to get your way, and possibly create an uneven playing field while doing so, then you should suffer the penalty, period. There's nothing meaningless about this argument. Having kids compete at an Olympic level before they've even had a chance to properly form emotionally is certainly not a good thing. If you want to participate you participate under the same rules as everyone else and the message that needs to be made clear is that committing fraud to do so is not going to be tolerated. Has nothing to do with beliefs or western "mores". If they want it changed they can make a proposal and have it approved or not, end of story.
How do you figure it's essentially zero cost to ship? Ever see those store shelves with copies of Microsoft and other products? See the trucks that ship them? Any why in the hell should they sell Vista for free (other than that's about all it's been worth, functionally)? This isn't a charity and the Linux providers have nothing close to the type of infrastructure that surrounds Windows and products that run on it. You may be a Linux fan (or not) but it's clearly not the consumer OS of choice nor will it be for the forseeable future. So you cannot compare it with Windows or Office from the perspective of cost to develop, deliver and support.
How about driver makers start producing open source drivers when the PC vendors start releasing the full design documents and specifications for all of their hardware? Yeah I don't think so either.
As far as I'm concerned lowering the yellow time in order to increase revenue should be grounds for criminal proceedings against those that made those decisions. It boils down to knowingly increasing public risk for money. It should be delt with as any other activity that negligently puts the public at risk is. It's time to hold the watchers accountable like the watched.
CoS or not CoS, besides the point. Whoever did this needs to be strung up by their privates and then flayed alive. This type of behavior cannot be tolerated. This isn't griefing, this is akin to assault and even attempted murder (if someone was to fall, hit their head and die, it would be murder). It's time people wise up and start behaving like civilized adults. If you know who did this it's time to turn them in to pay for their actions.
Capturing another persons fingerprint and then distributing it to the general public ostensibly for "faking" the identity of that individual... sure seems like grounds for criminal action to me.
First off you are naive. Secondly I think everyone but you knows what the real deal is with Verizon and their trade practices. Wordplay won't change that one bit. And what does nationalizing the phone companies have to do with it? Or is that simply an attempt to make your point by implying some kind of political position on your opponents? Oh, and YES they should be made to pay for their sins. Far as I'm concerned they should be fined out the waazoo for some of their practices. As for price freezing, not a bad idea! Maybe we should start talking about the oil companies. Oh, but they aren't doing anything wrong either, are they. After all, the price increases there are simply due to demand right? I mean the prices raise but profits don't... err wait... profits are up astronomically... hmm wonder if there's a correlation here.
Again, a non response. It's like saying if you don't like gas prices stop driving (ignoring the results of such an action). Stop trying to put the blame for corporate greed on the consumer who is subjected to it. Have some guts and point to the real culprit, the greedy immoral corporations who take advantage of it and do so in such a way as to hide their purposefully misleading marketing practices.
Sounds a lot like a spin doctoring response to me. So you would turn their greed into some noble exercise to educate children? I think not.