i'm still waiting for nvidia to produce a card that's worth upgrading to from a gtx-560 Ti for around $250 or so.
that's what i paid for some gtx-560 and 560 Ti cards a few years ago and is about the limit of what i'm willing to pay for a video card. paying $600 or $700 or $1200 for a GPU is something only a moron would do.
every card since then that costs around $250 is actually worse than the 560 in terms of performance - generally much better power consumption, but worse performance...ranging from slightly worse to ridiculously bad, and usually deliberately crippled by being cut from a 256-bit memory interface to 64-bit.
at best, it would be roughly the same as what i already have - why pay that much for no actual benefit?
when i bought the 560s, i was upgrading from gt-240s - definitely a worthwhile upgrade, from ~ 1.5 to ~ 5 times the performance depending on what attribute you're measuring (GTX-560Ti vs GT240). when i upgrade again i want a similar increase in performance for about the same price.
> Recall I said that it'd be nice if we could buy plans directly and > bypass our employers,
you know what's even better than that? non-profit public health care.
here in australia we manage to do it with a Medicare levy of 2% of taxable income (with reductions and exemptions for low-income). with that, any australian citizen (and citizens of countries with whom we have reciprocal health-care agreements like UK, NL, NZ and others) can see a GP or go to hospital or have in-home treatment for chronic diseases (e.g. dialysis machine and supplies) without paying a single cent, and with no risk of having our premiums raised or being refused insurance for pre-existing conditions. the risk and expense of health-care is spread over the entire nation. our healthcare is at least the equal of yours but many orders of magnitude less expensive because we don't have a profit conspiracy between hospitals and insurance companies that inflates prices (like charging thousands of dollars to dispense a few dollars worth of pills).
and if we're so sick that we can no longer work, we are still entitled to health care. we don't lose our health care if we resign or get sacked.
we also have the option of private health insurance (comprehensive coverage typically costs around $1600 AUD / year) but it doesn't get you much more than what Medicare gets you - the primary benefit being that you can queue-jump waiting lists for elective surgery by choosing to go to a private hospital.
and all this without employers having the ability to decide whether you deserve health-care or not and, if so, what kind of health-care you get. that's just fucking barbaric.
btw, about that 2% of taxable income...for someone earning the median wage of around $46,900 pa (median for 2013, the latest figure i can find - it won't have increased much in 2 years), that works out to $938 medicare levy per year. for someone earning, $100K, obviously it is $2000/year. both figures are a shitload cheaper than *ANY* health insurance plan available in the US, and don't have clauses that exclude coverage for particular conditions - about the only thing that isn't covered is non-essential plastic surgery...you're covered if you get your face melted in a fire or severely disfigured in a car accident etc but not if you just want a face-lift.
and for anyone earning less than $20,896, they don't have to pay the levy at all...and you pay a reduced medicare levy if you earn between $20,896 and $26,121.
yeah. doctors - and admin staff in hospitals - should also have full access to patient's financial records and not only be allowed to but actually required to euthanase those they deem too poor or too sick to deserve treatment.
this will result in huge cost savings and also serve to discourage the poor and the chronically ill from seeking treatment. win win win!
in fact, they could even raise money by performing various entertaining methods of involuntary euthanasia for a reality TV show, and rake in lots of advertising dollars.
> I wholeheartedly loved working for this company, but it collapsed > after finishing the first game.
this is SO different to what happens in most game studios now, where all the workers are fired as soon as the game is finished...collectively, they've cost the company 10 or 20 million to make a game that raked in hundreds of millions in sales, now they can fuck off and starve and default on their mortgage while management tries to get a new deal for a new game. some of the lucky ones might get re-hired for the next project.
you're supposed to resent people beneath you getting anything at all, despise them for being worthless losers. poverty is not a circumstance that people find themselves in, it's a moral failing caused by their own failure as human beings. they deserve to be fucked over.
you're also supposed to envy people above you, their success proves that they are sublime beings of great moral worth who also deserve what they get. and if you worked harder and longer and stuck your nose ever further up your boss's arse you too might one day deserve it.
didn't you watch TV at all? or are you just immune to the non-stop re-education programming?
> "I'll buy anything that doesn't have sugar or HFCS in it" leads > companies to come up with "evaporated cane juice" and "brown > rice syrup" and all this other BS.
you are still blaming the victim.
it's exactly the same as saying that investors who are only willing to invest in legitimate businesses leads to con-men pretending to be legitimate.
this is not the investors' fault, any more than it is the consumers fault that scumbag con-men try to con them.
>... and flocking to buy stuff that has meaningless labels saying > something is "all natural,"...
you do realise that "all natural" and similar crap has NOTHING to do with mandatory labeling and everything to do with marketing (aka professional lying), right?
and that part of the reason for mandatory labelling laws is to partially undo some of the bullshit of marketing, to give consumers facts rather than feelgood slogans like "natural" (meaningless) or "99% fat-free!" (means 20+% sugar)
> They are DRIVING businesses to try this crap.
no, advertising weasels are trying (and mostly succeeding) to fool the public into buying their shit. again, you are blaming the victim.
> That doesn't mean they are to blame for deceptive business > practices
then stop blaming them
> but they are partially to blame for what they eat when they > mindlessly support that business model.
and here you go again. once more blaming the victims who have no ability to control what corporate lobbyists do to ensure that labels have only worthless crap on them so that they can't be used for informed decision-making - in your world, that's entirely the consumers' fault.
> If a guy is stealing your car, would you just watch him and let > him do it? you know what would be far more useful in that situation than a gun?
any reasonably modern phone with a camera. take a picture of the thief and call the police. the thief will probably give up and try to run away before the cops arrive.
> There will always be some people who fail to grasp that concept, > and they can legally be exterminated.
fucking gun nuts always make up stupid excuses to "justify" their fantasy desire to murder other people.
creep back to your basement and masturbate over your gun-porn stash.
most GMOs themselves are probably harmless. what is extremely harmful is patenting the food supply so that it's entirely fucking owned by one or a handful of corporations.
GM food would, in general, be a good thing if patenting GM was banned world-wide.
> 2. How there are too many humans on earth.
well, that's both true and obvious. the world needs less people, negative (or at least zero) population growth.
> 3. How the farmers will be paid less...
almost certainly. supermarket corporations squeeze farmers for every fucking cent, and seed-supplying corporations like monsanto do the same, so the farmers get squeezed on both ends.
when there's a corporation that's lying to and conning consumers, you blame the victim ("those natural foods wackos") rather than the perpetrators.
you yanks need to learn that "caveat emptor" is supposed to be a warning, not a fucking business model.
and quit admiring con-men. they're scumbags. they deserve gaol, not praise.
> Moral of the story: Labels frequently don't work to tell people > what's actually better.
this is not the fault of the victims, the consumers, the "natural foods wackos". this is the fault of the perpetrators and their lobbyists and spin-doctors who expend large amounts of time and money to ensure that labelling isn't accurate or useful to consumers.
yes, you are correct. copyleft is explicitly a subversion of copyright to safeguard the rights of USERS. it was deliberately designed to subvert copyright laws in that way.
Re:wrong wrong wrong about copyleft
on
On Being Pro-GPL
·
· Score: 1
> and only to those to whom you distribute.
in the GPL this is true ONLY if you choose the option of distributing the (modified) source with the binary at the same time.
if you choose one of the other methods of meeting your source code obligations (e.g. put it up for download on the net, or mailing a source-CD on request) then you MUST give the source to "ANY third-party" that asks for it, i.e. whether you gave/sold them a binary or not.
prominent gun control advocates probably need bodyguards because there are gun nuts who want to kill them for daring to suggest that private citizens don't need and/or shouldn't have certain kinds of weapons, or that purchase should be subject to stringent background checks.
apparently, to a gun nut, their right to bear arms is greater than the right to free speech or the right to live and this somehow entitles them to murder people they disagree with.
yeah, reform your country so that it not only has universal health care (incl. mental health) but also has universal unemployment benefits and disability pensions so that people who would be broke as well as homeless, unemployed and/or crazy in your current system would have a small income on which to feed, clothe, and house themselves and therefore wouldn't be so desperate they had no choice but to mug strangers for a living.
it sounds like it would be expensive but it's much cheaper than prison and much cheaper than the cost of theft-related murders, and the cost of street crime in general.
WTF do you think countries like australia or the UK or much of europe don't have rates of begging or mugging even a tiny fraction of that in the US? we have a tiny handful of real crazies doing it, you have the crazies and all the desperate poor doing it as well. you also have a gang culture because neighbourhood gangs take the place of a social safety net in a country without welfare entitlements for all.
also, you need to restrict gun ownership, especially hand-guns - start with the obvious things like serious background checks and require owners to demonstrate a *real* need to have a gun (not just "i'm scared of black/poor people").
fuck it, you also need a revolution. send all corporate fat-cats and lobbyists and corrupt politicians to the guillotine. that's about as likely as the US doing any of the other things above.
uh, no. the point of evolution is that it's not miraculous.
evolutionary changes occur as a species adapts to its environment, either because the environment has changed or simply because the species is becoming better adapted to an unchanged environment.
if a random variation (as occurs all the time due to sexual reproduction and mixing of genes) or even a mutation (e.g. due to radiation or exposure to mutagenic chemicals - but note that most such mutations are fatal, not beneficial) provides a greater chance of surviving and reproducing then that trait will, over time, become more common in the population. and, at the same time, if a trait reduces an individuals chance of surviving and reproducing then that trait will gradually disappear from the population.
evolution is the result. natural selection is the mechanism.
> You are an idiot, and your mother dresses you funny. There. > Now that was an ad hominem attack.
not quite. you forgot to say "and because of those things, your argument is wrong"
without that, it's just a personal attack (or it could just be an observation of fact). an ad-hominem argument is when you use personal attacks or observations about irrelevant personal details to try to discredit an argument.
when nations or even non-state groups can put up swarms of, say, 1000 drones for $1M. or 10,000 drones for $10M.
aside from the economics (using $1M+ missiles to shoot down $1000 drones) can a jet fighter even cope with swarms of cheap drones ramming its jet intakes, with or without small explosive charges?
can jet fighters even shoot other targets if there's a huge swarm of drones in the way, programmed to intercept missiles and blow them up before they hit?
and as they get smaller, can a jet and/or its pilot even detect a single drone reliably if its disguised as a bird? a bird with a payload of quarter to half a kilo of C4 to be delivered to the jet engine?
watching e-sports is just as boring as watching other sports - i fast-forward over it when watching Good Game just as i fast-forward over sports during the news. fortunately, GG only wastes a minute or two on it every few weeks, while the news wastes 10-20 minutes on it every night.
playing sport and video games can be fun. watching other people play is fucking tedious.
why do you have to use just one browser for everything?
there's nothing stopping you from using chrome for most sites, and firefox (or whatever) for the handful of sites that require java.
in fact, IMO, you're better off using multiple browsers to minimise the tracking that can be done of you. e.g. i have one browser (midori) that i use ONLY for facebook and nothing else; my main general purpose browser is iceweasel with adblock plus and noscript and other privacy-enhancing plugins; i use chrome to view youtube and other videos; and iceape gets used solely for my online banking and nothing else (usually in a separate login session unless i'm being lazy or in a hurry - ctrl-alt-Fn to get to a new tty, login and startx, run the browser, do my banking, quit the browser and logout).
you really shouldn't complain about your false perception of other people's comprehension when you suffer enormous comprehension difficulties yourself.
i didn't say that's what Musk said.
my comment was a parody prediction of what the more retarded libertarian fuckwits were certain to say. and i know they're certain to say it because they've said the same moronic fucking thing every time there's an article about some rich prick setting up or supporting a charter school or similar for a handful of very lucky or very privileged kids.
the nature of my comment would have been obvious to anyone who wasn't a complete drooling cretin.
this is the same argument that the tobacco industry used for years "we don't know that smoking causes cancer, there's no proof".
corporations lie to protect their profits, their power, their influence, their control.
corporations lie.
worse, they're a malevolent artificial life form (hostile to humanity, at times parasitic on us, or even predatary on humanity) running on the substrate of laws, altering those laws to make their environment better for themselves and worse for us.
bullshit. they deliberately didn't pay tax they owed in the UK by falsely claiming that profit earned in the UK was actually earned in Luxembourg. this is not only tax evasion, it's fraud.
you're absolutely right. and it doesn't stop there. corporations have other expenses as well as taxes and they also pass those expenses on to their customers so all those expenses are evil too.
nobody should ever charge a corporation for anything - not for goods, machinery, raw materials, rent, electricity, water, wages, or anything else at all because doing so is evil.
congratulations! your unsurpassed brilliance has solved the world's economic problems.
when advertisers pay ME actual cash for my bandwidth, my CPU usage, my battery, my time, and my attention then i may deign to consider their offer and agree to view their ad.
most likely not, though, because it would take a huge amount of money to compensate for the annoyance.
Slashdot Mirror
i'm still waiting for nvidia to produce a card that's worth upgrading to from a gtx-560 Ti for around $250 or so.
that's what i paid for some gtx-560 and 560 Ti cards a few years ago and is about the limit of what i'm willing to pay for a video card. paying $600 or $700 or $1200 for a GPU is something only a moron would do.
every card since then that costs around $250 is actually worse than the 560 in terms of performance - generally much better power consumption, but worse performance...ranging from slightly worse to ridiculously bad, and usually deliberately crippled by being cut from a 256-bit memory interface to 64-bit.
at best, it would be roughly the same as what i already have - why pay that much for no actual benefit?
when i bought the 560s, i was upgrading from gt-240s - definitely a worthwhile upgrade, from ~ 1.5 to ~ 5 times the performance depending on what attribute you're measuring (GTX-560Ti vs GT240). when i upgrade again i want a similar increase in performance for about the same price.
so, nvidia, give me a reason to upgrade.
> Recall I said that it'd be nice if we could buy plans directly and
> bypass our employers,
you know what's even better than that? non-profit public health care.
here in australia we manage to do it with a Medicare levy of 2% of taxable income (with reductions and exemptions for low-income). with that, any australian citizen (and citizens of countries with whom we have reciprocal health-care agreements like UK, NL, NZ and others) can see a GP or go to hospital or have in-home treatment for chronic diseases (e.g. dialysis machine and supplies) without paying a single cent, and with no risk of having our premiums raised or being refused insurance for pre-existing conditions. the risk and expense of health-care is spread over the entire nation. our healthcare is at least the equal of yours but many orders of magnitude less expensive because we don't have a profit conspiracy between hospitals and insurance companies that inflates prices (like charging thousands of dollars to dispense a few dollars worth of pills).
and if we're so sick that we can no longer work, we are still entitled to health care. we don't lose our health care if we resign or get sacked.
we also have the option of private health insurance (comprehensive coverage typically costs around $1600 AUD / year) but it doesn't get you much more than what Medicare gets you - the primary benefit being that you can queue-jump waiting lists for elective surgery by choosing to go to a private hospital.
and all this without employers having the ability to decide whether you deserve health-care or not and, if so, what kind of health-care you get. that's just fucking barbaric.
btw, about that 2% of taxable income...for someone earning the median wage of around $46,900 pa (median for 2013, the latest figure i can find - it won't have increased much in 2 years), that works out to $938 medicare levy per year. for someone earning, $100K, obviously it is $2000/year. both figures are a shitload cheaper than *ANY* health insurance plan available in the US, and don't have clauses that exclude coverage for particular conditions - about the only thing that isn't covered is non-essential plastic surgery...you're covered if you get your face melted in a fire or severely disfigured in a car accident etc but not if you just want a face-lift.
and for anyone earning less than $20,896, they don't have to pay the levy at all...and you pay a reduced medicare levy if you earn between $20,896 and $26,121.
yeah. doctors - and admin staff in hospitals - should also have full access to patient's financial records and not only be allowed to but actually required to euthanase those they deem too poor or too sick to deserve treatment.
this will result in huge cost savings and also serve to discourage the poor and the chronically ill from seeking treatment. win win win!
in fact, they could even raise money by performing various entertaining methods of involuntary euthanasia for a reality TV show, and rake in lots of advertising dollars.
> I wholeheartedly loved working for this company, but it collapsed
> after finishing the first game.
this is SO different to what happens in most game studios now, where all the workers are fired as soon as the game is finished...collectively, they've cost the company 10 or 20 million to make a game that raked in hundreds of millions in sales, now they can fuck off and starve and default on their mortgage while management tries to get a new deal for a new game. some of the lucky ones might get re-hired for the next project.
send this guy back for more brainwashing.
you're supposed to resent people beneath you getting anything at all, despise them for being worthless losers. poverty is not a circumstance that people find themselves in, it's a moral failing caused by their own failure as human beings. they deserve to be fucked over.
you're also supposed to envy people above you, their success proves that they are sublime beings of great moral worth who also deserve what they get. and if you worked harder and longer and stuck your nose ever further up your boss's arse you too might one day deserve it.
didn't you watch TV at all? or are you just immune to the non-stop re-education programming?
> "I'll buy anything that doesn't have sugar or HFCS in it" leads
> companies to come up with "evaporated cane juice" and "brown
> rice syrup" and all this other BS.
you are still blaming the victim.
it's exactly the same as saying that investors who are only willing to invest in legitimate businesses leads to con-men pretending to be legitimate.
this is not the investors' fault, any more than it is the consumers fault that scumbag con-men try to con them.
> ... and flocking to buy stuff that has meaningless labels saying ...
> something is "all natural,"
you do realise that "all natural" and similar crap has NOTHING to do with mandatory labeling and everything to do with marketing (aka professional lying), right?
and that part of the reason for mandatory labelling laws is to partially undo some of the bullshit of marketing, to give consumers facts rather than feelgood slogans like "natural" (meaningless) or "99% fat-free!" (means 20+% sugar)
> They are DRIVING businesses to try this crap.
no, advertising weasels are trying (and mostly succeeding) to fool the public into buying their shit. again, you are blaming the victim.
> That doesn't mean they are to blame for deceptive business
> practices
then stop blaming them
> but they are partially to blame for what they eat when they
> mindlessly support that business model.
and here you go again. once more blaming the victims who have no ability to control what corporate lobbyists do to ensure that labels have only worthless crap on them so that they can't be used for informed decision-making - in your world, that's entirely the consumers' fault.
> If a guy is stealing your car, would you just watch him and let
> him do it?
you know what would be far more useful in that situation than a gun?
any reasonably modern phone with a camera. take a picture of the thief and call the police. the thief will probably give up and try to run away before the cops arrive.
> There will always be some people who fail to grasp that concept,
> and they can legally be exterminated.
fucking gun nuts always make up stupid excuses to "justify" their fantasy desire to murder other people.
creep back to your basement and masturbate over your gun-porn stash.
> 1. How unsafe GMOs are.
most GMOs themselves are probably harmless. what is extremely harmful is patenting the food supply so that it's entirely fucking owned by one or a handful of corporations.
GM food would, in general, be a good thing if patenting GM was banned world-wide.
> 2. How there are too many humans on earth.
well, that's both true and obvious. the world needs less people, negative (or at least zero) population growth.
> 3. How the farmers will be paid less...
almost certainly. supermarket corporations squeeze farmers for every fucking cent, and seed-supplying corporations like monsanto do the same, so the farmers get squeezed on both ends.
> And no -- to those natural foods wackos
typical fucking american.
when there's a corporation that's lying to and conning consumers, you blame the victim ("those natural foods wackos") rather than the perpetrators.
you yanks need to learn that "caveat emptor" is supposed to be a warning, not a fucking business model.
and quit admiring con-men. they're scumbags. they deserve gaol, not praise.
> Moral of the story: Labels frequently don't work to tell people
> what's actually better.
this is not the fault of the victims, the consumers, the "natural foods wackos". this is the fault of the perpetrators and their lobbyists and spin-doctors who expend large amounts of time and money to ensure that labelling isn't accurate or useful to consumers.
yes, you are correct. copyleft is explicitly a subversion of copyright to safeguard the rights of USERS. it was deliberately designed to subvert copyright laws in that way.
> and only to those to whom you distribute.
in the GPL this is true ONLY if you choose the option of distributing the (modified) source with the binary at the same time.
if you choose one of the other methods of meeting your source code obligations (e.g. put it up for download on the net, or mailing a source-CD on request) then you MUST give the source to "ANY third-party" that asks for it, i.e. whether you gave/sold them a binary or not.
prominent gun control advocates probably need bodyguards because there are gun nuts who want to kill them for daring to suggest that private citizens don't need and/or shouldn't have certain kinds of weapons, or that purchase should be subject to stringent background checks.
apparently, to a gun nut, their right to bear arms is greater than the right to free speech or the right to live and this somehow entitles them to murder people they disagree with.
the GPL is free even for the arseholes. it just doesn't let them be arseholes WITH the GPL-ed code.
GPL = once free, always free. no special privileges for arseholes to make it non-free in future.
yeah, reform your country so that it not only has universal health care (incl. mental health) but also has universal unemployment benefits and disability pensions so that people who would be broke as well as homeless, unemployed and/or crazy in your current system would have a small income on which to feed, clothe, and house themselves and therefore wouldn't be so desperate they had no choice but to mug strangers for a living.
it sounds like it would be expensive but it's much cheaper than prison and much cheaper than the cost of theft-related murders, and the cost of street crime in general.
WTF do you think countries like australia or the UK or much of europe don't have rates of begging or mugging even a tiny fraction of that in the US? we have a tiny handful of real crazies doing it, you have the crazies and all the desperate poor doing it as well. you also have a gang culture because neighbourhood gangs take the place of a social safety net in a country without welfare entitlements for all.
also, you need to restrict gun ownership, especially hand-guns - start with the obvious things like serious background checks and require owners to demonstrate a *real* need to have a gun (not just "i'm scared of black/poor people").
fuck it, you also need a revolution. send all corporate fat-cats and lobbyists and corrupt politicians to the guillotine. that's about as likely as the US doing any of the other things above.
uh, no. the point of evolution is that it's not miraculous.
evolutionary changes occur as a species adapts to its environment, either because the environment has changed or simply because the species is becoming better adapted to an unchanged environment.
if a random variation (as occurs all the time due to sexual reproduction and mixing of genes) or even a mutation (e.g. due to radiation or exposure to mutagenic chemicals - but note that most such mutations are fatal, not beneficial) provides a greater chance of surviving and reproducing then that trait will, over time, become more common in the population. and, at the same time, if a trait reduces an individuals chance of surviving and reproducing then that trait will gradually disappear from the population.
evolution is the result. natural selection is the mechanism.
> You are an idiot, and your mother dresses you funny. There.
> Now that was an ad hominem attack.
not quite. you forgot to say "and because of those things, your argument is wrong"
without that, it's just a personal attack (or it could just be an observation of fact). an ad-hominem argument is when you use personal attacks or observations about irrelevant personal details to try to discredit an argument.
when nations or even non-state groups can put up swarms of, say, 1000 drones for $1M. or 10,000 drones for $10M.
aside from the economics (using $1M+ missiles to shoot down $1000 drones) can a jet fighter even cope with swarms of cheap drones ramming its jet intakes, with or without small explosive charges?
can jet fighters even shoot other targets if there's a huge swarm of drones in the way, programmed to intercept missiles and blow them up before they hit?
and as they get smaller, can a jet and/or its pilot even detect a single drone reliably if its disguised as a bird? a bird with a payload of quarter to half a kilo of C4 to be delivered to the jet engine?
watching e-sports is just as boring as watching other sports - i fast-forward over it when watching Good Game just as i fast-forward over sports during the news. fortunately, GG only wastes a minute or two on it every few weeks, while the news wastes 10-20 minutes on it every night.
playing sport and video games can be fun. watching other people play is fucking tedious.
why do you have to use just one browser for everything?
there's nothing stopping you from using chrome for most sites, and firefox (or whatever) for the handful of sites that require java.
in fact, IMO, you're better off using multiple browsers to minimise the tracking that can be done of you. e.g. i have one browser (midori) that i use ONLY for facebook and nothing else; my main general purpose browser is iceweasel with adblock plus and noscript and other privacy-enhancing plugins; i use chrome to view youtube and other videos; and iceape gets used solely for my online banking and nothing else (usually in a separate login session unless i'm being lazy or in a hurry - ctrl-alt-Fn to get to a new tty, login and startx, run the browser, do my banking, quit the browser and logout).
you really shouldn't complain about your false perception of other people's comprehension when you suffer enormous comprehension difficulties yourself.
i didn't say that's what Musk said.
my comment was a parody prediction of what the more retarded libertarian fuckwits were certain to say. and i know they're certain to say it because they've said the same moronic fucking thing every time there's an article about some rich prick setting up or supporting a charter school or similar for a handful of very lucky or very privileged kids.
the nature of my comment would have been obvious to anyone who wasn't a complete drooling cretin.
FOAD
that's amazing. we should scrap the public school system and rely on the whims of super-rich individuals to educate a handful of students.
this is the same argument that the tobacco industry used for years "we don't know that smoking causes cancer, there's no proof".
corporations lie to protect their profits, their power, their influence, their control.
corporations lie.
worse, they're a malevolent artificial life form (hostile to humanity, at times parasitic on us, or even predatary on humanity) running on the substrate of laws, altering those laws to make their environment better for themselves and worse for us.
bullshit. they deliberately didn't pay tax they owed in the UK by falsely claiming that profit earned in the UK was actually earned in Luxembourg. this is not only tax evasion, it's fraud.
you're absolutely right. and it doesn't stop there. corporations have other expenses as well as taxes and they also pass those expenses on to their customers so all those expenses are evil too.
nobody should ever charge a corporation for anything - not for goods, machinery, raw materials, rent, electricity, water, wages, or anything else at all because doing so is evil.
congratulations! your unsurpassed brilliance has solved the world's economic problems.
when advertisers pay ME actual cash for my bandwidth, my CPU usage, my battery, my time, and my attention then i may deign to consider their offer and agree to view their ad.
most likely not, though, because it would take a huge amount of money to compensate for the annoyance.