Well, I don't exactly leave the VM open all day. And since the guest OS is linux based (Running 7 x64 as the host), it's generally pretty fast if I want to reset it.
And in the end, unresponsive (or leaky) programs aren't exactly the rule, so situations like that are only going to show up every now and again.
Yes, they are going to happen, probably. But not often enough or severely enough to dissuade me, especially when I'm only using the VM lightly.
Actually, I (sometimes) use my quad-core to run a virtual machine on two cores, and the native OS on the other two cores. That means that both OSes can potentially run one crappy application and neither becomes unresponsive.
Any fewer than four cores, and it's iffy, for exactly that reason.
Same thing for ideas/information/data. Those people who believe they can own it, are mentally ill.
You're so off-topic I wonder if YOU are mentally ill. Did you just search for "IP" looking for people to troll, or were you somehow unable to comprehend the use of the word in a way that was not actually referring to restricting someone's rights?
Yes, intellectual property. More specifically, "new IP" means a new setting/canon/gameplay/world/etc. For example, all Metroid games are Metroid IP (old 2D + newer 3D both), all Warcraft games are Warcraft IP, Mario games are Mario IP, etc. "Bungie's new IP" means a project by Bungie that isn't part of any project they've done yet--it's not a continuation of Halo, for example.
I was going to post something similar if I didn't find a comment like this.
The problem--well, not the only problem, but a big one--is horizontal velocity (as in across the map and not downwards). Imagine how much propellant--even in space--it would take to accelerate you to 14,000 mph (or whatever the actual orbital velocity is--wikipedia puts the ISS at 17,000 mph). If you want to get back down to zero velocity relative to the ground, you have to have that same amount of propellant, along with steering thrusters of some kind and enough computers to make sure you're pointed in directly the right way to cancel out your existing momentum without adding new vectors. Since you probably can't fit that all on a suit of any kind, you are now looking at a capsule, and if you are looking at a capsule, there aren't a whole lot of good reasons not to simply have a normal re-entry capsule, which instead of wasting space on tons of reaction mass or fuel, simply has room for the people, radio, shielding, parachutes, etc.
And weight is ALWAYS a big issue. It has always been. More weight means more fuel use on the launchpad, plus more fuel for EVERY maneuver you do, and extra fuel itself means more weight. More fuel needed than what your rocket can handle means either a second launch or a bigger class of rocket, or you scrap the project.
So I'm pretty sure that you can't get from orbital to stationary jumps feasibly. And if you want to reenter at orbital speeds... well... again we come back to how much propellant you'd need to slow down to a stop, or even to a controllable 60-100mph; you have to absorb that same amount of energy with whatever suit or capsule you put the dude in. And you have to worry about other things, like trajectory. I bet you're a lot more likely to skip off the atmosphere at those speeds in a suit than in a heavy object like a space shuttle.
Most people, my mom included, can navigate the UI blindfolded.
With a mouse and keyboard. Care to explain to your grandma how to click on a sub-finger-sized button on a touchscreen, especially if her eyes or motor control have started to slip? Or how to do things that are very quick and ingrained on a keyboard (alt-f4, ctrl-alt-del, f5 to refresh, etc) when there is no keyboard?
Actually, I don't think I've ever heard anything about that. What do they plan to do to replace the three finger salute when you only have software keyboards? Just grudgingly hold the power button as you've always done with laptops, I suppose.
That's why they are activated by the school server, and secured by Bitfrost. If a non G1G1 XO ends up on EBay, it will not function.
Which is an excellent reason to use cheap, secure, custom-created hardware and software rather than stock, full-powered, high-priced machines.
If you created custom, secure, full-powered, high-priced machines with the same safeguards, it would just create a significant incentive to hack those safeguards and get, once again, to the loot, giving the intended end-users the shaft once again.
Also, sending high-priced items to developing countries for cheap or free is really really really tempting fate as far as graft and corruption are concerned.
Imagine a whole bunch of $1000 laptops are given away free, or even for $250 to the third world, thanks to generous donations and so on. Then mysteriously, a bunch of laptops, each worth $1000, show up on ebay for $750, and certainly unrelatedly, a whole bunch of sub-$500 laptops actually get to the intended audience. Must have been a mixup in shipping. Pay no attention to the man buying the golden toilets.
And like you say, what's the improvement? There's not a whole lot more you can do with a performance computer when you haven't yet learned to use computers. You don't need to lend them your Ferrari so they can learn to drive, either. It's common sense.
Do you mean, were Microsoft's bad decisions meant to be funny, or did you mean, was the executive summary of Microsoft's bad decisions highlighted at an opportune time with ironic phrasing meant to be funny?
That's why I separated "business from the get-go". I don't mean that studying business is never useful. I mean that business is a means, and if it isn't a means to anything else, you may think it's only supposed to make money.
If it isn't making money, that's bad business, and it'll go under. But the business exists to fill a need, and money is only supposed to be a measure of success.
Not that it's like that in most people's minds, I guess, but that's what I was trying to convey.
I'm pretty sure if they had any interests other than making profit, they could find employment doing something more useful than management.
Well, okay, that's not fair. What I mean is, the people who went into business from the get-go were never interested in being of service to others. You don't earn a business degree as opposed to an engineering degree, science degree, law degree, etc, because you wanted to do interesting things. You earn it because you want to be in control of a business. Businesses "do whatever" and make money from it. End of story.
I know this is biased and spiteful and a little bit flamebait-ish; however, it's a touchy subject, and I think rightfully so.
Since I started this thread off specifically mentioning that I was referring to Christians leading movements in the US Midwest, your inference that I was making a statement about all Christians is an invalid assumption on your part.
The place you started this thread off in was the exact place I just said I had misunderstood. There is no place before that quote for me to frame this conversation. If I misunderstood it, there is no going back further to get more context.
You attempted a bit of "sleight of hand" to make it seem like I was making universal claims. I refuted that, and then went on to ask you who else was leading these movements if it isn't Christians. Do you have some counter-examples to tender, or are you going to concede the original point?
Those are completely separate issues, and I have no idea why you're even bringing the second one up, as I never addressed it in the first place. I was mistaken to assume you were talking about all Christians, or equivalently Christians in general, but that was the entire content of my post.
Whether because you're totally stressed out or a troll, I don't know, but your last two replies seem to be implying that I'm saying something I'm not. This is going nowhere, and because I really really really hate arguing with people, unless you have something new to say, I won't respond again.
I don't consider it reading comprehension problems to equate "Where I live, the Christians are" with "Where I live, Christians as a whole are" as opposed to "Where I live, there are examples of Christians who are" nor even "Where I live, every example of X is a Christian".
This may simply be an example of where if you don't use grammar carefully, you will actually say something else entirely.
Also, the entire rest of that post after the clarification seemed off-topic. In particular I don't know where you got the idea that I suggested anyone other than Christians were involved in whatever you were objecting to.
Nice sleight of mind, but really--how many Christians are there where you live, all total? I'm sure the Census could tell you. How many of those people have you actually heard from, even by implication? Are all the members of all the congregations of all the churches beating down the doors to science classrooms and burning the books? Are even half showing up to shout at "the devil driven liberal conspiracy"? A quarter? A sixteenth? Is it even as high as one thousandth of the number of actual practicing Christians that you actually have a problem with?
If you want to stand up for science, please do recall that if you have a hypothesis that can be tested, you should test it.
I would say that ethics is a system for accomplishing something specific without causing any problems or complications for you or others, eg, having business ethics is what makes a businessman not screw people over, cause environmental disasters, etc, and medical ethics is similar for the medical profession--confidentiality, be thorough, hippocratic oath, etc.
Morality would be a system that is supposed to* prevent problems and complications no matter where you apply it; don't murder, love thy neighbor, contract law, etc.
(* Success rate may be implementation-specific. Your mileage will vary.)
Unauthorized access to strip clubs and porn might be against marriage ethics (depending on what sort of prior commitments you already have with your partner) and the shops in general may be against your religious ethics, which for many people is the equivalent of morality.**
(** It's not, though. The idea that you may be sent to hell for doing something against your religion does not make it evil, nor does being sent to heaven make something right; you can only say that you will be punished for the one and rewarded for the other.)
One would hope that since he had it out in the field in order to test it, he would get some time, even in bathroom stalls, to take it out of its case and try a "hand on" test as it were. If nobody did that because Apple is too paranoid about people knowing their product before it's for sale... well, that was a double failure--it got out, and they didn't do the tests they needed. Congratulations, Apple.
e) It's my understanding that, like the Zune, it's basically winmo 6.x with a skin
I thought I'd heard that it's not the previous version of Windows Mobile, and it isn't Phone 7, but something different. However, I couldn't pull out any proof, and I haven't looked into it personally.
d.) The hardware is ugly as sin. What the hell were they thinking? e.) Why were they making it a separate OS platform to begin with? Is that just an admission that they couldn't modify any of their existing or in-development mobile platforms enough to accommodate the new features?
You may want to take the emails somewhere that the iPad is too bulky to take, and you may need directions when you don't have wireless access (with the non-3G device). Or, alternately, you may not want to leave the iPad in your car/hotel room/whatever when you get there, and again it's too bulky to take wherever you're going.
Seriously, a piece of paper folds up and fits into your pocket. Unless you want to carry a backpack or satchel or other luggage with you, you can't carry the device everywhere you go. Unless you like having no more than one hand at a time and being an excellent target for pickpockets. Is it really that hard to "get"?
I don't equate trying to be "bought" with being submissive. Again, it's a question of salesmanship, and in many cases, sleazy salesmanship.
Relationships can happen normally, where you find someone you like and you hit it off. You might find you have a lot in common and that you enjoy sharing with one another, and you only rarely rub each other the wrong way.
Alternately, one side or the other can do a sales pitch, and being a (straight) man myself, I only really watch the women doing it--wearing makeup, clothes, and an attitude, all of which make unreadable the person you are underneath.
Catch 'em with honey, promising that this image you project is what they'll have for the rest of their life if they choose you, and then... what? If you get married, you no longer need to advertise yourself, but if you spent so much of your life up to this point trying to get bought, what do you do with yourself? Fortunately in many cases we're getting past the "women become housewives when married" thing, so they can have their own jobs, their own money, their own lives, but I feel pity--and some smugness--when I think of the women who realize that they became that image, and now that they've been bought they never need to use it again.
No, we get it. Problem is that talking to someone is not being unfaithful. The old girlfriend might be someone you share interests with, or she might have had a problem you knew the answer to, or she might be sharing news about a mutual acquaintance.
If it was any of those things, and your wife has a problem with it--or you're irrationally afraid she will--then as the top of this thread and GP suggest, you have bigger problems than the security of your messenger.
Of course, you MAY be cheating, but as GP pointed out, nowhere was that stated, only that you don't want your wife to find out. Now in lots of cases, the women involved would only be upset if you really were cheating. But some people don't behave quite that rationally, and I imagine that a lot of people might fear the appearance of infidelity even if they were doing nothing wrong.
I'm reasonably certain that the women who find less selfish men unappetizing are the ones who spend their whole days trying to get "bought"--with too much makeup, revealing clothes, spending too much time thinking about fashion and aesthetics, etc. Those same people have been focused on a lot by media because, well, they're the most photogenic, and easy to portray with bad actors.
To be honest, nice guys deserve better. Hopefully, they will someday learn to stop listening to hyped salespeople in relationships, as in any other market.
If I were doing it, I'd "render" the terrain, then re-divide it into the new hexes , and infer the new tiles by the contents of the new grid, including cities, rivers, bonuses, etc. I don't know whether that would work cleanly, but it gets rid of that problem, at least; what used to be in 1,1 is still geographically close to 0,0, even if cell contents get moved, merged, or divided. Further, if a waterway runs between diagonal squares, it's likely that the corresponding hexes will also be contiguous.
I have no idea whether they're going to do something like that, though, and it might take a heck of a lot of tweaking before that method became viable.
But the rub is - what company would ever go for that?
A company that figured that they could actually continue to exist by making normal to minimal profit margins, not throwing those profits blindly to shareholders or execs, and instead building up cash reserves and then actually providing more and better service as the focus of their company, rather than considering their corporate motive to be excessive profit?
Crazy idea, I know.
But see here's the thing; if I had a company--and I'm no businessman or economist, and maybe I'm missing practical considerations--I would do that. I don't need to be vastly better paid than the people who actually do the work in my company, and anyone who claimed they did need that I wouldn't trust. I also don't expect to get free money as soon as I find any source of revenue at all (see also RIAA/MPAA); as long as everyone is getting paid what they're worth at that (theoretical) company, I couldn't care less if we lose the opportunity to sue people for bajillions of dollars or wring a cash cow until it's dry.
And if we go out of business after a while, because I wasn't bloodthirsty enough, at least I gave a lot of good people the money they were worth, provided a lot of people a service, and proved to cynical internet folks that yes, in fact, it's entirely possible for a company to exist that isn't trying to screw people over. And maybe, if I was saving my money, I can start again somewhere else.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I don't exactly leave the VM open all day. And since the guest OS is linux based (Running 7 x64 as the host), it's generally pretty fast if I want to reset it.
And in the end, unresponsive (or leaky) programs aren't exactly the rule, so situations like that are only going to show up every now and again.
Yes, they are going to happen, probably. But not often enough or severely enough to dissuade me, especially when I'm only using the VM lightly.
Actually, I (sometimes) use my quad-core to run a virtual machine on two cores, and the native OS on the other two cores. That means that both OSes can potentially run one crappy application and neither becomes unresponsive.
Any fewer than four cores, and it's iffy, for exactly that reason.
Same thing for ideas/information/data. Those people who believe they can own it, are mentally ill.
You're so off-topic I wonder if YOU are mentally ill. Did you just search for "IP" looking for people to troll, or were you somehow unable to comprehend the use of the word in a way that was not actually referring to restricting someone's rights?
Yes, intellectual property. More specifically, "new IP" means a new setting/canon/gameplay/world/etc. For example, all Metroid games are Metroid IP (old 2D + newer 3D both), all Warcraft games are Warcraft IP, Mario games are Mario IP, etc. "Bungie's new IP" means a project by Bungie that isn't part of any project they've done yet--it's not a continuation of Halo, for example.
I was going to post something similar if I didn't find a comment like this.
The problem--well, not the only problem, but a big one--is horizontal velocity (as in across the map and not downwards). Imagine how much propellant--even in space--it would take to accelerate you to 14,000 mph (or whatever the actual orbital velocity is--wikipedia puts the ISS at 17,000 mph). If you want to get back down to zero velocity relative to the ground, you have to have that same amount of propellant, along with steering thrusters of some kind and enough computers to make sure you're pointed in directly the right way to cancel out your existing momentum without adding new vectors. Since you probably can't fit that all on a suit of any kind, you are now looking at a capsule, and if you are looking at a capsule, there aren't a whole lot of good reasons not to simply have a normal re-entry capsule, which instead of wasting space on tons of reaction mass or fuel, simply has room for the people, radio, shielding, parachutes, etc.
And weight is ALWAYS a big issue. It has always been. More weight means more fuel use on the launchpad, plus more fuel for EVERY maneuver you do, and extra fuel itself means more weight. More fuel needed than what your rocket can handle means either a second launch or a bigger class of rocket, or you scrap the project.
So I'm pretty sure that you can't get from orbital to stationary jumps feasibly. And if you want to reenter at orbital speeds... well... again we come back to how much propellant you'd need to slow down to a stop, or even to a controllable 60-100mph; you have to absorb that same amount of energy with whatever suit or capsule you put the dude in. And you have to worry about other things, like trajectory. I bet you're a lot more likely to skip off the atmosphere at those speeds in a suit than in a heavy object like a space shuttle.
Most people, my mom included, can navigate the UI blindfolded.
With a mouse and keyboard. Care to explain to your grandma how to click on a sub-finger-sized button on a touchscreen, especially if her eyes or motor control have started to slip? Or how to do things that are very quick and ingrained on a keyboard (alt-f4, ctrl-alt-del, f5 to refresh, etc) when there is no keyboard?
Actually, I don't think I've ever heard anything about that. What do they plan to do to replace the three finger salute when you only have software keyboards? Just grudgingly hold the power button as you've always done with laptops, I suppose.
That's why they are activated by the school server, and secured by Bitfrost. If a non G1G1 XO ends up on EBay, it will not function.
Which is an excellent reason to use cheap, secure, custom-created hardware and software rather than stock, full-powered, high-priced machines.
If you created custom, secure, full-powered, high-priced machines with the same safeguards, it would just create a significant incentive to hack those safeguards and get, once again, to the loot, giving the intended end-users the shaft once again.
Also, sending high-priced items to developing countries for cheap or free is really really really tempting fate as far as graft and corruption are concerned.
Imagine a whole bunch of $1000 laptops are given away free, or even for $250 to the third world, thanks to generous donations and so on. Then mysteriously, a bunch of laptops, each worth $1000, show up on ebay for $750, and certainly unrelatedly, a whole bunch of sub-$500 laptops actually get to the intended audience. Must have been a mixup in shipping. Pay no attention to the man buying the golden toilets.
And like you say, what's the improvement? There's not a whole lot more you can do with a performance computer when you haven't yet learned to use computers. You don't need to lend them your Ferrari so they can learn to drive, either. It's common sense.
30mph = 13.4 m/s = 44 fps .83 m/s = 2.7 fps
1.8mph =
It's about a 16:1 ratio whichever way you slice it.
Do you mean, were Microsoft's bad decisions meant to be funny, or did you mean, was the executive summary of Microsoft's bad decisions highlighted at an opportune time with ironic phrasing meant to be funny?
That's why I separated "business from the get-go". I don't mean that studying business is never useful. I mean that business is a means, and if it isn't a means to anything else, you may think it's only supposed to make money.
If it isn't making money, that's bad business, and it'll go under. But the business exists to fill a need, and money is only supposed to be a measure of success.
Not that it's like that in most people's minds, I guess, but that's what I was trying to convey.
I'm pretty sure if they had any interests other than making profit, they could find employment doing something more useful than management.
Well, okay, that's not fair. What I mean is, the people who went into business from the get-go were never interested in being of service to others. You don't earn a business degree as opposed to an engineering degree, science degree, law degree, etc, because you wanted to do interesting things. You earn it because you want to be in control of a business. Businesses "do whatever" and make money from it. End of story.
I know this is biased and spiteful and a little bit flamebait-ish; however, it's a touchy subject, and I think rightfully so.
Since I started this thread off specifically mentioning that I was referring to Christians leading movements in the US Midwest, your inference that I was making a statement about all Christians is an invalid assumption on your part.
The place you started this thread off in was the exact place I just said I had misunderstood. There is no place before that quote for me to frame this conversation. If I misunderstood it, there is no going back further to get more context.
You attempted a bit of "sleight of hand" to make it seem like I was making universal claims. I refuted that, and then went on to ask you who else was leading these movements if it isn't Christians. Do you have some counter-examples to tender, or are you going to concede the original point?
Those are completely separate issues, and I have no idea why you're even bringing the second one up, as I never addressed it in the first place. I was mistaken to assume you were talking about all Christians, or equivalently Christians in general, but that was the entire content of my post.
Whether because you're totally stressed out or a troll, I don't know, but your last two replies seem to be implying that I'm saying something I'm not. This is going nowhere, and because I really really really hate arguing with people, unless you have something new to say, I won't respond again.
I don't consider it reading comprehension problems to equate "Where I live, the Christians are" with "Where I live, Christians as a whole are" as opposed to "Where I live, there are examples of Christians who are" nor even "Where I live, every example of X is a Christian".
This may simply be an example of where if you don't use grammar carefully, you will actually say something else entirely.
Also, the entire rest of that post after the clarification seemed off-topic. In particular I don't know where you got the idea that I suggested anyone other than Christians were involved in whatever you were objecting to.
Nice sleight of mind, but really--how many Christians are there where you live, all total? I'm sure the Census could tell you. How many of those people have you actually heard from, even by implication? Are all the members of all the congregations of all the churches beating down the doors to science classrooms and burning the books? Are even half showing up to shout at "the devil driven liberal conspiracy"? A quarter? A sixteenth? Is it even as high as one thousandth of the number of actual practicing Christians that you actually have a problem with?
If you want to stand up for science, please do recall that if you have a hypothesis that can be tested, you should test it.
I would say that ethics is a system for accomplishing something specific without causing any problems or complications for you or others, eg, having business ethics is what makes a businessman not screw people over, cause environmental disasters, etc, and medical ethics is similar for the medical profession--confidentiality, be thorough, hippocratic oath, etc.
Morality would be a system that is supposed to* prevent problems and complications no matter where you apply it; don't murder, love thy neighbor, contract law, etc.
(* Success rate may be implementation-specific. Your mileage will vary.)
Unauthorized access to strip clubs and porn might be against marriage ethics (depending on what sort of prior commitments you already have with your partner) and the shops in general may be against your religious ethics, which for many people is the equivalent of morality.**
(** It's not, though. The idea that you may be sent to hell for doing something against your religion does not make it evil, nor does being sent to heaven make something right; you can only say that you will be punished for the one and rewarded for the other.)
Wasn't that guy a radio engineer to begin with?
One would hope that since he had it out in the field in order to test it, he would get some time, even in bathroom stalls, to take it out of its case and try a "hand on" test as it were. If nobody did that because Apple is too paranoid about people knowing their product before it's for sale... well, that was a double failure--it got out, and they didn't do the tests they needed. Congratulations, Apple.
e) It's my understanding that, like the Zune, it's basically winmo 6.x with a skin
I thought I'd heard that it's not the previous version of Windows Mobile, and it isn't Phone 7, but something different. However, I couldn't pull out any proof, and I haven't looked into it personally.
d.) The hardware is ugly as sin. What the hell were they thinking?
e.) Why were they making it a separate OS platform to begin with? Is that just an admission that they couldn't modify any of their existing or in-development mobile platforms enough to accommodate the new features?
You may want to take the emails somewhere that the iPad is too bulky to take, and you may need directions when you don't have wireless access (with the non-3G device). Or, alternately, you may not want to leave the iPad in your car/hotel room/whatever when you get there, and again it's too bulky to take wherever you're going.
Seriously, a piece of paper folds up and fits into your pocket. Unless you want to carry a backpack or satchel or other luggage with you, you can't carry the device everywhere you go. Unless you like having no more than one hand at a time and being an excellent target for pickpockets. Is it really that hard to "get"?
I don't equate trying to be "bought" with being submissive. Again, it's a question of salesmanship, and in many cases, sleazy salesmanship.
Relationships can happen normally, where you find someone you like and you hit it off. You might find you have a lot in common and that you enjoy sharing with one another, and you only rarely rub each other the wrong way.
Alternately, one side or the other can do a sales pitch, and being a (straight) man myself, I only really watch the women doing it--wearing makeup, clothes, and an attitude, all of which make unreadable the person you are underneath.
Catch 'em with honey, promising that this image you project is what they'll have for the rest of their life if they choose you, and then... what? If you get married, you no longer need to advertise yourself, but if you spent so much of your life up to this point trying to get bought, what do you do with yourself? Fortunately in many cases we're getting past the "women become housewives when married" thing, so they can have their own jobs, their own money, their own lives, but I feel pity--and some smugness--when I think of the women who realize that they became that image, and now that they've been bought they never need to use it again.
No, we get it. Problem is that talking to someone is not being unfaithful. The old girlfriend might be someone you share interests with, or she might have had a problem you knew the answer to, or she might be sharing news about a mutual acquaintance.
If it was any of those things, and your wife has a problem with it--or you're irrationally afraid she will--then as the top of this thread and GP suggest, you have bigger problems than the security of your messenger.
Of course, you MAY be cheating, but as GP pointed out, nowhere was that stated, only that you don't want your wife to find out. Now in lots of cases, the women involved would only be upset if you really were cheating. But some people don't behave quite that rationally, and I imagine that a lot of people might fear the appearance of infidelity even if they were doing nothing wrong.
I'm reasonably certain that the women who find less selfish men unappetizing are the ones who spend their whole days trying to get "bought"--with too much makeup, revealing clothes, spending too much time thinking about fashion and aesthetics, etc. Those same people have been focused on a lot by media because, well, they're the most photogenic, and easy to portray with bad actors.
To be honest, nice guys deserve better. Hopefully, they will someday learn to stop listening to hyped salespeople in relationships, as in any other market.
If I were doing it, I'd "render" the terrain, then re-divide it into the new hexes , and infer the new tiles by the contents of the new grid, including cities, rivers, bonuses, etc. I don't know whether that would work cleanly, but it gets rid of that problem, at least; what used to be in 1,1 is still geographically close to 0,0, even if cell contents get moved, merged, or divided. Further, if a waterway runs between diagonal squares, it's likely that the corresponding hexes will also be contiguous.
I have no idea whether they're going to do something like that, though, and it might take a heck of a lot of tweaking before that method became viable.
But the rub is - what company would ever go for that?
A company that figured that they could actually continue to exist by making normal to minimal profit margins, not throwing those profits blindly to shareholders or execs, and instead building up cash reserves and then actually providing more and better service as the focus of their company, rather than considering their corporate motive to be excessive profit?
Crazy idea, I know.
But see here's the thing; if I had a company--and I'm no businessman or economist, and maybe I'm missing practical considerations--I would do that. I don't need to be vastly better paid than the people who actually do the work in my company, and anyone who claimed they did need that I wouldn't trust. I also don't expect to get free money as soon as I find any source of revenue at all (see also RIAA/MPAA); as long as everyone is getting paid what they're worth at that (theoretical) company, I couldn't care less if we lose the opportunity to sue people for bajillions of dollars or wring a cash cow until it's dry.
And if we go out of business after a while, because I wasn't bloodthirsty enough, at least I gave a lot of good people the money they were worth, provided a lot of people a service, and proved to cynical internet folks that yes, in fact, it's entirely possible for a company to exist that isn't trying to screw people over. And maybe, if I was saving my money, I can start again somewhere else.