You seem to be arguing from the perspective that "As long as people aren't obviously being maimed and enslaved, we've got a good enough business environment."
Well, I respectfully disagree.
Corporations enjoy ludicrously advantageous tax and liability advantages over individual citizens, which allow them to accrue money (and, commensurately, political influence) disproportionate to their representation (IE number of people who benefit from their policies)
Therefore, it is incumbent upon those corporations to be good stewards of a) the environment and b) the society in which they function.
I'm not arguing for a centrally controlled economy: Just a recognition of a corporation's responsibilities to its (business and political and social) environment.
What's so hard about taking it in the spirit it was offered? Did this person harm you by being overcourteous?
It just seems to me like throwing somebody's attempts to be polite back in their face is the most catastrophically bad manners. Yes, lots of politeness is the maintenance of polite fictions, but that doesn't mean that they don't make your life easier.
Not to pick nits, but what exactly is so wrong with somebody trying to be courteous to you?
I call people, even my juniors, sometimes even my close personal friends, "ma'am" and "sir" on regular occasion. I hold open doors for people (man, woman, handicapped, whatever). I look people in the eye and smile when I speak to them. When I say "Hello, how are you?" I listen to the answer. I am very proud of, and have been repeatedly complimented on, my extreme courteousness.
Don't you see, though, that our form of capitalism is NOT backed by rule of law? We regularly see corporate executives defrauding everybody stupid enough to buy their stock, and they rarely if ever see any substantial punishment.
Microsoft, found guilty of illegal monopoly extension and receiving no punishment, is a perfect example.
Hell, if we actually had rule of law, maybe things wouldn't be so FUBAR.
If you think that the law doesn't have anything to do with economics, and you think that businesses (large ones) don't spend zillions of dollars to make certain the law favors them, often to the detriment of the public, then you're a freakin' moron.
Yeah, 'cuz he's a towelhead and isn't entitled to a presumption of innocence until he's proven guilty, right? I mean, everybody knows you can't trust those people, right?
You understand that civil RIGHTS are not negotiable, right? His civil/liberties/ are not at issue here: Only his right to freedom from presumption of guilt.
Hey, as long as I can monitor the cell phone conversations of the top FBI brass, the Legislature, the intelligence community, that's just fine. If we're going to have a transparent society, that's groovy baby.
But we're not. The people making these decisions want THEIR privacy, they just find MINE inconvenient.
I'm curious as to how you'd fix this. The patent holder holds the patent to increase value for their shareholders. If IBM wishes to buy the company, that also increases shareholder value. Neither company is standing anywhere near a principle, whatever their posturing.
Whether or not pursuing ONLY shareholder value is an ethically acceptable way to run a company is a different issue; but this is, right now, the way the game is played.
SCO is bringing a totally bullshit suit against IBM in a desperate ploy to make their stock worth more than toilet paper.
IBM may execute its option to get rid of the lawsuit by purchasing SCO stock from the current stockholders.
The only abuse of the patent system I see is SCO's absurd claim, and that claim is in favor of the SCO stockholders you seem to worry are getting gypped.
I mean, apart from the ability to sue IBM, you don't think SCO has anything that's worth more than a box of Cheerios, do you? This lawsuit will jump the price of their stock by a significant margin, I'm guessing. And if it doesn't, well, that just means the financial community sees this for what it is: A desperate ploy. Then the SCO stockholders have been screwed by SCO management...
Yet another good reason not to be a SCO stockholder.
The nice thing about ground-based lasers is that they're pretty easy to spot. And if you can see it, you can kill it. Precision guided penetrators are really good at destroying bunkers.
No aircraft of this size and strategic value will ever be unescorted over or near a battlefield. Shooting down a 747 is easy. Shooting down a 747 which is supported by AWACS and four F-22s will be, well, really hard.
Fair enough, but now you're arguing against your (grandparent) point.
If we're playing tag, and I tag you, and you say "No fair!" I'm not likely to have much sympathy for you.
If we're playing stock market, and I sell my shares for less than you think they're worth, and you say "No fair!" I'm not likely to have much sympathy for you.
What's unfair? Nothing illegal...nothing immoral even (provided you assume that the stock market is moral to begin with). Where's the problem?
Slashdot Mirror
Mais je pense que c'est tres amusant.
Bungie is long dead.
Microsoft sucked their soul out.
My tears are long since shed.
Do I get extra points for rhyming haiku?
Who's going to start another gaming revolution? Hint: It won't be a sequel-slave owned by Microsoft. (Nor EA for that matter.)
Step 3: You know Lexan yellows in sunlight, right? And Plexi gets nasty scratched up.
Yeah! What a great idea! There are tons of cliffs in, uh, Dallas, TX.
*rolls eyes*
Cool house idea if you've got enormous sacks full of money? You bet. Wave of the future? Gimme some of what he's smokin'.
Wow, that's a really bad example. Fallingwater is having serious structural issues...sorta just like all those non-FLW engineers thought it would.
Link.
You seem to be arguing from the perspective that "As long as people aren't obviously being maimed and enslaved, we've got a good enough business environment."
Well, I respectfully disagree.
Corporations enjoy ludicrously advantageous tax and liability advantages over individual citizens, which allow them to accrue money (and, commensurately, political influence) disproportionate to their representation (IE number of people who benefit from their policies)
Therefore, it is incumbent upon those corporations to be good stewards of a) the environment and b) the society in which they function.
I'm not arguing for a centrally controlled economy: Just a recognition of a corporation's responsibilities to its (business and political and social) environment.
Ayn Rand would disapprove, but she's a fuckwit.
What's so hard about taking it in the spirit it was offered? Did this person harm you by being overcourteous?
It just seems to me like throwing somebody's attempts to be polite back in their face is the most catastrophically bad manners. Yes, lots of politeness is the maintenance of polite fictions, but that doesn't mean that they don't make your life easier.
Not to pick nits, but what exactly is so wrong with somebody trying to be courteous to you?
I call people, even my juniors, sometimes even my close personal friends, "ma'am" and "sir" on regular occasion. I hold open doors for people (man, woman, handicapped, whatever). I look people in the eye and smile when I speak to them. When I say "Hello, how are you?" I listen to the answer. I am very proud of, and have been repeatedly complimented on, my extreme courteousness.
And you know what? If you don't like it, fuck ya.
Don't you see, though, that our form of capitalism is NOT backed by rule of law? We regularly see corporate executives defrauding everybody stupid enough to buy their stock, and they rarely if ever see any substantial punishment.
Microsoft, found guilty of illegal monopoly extension and receiving no punishment, is a perfect example.
Hell, if we actually had rule of law, maybe things wouldn't be so FUBAR.
Hell, I can't afford insurance. Sure hope I don't get sick.
If you think that the law doesn't have anything to do with economics, and you think that businesses (large ones) don't spend zillions of dollars to make certain the law favors them, often to the detriment of the public, then you're a freakin' moron.
No offense.
That's just stupid.
How many times will you buy a Dell computer if you feel ripped off by Dell? Once.
How many times will you buy or recommend the purchase of a Dell computer if you feel like they gave you prompt, courteous service? Lots of times.
Which makes Dell more money? If your business model is just to screw everybody once, rather than try to build a customer base, you're a fool.
Liquid H2? You mean, like cryogenically cooled liquid H2? Wow. That's such a catastrophically bad idea, I don't even know where to begin.
or be profitable. heh.
Alternatively, the best trick the Devil ever pulled was to convince everybody he doesn't exist.
Careful with that line of reasoning, friend.
Yeah, 'cuz he's a towelhead and isn't entitled to a presumption of innocence until he's proven guilty, right? I mean, everybody knows you can't trust those people, right?
/liberties/ are not at issue here: Only his right to freedom from presumption of guilt.
You understand that civil RIGHTS are not negotiable, right? His civil
Hey, as long as I can monitor the cell phone conversations of the top FBI brass, the Legislature, the intelligence community, that's just fine. If we're going to have a transparent society, that's groovy baby.
But we're not. The people making these decisions want THEIR privacy, they just find MINE inconvenient.
Reminds me of a joke I like. You know why the Brits like to drink their beer warm? It's because their refrigerators are made by Lucas.
I'm curious as to how you'd fix this. The patent holder holds the patent to increase value for their shareholders. If IBM wishes to buy the company, that also increases shareholder value. Neither company is standing anywhere near a principle, whatever their posturing.
Whether or not pursuing ONLY shareholder value is an ethically acceptable way to run a company is a different issue; but this is, right now, the way the game is played.
I think I've lost the thread of your argument.
SCO is bringing a totally bullshit suit against IBM in a desperate ploy to make their stock worth more than toilet paper.
IBM may execute its option to get rid of the lawsuit by purchasing SCO stock from the current stockholders.
The only abuse of the patent system I see is SCO's absurd claim, and that claim is in favor of the SCO stockholders you seem to worry are getting gypped.
I mean, apart from the ability to sue IBM, you don't think SCO has anything that's worth more than a box of Cheerios, do you? This lawsuit will jump the price of their stock by a significant margin, I'm guessing. And if it doesn't, well, that just means the financial community sees this for what it is: A desperate ploy. Then the SCO stockholders have been screwed by SCO management...
Yet another good reason not to be a SCO stockholder.
The nice thing about ground-based lasers is that they're pretty easy to spot. And if you can see it, you can kill it. Precision guided penetrators are really good at destroying bunkers.
No aircraft of this size and strategic value will ever be unescorted over or near a battlefield. Shooting down a 747 is easy. Shooting down a 747 which is supported by AWACS and four F-22s will be, well, really hard.
Fair enough, but now you're arguing against your (grandparent) point.
If we're playing tag, and I tag you, and you say "No fair!" I'm not likely to have much sympathy for you.
If we're playing stock market, and I sell my shares for less than you think they're worth, and you say "No fair!" I'm not likely to have much sympathy for you.
What's unfair? Nothing illegal...nothing immoral even (provided you assume that the stock market is moral to begin with). Where's the problem?
/me throws a bone
/LOT/.
Conqueror's Heritage by Timothy Zahn. Boring, predictable plot, didn't do anything new. Avoid.
There. That's the only book I've read in recent memory that I didn't like. And I read a
So who decides?
Ah, of course. You do. My mistake. How exactly are you going to vet every piece of data that hits the 'net as "good" or "bad"?
I have a right to free expression.
You do not have a right to not be annoyed by my inane expressions.
What "standards" do libraries have? They stock, or can obtain, just about anything that's published.