Perhaps Sun could learn to promote their products on their own merits, rather than insulting a competitor.
They're taking a page from Microsofts book: if your product really isn't that much better than what the competition offers, instead spend your money on insulting and belittling that competition. The approach isn't a smart one and yes, it smacks of desperation - just as when MS comes out with another 'study' about how Linux really is much more expensive than Windows - honest! No, really, honest guys, we're not kidding!
Makes the whole lot sound like a bunch of whiny, resentful 14-year-old geeks who just figured out that they'll *never* be dating a cheerleader.
I don't like MS at all, but it is Microsoft's IP and it's not 'evil' to offer tiered levels of functionality depending on what the user pays for.
Nice strawmen, but at no time did I ever say anything about MS being evil. The words I'd apply would be 'stupid', 'corrupt', and 'criminal'. Not to mention a constant source of amusement, especially with 'Monkey Boy' Balmer in charge of the circus.
Don't like it? Don't buy it.
I don't and won't. Why the hell would I? I seriously doubt game companies are going to stop making products for 2000/XP any time in the near future. And for anything other than games I use Linux.
but the odds of national security secrets going out on a trashed drive are pretty close to nil.
That would only be true if the people involved in the process were as reliable as the machines - which, if you've worked for government, you know they clearly aren't. There are indeed procedures, as there is also a subclass of employee which will rarely, if ever, follow them, along with a second subclass which will usually, but not always, follow them.
In government you'll never get a procedure that'll be followed faithfully, all the time, by every employee. Will - never - happen. Doesn't matter if it's civilian, military, or spooks. The only folks who believe otherwise are managers with their heads so far up their asses they can't see the light of day.
How about we just admit that the number of distributions/versions of something means dick when it comes to determining whether something is Ready For The Desktop (TM)?
How about we just admit that all the people who do their endless bitching about MS or Linux are, in fact, just a bunch of assholes fighting their own particular version of a holy war? It really doesn't matter WHAT it is they're fighting about, so long as there's an "us" to get all touchy-feely with and a "them" to irrationally hate and despise.
Just the geek version of demorepublican politics. Or football. Only, perhaps, a bit more pathetic.
And as long as that is true, Linux will NEVER replace Windows on a significant percentage of consumer desktops.
And regular users don't give a shit. Only the religious crusaders care about 'beating' Microsoft, and those guys are nutbags any which way you look at it.
I don't know of a distro of Linux that deliberately disables functionality, requiring you to pay the distributing company in order to re-enable that functionality through the purchase of the "Super-Double-Plus-Good Edition".
Win2k was only for business use and was not targeted at the home market.
Well, that's funny. I have a win2000 professional partition and the only thing I use it for is games. Oh, and finding cheat codes for those games when I don't feel like taking the extra 60 seconds to boot back into Linux.
If the most important thing MS has to show for Office 12 is a rather ugly change to the GUI, I have serious doubts that anything more interesting is coming down the pipe. At least in that this version of Office will be consistent with the last half-dozen or so versions.
However, telephone solicitation is very important to business, to charities, and to political organizations. How do we balance their needs with citizens' wants?
How about by the fact that citizens have rights guaranteed by the Constitution, while businesses, charities, and political organizations do not? At least here in the states. Their "needs" don't matter for shit.
I think it's very important that political groups especially are allowed to reach out to people in the community.
So what? Since when did what you think is important become equally necessary for the rest of us? We don't want to be called, that's the end of it; you don't have any business making the decision for anyone but yourself.
Unfortunately, most people here in the US are ridiculously undereducated about political issues.
Ah yes, but *you* now - you're an exception. And no doubt you have access to The Truth(TM), while those of us who happen to disagree with you are "ridiculously undereducated".
What I'd like to see is a proscription against soliciting over the phone, so that information could still be passed along.
What I'd like to see is a complete ban on phone spam altogether - and that includes you and your fucking buddies, who think that everyone who isn't part of your movement is ignorant. So piss off already, eh?
It's not that hard to hang up the phone, or to screen calls.
We could also pass a law barring you fuckers from bothering us. You have a right to free speech, not a right to make anyone listen to you, nor a right to pester folks by commandeering their own property for your purposes (the phone).
At this point, at least here in the US, I am very against any action that would limit political participation
At this point I'm very much for any legislation which prevents shitheads on a holy crusade from calling me. You're no better than any other telemarketing douchebag, no matter what you may think - the only difference is the product you're peddling.
Polling and grassroots campaigning are vital to how our political system operates today, and should not be abrogated.
No, y'all need to shut the fuck up when it comes to my phone. Just shut - the - fuck - up. Leave me alone. Piss off. Just how hard is it for you to understand that YOU don't get an exception?
And what's your solution? More useless government regulation? Perhaps you hold the laughable idea that socialism will save those poor, enslaved workers suffering from birth defects? Hell, you've already made the astonishing claim that you're psychic, knowing as much as you do about the parent poster - so give us the answers, O Enlightened One!
Then there's the rest of the country, and they can't be bothered to learn how to use anything correctly, or how to understand the tools they use, and just expect the government to play the role of parent to humanity.
So what? We have no obligation to protect the stupid and willfully ignorant. Let them suffer; they bring it on themselves.
While intelligent people *might* have some small economic advantage over the less intelligent in modern society (which obviously doesn't apply to vast tracts of the world) it's also clear that this advantage doesn't translate into having more children, or having more children survive to reproduce. It doesn't matter for shit if your awesome intellect (and matching ego) garner you $500k a year if you only have one or two kids, while the Jones down the street who need food stamps to feed their family have five or six kids. The Jones have a clear advantage in terms of passing their genes along to the population as a whole, regardless of what kind of car you drive or how many tech toys you manage to accumulate.
I also don't see how intelligence could possibly trump genes for improved communication and social interaction. There's no proven link between these characteristics and intelligence, and certainly from an anecdotal standpoint the ability to successfully interact socially and communicate clearly with other human beings isn't tied to intellect. There's a reason why the stereotypical geek or genius is thought to be socially inept, simply because it's so often true. Exceptions abound, of course, but the stereotype is rooted solidly in reality. Geeks, on the whole, *do not* do as well with the chicks, and aren't passing along their seed willy-nilly as much as those who can talk a good game. Evolution doesn't care what's being passed along, only the frequency at which it's being passed along - and I don't see the geek set (or any group possessed of greater intellect) setting the breeding bar any time in the near future. Or the far future, for that matter.
The brain might still be evolving (and I'd be highly surprised if humans weren't still evolving) but how exactly does that relate to improved intelligence? It seems to me that the characteristic more likely to be selected wouldn't be intelligence but the ability to successfully interact with individuals and groups, and that doesn't necessarily have anything whatsoever to do with intelligence. And frankly, I think that if it comes down to a choice between these two things better social interaction and communication is far more important to the survival of the species as a whole than brains are any day of the week.
Max
Re:I don't even know where to start
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps Garcia and his wife's porn interests will move in different directions
Hell, perhaps your wife will get intrigued by all that girl-on-girl sex you make her watch when you break out the porn collection, and decide to have a go with the hot secretary at her office. And perhaps she'll decide that your 5 inches of man-meat just doesn't do the trick for her anymore, and divorce your ass to go live with another woman.
I guess you do have to watch out for the evil influence of porn. Garcia's wife, on the other hand, is probably doing just fine with Garcia.
Real 20-somethings don't give a crap if their games have kiddie-cartoony graphics or adult ones, they care if it's cool and fun.
And real men don't give a shit if some jerkoff on Slashdot gets his sisters panties in a wad because the real man doesn't like the graphical style of game X and isn't afraid to say so.
Some of us don't appreciate cartoon-like graphics because we find them visually irritating. No amount of excellent gameplay will change that, any more than an engrossing television drama will allow you to ignore the fact that your damned set is strobing because the CRT is failing. The fact that the makers went out of their way to make the show *deliberately* strobe just makes it more annoying.
Regretfully, some people prefer rumors and accusations to evidence.
You mean like the "rumor" that they're currently under investigation by no less than SIX state AG offices for fraudulent business practices? That sort of baseless accusation?
Oh yes, I can see how one could doubt disreputable folks like AGs in favor of the angelic Paypal. We all know how fond AGs are of spending millions chasing unsubstantiated rumors....
I think the FSF is running the risk of alienating itself from the rest of the computing world when it should be trying to extend into it more.
The FSF is run by fanatics. Fanatics, by definition, are NEVER in touch with the real world, nor do they care to be. So far as they're concerned they're in the business of forcing everyone else adopt THEIR views, using whatever tools are available. In this case it looks like GPL 3.0 is going to be that tool, although if it includes a clause like this it'll fail miserably since so very few people will ever use it.
Picture a world in wich Linux could not be used by the Fortune 500.
Picture a world where Linus Torvalds would be fucking stupid enough to adopt this bullshit. Can't? Yep, it'd only happen in a Twilight Zone episode.
Linux ain't going GPL 3.0 if this is how it's being designed, and I'm willing to bet 99% of open source won't employ it either (discounting all the unfinished projects on SourceForge, of course). Only a few fanatics will adopt the license, and we can just ignore them - as all fanatics should be ignored.
Put away the tye-dye and stop smoking so much fucking weed. The '60's are over with, and those of us with a few neurons left to rub together are damned glad of it.
"This License (GPL V. 3) is revoked if a person or company files for and receives a software patent and does not explicitly license any and all use of that patent to all GPLed software free of any requirements (monetary or otherwise) except those stated in the GPL, and if they ever seek to enforce that patent in a non-defensive matter. I.e. the only enforcement of said patent which will not revoke this license is one that is in direct retaliation of a patent enforcement action by another firm or person."
If this clause were implemented in GPL 3.0 you can bet I'd never use a product riding under the banner of such a fucked up, communistic, left-wing-looney-toon-ideology license. It's one thing to be able to tell a person what they can do with YOUR software; it's quite another to try to force your bullshit down their throat when it comes to THEIR software.
GPL 2.0 works just fine, thanks. I'll leave 3.0 to the asshats and cocksuckers who think they're riding at the head of a fucking religious crusade.
And let's not forget that Paypal has managed to piss off so many customers over their 'business practices' that they're currently the target of a class action lawsuit. Or that they're being investigated for fraud. Yep, that's one highly respectable company there....
If you're a factory worker who's paid to assemble widgets and you goof off for a couple of hours, you probably ARE ripping off your employer.
I see. So if you're a blue collar sort of prole then any time not spent slaving away on the assembly line is ripping off your employer. But if you're a fat-assed, pasty-faced little geek pissing away the company dime reading Slashdot then, well, it's okay - because, like, you're smart Beta, and those half-wits on the line are idiot Deltas.
Capitalism requires intelligent consumers to understand the pros and cons of every purchase.
No, it does not. Capitalism only requires that consumers act in their own self-interest. There is no need to "understand the pros and cons of every purchase", whatever that's supposed to mean.
When consumers don't care that they are getting less for their money and are loosing control
If consumers "control" the market then what you have isn't capitalism, but some strange form of pseudo-socialist bullshit.
then we get companies selling "DRM, propriatory solutions, and closed standards"
No, you get that when you grant government the power to control the market by force, and then government turns around and sells it's capacity for violence to whomever has the cash.
companies can appear to cheaper than open solutions because they know they've locked in future revenue streams.
If a company can "lock" customers into buying a single product then again, what you have isn't capitalism. This has nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism.
Again, only intelligent consumers can influence the market to encourage the market to maintain good working conditions in these places.
So if said consumer doesn't happen to agree with what you think are "good working conditions" and act accordingly to promote them then that consumer isn't intelligent? Funny, according to Adam Smith a consumer buying lower-priced products from Walmart, manufactured by cheap labor in Asia, is in fact acting in his own best self-interest, which is a purely capitalistic ideal. The consumer in this instance is acting completely rationally - far more intelligently than the consumer who'll only purchase items with a "made in America" sticker on them.
The same go for local jobs: if I care about how companies treat their employees and want to ensure fair treatment and benefits (e.g., avoid large scale downsizing), I have to support/purchase fromonly those companies that meet my values.
Which has zip to do with rational economic behavior or with capitalism. You're trying to promote a specific social agenda - in this case yours, and yours alone - not beat the drum for capitalism. Capitalism requires consumers to act in their own self-interest *as determined by them*, not as determined by you. I don't know what the hell you're selling, but it surely isn't capitalism, and you shouldn't be trying to mislead others into thinking it is.
With the rise of DRM, propriatory solutions, closed standards, cheap 3rd world labour and large scale downsizing the idea of capitalism has changed to *maintaining* an advantage, rather then innovating it.
None of this would be possible without government interference in the market, which is the antithesis of capitalism. An advantage can't be unnaturally maintained without the use - or in our case, the purchase - of government force against potential competitors.
It's control of a current market, pure and simple.
If the market is being 'controlled' then you don't have a capitalist system. It's that simple.
Give any corporation the chance to monopolise the industry and they will.
And they can only do so if they can use government power against competitors. Remove the ability of government to bar competitors from the market and it isn't possible for any corporation to enforce a monopoly position.
Think of the elite hunter-gatherers, who had a ton of food and was attractive to mates due to their cunning and ability to provide
There's absolutely no connection between the ability to gather food and impress mates, and being a sociopath.
Sociopaths survives because they're monsters who have no qualms whatsoever about preying on their fellow human beings. The ones able to mask their nature can walk among the sheep disguised, exercising their predatory nature when it's likely they aren't going to get caught. This doesn't make them any more "fit" than anyone else in the survival game. If there were a distinct evolutionary advantage they'd comprise far more than 1%-2% of the population.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps Sun could learn to promote their products on their own merits, rather than insulting a competitor.
They're taking a page from Microsofts book: if your product really isn't that much better than what the competition offers, instead spend your money on insulting and belittling that competition. The approach isn't a smart one and yes, it smacks of desperation - just as when MS comes out with another 'study' about how Linux really is much more expensive than Windows - honest! No, really, honest guys, we're not kidding!
Makes the whole lot sound like a bunch of whiny, resentful 14-year-old geeks who just figured out that they'll *never* be dating a cheerleader.
Max
I don't like MS at all, but it is Microsoft's IP and it's not 'evil' to offer tiered levels of functionality depending on what the user pays for.
Nice strawmen, but at no time did I ever say anything about MS being evil. The words I'd apply would be 'stupid', 'corrupt', and 'criminal'. Not to mention a constant source of amusement, especially with 'Monkey Boy' Balmer in charge of the circus.
Don't like it? Don't buy it.
I don't and won't. Why the hell would I? I seriously doubt game companies are going to stop making products for 2000/XP any time in the near future. And for anything other than games I use Linux.
Max
but the odds of national security secrets going out on a trashed drive are pretty close to nil.
That would only be true if the people involved in the process were as reliable as the machines - which, if you've worked for government, you know they clearly aren't. There are indeed procedures, as there is also a subclass of employee which will rarely, if ever, follow them, along with a second subclass which will usually, but not always, follow them.
In government you'll never get a procedure that'll be followed faithfully, all the time, by every employee. Will - never - happen. Doesn't matter if it's civilian, military, or spooks. The only folks who believe otherwise are managers with their heads so far up their asses they can't see the light of day.
Max
How about we just admit that the number of distributions/versions of something means dick when it comes to determining whether something is Ready For The Desktop (TM)?
How about we just admit that all the people who do their endless bitching about MS or Linux are, in fact, just a bunch of assholes fighting their own particular version of a holy war? It really doesn't matter WHAT it is they're fighting about, so long as there's an "us" to get all touchy-feely with and a "them" to irrationally hate and despise.
Just the geek version of demorepublican politics. Or football. Only, perhaps, a bit more pathetic.
Max
And as long as that is true, Linux will NEVER replace Windows on a significant percentage of consumer desktops.
And regular users don't give a shit. Only the religious crusaders care about 'beating' Microsoft, and those guys are nutbags any which way you look at it.
Max
Windows offering choices?
I don't know of a distro of Linux that deliberately disables functionality, requiring you to pay the distributing company in order to re-enable that functionality through the purchase of the "Super-Double-Plus-Good Edition".
Max
Win2k was only for business use and was not targeted at the home market.
Well, that's funny. I have a win2000 professional partition and the only thing I use it for is games. Oh, and finding cheat codes for those games when I don't feel like taking the extra 60 seconds to boot back into Linux.
Max
perhaps this will allow the community to rebuild what it has lost.
The "community" didn't lose anything since the "community" didn't own TVTome to begin with.
Max
If the most important thing MS has to show for Office 12 is a rather ugly change to the GUI, I have serious doubts that anything more interesting is coming down the pipe. At least in that this version of Office will be consistent with the last half-dozen or so versions.
Max
However, telephone solicitation is very important to business, to charities, and to political organizations. How do we balance their needs with citizens' wants?
How about by the fact that citizens have rights guaranteed by the Constitution, while businesses, charities, and political organizations do not? At least here in the states. Their "needs" don't matter for shit.
I think it's very important that political groups especially are allowed to reach out to people in the community.
So what? Since when did what you think is important become equally necessary for the rest of us? We don't want to be called, that's the end of it; you don't have any business making the decision for anyone but yourself.
Unfortunately, most people here in the US are ridiculously undereducated about political issues.
Ah yes, but *you* now - you're an exception. And no doubt you have access to The Truth(TM), while those of us who happen to disagree with you are "ridiculously undereducated".
What I'd like to see is a proscription against soliciting over the phone, so that information could still be passed along.
What I'd like to see is a complete ban on phone spam altogether - and that includes you and your fucking buddies, who think that everyone who isn't part of your movement is ignorant. So piss off already, eh?
It's not that hard to hang up the phone, or to screen calls.
We could also pass a law barring you fuckers from bothering us. You have a right to free speech, not a right to make anyone listen to you, nor a right to pester folks by commandeering their own property for your purposes (the phone).
At this point, at least here in the US, I am very against any action that would limit political participation
At this point I'm very much for any legislation which prevents shitheads on a holy crusade from calling me. You're no better than any other telemarketing douchebag, no matter what you may think - the only difference is the product you're peddling.
Polling and grassroots campaigning are vital to how our political system operates today, and should not be abrogated.
No, y'all need to shut the fuck up when it comes to my phone. Just shut - the - fuck - up. Leave me alone. Piss off. Just how hard is it for you to understand that YOU don't get an exception?
Max
Your selfishness and greed astound me.
And what's your solution? More useless government regulation? Perhaps you hold the laughable idea that socialism will save those poor, enslaved workers suffering from birth defects? Hell, you've already made the astonishing claim that you're psychic, knowing as much as you do about the parent poster - so give us the answers, O Enlightened One!
Max
Then there's the rest of the country, and they can't be bothered to learn how to use anything correctly, or how to understand the tools they use, and just expect the government to play the role of parent to humanity.
So what? We have no obligation to protect the stupid and willfully ignorant. Let them suffer; they bring it on themselves.
Max
While intelligent people *might* have some small economic advantage over the less intelligent in modern society (which obviously doesn't apply to vast tracts of the world) it's also clear that this advantage doesn't translate into having more children, or having more children survive to reproduce. It doesn't matter for shit if your awesome intellect (and matching ego) garner you $500k a year if you only have one or two kids, while the Jones down the street who need food stamps to feed their family have five or six kids. The Jones have a clear advantage in terms of passing their genes along to the population as a whole, regardless of what kind of car you drive or how many tech toys you manage to accumulate.
I also don't see how intelligence could possibly trump genes for improved communication and social interaction. There's no proven link between these characteristics and intelligence, and certainly from an anecdotal standpoint the ability to successfully interact socially and communicate clearly with other human beings isn't tied to intellect. There's a reason why the stereotypical geek or genius is thought to be socially inept, simply because it's so often true. Exceptions abound, of course, but the stereotype is rooted solidly in reality. Geeks, on the whole, *do not* do as well with the chicks, and aren't passing along their seed willy-nilly as much as those who can talk a good game. Evolution doesn't care what's being passed along, only the frequency at which it's being passed along - and I don't see the geek set (or any group possessed of greater intellect) setting the breeding bar any time in the near future. Or the far future, for that matter.
The brain might still be evolving (and I'd be highly surprised if humans weren't still evolving) but how exactly does that relate to improved intelligence? It seems to me that the characteristic more likely to be selected wouldn't be intelligence but the ability to successfully interact with individuals and groups, and that doesn't necessarily have anything whatsoever to do with intelligence. And frankly, I think that if it comes down to a choice between these two things better social interaction and communication is far more important to the survival of the species as a whole than brains are any day of the week.
Max
Perhaps Garcia and his wife's porn interests will move in different directions
Hell, perhaps your wife will get intrigued by all that girl-on-girl sex you make her watch when you break out the porn collection, and decide to have a go with the hot secretary at her office. And perhaps she'll decide that your 5 inches of man-meat just doesn't do the trick for her anymore, and divorce your ass to go live with another woman.
I guess you do have to watch out for the evil influence of porn. Garcia's wife, on the other hand, is probably doing just fine with Garcia.
Max
Real 20-somethings don't give a crap if their games have kiddie-cartoony graphics or adult ones, they care if it's cool and fun.
And real men don't give a shit if some jerkoff on Slashdot gets his sisters panties in a wad because the real man doesn't like the graphical style of game X and isn't afraid to say so.
Some of us don't appreciate cartoon-like graphics because we find them visually irritating. No amount of excellent gameplay will change that, any more than an engrossing television drama will allow you to ignore the fact that your damned set is strobing because the CRT is failing. The fact that the makers went out of their way to make the show *deliberately* strobe just makes it more annoying.
Max
Regretfully, some people prefer rumors and accusations to evidence.
You mean like the "rumor" that they're currently under investigation by no less than SIX state AG offices for fraudulent business practices? That sort of baseless accusation?
Oh yes, I can see how one could doubt disreputable folks like AGs in favor of the angelic Paypal. We all know how fond AGs are of spending millions chasing unsubstantiated rumors....
Max
I think the FSF is running the risk of alienating itself from the rest of the computing world when it should be trying to extend into it more.
The FSF is run by fanatics. Fanatics, by definition, are NEVER in touch with the real world, nor do they care to be. So far as they're concerned they're in the business of forcing everyone else adopt THEIR views, using whatever tools are available. In this case it looks like GPL 3.0 is going to be that tool, although if it includes a clause like this it'll fail miserably since so very few people will ever use it.
Max
Picture a world in wich Linux could not be used by the Fortune 500.
Picture a world where Linus Torvalds would be fucking stupid enough to adopt this bullshit. Can't? Yep, it'd only happen in a Twilight Zone episode.
Linux ain't going GPL 3.0 if this is how it's being designed, and I'm willing to bet 99% of open source won't employ it either (discounting all the unfinished projects on SourceForge, of course). Only a few fanatics will adopt the license, and we can just ignore them - as all fanatics should be ignored.
Max
Read as: POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!
Put away the tye-dye and stop smoking so much fucking weed. The '60's are over with, and those of us with a few neurons left to rub together are damned glad of it.
Max
"This License (GPL V. 3) is revoked if a person or company files for and receives a software patent and does not explicitly license any and all use of that patent to all GPLed software free of any requirements (monetary or otherwise) except those stated in the GPL, and if they ever seek to enforce that patent in a non-defensive matter. I.e. the only enforcement of said patent which will not revoke this license is one that is in direct retaliation of a patent enforcement action by another firm or person."
If this clause were implemented in GPL 3.0 you can bet I'd never use a product riding under the banner of such a fucked up, communistic, left-wing-looney-toon-ideology license. It's one thing to be able to tell a person what they can do with YOUR software; it's quite another to try to force your bullshit down their throat when it comes to THEIR software.
GPL 2.0 works just fine, thanks. I'll leave 3.0 to the asshats and cocksuckers who think they're riding at the head of a fucking religious crusade.
Max
And let's not forget that Paypal has managed to piss off so many customers over their 'business practices' that they're currently the target of a class action lawsuit. Or that they're being investigated for fraud. Yep, that's one highly respectable company there....
Max
If you're a factory worker who's paid to assemble widgets and you goof off for a couple of hours, you probably ARE ripping off your employer.
I see. So if you're a blue collar sort of prole then any time not spent slaving away on the assembly line is ripping off your employer. But if you're a fat-assed, pasty-faced little geek pissing away the company dime reading Slashdot then, well, it's okay - because, like, you're smart Beta, and those half-wits on the line are idiot Deltas.
Here, have a nice big cup of soma, asshole.
Max
Capitalism requires intelligent consumers to understand the pros and cons of every purchase.
No, it does not. Capitalism only requires that consumers act in their own self-interest. There is no need to "understand the pros and cons of every purchase", whatever that's supposed to mean.
When consumers don't care that they are getting less for their money and are loosing control
If consumers "control" the market then what you have isn't capitalism, but some strange form of pseudo-socialist bullshit.
then we get companies selling "DRM, propriatory solutions, and closed standards"
No, you get that when you grant government the power to control the market by force, and then government turns around and sells it's capacity for violence to whomever has the cash.
companies can appear to cheaper than open solutions because they know they've locked in future revenue streams.
If a company can "lock" customers into buying a single product then again, what you have isn't capitalism. This has nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism.
Again, only intelligent consumers can influence the market to encourage the market to maintain good working conditions in these places.
So if said consumer doesn't happen to agree with what you think are "good working conditions" and act accordingly to promote them then that consumer isn't intelligent? Funny, according to Adam Smith a consumer buying lower-priced products from Walmart, manufactured by cheap labor in Asia, is in fact acting in his own best self-interest, which is a purely capitalistic ideal. The consumer in this instance is acting completely rationally - far more intelligently than the consumer who'll only purchase items with a "made in America" sticker on them.
The same go for local jobs: if I care about how companies treat their employees and want to ensure fair treatment and benefits (e.g., avoid large scale downsizing), I have to support/purchase fromonly those companies that meet my values.
Which has zip to do with rational economic behavior or with capitalism. You're trying to promote a specific social agenda - in this case yours, and yours alone - not beat the drum for capitalism. Capitalism requires consumers to act in their own self-interest *as determined by them*, not as determined by you. I don't know what the hell you're selling, but it surely isn't capitalism, and you shouldn't be trying to mislead others into thinking it is.
Max
With the rise of DRM, propriatory solutions, closed standards, cheap 3rd world labour and large scale downsizing the idea of capitalism has changed to *maintaining* an advantage, rather then innovating it.
None of this would be possible without government interference in the market, which is the antithesis of capitalism. An advantage can't be unnaturally maintained without the use - or in our case, the purchase - of government force against potential competitors.
It's control of a current market, pure and simple.
If the market is being 'controlled' then you don't have a capitalist system. It's that simple.
Give any corporation the chance to monopolise the industry and they will.
And they can only do so if they can use government power against competitors. Remove the ability of government to bar competitors from the market and it isn't possible for any corporation to enforce a monopoly position.
Max
Think of the elite hunter-gatherers, who had a ton of food and was attractive to mates due to their cunning and ability to provide
There's absolutely no connection between the ability to gather food and impress mates, and being a sociopath.
Sociopaths survives because they're monsters who have no qualms whatsoever about preying on their fellow human beings. The ones able to mask their nature can walk among the sheep disguised, exercising their predatory nature when it's likely they aren't going to get caught. This doesn't make them any more "fit" than anyone else in the survival game. If there were a distinct evolutionary advantage they'd comprise far more than 1%-2% of the population.
Max