Is there a Turing test for spirtuality? If you can fool the average human being into thinking a program was an intelligent being, could you fool one into thinking a program (or a highly trained animal) was a being with a soul? And what of those humans who deny they have a soul?
You're still missing my point. My point is simply that the moral relativism dogma doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
What scrutiny? My point is simple - you can't disprove moral relativism without proving some kind of moral absolutism first, and you haven't done it. Has anyone?
The answer is that you're drawing a false dichotomy between working for money, and working for fun. If I have an enjoyable occupation, I'll obviously want compensation, because I need to feed myself and pay bills.
Art is not an occupation or a career, it is a way of life which may allow one to make a living.
As far as your claim that land issues are irrelevant, you are dead wrong. The rulers of our governments and corporations are the direct beneficiaries of the wrongs of the past, done not just to a few natives, but to the great majority of people. They steal the land from the common people and then charge them interest or rent to live upon it. But when the common people decide to copy a few things the corporations have with file sharing programs, they are theives, pirates and criminals.
Now that's hypocrisy. And I think it's very relevant.
Nah, it's really my fault fellas, but with the boob job I got last year, I can always get a few bucks from Playboy and a career in the B movie industry while you guys keep busy with each other.
Oh, and Madonna's offered me acting lessons.
Love,
Brittney "I got something you guys don't got" Spears
You miss my point. The proposition that morality is relative is a contentious one.
Not quite as contentious as claiming it's absolute - the history of Christianity and Islam bear that out.
The fact that copyright has not been proposed in an old document as a moral absolute is irrelevant.
To whom? Fundamentalist Christians or Muslims? Doubt it.
And irrelevant to what? Copyright as a moral absolute? In our country (US) the law on copyright is based on our Constitution, which is... well, an old document. One, which by the way only describes the means the government will take to form a "more perfect union", not a state of absolute morality.
My point is that to critisize relative morality, you need some kind of absolute morality to refute it. But, you're not going to get everyone, or even most to agree that what you've described as absolute morality is true. Perhaps when it comes to questions such as murder, you can get 99.9% to agree with you. But abortion? Drug use? Copyright? Significant numbers disagree on these issues, and unless you are willing to insist on an absolute, you can't criticize someone for believing that "a majority decides" what is moral in these cases.
As for myself, I believe the commodification of art is the underlying evil here, not copyright or violations of copyright. It's good to get money and fame from service to one's muse, but should one expect it? Did Emily Dickensen or Franz Kafka? They made no living from their work as artists, why should I?
As far as land goes, my point is that we all live on stolen land and arguments about intellectual property pale next to the ones people could make about real estate... We have all inherited from theives and murderers, and I'd include the orignial Australians in that. How can we call people theives and pirates when we live in that kind of moral situation?
Morality and law alike are determined by the weight of the people. If enough people think that file sharing is a moral thing to do, then it will become so.
This is essentially the moral relativists manifesto.
Ok, we'll go with moral absolutes then - look at the Bible, the Koran, Buddhist texts, Hindu holy books, the Tao Te Ching, Nordic myths, Greek philosophy, various myths, etc. etc. etc. What do they say about the right or wrong of copyright?
Hmm, there's a problem here - they didn't HAVE a concept of copyright so they couldn't have an opinion about it. So, by what authority do you tell us what the morality of copyright is or isn't? Obviously not the major religions of the world - obviously not the philosophers, judging by your unwillingness to take sides in their debate. Just what is left? Oh, I've got it - it's because you agree with a political/economic viewpoint that thinks so, although others disagree with that viewpoint. People should pay for what they get, right?
Chances are, the land you live on was stolen from someone of another race or culture. What kind of rent have you been paying them?
If someones morality is inconsistent, it's ill-formed, in some sense.
Yeah, it sure seems that way, doesn't it?
Re:Who could have predicted this nightmare
on
Electronic Abacus
·
· Score: 1
People also sucked the marrow from bones and ate raw meat for thousands and thousands of years before fire was put to use in food preperation. There're still places where people do it.
Sushi bars?
But the average office won't have room
on
Electronic Abacus
·
· Score: 1
They'll have to run phone lines all over the country to one big computer that can do all the calculations and print them out as needed. Besides, can you imagine having to train all those people? With the money you'd save having all your technical people in one place you could hire some people to do windows...
The trouble is that are judging the success of your culture within the rules of your culture.
It's not a rule of my culture that Etcrusian culture has disappeared, it's a fact. If a culture dies out, it's gone and has little influence left on what goes on after.
On the other hand, if a culture adapts, borrows from others, changes at need and continues to be open to the world at large, it survives longer. I don't think any of the major cultures in the world are going to die out, but they're all going to change, including ours. No one's going to wind up with what they had before, including us, and that's just how it goes.
However, the countries in question are NOT the same as the countries with such declared freedoms. They do not have a Bill of Rights or the freedoms many of us have been given. It is the declaration of the US Government that the people of the United States have these freedoms.
No. The government didn't give us those freedoms. We have those freedoms as "God-given rights" and the government, being empowered by the people, recognizes and defends them.
This is a nice rant but it goes to show off the egocentricity of most U.S citizens. Just because you think you have the right to free speech in the states doesn't mean thats true elsewhere in the world.
Actually, that's a God given right, not a state given right. You cannot stop anyone from speaking. You can only shoot or imprison them after they do.
You apply your values and morals on everyone from around the world because you can't imagine someone unlike you.
No, we do it because those morals work and they haven't come up with anything better. Furthermore, I don't see how a company deciding to sell censoring software to a 3rd world counrty is an export of any other American moral than "anything for a buck".
These are different people from a different culture. If there way of life curtails free speech then so be it.
Really? Are you saying that 100% of the people there are happy with their lack of speech rights? Did anyone poll them? No, a small minority with guns imposed their will on the others.
You seem to believe that all cultures are created equal. Read a history book sometime and discover otherwise.
Ask yourself this though, how many violent crimes were there in China vs. the states last year?
How would I know? How would the average Chinese know? How would anyone outside of a few privileged government rulers know, as no one is free in that country to find out and report the truth?
My point is that you cannot just openly apply what you think of as "the norm" to other cultures and then belittle them when it doesn't match.
If what your culture does is more successful than what another culture does, why the hell can't you? If Etcrusian culture was so equal to Roman culture, where is it now? Hell, if Greek culture wasn't better than Roman culture, why did the Romans fall all over themselves to copy it when they had the upper hand?
The Saudi government represents a dying way of thought. It's doomed, just as quite a bit of American culture is doomed. That's history for you.
Wow! Just imagine if the DNA could turn biomass into usable energy, and the process was based on a solar powered reaction too! Imagine if they used a chlorophyll based extraction process!
Just imagine if they were sentient beings and we had no idea they were...
I don't see anything in the First Amendment that says "unless a kid happens to be listening". Any such law is prima facie unconstitutional.
Funny, there's a lot of cops and judges in this country who disagree with you. Go ahead, talk about horse fucking to a kid in front of a cop and see where you wind up.
Falacy of extended analogy. Your e-mail spool isn't even a real thing,
And therefore cannot be a public place, as I stated.
Why should someone have the civil liberty to send me emails about "horse fucking"
For the same reason that they have the right to come up next to you in a bar and say, "Hey, let me tell you about this horse I fucked the other day...".
No. I'm not in a bar, I'm in my house. My email box is not a public place.
The spam issue has nothing to do with the fact that the spam might be embarassing to you.
Yeah, and what if a minor should be the recipient of the horse fucking email? You do understand that it's against the law to send materials like that to a minor?
I don't think there's a right to not be embarrassed by other people's speech.
On my property, which my email box is? (Otherwise why do I have to have a username and password to access it? I pay for it, don't I?) I have news for you - in my house, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, any state constitutions, the Magna Carta don't apply because I am the Grand Dictator of my house until my wife comes home!
The simple truth is that people are abusing "freedom" here. Ask yourself what's going to happen when a few Senators' daughters get some "horse fucking" emails. Me, I thought it was funny, if annoying. What you think they'll think about it and what do you think they're going to do about it? The truth is, we need laws to take care of this, but we need them before the extremists in Congress get pissed about things like this.
Hmm, so when someone expresses concern about civil liberties
Why should someone have the civil liberty to send me emails about "horse fucking" so I can recieve them just as the cable guy's checking to see if my new mail box is OK?
This really happened about a week ago. I was embarrassed!
Where's my right to have my computer connected without the cable guy thinking I'm a pervert?
Strictly speaking there's nothing wrong with me paying you 500 bucks for 'Louie Louie', and then selling it to millions of people for 16 bucks a pop.
Then strictly speaking, there's nothing wrong with me ripping the song off of a CD and putting it on file sharing services because I don't even have a signed contract with you.
Don't get me wrong, pay back is a bitch, if you trample people...
What goes around comes around.
But as best I can tell you're jsut bitching about how unfair the world is in general.
Me, Thomas Jefferson, Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King, just to name a few. Just how do you figure the world's going to change if people don't bitch about it?
They represent the people who have been exploiting musicians for close to 100 years. They represent the kind of people who would gladly pay someone 500 bucks for "Louie Louie" and make millions of dollars from it without thinking of sharing it with the songwriter. They represent the kind of people who pay radio stations millions of dollars a year to get certain songs played on the airwaves that are supposedly owned by the public. They represent the kind of people who think that paying new bands a wage that could be easily beaten by working at 7-11 is fair. They represent a way of doing business that makes used car salesmen, spammers and morticians blanch at the shamelessness of the bookkeeping and bookcooking. Hollywood, the publishing industry and the Fortune 500, would never consider for a minute some of the crooked gambits that are considered to be business as usual in the music industry.
They do not represent the artists. They do not represent the songwriters. They do not represent the audience of listeners and the people who buy the music. They do not, in any way shape or form, represent or respect American musical culture. When rock and roll came, they tried to bury it. When indy rock came, they tried to bury it and then tried to buy it off. When rap came, they tried to shut it out, and then they perverted it into violent, racial stereotyping. Now that electronica is here, they're doing their damnest to bury it under tons of catchy tunes that are a cross between dance and bubblegum. When home studios became a possibility, they outlawed the cheaper versions of the DATs to make it more expensive for those who wanted to start one - they even tried to get zoning boards in the L.A areas to shut them down for zoning violations. Now that they've waken up to the potential of computers, they are trying to cripple them with copy protection built in to the hardware that will also probably cripple an independent musician's ability to make copies of his OWN music and distribute them.
In short, they are a band of greedy, monopolistic Luddites who are attempting to strangle a new explosion in musical culture before it goes too far.
I think one of the best expressions of how many musicians feel about the industry is Joni Mitchell's "For Free", where she wistfully listens to a guy playing sax on the corner for nothing and wonders if she'll ever feel as happy and pure about her music again.
I had been using MCI World.com as my long distance provider for some time. Lo, and behold, they slammed me into having local service with them too. I wasn't happy about this and called Ameritech to have my local and long distance service changed back to Ameritech and AT&T. On my next phone bill I discover that I don't have AT&T, that I've been slammed into long distance service with MCI World.com and they're charging me 4 TIMES AS MUCH for phone calls - why? As the MCI operator explained to me, it's the slam rate... now, how I can be slammed when it's actually a case of never being switched when I requested it, I don't know. I had my service with them disconnected and called Ameritech to have them switch to AT&T for my long distance.
Guess what? I get my next bill and there's 135 bucks worth of charges from MCI World.com, at their ridiculous "slam" rate, including 30 1 minute calls my wife had made to her grandmother's house after she had gotten a stroke and gotten no answer. These were 50 miles away and charged 3.41 apiece. 3.41 for listening to a phone ring a few times! I called Ameritech and told them that I wasn't paying them for these charges, that I wanted AT&T and if they screw up my service one more time I'm going to rip the goddamned phone jack out of the wall and get a cell phone and screw them.
Alright, you're probably wondering - what the hell does this have to do with working for them? Ask yourself two questions - if they do this to their customers, hell, people who don't even WANT to be their customers, how are they going to treat their employees? And if they treat the public in such a dishonest and greedy grasping manner, why would you want to work for them anyway? There must be an honest company you can work for. Hell, even Microsoft is a little more honest and competent than this.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, even plants and fungi have 90% human DNA.
That would explain why I just want to stay at home and itch a lot.
Is there a Turing test for spirtuality? If you can fool the average human being into thinking a program was an intelligent being, could you fool one into thinking a program (or a highly trained animal) was a being with a soul? And what of those humans who deny they have a soul?
You're still missing my point. My point is simply that the moral relativism dogma doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
What scrutiny? My point is simple - you can't disprove moral relativism without proving some kind of moral absolutism first, and you haven't done it. Has anyone?
The answer is that you're drawing a false dichotomy between working for money, and working for fun. If I have an enjoyable occupation, I'll obviously want compensation, because I need to feed myself and pay bills.
Art is not an occupation or a career, it is a way of life which may allow one to make a living.
As far as your claim that land issues are irrelevant, you are dead wrong. The rulers of our governments and corporations are the direct beneficiaries of the wrongs of the past, done not just to a few natives, but to the great majority of people. They steal the land from the common people and then charge them interest or rent to live upon it. But when the common people decide to copy a few things the corporations have with file sharing programs, they are theives, pirates and criminals.
Now that's hypocrisy. And I think it's very relevant.
Nah, it's really my fault fellas, but with the boob job I got last year, I can always get a few bucks from Playboy and a career in the B movie industry while you guys keep busy with each other.
Oh, and Madonna's offered me acting lessons.
Love,
Brittney "I got something you guys don't got" Spears
... Music's not as important to pop culture as it used to be. Seriously.
You miss my point. The proposition that morality is relative is a contentious one.
... well, an old document. One, which by the way only describes the means the government will take to form a "more perfect union", not a state of absolute morality.
... We have all inherited from theives and murderers, and I'd include the orignial Australians in that. How can we call people theives and pirates when we live in that kind of moral situation?
Not quite as contentious as claiming it's absolute - the history of Christianity and Islam bear that out.
The fact that copyright has not been proposed in an old document as a moral absolute is irrelevant.
To whom? Fundamentalist Christians or Muslims? Doubt it.
And irrelevant to what? Copyright as a moral absolute? In our country (US) the law on copyright is based on our Constitution, which is
My point is that to critisize relative morality, you need some kind of absolute morality to refute it. But, you're not going to get everyone, or even most to agree that what you've described as absolute morality is true. Perhaps when it comes to questions such as murder, you can get 99.9% to agree with you. But abortion? Drug use? Copyright? Significant numbers disagree on these issues, and unless you are willing to insist on an absolute, you can't criticize someone for believing that "a majority decides" what is moral in these cases.
As for myself, I believe the commodification of art is the underlying evil here, not copyright or violations of copyright. It's good to get money and fame from service to one's muse, but should one expect it? Did Emily Dickensen or Franz Kafka? They made no living from their work as artists, why should I?
As far as land goes, my point is that we all live on stolen land and arguments about intellectual property pale next to the ones people could make about real estate
Yeah, and when you opt out of it, it goes ahead and installs it anyway. Kazaa is permanently off my harddrive because of this.
Morality and law alike are determined by the weight of the people. If enough people think that file sharing is a moral thing to do, then it will become so.
This is essentially the moral relativists manifesto.
Ok, we'll go with moral absolutes then - look at the Bible, the Koran, Buddhist texts, Hindu holy books, the Tao Te Ching, Nordic myths, Greek philosophy, various myths, etc. etc. etc. What do they say about the right or wrong of copyright?
Hmm, there's a problem here - they didn't HAVE a concept of copyright so they couldn't have an opinion about it. So, by what authority do you tell us what the morality of copyright is or isn't? Obviously not the major religions of the world - obviously not the philosophers, judging by your unwillingness to take sides in their debate. Just what is left? Oh, I've got it - it's because you agree with a political/economic viewpoint that thinks so, although others disagree with that viewpoint. People should pay for what they get, right?
Chances are, the land you live on was stolen from someone of another race or culture. What kind of rent have you been paying them?
If someones morality is inconsistent, it's ill-formed, in some sense.
Yeah, it sure seems that way, doesn't it?
People also sucked the marrow from bones and ate raw meat for thousands and thousands of years before fire was put to use in food preperation. There're still places where people do it.
Sushi bars?
They'll have to run phone lines all over the country to one big computer that can do all the calculations and print them out as needed. Besides, can you imagine having to train all those people? With the money you'd save having all your technical people in one place you could hire some people to do windows ...
(blinks). Do you mean to tell me that everything I've been reading here isn't true? Oh, man ...
The trouble is that are judging the success of your culture within the rules of your culture.
It's not a rule of my culture that Etcrusian culture has disappeared, it's a fact. If a culture dies out, it's gone and has little influence left on what goes on after.
On the other hand, if a culture adapts, borrows from others, changes at need and continues to be open to the world at large, it survives longer. I don't think any of the major cultures in the world are going to die out, but they're all going to change, including ours. No one's going to wind up with what they had before, including us, and that's just how it goes.
However, the countries in question are NOT the same as the countries with such declared freedoms. They do not have a Bill of Rights or the freedoms many of us have been given. It is the declaration of the US Government that the people of the United States have these freedoms.
No. The government didn't give us those freedoms. We have those freedoms as "God-given rights" and the government, being empowered by the people, recognizes and defends them.
This is a nice rant but it goes to show off the egocentricity of most U.S citizens. Just because you think you have the right to free speech in the states doesn't mean thats true elsewhere in the world.
Actually, that's a God given right, not a state given right. You cannot stop anyone from speaking. You can only shoot or imprison them after they do.
You apply your values and morals on everyone from around the world because you can't imagine someone unlike you.
No, we do it because those morals work and they haven't come up with anything better. Furthermore, I don't see how a company deciding to sell censoring software to a 3rd world counrty is an export of any other American moral than "anything for a buck".
These are different people from a different culture. If there way of life curtails free speech then so be it.
Really? Are you saying that 100% of the people there are happy with their lack of speech rights? Did anyone poll them? No, a small minority with guns imposed their will on the others.
You seem to believe that all cultures are created equal. Read a history book sometime and discover otherwise.
Ask yourself this though, how many violent crimes were there in China vs. the states last year?
How would I know? How would the average Chinese know? How would anyone outside of a few privileged government rulers know, as no one is free in that country to find out and report the truth?
My point is that you cannot just openly apply what you think of as "the norm" to other cultures and then belittle them when it doesn't match.
If what your culture does is more successful than what another culture does, why the hell can't you? If Etcrusian culture was so equal to Roman culture, where is it now? Hell, if Greek culture wasn't better than Roman culture, why did the Romans fall all over themselves to copy it when they had the upper hand?
The Saudi government represents a dying way of thought. It's doomed, just as quite a bit of American culture is doomed. That's history for you.
Did it ever occur to you that one of the most scarce resources of all is the creativity to produce works that people want?
It's the marketing to make people want it that's scarce. The creativity is a lot more common than you'd think.
Wow! Just imagine if the DNA could turn biomass into usable energy, and the process was based on a solar powered reaction too! Imagine if they used a chlorophyll based extraction process!
...
Just imagine if they were sentient beings and we had no idea they were
I don't see anything in the First Amendment that says "unless a kid happens to be listening". Any such law is prima facie unconstitutional.
Funny, there's a lot of cops and judges in this country who disagree with you. Go ahead, talk about horse fucking to a kid in front of a cop and see where you wind up.
Falacy of extended analogy. Your e-mail spool isn't even a real thing,
And therefore cannot be a public place, as I stated.
All half-digested logic, no common sense.
Ahh, so one can be arrested for "horse fucking" talk in public, where one is not trespassing, but not in my house, where one is.
Another psuedo intellectual troll contradicts himself into a singularity. Bye.
Why should someone have the civil liberty to send me emails about "horse fucking"
For the same reason that they have the right to come up next to you in a bar and say, "Hey, let me tell you about this horse I fucked the other day...".
No. I'm not in a bar, I'm in my house. My email box is not a public place.
The spam issue has nothing to do with the fact that the spam might be embarassing to you.
Yeah, and what if a minor should be the recipient of the horse fucking email? You do understand that it's against the law to send materials like that to a minor?
I don't think there's a right to not be embarrassed by other people's speech.
On my property, which my email box is? (Otherwise why do I have to have a username and password to access it? I pay for it, don't I?) I have news for you - in my house, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, any state constitutions, the Magna Carta don't apply because I am the Grand Dictator of my house until my wife comes home!
The simple truth is that people are abusing "freedom" here. Ask yourself what's going to happen when a few Senators' daughters get some "horse fucking" emails. Me, I thought it was funny, if annoying. What you think they'll think about it and what do you think they're going to do about it? The truth is, we need laws to take care of this, but we need them before the extremists in Congress get pissed about things like this.
Hmm, so when someone expresses concern about civil liberties
Why should someone have the civil liberty to send me emails about "horse fucking" so I can recieve them just as the cable guy's checking to see if my new mail box is OK?
This really happened about a week ago. I was embarrassed!
Where's my right to have my computer connected without the cable guy thinking I'm a pervert?
The virus lives in frozen cadavers.
You mean like a poxcicle?
One question: how do you get a deer to pee in a jar?
Put a Miller Lite label on it.
Strictly speaking there's nothing wrong with me paying you 500 bucks for 'Louie Louie', and then selling it to millions of people for 16 bucks a pop.
Then strictly speaking, there's nothing wrong with me ripping the song off of a CD and putting it on file sharing services because I don't even have a signed contract with you.
Don't get me wrong, pay back is a bitch, if you trample people...
What goes around comes around.
But as best I can tell you're jsut bitching about how unfair the world is in general.
Me, Thomas Jefferson, Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King, just to name a few. Just how do you figure the world's going to change if people don't bitch about it?
They represent the people who have been exploiting musicians for close to 100 years. They represent the kind of people who would gladly pay someone 500 bucks for "Louie Louie" and make millions of dollars from it without thinking of sharing it with the songwriter. They represent the kind of people who pay radio stations millions of dollars a year to get certain songs played on the airwaves that are supposedly owned by the public. They represent the kind of people who think that paying new bands a wage that could be easily beaten by working at 7-11 is fair. They represent a way of doing business that makes used car salesmen, spammers and morticians blanch at the shamelessness of the bookkeeping and bookcooking. Hollywood, the publishing industry and the Fortune 500, would never consider for a minute some of the crooked gambits that are considered to be business as usual in the music industry.
They do not represent the artists. They do not represent the songwriters. They do not represent the audience of listeners and the people who buy the music. They do not, in any way shape or form, represent or respect American musical culture. When rock and roll came, they tried to bury it. When indy rock came, they tried to bury it and then tried to buy it off. When rap came, they tried to shut it out, and then they perverted it into violent, racial stereotyping. Now that electronica is here, they're doing their damnest to bury it under tons of catchy tunes that are a cross between dance and bubblegum. When home studios became a possibility, they outlawed the cheaper versions of the DATs to make it more expensive for those who wanted to start one - they even tried to get zoning boards in the L.A areas to shut them down for zoning violations. Now that they've waken up to the potential of computers, they are trying to cripple them with copy protection built in to the hardware that will also probably cripple an independent musician's ability to make copies of his OWN music and distribute them.
In short, they are a band of greedy, monopolistic Luddites who are attempting to strangle a new explosion in musical culture before it goes too far.
I think one of the best expressions of how many musicians feel about the industry is Joni Mitchell's "For Free", where she wistfully listens to a guy playing sax on the corner for nothing and wonders if she'll ever feel as happy and pure about her music again.
I had been using MCI World.com as my long distance provider for some time. Lo, and behold, they slammed me into having local service with them too. I wasn't happy about this and called Ameritech to have my local and long distance service changed back to Ameritech and AT&T. On my next phone bill I discover that I don't have AT&T, that I've been slammed into long distance service with MCI World.com and they're charging me 4 TIMES AS MUCH for phone calls - why? As the MCI operator explained to me, it's the slam rate ... now, how I can be slammed when it's actually a case of never being switched when I requested it, I don't know. I had my service with them disconnected and called Ameritech to have them switch to AT&T for my long distance.
Guess what? I get my next bill and there's 135 bucks worth of charges from MCI World.com, at their ridiculous "slam" rate, including 30 1 minute calls my wife had made to her grandmother's house after she had gotten a stroke and gotten no answer. These were 50 miles away and charged 3.41 apiece. 3.41 for listening to a phone ring a few times! I called Ameritech and told them that I wasn't paying them for these charges, that I wanted AT&T and if they screw up my service one more time I'm going to rip the goddamned phone jack out of the wall and get a cell phone and screw them.
Alright, you're probably wondering - what the hell does this have to do with working for them? Ask yourself two questions - if they do this to their customers, hell, people who don't even WANT to be their customers, how are they going to treat their employees? And if they treat the public in such a dishonest and greedy grasping manner, why would you want to work for them anyway? There must be an honest company you can work for. Hell, even Microsoft is a little more honest and competent than this.