The absolute classic case for this was outside the computer arena. For many years (decades?) Nabisco donated cookies to the Red Cross. After a blood donation, the donor got led over to a refreshment area, where Lorna Doones and Oreo's were served to the dizzy. Sometime in the eighties, Ol' Nabisco was going through some very hard times, with plant closings and layoffs. Some exec looked at the books and said they had to cut the Red Cross cookies. Maybe this was a smart decision, probably not, but in any case, after giving away many millions of dollars worth of product to a charitable organization, they decided to do what every other cookie manufacturer had been doing all along: nothing. Did anyone say, "heck, we will miss the Lorna Doones, but it sure was nice of Nabisco to supply us all those years, I'm sorry they are in financial trouble, I wish them well and hope some other cookie manufacturer will take over the load"? Of course not. They were crucified in the press. There were calls to boycott Nabisco for "putting the screws to the Red Cross". I learned a lesson then: if I am ever in a position to do anything charitable on the corporate level, make sure it is a one-off, because once people expect something, they will turn on you if you take it away.
One reason that companies are reluctant to provide ongoing public services is that when they discontinue them, instead of getting kudos for all they contributed, they get negative reaction for pulling support.
FWIW, there are many groups that do actively complain about advertising cars driving very fast on public roads. They feel that it, well, encourages drivers to drive very fast on public roads. Tom of the Car Guys goes on rants about this all the time, and I have seen complaints from others about certain specific model cars (5 liter mustang comes to mind).
Just for the record...
It doesn't make sense to spend more on a tool than necessary, just because you can use that tool to create something valuable.
It may be bean counter mentality (if by bean counter, you mean someone who watches spending, then I qualify) to point out that a dump truck with a solid gold hood ornament doesn't perform any better than one with a chrome bulldog. Bean counters are not automatically wrong in everything they say.
Your point about buying the best tools for the job is partially correct. Only partially, because good cost management dicates that it depends on the job. For example, if you are a programmer that occasionally types out a memo, a $150 deskjet is a perfectly adequate choice. If you are a graphics artist who has to deliver proof quality copy, then spend the thousands to get the best quality print.
On the ohter hand, your point about not worrying about the cost of those tools because you will get paid a lot is, well, short sighted. In your typical office you have hundreds of different purchases per employee. If you say cost doesn't matter on all of them, you better be producing gold from lead, or your operation won't be making payroll.
Flawed logic. Just because the product made with a tool is worth a lot, doesn't justify paying more than necessary for the tool itself. After all, back in the days of checks, the average person wrote checks worth about half to three-quarters of their yearly gross. Would that justify everyone going out to buy a $1000 Mount Blanc Pen to sign them?
Although you are technically correct that government in and of itself does not grant rights, the truth is not far from that statement; it is society as a whole that "grants" rights. You are absurdly wrong in saying that "we have these rights just as surely as we have a nose". Justice is a man made concept and as such is given and withheld by man's constructs, i.e. society. There is no natural justice, other than survival of the fittest and luckiest.
I couldn't agree more. After the US presidential voting debacle there was a lot of attention paid to the history of voting here. Much of the laws had (and have) to do with keeping the riff-raff from voting. Hence Tuesday voting instead of weekend.
I guess I'm in the vast minority here, but I think what they have done makes sense. They have an increasing problem with video cafes becoming a public nusiance. They want to understand the scope of the problem. They propose a temporary solution which may or may not be too draconiun. But businesses such as bars get restrictions or closed down because they have started to become a public nusiance. It doesn't matter if such a bar has deliberately set out to attract trouble or not. The same has become true for pinball arcades, pool halls, etc.
Freedom of speech doesn't enter into this. Keeping an unruly house does. You may think the government has no right to restrict a business no matter what happens on its premises, but I've bet you've never tried to raise kids next to, say a pool hall frequented by hookers and drug dealers.
Slashdot Mirror
The absolute classic case for this was outside the computer arena. For many years (decades?) Nabisco donated cookies to the Red Cross. After a blood donation, the donor got led over to a refreshment area, where Lorna Doones and Oreo's were served to the dizzy. Sometime in the eighties, Ol' Nabisco was going through some very hard times, with plant closings and layoffs. Some exec looked at the books and said they had to cut the Red Cross cookies. Maybe this was a smart decision, probably not, but in any case, after giving away many millions of dollars worth of product to a charitable organization, they decided to do what every other cookie manufacturer had been doing all along: nothing. Did anyone say, "heck, we will miss the Lorna Doones, but it sure was nice of Nabisco to supply us all those years, I'm sorry they are in financial trouble, I wish them well and hope some other cookie manufacturer will take over the load"? Of course not. They were crucified in the press. There were calls to boycott Nabisco for "putting the screws to the Red Cross". I learned a lesson then: if I am ever in a position to do anything charitable on the corporate level, make sure it is a one-off, because once people expect something, they will turn on you if you take it away.
One reason that companies are reluctant to provide ongoing public services is that when they discontinue them, instead of getting kudos for all they contributed, they get negative reaction for pulling support.
FWIW, there are many groups that do actively complain about advertising cars driving very fast on public roads. They feel that it, well, encourages drivers to drive very fast on public roads. Tom of the Car Guys goes on rants about this all the time, and I have seen complaints from others about certain specific model cars (5 liter mustang comes to mind).
Just for the record... It doesn't make sense to spend more on a tool than necessary, just because you can use that tool to create something valuable. It may be bean counter mentality (if by bean counter, you mean someone who watches spending, then I qualify) to point out that a dump truck with a solid gold hood ornament doesn't perform any better than one with a chrome bulldog. Bean counters are not automatically wrong in everything they say. Your point about buying the best tools for the job is partially correct. Only partially, because good cost management dicates that it depends on the job. For example, if you are a programmer that occasionally types out a memo, a $150 deskjet is a perfectly adequate choice. If you are a graphics artist who has to deliver proof quality copy, then spend the thousands to get the best quality print. On the ohter hand, your point about not worrying about the cost of those tools because you will get paid a lot is, well, short sighted. In your typical office you have hundreds of different purchases per employee. If you say cost doesn't matter on all of them, you better be producing gold from lead, or your operation won't be making payroll.
Flawed logic. Just because the product made with a tool is worth a lot, doesn't justify paying more than necessary for the tool itself. After all, back in the days of checks, the average person wrote checks worth about half to three-quarters of their yearly gross. Would that justify everyone going out to buy a $1000 Mount Blanc Pen to sign them?
Although you are technically correct that government in and of itself does not grant rights, the truth is not far from that statement; it is society as a whole that "grants" rights. You are absurdly wrong in saying that "we have these rights just as surely as we have a nose". Justice is a man made concept and as such is given and withheld by man's constructs, i.e. society. There is no natural justice, other than survival of the fittest and luckiest.
I couldn't agree more. After the US presidential voting debacle there was a lot of attention paid to the history of voting here. Much of the laws had (and have) to do with keeping the riff-raff from voting. Hence Tuesday voting instead of weekend.
I guess I'm in the vast minority here, but I think what they have done makes sense. They have an increasing problem with video cafes becoming a public nusiance. They want to understand the scope of the problem. They propose a temporary solution which may or may not be too draconiun. But businesses such as bars get restrictions or closed down because they have started to become a public nusiance. It doesn't matter if such a bar has deliberately set out to attract trouble or not. The same has become true for pinball arcades, pool halls, etc. Freedom of speech doesn't enter into this. Keeping an unruly house does. You may think the government has no right to restrict a business no matter what happens on its premises, but I've bet you've never tried to raise kids next to, say a pool hall frequented by hookers and drug dealers.