First of all, that is not what you said. You said that the OSX version of Outlook (called Entourage I believe) only works with Exchanger servers and not with imap, pop, or anything else. That is backwards. The OSX version doesn't work with Exchange and instead must use imap, pop, etc.
Second, it does matter how IE became free. It became free in an excercise of a monopoly's power to destroy the competition. That worked and now they can kill it off because there is no legitimate competition anymore.
Not at all. He does make a point. IE doesn't kill popups or have tabbed browsing which are two features that should be (and are in other browsers) standard. Browsers like Mozilla are far ahead of MS. The only reason people need IE is because of all the idiot web developers that use propietary MS code.
No. OSX is in no way based on Linux. OSX is the mach microkernel with a BSD interface. The source for darwin is open source though (BSD License) so it is a bit of a lame excuse. Quartz (the gui) is closed source but I doubt it is hindering IE development.
So we should all be thankful for Microsoft's bullying and exploitation because of one potentially positive side-effect? Microsoft's decision to license DOS instead of selling it outright wasn't for the good of the people, it was for the lining of Bill's pockets.
If we follow your train of thought we could say that we should thank a bank robber for unknowingly killing an escaped serial killer during a hold up. The ends do not justify the means.
I don't think you know what the word "synonymous" means. He never said it was contrary, only that it is not synonymous with being competitive.
It is possible that Microsoft's biggest competitor is themselves, and releasing lots of untied, free (but subsidized) browsers that people can install in their old operating systems is self-defeating (they're costing themselves sales). One of the first steps is tying browsers to specific operating systems as a "part of the operating system" (as Microsoft has claimed all along), eliminating non-revenue producing projects that were merely for market dominance (which was what the MacIE was, in my opinion). Windows NextVersion will likely garner a lot more interest if it comes with New Shiny Browser 9.0...interest that would be diluted if you could download and install it on your Windows 95 machine.
Wow you make a great case as to why the company should be broken up. How is it fair to be forced to buy every product when all you want it one? They could release it seperately and still charge for it if they wished. This is not about competing with themselves, this is about forcing people to upgrade.
With that said, I think they are still screwing themselves. Why would someone upgrade when they can get a better browser for free? Hopefully this will make more people use alternate and better browsers that rely on standards and not proprietary protocol.
your average Linux installation is also full of interdependent layers
Fortunately those layers are outside of the kernel unlike Windows. The problem with Windows is that applications routinely crash the OS and if you can exploit an application you can crash the OS.
You are correct. The Pledge of Allegiance was used in 1892 to promote the sale of flags to schools for the 400th anniversary of Columbus discovering America.
Intersting fact: God was not mentioned in the original version of the Pledge of Allegiance and the word "equality" was purposely left out because it was too radical for the time.
I had a plugin to play ogg vorbis on winamp 3 years ago. I think I got it from the winamp website. I've been using xmms for a while now though so I'm not sure if it's still there.
So a person is bad if they're done one bad thing and a million good things? People make mistakes, that doesn't make them bad people. Bad people for the most part were bad kids and good kids for the most part become good people. I think it's just the typical, ignorant "kids are stupid" line of thought that's getting everyone in an uproar. I've done worse things as an adult than a child. As I stated earlier in this thread, there is a similar program that has been going on for years at the high school I went to and nothing bad has come from it. A teacher that knows enough to teach that class knows enough to teach only those who will act responsibly.
Weird because all of them I have known were just like that. I never was in marching band but I had a lot of friends that were and my girlfriend (different school) was at one time. I heard more crazy sex stories from them than any of my other frineds. It does make sense though. There are girls and guys traveling together and staying in hotels together. Then when I went to college it was the same thing. One of my friends from high school went to the same college (state school) that I did and it was the same thing all over again. I met some kid on my floor who was in band and he always had a new band girl on his arm. They may be dorks, but they've screwed a lot of other dorks!
My best friend is a sysadmin for my old high school and they have the most advanced, and secured networks I've ever seen. They also have a similar program at that school. They started it when I was still there but as I remember you had to write an essay to be reviewed by the teacher to get into the class. They only picked about 7 kids to be in the class and they would help maintain the network and were given special priviledges. My friend was in that class and learned a lot of sneaky things. The funny thing is that none of them ever did anything devious. In fact that experience is what lead him back there to become the sysadmin for the school.
Actually, hacking a system is the best way to learn about security. I bought the book "Maximum Linux Security" and it describes how to exploit certain services and why it works. They even give you the tools to do it. Then they describe how to secure it. The best part is trying to hack something you've thoroughly secured and finding that you actually did in fact secure it. Honestly I don't know how else you could secure something if you don't know the weaknesses. Getting your hands dirty is really the only way to really learn anything. Of course this should be done on a closed system only but I think that's obvious enough.
Consequently eliminating the ability to obtain such vast amounts of wealth (at the expense of the news-reading public) only seems like a good idea to me.
So, you're in the same boat, however I disagree with you that there's nowhere to file a grievance. It takes less than 30 minutes to fill out a small claims suit. Sue them under antitrust regulations if they have a monopoly and aren't providing a safe service. Seems clear and cut. You'd win without a lawyer.
Unfortunately it would take thousands of small claims suits in order to effectively do any damage to a large corporation.
Clearly, the person in the right. And sometimes (eg. again, McDonald's coffee lady) it isn't the person in the right, and even then, it isn't always the person with the most money.
True, "it isn't always the person with the most money" but some poor shmoe who gets screwed by a multi-billion dollar corporation has little recourse. Filing a "real" suit is unfeasible if you do not have the money to hire a lawyer and those people shouldn't be denied their right to not be exploited by large corporations. Even if he filed a grievance in small claims court, that would do nothing to stop the corporation from continuing it malpractice. Small claims is only civil and does nothing more than mildly annoy a large corporation, more because of time than actual money.
Hmmm, I have heard in the US that newspapers tend to be like this. In Ontario, they prefer to focus on what the government is ruining. In my case, the "big things" tend to be:
- Is the government ruining education, is privatization of the phone system/hydro a good thing, (locally) how bad did the city screw us over on RIM park, etc, etc.
Rarely do the leaders get their personal lives exposed, except in a few trashy newspapers, or as part of the "editorial" section. Hey, why not take a look at my local paper and see for yourself!:)
Unfortunately the present US Administration's personal matters are ruining the country.
It all depends on how much you believe in something. We're all selfish at heart, and most people, when pushed, will change their minds to suit their needs.
Speak for yourself please. I do agree that most people are selfish but not all and just because they may be in the majority, that doesn't make it right.
Right now I'd love to tax the hell out of all my competing businesses, but if mine went flat, I couldn't care less. That's human nature. And it's that selfishness (which that conservative is showing in abundance!) that is the reason why people can, and should, be responsible for themselves. Even when they are pretending they aren't, they really are.
Selfishness makes you feel this way because of it's inherent short-sightedness. Being selfish helps you in the short run but stifles humanity in the long run. The world wouldn't be as advanced as it is today without people giving up that short-sighted, selfish point of view (Think OSS). Personally I couldn't fathom screwing everyone else for my personal gain. Sure I want things out of life but exploiting other people to do it doesn't justify the end to me. People are perfectly capable of working together, and not against each other. Unfortunately greed gets in the way. Consequently eliminating the ability to obtain such vast amounts of wealth at the expense of the news-reading people only seems like a good idea to me.
If you went to a store and bought something for $10, would you expect them to increase the cost for someone that made more money than you? How fair is that?
You didn't even make an effort when you made that up. That doesn't happen. You can't get more back. If by some small chance you are telling the truth then someone at the IRS is going to lose their job for that mistake. I remember making somewhere around that much money and paying much more than 400 dollars in taxes and not getting it all back.
If you went to a store and bought something for $10, would you expect them to increase the cost for someone that made more money than you? How fair is that?
You are not buying your government. You are paying taxes! It's not even remotely the same thing. I think it's the conservatives that are the leeches in this society. They don't seem to want to pay taxes. I don't really see how anyone could pity the rich because they have to pay more in taxes. I make a decent amount for a single guy and the government takes their share from my check. I never feel like i'm getting robbed by doing my duty as citzen and paying taxes. I realize that as I make more money I am going to lose more of it in taxes. It doesn't bother me. I also understand that some people are too poor to shoulder the burden of taxes. Why should someone making 10,000 dollars a year have to pay taxes? Can someone in the US live off of 10,000 dollars a year? Certainly not in New England. How do you expect to take money from someone who is already having a hard time living.
Maybe not, but they tend to go together. Rich countries have better envrionmental conditions than poor countries.
Care to back that one up? Tell me how an industrialized country will have cleaner air and more open space than un-industrialized countries. I agree we (industrialized countries) may have cleaner drinking water but that's about it, and not because we're careful, it's only because we have to spend even more money for water treatment plants because there isn't as much clean water as we need.
The big news media, minus Fox, has been bedwetting, treehugging leftist pigs since the 60's
Tell me that you're joking. Please tell me that so I don't think less of you as a person. I don't know if you realize this but us "trehugging leftist pigs" don't follow the big new media. Why? IT'S TOO CONSERVATIVE! They are just not as ultra-conservative as FOX. They all report the same crap. FOX just cheerleads the government more than the others. Then they bolster it with opinions from idiots like O'Reilly who cannot stand to proven wrong so they just mute the opposition.
If Democrats are so good for the economy, why wouldn't the Big Corporations want to be in bed with the party that'll make them the most money?
The fatal flaw of the Conservative is to assume that everyone else is a Democrat. NEWS FLASH...those guys aren't cutting it anymore either. They're almost as corrupt as the Republicans.
If you pay me $5 per month, I'll start recycling. I'll even write up a contract and everything. In fact, I'll even make a Paypal account that you can pay directly so you don't even have to mail a check. Deal? No? Well then you're no better than Exxon
That's a rediculous analogy. Besides that, it is true that some people want to keep their greedy little hands on every last dime at the expense of the human race, but that doesn't make it right. It's not supposed to be mob rule. That's why we have a government.
Money == happiness... at least part of it. If it didn't, why would the liberals always be so concerned about the poor people who never get their "fair share" of other-peoples-taxes back?
Another uninformed statement. Why do Conservatives think it's "rob the rich, feed the poor"? They don't take your money and just give it back in tax refunds to the poor. The government needs taxes to operate. Obviously rich people can afford paying more and still survive. What's the point of taxing someone into destitution? How will that help society? Providing for the poor is not for the sake of "happiness" alone, it's for the general well-being of the people of this country. How can you be proud of a country that has poor starving people dying in the streets? Humility is a virute.
He IS advocating the Microsoft view of the world. Which is that "in the future" everybody will have massive storage and computing will be concentrated on the individual desktops.
What about.NET? This is client/server model that does not concentrate on the individual desktop at all. I beleive that the MS world view was once about the individual desktop but that is and has been changing for a while now.
I do beleive that pushing commodity hardware is something that would benefit MS though. I'm not suggesting that the statement about beowulf clusters is a direct attempt at doing that but it would make sense from their point of view. Additionally, abandoning research for raw processing power is not a good idea. Lack of research for mass storage is not a good idea either. It's obvious that both will be needed for different reasons. There is no "one size fits all" computer.
You are right but there must be a physical limit to transistor density and we will run into this problem sooner or later. I don't think anyone can clearly say when we will reach the limit but we will reach the limit.
There is R&D going on into quantum computing but will it be ready when we reach the transistor density limit? Will there be something else to replace transistors? A new technology has to be researched now before we do reach the physical limits of transistors.
Where? In Ontario? Yes, it's been more free (somewhat) for about 2 years, if we're talking electricity and gas service. That's 10% of my estimated time it'll take. It simply takes a long time to convert to a free market. The deep-seated problems associated with communist services take a long time to weed out.
First of all I was talking about deregultion in Russia. Maybe if you read the post you would know. Second I do understand that the Government does some shady stuff, espcecially lately. The answer is not to give it away to corporations who have no reason to even care about the consumer and no duty to either. We must fix government because it is the duty of the government to take care of its people, not corporations.
If WalMart had killed a dozen people through a negligently run water supply you'd never buy water there again, and they'd be sued up the wazoo. But if it's the government, well, you don't have a choice, do you? I suppose you could dig a well, but wait, you're not zoned for it.
Marketing baby. Marketing and monopoly. I would definitely buy water there if it was the only place to buy water, no matter how bad it is. I have no choice and I have nowhere to file a grievance. Suing large companies usually gets you nowhere. Who do you think is going to win in a case like that, someone making 30,000 a year or a corporation making 30 billion a year? Also look at MS. They make an inferior product that beats out better software that's free. People will keep buying into marketing no matter how bad it is.
Don't believe me? Compare and contrast the number of corporate scandals that make front page of your local news to the number of government scandals that do.
Politcal scandals nowadays tend to either be about personal doings which are no one's else's business or involve corporations themselves, like Halliburton. The corporate scandals tend to be along the lines of Enron, which is an obvious reason for more regulation.
There's only (normally) three people whose job it is to look out for you, and for two of them, their job officially ends when you turn 18.
This statement reminds me of an article about a conservative who believed much the same thing. That was until she and her husband lost their jobs. Now she's fighting to keep government programs. The article was in The Nation a few weeks ago. The point being that it's nice in theory to do that but people are not always in a position to help themselves (just like how communism is nice in theory).
Sorry, did you want a postal service or a law enforcement agency? There is a difference.
Uhhh. What? I hope they're combatting fraud. I hope they're looking out for people. That's why the government runs it and not some corporation who cares about profits and not people.
Much like how the FAA is loaded with people from airlines.
False. My roomate works for the FAA. You have to sign an ethics agreement which disallows you from having invovlement with commercial airlines.
This still happens. For a long time, I lived in a very rural town in the SW US. When someone's house was on fire, the local fire department first looked up whether or not they'd made "donations" recently.
HAHA. Oh, that wasn't a joke. It sure was funny though. I'd like to see some proof of that. First if you live in a small town you most likely have a volunteer FD. I lived in a town of 18,000 and we had a volunteer department. Those guys don't get paid. They don't care if you donated. They aren't getting paid. I know quite a few fire fighters and all they care about is going to fires. It's exciting, and they have the possiblity to save someone's life. It's actually pretty demeaning to suggest that they would let someone die because of lack of donations. Sounds more like a corporate tactic than a local government tactic. Besides those obvious points, who has the time to look up whether or not someone donated when the alarm goes off. "Woops Johhny died because we wasted too much time looking up his donation status. Woops again! He did donate money last year! Well too late now. His house is already burnt down."
Yay. In 20 years, tell me how things are. Converting from communism to capitalism takes time, and there'll be growing pains as things move ahead to a brighter future.
Nobody said the change would be easy. But, if you believe in the free market, rather than communism, then you know it will happen, given time.
Funny becuase the reason it is so bad is because of deregulation. The market is more free than it is in the US and it is causing major problems. Without regulation, corporations are left to do only what they are meant to do, make money, and that is at the expense of the consumer. We shouldn't pretend that corporations are there to look out for us, that's not their job, it's the government's job.
Slashdot Mirror
Second, it does matter how IE became free. It became free in an excercise of a monopoly's power to destroy the competition. That worked and now they can kill it off because there is no legitimate competition anymore.
Not at all. He does make a point. IE doesn't kill popups or have tabbed browsing which are two features that should be (and are in other browsers) standard. Browsers like Mozilla are far ahead of MS. The only reason people need IE is because of all the idiot web developers that use propietary MS code.
No. OSX is in no way based on Linux. OSX is the mach microkernel with a BSD interface. The source for darwin is open source though (BSD License) so it is a bit of a lame excuse. Quartz (the gui) is closed source but I doubt it is hindering IE development.
If we follow your train of thought we could say that we should thank a bank robber for unknowingly killing an escaped serial killer during a hold up. The ends do not justify the means.
wow that was a great example!
It is possible that Microsoft's biggest competitor is themselves, and releasing lots of untied, free (but subsidized) browsers that people can install in their old operating systems is self-defeating (they're costing themselves sales). One of the first steps is tying browsers to specific operating systems as a "part of the operating system" (as Microsoft has claimed all along), eliminating non-revenue producing projects that were merely for market dominance (which was what the MacIE was, in my opinion). Windows NextVersion will likely garner a lot more interest if it comes with New Shiny Browser 9.0...interest that would be diluted if you could download and install it on your Windows 95 machine.
Wow you make a great case as to why the company should be broken up. How is it fair to be forced to buy every product when all you want it one? They could release it seperately and still charge for it if they wished. This is not about competing with themselves, this is about forcing people to upgrade.
With that said, I think they are still screwing themselves. Why would someone upgrade when they can get a better browser for free? Hopefully this will make more people use alternate and better browsers that rely on standards and not proprietary protocol.
Fortunately those layers are outside of the kernel unlike Windows. The problem with Windows is that applications routinely crash the OS and if you can exploit an application you can crash the OS.
Intersting fact: God was not mentioned in the original version of the Pledge of Allegiance and the word "equality" was purposely left out because it was too radical for the time.
I had a plugin to play ogg vorbis on winamp 3 years ago. I think I got it from the winamp website. I've been using xmms for a while now though so I'm not sure if it's still there.
So a person is bad if they're done one bad thing and a million good things? People make mistakes, that doesn't make them bad people. Bad people for the most part were bad kids and good kids for the most part become good people. I think it's just the typical, ignorant "kids are stupid" line of thought that's getting everyone in an uproar. I've done worse things as an adult than a child. As I stated earlier in this thread, there is a similar program that has been going on for years at the high school I went to and nothing bad has come from it. A teacher that knows enough to teach that class knows enough to teach only those who will act responsibly.
Weird because all of them I have known were just like that. I never was in marching band but I had a lot of friends that were and my girlfriend (different school) was at one time. I heard more crazy sex stories from them than any of my other frineds. It does make sense though. There are girls and guys traveling together and staying in hotels together. Then when I went to college it was the same thing. One of my friends from high school went to the same college (state school) that I did and it was the same thing all over again. I met some kid on my floor who was in band and he always had a new band girl on his arm. They may be dorks, but they've screwed a lot of other dorks!
My best friend is a sysadmin for my old high school and they have the most advanced, and secured networks I've ever seen. They also have a similar program at that school. They started it when I was still there but as I remember you had to write an essay to be reviewed by the teacher to get into the class. They only picked about 7 kids to be in the class and they would help maintain the network and were given special priviledges. My friend was in that class and learned a lot of sneaky things. The funny thing is that none of them ever did anything devious. In fact that experience is what lead him back there to become the sysadmin for the school.
Actually, hacking a system is the best way to learn about security. I bought the book "Maximum Linux Security" and it describes how to exploit certain services and why it works. They even give you the tools to do it. Then they describe how to secure it. The best part is trying to hack something you've thoroughly secured and finding that you actually did in fact secure it. Honestly I don't know how else you could secure something if you don't know the weaknesses. Getting your hands dirty is really the only way to really learn anything. Of course this should be done on a closed system only but I think that's obvious enough.
Consequently eliminating the ability to obtain such vast amounts of wealth (at the expense of the news-reading public) only seems like a good idea to me.
Unfortunately it would take thousands of small claims suits in order to effectively do any damage to a large corporation.
Clearly, the person in the right. And sometimes (eg. again, McDonald's coffee lady) it isn't the person in the right, and even then, it isn't always the person with the most money.
True, "it isn't always the person with the most money" but some poor shmoe who gets screwed by a multi-billion dollar corporation has little recourse. Filing a "real" suit is unfeasible if you do not have the money to hire a lawyer and those people shouldn't be denied their right to not be exploited by large corporations. Even if he filed a grievance in small claims court, that would do nothing to stop the corporation from continuing it malpractice. Small claims is only civil and does nothing more than mildly annoy a large corporation, more because of time than actual money.
Hmmm, I have heard in the US that newspapers tend to be like this. In Ontario, they prefer to focus on what the government is ruining. In my case, the "big things" tend to be: - Is the government ruining education, is privatization of the phone system/hydro a good thing, (locally) how bad did the city screw us over on RIM park, etc, etc. Rarely do the leaders get their personal lives exposed, except in a few trashy newspapers, or as part of the "editorial" section. Hey, why not take a look at my local paper and see for yourself! :)
Unfortunately the present US Administration's personal matters are ruining the country.
It all depends on how much you believe in something. We're all selfish at heart, and most people, when pushed, will change their minds to suit their needs.
Speak for yourself please. I do agree that most people are selfish but not all and just because they may be in the majority, that doesn't make it right.
Right now I'd love to tax the hell out of all my competing businesses, but if mine went flat, I couldn't care less. That's human nature. And it's that selfishness (which that conservative is showing in abundance!) that is the reason why people can, and should, be responsible for themselves. Even when they are pretending they aren't, they really are.
Selfishness makes you feel this way because of it's inherent short-sightedness. Being selfish helps you in the short run but stifles humanity in the long run. The world wouldn't be as advanced as it is today without people giving up that short-sighted, selfish point of view (Think OSS). Personally I couldn't fathom screwing everyone else for my personal gain. Sure I want things out of life but exploiting other people to do it doesn't justify the end to me. People are perfectly capable of working together, and not against each other. Unfortunately greed gets in the way. Consequently eliminating the ability to obtain such vast amounts of wealth at the expense of the news-reading people only seems like a good idea to me.
You didn't even make an effort when you made that up. That doesn't happen. You can't get more back. If by some small chance you are telling the truth then someone at the IRS is going to lose their job for that mistake. I remember making somewhere around that much money and paying much more than 400 dollars in taxes and not getting it all back.
You are not buying your government. You are paying taxes! It's not even remotely the same thing. I think it's the conservatives that are the leeches in this society. They don't seem to want to pay taxes. I don't really see how anyone could pity the rich because they have to pay more in taxes. I make a decent amount for a single guy and the government takes their share from my check. I never feel like i'm getting robbed by doing my duty as citzen and paying taxes. I realize that as I make more money I am going to lose more of it in taxes. It doesn't bother me. I also understand that some people are too poor to shoulder the burden of taxes. Why should someone making 10,000 dollars a year have to pay taxes? Can someone in the US live off of 10,000 dollars a year? Certainly not in New England. How do you expect to take money from someone who is already having a hard time living.
Care to back that one up? Tell me how an industrialized country will have cleaner air and more open space than un-industrialized countries. I agree we (industrialized countries) may have cleaner drinking water but that's about it, and not because we're careful, it's only because we have to spend even more money for water treatment plants because there isn't as much clean water as we need.
Tell me that you're joking. Please tell me that so I don't think less of you as a person. I don't know if you realize this but us "trehugging leftist pigs" don't follow the big new media. Why? IT'S TOO CONSERVATIVE! They are just not as ultra-conservative as FOX. They all report the same crap. FOX just cheerleads the government more than the others. Then they bolster it with opinions from idiots like O'Reilly who cannot stand to proven wrong so they just mute the opposition.
If Democrats are so good for the economy, why wouldn't the Big Corporations want to be in bed with the party that'll make them the most money?
The fatal flaw of the Conservative is to assume that everyone else is a Democrat. NEWS FLASH...those guys aren't cutting it anymore either. They're almost as corrupt as the Republicans.
If you pay me $5 per month, I'll start recycling. I'll even write up a contract and everything. In fact, I'll even make a Paypal account that you can pay directly so you don't even have to mail a check. Deal? No? Well then you're no better than Exxon
That's a rediculous analogy. Besides that, it is true that some people want to keep their greedy little hands on every last dime at the expense of the human race, but that doesn't make it right. It's not supposed to be mob rule. That's why we have a government.
Money == happiness... at least part of it. If it didn't, why would the liberals always be so concerned about the poor people who never get their "fair share" of other-peoples-taxes back?
Another uninformed statement. Why do Conservatives think it's "rob the rich, feed the poor"? They don't take your money and just give it back in tax refunds to the poor. The government needs taxes to operate. Obviously rich people can afford paying more and still survive. What's the point of taxing someone into destitution? How will that help society? Providing for the poor is not for the sake of "happiness" alone, it's for the general well-being of the people of this country. How can you be proud of a country that has poor starving people dying in the streets? Humility is a virute.
I do beleive that pushing commodity hardware is something that would benefit MS though. I'm not suggesting that the statement about beowulf clusters is a direct attempt at doing that but it would make sense from their point of view. Additionally, abandoning research for raw processing power is not a good idea. Lack of research for mass storage is not a good idea either. It's obvious that both will be needed for different reasons. There is no "one size fits all" computer.
There is R&D going on into quantum computing but will it be ready when we reach the transistor density limit? Will there be something else to replace transistors? A new technology has to be researched now before we do reach the physical limits of transistors.
First of all I was talking about deregultion in Russia. Maybe if you read the post you would know. Second I do understand that the Government does some shady stuff, espcecially lately. The answer is not to give it away to corporations who have no reason to even care about the consumer and no duty to either. We must fix government because it is the duty of the government to take care of its people, not corporations.
If WalMart had killed a dozen people through a negligently run water supply you'd never buy water there again, and they'd be sued up the wazoo. But if it's the government, well, you don't have a choice, do you? I suppose you could dig a well, but wait, you're not zoned for it.
Marketing baby. Marketing and monopoly. I would definitely buy water there if it was the only place to buy water, no matter how bad it is. I have no choice and I have nowhere to file a grievance. Suing large companies usually gets you nowhere. Who do you think is going to win in a case like that, someone making 30,000 a year or a corporation making 30 billion a year? Also look at MS. They make an inferior product that beats out better software that's free. People will keep buying into marketing no matter how bad it is.
Don't believe me? Compare and contrast the number of corporate scandals that make front page of your local news to the number of government scandals that do.
Politcal scandals nowadays tend to either be about personal doings which are no one's else's business or involve corporations themselves, like Halliburton. The corporate scandals tend to be along the lines of Enron, which is an obvious reason for more regulation.
There's only (normally) three people whose job it is to look out for you, and for two of them, their job officially ends when you turn 18.
This statement reminds me of an article about a conservative who believed much the same thing. That was until she and her husband lost their jobs. Now she's fighting to keep government programs. The article was in The Nation a few weeks ago. The point being that it's nice in theory to do that but people are not always in a position to help themselves (just like how communism is nice in theory).
BTW I live in the US.
Uhhh. What? I hope they're combatting fraud. I hope they're looking out for people. That's why the government runs it and not some corporation who cares about profits and not people.
Much like how the FAA is loaded with people from airlines.
False. My roomate works for the FAA. You have to sign an ethics agreement which disallows you from having invovlement with commercial airlines.
This still happens. For a long time, I lived in a very rural town in the SW US. When someone's house was on fire, the local fire department first looked up whether or not they'd made "donations" recently.
HAHA. Oh, that wasn't a joke. It sure was funny though. I'd like to see some proof of that. First if you live in a small town you most likely have a volunteer FD. I lived in a town of 18,000 and we had a volunteer department. Those guys don't get paid. They don't care if you donated. They aren't getting paid. I know quite a few fire fighters and all they care about is going to fires. It's exciting, and they have the possiblity to save someone's life. It's actually pretty demeaning to suggest that they would let someone die because of lack of donations. Sounds more like a corporate tactic than a local government tactic. Besides those obvious points, who has the time to look up whether or not someone donated when the alarm goes off. "Woops Johhny died because we wasted too much time looking up his donation status. Woops again! He did donate money last year! Well too late now. His house is already burnt down."
Nobody said the change would be easy. But, if you believe in the free market, rather than communism, then you know it will happen, given time.
Funny becuase the reason it is so bad is because of deregulation. The market is more free than it is in the US and it is causing major problems. Without regulation, corporations are left to do only what they are meant to do, make money, and that is at the expense of the consumer. We shouldn't pretend that corporations are there to look out for us, that's not their job, it's the government's job.
Nah. I believe the Patriot Act was a GOP thing.