You seem to have lots of ideas on how to run a company, so let me ask you: what have you ever done to create jobs for anyone? If nothing, why does this responsibility only fall on others, according to you? What do you want exactly, for there to be a law prohibiting layoffs? I'm sorry about you losing your job, but any attempts to outlaw firings will only cause adverse consequences that hurt the people they are supposed to help (see France for an example).
It isn't possible. When the government ownes everything, they have the ability to capture as much power as possible, which they never turn down, no matter who is running things. Oppression is an inevitable consequence of socialism/marxism/communism, whatever you want to call it. Even if the country starts out as a "people's republic".
I've never understood why some people buy stuff they don't want just because they were "intimidated" into buying it. Kind of like the way bullshit used car dealers operate. Does this actually work? How? Maybe my brain was wired differently than the people who buy things like this, but seriously, why would some company purchasing agent buy software they don't need just because they were threatened? They must do no research into the issue before signing the purchase forms.
Buying products from China is a far cry from allowing them to censor us. What are they going to do, cut us off and destroy their own economy in the process? I'm not quite sure of the point you are trying to make.
The best thing to do is just let him keep on ranting publicly, in the press and in court rooms. He does a great enough job making an ass out of himself, much better than anyone else could do to him. For added effect, maybe he can piss off another judge and get a contempt charge.
The obfuscation is deliberate, to make it harder for people to realize whether or not their getting a good deal. They give up in frustration and just buy the extreme edition because they figure it must be better, so they pay more money for something they don't need, which suits Intel just fine. They're not the only company doing this, just ask anyone who has bought a digital camera lately.
Yes, but they need to create more work for themselves to justify a bigger budget, which is why they "lobby" to criminalize more things. Activity like this is the sole reason why the drug war continues; because this group would have too much to lose from decriminalization.
I'm just relieved that the UN has as little power as it does. Imagine what a mess they would make if they were empowered to do more than just pass resolutions.
I don't think spam will stop, or even slow down, until a spammer is seriously hurt or killed. Right now, they know there is no consequence to their actions. I'm not saying I personally advocate killing spammers, but it certainly wouldn't make me feel bad to hear about it being done. Spamming would be a lot riskier if there were an element of harm attached for the spammer.
Google does nothing to prevent someone else from setting up a competing site, as many companies have done. Customers can then choose which site they prefer. Being a market leader due to a superior product is not a bad thing. How they kill the little guy is beyond me, unless the little guy just doesn't have anything to offer.
I don't think most people really care. I for one have no intention of rushing out and getting it. What will it have that is such an improvement over XP? They can just keep on delaying for all I care.
It doesn't, but newswriters are so used to sprinkling the word "consumer" throughout their stories that they went ahead and used it here as a filler word, whether it made sense or not.
Do you have any idea what kinds of freedoms people actually gave up during previous wars? I'll give you a hint: if there were online discussion boards during World War II and you made that post, you would have found yourself in jail. You might not have gotten out until the end of the war when the constitution was restored. I'm not saying I support Bush's power grab (or that of any previous president either) but have a little perspective. Saying you have less freedom now than anyone did ever before during other wars just makes you look like a ranting lunatic (ie Michael Moore).
Its not MBAs that are the problem. Its MBAs that don't know anything about the industry that their company is in. Even worse if they think they know a lot more than they do (ie. PHB). An MBA that is also very technically proficient is worth his/her weight in gold.
That's an easy problem to solve: use another ad blocker. When word gets out that Microsoft's program does in fact allow ads, people will stop using it. Its not like they're the only choice.
Children do not want to be bored for an hour while you try to buy a computer, thus they will throw a fit. Nothing will change this. Don't buy a computer until you find something to do with your kids. Damn, must people take little kids EVERYWHERE nowadays?
Professors are a big part of the problem. Why do they keep requiring new editions when there are plenty of old ones on the used market? The main difference between an older and newer edition is the homework problems, so students can't use the old book when the new one is adopted for the class. I think there are payoffs between profs and book publishers.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to have lots of ideas on how to run a company, so let me ask you: what have you ever done to create jobs for anyone? If nothing, why does this responsibility only fall on others, according to you? What do you want exactly, for there to be a law prohibiting layoffs? I'm sorry about you losing your job, but any attempts to outlaw firings will only cause adverse consequences that hurt the people they are supposed to help (see France for an example).
It isn't possible. When the government ownes everything, they have the ability to capture as much power as possible, which they never turn down, no matter who is running things. Oppression is an inevitable consequence of socialism/marxism/communism, whatever you want to call it. Even if the country starts out as a "people's republic".
I've never understood why some people buy stuff they don't want just because they were "intimidated" into buying it. Kind of like the way bullshit used car dealers operate. Does this actually work? How? Maybe my brain was wired differently than the people who buy things like this, but seriously, why would some company purchasing agent buy software they don't need just because they were threatened? They must do no research into the issue before signing the purchase forms.
Buying products from China is a far cry from allowing them to censor us. What are they going to do, cut us off and destroy their own economy in the process? I'm not quite sure of the point you are trying to make.
The best thing to do is just let him keep on ranting publicly, in the press and in court rooms. He does a great enough job making an ass out of himself, much better than anyone else could do to him. For added effect, maybe he can piss off another judge and get a contempt charge.
The obfuscation is deliberate, to make it harder for people to realize whether or not their getting a good deal. They give up in frustration and just buy the extreme edition because they figure it must be better, so they pay more money for something they don't need, which suits Intel just fine. They're not the only company doing this, just ask anyone who has bought a digital camera lately.
This being San Francisco, they'll just do a goatse redirect.
Do you think it's ok to piss off a Best Buy customer?
Their employees (and managers) seem to think so.
What state or country has laws against impersonating a store employee?
Yes, but they need to create more work for themselves to justify a bigger budget, which is why they "lobby" to criminalize more things. Activity like this is the sole reason why the drug war continues; because this group would have too much to lose from decriminalization.
I'm just relieved that the UN has as little power as it does. Imagine what a mess they would make if they were empowered to do more than just pass resolutions.
I don't think spam will stop, or even slow down, until a spammer is seriously hurt or killed. Right now, they know there is no consequence to their actions. I'm not saying I personally advocate killing spammers, but it certainly wouldn't make me feel bad to hear about it being done. Spamming would be a lot riskier if there were an element of harm attached for the spammer.
Google does nothing to prevent someone else from setting up a competing site, as many companies have done. Customers can then choose which site they prefer. Being a market leader due to a superior product is not a bad thing. How they kill the little guy is beyond me, unless the little guy just doesn't have anything to offer.
I don't think most people really care. I for one have no intention of rushing out and getting it. What will it have that is such an improvement over XP? They can just keep on delaying for all I care.
It doesn't, but newswriters are so used to sprinkling the word "consumer" throughout their stories that they went ahead and used it here as a filler word, whether it made sense or not.
Do you have any idea what kinds of freedoms people actually gave up during previous wars? I'll give you a hint: if there were online discussion boards during World War II and you made that post, you would have found yourself in jail. You might not have gotten out until the end of the war when the constitution was restored. I'm not saying I support Bush's power grab (or that of any previous president either) but have a little perspective. Saying you have less freedom now than anyone did ever before during other wars just makes you look like a ranting lunatic (ie Michael Moore).
Venture capital infusion.
Its not MBAs that are the problem. Its MBAs that don't know anything about the industry that their company is in. Even worse if they think they know a lot more than they do (ie. PHB). An MBA that is also very technically proficient is worth his/her weight in gold.
That's an easy problem to solve: use another ad blocker. When word gets out that Microsoft's program does in fact allow ads, people will stop using it. Its not like they're the only choice.
Courts have never been especially friendly to companies who fail to pay workers money they are owed, no matter which political party is in charge.
"W2K (Windows 2000) will be a bigger disaster than Y2K."
At least he was right about something!
Its about time some restaurant managers had the balls to stand up to these selfish people. Now if only movie theater managers could do the same.
Children do not want to be bored for an hour while you try to buy a computer, thus they will throw a fit. Nothing will change this. Don't buy a computer until you find something to do with your kids. Damn, must people take little kids EVERYWHERE nowadays?
Professors are a big part of the problem. Why do they keep requiring new editions when there are plenty of old ones on the used market? The main difference between an older and newer edition is the homework problems, so students can't use the old book when the new one is adopted for the class. I think there are payoffs between profs and book publishers.
Lawyers and accountants will never have a hard time. Remember who makes the laws.