Ovitz built and ran a hugely successful talent agency, which he was obliged to sever all ties to when he moved to Disney. So most of his $140 million in compensation was for giving up his ownership stake in Creative Artists Agency, not for anything he did (or didn't do) at Disney.
Let's get this straight... your claim is that Ovitz was paid $140 million not for any benefit he brought to Disney, but for what he wasn't doing at some other company?
True enough, but it is still their company that they lose. Chuck Conaway had no personal investment in K-Mart. He was a hired hand who drove the company into the ground and skated off with a lot of money, ready to be hired on by some other company. He had put nothing into the company and it was nothing personal when he eliminated 57,000 jobs.
There's a great way to test everyone's theories about how much executives actually do: form your own company.
Sorry, but there's no comparison. If a private company goes under the CEO (ie: the owner) loses bigtime. If a F500 company goes under the CEO risks nothing except possibly some unexercised stock options but is certain to have a golden parachute at any rate.
How many F500 executives today actually took part in the creation of the company? Probably not very many: in 2002 the average tenure of a CEO was only 7.8 years.
A lot of those F500 executives earn every cent in my opinion.
I disagree. I've known too many of them. Most of them haven't seen an honest day's work in years, if not decades.
Somebody must have imparted a momentary impulse to a patellar tendon because I just saw a knee jerk.
I do not begrudge effective, honest and successful CEOs their salaries. If they earn it, they earn it.
BUT
Ovitz did not deserve $140 million. Ken Lay did not earn his $42 million in 1999. Ebbers did not deserve a guaranteed 1.5 million annual pay for life. Jure Sola did not earn his $20 million bonus for hitting targets one quarter out of 16 as the investors in the company saw shares fall 78%.
The complaint isn't how much CEOs make... it is how much BAD CEOs make. Could I perform as well as a CEO? Well, pay me $1,000,000/month and I'll see if I can drive the nation's largest retailer into the ground along with 57,000 jobs like Chuck Conaway did.
Why do companies exist? To generate profit. If the CEO can't do that then the CEO needs to be replaced. And if the CEO is engaged in any sort of corruption, fraud or outright stupidity then he has to go.
Are all CEO's inept, devoid of skill and undeserving of large salaries? Absolutely not. Only a silly extremist would make such a claim.
However. I find it inexcusable to tell the employees that there isn't enough money for raises (or even adequate equipment) then siphon off several times the profit for one overpaid and underworked twit who just isn't bringing any value to the organization.
Companies that aren't pro consumer don't make money..at least not for long.
Please give three examples how Comcast is pro-consumer.
Glaxo?
Westinghouse?
Any of Andrew Carnigie's companies?
Standard Oil... that was an exceptionally pro-consumer company, no?
Tinfoil hats are unnecessary... there is no conspiracy. Pro-consumer companies can do exceptionally well (but if they become too pro-consumer then they quickly fold).
Crack dealers make lots of money - are they pro-consumer?
It isn't hard to be anti-consumer and still make gobs of cash: you only have to sell a product the consumer values or needs more than their desire to avoid your abuse. Has anybody ever accused Ameritech of being pro-consumer? Certainly not the people around here who went 9 weeks and longer without service. How many HMOs bend over backwards for you? Consider all of the hospitals that think nothing of letting you fester in the ER lobby for hours before even bothering to put you in front of the triage nurse or cut nurse staffing levels to the point where people die for lack of care?
There are many other environments and industries that are decidedly anti-consumer yet still rake in lots and lots of profit - with no sign of those dividends dropping anytime soon.
You are correct in the sense that corporations exist to make a profit. However, this does not mean that there isn't a way to give the consumer what they want and still make money doing it.
I never intended to suggest that it can't be done. With a few exceptions (various utility companies, insurance and healthcare companies come to mind *) corporations make money by meeting a demand to the satisfaction of their customers. Even Microsoft satisfies a demand - on the whole people buy MS products because, to an extent, they work well enough to get by. People demand pr0n, Redmond provides an easy way for them to get some. People demand entertainment, Redmond provides a gateway to some games that are rather enjoyable. People want to listen to music. Redmond provides one of many basic frameworks that allows people to play.mp3 files. Any OS that couldn't deliver games, music and sex, in some proportional combination thereof, wouldn't enjoy any significant market share in today's world.
But on many levels Microsoft isn't giving people what they demand. I want a quick-booting, secure operating system that doesn't require separate utilities to monitor against viral and annelidic activity, doesn't allow 3rd parties to spy on me or install software without my permission, and will work as reliably as a lightbulb. After 20 years MS is still refusing to deliver a computer as virus-resistant as the Commodore 64. I personally don't care if my Windows 95 games don't work on the next platform - they often don't work right anyway. Backwards compatibility is not what I am demanding but MS is ignoring what I, the consumer, wants.
Ben & Jerry gave me something I wanted at what I believed to be a fair price. For awhile there Northwest Airlines gave me something I wanted at what I believed to be a fair price. I am more than happy to fork over my money for the brands of Craftsman, Brother, Wendy's, Domino's, or Holiday Inn because when I am sleepy, hungry, need to set up an office multi-function device or have a protruding nail or an untorqued nut these companies - which exist only to try and convince me to surrender my money - provide something I perceive as value. I never forget for a second that they only want my money, but I don't mind. That's the way the system works.
But companies such as Microsoft, Exxon-Mobil, Pfizer, Pacific Gas & Electric or Sony Entertainment have no interest in providing value - and get quite rich off of it. Their business plan is exclusively based upon the idea of doing the absolute minimum necessary to get paid. To think for even a second that these companies are pro-consumer is laughable.
*There are certain industries - such as healthcare, insurance and energy that have a captive market. If you don't pay for healthcare, you die. If you don't buy insurance in many (all?) states you can't drive a car and make a living, and you certainly can't buy a house with a mortgage which is how most people must purchase living quarters. If you don't pay for water and electric many cities will condemn your house and throw you out on the streets. These companies certainly have no vested interest in creating any significant value for the consumer because they know you are forced by either law or death to consume.
Did it ever cross your mind that actually BEING pro-consumer could mean more profit?
Yes, hence my comment "To make people think they are pro-consumer so they buy more of their products".
The officers of a corporation have a primary duty to the shareholders. First, foremost and above all else. If they happen to craft a pro-consumer image in the process great for them, even better for me. But any pro-consumer or anti-consumer strategies are only means to an end. They aren't really "pro-consumer" any more than driving from Atlanta to Miami makes me "pro I-75".
I'll say it again because it is such an incredibly important concept: corporations - including Microsoft - are pro-profit and do not exist for any other reason. Any stance, for or against, they adopt towards the consumers is secondary.
The fact you think this is spin shows your anti-MS bias.
Non sequitur. If anything I should probably be accused of being pro-MS since I am defending their efforts to make lots of money.
Microsoft exists to make a profit. It does not exist for any other reason. The sole reason for the corporation is to make money for Gates and the stockholders. Period. This is the only reason any corporation exists - Exxon, McDonald's, Apple, Boeing, GM, Dow Corning, Intel, AMD... they exist to make money.
So why would a corporation try to spin themselves as "pro-consumer"? One of two reasons:
To make people think they are pro-consumer so they buy more of their products
To be able to claim to governments, judges and juries that they are pro-consumer
It really is that simple. Any corporation that isn't seeking to maximize profits for its shareholders is liable for all kinds of nasty lawsuits. The only question is how many dirty tricks are shareholders willing to put up with, how nasty of a reputation can be put forth before non-captive consumers turn their backs, and just how vicious can they become before the government steps in and smacks their noses with a rolled up legal code?
Correct me if I am wrong, but google already has rules against trying to manipulate PageRank... there doesn't seem to have been many abuses of this, probably because if you did this to a competitor the lawyers would be lining up to take your case.
How about a spider-readable timestamp for blogs? If 5,000 new blogs pop up within 12 hours of each other linking to the same web page it is an obvious red flag.
On top of this, once again the hosting services need to be held responsible: if a site is hosting an obviously spamvertised site then give them 24 hours to remove the site or be blocked from future indexing activities - and have current rankings deleted.
It's no secret that corporations are greedy and will do anything they can to increase their wealth.
Well duh... that's why corporations exist. Corporations are NOT created for any other purpose. They do not sprout up like so many altruistic mushrooms, but are crafted with a specific goal in mind.
That somewhere is the poor below. They talk of trickle economics for the the poor getting money from the wealthy, but it's quite the reverse.
So if economies are improved by getting more money in the hands of the poor why have decades of outright cash handouts and other entitlements resulted in no change?
The government is taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who do not have it and don't deserve it. And the result? As you put it...
To back this stance, it is worth nothing that the wealthiest wealthy grew wealthier between 2003 and 2004, partially thanks to tax cuts. The poor, however, became poorer. During that time period the number of Americans living in poverty grew by 1.4 million.
Entitlement programs do not work. They have never worked. They will never work. By increasing the tax rate on the middle class you are reducing the number of people who can afford to hire a gardener. Or put in new windows. Or waterproof their basement. The x thousands of dollars that are taken from the 40-80k salary families could have been used to hire a maid, a tutor, or have their car detailed. Instead the money went to hire some government wonk to sit around an office all day and complain that there isn't enough money to hire more government employees and explain why the budget doesn't cover additional entitlements.
The blame lies equally with the Democrats and the Republicans: (there are more millionaire Dems in congress than there are millionaire GOPers by the way) - they know how economies work but refuse to improve ours.
Taxation does not create wealth. (And labor, by the way, is not wealth.)
how often does it happen that a multi-billion dollar corporation makes it a year without paying any taxes at all?
Basic fact that is frequently overlooked: corporations do not pay taxes - their customers do. ALL taxes paid by corporations are really taxes on money passing through. Jack the taxes up 500% and the only people you hurt are a) the consumers who must pay the higher prices and b) the workforce who suddenly finds themselves out of work because the consumers couldn't afford the goods/services.
Radical idea here: corporations and businesses should not be taxed. Why not? Again, they can't be taxed: corporations can only be used to indirectly tax the consumer - and creating a lot of wasted overhead in the process because the corporation has to pay for a lot of accountants and tax preparation.
Tax monies sent offshore, tax purchases and tax real property. That's it.
Yeah, I can toggle the read on/off, but what I'm really after is the ability to not flag a message as read just by reading it... I'd rather it remain marked unread until I manually say "yes, I have read this"
Most of the damage is not done to the user, but to the ISP, backbone providers and hosting providers. For the user it might be an annoyance, but for them it costs money.
All higher costs incurred by the ISP are passed along to the consumer, ergo all of the damage is done to the user, though indirectly.
Stop people buying from spam adverts and noone will bother to send the adverts.
p
Ok... how many customers were generated by the following spam?
xaamvicivale
nabiagallivi
xenra $is $um $tra
135 30 pi170 30 pi161 90 pi
llsllslls
get additional information
Or perhaps this magnificent example:
Good day for you, Do yo
AVE U
n your Meddica
u want to S
PTO 70% o
tions?
You can do it - More info
ALXVCV
bieitranaiagialali
naxra $is $um $
134 (30 p.)169 (30 p.)218 (180 p.)
plus many other , Good bye
Are these people sending out the spam to try and sell something? Is there anybody on the planet who will buy something from these people?
If you want to stop spam then you need to strike at both people involved: the spammer and his client. Force Ralsky to disclose how much money he received from otherwise reputable companies to hawk their wares and said companies will quickly distance themselves, hopefully firing the exec who greenlit the spampaign. Then, once you know who paid for the spam, arrest them and not just the spammers.... kinda like arresting both the paid murderer and the guy who hired him.
"Big corporations" tend to play by the rules, making them highly filterable.
Then why did it take Kraft Foods so long to grasp the concept that I didn't want any Gevalia Coffee? And I'm pretty sure that Sears didn't get the message until they lost in court over their spam.
As much as I hate to admit it, the great monstrosity that is Microsoft finally got a few things right with Outlook 2003 - Outlook being, of course, the one piece of software that actually manages to get a few new useful functions on every cycle.
The little semi-opaque window that appears in the corner with a mini-blurb as to who just sent you an email and why you should care is quite useful, as are the search folders (from whom did MS rip off those ideas?)
Personally, I don't interrupt my day to deal with emails: I get to the email when I get to the email and not a second earlier. I have a few dozen filtering rules set up then several times a day I quickly scan through and prioritize. Personally, I leave messages flagged unread until I have dealt with them (a function I wish Thunderbird, which I use at home would give me) which helps keep track of things I still have yet to do.
These incidents you describe were clearly not the work of the Secret Service but rather Bush campaign operations. So I would advise you to stop slandering the Secret Service and rather get your facts straight.
Please consult your nearest dictionary regarding the difference between slander and libel. That said, please refer to the 329,000 hits returned by google for this search
A couple of blurbs that stand out follow:
As stated by one of its own procedure manuals, the Secret Service is not supposed to segregate protesters. However, when local police officers have testified in these cases they almost always confirm the Secret Service's orders to segregate protesters in a discriminatory manner.http://www.satyamag.com/apr04/pascarella.html
The SS
has officially denied having anything to do with es-
tablishing the zones, however, SS representatives have
acknowledged they do. Police officers in several states
have testified or made public statements, that the Se-
cret Service ordered them to keep protesters out of
sight of the president.http://makeashorterlink.com/?K1F531DFB
Now please understand me: my observations are neither pro-Bush nor anti-Bush. I think Bush does a fine job on some issues and a horrible job on others. I personally would never attend a protest rally but that's just me and my personal opinion. I am neither for nor against people who do prostest and/or support Bush (or any other president, for that matter) and have a complaint only with the attempt to hide (at best) or silence (at worst) dissent for the news service - all of which is staged anyway.
Has the secret service overstepped their bounds to illegally suppress dissenting speech? Unquestionably. Did this work in the favor of Bush(II)? Yes. Did this work in the favor of Clinton? Yes. Did this work in the favor of Bush(I)? Yes. For every president since the secret service started protecting presidents? Probably. There is nothing libelous about pointing out truth, nor is there anything particularly mean-spirited about doing so. Every president wants to look good on the telly and every president will use whatever resources are at his disposal to go about this. This is politics as usual and transcend red, blue, left, right, politics and partisanship.
Personally, I think this is wrong. I personally think that people should be allowed to express their opinions, if and only if they are non-violent, non-menacing and non-threatening in the process. Wear a T-Shirt with all kinds of "support this" or "denounce that". Be happy that a local merchant made a few bucks on the sale. But any law enforcement official who says "you can't stand here with those words, now move along or be arrested" is in violation of the concept of free speech. I can ignore a message with which I disagree, I expect the president to do no less. I also expect the president to order his employees and supporters to do the same.
Officials say there's no Big Brother agenda in the Missouri project -- the data will remain anonymous, leaving no possibility to track specific people from their driveway to their destination.
Do you think that they may actually be telling the truth and could in fact be trying to make life better? Nah! Conspiracy theories are much more fun!
But they aren't telling the truth: the claim that there is no possibility to track specific people simply isn't in line with the technology that is available out there. The enhanced 911 services that include GPS chips in cell phones were specifically designed so police and other authorities could identify the specific location of specific individuals. Nor is GPS even necessary to identify location: the most recent edition of Microsoft Streets & Trips (2006) has a "locate me" function that searches for local wireless signals and triangulates one's location accordingly. While this specific project has no aims of tracking the location of specific individuals the technology involved could clearly and easily be reallocated to a project that does.
There is no conspiracy theory here: the population has elected a body of officials that takes their assumed responsibilities very seriously and correctly believe that the citizenry as a whole wants them to behave in this fashion as if people really didn't want this stuff then they would elect into office people who would never allow these projects to proceed. The police are charged with catching the bad guys. A system that can pinpoint the location of every car can quickly catch a car thief, a reported kidnapper or a hit and run driver. When asked if they would like the cops to quickly catch these bad guys most people would say yes, so the cops assume that they have license to proceed. When an Amber Alert goes out, wouldn't it be much easier for a cop to just hit a button and see that the suspect's car just passed exit 237 on I-5 at 50mph?
Everybody wants the bad guys to be tracked, but since you aren't a bad guy you don't want to be tracked. The best solution is to only elect people into office who have high moral standards and a solid-to-the-core belief that governmental abuse is bad, but for the past generation at least these are precisely the people who aren't elected into office.
The government is like a sewer: what you get out of it depends on what you put into it. If you don't like the way things are being run, then either vote for somebody who will run things the way you want or run for office yourself.
It is the job of the secret service to investigate these threats against the president, and it has been doing this for a long time without any history of abuse of power.
Acting on a tip from a Wal*Mart photo clerk, the Secret Service visited a high school and confiscated a posted depicting a student giving a "thumbs down" gesture to a photo of Bush. The last time I checked the confiscation of personal property required due process and expressing dissatisfaction of either government in general or even specific officials was explicitly allowed. I'd say this counts as a fairly obvious abuse of authority.
Other sterling examples of abuse of power on the part of the secret service include:
The arrest of husband and wife Nicole and Jeff Rank for wearing T-Shirts that read "love America, hate Bush" (who were otherwise not disruptive)
The official policy of the Secret Service (since rescinded) of segregating and concealing protesters at public appearances
Janet Voorhies and two companions were denied entry to a Bush event on the grounds that they were wearing T-Shirts that read "Protect Our Civil Liberties"
Perry Patterson was arrested for simply saying "no" when Cheney declared that Bush has made our world safer
No history of any abuse of power? According to official accounts the secret service has a 0% rate of abuses of power within their ranks. This is simply impossible: no agency can make the correct hiring calls 100% of the time and any claims to the contrary displays an abuse of power by covering up mistakes - at the expense of those who were violated.
Having a perfect track record is impossible: having a very public record of swiftly correcting any problems isn't.
If by "technicial issues" you mean the use of drag and drop to move videos onto the excellent Archos video players, than I guess you may be right.
How well do they interact with a Dish Network receiver? Will they automatically tune to channel 176 at 11:00pm, record two 30 minute shows then catch a show at 2:00am on some other channel?
Desparate Housewives, Season 1 costs $38 on DVD on Amazon. It's enhanced for widescreen which means it is encoded at 720x480 (some of which may not be used due to matting). The same content available from the Apple Music store is $35 for a 320x240 cropped version. The DVDs also come with a 5.1 Dolby Digital surround sound. Unless you desparately, need to watch the show right now, it's a much, much better deal to just order the DVDs.
Not to mention that ABC is adding more commercials than normal (five breaks instead of the typical four, IIRC) and have slightly shifted the start/stop times so people setting their players to record shows on other networks crop the first and last 30-60 seconds.
Unfortunately, Dish and Comcast have both started charging a monthly fee to use PVRs (though Dish only charges the monthly fee with certain of their players), and AFIK there are technical issues preventing seamless use of free recorders.
A major part of the problem is that profit is more important than innovation. Pure, unadulterated research for the sake of discovering new and better ways of doing things or even just learning something new is pretty much dead.
How many corporations have scaled back or even eliminated their R&D departments because they won't turn a profit next quarter?
How much money does big oil spend to suppress new technologies?
Overly restrictive patents bar research by all who can't cough up the money to expand on somebody else's work.
Kids are actively discouraged from tinkering for fear of hurting themselves or hurting somebody else's bottom line. Want to experiment with chemistry? Here's some lemon juice and baking soda - but we'll arrest you if you put it into a plastic bottle. Want to play with model rockets? Prove you aren't a terrorist. Want to hack your X-Box and see how circuits work? The FBI'll be knocking on your door. Biology? Take pictures of a worm, but make sure it isn't endangered. Engineering? The city'll come and fine you for not building your treehouse to code.
When you get to college... how many professors actually teach science and how many spend all of their time seeking new grants to ensure the university can afford a new football stadium?
And of the precious little research that actually is
happening, how much is classified and never sees the light of day
Slashdot Mirror
Let's get this straight... your claim is that Ovitz was paid $140 million not for any benefit he brought to Disney, but for what he wasn't doing at some other company?
True enough, but it is still their company that they lose. Chuck Conaway had no personal investment in K-Mart. He was a hired hand who drove the company into the ground and skated off with a lot of money, ready to be hired on by some other company. He had put nothing into the company and it was nothing personal when he eliminated 57,000 jobs.
Sorry, but there's no comparison. If a private company goes under the CEO (ie: the owner) loses bigtime. If a F500 company goes under the CEO risks nothing except possibly some unexercised stock options but is certain to have a golden parachute at any rate.
How many F500 executives today actually took part in the creation of the company? Probably not very many: in 2002 the average tenure of a CEO was only 7.8 years.
I disagree. I've known too many of them. Most of them haven't seen an honest day's work in years, if not decades.
I do not begrudge effective, honest and successful CEOs their salaries. If they earn it, they earn it.
BUT
Ovitz did not deserve $140 million. Ken Lay did not earn his $42 million in 1999. Ebbers did not deserve a guaranteed 1.5 million annual pay for life. Jure Sola did not earn his $20 million bonus for hitting targets one quarter out of 16 as the investors in the company saw shares fall 78%.
The complaint isn't how much CEOs make... it is how much BAD CEOs make. Could I perform as well as a CEO? Well, pay me $1,000,000/month and I'll see if I can drive the nation's largest retailer into the ground along with 57,000 jobs like Chuck Conaway did.
Why do companies exist? To generate profit. If the CEO can't do that then the CEO needs to be replaced. And if the CEO is engaged in any sort of corruption, fraud or outright stupidity then he has to go.
Are all CEO's inept, devoid of skill and undeserving of large salaries? Absolutely not. Only a silly extremist would make such a claim.
However. I find it inexcusable to tell the employees that there isn't enough money for raises (or even adequate equipment) then siphon off several times the profit for one overpaid and underworked twit who just isn't bringing any value to the organization.
Only 6%? That's not much... 2003 saw the average Fortune 500 CEO's salary up 22.18%.
In 1992 the average CEO made 82x the average employee's salary. By 2004 this ratio has climbed to 400x.
Don't forget Gary Smith who was awarded $41.2 million for overseeing the elimination of 93% of Ciena's value in just 4 years.
Please give three examples how Comcast is pro-consumer.
Glaxo?
Westinghouse?
Any of Andrew Carnigie's companies?
Standard Oil... that was an exceptionally pro-consumer company, no?
Tinfoil hats are unnecessary... there is no conspiracy. Pro-consumer companies can do exceptionally well (but if they become too pro-consumer then they quickly fold).
Crack dealers make lots of money - are they pro-consumer?
It isn't hard to be anti-consumer and still make gobs of cash: you only have to sell a product the consumer values or needs more than their desire to avoid your abuse. Has anybody ever accused Ameritech of being pro-consumer? Certainly not the people around here who went 9 weeks and longer without service. How many HMOs bend over backwards for you? Consider all of the hospitals that think nothing of letting you fester in the ER lobby for hours before even bothering to put you in front of the triage nurse or cut nurse staffing levels to the point where people die for lack of care?
There are many other environments and industries that are decidedly anti-consumer yet still rake in lots and lots of profit - with no sign of those dividends dropping anytime soon.
I never intended to suggest that it can't be done. With a few exceptions (various utility companies, insurance and healthcare companies come to mind *) corporations make money by meeting a demand to the satisfaction of their customers. Even Microsoft satisfies a demand - on the whole people buy MS products because, to an extent, they work well enough to get by. People demand pr0n, Redmond provides an easy way for them to get some. People demand entertainment, Redmond provides a gateway to some games that are rather enjoyable. People want to listen to music. Redmond provides one of many basic frameworks that allows people to play .mp3 files. Any OS that couldn't deliver games, music and sex, in some proportional combination thereof, wouldn't enjoy any significant market share in today's world.
But on many levels Microsoft isn't giving people what they demand. I want a quick-booting, secure operating system that doesn't require separate utilities to monitor against viral and annelidic activity, doesn't allow 3rd parties to spy on me or install software without my permission, and will work as reliably as a lightbulb. After 20 years MS is still refusing to deliver a computer as virus-resistant as the Commodore 64. I personally don't care if my Windows 95 games don't work on the next platform - they often don't work right anyway. Backwards compatibility is not what I am demanding but MS is ignoring what I, the consumer, wants.
Ben & Jerry gave me something I wanted at what I believed to be a fair price. For awhile there Northwest Airlines gave me something I wanted at what I believed to be a fair price. I am more than happy to fork over my money for the brands of Craftsman, Brother, Wendy's, Domino's, or Holiday Inn because when I am sleepy, hungry, need to set up an office multi-function device or have a protruding nail or an untorqued nut these companies - which exist only to try and convince me to surrender my money - provide something I perceive as value. I never forget for a second that they only want my money, but I don't mind. That's the way the system works.
But companies such as Microsoft, Exxon-Mobil, Pfizer, Pacific Gas & Electric or Sony Entertainment have no interest in providing value - and get quite rich off of it. Their business plan is exclusively based upon the idea of doing the absolute minimum necessary to get paid. To think for even a second that these companies are pro-consumer is laughable.
*There are certain industries - such as healthcare, insurance and energy that have a captive market. If you don't pay for healthcare, you die. If you don't buy insurance in many (all?) states you can't drive a car and make a living, and you certainly can't buy a house with a mortgage which is how most people must purchase living quarters. If you don't pay for water and electric many cities will condemn your house and throw you out on the streets. These companies certainly have no vested interest in creating any significant value for the consumer because they know you are forced by either law or death to consume.
Yes, hence my comment "To make people think they are pro-consumer so they buy more of their products".
The officers of a corporation have a primary duty to the shareholders. First, foremost and above all else. If they happen to craft a pro-consumer image in the process great for them, even better for me. But any pro-consumer or anti-consumer strategies are only means to an end. They aren't really "pro-consumer" any more than driving from Atlanta to Miami makes me "pro I-75".
I'll say it again because it is such an incredibly important concept: corporations - including Microsoft - are pro-profit and do not exist for any other reason. Any stance, for or against, they adopt towards the consumers is secondary.
Non sequitur. If anything I should probably be accused of being pro-MS since I am defending their efforts to make lots of money.
So why would a corporation try to spin themselves as "pro-consumer"? One of two reasons:
It really is that simple. Any corporation that isn't seeking to maximize profits for its shareholders is liable for all kinds of nasty lawsuits. The only question is how many dirty tricks are shareholders willing to put up with, how nasty of a reputation can be put forth before non-captive consumers turn their backs, and just how vicious can they become before the government steps in and smacks their noses with a rolled up legal code?
Correct me if I am wrong, but google already has rules against trying to manipulate PageRank... there doesn't seem to have been many abuses of this, probably because if you did this to a competitor the lawyers would be lining up to take your case.
On top of this, once again the hosting services need to be held responsible: if a site is hosting an obviously spamvertised site then give them 24 hours to remove the site or be blocked from future indexing activities - and have current rankings deleted.
Well duh... that's why corporations exist. Corporations are NOT created for any other purpose. They do not sprout up like so many altruistic mushrooms, but are crafted with a specific goal in mind.
So if economies are improved by getting more money in the hands of the poor why have decades of outright cash handouts and other entitlements resulted in no change?
The government is taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who do not have it and don't deserve it. And the result? As you put it...
Entitlement programs do not work. They have never worked. They will never work. By increasing the tax rate on the middle class you are reducing the number of people who can afford to hire a gardener. Or put in new windows. Or waterproof their basement. The x thousands of dollars that are taken from the 40-80k salary families could have been used to hire a maid, a tutor, or have their car detailed. Instead the money went to hire some government wonk to sit around an office all day and complain that there isn't enough money to hire more government employees and explain why the budget doesn't cover additional entitlements.
The blame lies equally with the Democrats and the Republicans: (there are more millionaire Dems in congress than there are millionaire GOPers by the way) - they know how economies work but refuse to improve ours.
Taxation does not create wealth. (And labor, by the way, is not wealth.)
Basic fact that is frequently overlooked: corporations do not pay taxes - their customers do. ALL taxes paid by corporations are really taxes on money passing through. Jack the taxes up 500% and the only people you hurt are a) the consumers who must pay the higher prices and b) the workforce who suddenly finds themselves out of work because the consumers couldn't afford the goods/services.
Radical idea here: corporations and businesses should not be taxed. Why not? Again, they can't be taxed: corporations can only be used to indirectly tax the consumer - and creating a lot of wasted overhead in the process because the corporation has to pay for a lot of accountants and tax preparation.
Tax monies sent offshore, tax purchases and tax real property. That's it.
Yeah, I can toggle the read on/off, but what I'm really after is the ability to not flag a message as read just by reading it... I'd rather it remain marked unread until I manually say "yes, I have read this"
All higher costs incurred by the ISP are passed along to the consumer, ergo all of the damage is done to the user, though indirectly.
p Ok... how many customers were generated by the following spam?
xaamvicivale
nabiagallivi
xenra $is $um $tra
135 30 pi170 30 pi161 90 pi
llsllslls
get additional information
Or perhaps this magnificent example:
Good day for you, Do yo
AVE U
n your Meddica
u want to S
PTO 70% o
tions?
You can do it - More info
ALXVCV
bieitranaiagialali
naxra $is $um $
134 (30 p.)169 (30 p.)218 (180 p.)
plus many other , Good bye
Are these people sending out the spam to try and sell something? Is there anybody on the planet who will buy something from these people?
If you want to stop spam then you need to strike at both people involved: the spammer and his client. Force Ralsky to disclose how much money he received from otherwise reputable companies to hawk their wares and said companies will quickly distance themselves, hopefully firing the exec who greenlit the spampaign. Then, once you know who paid for the spam, arrest them and not just the spammers.... kinda like arresting both the paid murderer and the guy who hired him.
Then why did it take Kraft Foods so long to grasp the concept that I didn't want any Gevalia Coffee? And I'm pretty sure that Sears didn't get the message until they lost in court over their spam.
The little semi-opaque window that appears in the corner with a mini-blurb as to who just sent you an email and why you should care is quite useful, as are the search folders (from whom did MS rip off those ideas?)
Personally, I don't interrupt my day to deal with emails: I get to the email when I get to the email and not a second earlier. I have a few dozen filtering rules set up then several times a day I quickly scan through and prioritize. Personally, I leave messages flagged unread until I have dealt with them (a function I wish Thunderbird, which I use at home would give me) which helps keep track of things I still have yet to do.
Please consult your nearest dictionary regarding the difference between slander and libel. That said, please refer to the 329,000 hits returned by google for this search
A couple of blurbs that stand out follow:
As stated by one of its own procedure manuals, the Secret Service is not supposed to segregate protesters. However, when local police officers have testified in these cases they almost always confirm the Secret Service's orders to segregate protesters in a discriminatory manner. http://www.satyamag.com/apr04/pascarella.html
The SS has officially denied having anything to do with es- tablishing the zones, however, SS representatives have acknowledged they do. Police officers in several states have testified or made public statements, that the Se- cret Service ordered them to keep protesters out of sight of the president. http://makeashorterlink.com/?K1F531DFB
Now please understand me: my observations are neither pro-Bush nor anti-Bush. I think Bush does a fine job on some issues and a horrible job on others. I personally would never attend a protest rally but that's just me and my personal opinion. I am neither for nor against people who do prostest and/or support Bush (or any other president, for that matter) and have a complaint only with the attempt to hide (at best) or silence (at worst) dissent for the news service - all of which is staged anyway.
Has the secret service overstepped their bounds to illegally suppress dissenting speech? Unquestionably. Did this work in the favor of Bush(II)? Yes. Did this work in the favor of Clinton? Yes. Did this work in the favor of Bush(I)? Yes. For every president since the secret service started protecting presidents? Probably. There is nothing libelous about pointing out truth, nor is there anything particularly mean-spirited about doing so. Every president wants to look good on the telly and every president will use whatever resources are at his disposal to go about this. This is politics as usual and transcend red, blue, left, right, politics and partisanship.
Personally, I think this is wrong. I personally think that people should be allowed to express their opinions, if and only if they are non-violent, non-menacing and non-threatening in the process. Wear a T-Shirt with all kinds of "support this" or "denounce that". Be happy that a local merchant made a few bucks on the sale. But any law enforcement official who says "you can't stand here with those words, now move along or be arrested" is in violation of the concept of free speech. I can ignore a message with which I disagree, I expect the president to do no less. I also expect the president to order his employees and supporters to do the same.
But they aren't telling the truth: the claim that there is no possibility to track specific people simply isn't in line with the technology that is available out there. The enhanced 911 services that include GPS chips in cell phones were specifically designed so police and other authorities could identify the specific location of specific individuals. Nor is GPS even necessary to identify location: the most recent edition of Microsoft Streets & Trips (2006) has a "locate me" function that searches for local wireless signals and triangulates one's location accordingly. While this specific project has no aims of tracking the location of specific individuals the technology involved could clearly and easily be reallocated to a project that does.
There is no conspiracy theory here: the population has elected a body of officials that takes their assumed responsibilities very seriously and correctly believe that the citizenry as a whole wants them to behave in this fashion as if people really didn't want this stuff then they would elect into office people who would never allow these projects to proceed. The police are charged with catching the bad guys. A system that can pinpoint the location of every car can quickly catch a car thief, a reported kidnapper or a hit and run driver. When asked if they would like the cops to quickly catch these bad guys most people would say yes, so the cops assume that they have license to proceed. When an Amber Alert goes out, wouldn't it be much easier for a cop to just hit a button and see that the suspect's car just passed exit 237 on I-5 at 50mph?
Everybody wants the bad guys to be tracked, but since you aren't a bad guy you don't want to be tracked. The best solution is to only elect people into office who have high moral standards and a solid-to-the-core belief that governmental abuse is bad, but for the past generation at least these are precisely the people who aren't elected into office.
The government is like a sewer: what you get out of it depends on what you put into it. If you don't like the way things are being run, then either vote for somebody who will run things the way you want or run for office yourself.
Acting on a tip from a Wal*Mart photo clerk, the Secret Service visited a high school and confiscated a posted depicting a student giving a "thumbs down" gesture to a photo of Bush. The last time I checked the confiscation of personal property required due process and expressing dissatisfaction of either government in general or even specific officials was explicitly allowed. I'd say this counts as a fairly obvious abuse of authority.
Other sterling examples of abuse of power on the part of the secret service include:
The arrest of husband and wife Nicole and Jeff Rank for wearing T-Shirts that read "love America, hate Bush" (who were otherwise not disruptive)
The official policy of the Secret Service (since rescinded) of segregating and concealing protesters at public appearances
Janet Voorhies and two companions were denied entry to a Bush event on the grounds that they were wearing T-Shirts that read "Protect Our Civil Liberties"
Perry Patterson was arrested for simply saying "no" when Cheney declared that Bush has made our world safer
No history of any abuse of power? According to official accounts the secret service has a 0% rate of abuses of power within their ranks. This is simply impossible: no agency can make the correct hiring calls 100% of the time and any claims to the contrary displays an abuse of power by covering up mistakes - at the expense of those who were violated.
Having a perfect track record is impossible: having a very public record of swiftly correcting any problems isn't.
How well do they interact with a Dish Network receiver? Will they automatically tune to channel 176 at 11:00pm, record two 30 minute shows then catch a show at 2:00am on some other channel?
Not to mention that ABC is adding more commercials than normal (five breaks instead of the typical four, IIRC) and have slightly shifted the start/stop times so people setting their players to record shows on other networks crop the first and last 30-60 seconds.
Unfortunately, Dish and Comcast have both started charging a monthly fee to use PVRs (though Dish only charges the monthly fee with certain of their players), and AFIK there are technical issues preventing seamless use of free recorders.
TFA is about a lack of science throughout the United States in general.
How many corporations have scaled back or even eliminated their R&D departments because they won't turn a profit next quarter?
How much money does big oil spend to suppress new technologies?
Overly restrictive patents bar research by all who can't cough up the money to expand on somebody else's work.
Kids are actively discouraged from tinkering for fear of hurting themselves or hurting somebody else's bottom line. Want to experiment with chemistry? Here's some lemon juice and baking soda - but we'll arrest you if you put it into a plastic bottle. Want to play with model rockets? Prove you aren't a terrorist. Want to hack your X-Box and see how circuits work? The FBI'll be knocking on your door. Biology? Take pictures of a worm, but make sure it isn't endangered. Engineering? The city'll come and fine you for not building your treehouse to code.
When you get to college... how many professors actually teach science and how many spend all of their time seeking new grants to ensure the university can afford a new football stadium?
And of the precious little research that actually is happening, how much is classified and never sees the light of day