Microsoft must be planning to capture the most wealth from Linux. At this point, it's the only thing that makes sense to me.
Linux vendors haven't done such a good job at converting Linux's killer feature set to profits. Microsoft will take their lunch money before they know it's gone.
In many markets, Microsoft is outside IBM's customer base, so Microsoft stands to capture a great deal of revenue from very many new linux customers.
It would be interesting to see if Red Hat becomes Microsoft's "Mini Me" once the Debian Core Consortium gets going.
The maker of a product has no right to prohibit you from using it in a different way than intended.
When it comes to computer software, yes, they do have a right. And they have cases like this and more to prosecute people who use their software in ways they don't allow for whatever reason they want to give.
The vague references to civil liberties and "ill-concieved laws" are equally disturbing. When you bought a Blizzard game, you just got permission to play it in a way Blizzard condones. No personal liberty or "rights", just permission to play the game their way. Nothing else.
I really want to understand how it is you and the moderators that marked the post as insightful came to believe otherwise. Give me some feedback here. Is it that you never bothered to read a single EULA? You haven't formulated an opinion on the matter yet?
I would be very surprised if it was a COTS flash drive.
Most likely it is a smart card module (microprocessor) in a USB package.
Atmel makes one, (used to be called a 6464c USB) and I'm sure the other smart card manufacturers have something like it.
If it's a secure memory module, I'd be more worried. If it's an actual smart card microprocessor it will take a little while for the bad guys to catch up.
OT there is some very cool new flash memory cards with a smart card module built into the card. Developers can partition the flash and control access to it from the smart card module.
I think the "death of..." stories may be endemic of a recognition of subtle but massive changes in society.
Maybe we're in the end of "Information Age" right now and evolving into another kind of age. And maybe people can't put their finger on the sense that something is dying and something else hasn't taken it's place yet.
Someone somewhere once said to the now-dead comedian John Candy, "It's not show art, it's show business." I'd say lamenting the lack of new and different titles just means the business is really in charge now.
It never ceases to amaze me how utterly offended./'ers get when yet another story runs about DRM.
1. Microsoft OS users don't -own- their operating system. They bought a license to USE it according to Microsoft's terms. Crying about it now because they are monetizing content just reflects indifference nearly everyone (including/.'ers) has towards their OS.
2. All consumers, I'm guessing most/.'ers included, have been buying DVD's under the similar draconian conditions. It doesn't seem to bother anyone too much because DVD sales are the Studio's 600 lb. cash cow these days.
3. In exchange for still more entertainment, nearly all consumers are more than happy to give away some priveledge that was theirs.
4. If a corporation can't be assured they remain in total ownership/control of their (now) digital product, then they aren't going to distribute it to you. This benefits entertainment corporations, so it's a good thing. Please remember that the most important role of American government is to make it safe to collect profits.
5. "Freedom" is only allowed inside a system where the choices are privatized/owned by others. So if it didn't come from a corporation, it's not okay to run on your new improved PC. Americans like it that way. So how is what Microsoft is doing so bad?
I'm glad that Mr. Schneir(sp?) is bringing up the issue, but the DRM horse left the barn a long time ago.
1. Lower license fees from existing vendors. Re: "If you don't give me a deal (and some extra incentives in my back pocket) I'm walking.." Possible, but too much change for such a large company.
2. Muckety-mucks have Microsoftie muckety-muck friends. Despite what the troops may want and may be able to justify, those muckety-mucks gotta keep each other employed in their over-paid jobs. (likely)
3. Old-fashioned thinking from very high-up the chain of command. They expect to pay sh*t loads of money because that's the way it's been done, so something that might cost less *can't* be trusted. Maybe the idea could have worked and the employees had it planned well, but it was likely too different from whatever they do now. (very likely)
Barcodes work great on individual items. There's already loss prevention systems using some kind of RFID for tracking those really expensive/high profit margin retail items.
It's further up the supply chain when you've got a pallet with maybe 50 cases on it. Barcode doesn't work very well because: 1. You have to trust the person creating the pallet's barcode. There is no incentive for walmart to pay an employee more for that trust, so they want a computer instead. 2. The 50 case pallet needs RFID to accurately report what's on the pallet. If a case or two might "fall off" a barcoded pallet then the barcode is none the wiser. In theory RFID would report the entire contents of the pallet as it's passing through the door.
The problems: A. Cost. Barcodes got RFID beat hands down. B. Accuracy. An RFID chip can't communicate through many layers of cardboard/product/cardboard so a pallet with boxes on the inside bottom do not get reported. If you want to be a millionaire, patent an amplifier/antenna that can be sprayed onto a paper tube and dropped down the center of a pallet of goods to get those inside boxes to accurately report. Now, if you don't pay me for this great idea, I'll unleash my submarine patent on you.
In this application it's not so much what's on the retail floor they're so concerned about it's keeping accurate track of goods at a logistics/warehouse level.
1. Force propreitary technology, discredit open standards. "Who's going to support it?" they tell their customers. 2. Open standards winning, so embrace & extend standard to make it proprietary. 3. Launch overpriced under-featured Adobe application. 4. Make software easy to pirate. 5. Destroy competitors with lawsuits and loss-leader pricing. 6. Merge overpriced software into Photoshop. 7. Profit.
CSS works on web pages only and doesn't address images directly. What happens is a pixel-based image (jpg/gif) either gets too small or too large if you set image sizes by %. Ideally, SVG renders beautifully in small (PDA) and large displays.
1. Postscript is not as open a license as svg. 2. I believe there's still a postscript tax for printers that really render postscript. (as opposed to emulation) I know I would like to see that go away. SVG is the way to make Postscript go away. 3. Imagine a desktop/web page that renders itself by percentages. You could effectively write one thing that renders very well on a desktop, PDA, phone, or other mobile devices.
There are other reasons, but this technology matters a whole lot when it comes to making a pretty OSS/DTP/Web environment.
That IE currently doesn't render SVG's and Adobe doesn't promote it should be a clue that both companies would rather keep profiting from their proprietary ways.
Why oh why don't they make connections to one of the many OSS groupware client alternatives out there!?
I would think they have their hands full just writing an Office Suite they would wisely decide to connect to what's out there instead of starting from scratch.
Any wisdom on the matter would be great because I just don't see it.
Why? If I'm going to somedomain.xxx I know what I'm going to get. (whitehouse.com anyone?) I'm not impairing your free speech either. Your free speech is exercised at a.xxx domain.
Do whatever the law allows, but do it with a.xxx domain. I think someone in porn and viewing it as an entertainment *business* would probably say okay. It's a good business move for them not to fight and stick to making their entertainment product and publishing at a.xxx domain.
Sadly, Americans just aren't enlightened enough to even accept pron as a rather undignified but commercial entertainment industry. They do it with tobacco, why can't they do it with pron?
My wife was a card carrying SAG actor and she gave me some insight into the business. Most of which is common sense.
1. NEVER believe what the studios tell you about grosses and profit. It's arguing about angels dancing on the head of a pin. Unions are strong in entertainment and one of the reasons is there's plenty of money to pay everyone. 2. Those weekend box office reports don't count. They don't make money at the theaters. Merchandising, DVD's and Broadcast rights is where the profits are. 3. The entire industry has very convoluted accounting and royalty structures. It's not clear to most people even inside the studios what's successful and that's the preferred order of business. For example, today's box-office lemon becomes a television movie staple for 10 years. Guess what? Huge revenues. 4. Hollywood is busting at the seams with money. Have you noticed how the budget-busting productions DON'T send a studio into bankruptcy? They don't spend their own money on making movies anymore. They get investors to fund production because everyone with too much money finds the risk/reward and "glamour" too tempting to pass up.
The "We're #1" party line is a quickie-mart reduction that completely and utterly fails to address the risks Americans have assumed with the trade deficit.
As our dollars fly out of the country to other nations, the nationals holding the currency need some place to *spend* it. For example, China's Oil company wanted to buy the big American Oil company not too many weeks ago. Well, they couldn't for whatever reason.
Now what *exactly* will China do with all the american currency piling up in the country? Ideally, they spend it on American goods, thereby "balancing" trade. If they can't spend it then what is it worth? Nothing. And then the devaluation spiral begins.
Will there be a large adjustment to the value of the dollar? Maybe. Maybe not. When? No one knows.
This concludes today's lesson on the benefits of balanced trade.
Maybe a/.'er can tell me why my computer is busy when I'm not using it sometimes. Is it syncing to the atomic clock software program I got for free from the Internet? Is it updating that handy weatherbug?
The *companies* that make up the RIAA attempt as often as possible to maintain control of the distribution channel. Then some very creative accounting comes into play that makes a well-sold record unprofitable to everyone but the label's internal accounting.
Now, take away: 1. Ability to hide profits 2. Total control of distribution
And RIAA members carefully constructed and inefficient market is collapsing around them.
RIAA members respond by: A. Legislating to ensure their future revenues are protected despite their irrelevance. B. Eliminating non-riaa approved methods of distribution. Apple has to be feeling the heat from these guys after ITMS was far more successful than they imagined.
Sadly, they will be very successful on all fronts because of the current political environment favoring private ownership and profit at the expense of practically everything else.
Consumer's won't really care because in exchange for giving more priveledges and controls to the mega-corps, they will be entertained.
When you bought the xbox, you likely bought a LICENSE TO USE the box to play games, you did NOT get a license TO BREAK their system or use it in a way Microsoft can't capture your money. Just like you don't own MS Windows if you use it. You bought a license for your personal use.
It's precisely because you have no philosophical objection to TCPA devices that the emininent demise of user-modifiable devices is coming quickly. User modifiable devices threaten mega-corporation's ability to maintain control of their property. The political/economic environment will continue to eliminate devices and their manufacturers that mega-corporations can't control.
There is nothing new going on here! This was happening way before DMCA. It's a very simple process, you buy products for a very narrow and well defined purpose of entertainment or productivity. For example, Sony doesn't give you all rights to their movies and games when you buy one. They limit your rights by letting you be entertained by them in your own home among many other very strict conditions.
It's SO sad there are at least 5 people who can't understand a more complex notion of ownership and act indifferent to the extreme limits and controls being forced onto them.
Professing outrage about the DMCA (or any other matter) and it's limitations and doing NOTHING about it is the new american way. Enjoy the new america you have chosen to make for yourself. Sad sad sad.
Based on my understanding of the market, the developers pay an very high license/fee for the tools to develop on these platforms. I don't see the consumption of console games being harmed by this strategy.
They can't really do the same thing to hardware guys, so they make them pay a deposit to make sure they turn away small manufacturers and euphamistically "maintain high standards."
Now, I agree with your more general point that this eliminates some competition, but Microsoft wants to 1. maintain the monopoly they have. 2. Create other monopolies if possible. 3. Extract additional profits.
I think they pretty much succeeded in labeling the use of Linux as "risky" (in the U.S. anyway) with untold IP issues.
I'd like to know how would anyone know (as in establish as fact) their compiled code contained GPL'd parts? It was easy to spot when those jokers claimed PearPC was something they made. But, how would anyone know in this case?
It might have been a trial balloon for Microsoft to gauge their litigation options too.
For tomorrow, are they abandoning the price point?
If they are abandoning the price point because it's not rich enough for them, I think they've planted the seeds for yet another american powerhouse company to fail in 20 years or less.
Unfettered and unwatched competition in the low-end will clobber them one day soon. I don't care how many uptainiums and Pentium M's they've got and how big their lead may be.
A different way of saying it is that Intel needs to know how to make low-cost chips and effectively compete in these low margin high-volume segments. To be lean-and-mean like their competitors in this space is mandatory. Plus, the volume helps their more expensive product remain profitable.
I work for technology companies in marketing/product management. Born and raised American.
It now makes sense why you come to believe in corporations having more responsibility for their actions/misdeeds.
I actually share the same opinion, but american public opinion isn't really going this way and I'm not up for the battle. It's amazing because it just hurts the average american more every day. I don't really understand why they want to make themselves poorer every day and give it all to the people that already have too much. Go figure....
I'm sad you think this kind of opinion is somehow viable. I'm really sad it was moderated insightful because that means you are not the only one thinking like this.
Modern american government has as one of it's main goals to create an environment where it's safe to do business and keep profits. That means businesses are given many priveledges(sp?) at the expense of individuals.
I'm really interested to know who influenced you to form this kind of opinion. School? Parents? TV? What generation do you belong? What do you do for a living?
Please don't take this as an insult because I'm not trying to start anything. I really want to know.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent way up!
Microsoft must be planning to capture the most wealth from Linux. At this point, it's the only thing that makes sense to me.
Linux vendors haven't done such a good job at converting Linux's killer feature set to profits. Microsoft will take their lunch money before they know it's gone.
In many markets, Microsoft is outside IBM's customer base, so Microsoft stands to capture a great deal of revenue from very many new linux customers.
It would be interesting to see if Red Hat becomes Microsoft's "Mini Me" once the Debian Core Consortium gets going.
The maker of a product has no right to prohibit you from using it in a different way than intended.
When it comes to computer software, yes, they do have a right. And they have cases like this and more to prosecute people who use their software in ways they don't allow for whatever reason they want to give.
The vague references to civil liberties and "ill-concieved laws" are equally disturbing. When you bought a Blizzard game, you just got permission to play it in a way Blizzard condones. No personal liberty or "rights", just permission to play the game their way. Nothing else.
I really want to understand how it is you and the moderators that marked the post as insightful came to believe otherwise. Give me some feedback here. Is it that you never bothered to read a single EULA? You haven't formulated an opinion on the matter yet?
This story is a kind of corporate psy-ops. Sadly, it will probably be very effective.
Personally, I tend to find the things I like on my own so stories like this are kind of funny to me.
I would be very surprised if it was a COTS flash drive.
Most likely it is a smart card module (microprocessor) in a USB package.
Atmel makes one, (used to be called a 6464c USB) and I'm sure the other smart card manufacturers have something like it.
If it's a secure memory module, I'd be more worried. If it's an actual smart card microprocessor it will take a little while for the bad guys to catch up.
OT there is some very cool new flash memory cards with a smart card module built into the card. Developers can partition the flash and control access to it from the smart card module.
I think the "death of..." stories may be endemic of a recognition of subtle but massive changes in society.
Maybe we're in the end of "Information Age" right now and evolving into another kind of age. And maybe people can't put their finger on the sense that something is dying and something else hasn't taken it's place yet.
Someone somewhere once said to the now-dead comedian John Candy, "It's not show art, it's show business." I'd say lamenting the lack of new and different titles just means the business is really in charge now.
It never ceases to amaze me how utterly offended ./'ers get when yet another story runs about DRM.
/.'ers) has towards their OS.
/.'ers included, have been buying DVD's under the similar draconian conditions. It doesn't seem to bother anyone too much because DVD sales are the Studio's 600 lb. cash cow these days.
1. Microsoft OS users don't -own- their operating system. They bought a license to USE it according to Microsoft's terms. Crying about it now because they are monetizing content just reflects indifference nearly everyone (including
2. All consumers, I'm guessing most
3. In exchange for still more entertainment, nearly all consumers are more than happy to give away some priveledge that was theirs.
4. If a corporation can't be assured they remain in total ownership/control of their (now) digital product, then they aren't going to distribute it to you. This benefits entertainment corporations, so it's a good thing. Please remember that the most important role of American government is to make it safe to collect profits.
5. "Freedom" is only allowed inside a system where the choices are privatized/owned by others. So if it didn't come from a corporation, it's not okay to run on your new improved PC. Americans like it that way. So how is what Microsoft is doing so bad?
I'm glad that Mr. Schneir(sp?) is bringing up the issue, but the DRM horse left the barn a long time ago.
Old-fashioned influence peddling.
I'm thinking maybe three scenarios:
1. Lower license fees from existing vendors. Re: "If you don't give me a deal (and some extra incentives in my back pocket) I'm walking.." Possible, but too much change for such a large company.
2. Muckety-mucks have Microsoftie muckety-muck friends. Despite what the troops may want and may be able to justify, those muckety-mucks gotta keep each other employed in their over-paid jobs. (likely)
3. Old-fashioned thinking from very high-up the chain of command. They expect to pay sh*t loads of money because that's the way it's been done, so something that might cost less *can't* be trusted. Maybe the idea could have worked and the employees had it planned well, but it was likely too different from whatever they do now. (very likely)
Barcodes work great on individual items. There's already loss prevention systems using some kind of RFID for tracking those really expensive/high profit margin retail items.
It's further up the supply chain when you've got a pallet with maybe 50 cases on it. Barcode doesn't work very well because:
1. You have to trust the person creating the pallet's barcode. There is no incentive for walmart to pay an employee more for that trust, so they want a computer instead.
2. The 50 case pallet needs RFID to accurately report what's on the pallet. If a case or two might "fall off" a barcoded pallet then the barcode is none the wiser. In theory RFID would report the entire contents of the pallet as it's passing through the door.
The problems:
A. Cost. Barcodes got RFID beat hands down.
B. Accuracy. An RFID chip can't communicate through many layers of cardboard/product/cardboard so a pallet with boxes on the inside bottom do not get reported. If you want to be a millionaire, patent an amplifier/antenna that can be sprayed onto a paper tube and dropped down the center of a pallet of goods to get those inside boxes to accurately report. Now, if you don't pay me for this great idea, I'll unleash my submarine patent on you.
In this application it's not so much what's on the retail floor they're so concerned about it's keeping accurate track of goods at a logistics/warehouse level.
I gotta stop ordering double-espresso.
Adobe's Strategy:
1. Force propreitary technology, discredit open standards. "Who's going to support it?" they tell their customers.
2. Open standards winning, so embrace & extend standard to make it proprietary.
3. Launch overpriced under-featured Adobe application.
4. Make software easy to pirate.
5. Destroy competitors with lawsuits and loss-leader pricing.
6. Merge overpriced software into Photoshop.
7. Profit.
CSS works on web pages only and doesn't address images directly. What happens is a pixel-based image (jpg/gif) either gets too small or too large if you set image sizes by %. Ideally, SVG renders beautifully in small (PDA) and large displays.
1. Postscript is not as open a license as svg.
2. I believe there's still a postscript tax for printers that really render postscript. (as opposed to emulation) I know I would like to see that go away. SVG is the way to make Postscript go away.
3. Imagine a desktop/web page that renders itself by percentages. You could effectively write one thing that renders very well on a desktop, PDA, phone, or other mobile devices.
There are other reasons, but this technology matters a whole lot when it comes to making a pretty OSS/DTP/Web environment.
That IE currently doesn't render SVG's and Adobe doesn't promote it should be a clue that both companies would rather keep profiting from their proprietary ways.
Why oh why don't they make connections to one of the many OSS groupware client alternatives out there!?
I would think they have their hands full just writing an Office Suite they would wisely decide to connect to what's out there instead of starting from scratch.
Any wisdom on the matter would be great because I just don't see it.
Setting up a "red light district" works.
.xxx domain.
.xxx domain. I think someone in porn and viewing it as an entertainment *business* would probably say okay. It's a good business move for them not to fight and stick to making their entertainment product and publishing at a .xxx domain.
Why? If I'm going to somedomain.xxx I know what I'm going to get. (whitehouse.com anyone?) I'm not impairing your free speech either. Your free speech is exercised at a
Do whatever the law allows, but do it with a
Sadly, Americans just aren't enlightened enough to even accept pron as a rather undignified but commercial entertainment industry. They do it with tobacco, why can't they do it with pron?
My wife was a card carrying SAG actor and she gave me some insight into the business. Most of which is common sense.
1. NEVER believe what the studios tell you about grosses and profit. It's arguing about angels dancing on the head of a pin. Unions are strong in entertainment and one of the reasons is there's plenty of money to pay everyone.
2. Those weekend box office reports don't count. They don't make money at the theaters. Merchandising, DVD's and Broadcast rights is where the profits are.
3. The entire industry has very convoluted accounting and royalty structures. It's not clear to most people even inside the studios what's successful and that's the preferred order of business. For example, today's box-office lemon becomes a television movie staple for 10 years. Guess what? Huge revenues.
4. Hollywood is busting at the seams with money. Have you noticed how the budget-busting productions DON'T send a studio into bankruptcy? They don't spend their own money on making movies anymore. They get investors to fund production because everyone with too much money finds the risk/reward and "glamour" too tempting to pass up.
The "We're #1" party line is a quickie-mart reduction that completely and utterly fails to address the risks Americans have assumed with the trade deficit.
As our dollars fly out of the country to other nations, the nationals holding the currency need some place to *spend* it. For example, China's Oil company wanted to buy the big American Oil company not too many weeks ago. Well, they couldn't for whatever reason.
Now what *exactly* will China do with all the american currency piling up in the country? Ideally, they spend it on American goods, thereby "balancing" trade. If they can't spend it then what is it worth? Nothing. And then the devaluation spiral begins.
Will there be a large adjustment to the value of the dollar? Maybe. Maybe not. When? No one knows.
This concludes today's lesson on the benefits of balanced trade.
Who needs this firefox RIA thing? IE works great.
/.'er can tell me why my computer is busy when I'm not using it sometimes. Is it syncing to the atomic clock software program I got for free from the Internet? Is it updating that handy weatherbug?
Maybe a
Look,
The *companies* that make up the RIAA attempt as often as possible to maintain control of the distribution channel. Then some very creative accounting comes into play that makes a well-sold record unprofitable to everyone but the label's internal accounting.
Now, take away:
1. Ability to hide profits
2. Total control of distribution
And RIAA members carefully constructed and inefficient market is collapsing around them.
RIAA members respond by:
A. Legislating to ensure their future revenues are protected despite their irrelevance.
B. Eliminating non-riaa approved methods of distribution. Apple has to be feeling the heat from these guys after ITMS was far more successful than they imagined.
Sadly, they will be very successful on all fronts because of the current political environment favoring private ownership and profit at the expense of practically everything else.
Consumer's won't really care because in exchange for giving more priveledges and controls to the mega-corps, they will be entertained.
and the code running on it.
When you bought the xbox, you likely bought a LICENSE TO USE the box to play games, you did NOT get a license TO BREAK their system or use it in a way Microsoft can't capture your money. Just like you don't own MS Windows if you use it. You bought a license for your personal use.
It's precisely because you have no philosophical objection to TCPA devices that the emininent demise of user-modifiable devices is coming quickly. User modifiable devices threaten mega-corporation's ability to maintain control of their property. The political/economic environment will continue to eliminate devices and their manufacturers that mega-corporations can't control.
There is nothing new going on here! This was happening way before DMCA. It's a very simple process, you buy products for a very narrow and well defined purpose of entertainment or productivity. For example, Sony doesn't give you all rights to their movies and games when you buy one. They limit your rights by letting you be entertained by them in your own home among many other very strict conditions.
It's SO sad there are at least 5 people who can't understand a more complex notion of ownership and act indifferent to the extreme limits and controls being forced onto them.
Professing outrage about the DMCA (or any other matter) and it's limitations and doing NOTHING about it is the new american way. Enjoy the new america you have chosen to make for yourself. Sad sad sad.
The USPS is what is referred to as semi-private.
They are set up to run like a business where they should at least self-sustain, but they remain in the control of the federal government.
The Federal Reserve has an even more complicated relationship as a "non-profit" bank that has been referred to as semi-private.
Sallie Mae used to be semi-private. I believe one of the big home mortgage lenders used to be a semi-private program too.
I don't know about that.
Based on my understanding of the market, the developers pay an very high license/fee for the tools to develop on these platforms. I don't see the consumption of console games being harmed by this strategy.
They can't really do the same thing to hardware guys, so they make them pay a deposit to make sure they turn away small manufacturers and euphamistically "maintain high standards."
Now, I agree with your more general point that this eliminates some competition, but Microsoft wants to
1. maintain the monopoly they have.
2. Create other monopolies if possible.
3. Extract additional profits.
Competition doesn't really fit into their plans.
I think they pretty much succeeded in labeling the use of Linux as "risky" (in the U.S. anyway) with untold IP issues.
I'd like to know how would anyone know (as in establish as fact) their compiled code contained GPL'd parts? It was easy to spot when those jokers claimed PearPC was something they made. But, how would anyone know in this case?
It might have been a trial balloon for Microsoft to gauge their litigation options too.
It does seem sensible, -today-.
For tomorrow, are they abandoning the price point?
If they are abandoning the price point because it's not rich enough for them, I think they've planted the seeds for yet another american powerhouse company to fail in 20 years or less.
Unfettered and unwatched competition in the low-end will clobber them one day soon. I don't care how many uptainiums and Pentium M's they've got and how big their lead may be.
A different way of saying it is that Intel needs to know how to make low-cost chips and effectively compete in these low margin high-volume segments. To be lean-and-mean like their competitors in this space is mandatory. Plus, the volume helps their more expensive product remain profitable.
I work for technology companies in marketing/product management. Born and raised American.
It now makes sense why you come to believe in corporations having more responsibility for their actions/misdeeds.
I actually share the same opinion, but american public opinion isn't really going this way and I'm not up for the battle. It's amazing because it just hurts the average american more every day. I don't really understand why they want to make themselves poorer every day and give it all to the people that already have too much. Go figure....
Singing the praises of his beliefs based on reasonable logic and the apparent success of his small company.
I don't think his vision would really work if he had to appease public shareholders and had thousands or even hundreds of people working for him.
The guy definitely has insightful things to say sometimes. The self-congratulatory way he's done it this time is a little over the top.
I'm sad you think this kind of opinion is somehow viable. I'm really sad it was moderated insightful because that means you are not the only one thinking like this.
Modern american government has as one of it's main goals to create an environment where it's safe to do business and keep profits. That means businesses are given many priveledges(sp?) at the expense of individuals.
I'm really interested to know who influenced you to form this kind of opinion. School? Parents? TV? What generation do you belong? What do you do for a living?
Please don't take this as an insult because I'm not trying to start anything. I really want to know.