By the time you start typing, every line of the program should already be set in stone.
Why waste everyone's time reviewing source code that doesn't even compile without syntax errors yet? FIRST you type it in, THEN clean up the obvious things you can find right away, like syntax errors, THEN take that cleaner version to your first code review. There's a reason they call them text *editors*, you know - it's because after you write one first draft, you can *edit* the file later if you like. It's a rather nice concept.
in disempowering your state, you empowered a few private citizens, who are bound, sooner or later, to do something which actually affects you, personally.
Well said. The first myth about anarchy is the myth that anarchy is possible. Try it, and it won't last long. Ditch the government, and something else fills the space left behind, itself becoming the new government.
While it's true that companies competing in an open, fair market with free competition end up fufilling the common good whether they like it or not (capitalism can transform greed into a public good), it is NOT true that leaving the market alone will result in such an open, fair market with free competition, and that's the one sticking point that the Libertarians just don't get.
(Which is such a shame, because I agree with them on so many of their other issues that I'm still always temped to join them, but this one sticking point is a Very Big One.) Leave the market alone and in *many* markets you will get a free and open market, but not in all of them. Like it or not, natural monopolies do exist. People living in the same town have no choice but to choose the same water and sewer service provider as each other.
People who want to talk to each other on the phone would end up having to be hooked to the same phone provider as each other if the government didn't force phone companies to rent the use of their lines to each other at reasonable rates.
In the case of natural monopolies, there is going to end up being a restriction of choice anyway, whether it comes from government or from the one monopoly company that comes out on top. And the irony is that the way to maximize freedom in the marketplace it to establish rules that *force* companies to "play nice" with each other in these kinds of markets.
Now, some of the more moderate Libertarians on the fringes agree with this and understand that 100% full-blown lassiez-faire in every market isn't going to work. But then there are those that actually write the rhetoric literature and direct things, and they don't agree, and that scares me.
The reason government is an evil (a necessary evil, but still an evil) is *because* it is the biggest monopoly there is, and all the problems of monopolies that are not beholden to their customers tend to come up with governments. But replacing it with a corporate monopoly doesn't improve matters.
Well, apparantly, the contents of the cover isn't so important to the publisher that they can't at least stick an extra page on the front to cover up the offending cover for issues sent to Walmart.
That's not what happens. The wallmart standards end up defining what will be published *everywhere*, not just at wallmart. I'd much rather see Walmart have the guts to actually *not carry* the material that offends them, instead of getting everyone else to change to their standard.
And just once I'd like to see a supplier with the guts to tell Wallmart "no", when Wallmart asks them to censor their product. Just once I'd like to see a supplier with the guts to say, "we'll accept the loss of 15% of the market in order to retain the loyalty of the other 85% of our customers." This is becoming more commonplace: As the theory goes, an unregulated free-market ends up giving the customers exactly what they want, so the best thing to do is have absolutely no restrictions on it. But in practice, the product availability is blocked off at a level higher up the supply chain where the end-consumer doesn't have as much say. Then the stupid people analizing the situation come to the conclusion that nothing untoward is happening because the customers are buying the products, therefore they like them the way they are. This ignores the fact that the way the system is laid out the customer is largely ignorant of what the choices were that got filtered out before he saw them. Given a choice of product A or B the customer picked A, but the system hides the fact that the customer might have preferred C or D if they hadn't been scrapped before he ever saw them.
The problem is, I don't know what the solution to the situation is. It certainly isn't more government influence. In an informed marketplace, unrestricted capitalism leads to the greatest freedom, but the marketplace is not an informed one, and it becomes closer and closer to impossible with each passing year for the marketplace to ever become informed as the sheer volume of stuff to know in order to make an intelligent buying decision increases.
This is untrue. Microsoft has complained about certain manufactuers, and in many cases BIG manufactuerers, who knowingly sell "naked" (non-OS'd) machines to people for the express purpose of them pirating Windows.
Speaking of "untrue", selling a naked PC to someone so they can install the OS software they *already have* on it is not piracy, no matter what FUD from the industry you are swallow. If I want to upgrade to a newer, better machine and ditch the old old, but I'm not changing OSes, it is not piracy to re-use my existing copy of the OS. It only becomes piracy if the new and the old computer are in use at the same time, and both have the OS installed from one common copy.
I have way more copies of Windows (legally) than I do machines to put them on.
If ordering from an OEM and putting Windows on, I would prefer to put on my own store-bought copy of windows than use a broken "for OEM only" version that doesn't even come with the re-install disks and instead has some useless "system restore" disk that fails if I've upgraded any software or hardware. However, I don't want to have to pay MS for the OS twice to do this, which is what happens when I had no choice but to get the pre-installed OS with the computer.
The original question pleads ignorance, not clever rhetoric.
Not if you read on to the rest of the post, where the question is answered in the same post (which is why it's rhetorical.)
That claim contradicts the claim made in the grandparent post (the one I was replying to) that such fire code violations are rampant and are not shut down.
Yes, but they are required by law to look for the cheapest "equivilent" product to meet the requst, which is the whole point. So they aren't doing a strcmp(). It's more like a fuzzy thesarus lookup. "Well, you said you needed a tangerine. I found a cheaper orange. Is it a close enough match? Depends..."
The fact that other places that are not internet cafes, that are also filled with fire hazards, are allowed to continue proves that the fire hazards are not the reason for the closings.
the reason to shutdown netcafes is for safety and license inspection,
If you actually believe that, then you truly are gullable. A fire in a building kills a lot of people because the doors are locked. The government uses the fact that the building happens to be housing an internet cafe as an excuse to shut down other internet cafes. Now, there's two ways to look at it: (1) - The fact that the building housed an internet cafe has nothing to do with the fire hazards and so the government is using a random coincidence as an excuse to go after internet cafes, or, worse yet, you could look at it this way, (2) - The fact that the internet cafe has to hide from the government because of the government's restrictions on internet use is what caused the fire hazards such as locked exits. So either the government is shutting down internet cafes giving a fake reason that has nothing to do with reality, or they are doing it because of a situation they themselves caused. Either way they are in the wrong.
Understanding slashdot moderation is easy: If you want to post, you can't moderate - therefore the ones moderating are the ones with the least interest in the topic. That's what leads to bad moderation.
You assume falsely that the RFQ forms included enough space for such verbosity. Besides, when the req says "EXTERNAL" scsi drives are needed, it's rather obvious (to a techie) that an internal one isn't ever going to be a close enough match. The problem is that you don't know when to stop the verbosity when your order will be filtered through someone who has an unknown level of technical knowlege in the field in question. Is it enough to explain that the drive needs a power supply and must be external? Perhaps I should explain what SCSI means too, in case the purchaser doesn't realize the significant difference between that and IDE? Perhaps I should explain what a hard drive is in the first place, and how it's not the same thing as a 3.5 inch floppy even though the 3.5 inch floppy doesn't feel all that floppy from the outside, and I've heard some lay people make the mistake of calling those things "hard disks", so I'm not just making this up as a silly example.
There's no clear way to figure out how verbose you need to be, and if you assume the worst about the person's knowlege, you can end up with pages to describe a simple ordinary disc drive.
I've got a job with a state University, and so I've seen a few of those "carefully worded" open requests myself, but it wasn't out of a desire to screw the taxpayers or to get *exactly* the one exact product and no other. It's because everyone who has made these requests has been burned at least once in the past by the fact that the ones who look over a purchase request and try to find the cheapest "match", are clerical workers without a lot of tech knowlege. If you leave it up to their judgement to decide if an alternate product is equivilent or not, they often pick something that *they* believe is equivilent, but in reality is not. (i.e. ask for an external scsi hard drive and get an internal one instead (sans power supply).)
This isn't their fault - they are being asked to do an impossible job. They are being asked to guess which parts of a request are flexible and which are not. If I try to order a flat-panel LCD monitor, would a cheaper old-style CRT monitor be an acceptable aternative? That depends. Usually it probably would be, but in this case what if I ordered it specificly because the monitor would be sitting in a magenetic field. (which ends up making it impossible to calibrate a picture tube to display things in the right colors, or to get it to focus properly, as the electron beam in the tube gets bent off-target by the magnetic field.)
The less-functional CD's wouldn't be a big problem if they were actually *advertised* as such. Hiding the product in the trappings of an ordinary CD, without any external indication that it isn't, is false advertising, plain and simple.
Now, IF they had made a new name for their not-quite a CD, instead of trying to lie to customers and call it a CD, that wouldn't have been a problem - it would have been a case where the buyer has to decide if having the music is worth having it in a less useful format that might not even work at all on his machine.
So when the only way to get your music heard nationally is radio airplay, and the only way to get radio ariplay is to be on one of the big labels, what exactly is this alleged "other" alternative available? All the ones I know of are too localized to be effective.
That'd be like me complaining about how it was necessary for me to sign up with AT&T's worst long distance plan, because it was the only way to use my telephone.
Which, once upon a time, it was, much like the music industry is today.
If threatening to quit is the only way to make your company pay what they actually believe you are worth to them, then that's a sign that you are at the wrong company.
I guess it works this way - did you ask for a raise first before looking for other jobs? If you did, and they said no, but then after seeing someone else offer you more they changed their tune, then that's a bad sign. It's a sign that they *knew* you were worth more but weren't going to pay you what you were worth until that was the only way left to keep you.
On the other hand, if you did not ask for a raise first, then maybe your current employer isn't so evil after all. They might not have really realized what you were worth until you brought it up to them and they had to stop and think about it. After all, if two people engage in a contract and one is getting the shaft, he's the one with the onus to mention something about it. The person on the other end, not getting shafted, often doesn't even realize the deal is unfair.
When I left my first programming job for another I explicitly mentioned in my resignation letter, at the very top, not to bother giving me a counteroffer because money wasn't my motivation for leaving. (In fact the salary at the new place was almost exactly the same as the old. If anything it was a little less.) My reason for leaving was that the company was marrying itself to Microsoft, becoming a "partner" in the market they were in. I'd seen what happens to Microsoft's "partners". Also, the director in charge of new technologies, who ends up driving where the company was going to be going in the next few years, was either ignorant of how alternatives to MS work, or was not ignorant but was deliberately FUDding alternatives to MS. Either way I didn't want any part of it. For an example of this, there was, "We like Visual SourceSafe as the archiver we will move to. We can't trust CVS because we don't trust putting our code under a system nobody is financially responsible for, that's why so many years ago we picked RCS over SCCS for code control." (uhhh, isn't RCS even less commercial than SCCS? You've got it completely backward, man.) "For the new GUI on top of our unix backend we will have to use Windows, because a local gui system is more efficient. X terminals are such network bandwith hogs." (Note he's comparing something unix *can do*, but doesn't *have to do* vs something both unix and windows can do.) But the absolute worst was, "We'll put all our ISO9000 documents, the ones you are now required to access many times a day to get your job done, inside an MS Exchange message server even though it is just a big pile of files we could have put somewhere more open, like on an actual file server everyone can access regardless of OS."
Okay, so I'm waaay off topic now. But to get it back on topic, are you really sure money is the reason you were thinking of leaving? That's an important question to ask yourself before taking the counteroffer. Often times people aren't thinking just, "I'm not being paid enough". They are often thinking, 'I'm not being paid enough for *this*", where "*this*" is some sort of unbearable (to them) part of the job.
I hope it's just a case of poor journalism that called the proposed pricing change a charge for "bandwith". If what they actually wanted was a charge per downloaded byte, that would make sense and truly nail the biggest users of the service with the biggest cost, as is fair. But if they cap my bandwith instead of capping my sum total bytes, then that means if I am a typical user, who wants intermittent bursts of speed with long gaps of silence between, I end up having to buy the high speed that goes unused most of the day.
And it doesn't really change the ISP's overall bandwith needs at all to put a cap on people's download speed. Let's say 10 people each want to download a 10 Meg patch file for a computer game, and their requests come in spanning a 10 minute period. On one extreme end, we have the case where each of them has the ability to download 10 Meg per minute, and their requests come in exactly spaced 1 minute apart from each other. In that case their usage ends up occupying 10 Mb/Minute worth of bandwith for the 10 minute period. In the opposite extreme case, each one can only download 1 meg per minute, and all their requests come in at the same time. In that case you still end up needing a total of 10 Mb/minute for 10 minutes to service them all, only it is coming in the form of 1 Mb / minute each, times 10 users.
If you make up a measure of "bandwith-minutes", as a measure of how much bandwith it takes, for how many minutes it takes, to service the requests, then you get roughly the same load (by that measure) no matter how you throttle user's bandwith. Throttle the bandwith and they'll be using less bandwith per minute, but be doing it for many more minutes. When I consider a system with thousands of simultaneous users all doing this, I don't see any overall improvement.
(In fact, due to the overhead assocaited with multiplexing, it's actually a bit worse to overlap usage instead of letting users burst their data and get it over with.)
Paying more for more bandwith will NOT solve the problem, while paying more for total overall bytes could. If I download a total of 30 Mb of stuff in a 30-day month, it matters not whether I did it 30 Mb all in one day with 29 other days of total silence, or if I did 1 Mb per day for 30 days. It would matter only if the number of simultaneous users of the ISP were very small. Once you talk about multiplexing hundreds of users at once with reasonably close to random usage times, it stops mattering whether it's in bursts or slow trickles per user. The overall average bandwith is the same if the users download the same sum total bytes over a long period of time.
Now, behaviourally there may be a difference - if
I know a 10 meg download will take many hours I might just avoid doing it altogether, and *that* would reduce their load, but only by pissing off a customer - not a good tradeoff.
Standards also simplify product development and reduce non-value-adding costs thereby increasing a user's ability to compare competing products.
But apparently you only care about that goal when the product in question is an application on top of the OS. You don't seem to want it when the product in question is the OS itself.
It is only voluntary if you feel like dropping out of modern society and not participating in any of those places that insist on using it as a form of ID. No matter how illegal that may be, people do it.
The only way to end this is to let you have the last word. So this will be my last post on this topic, whatever your reply may be.
It is not necessary for there to have been a *successful* case against gun manufacturers for them to feel an incentive to make such statements. All there needs to be is the precedent that people will try to sue them over it.
And this has *everything* to do with your claim that you have the ESP necessary to know what purpose the manufacturers have in mind for the guns they produce.
Slashdot Mirror
Why waste everyone's time reviewing source code that doesn't even compile without syntax errors yet? FIRST you type it in, THEN clean up the obvious things you can find right away, like syntax errors, THEN take that cleaner version to your first code review. There's a reason they call them text *editors*, you know - it's because after you write one first draft, you can *edit* the file later if you like. It's a rather nice concept.
"Honey, let's order a computer on-line at wallmart.com so we can get on the internet in the first place."
Uh, can you spot the flaw?
(Hint: These aren't being sold in the physical Wallmart stores.)
Well said. The first myth about anarchy is the myth that anarchy is possible. Try it, and it won't last long. Ditch the government, and something else fills the space left behind, itself becoming the new government.
While it's true that companies competing in an open, fair market with free competition end up fufilling the common good whether they like it or not (capitalism can transform greed into a public good), it is NOT true that leaving the market alone will result in such an open, fair market with free competition, and that's the one sticking point that the Libertarians just don't get.
(Which is such a shame, because I agree with them on so many of their other issues that I'm still always temped to join them, but this one sticking point is a Very Big One.) Leave the market alone and in *many* markets you will get a free and open market, but not in all of them. Like it or not, natural monopolies do exist. People living in the same town have no choice but to choose the same water and sewer service provider as each other.
People who want to talk to each other on the phone would end up having to be hooked to the same phone provider as each other if the government didn't force phone companies to rent the use of their lines to each other at reasonable rates.
In the case of natural monopolies, there is going to end up being a restriction of choice anyway, whether it comes from government or from the one monopoly company that comes out on top. And the irony is that the way to maximize freedom in the marketplace it to establish rules that *force* companies to "play nice" with each other in these kinds of markets.
Now, some of the more moderate Libertarians on the fringes agree with this and understand that 100% full-blown lassiez-faire in every market isn't going to work. But then there are those that actually write the rhetoric literature and direct things, and they don't agree, and that scares me.
The reason government is an evil (a necessary evil, but still an evil) is *because* it is the biggest monopoly there is, and all the problems of monopolies that are not beholden to their customers tend to come up with governments. But replacing it with a corporate monopoly doesn't improve matters.
... and the fact that this "family friendly" store squeezed out of existance all the local family-owned alternatives to shop at.
That's not what happens. The wallmart standards end up defining what will be published *everywhere*, not just at wallmart. I'd much rather see Walmart have the guts to actually *not carry* the material that offends them, instead of getting everyone else to change to their standard.
And just once I'd like to see a supplier with the guts to tell Wallmart "no", when Wallmart asks them to censor their product. Just once I'd like to see a supplier with the guts to say, "we'll accept the loss of 15% of the market in order to retain the loyalty of the other 85% of our customers."
This is becoming more commonplace: As the theory goes, an unregulated free-market ends up giving the customers exactly what they want, so the best thing to do is have absolutely no restrictions on it. But in practice, the product availability is blocked off at a level higher up the supply chain where the end-consumer doesn't have as much say. Then the stupid people analizing the situation come to the conclusion that nothing untoward is happening because the customers are buying the products, therefore they like them the way they are. This ignores the fact that the way the system is laid out the customer is largely ignorant of what the choices were that got filtered out before he saw them. Given a choice of product A or B the customer picked A, but the system hides the fact that the customer might have preferred C or D if they hadn't been scrapped before he ever saw them.
The problem is, I don't know what the solution to the situation is. It certainly isn't more government influence. In an informed marketplace, unrestricted capitalism leads to the greatest freedom, but the marketplace is not an informed one, and it becomes closer and closer to impossible with each passing year for the marketplace to ever become informed as the sheer volume of stuff to know in order to make an intelligent buying decision increases.
I have way more copies of Windows (legally) than I do machines to put them on.
If ordering from an OEM and putting Windows on, I would prefer to put on my own store-bought copy of windows than use a broken "for OEM only" version that doesn't even come with the re-install disks and instead has some useless "system restore" disk that fails if I've upgraded any software or hardware. However, I don't want to have to pay MS for the OS twice to do this, which is what happens when I had no choice but to get the pre-installed OS with the computer.
The original question pleads ignorance, not clever rhetoric. Not if you read on to the rest of the post, where the question is answered in the same post (which is why it's rhetorical.)
That claim contradicts the claim made in the grandparent post (the one I was replying to) that such fire code violations are rampant and are not shut down.
Yes, but they are required by law to look for the cheapest "equivilent" product to meet the requst, which is the whole point. So they aren't doing a strcmp(). It's more like a fuzzy thesarus lookup. "Well, you said you needed a tangerine. I found a cheaper orange. Is it a close enough match? Depends..."
The fact that other places that are not internet cafes, that are also filled with fire hazards, are allowed to continue proves that the fire hazards are not the reason for the closings.
If you actually believe that, then you truly are gullable. A fire in a building kills a lot of people because the doors are locked. The government uses the fact that the building happens to be housing an internet cafe as an excuse to shut down other internet cafes. Now, there's two ways to look at it: (1) - The fact that the building housed an internet cafe has nothing to do with the fire hazards and so the government is using a random coincidence as an excuse to go after internet cafes, or, worse yet, you could look at it this way, (2) - The fact that the internet cafe has to hide from the government because of the government's restrictions on internet use is what caused the fire hazards such as locked exits. So either the government is shutting down internet cafes giving a fake reason that has nothing to do with reality, or they are doing it because of a situation they themselves caused. Either way they are in the wrong.
Understanding slashdot moderation is easy: If you want to post, you can't moderate - therefore the ones moderating are the ones with the least interest in the topic. That's what leads to bad moderation.
Typical slashdot basher, can't figure out the question was rhetorical.
There's no clear way to figure out how verbose you need to be, and if you assume the worst about the person's knowlege, you can end up with pages to describe a simple ordinary disc drive.
This isn't their fault - they are being asked to do an impossible job. They are being asked to guess which parts of a request are flexible and which are not. If I try to order a flat-panel LCD monitor, would a cheaper old-style CRT monitor be an acceptable aternative? That depends. Usually it probably would be, but in this case what if I ordered it specificly because the monitor would be sitting in a magenetic field. (which ends up making it impossible to calibrate a picture tube to display things in the right colors, or to get it to focus properly, as the electron beam in the tube gets bent off-target by the magnetic field.)
Now, IF they had made a new name for their not-quite a CD, instead of trying to lie to customers and call it a CD, that wouldn't have been a problem - it would have been a case where the buyer has to decide if having the music is worth having it in a less useful format that might not even work at all on his machine.
So, you still are unwilling to drop the subject of Egypt even though it has nothing to do with people who wrote the bible?
If threatening to quit is the only way to make your company pay what they actually believe you are worth to them, then that's a sign that you are at the wrong company.
I guess it works this way - did you ask for a raise first before looking for other jobs? If you did, and they said no, but then after seeing someone else offer you more they changed their tune, then that's a bad sign. It's a sign that they *knew* you were worth more but weren't going to pay you what you were worth until that was the only way left to keep you.
On the other hand, if you did not ask for a raise first, then maybe your current employer isn't so evil after all. They might not have really realized what you were worth until you brought it up to them and they had to stop and think about it. After all, if two people engage in a contract and one is getting the shaft, he's the one with the onus to mention something about it. The person on the other end, not getting shafted, often doesn't even realize the deal is unfair.
When I left my first programming job for another I explicitly mentioned in my resignation letter, at the very top, not to bother giving me a counteroffer because money wasn't my motivation for leaving. (In fact the salary at the new place was almost exactly the same as the old. If anything it was a little less.) My reason for leaving was that the company was marrying itself to Microsoft, becoming a "partner" in the market they were in. I'd seen what happens to Microsoft's "partners". Also, the director in charge of new technologies, who ends up driving where the company was going to be going in the next few years, was either ignorant of how alternatives to MS work, or was not ignorant but was deliberately FUDding alternatives to MS. Either way I didn't want any part of it. For an example of this, there was, "We like Visual SourceSafe as the archiver we will move to. We can't trust CVS because we don't trust putting our code under a system nobody is financially responsible for, that's why so many years ago we picked RCS over SCCS for code control." (uhhh, isn't RCS even less commercial than SCCS? You've got it completely backward, man.) "For the new GUI on top of our unix backend we will have to use Windows, because a local gui system is more efficient. X terminals are such network bandwith hogs." (Note he's comparing something unix *can do*, but doesn't *have to do* vs something both unix and windows can do.) But the absolute worst was, "We'll put all our ISO9000 documents, the ones you are now required to access many times a day to get your job done, inside an MS Exchange message server even though it is just a big pile of files we could have put somewhere more open, like on an actual file server everyone can access regardless of OS."
Okay, so I'm waaay off topic now. But to get it back on topic, are you really sure money is the reason you were thinking of leaving? That's an important question to ask yourself before taking the counteroffer. Often times people aren't thinking just, "I'm not being paid enough". They are often thinking, 'I'm not being paid enough for *this*", where "*this*" is some sort of unbearable (to them) part of the job.
And it doesn't really change the ISP's overall bandwith needs at all to put a cap on people's download speed. Let's say 10 people each want to download a 10 Meg patch file for a computer game, and their requests come in spanning a 10 minute period. On one extreme end, we have the case where each of them has the ability to download 10 Meg per minute, and their requests come in exactly spaced 1 minute apart from each other. In that case their usage ends up occupying 10 Mb/Minute worth of bandwith for the 10 minute period. In the opposite extreme case, each one can only download 1 meg per minute, and all their requests come in at the same time. In that case you still end up needing a total of 10 Mb/minute for 10 minutes to service them all, only it is coming in the form of 1 Mb / minute each, times 10 users. If you make up a measure of "bandwith-minutes", as a measure of how much bandwith it takes, for how many minutes it takes, to service the requests, then you get roughly the same load (by that measure) no matter how you throttle user's bandwith. Throttle the bandwith and they'll be using less bandwith per minute, but be doing it for many more minutes. When I consider a system with thousands of simultaneous users all doing this, I don't see any overall improvement.
(In fact, due to the overhead assocaited with multiplexing, it's actually a bit worse to overlap usage instead of letting users burst their data and get it over with.)
Paying more for more bandwith will NOT solve the problem, while paying more for total overall bytes could. If I download a total of 30 Mb of stuff in a 30-day month, it matters not whether I did it 30 Mb all in one day with 29 other days of total silence, or if I did 1 Mb per day for 30 days. It would matter only if the number of simultaneous users of the ISP were very small. Once you talk about multiplexing hundreds of users at once with reasonably close to random usage times, it stops mattering whether it's in bursts or slow trickles per user. The overall average bandwith is the same if the users download the same sum total bytes over a long period of time.
Now, behaviourally there may be a difference - if I know a 10 meg download will take many hours I might just avoid doing it altogether, and *that* would reduce their load, but only by pissing off a customer - not a good tradeoff.
You got it backward. "Lift the trade embargo..., but only for foo" *means* allowing trade for foo.
It is only voluntary if you feel like dropping out of modern society and not participating in any of those places that insist on using it as a form of ID. No matter how illegal that may be, people do it.
It is not necessary for there to have been a *successful* case against gun manufacturers for them to feel an incentive to make such statements. All there needs to be is the precedent that people will try to sue them over it.
And this has *everything* to do with your claim that you have the ESP necessary to know what purpose the manufacturers have in mind for the guns they produce.