The statement "people don't want them" in the context of mass-market products should be interpreted thusly: people is not simply a plural, but a mega-plural, referring to people in units of millions. Therefore "people don't want them" means: "when we round our sales projections to the nearest million, the total sales are zero." A few niche-market individuals may be interested in these products, but people are not.
If you are claiming that they are not synonyms, a thesaurus quote is more pertinent than a dictionary quote. After all, it's not like inventors never make changes in established things.
invent verb Louis Braille invented an alphabet for the blind
originate, create, design, devise, contrive, develop, innovate; conceive, think up, dream up, come up with, pioneer; coin.
To be fair there *was* a time when PowerPC processors were the shiznit, and Intel processors sucked. Or do you not remember the days of Itanium and little AMD showing up Intel at every turn? Of course, that was followed by a time when Intel processors became the new shiznit and started showing up AMD, and PowerPC processors started sucking (on laptops, anyway).
Careful, you are in danger of making his point through use of unintended irony.
It may be "crap," "wrong," and "bullshit" but according to the market, it's still head and shoulders above all the other crappy bullshit that is flogged by Apple's competitors. This is where the nerd cognitive dissonance tends to kick in: "If *I* think it's crap, but the marketplace thinks it's vastly superior, the only way to resolve this paradox is to assume that the marketplace is profoundly stupid and duped by Apple's svengali-like marketing. Because it couldn't possibly be that I don't have a freaking clue what people want."
Apple is cool because the DRM they developed is weak
I said Apple is cool?
(You've also been around long enough to know that Apple was developing DRM for quicktime pre itunes right?)
Um, how else would they have been able to offer a DRM solution to the labels that demanded it?
Since the original dev kit iphone was some unusably-lame browser based thing, you somehow count that as a point for open standards.
Are you trying to suggest that these are mutually exclusive properties?
You think that open+proprietary = open.
I do? It's a good think I have clear thinkers like you to tell me what my opinions are. For a while there I thought I was just rebutting the claim that "Steve's binary standards are under his thumb." Some of them are, and some of them are obviously not.
I'm at a loss for why you got modded up, you seem pretty incorrect to me, and you were very rude.
Lately it seems like the most trollish horseshit is posted by guys with really low UIDs. They are like dinosaurs who really just don't understand how the world works anymore, and are forced to resort to inappropriate and misdirected rants based on a mid-1990s level of understanding of digital media.
For starters, you surely must know that it is the publishers who encumber their product with DRM, not the seller. Apple is on the record as preferring to sell unencumbered media, and was the only player in online music powerful enough to actually make it happen. It was painfully slow to come about, sure, but considering the balls-out levels of fucktardery running the music labels, it was actually suprisingly quick.
You've also been around long enough to know that Apple has always made it trivial to strip DRM out of your music, right? And that they provided this feature to their customers in opposition to the wishes of the labels, right?
You must also remember that the original developer kit for the iPhone was based on open web standards, right? Oh, except that nobody liked that, so they added a proprietary devkit as well. But webkit still works, if you really hate the proprietary one.
You also surely must know that the developer toolchain for developing iPhone apps is based on the open source gcc (plus a proprietary API). Now, the gadget only runs signed apps, for reasons that are technically legitimate, and it costs you $99 for the ability to sign your own apps. You appear to be arguing that the device would be better if it ran unsigned apps, but you fail to explain how or for whom, so I'll fill it in for you: it would be better for 4-digit nerds like yourself who know how to install their own bootloaders and manually dig out rootkits, and it would be a rancid little piece of shit for everyone else, just like the other mobile devices out there. Guess what? There's an app for that: it's called jailbreaking. If you really cared, you would have done that by know, but you don't really care, do you? Trolling is more fun.
Who said PowerPC was a failure? The G5 was an awesome chip and Apple loved it, but it wasn't any good for their laptop lines, and Apple was not successful in driving PowerPC development in the mobile direction. Given this history, I think it's pretty obvious why Apple might want more control over their CPU roadmap.
Apple has long been more evil than Microsoft, just less successful at it.
Apple isn't evil, it's vertically-integrated. Microsoft and Linux fanboys *think* that's evil, because they both struggled against vertically-integrated dinosaurs in their formative years - Microsoft against the IBM monopoly, and Linux against Unix big iron. Both have a big set of unspoken assumptions about the "right" way to do computing, and they were both victorious in their early struggle, which reinforced those assumptions and gave them the illusion and moral certitude of being destiny's child.
Apple is a huge frigging thorn in the side of these people because Apple's continued existence as a hugely successful computing company in the old vertically-integrated model suggests that the old way wasn't a flawed business model at all. It was much easier in the 1990s when Apple was struggling, because that simply proved to all that vertical integration was a general failure, and Apple's only way out was to commoditize itself. But Apple found another way out, and has been so successful at it that they are now increasing their vertical integration. This challenges the very assumptions that MS and Linux are both built on, leading to some serious cognitive dissonance amongst the hardcore fanboys. Branding Apple as evil is a simplistic way of coping with that cognitive dissonance without having to reevaluate one's own cherished myths.
The reality is that Apple is simultaneously the most closed and the most open computing company currently in the big leagues. In the strategic elements of their vertical, they are absolute control freaks, and jack-booted thugs. In the non-strategic elements, they are one of the biggest contributors to open source, open standards, and shared innovation. But that's too nuanced for most black-and-white engineering types to cope with, so evil it is. Or awesome. Or awesomely evil.
If support on FreeBSD is your criteria for not being evil, then welcome to Hell. And I say that as an OpenBSD user.
But seriously, dude. The iPad is a mobile portal to proprietary content services; it's a gadget for pumping protected media into your home. Are you seriously claiming that you want a free-as-in-freedom client for accessing all that non-free content from various Big Media corps? Because it sounds a little disingenuous, frankly.
And if you are blaming Apple for locking up content they don't even own, then yes, you haven't been paying attention. And if think the iPad is just another general-purpose tablet computer and not a commercial media device, then you *really* haven't been paying attention.
Apple is the most closed and evil manufacturer there is
This would be the same Apple that open sourced their kernel, that forked and maintains the hottest open-source web browsing framework, and that open sourced several important new Unix system innovations such as launchd, Grand Central Dispatch, and blocks, right? The same apple that ships their PCs with gcc, perl, Apache, and CUPS preinstalled, right? The same Apple that went public with an anti-DRM statement, that used its muscle to break the back of the MAFIAA, that and that has been the strongest advocate pushing for HTML5 adoption, right?
Apple is guilty of many things, but anyone who thinks they are "closed" and "evil" simply hasn't been paying attention.
Flash is the single biggest cause of crashes on OS X
Flash is an insecure application framework that is impeding adoption of open web standards
Flash is a battery-sucking pig, and has no decent mobile implementation.
Adobe refuses to use Apple's optimized graphics APIs, aggravating the previous point
Apple doesn't want their product release cycle to be tied to a rival company's conflicting product release cycle
Apple has had a lot of success modernizing the web (ie. encouraging HTML5 adoption) by refusing to play nice with Flash. Why stop now?
Write-once-run-anywhere applications are widely acknowledged to suck, or at least look sucky. Apple has an historical aversion to stuff that looks sucky, so they want you to use the native dev platform.
After all of those perfectly good reasons, spiting Adobe is just a nice little bonus.
So Apple targets people who aren't really interested in doing anything that Apple doesn't allow.... They're a successful company that now makes a fortune from limiting peoples' options.
What's amazing to me is how persistent this meme is on Slashdot, of all places.
I bought *my* mac because it came with gcc, perl, apache, CUPS, and X-windows pre-installed on an open source Unix kernel. As a result, I could install just about anything on it.
You'd think that would count for something around here.
For those of you who haven't beaten yourself with a cluestick recently, the closed platform is not Apple; it is iTunes. This is Apple's variant of Xbox Live or Playstation Network, nothing more. You want onto an online media service that is integrated with your hardware, pick one of these, buy the appropriate gadget, and quit your whining. Want an online media service that doesn't integrate with your hardware, then get a multi-purpose computer, roll up your sleeves, and roll your own.
Well, Tolkien did tell us all the things that happened in those 60 years, so it's not like they are going to *completely* make it up. No matter how hard they tried, they couldn't come up with a better story, than, say, the recolonization and fall of Moria, or the fight against the Necromancer in Mirkwood. My money is on the former. It will be called "Moria", and the tag line will be "They are coming..."
How have you refuted his point? Didn't you just describe the App store? 72,000 star sign apps, all certified to not make you part of a Botnet. Sounds like a win-win for the average computer user.
It's not possible for a GUI to safely support ^X to cut and ^C to copy in an environment where CLI environments cohabit. Apple figured this out in 1981, and made a command key for these sorts of operations. IBM also figured this out in the 1980s and added special delete and insert keys to the keyboard to manage these operations. Microsoft did NOT figure this out, and used the reserved keystrokes for Cancel and Interrupt for these operations.
The technical type might think "I want to start vi so I can create a TeX-file, then I want compile it and pass it through a ps->dvi converter", and when he is trying to tell a mac this, it will not cater well to the notion.
Not sure what you are trying to say, here. The mac is a full-blown Unix workstation with a full CLI environment, and vi and emacs preinstalled. I do exactly what you are describing all the time (well, I prefer emacs), and switched to mac precisely because it did it as well as anything else available, and far better than anything else in a 5-lb package.
But on a larger scale, I think that to decry the modern compositing next-gen spinny-cube semantic connected cloud-enabled multimedia did-I-miss-any-buzzwords free desktop as "Too Windows-like" is disingenuous.
Does it have a taskbar? A start button? A system tray? Does it use Ctrl-C to copy? Does it come with an office suite? Does it use left-click/right-click conventions instead of Btn1, Btn2, Btn3 conventions? I could go on. The Windowsification of Linux has nothing to do with the cosmetics of the themes, but the changing of my workflow to suit Windows95 user habits.
The Unix/Linux graphic environment in the 90s was xterm with a windows manager. There was indeed one and only one desktop environment called CDE. It cost thousands and was just a pile.
Sorry, my little ignorant AC, but it's clear you weren't actually there. The Unix graphic environments in the early 1990s were powerful and diverse, and included Motif, NextStep, OpenWindows, DecWindows, and IRIX. FVWM was the free version that got the most play, but proved early on that free software tends toward mediocrity: FVWM-95 marked the beginning of the end, with its Windows 95 emulation and adoption by RedHat as the standard Linux desktop.
Simplified != dumbed down. It is the essence of good design.
Dumbed down is when you design the system at cross-purposes to itself to cater to the naive user who does not understand the conventions of desktop computing. For example, putting a big-ass "Start" button and five hundred application launcher shortcuts on the desktop, because your users don't have a clue what to do after the computer boots. Or designing your apps as monolithic monstrosities because your users don't understand multitasking. Or having your windows maximize because the multiple-application desktop is too confusing, or you were too cheap to buy an actual workstation monitor. And then needing to add a taskbar because with maximized windows it's really hard to see what you are running.
Obviously, I'm pointing my finger at Windows, here, but Linux has been adopting the Windows conventions of desktop computing steadily over the last 10 years, to the point where it is now pretty much assumed even by most OSS enthusiasts that the many of the idiotic conventions of Windows are the correct ones to emulate. It takes several hours of tweaking a *nix box to undo these stupidities and get it back to a proper Unix-style desktop as were common in the 1990s, but then of course you are taking a step backwards. Or you can get a Mac, and get a Unix desktop that has kept up with the times.
You can always spot the people who don't understand real desktop computing. They are the ones who complain that the Mac's maximize button doesn't work, and that you need a two-button mouse to do real work. I mean, do they seriously not know that real men use 3-button mice? On their macs?
The desires of a corporation are the desires of its executives.
I guess that explains why executives continue to do the work of their corporations after their multi-million dollar paychecks stop.
Oh wait, they don't. They are mercenaries in a feudal system, like everyone else.
Organizations are more than the people comprising it. They have emergent properties that do not exist by mere virtue of gathering people together, most notably properties that exist in law. Their officers and directors are duty-bound to perform certain tasks in the service of these laws, and that is what gives a corporation a motivation and "desire" that is different from these people. The structure of the law requires that corporations develop and evolve in certain ways, and that its officers are retained to oversee this. But if the officers weren't being paid to oversee this, they certainly would not. Our tribal senses of duty and loyalty can only be twisted so far.
It has always amazed me how many people don't understand representative democracy.
When you are a citizen in a representative democracy, you get to vote for your leadership, but you don't get to opt out of your taxes when the other guy wins. It's the same for federal, state, and city governments, but as soon as you migrate the same principles into the workplace, everyone complains that unions are running some kind of antidemocratic scam. Here's how democracy works: Vote or shut up. And pay your dues either way, or lose your rights.
Once you realize that your union boss is your workplace "government", you'll understand that his political leanings are in fact one of the most important aspects of his job, as with every other elected government official that you pay attention to. The system has all kinds of flaws, but as Churchill said, the only thing worse is every other system that has been tried. Incidentally, corporatism is one of those other systems, which is why they should be treated differently than your union.
Slashdot Mirror
The statement "people don't want them" in the context of mass-market products should be interpreted thusly: people is not simply a plural, but a mega-plural, referring to people in units of millions. Therefore "people don't want them" means: "when we round our sales projections to the nearest million, the total sales are zero." A few niche-market individuals may be interested in these products, but people are not.
If you are claiming that they are not synonyms, a thesaurus quote is more pertinent than a dictionary quote. After all, it's not like inventors never make changes in established things.
invent
verb
Louis Braille invented an alphabet for the blind originate, create, design, devise, contrive, develop, innovate; conceive, think up, dream up, come up with, pioneer; coin.
To be fair there *was* a time when PowerPC processors were the shiznit, and Intel processors sucked. Or do you not remember the days of Itanium and little AMD showing up Intel at every turn? Of course, that was followed by a time when Intel processors became the new shiznit and started showing up AMD, and PowerPC processors started sucking (on laptops, anyway).
Technology changes, go figure.
Careful, you are in danger of making his point through use of unintended irony.
It may be "crap," "wrong," and "bullshit" but according to the market, it's still head and shoulders above all the other crappy bullshit that is flogged by Apple's competitors. This is where the nerd cognitive dissonance tends to kick in: "If *I* think it's crap, but the marketplace thinks it's vastly superior, the only way to resolve this paradox is to assume that the marketplace is profoundly stupid and duped by Apple's svengali-like marketing. Because it couldn't possibly be that I don't have a freaking clue what people want."
You hate low uids.
I do?
Apple is cool because the DRM they developed is weak
I said Apple is cool?
(You've also been around long enough to know that Apple was developing DRM for quicktime pre itunes right?)
Um, how else would they have been able to offer a DRM solution to the labels that demanded it?
Since the original dev kit iphone was some unusably-lame browser based thing, you somehow count that as a point for open standards.
Are you trying to suggest that these are mutually exclusive properties?
You think that open+proprietary = open.
I do? It's a good think I have clear thinkers like you to tell me what my opinions are. For a while there I thought I was just rebutting the claim that "Steve's binary standards are under his thumb." Some of them are, and some of them are obviously not.
I'm at a loss for why you got modded up, you seem pretty incorrect to me, and you were very rude.
Same reason you got modded up, in that case.
Lately it seems like the most trollish horseshit is posted by guys with really low UIDs. They are like dinosaurs who really just don't understand how the world works anymore, and are forced to resort to inappropriate and misdirected rants based on a mid-1990s level of understanding of digital media.
For starters, you surely must know that it is the publishers who encumber their product with DRM, not the seller. Apple is on the record as preferring to sell unencumbered media, and was the only player in online music powerful enough to actually make it happen. It was painfully slow to come about, sure, but considering the balls-out levels of fucktardery running the music labels, it was actually suprisingly quick.
You've also been around long enough to know that Apple has always made it trivial to strip DRM out of your music, right? And that they provided this feature to their customers in opposition to the wishes of the labels, right?
You must also remember that the original developer kit for the iPhone was based on open web standards, right? Oh, except that nobody liked that, so they added a proprietary devkit as well. But webkit still works, if you really hate the proprietary one.
You also surely must know that the developer toolchain for developing iPhone apps is based on the open source gcc (plus a proprietary API). Now, the gadget only runs signed apps, for reasons that are technically legitimate, and it costs you $99 for the ability to sign your own apps. You appear to be arguing that the device would be better if it ran unsigned apps, but you fail to explain how or for whom, so I'll fill it in for you: it would be better for 4-digit nerds like yourself who know how to install their own bootloaders and manually dig out rootkits, and it would be a rancid little piece of shit for everyone else, just like the other mobile devices out there. Guess what? There's an app for that: it's called jailbreaking. If you really cared, you would have done that by know, but you don't really care, do you? Trolling is more fun.
Who said PowerPC was a failure? The G5 was an awesome chip and Apple loved it, but it wasn't any good for their laptop lines, and Apple was not successful in driving PowerPC development in the mobile direction. Given this history, I think it's pretty obvious why Apple might want more control over their CPU roadmap.
Apple has long been more evil than Microsoft, just less successful at it.
Apple isn't evil, it's vertically-integrated. Microsoft and Linux fanboys *think* that's evil, because they both struggled against vertically-integrated dinosaurs in their formative years - Microsoft against the IBM monopoly, and Linux against Unix big iron. Both have a big set of unspoken assumptions about the "right" way to do computing, and they were both victorious in their early struggle, which reinforced those assumptions and gave them the illusion and moral certitude of being destiny's child.
Apple is a huge frigging thorn in the side of these people because Apple's continued existence as a hugely successful computing company in the old vertically-integrated model suggests that the old way wasn't a flawed business model at all. It was much easier in the 1990s when Apple was struggling, because that simply proved to all that vertical integration was a general failure, and Apple's only way out was to commoditize itself. But Apple found another way out, and has been so successful at it that they are now increasing their vertical integration. This challenges the very assumptions that MS and Linux are both built on, leading to some serious cognitive dissonance amongst the hardcore fanboys. Branding Apple as evil is a simplistic way of coping with that cognitive dissonance without having to reevaluate one's own cherished myths.
The reality is that Apple is simultaneously the most closed and the most open computing company currently in the big leagues. In the strategic elements of their vertical, they are absolute control freaks, and jack-booted thugs. In the non-strategic elements, they are one of the biggest contributors to open source, open standards, and shared innovation. But that's too nuanced for most black-and-white engineering types to cope with, so evil it is. Or awesome. Or awesomely evil.
it could be quite possible that Apple wants to go this way as an insurance policy,
Who are you trying to kid? Apple wants this to screw their competitors...
Steve Jobs remembers PowerPC, even if you do not.
If support on FreeBSD is your criteria for not being evil, then welcome to Hell. And I say that as an OpenBSD user.
But seriously, dude. The iPad is a mobile portal to proprietary content services; it's a gadget for pumping protected media into your home. Are you seriously claiming that you want a free-as-in-freedom client for accessing all that non-free content from various Big Media corps? Because it sounds a little disingenuous, frankly.
And if you are blaming Apple for locking up content they don't even own, then yes, you haven't been paying attention. And if think the iPad is just another general-purpose tablet computer and not a commercial media device, then you *really* haven't been paying attention.
Apple is the most closed and evil manufacturer there is
This would be the same Apple that open sourced their kernel, that forked and maintains the hottest open-source web browsing framework, and that open sourced several important new Unix system innovations such as launchd, Grand Central Dispatch, and blocks, right? The same apple that ships their PCs with gcc, perl, Apache, and CUPS preinstalled, right? The same Apple that went public with an anti-DRM statement, that used its muscle to break the back of the MAFIAA, that and that has been the strongest advocate pushing for HTML5 adoption, right?
Apple is guilty of many things, but anyone who thinks they are "closed" and "evil" simply hasn't been paying attention.
Oh there are a lot of real, apparent reasons.:
After all of those perfectly good reasons, spiting Adobe is just a nice little bonus.
So Apple targets people who aren't really interested in doing anything that Apple doesn't allow. ... They're a successful company that now makes a fortune from limiting peoples' options.
What's amazing to me is how persistent this meme is on Slashdot, of all places.
I bought *my* mac because it came with gcc, perl, apache, CUPS, and X-windows pre-installed on an open source Unix kernel. As a result, I could install just about anything on it.
You'd think that would count for something around here.
For those of you who haven't beaten yourself with a cluestick recently, the closed platform is not Apple; it is iTunes. This is Apple's variant of Xbox Live or Playstation Network, nothing more. You want onto an online media service that is integrated with your hardware, pick one of these, buy the appropriate gadget, and quit your whining. Want an online media service that doesn't integrate with your hardware, then get a multi-purpose computer, roll up your sleeves, and roll your own.
Does iFart "fully use iPhone's features"?
...
(disclaimer: current iPhone user, increasingly disillusioned)
I may have found your problem. You're welcome.
Well, Tolkien did tell us all the things that happened in those 60 years, so it's not like they are going to *completely* make it up. No matter how hard they tried, they couldn't come up with a better story, than, say, the recolonization and fall of Moria, or the fight against the Necromancer in Mirkwood. My money is on the former. It will be called "Moria", and the tag line will be "They are coming..."
How have you refuted his point? Didn't you just describe the App store? 72,000 star sign apps, all certified to not make you part of a Botnet. Sounds like a win-win for the average computer user.
I don't think there's a such thing as a "sport" that doesn't involve competition.
Hunting.
You can draw your own parallels with how Microsoft competes.
But something *is* wrong.
It's not possible for a GUI to safely support ^X to cut and ^C to copy in an environment where CLI environments cohabit. Apple figured this out in 1981, and made a command key for these sorts of operations. IBM also figured this out in the 1980s and added special delete and insert keys to the keyboard to manage these operations. Microsoft did NOT figure this out, and used the reserved keystrokes for Cancel and Interrupt for these operations.
Guess which convention Linux apps have adopted?
The technical type might think "I want to start vi so I can create a TeX-file, then I want compile it and pass it through a ps->dvi converter", and when he is trying to tell a mac this, it will not cater well to the notion.
Not sure what you are trying to say, here. The mac is a full-blown Unix workstation with a full CLI environment, and vi and emacs preinstalled. I do exactly what you are describing all the time (well, I prefer emacs), and switched to mac precisely because it did it as well as anything else available, and far better than anything else in a 5-lb package.
But on a larger scale, I think that to decry the modern compositing next-gen spinny-cube semantic connected cloud-enabled multimedia did-I-miss-any-buzzwords free desktop as "Too Windows-like" is disingenuous.
Does it have a taskbar? A start button? A system tray? Does it use Ctrl-C to copy? Does it come with an office suite? Does it use left-click/right-click conventions instead of Btn1, Btn2, Btn3 conventions? I could go on. The Windowsification of Linux has nothing to do with the cosmetics of the themes, but the changing of my workflow to suit Windows95 user habits.
The Unix/Linux graphic environment in the 90s was xterm with a windows manager. There was indeed one and only one desktop environment called CDE. It cost thousands and was just a pile.
Sorry, my little ignorant AC, but it's clear you weren't actually there. The Unix graphic environments in the early 1990s were powerful and diverse, and included Motif, NextStep, OpenWindows, DecWindows, and IRIX. FVWM was the free version that got the most play, but proved early on that free software tends toward mediocrity: FVWM-95 marked the beginning of the end, with its Windows 95 emulation and adoption by RedHat as the standard Linux desktop.
Simplified != dumbed down. It is the essence of good design.
Dumbed down is when you design the system at cross-purposes to itself to cater to the naive user who does not understand the conventions of desktop computing. For example, putting a big-ass "Start" button and five hundred application launcher shortcuts on the desktop, because your users don't have a clue what to do after the computer boots. Or designing your apps as monolithic monstrosities because your users don't understand multitasking. Or having your windows maximize because the multiple-application desktop is too confusing, or you were too cheap to buy an actual workstation monitor. And then needing to add a taskbar because with maximized windows it's really hard to see what you are running.
Obviously, I'm pointing my finger at Windows, here, but Linux has been adopting the Windows conventions of desktop computing steadily over the last 10 years, to the point where it is now pretty much assumed even by most OSS enthusiasts that the many of the idiotic conventions of Windows are the correct ones to emulate. It takes several hours of tweaking a *nix box to undo these stupidities and get it back to a proper Unix-style desktop as were common in the 1990s, but then of course you are taking a step backwards. Or you can get a Mac, and get a Unix desktop that has kept up with the times.
You can always spot the people who don't understand real desktop computing. They are the ones who complain that the Mac's maximize button doesn't work, and that you need a two-button mouse to do real work. I mean, do they seriously not know that real men use 3-button mice? On their macs?
The desires of a corporation are the desires of its executives.
I guess that explains why executives continue to do the work of their corporations after their multi-million dollar paychecks stop.
Oh wait, they don't. They are mercenaries in a feudal system, like everyone else.
Organizations are more than the people comprising it. They have emergent properties that do not exist by mere virtue of gathering people together, most notably properties that exist in law. Their officers and directors are duty-bound to perform certain tasks in the service of these laws, and that is what gives a corporation a motivation and "desire" that is different from these people. The structure of the law requires that corporations develop and evolve in certain ways, and that its officers are retained to oversee this. But if the officers weren't being paid to oversee this, they certainly would not. Our tribal senses of duty and loyalty can only be twisted so far.
It has always amazed me how many people don't understand representative democracy.
When you are a citizen in a representative democracy, you get to vote for your leadership, but you don't get to opt out of your taxes when the other guy wins. It's the same for federal, state, and city governments, but as soon as you migrate the same principles into the workplace, everyone complains that unions are running some kind of antidemocratic scam. Here's how democracy works: Vote or shut up. And pay your dues either way, or lose your rights.
Once you realize that your union boss is your workplace "government", you'll understand that his political leanings are in fact one of the most important aspects of his job, as with every other elected government official that you pay attention to. The system has all kinds of flaws, but as Churchill said, the only thing worse is every other system that has been tried. Incidentally, corporatism is one of those other systems, which is why they should be treated differently than your union.