"It isn't to spread the wealth and any spread is incidental to ensuring that the shareholders make more per share. The goal of these moves is to make the shareholder richer and increase the gap between rich and poor. "
You started OK but then missed the mark. The goal is to make the shareholder richer -full stop. The gap between rich and poor is an unlooked-for side-effect too.
But, then, what did you expect from a system that calls itself "Capitalism"!? You have two obvious positions: reject Capitalism as a system a society should aim for -and then, try to cry, i.e. "Communism" in USA and see what happens, or accept Capitalism is the way to go and become Capitalist yourself: after all, nobody forbids you to stock shares, does it?
"The sad thing is nobody gets an offer for a pay cut to keep the jobs."
Why they should? Could you really live at 35.000$/year? Because that's the average cost (mean it: cost, not salary) of the outsourced IT guy.
"If its about money and competition at least offer those being summarily shot a way out."
Again: why? What's cheaper for IBM? offering a way out or not offering? And then again, this isn't even about IBM; it's Hertz the one firing all that guys in order to hire IBM -IBM, on their side, are hiring back some of them as they see fit.
"This kind of behavior is really discouraging."
Discouraging... whom? I haven't notice of IBM -or Hertz, for that matter, shares to drop, so maybe there's people that don't find it so discouraging, after all.
"I also must say that all the free trade and bank deregulation has lead to a severe decrease in standard of living here."
What the heck did you expect? Free market is about (gasp!) Free... Market. Anything else be damn. And, given circumstances, why the heck should it be anyway different? After all, you *still* go after, let's say, Chinese electronics and taking advantage of their low prices, or how it goes? "Free market for everything else since I take advantage from that, but *my* employment, no, mine one should be protected from free market competition!"
"My guess is a lot of the offenders are in tourist traps where everything costs a lot."
Two options: 1) The USA way: It's a free market, ain't it? Let the owners of the real state do whatever they want within their premises and let the market sort them out. 2) The EU way: let's define a fair leveled playground and punish those that cheat.
"If they used a REAL control system this would not be the issue."
That's becoming interesting.
Are you implying they were using an UNREAL control system? Kindof... I don't know... Ghost in the Shell's Section 9?
"instead they tried to do it as cheap as possible using consumer crap."
Ohh... I see! But, you know, that doesn't make it an unreal control system, but a very REAL one.
"Whoever sold this system to the hotel needs to be outed and publicly shamed."
You know what a free market is, don't you? It is not about the one that sells the thing -that's like leading your horse to water, but about the one that BUYS IT -the part about making it drink (caps locked to mimick your -obviously smart, style).
"The problem is that, of the things I know, almost all are based on authority."
Exactly yes!
That's why I said "because I say so" is never a rational argument (under deductive reasoning)" being "under deductive reasoning" the key point.
It's perfectly possible, even more, unavoidable, to resort to the authority argument as a social construct but, luckily, at least when talking about science, allowing the authority dictum is strongly based in turn on good logic: you may have not the time or the inclination to spend long hours understanding the fine details of quantum mechanics but, hopefully, you did take your time to understand how the scientific method works and so, why you can be confident that scientific authority consensus tends to work (mainly, pair review, falsification principle, and strongly not accepting -again, the authority argument at that level).
But, then again, one thing is accepting the authority consensus as an acceptable social construct and a very different one trying to stand on authority arguments on a pretending to be logical discussion
" If I know something, and I say something about it, then quoting me is not a fallacy. It isn't a completely conclusive argument, since any expert can be wrong, but it isn't a fallacy."
Again, no. The goal of a discussion is to logically abate an adversarial position: you say X is the truth on given circumstances and I say X is not the truth but it's Y and we both offer logical arguments that eventually show one to be right and the other to be wrong (and a logical fallacy, either formal or informal, being anything that under the pretext of being good logical argumentation ends up not being so under close inspection).
So you can perfectly say "I'm not going to discuss about this, because I'm not knowledgeable enough to do it and that's why I'll take position X just because authority x supports it". What you cannot say is "This is X and I know because x said it, and that's why I'm right and you are wrong". Maybe a subtle difference, but oceans wide at the same time.
"If I have authority in a topic A and give a talk about A and make conclusions about A then this is not a fallacy."
You are right here because of the last part "and make conclusions": the fallacy comes exactly when that last part isn't present and still what is said is accepted because "the expert said so". In other words: we may live in a Universe with or without a cosmological constant. We'll eventually end up finding which is the case because of the reasoning of people of Einstein's caliber. But there will be not a cosmological constant *just* because Einstein (no doubt an expert) said so.
"The People weren't even parties to the 1789 Constitution - the States were. So don't read too much into the preamble - it's wrong by word #3."
Your interpretation makes my point even stronger. "We the People" obviously means literally what it says: those in the room (wealthy WASP land-owners) writing and signing the Constitution are "We the People"... and the only People That Counts.
"There's in fact not a *single* word in the whole article about *how* he, as the organizational leader, is going to train, retain and reward talent, just that "it needs to happen" as in "magically"."
PS: He talks about "The rise of the 18-month org chart" and how both the people and the organization needs more flexibility and agility... You can bet what's the only point of that chart that won't change every 18 months and that will always be on the top despite all those reorganizations -and who is going to hold it.
It makes sense but then, the parent post's point is "why is that it doesn't work both ways?"
If I want the better job, I go for it, if they want the better employee, why they don't go for it too?
"Now, granted, telework is becoming much more of a viable option than it used to be, but it certainly can't be assumed that every job will allow for this mode of work"
Certainly not, but the point is that it seems telework already peaked some time ago. So, in the end, you have guys like the one from the article yelling at how difficult is to find and retain talent but still unwanting to do the needful to find and retain it. There's in fact not a *single* word in the whole article about *how* he, as the organizational leader, is going to train, retain and reward talent, just that "it needs to happen" as in "magically". And I think we all know where the burden goes when upper management "endorses the view of change" by fiat.
"maybe company's will start making adjustments for gathering and retaining talent. But I wouldn't count on it any time soon..."
Neither do I. This is not a cogent criticism or proposal but mere yelling from a narcissistic outgrown boy.
"Few people seem to understand that democracy doesn't exist in the US to promote freedom and liberty -- it exists as a safeguard against the tyranny of a government that over extends power beyond what the Constitution allows."
So truly. That's why the US Constitution's preamble states that "We the people do ordain and establish this Constitution to safeward ourselves from the tiranny of a government".
Oh, wait, no, what it says is: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
But you are right on a point: US founders, notwithstanding their obvious merits, were a bunch of elitists that intimatelly believed democracy is all well and good as long as it's exercised only by us, the Real People: white, men, protestant and wealthy, and that's why they built a Republic, not a Democracy.
Voting is *always* discriminatory, and for good reason. Do seven year old people vote in your country? Do unqualified foreigners vote? Isn't there any kind of conviction that excludes the right to vote? Even within democratic societies the difference is what makes for their discriminations i.e. are people of certain sex or skin color excluded? Foreigners? under what age?
"Democracy doesn't imply that every human has a vote, nor that each vote has equal weight. Plato, for example, wanted to limit voting to the educated."
every human has a vote != only vote the educated.
On the other hand, the key on democracy as universal suffrage is not about not all votes having the same weight, even your example makes it clear: all votes are equal, but on the meaning of "human" or, better said, citizen. Democracy has always been about everybody casting an equal vote... for certain values of "everybody". That was true in ancient Greece and it is still true today: people below certain age, or certain convicts, or this or that still are not considered part of "everybody" and every time and place has supported their own views about why their particular exceptions made sense.
"I tend to agree"
You are aware that means you don't get to vote, aren't you?
"For example, reporting what an NFL quarterback said about how to throw or kick a football, or a master chef on wine and cheese pairings. Neither would be an illicit appeal to authority because they are each authorities on their respective fields of expertise."
That's, in fact, the very definition of the original appeal to authority fallacy (Locke's): "because I say so" is never a rational argument (under deductive reasoning) -it is obvious when the "I" is a nobody, but people tend to accept it when coming from a presumed expert (without asking for demonstration of what it's said). A related fallacy is that of false-authority that goes even one step further: a presumed expert in field A says something about field B and tends to be believed because he's an expert after all.
"I know some wizards who are otherwise fairly die-hard Linux users (not so much zealots) and even a few wizards that are true OS X aficionados. Of this group, there is a subset that actually prefers Microsoft SQL Server."
For it to produce sensible value, you'd need to find someone that could truly say "I'm an expert Microsoft SQL Server DBA, as well as an expert PostgreSQL DBA and I prefer Microsoft to Postgres".
"I think you're better off avoiding stored procedures unless one can prove a significant performance benefit"
Because? Data integrity belongs to the data manager.
"I prefer all my code in ONE place"
If you think "your" code should be the only one accessing *my* data, think it twice: it's not yours to lock it out. And once *my* data gets to be accessed from more than one place, I want data integrity/access rules to be centralized for them all where they belong: the data manager.
I might be wrong, but you look like a programer -one suffering the man-with-a-hammer syndrome.
"That evidence may include such things as "we never thought the server would be used this way" or perhaps "Mrs. Clinton ignored my warnings about security, and insisted on doing it this way"."
Still, you left out the most obvious: this server is not on a protected network and shouldn't be used for anything security sensible, mmmok? Ok.
E-Mail, is e-mail and an SMTP server will as gladly manage your market list as your uber-plans to conquer the world. It's up to the sender to choose the channel, not the other way around.
"Her only escape is a No Bill. A deal or a trial will sink her candidacy, at least if the world still makes sense."
In *my* makes-sense world, there's a saying about criminal offenses that go more or less "innocent till proven guilty".
In *my* makes-sense world, a public person is open to all kinds of abusing due to above standard public scrutiny making even more sense my paragraph above.
NOTE: I'm not implying absolutely anything about the specific Clinton's case.
"It is going to be as depressing on Nov 4 as "choose the manner of your death"."
Well, in USA you live and die for a two-party system: your current situation is a self-inflicted and much looked for one.
"morons with MBA degrees but no clues about products try to build themselves golden parachutes..."
Are you implying they fail at building those golden parachutes for themselves? If not, maybe "moron" is not the adjective that best fits them, after all.
"They are selling the silverware to delay when their problems become severe. Of course, that makes the problems worse, long-term."
Whom for? Not the executive board, with their golden parachutes, not the shareholder that moves his money to the next company when the shit hits the fan. Who else matters? we are capitalists, not pesky socialists or something like that, aren't we?
"Then welfare will fail, and people will start starving like they do in all the other countries that we fought so hard NOT to be like."
Well, I understand FOX news and the likes work quite hard so "average American" gets fed the image of what happens that most interests to those in control of media but, please, can you pay attention to what you say and its real meaning and implications? Cause it seems to me -being an external observer, that USA is right now exactly where you fought so hard to be, specifically from Reagan's administration onwards. Not that you were the ones and onlies: after all, Tatcher reached government before Reagan and abandoned it past him, but it certainly isn't as if USA's situation happened overnight and without anyone being in the position of anticipating it.
"So why do they complain that no one is going into technology?"
Do you know what marketing is?
In common talking "marketing" is misread as "advertising". While marketing includes publicity, marketing goes much more and above advertising. Marketing is analyzing my product portfolio strengths and debilities versus competitors, analyzing where my product portfolio really is against perceived needs, what's my target audience, properly publitising my product portfolio to my targe audience *and* massaging my audience so it is adept to my offer. So, coming back again to the beginning...
"why do they complain that no one is going into technology?"
Because they are publitizing their offer to their target audience and they consider that the cost/profit analysis benefits them (-in this case, that the money they put on telling everybody that "no one is going into technology" is off-setted by what they receive in form of gullible youngsters that choose a technology career path and so, lowering wages, and/or their ability to push policy-makers towards allowing more H1-B candidates towards their business, again, lowering wages, aka their HR expenditures.
"Zuckerberg has resisted any kind of crackdown against hate speech before, the only reason he's doing it now is probably because Germany leaves him no option."
No - Option?
A damn billionaire has No - Option!!!???
What about not doing damn business in damn Germany if he is so damn in favor of damn free speech? Or is it that he's more in favor of damn money than he is in favor of damn free speech (even when talking about money that would make him just more billionaire on top of being already billionaire)?
Slashdot Mirror
"It isn't to spread the wealth and any spread is incidental to ensuring that the shareholders make more per share. The goal of these moves is to make the shareholder richer and increase the gap between rich and poor. "
You started OK but then missed the mark. The goal is to make the shareholder richer -full stop. The gap between rich and poor is an unlooked-for side-effect too.
But, then, what did you expect from a system that calls itself "Capitalism"!? You have two obvious positions: reject Capitalism as a system a society should aim for -and then, try to cry, i.e. "Communism" in USA and see what happens, or accept Capitalism is the way to go and become Capitalist yourself: after all, nobody forbids you to stock shares, does it?
"IBM is gutting US workers."
And? This is capitalism in action, mate!
"The sad thing is nobody gets an offer for a pay cut to keep the jobs."
Why they should? Could you really live at 35.000$/year? Because that's the average cost (mean it: cost, not salary) of the outsourced IT guy.
"If its about money and competition at least offer those being summarily shot a way out."
Again: why? What's cheaper for IBM? offering a way out or not offering? And then again, this isn't even about IBM; it's Hertz the one firing all that guys in order to hire IBM -IBM, on their side, are hiring back some of them as they see fit.
"This kind of behavior is really discouraging."
Discouraging... whom? I haven't notice of IBM -or Hertz, for that matter, shares to drop, so maybe there's people that don't find it so discouraging, after all.
"I also must say that all the free trade and bank deregulation has lead to a severe decrease in standard of living here."
What the heck did you expect? Free market is about (gasp!) Free... Market. Anything else be damn. And, given circumstances, why the heck should it be anyway different? After all, you *still* go after, let's say, Chinese electronics and taking advantage of their low prices, or how it goes? "Free market for everything else since I take advantage from that, but *my* employment, no, mine one should be protected from free market competition!"
"They're cousins, aren't they?"
Somehow, yes, they are. These calls to populism certainly resemble quite too much to 1930's fascism under new robes.
We know the first iteration didn't end up so happily. Wanna bet about current's one output?
"My guess is a lot of the offenders are in tourist traps where everything costs a lot."
Two options:
1) The USA way: It's a free market, ain't it? Let the owners of the real state do whatever they want within their premises and let the market sort them out.
2) The EU way: let's define a fair leveled playground and punish those that cheat.
You now choose your poison.
"If they used a REAL control system this would not be the issue."
That's becoming interesting.
Are you implying they were using an UNREAL control system? Kindof... I don't know... Ghost in the Shell's Section 9?
"instead they tried to do it as cheap as possible using consumer crap."
Ohh... I see! But, you know, that doesn't make it an unreal control system, but a very REAL one.
"Whoever sold this system to the hotel needs to be outed and publicly shamed."
You know what a free market is, don't you? It is not about the one that sells the thing -that's like leading your horse to water, but about the one that BUYS IT -the part about making it drink (caps locked to mimick your -obviously smart, style).
"The problem is that, of the things I know, almost all are based on authority."
Exactly yes!
That's why I said "because I say so" is never a rational argument (under deductive reasoning)" being "under deductive reasoning" the key point.
It's perfectly possible, even more, unavoidable, to resort to the authority argument as a social construct but, luckily, at least when talking about science, allowing the authority dictum is strongly based in turn on good logic: you may have not the time or the inclination to spend long hours understanding the fine details of quantum mechanics but, hopefully, you did take your time to understand how the scientific method works and so, why you can be confident that scientific authority consensus tends to work (mainly, pair review, falsification principle, and strongly not accepting -again, the authority argument at that level).
But, then again, one thing is accepting the authority consensus as an acceptable social construct and a very different one trying to stand on authority arguments on a pretending to be logical discussion
" If I know something, and I say something about it, then quoting me is not a fallacy. It isn't a completely conclusive argument, since any expert can be wrong, but it isn't a fallacy."
Again, no. The goal of a discussion is to logically abate an adversarial position: you say X is the truth on given circumstances and I say X is not the truth but it's Y and we both offer logical arguments that eventually show one to be right and the other to be wrong (and a logical fallacy, either formal or informal, being anything that under the pretext of being good logical argumentation ends up not being so under close inspection).
So you can perfectly say "I'm not going to discuss about this, because I'm not knowledgeable enough to do it and that's why I'll take position X just because authority x supports it". What you cannot say is "This is X and I know because x said it, and that's why I'm right and you are wrong". Maybe a subtle difference, but oceans wide at the same time.
"If I have authority in a topic A and give a talk about A and make conclusions about A then this is not a fallacy."
You are right here because of the last part "and make conclusions": the fallacy comes exactly when that last part isn't present and still what is said is accepted because "the expert said so". In other words: we may live in a Universe with or without a cosmological constant. We'll eventually end up finding which is the case because of the reasoning of people of Einstein's caliber. But there will be not a cosmological constant *just* because Einstein (no doubt an expert) said so.
"The People weren't even parties to the 1789 Constitution - the States were. So don't read too much into the preamble - it's wrong by word #3."
Your interpretation makes my point even stronger. "We the People" obviously means literally what it says: those in the room (wealthy WASP land-owners) writing and signing the Constitution are "We the People"... and the only People That Counts.
"There's in fact not a *single* word in the whole article about *how* he, as the organizational leader, is going to train, retain and reward talent, just that "it needs to happen" as in "magically"."
PS: He talks about "The rise of the 18-month org chart" and how both the people and the organization needs more flexibility and agility... You can bet what's the only point of that chart that won't change every 18 months and that will always be on the top despite all those reorganizations -and who is going to hold it.
"If I want the better job, and pay...I go to it."
It makes sense but then, the parent post's point is "why is that it doesn't work both ways?"
If I want the better job, I go for it, if they want the better employee, why they don't go for it too?
"Now, granted, telework is becoming much more of a viable option than it used to be, but it certainly can't be assumed that every job will allow for this mode of work"
Certainly not, but the point is that it seems telework already peaked some time ago. So, in the end, you have guys like the one from the article yelling at how difficult is to find and retain talent but still unwanting to do the needful to find and retain it. There's in fact not a *single* word in the whole article about *how* he, as the organizational leader, is going to train, retain and reward talent, just that "it needs to happen" as in "magically". And I think we all know where the burden goes when upper management "endorses the view of change" by fiat.
"maybe company's will start making adjustments for gathering and retaining talent. But I wouldn't count on it any time soon..."
Neither do I. This is not a cogent criticism or proposal but mere yelling from a narcissistic outgrown boy.
"Few people seem to understand that democracy doesn't exist in the US to promote freedom and liberty -- it exists as a safeguard against the tyranny of a government that over extends power beyond what the Constitution allows."
So truly. That's why the US Constitution's preamble states that "We the people do ordain and establish this Constitution to safeward ourselves from the tiranny of a government".
Oh, wait, no, what it says is: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
But you are right on a point: US founders, notwithstanding their obvious merits, were a bunch of elitists that intimatelly believed democracy is all well and good as long as it's exercised only by us, the Real People: white, men, protestant and wealthy, and that's why they built a Republic, not a Democracy.
"Voting shouldn't be discriminatory."
Voting is *always* discriminatory, and for good reason. Do seven year old people vote in your country? Do unqualified foreigners vote? Isn't there any kind of conviction that excludes the right to vote? Even within democratic societies the difference is what makes for their discriminations i.e. are people of certain sex or skin color excluded? Foreigners? under what age?
"Democracy doesn't imply that every human has a vote, nor that each vote has equal weight. Plato, for example, wanted to limit voting to the educated."
every human has a vote != only vote the educated.
On the other hand, the key on democracy as universal suffrage is not about not all votes having the same weight, even your example makes it clear: all votes are equal, but on the meaning of "human" or, better said, citizen. Democracy has always been about everybody casting an equal vote... for certain values of "everybody". That was true in ancient Greece and it is still true today: people below certain age, or certain convicts, or this or that still are not considered part of "everybody" and every time and place has supported their own views about why their particular exceptions made sense.
"I tend to agree"
You are aware that means you don't get to vote, aren't you?
"It even points out that the binaries have been compiled by softpedia."
Binaries!? AFAIK OwnCloud is 100% PHP code.
"For example, reporting what an NFL quarterback said about how to throw or kick a football, or a master chef on wine and cheese pairings. Neither would be an illicit appeal to authority because they are each authorities on their respective fields of expertise."
That's, in fact, the very definition of the original appeal to authority fallacy (Locke's): "because I say so" is never a rational argument (under deductive reasoning) -it is obvious when the "I" is a nobody, but people tend to accept it when coming from a presumed expert (without asking for demonstration of what it's said). A related fallacy is that of false-authority that goes even one step further: a presumed expert in field A says something about field B and tends to be believed because he's an expert after all.
"I know some wizards who are otherwise fairly die-hard Linux users (not so much zealots) and even a few wizards that are true OS X aficionados. Of this group, there is a subset that actually prefers Microsoft SQL Server."
For it to produce sensible value, you'd need to find someone that could truly say "I'm an expert Microsoft SQL Server DBA, as well as an expert PostgreSQL DBA and I prefer Microsoft to Postgres".
I can say I didn't find such a beast yet.
"I think you're better off avoiding stored procedures unless one can prove a significant performance benefit"
Because? Data integrity belongs to the data manager.
"I prefer all my code in ONE place"
If you think "your" code should be the only one accessing *my* data, think it twice: it's not yours to lock it out. And once *my* data gets to be accessed from more than one place, I want data integrity/access rules to be centralized for them all where they belong: the data manager.
I might be wrong, but you look like a programer -one suffering the man-with-a-hammer syndrome.
"At some point they have to ask what their business model of the future is"
Renting and certifications, of course.
"That evidence may include such things as "we never thought the server would be used this way" or perhaps "Mrs. Clinton ignored my warnings about security, and insisted on doing it this way"."
Still, you left out the most obvious: this server is not on a protected network and shouldn't be used for anything security sensible, mmmok? Ok.
E-Mail, is e-mail and an SMTP server will as gladly manage your market list as your uber-plans to conquer the world. It's up to the sender to choose the channel, not the other way around.
"Her only escape is a No Bill.
A deal or a trial will sink her candidacy, at least if the world still makes sense."
In *my* makes-sense world, there's a saying about criminal offenses that go more or less "innocent till proven guilty".
In *my* makes-sense world, a public person is open to all kinds of abusing due to above standard public scrutiny making even more sense my paragraph above.
NOTE: I'm not implying absolutely anything about the specific Clinton's case.
"It is going to be as depressing on Nov 4 as "choose the manner of your death"."
Well, in USA you live and die for a two-party system: your current situation is a self-inflicted and much looked for one.
"morons with MBA degrees but no clues about products try to build themselves golden parachutes..."
Are you implying they fail at building those golden parachutes for themselves? If not, maybe "moron" is not the adjective that best fits them, after all.
"They are selling the silverware to delay when their problems become severe. Of course, that makes the problems worse, long-term."
Whom for? Not the executive board, with their golden parachutes, not the shareholder that moves his money to the next company when the shit hits the fan. Who else matters? we are capitalists, not pesky socialists or something like that, aren't we?
"Then welfare will fail, and people will start starving like they do in all the other countries that we fought so hard NOT to be like."
Well, I understand FOX news and the likes work quite hard so "average American" gets fed the image of what happens that most interests to those in control of media but, please, can you pay attention to what you say and its real meaning and implications? Cause it seems to me -being an external observer, that USA is right now exactly where you fought so hard to be, specifically from Reagan's administration onwards. Not that you were the ones and onlies: after all, Tatcher reached government before Reagan and abandoned it past him, but it certainly isn't as if USA's situation happened overnight and without anyone being in the position of anticipating it.
"So why do they complain that no one is going into technology?"
Do you know what marketing is?
In common talking "marketing" is misread as "advertising". While marketing includes publicity, marketing goes much more and above advertising. Marketing is analyzing my product portfolio strengths and debilities versus competitors, analyzing where my product portfolio really is against perceived needs, what's my target audience, properly publitising my product portfolio to my targe audience *and* massaging my audience so it is adept to my offer. So, coming back again to the beginning...
"why do they complain that no one is going into technology?"
Because they are publitizing their offer to their target audience and they consider that the cost/profit analysis benefits them (-in this case, that the money they put on telling everybody that "no one is going into technology" is off-setted by what they receive in form of gullible youngsters that choose a technology career path and so, lowering wages, and/or their ability to push policy-makers towards allowing more H1-B candidates towards their business, again, lowering wages, aka their HR expenditures.
"Zuckerberg has resisted any kind of crackdown against hate speech before, the only reason he's doing it now is probably because Germany leaves him no option."
No - Option?
A damn billionaire has No - Option!!!???
What about not doing damn business in damn Germany if he is so damn in favor of damn free speech? Or is it that he's more in favor of damn money than he is in favor of damn free speech (even when talking about money that would make him just more billionaire on top of being already billionaire)?