How many idiots in here are going to vote for Biden?

On 3/6/20 3:42 AM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
In article
Snit wrote:

On 3/5/20 10:19 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
On 2020-03-05, Anonymous Reactionary wrote:
Snit wrote:

Exactly! The idea really is not hard. And that is just with health.
You also get paid sick and family days, the availability of higher
education for "free" (no added cost), and likely higher wages.

Now that is by plan. Of course there will be cost over-runs and the
like. But overall we would clearly be better off.

There will be massive cost overruns, shortages and severe rationing of
medical care, because socialism is NEVER as efficient as capitalism, as
there is no reward for innovation in socialist systems.

Actually, for effort and above average performance you will be punished,
as socialism encurages mediocricy.




Thankfully nobody in the US is pushing Socialism (at least nobody known
nationally or with any power or influence).

REAL SOCIALISM: The government owns most major industries and there is
little if any private property. This system allows for little personal
freedom and is closely aligned with Authoritarianism (rule by authority).

PLUTOCRACY (CORPORATE “SOCIALISM�): The government works largely for the
benefit of wealthy corporations and the rich. Most major industries are
privately owned (Capitalism), but their costs and risks are heavily
subsidized through lower taxes, direct government subsidies, leniency by
the justice system, and more. With Corporate Socialism the wealthy
become even wealthier at the expense of the lower classes, and the tie
between productivity and financial gain is weakened. This system is
defined by the open or de facto rule by the wealthy.

SOCIAL DEMOCRACY (DEMOCRATIC “SOCIALISM�): This government works largely
for the citizens as a whole, investing in infrastructure and the people.
Most major industries are privately owned (Capitalism), but they get few
government handouts and are generally held accountable for their own
risks and costs. Also sometimes referred to as the "Nordic Model", or
something akin to it. With this system the middle class does better,
poverty decreases, and the environment suffers less harm. This system is
defined by the respect for human rights and the environment.

So you're saying Democrat incompetence and corruption is
intentional?


Not what I am saying in the slightest... but since you bring up a
completely unrelated topic I will jump to it. The incompetence of both
parties. Of course some of that just comes from people being people and
working with complex systems, but in the US a HUGE problem is both
parties are paid for and beholden to the very wealthy. With Republicans
it is more extreme, to the point they deny basic science (climate
science is a fine example, but there are others). But just because
Republicans are more extreme does not mean that Democrats and the media
are immune. Watch the Democratic debates -- they repeatedly asked
questions about the "extra" cost of a system which would REDUCE the cost
of health care (universal health care) and they pretended that our
current system which REDUCES choice in jobs, doctors, meds, pharmacies,
and more somehow represents more choice than a system without such
limitations.

Sanders is pushing back against this... of course, he is using the
Democratic establishment to do so (running as a Democrat) even as he
speaks of how the Democrats are corrupt. It puts him in a very hard
position to win... as it would put anyone.

But if he ran as an independent he would merely split the more liberal
vote and hand the presidency to Trump. The system is so broken there
simply is no good or sure way to fix it. BOTH parties are heavily broken.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 3/3/2020 4:34 PM, Dementia-Remailer wrote:
In article .at
"Anonymous Remailer (austria)"
wrote:


You know voting for Biden means you're stupid, right?

Did you know you could vote for Biden using your iPhone?


None of the idiots in here are going to vote for Biden. All of the
idiots in here are voting for Trump.

Only the smart people in here are voting for Biden.

Biden is certainly not even the first choice of many of the people
voting for him, but all the polling shows that he has the best chance of
defeating the real idiot. Personally my favorite Democratic candidate
was Klobuchar.

I did go to two campaign events, one for Andrew Yang and one for Bernie
Sanders, even though I did not vote for either of them. Andrew Yang was
impressive though I did not agree with his "Freedom Dividend" of $1000
per month for every citizen. If it were a $1000 credit to use for
housing, health care, education, or food then that's one thing, but just
$1000 cash would be a bad idea; reminds me of this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btAbU1sPqIM.

In article , Ken Springer
wrote:

I'm tired of Bernie complaining about millionaires and billionaires,
when he is one and owns 3 large houses. AFAIK, he's never had a job.
At least Bloomberg made his all on his own, unlike Trump who had a
million dollar head start.

he complains about billionaires, not millionaires, and he's not that
rich either. his net worth is ~$2 million, which is not much these
days.

https://www.thestreet.com/lifestyle/bernie-sanders-net-worth-14678955



That's the way we've been moving since the 80s. When
I started paying taxes in the 70s, the top tax bracket was
something like 90%, to prevent anyone from getting filthy
rich and unbalancing democracy. That was set up to
prevent the return of Rockefellers and Gettys.

But no one every paid 90% after taking deductions.

he said tax bracket.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...United_States#
Tax_rate_reductions
Following World War II tax increases, top marginal individual tax
rates stayed near or above 90%, and the effective tax rate at 70% for
the highest incomes (few paid the top rate), until 1964 when the top
marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%.




That's not the current problem. The problem is that
people are being micro-targetted with propaganda.

Hell, they always have been. Go look at newspapers from 150 years ago.

it was not possible to micro-target ads until recently, and the level
of granularity is mind-boggling.

On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 12:10:38 +0100 (CET), "Anonymous Remailer
(austria)" wrote:

How many idiots? None; those folks will be voting for Dog Turd, and
his puppet master Putin.

On 3/6/20 7:35 AM, Mayayana wrote:
"Ken Springer" wrote

| Back to Bernie for a moment, now he's been saying that whoever gets a
| plurality of delegates should win. So, let's say he gets 40% of the
| delegates. Why should he win when 60% of the party does not want him.
| The *majority* does not want him. That's why you need a majority, so
| most of the people, at least in theory, have a candidate they can/will
| support.
|
| Was the majority arrived at honestly? Dunno, but that's a separate
| question.
|

If 40% is the highest then that's the closest to a majority.
I have no problem with multiple votes, but a superdelegate
is just a trump card. It's not a majority. If Biden gets the most
then I have no problem with him being the nominee. But if
Bloomberg is buying him trump cards behind the scenes
because Bernie won the most votes, that's undemocratic.

All election processes have a system to get to a majority vote. It
doesn't end with a plurality or a tie. But it is the Dem's choice as to
how they resolved what they see as a problem. Party members could force
a change by simply staying home, and then voting for a candidate of a
party that's not likely to win.

But, that could also backfire. Trump wasn't supposed to win.

Now that we're having this discussion, maybe the word "election" should
not be used with the primary process. I'm not sure all the voters know
the difference between figuring out a nominee and electing a representative.

| The question is, what is a fair rate of return?

Yes. That's a good question. It gets to the heart of peoples'
moral beliefs. On one end are the people who don't believe
profit is fair. On the other end are people who believe that
their employees wouldn't have a job if not for them. They see
themselves as protecting children from ruin. So they figure they
deserve all the profits. And there's some truth in both views.

I don't care much for the second group. Does it ever occur to them,
they would not have a company were it not for the workers?

| In northern CO, there used to be a Kodak plant that was non-union. The
| unions tried over and over again to get the workers to unionize. Nope,
| never happened. Why? Kodak was paying them less than union wages.
| But, since no union dues and such were taken out of the workers
| paychecks, they had more money in the end.
|
I also have mixed feelings about unions. I've been in unions.
I was once connected with the Teamsters briefly when I had
a warehouse job as a young man. It was ugly. Thugs on both
sides. The union reps were usually corrupt. The job paid unusually
well, but the payrate was tied to a constantly increasing
production quota that required us to jog around the warehouse
to fill orders. And through it all, the relationship between
management and workforce was damaged. Then again, without
the union it probably would have been worse.

Union corruption... Union members certainly can't complain about
government corruption when their own organization is just as corrupt.

| FWIW, I've never understood management that never seems to realize that
| paying employees well means, in the long run, the employees will have
| extra money to buy the products being made.
|
I think that's a matter of personality. Some people
value getting a good mechanic, dentist, or contractor.
Others believe they get the best deal by being tough
and will call a different person each time, then try to
exploit them. Those are the people with the bumper
stickers that read, "He who dies with the most toys wins".

I've always thought the idea of going to someone different each time was
stupid. (Wish I had a different word at the moment than stupid, but
coming up empty.) Would you do that with your doctor? How would a
growing problem be recognized without a history with whatever?

| Monopolies are rampant. Companies
| are stashing profits offshore.
|
| Ask yourself, why do people and companies stash money offsore?
|
Greed. It's not for Timmy Cook to tell us what a
fair tax rate is, especially when he's sitting on
something like $100B, gouging his customers, and
making iPhones with virtual slave labor in Asia.

Greed, or the desire to keep what your worked for? If you were
fortunate enough to have that kind of money, would you be willing to
give suddenly start giving half of it to the government?

| Microsoft is telling you that you don't
| have a right to control your own computer.
|
| They own the OS. If you don't like it, write your own. You write your
| own software, do you let your customers do what ever the want with it?
|
Of course! I don't think it's ethical to have my software
call home. It's certainly not ethical to alter it remotely.
Someone paid for a copy of my software. I don't own that.
Microsoft doesn't own what's on your computer.

I think the fundamental difference is how you look at things. You see
your software as a product that you sell to someone, just like a car,
and the new owner can pretty much do with it as the customer wishes.

I think MS, OTOH, views the software similarly to the way Hertz looks at
their rental cars. You can use the car, but you better not paint flames
on the body.

I own the copyright on the code. My customer has no right
to reproduce it. But they have every right to do as they like
with that copy, including reselling it. And fair use doctrine
law was established in a 1909 case between Macy's
dept store and publishers, if I remember correctly. Which
means Microsoft are actually breaking the law to claim you
can't move or sell your copy of Windows.

I think it's like my statements above. You see it the first way, MS
sees it the other way.

These are not only my claims. Bill Gates himself put a lot
of effort into defining software as intellectual property
that's licensed. There's a limit to that license. But he wants
to have it both ways. And he's got enough lawyers and
congressmen to get what he wants.

I have to agree, intellectual property, just like a book.

Whether MS have a right to control or alter it should
not even be a serious question. But it's increasingly being
taken seriously. The same is happening with ebooks. It's
all part of the trend toward a rental/services model. The
basic idea has nothing to do with cloud, mobility, or saving
money on software. It's much simpler than that: Decades ago
Bill Gates became the richest man in the world by selling
software for crazy inflated prices. Lotus, IBM, Adobe.... they
all did the same. Then the golden goose stopped laying eggs.
So there's a new plan: If the next time you buy a car it's
officially licensed as a taxi, then they can be paid for every
mile you drive instead of just being paid for the car. Imagine if
you had to pay for a toothbrush or circular saw based on
how much you were likely to use it rather than based on
production costs. That's the difference with software. You
pay extra if you want to use your word processor to write
a business letter!

So Bill was successful in a free marketplace. If people were willing to
over pay for his product, don't blame him. Blame the people who shelled
out the money.

I was just reading the other day that publishers selling ebooks
to libraries "disappear" them after a time period. It's making
ebooks very expensive. It's also illegal. The library bought
a license for one copy. But who's going to stop them? The
publishers can just say the libraries signed their Mickey Mouse
license.

I heard about this a long time ago. But then, if libraries didn't buy
the books with this stipulation, it would disappear. But library
patrons want the ebooks, so the patrons must be willing to "pay the
piper". Puts the library between a rock and a hard spot.

So, no, I would never dream of telling a customer what they
can do with my software. It's none of my business. What if I
sell you a hammer and stipulate that it can only be used to
build and repair houses for socialists? ...Where do we draw
the line? It's not just a rhetorical question. We now have
TVs that spy on you and car companies selling your personal
location data to marketers. They also claim you gave them
permission. It's nuts that anyone even considers that this
could be reasonable.

You have the right to do what you want with your property. But so does
MS. And neither of you have the right to force the other to do it
your/their way.

| * If this atmosphere had reigned in the first half of the
| century, you would have no social security, no medicare,
| and there would be no such thing as libraries. Social security
| was once considered socialist.* FDR had to compromise to
| get it through, going along with an idea that people would
| have to pay into it in order to collect.
|
| I don't have any problem with paying into it to collect. Otherwise, too
| many people would sit on their ass and do nothing to help support the
| system.
|
But it is partially socialistic. We all pay in. Some never
get their benefits. Others live to 100 and get far more
than they paid in. And there's no choice but to take part.
If we didn't have SS and Bernie suggested it then people
would be up in arms.

All of life has been somewhat socialistic, but without a "government"
involvement. As long as one person or group helps another, you have the
making of a simplistic socialist society.

Insurance puts you in the same spot. For instance, you and 10k others
pay X dollars per month for the same health plan. But some are far more
healthy than others. Those in good health never get back what they paid
in. But those with poor health get more than they paid in.

| Nothing I can do about the corona virus, but I
| sure as H*** don't have to vote for a candidate that is harmful to my
| retirement resources.
|
I look forward to the markets crashing. Corporate
amorality is being fueled by the pressure from people
with IRAs and 401Ks who want the profits to keep coming
without getting their hands dirty.

Obviously, you have much more money to live on than I and a few milion
others.

| That's not the current problem. The problem is that
| people are being micro-targetted with propaganda.
|
| Hell, they always have been. Go look at newspapers from 150 years ago.
|

That's not at all the same thing. Microtargetting is a whole
new approach. Propaganda has always existed, but the research
and specific targetting are new. Again, watch the movie Brexit.
It details the process. People on Facebook each getting different
ads aimed at their own personal views. Propaganda 150 years ago
was in the public square.

I don't think it's fair to compare the method today with what was
available 150 years ago. The newspapers then was the cutting edge of
tech of that era, and many newspapers targeted their readers to guide
them to particular point of view. Yellow journalism, for example. We
went to war with Spain and Germany over two incidents that were
discovered to be false years later. Even though we were told we were
making a mistake.

Even the idea of marketing is fairly new. There's a difference
between advertising and marketing. Advertising is when a
hardware store tries to sell 100 bicycles by putting a sale ad
in the paper. Marketing is when they still have 10 left, the
market is saturated, and they come up with an angle to sell the
last 10 to babies and paraplegics. Targetted marketing is why
data has become so valuable. It's why your TV and car are
spying on you. It's why Microsoft is spying on you.

If you were a retailer, of any time period, wouldn't you try to find a
way to sell remaining product that didn't sell the first time around?

No smart ass TV here, no car that has those capabilities. AS for MS's
stuff, I make selective choices as to what MS feature is turned on.

| Basically, everyone votes for what they believe is in their best interest.
|

I don't. I vote for what I think is in our best interest.
That's citizenship.

It can be both.

I would have a hard time voting for something that would eventually put
me in bankruptcy. Would you vote that way?


| | "Unthinking peasantry", the type of comment that ****ed that
particular
| | group that got Trump elected.
|
| Maybe. You think it's not true?
|
| I think it's an insulting comment. Do you think people who insult
| others have much of a chance of changing the other person's minde?
|

I'm not trying to change his mind. I'm just talking facts.
I'm pointing out that he's basically an unthinking peasant.
As with most people, his views are shaped by the crowd.
You think that's mean, yet you don't think it's mean that
the same man proably can't afford a doctor's visit and
almost certainly can't afford prescriptions.

There are people at all social levels that are unthinking. It's a human
trait, not dependent on an individual's socioeconomic level.

| Was the man
| from Tennessee who shot up the pizza parlor to
| save child prostitutes a college grad who had
| "weighed both sides?"
|
| I don't know. I don't know anything about him, his life, or anything to
| be able to make an "informed" decision as to the why he did it.
|

We know he drove from Tennessee to shoot up a
pizza shop because he heard from radio or social media
people that Hillary was running a child prostitution ring
out of the cellar. I think it's safe to say he's not a person
who thinks things through.

Unless you have access to his mental health records, it's not safe to
say that.

| You can say I'm elitist for
| labeling it, but it's true. Especially in the US. That's
| what's so scary for other countries. We're basically
| a hayseed society compared to European cultures.
| And we also have the biggest guns.
|
| I think we are too "conservative" based on various religious beliefs.
| But, let's not forget, that those European cultures fought 4 Crusades.
| And those European cultures did little to stem Hitler.
|

Touche. They all have their blind spots and nationalism.




--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Firefox 70.0.1
Thunderbird 60.9
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

In article .at
"Anonymous Remailer (austria)"
wrote:


In article
Snit wrote:

On 3/5/20 10:19 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
On 2020-03-05, Anonymous Reactionary wrote:
Snit wrote:

Exactly! The idea really is not hard. And that is just with health.
You also get paid sick and family days, the availability of higher
education for "free" (no added cost), and likely higher wages.

Now that is by plan. Of course there will be cost over-runs and the
like. But overall we would clearly be better off.

There will be massive cost overruns, shortages and severe rationing of
medical care, because socialism is NEVER as efficient as capitalism, as
there is no reward for innovation in socialist systems.

Actually, for effort and above average performance you will be punished,
as socialism encurages mediocricy.




Thankfully nobody in the US is pushing Socialism (at least nobody known
nationally or with any power or influence).

REAL SOCIALISM: The government owns most major industries and there is
little if any private property. This system allows for little personal
freedom and is closely aligned with Authoritarianism (rule by authority).

PLUTOCRACY (CORPORATE “SOCIALISM�): The government works largely for the
benefit of wealthy corporations and the rich. Most major industries are
privately owned (Capitalism), but their costs and risks are heavily
subsidized through lower taxes, direct government subsidies, leniency by
the justice system, and more. With Corporate Socialism the wealthy
become even wealthier at the expense of the lower classes, and the tie
between productivity and financial gain is weakened. This system is
defined by the open or de facto rule by the wealthy.

SOCIAL DEMOCRACY (DEMOCRATIC “SOCIALISM�): This government works largely
for the citizens as a whole, investing in infrastructure and the people.
Most major industries are privately owned (Capitalism), but they get few
government handouts and are generally held accountable for their own
risks and costs. Also sometimes referred to as the "Nordic Model", or
something akin to it. With this system the middle class does better,
poverty decreases, and the environment suffers less harm. This system is
defined by the respect for human rights and the environment.

So you're saying Democrat incompetence and corruption is
intentional?

Choke! LMAO!

In article
Savageduck wrote:

Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:

In article
Snit wrote:

On 3/5/20 10:19 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
On 2020-03-05, Anonymous Reactionary wrote:
Snit wrote:

Exactly! The idea really is not hard. And that is just with health.
You also get paid sick and family days, the availability of higher
education for "free" (no added cost), and likely higher wages.

Now that is by plan. Of course there will be cost over-runs and the
like. But overall we would clearly be better off.

There will be massive cost overruns, shortages and severe rationing of
medical care, because socialism is NEVER as efficient as capitalism, as
there is no reward for innovation in socialist systems.

Actually, for effort and above average performance you will be punished,
as socialism encurages mediocricy.




Thankfully nobody in the US is pushing Socialism (at least nobody known
nationally or with any power or influence).

REAL SOCIALISM: The government owns most major industries and there is
little if any private property. This system allows for little personal
freedom and is closely aligned with Authoritarianism (rule by authority).

PLUTOCRACY (CORPORATE “SOCIALISM�): The government works largely for the
benefit of wealthy corporations and the rich. Most major industries are
privately owned (Capitalism), but their costs and risks are heavily
subsidized through lower taxes, direct government subsidies, leniency by
the justice system, and more. With Corporate Socialism the wealthy
become even wealthier at the expense of the lower classes, and the tie
between productivity and financial gain is weakened. This system is
defined by the open or de facto rule by the wealthy.

SOCIAL DEMOCRACY (DEMOCRATIC “SOCIALISM�): This government works largely
for the citizens as a whole, investing in infrastructure and the people.
Most major industries are privately owned (Capitalism), but they get few
government handouts and are generally held accountable for their own
risks and costs. Also sometimes referred to as the "Nordic Model", or
something akin to it. With this system the middle class does better,
poverty decreases, and the environment suffers less harm. This system is
defined by the respect for human rights and the environment.

So you're saying Democrat incompetence and corruption is
intentional?



Just like Republican incompetence, hypocrisy, and corruption.

Republicans are in charge. Democrats are begging at the back
door.

NEXT!!

In article
Tim Streater wrote:

In article , sms
wrote:

On 3/3/2020 4:34 PM, Dementia-Remailer wrote:
In article .at
"Anonymous Remailer (austria)"
wrote:


You know voting for Biden means you're stupid, right?

Did you know you could vote for Biden using your iPhone?


None of the idiots in here are going to vote for Biden. All of the
idiots in here are voting for Trump.

Only the smart people in here are voting for Biden.

Biden is certainly not even the first choice of many of the people
voting for him, but all the polling shows that he has the best chance of
defeating the real idiot. Personally my favorite Democratic candidate
was Klobuchar.

I'm given to understand that Biden is seriously senile. Mind you,
everyone left in your "race" seems to be a doddering old fossil.

Just think. Debbie Wasserman Shultz could probably beat Biden.

In article
sms wrote:

On 3/3/2020 4:34 PM, Dementia-Remailer wrote:
In article .at
"Anonymous Remailer (austria)"
wrote:


You know voting for Biden means you're stupid, right?

Did you know you could vote for Biden using your iPhone?


None of the idiots in here are going to vote for Biden. All of the
idiots in here are voting for Trump.

Got some pretty smart idiots in here!

On 07/03/2020 14:27, Mayayana wrote:

But what about the people in Asain factories?
He's only building iPhones over there because he can
cheat people out of a fair wage.

tl;dr

However, Chinese are better workers than Americans, Europeans, Africans,
Hispanics or Indians. Out of nowhere they are the second largest
economy in the world and soon they will be first. They will then start
employing people like you who are good at talking rubbish on these
newsgroups.

On 07/03/2020 15:30, Christopher Heng wrote:
crap deleted



I know you are a new kid on the block but take your crap some where else
where it belongs. This is Windows 10 newsgroup where we discuss
solutions to Windows 10 problems (if any) or exchange ideas how to do
things in a better way.

You replied to a post by a known troll in these newsgroups who has been
kill-filed by almost every body here.





--
With over 1.2 billion devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

On 3/7/20 7:27 AM, Mayayana wrote:
But I guess I should know better than to pursue this
discussion. You have the conservative view that whatever
you can grab without actually killing someone is fair game.

No, I do not go that far, never have, never will.

While we disagree with each other, we don't denigrate the other's
position in our posts, unlike others. And, sadly, like many of our
elected representatives in Washington, D.C.

And I think that's a good thing.


--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Firefox 70.0.1
Thunderbird 60.9
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


Timmy Cook worked for $100B? He's passionate
about his belief that Apple shouldn't have to pay the
tax rate.

apple pays all taxes it's required to pay.

your anger should be directed at amazon, who paid nothing.

But what about the people in Asain factories?
He's only building iPhones over there because he can
cheat people out of a fair wage.

false.

companies (not just apple) build products in china for many reasons,
the main one being that it's not possible to manufacture them in the
needed quantities.

But I guess I should know better than to pursue this
discussion. You have the conservative view that whatever
you can grab without actually killing someone is fair game.

you should know better than to babble about things you know nothing
about.

| Of course! I don't think it's ethical to have my software
| call home. It's certainly not ethical to alter it remotely.
| Someone paid for a copy of my software. I don't own that.
| Microsoft doesn't own what's on your computer.
|
| I think the fundamental difference is how you look at things. You see
| your software as a product that you sell to someone, just like a car,
| and the new owner can pretty much do with it as the customer wishes.
|
| I think MS, OTOH, views the software similarly to the way Hertz looks at
| their rental cars. You can use the car, but you better not paint flames
| on the body.
|
| I own the copyright on the code. My customer has no right
| to reproduce it. But they have every right to do as they like
| with that copy, including reselling it. And fair use doctrine
| law was established in a 1909 case between Macy's
| dept store and publishers, if I remember correctly. Which
| means Microsoft are actually breaking the law to claim you
| can't move or sell your copy of Windows.
|
| I think it's like my statements above. You see it the first way, MS
| sees it the other way.
|

It doesn't work that way. It's the law. Gates defined
the software as intellectual property.

because that's what it is.

he's also not the only one to do so.

You don't have rights
to the code. You do have rights to the copy you bought.
Just as with a book. You own the copy. You have every right
to do anything you like with it, except make copies and
distribute them. You can paint flames on the book you buy.
You can cut it up and paste quotes on your wall. Likewise,
you can install software on Windows if you like, to alter
the way it behaves. And you can use your computer for
any purpose you like. But Microsoft is trying to circumvent
your rights with various tricks. Of course, Apple is much worse.
That's how MS got the idea.

nonsense.

Nevertheless, if you're going to ferevently defend the very
people taking you to the cleaners then who am I to argue?
I don't have to use Win10.

switch to linux if you hate apple and microsoft.




Bill Gates is a perfect example. He's so rich it's
difficult to even contemplate it. He didn't make that money
honorably. He made it by being greedy and exploiting
every possible scam. (Gates famously told Buffet that
he should incvest in Microsoft because MS had managed
to set up a "Windows tax" on ever PC shipped. At the
same time they were threatening "white box" PC makers
that to ship a PC without Windows was tantamount to
piracy. A veiled threat that shops could face legal action
for not collecting the Windows tax.)

that's mostly true, and yet you continue to use microsoft products.

In article , Ken Springer
wrote:

| FWIW, I've never understood management that never seems to realize that
| paying employees well means, in the long run, the employees will have
| extra money to buy the products being made.
|
I think that's a matter of personality. Some people
value getting a good mechanic, dentist, or contractor.
Others believe they get the best deal by being tough
and will call a different person each time, then try to
exploit them. Those are the people with the bumper
stickers that read, "He who dies with the most toys wins".

I've always thought the idea of going to someone different each time was
stupid. (Wish I had a different word at the moment than stupid, but
coming up empty.) Would you do that with your doctor? How would a
growing problem be recognized without a history with whatever?

by examining the patient's medical records.

what happens when your doctor retires, or moves to another location, or
various other things that would result in getting a new doctor?



Whether MS have a right to control or alter it should
not even be a serious question. But it's increasingly being
taken seriously. The same is happening with ebooks. It's
all part of the trend toward a rental/services model. The
basic idea has nothing to do with cloud, mobility, or saving
money on software. It's much simpler than that: Decades ago
Bill Gates became the richest man in the world by selling
software for crazy inflated prices. Lotus, IBM, Adobe.... they
all did the same. Then the golden goose stopped laying eggs.
So there's a new plan: If the next time you buy a car it's
officially licensed as a taxi, then they can be paid for every
mile you drive instead of just being paid for the car. Imagine if
you had to pay for a toothbrush or circular saw based on
how much you were likely to use it rather than based on
production costs. That's the difference with software. You
pay extra if you want to use your word processor to write
a business letter!

So Bill was successful in a free marketplace. If people were willing to
over pay for his product, don't blame him. Blame the people who shelled
out the money.

it was not a free marketplace.

bill intentionally created and abused his monopoly position.

I was just reading the other day that publishers selling ebooks
to libraries "disappear" them after a time period. It's making
ebooks very expensive. It's also illegal. The library bought
a license for one copy. But who's going to stop them? The
publishers can just say the libraries signed their Mickey Mouse
license.

I heard about this a long time ago. But then, if libraries didn't buy
the books with this stipulation, it would disappear. But library
patrons want the ebooks, so the patrons must be willing to "pay the
piper". Puts the library between a rock and a hard spot.

ebooks are purchased and loaned out like regular books. libraries do
not have unlimited copies of ebooks, just as they don't have unlimited
copies of paper books.






| That's not the current problem. The problem is that
| people are being micro-targetted with propaganda.
|
| Hell, they always have been. Go look at newspapers from 150 years ago.
|

That's not at all the same thing. Microtargetting is a whole
new approach. Propaganda has always existed, but the research
and specific targetting are new. Again, watch the movie Brexit.
It details the process. People on Facebook each getting different
ads aimed at their own personal views. Propaganda 150 years ago
was in the public square.

I don't think it's fair to compare the method today with what was
available 150 years ago. The newspapers then was the cutting edge of
tech of that era, and many newspapers targeted their readers to guide
them to particular point of view. Yellow journalism, for example. We
went to war with Spain and Germany over two incidents that were
discovered to be false years later. Even though we were told we were
making a mistake.

you clearly don't understand micro-targeting.


| Basically, everyone votes for what they believe is in their best interest.
|

I don't. I vote for what I think is in our best interest.
That's citizenship.

It can be both.

I would have a hard time voting for something that would eventually put
me in bankruptcy. Would you vote that way?

straw man.

On 3/7/20 9:27 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Springer
wrote:

| FWIW, I've never understood management that never seems to realize that
| paying employees well means, in the long run, the employees will have
| extra money to buy the products being made.
|
I think that's a matter of personality. Some people
value getting a good mechanic, dentist, or contractor.
Others believe they get the best deal by being tough
and will call a different person each time, then try to
exploit them. Those are the people with the bumper
stickers that read, "He who dies with the most toys wins".

I've always thought the idea of going to someone different each time was
stupid. (Wish I had a different word at the moment than stupid, but
coming up empty.) Would you do that with your doctor? How would a
growing problem be recognized without a history with whatever?

by examining the patient's medical records.

what happens when your doctor retires, or moves to another location, or
various other things that would result in getting a new doctor?

To some extent, sure. But it is also good to have a professional who
knows your specific situation, knows how you handle things, knows what
you are more or less open to, etc.

....


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.