Is Bill Gates a Greedy Bastard?
|
|
J-Breakz |
Date: Monday, 04/Jan/10, 9:31 PM | Message # 31 |
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (eboyd) my dad is a computer analyst and a conservative who is all for capitalism. he was the one who actually told me about Microsoft bundling products and making it so that consumers had no other choice. there were other products on the market that were good, but because Microsoft made it a requirement to use their products, they gained a virtual monopoly. while at the root of things Microsoft did, in fact, have the best PC in the market, it was their bundling of complementary products that gained them virtual monopoly status overall. They made it easier for consumers to have things like an internet browser or media player. It benefited the people using the OS. This is MICROSOFT's operating system, they should be able to do whatever they want with it. Just like I have no right to mess with your music. Instead what Novell should of done instead of being whiny bitches is actually stop being lazy and either support a new OS or figure out a new market to attack. Oh wait... they ended up doing that after being whiny bitches. And they're a huge company right now. Shit like this just promotes laziness and inefficiency.
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
eboyd |
Date: Monday, 04/Jan/10, 10:02 PM | Message # 32 |
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Quote (J-Breakz) They made it easier for consumers to have things like an internet browser or media player. It benefited the people using the OS. This is MICROSOFT's operating system, they should be able to do whatever they want with it. Just like I have no right to mess with your music. Instead what Novell should of done instead of being whiny bitches is actually stop being lazy and either support a new OS or figure out a new market to attack. Oh wait... they ended up doing that after being whiny bitches. And they're a huge company right now. Shit like this just promotes laziness and inefficiency. no, in the long run what Microsoft was doing effectively maximizes their profits while simultaneously cutting their competition out of the deal AND having control over the price, and even if they didn't have control over the price, they were maximizing their profits at the expense of other companies. that is a cutthroat tactic that is blatantly monopolistic in nature.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
eboyd |
Date: Monday, 04/Jan/10, 10:02 PM | Message # 33 |
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Quote (J-Breakz) LOL at the title i thought you'd enjoy that
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
J-Breakz |
Date: Tuesday, 05/Jan/10, 0:03 AM | Message # 34 |
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (eboyd) no, in the long run what Microsoft was doing effectively maximizes their profits while simultaneously cutting their competition out of the deal AND having control over the price control over the prices of what? Quote (eboyd) and even if they didn't have control over the price, they were maximizing their profits at the expense of other companies. that is a cutthroat tactic that is blatantly monopolistic in nature. If Microsoft can make it easy enough for people to have a free media player/internet browser/etc. with the package of the OS then there is no need for Novell or any other company to bother with making those apps. They could instead (which Novell decided to do) attack another market that needs better products. This will benefit consumers more than forcing the industry to be inefficient. Think about it: If the govn't doesn't let Microsoft include free apps then we are holding back progress. I mean, I know I don't have a great diction but do you understand what I'm trying to say? Businesses could instead work on products that improve society more. And we are completely neglecting the fact that the govn't is taking away FREEDOM.
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
eboyd |
Date: Tuesday, 05/Jan/10, 0:17 AM | Message # 35 |
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Quote (J-Breakz) control over the prices of what? of the equilibrium price of the products in the PC market Quote (J-Breakz) If Microsoft can make it easy enough for people to have a free media player/internet browser/etc. with the package of the OS then there is no need for Novell or any other company to bother with making those apps. They could instead (which Novell decided to do) attack another market that needs better products. This will benefit consumers more than forcing the industry to be inefficient. Think about it: If the govn't doesn't let Microsoft include free apps then we are holding back progress. I mean, I know I don't have a great diction but do you understand what I'm trying to say? Businesses could instead work on products that improve society more. And we are completely neglecting the fact that the govn't is taking away FREEDOM. what if someone preferred Novell's app to the standard app Microsoft was running but because Microsoft made it impossible for them to use Novell's app on their computer when they could have easily made their computer compatible with the program, Novell effectively lost customers? see, here's the issue. Microsoft is in competition mode because the system is built to create competition. if they were thinking cooperatively, Microsoft would have simply obliged to make their computers compatible with Novell's program and saved all of these problems from occurring.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
J-Breakz |
Date: Tuesday, 05/Jan/10, 0:29 AM | Message # 36 |
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (eboyd) what if someone preferred Novell's app to the standard app Microsoft was running but because Microsoft made it impossible for them to use Novell's app on their computer when they could have easily made their computer compatible with the program, Novell effectively lost customers? It's not Novell's operating system, though. If there was a large market for Novell's app then Novell would use another OS, like Apple or Linux or any other OS that was available at the time. Here's a question for you, do you think Nintendo should use USB ports for their hardware instead of a special proprietary port designed by them? I mean, the reason they do that is so they can maximize profits. They package their portable video game systems with a power cord using that special proprietary port. If they used a USB connection instead, more ppl could make usb chargers for their systems. But then again, isn't it THEIR product? It's THEIR creation they should be able to do whatever they want. Secondly, how do ppl benefit from having a wider range of chargers? They don't, so why would we force Nintendo to make their hardware include USB ports for their hardware instead of their special proprietary ports?
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
J-Breakz |
Date: Tuesday, 05/Jan/10, 0:33 AM | Message # 37 |
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (eboyd) Microsoft is in competition mode because the system is built to create competition. if they were thinking cooperatively, Microsoft would have simply obliged to make their computers compatible with Novell's program and saved all of these problems from occurring. In most cases, when companies like Microsoft try to limit their OS so only certain specific or their special computer language is used, they end up shooting themselves in the foot. Because then there is less people motivated to create programs and such and they will just go and use another OS. Microsoft has done this with other things and it ended up backfiring. Nevertheless, however, it's their creation. How can you support anything that takes away freedom?
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
J-Breakz |
Date: Tuesday, 05/Jan/10, 0:34 AM | Message # 38 |
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
by people i mean programmers. Programmers are people too
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
eboyd |
Date: Tuesday, 05/Jan/10, 0:56 AM | Message # 39 |
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Quote (J-Breakz) In most cases, when companies like Microsoft try to limit their OS so only certain specific or their special computer language is used, they end up shooting themselves in the foot. how so? all the stories i've heard show that it has ended up working to the benefit of Microsoft. Quote (J-Breakz) Here's a question for you, do you think Nintendo should use USB ports for their hardware instead of a special proprietary port designed by them? this is a different situation. there are other solutions to this issue like creating an adapter. a software system, as what was pointed out above, is a far easier standardize than a piece of equipment. Quote (J-Breakz) How can you support anything that takes away freedom? freedom for an individual or group that impedes on and/or limits the freedom of another individual or group is not freedom at all.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
I_Guy |
Date: Tuesday, 05/Jan/10, 1:11 AM | Message # 40 |
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
The problem with this kind of shit is that people have not justified their assumptions about things. How can we justify how much a creation is worth? How can we justify how much a single person should benefit from one creation? How can we justify the value of creation that is duplicated? Many people say that Bill Gates deserves his money for the advancements he has made for computer technology. But how can people justify what he deserves? Where do you draw the line? Just like anything else, there should be solid justifications for things like this, not just assumptions that people make because that is how they have been raised to think such as, "Well he worked his ass off, he deserves all he's got." That is a statement without any grounded justification. People say Gates has benefited humanity greatly. How do you measure that? Are video games, teen chatrooms, porn sites, special effects, terrorist sitegroups really beneficial to HUMANITY? He helped make those possible. Just like anything else, there are benefits and detriments, and so how do we go about measuring how much he deserves to be paid for all of it??? Does he deserve less because of the detriments, or more by the benefits, and how much are the benefits worth? The way we measure is by determining what is most important for all people and humanity. With that in mind we are given a target that we can aim for and direct all of our actions and developments in that direction. This creates a logical and rational pathway for all things. The problem is that we DON'T DO THAT. Instead we rely on irrational opinions about what actions and developments make us feel good completely without justification. Therefore developments such as pointless video games, thousands of porn sites, teen chatrooms and all other computer bullshit is created because it makes people feel good, and it is completely without any rational purpose. Most shit that has been invented is completely useless and parasitical of time. Then we start barking at each other rather certain people deserve the mountains of money they get for inventing useless crap. And all I can say is no one deserves one fucking penny for producing useless crap. It is this kind of philosophical absence in everyday life that gives birth to unnecessary and unethical developments. Bill Gates is just one example.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
ilikebacon3000 |
Date: Tuesday, 05/Jan/10, 10:18 AM | Message # 41 |
Emcees
Posts: 3979
|
Quote (I_Guy) Many people say that Bill Gates deserves his money for the advancements he has made for computer technology. But how can people justify what he deserves? Where do you draw the line? Just like anything else, there should be solid justifications for things like this, not just assumptions that people make because that is how they have been raised to think such as, "Well he worked his ass off, he deserves all he's got." That is a statement without any grounded justification. People say Gates has benefited humanity greatly. How do you measure that? Are video games, teen chatrooms, porn sites, special effects, terrorist sitegroups really beneficial to HUMANITY? He helped make those possible. Just like anything else, there are benefits and detriments, and so how do we go about measuring how much he deserves to be paid for all of it??? Does he deserve less because of the detriments, or more by the benefits, and how much are the benefits worth? The way we measure is by determining what is most important for all people and humanity. With that in mind we are given a target that we can aim for and direct all of our actions and developments in that direction. This creates a logical and rational pathway for all things. The problem is that we DON'T DO THAT. Instead we rely on irrational opinions about what actions and developments make us feel good completely without justification. Therefore developments such as pointless video games, thousands of porn sites, teen chatrooms and all other computer bullshit is created because it makes people feel good, and it is completely without any rational purpose. Most shit that has been invented is completely useless and parasitical of time. Then we start barking at each other rather certain people deserve the mountains of money they get for inventing useless crap. And all I can say is no one deserves one fucking penny for producing useless crap. It is this kind of philosophical absence in everyday life that gives birth to unnecessary and unethical developments. Bill Gates is just one example. Damn..... It all started out as me making a shirt just to make a point. I mean in all honesty, I only put him there because I know he is a winner in Capatilism Casino known as America and he is a reconigizable face when it comes to rich people and CEO's. When people see him, they think "Bill Gates, Computers, Money". I put him there to assciociate corporatism with money with monopolies and so on because they all go hand in hand. The whole idea behind that shirt was just Anti-Coporatism and refusing to give anyone power over you, whether it be a corporation, your boss, a sect of religion, the state, or even just a teacher. I didn't mean to cause such an uproar... And before I_guy points it out, yes, my way of saying I wanted people to "assciociate" Bill Gates with Power and Money is sorta wrong, but not really because when it comes down to it, I think he is part of the problem more than he is part of the solution. His intentions were good and still are good, but that doesen't mean he deserves every cent he gets, because the ends weren't as good as his intentions. I heard this somewhere, I forgot where, but I heard that over 80% of the internet is porn anyways... It's a damn shame..... Because I've found out that 90% of those sites are pay-sites. Lol Jk no really though the internet is benficial but it's pretty fucked up when you think about it all in perspective.
Life's a bitch and I'm just along for the ride.
Message edited by ilikebacon3000 - Tuesday, 05/Jan/10, 10:21 AM
|
|
|
|
J-Breakz |
Date: Tuesday, 05/Jan/10, 11:31 AM | Message # 42 |
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (I_Guy) How can we justify how much a creation is worth? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_price_system Quote (I_Guy) How can we justify how much a single person should benefit from one creation? If workers are fine with the amount he's getting and the amount their getting they will decide to stay in the business. If not, they'll leave and look for another job. Apparently, workers under him were alright with the amount he was getting.Quote (I_Guy) People say Gates has benefited humanity greatly. How do you measure that? Even if he didn't, who are you to decide what he should or should not get paid? You should leave that to the market. Quote (I_Guy) Are video games, teen chatrooms, porn sites, special effects, terrorist sitegroups really beneficial to HUMANITY? They are a reminder that there is at least one place where freedom of speech exists, that the internet is the only place not controlled by the govn't. But your getting off topic. Quote (I_Guy) Just like anything else, there are benefits and detriments, and so how do we go about measuring how much he deserves to be paid for all of it??? Once again, have the MARKET decide. Quote (I_Guy) Therefore developments such as pointless video games, thousands of porn sites, teen chatrooms and all other computer bullshit is created because it makes people feel good, and it is completely without any rational purpose. So? it makes people feel good. There are people who enjoy these things, who are you to say they shouldn't exist just because they're not educational?
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
eboyd |
Date: Tuesday, 05/Jan/10, 1:17 PM | Message # 43 |
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Quote (J-Breakz) Even if he didn't, who are you to decide what he should or should not get paid? You should leave that to the market. Quote (J-Breakz) Once again, have the MARKET decide. the point he was trying to make is that saying "let the market decide" is equivalent to saying "let the invisible tooth fairy decide". the market doesn't decide shit, it's the individual running the business that decides the cut of the business he makes. now sure, a business may be limited by competitors in a market to how much of the market share they may have, but the most cut throat (and albeit business savvy) businessmen can maintain a significant portion of the market and horde the majority of the wealth, keeping most of it to themselves and giving very little to their subordinates. bottom line, it comes down to this: capitalism breeds competition by it's very nature. at the core of competition there is a "fuck him, he's not putting in work" attitude, whereas cooperation creates a more nurturing, yet still firm and productive "help you help yourself" attitude.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
J-Breakz |
Date: Tuesday, 05/Jan/10, 1:19 PM | Message # 44 |
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (eboyd) he point he was trying to make is that saying "let the market decide" is equivalent to saying "let the invisible tooth fairy decide". the market doesn't decide shit, it's the individual running the business that decides the cut of the business he makes. now sure, a business may be limited by competitors in a market to how much of the market share they may have, but the most cut throat (and albeit business savvy) businessmen horde the majority of the wealth, keeping most of it to themselves and giving very little to their subordinates. But the thing is, that shouldn't matter. Because when the most business savvy people are the most successful the consumers get to have the product at the least price, and also limited resources are used at a minimum.
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
J-Breakz |
Date: Tuesday, 05/Jan/10, 1:23 PM | Message # 45 |
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (eboyd) how so? all the stories i've heard show that it has ended up working to the benefit of Microsoft. I can't think of any right now. In fact I can't even think of anything Microsoft made proprietary right now. I'll ask my father, though. Quote (eboyd) this is a different situation. there are other solutions to this issue like creating an adapter. a software system, as what was pointed out above, is a far easier standardize than a piece of equipment. Nintendo should be able to use their own exclusive ports for THEIR product whether or not an adapter is made. Quote (eboyd) freedom for an individual or group that impedes on and/or limits the freedom of another individual or group is not freedom at all. What freedom? Thats like me taking you to court because you won't let me decorate your house, why aren't you letting me build a table for your house, erik!!!? Know what I mean?
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|