Re: taking our health care back......

On Aug 3, 12:51 pm, The BorgMan <m...@xxxxxx> wrote:
Oh lord please. Now Microsoft is responsible for unscrupulous non MS
employees who happen to use issues with MS software for personal gain?
Ludicrous.

No, that's not what I said, rather it's part of the waste in the
software economy as a result of bad products being put on the market
from a monopoly.

Apparently you do with Bayer and MS.

No - one can take it into consideration, and still make a choice for it.

Just because their actions aren't disqualifying, doesn't mean they aren't
considered.

Then it's not that big of a deal to you.

In some areas yes, in some areas no. What I am in favor of is more
efficient, direct, concrete, and well defined laws as opposed to unecessary
ambiguity.


It's not unnecessary ambiguity, it's someone looking to get around the
system that subsequently identifies a gap that then has to be
addressed.

Which retail store? I can go into half a dozen retail stores in my general
area, and get no such thing.

You don't have any retail stores that only offer Windows?

Now they aren't big national chain retail stores, but they certainly are
retail stores.

No problem, but we were talking about the big chain retail stores that
most people buy from.

No - because more government isn't necessesary - better lawmaking by the
existing government is.

But it's increasing what is being defined.

Actually clearing ambiguous statute off the books and tightening our legal
code to remove ambiguity will be great for society outside of lawyers.

You make it sound like that is even feasible. The Reps won't do it,
neither will the Dems.

So they're stupid - Why should chasing sunk costs in software be any
different than the idiocy of chasing sunk costs elsewere? Businesses make
stupid choices all the time, and they should pay when they do.

... or
they have some personal kickback involved.

If the kickback outweighs the costs, they made a profitable decision - if
not, they chose poorly and should suffer the consequences for their poor
management.


So "as long as they get theirs," you're ok with. Yes, I got it. You
don't need to repeat that you support such actions.

Sounds like my experience with a good 50 different hardware, software, and
service vendors...


It's not a problem limited to one company. But the support of such
things only encourages it as being "acceptable."

I don't. I allow them to necessarily waste revenue on IT. The alternative
would be more expensive. Especially in training time.

If it was necessary, then it wouldn't be waste, right?

...and the same is true for MOST software errors... and a modern OS is
significantly more complicated than a modern CPU - and a modern CPU is so
much more complicated than just about any system most humans ever use.

Hardware doesn't "drive" prices (well, not in the general purpose home
computer market) - but then neither does software. I'd guess in that
segment advertising drives it more than anything.

I was just pointing out that errata are blindingly common in large complex
objects.


I know. And I do not discount the challenge that companies face. I
just don't care for the BS such as what was found in the court
documents related to MS's practices.

How long have you been at your current place of employment?

5

How many versions of Windows and Office have you bought first hand
(either through the company or personally) over the years? How many
did your parents buy?

Windows - about 10-12 different versions.
Office - about 3 different versions.

Parents? Unless you count want came pre-installed on systems... zero for
both.


So you've bought 10-12 different versions of Windows and 3 versions of
Office ... did you personally pay for all of them or were they through
work, etc.? I've had this conversation with some people and then find
that they didn't actually pay for the software themselves, that it was
either given to them in some way or they had access to it, but they
didn't actually pay for it themselves.

No - if you buy from a big box nationwide retailer with a contract with MS,
you still have to pay the fee.

Yes, that is who most buy from. Again, we're talking about most
people, not the person who decides to buy a Linux box by themselves.

OR you just go with something other than Microsoft. No one is forcing you
to choose to use MS products.


You can, but most do not. There is a saying that "nobody ever got
fired for choosing Microsoft" and I have heard people say, "yes, I
know this will cost a lot more in the long run but it's the popular
choice."

...but there weren't any hardware issues.

Didn't we already determine that hardware was not the limiting factor?

We're not talking about limiting factors, I was just trying to suss out
your claims of hardware issues with ME.

So you talk about the difficulty of integrating many different
components in a PC, the errata sheets for processors and yet somehow
ME escaped without any hardware issues? No COM port issues, real mode
DOS issues, printer issues, acpi, soundblaster device problems ...
none. Ever. Not even found on the web.


No, it isn't. The automobile of today is so much more advanced than
automobile of even 30 years ago it's ridiculous. The state of the auto
industry has nothing at all to do with the technological advancement of the
automobile.

But you were talking about mass transit and transportation
innovations. The automobile might be more advanced today, but the
mismanaged auto industry is why they're in the situationt they're in
today.


They extracted as
much profit as they could, following your condoned model and did it
legally, and when it caught up to them they cried, and cried and cried
for government help. There really hasn't been much innovation. A
Model T got how many miles per gallon? A hummer gets how many?

Model T (depending on model) got between 13mpg and 22mpg.

A Hummer H3 AWD got about 14-18 in 2006. And when the economy
collapsed the market for those big profit vehicles went along with it
as well, while the auto companies cried.

A Model T needed an engine rebuild about every 30,000 miles. A Model T had
a manual spark advance system. A Model T was a total death trap. A Model T
had a top speed of 40mph. Etc.

Hummer maintenance isn't cheap.

A tech company like MS will do the same but it will take longer as
they extract money from China and elsewhere. And they will end up in
the same boat.

Then they should fail for poorly running a business. Oh well.

Do I expect to get good care, without double checking the doctors
advice and doing research myself? No.

Bull***. You are dependent on what he tells you ... if it's high ***
in your blood, or cancer ... you don't really know.

I can't read? I can't go to another doctor or hospital or specialist? I
just have to trust him?


No, you can read, but at some point you have to believe what they tell
you unless you have the equipment to test your own blood, do a biopsy,
etc.?

That sits well with you and that's fine.

Welcome to reality. Hope you like it here.

Doesn't matter if I'm fine with it - same as it ever was, so shall it ever
be.

Doesn't have to be, but will exist as long as greed is the dominating
factor in business.


I don't condone it. When it fits my needs - I support them.

Who you buying your electricity from lately? Supporting any monopolies?0


If I had a choice, I would choose. But unfortunately, considering
other factors, that is not an option and neither is relocating for
that choice.


No - but it means you need to understand that you have to defend yourselves
from the other wolves.

You can do so ethically. I had a person enter my house a few weeks
ago ... it was late, we live in a safe neighborhood and had left the
front screen door unlocked. The kids were in bed already and it was
just my wife and I. We heard the door and suddenly there was a guy in
our foyer. My first reaction was to get prepared for the unknown, but
then it became apparent that the guy was not after anything but rather
disoriented, what looked like a hospital bracelet on, and was
struggling with responsiveness ... obviously, I didn't know what at
the time (drugs, alcohol, diabetic shock, what?). But instead of
attacking the guy, we were able to contact the authorities to get him
help in the best way we could. I didn't let down my guard, but I
didn't make the situation worse. I've told three colleagues about
this and all three said, "I'm not sure I would have been able to
maintain myself instead of bashing the guy's head in first."
Unfortunately, society is geared to think the worst first.

It was unnerving and we're a little more attentive to locking doors,
etc., but I don't feel threatened or am afraid that it was anything
other than a rogue event.


Caveat emptor.

You're responsible for the people you trust. Choose poorly, you suffer.

Agreed.

...and about your inability to see their is no absolute right and wrong.
Morality is a product of society, not a absolute rule set deigned from on
high.

Then how do we explain that the natural tendancy is to want to do the
right thing? Why is the entire world not engaged in a person vs.
person battle with their neighbor and certain beliefs seem to be found
in almost all religions (yes, I know there are extremists but
thankfully they're not the majority)? I think there is some natural
law that exists.

And Intel had no support agreement with MS?  LOL.  Intel was one of
the highest paying johns.

See what making good biusiness choices can do for you?


MS would exploit and leave Intel, or any other company, at the drop of
a hat if they so chose. But I hardly consider it a good business
decision in an ethical sense. It's an ethical compromise.

I don't condone it, I just have a grasp of reality.

You condone it by supporting their products.


It's the "as long as I get
mine" mentality.  Until it affects you and as long as someone else is
paying, you don't care.  As soon as it affects you, you're the first
to bitch and complain.  You're no different than the guy who
overspends, runs up tons of debt, files for bankruptcy to screws those
who he agreed to pay and rationalizes, "well, it's legal to file for
bankruptcy and not pay my creditors because I can pay a lawyer to get
out."  Maybe that's not you personally, but that is what you are
arguing.

No - I'm arguing reality.

Those people exist. Those people always exist. Those people will always
exist. We as a society make a pragmatic/moral/ethical decision as to how we
feel those people should be dealt with.

I can understand arguing that how we have chosen to deal with the issue.

I can't understand your argument, which seems to be akin to "we've got to
rid society of these sorts of things, without any regulation/law/government
intervention"


No, that is not what I have supported. The problem is that our
current system actually supports people undermining it.
.

Loading