Planet Descent
Community => Mess Hall => Topic started by: Matthew on June 18, 2011, 07:26:20 PM
-
Excellent sounding machine. Bravo to you for staying clear of the Intel/Nvidia monopolising crooks. With those two it's always advertising first, product second.
Because buzzwords like "Eyefinity" and selling cards in a gun case is totally not advertising first...
-
I hadn't really heard about those, especially the last one.
I know that eyefinity is a clever, multi-monitor-for-games setup that ATI pioneered. I don't see how making a technology and then giving it a name is "marketing first".
Interestingly, it was XFX that sold an ATI-5970-series based card in a gun case. XFX is one of ATI's licencees and not the ATI company itself. Plus, the idea was sweet!
I'm sure the Nvidia fanboys are irritated they didn't get the same.
But, having had Intel and Nvidia systems exclusively in my last two machines (up until last year you didn't get much choice in the matter with gaming notebooks), I can fairly state that what, especially Nvidia state on paper and what their products do in actual fact are two different things.
Now, having said that, those products have been very good overall and I certainly don't regret the purchases but I don't like people to think that Intel and Nvidia are their only options, or that inflated price equates to superior quality to the extent that those products become the only sensible options, because they aren't.
The best machine I've ever had is still an Athlon_64, which is 8 years old. I gave it a new ATI card last summer (AGP) and it still runs a treat. It might be antiquated in terms of speed but still comes in very useful and has never given me any hardware trouble.
What interests me more than buzzwords and packaging is companies' attitudes and when Intel settles with AMD for billions over its anti-competitive, monopoly-building practices, that what interests me.
Another thing I've never forgotten was how Microsoft broke its arrangement for ATI to co-develop the DirectX10 technology. If that arrangement had held, ATI was clear that it would deliver DirectX10 for Windows XP and wouldn't have to break compatibility as Nvidia had to.
Your examples seem a little ill-informed (or distorted) and ... perfunctory in comparison.
-
Your examples seem a little ill-informed (or distorted) and ... perfunctory in comparison.
You gave a very limited example and presented it as if we should extrapolate your results to the the entire company. I have an Intel chip that is more than 15 years old works fine. Does that automaticly mean Intel is superior, and your AMD is inferior? No, of course not.
Excellent sounding machine. Bravo to you for staying clear of the Intel/Nvidia monopolising crooks. With those two it's always advertising first, product second.
Because buzzwords like "Eyefinity" and selling cards in a gun case is totally not advertising first...
He responded to you doing exactly what you are saying he did. I don't know about "Eyefinity" or selling cards in a gun case, but it is pretty clear what he meant, that other companies employ tactics that might be described as 'advertising first'. Yet you don't offer any support for your claims that Intel and Nvidia are crooks and that there is something wrong about the marketing tactics used by them.
-
Basically what WillyP's getting at is do your research before you go making claims such as this.
-
Excuse me? What is it about anti-competition that you don't understand? Surely that is an example that does show negatively on the entire Intel company.
Perhaps you would like to do some reading about it, because I know what I'm talking about.
However, how that would necessarily impinge on the quality of a product, especially one that's 15 years old is beyond me, infact your entire argument is beyond me too. Certainly, my message has never aimed to go in that direction and I find it disingenuous of you to suggest that it did.
NVIDIA
-------
Have you read my post? I'm saying that I have experience of products purchased by me, personally, where the advertising has not corresponded to Nvidia product's true functions. If you'd like me to enter into detail then I can.
INTEL
------
Certainly, Intel are monopolising crooks (I have supplied support for this, contrary to your claim ("and when Intel settles with AMD for billions over its anti-competitive, monopoly-building practices, that what interests me.")). - That has been all-but-proven in a court of law in the United States. Otherwise Intel would never have settled. They only did that to pay less in settlement than the damages that the court were sure to award - certainly not out of charity.
You're not telling me that such an enormous and landmark case is not more substantial evidence than what one individual reseller (totally divorced from ATI themselves) did to market an individual product.
Your other poster has actually (although I think unintentionally) lied or distorted the truth in saying that ATI did that, because they did not.
And with Eyefinity all they did was to invent a feature and give it a name. How are those examples more substantial than a landmark case? What further evidence [ should I have to supply / would you like me ] to supply?
On the other hand, I haven't distorted or misunderstood the truth because the examples I have given are true, accurate (although lesser-known, perhaps) and more serious.
Don't tell me to do my research on that basis, please.
ARGUMENT
-----------
All I was saying is that I have owned both sides - I've been very pleased with both sides. I wasn't trying to say that AMD is superior in many cases. Certainly at the moment, they are going through hard times and have been since 2007. I worked near their corporate HQ in Dresden for a year and it was heartbreaking to see them cut as many jobs as they had to. So again, please don't tell me to do my research or whatever. I happen to know a fair bit about what I'm talking about.
What I'm trying to say, is that Intel and Nvidia are not the only, sole options and I think if you looked back at my message in that light, you would understand it better.
I'm trying to equalise and support the position that there is not just one viable combination in PC-puchasing (ie Intel CPU and Nvidia GPU) rather than what you seem to have somehow inferred from my message (which is to raise one above the other), which is not what I was doing. That would simply be ridiculous and yet you seem to have interpreted the message in that way.
CONCLUSION
------------
I maintain my claim, based on the evidence presented that Intel is a crooked, monopolising firm that exercises economic duress on its customers to the intentional detriment of AMD because the court proceedings showed that they had and it was common knowledge in the industry.
I also maintain my claim that Nvidia markets its products in a misleading way at times, which I have never experienced in ATI. This contention is borne of personal purchasing experience and I would welcome some *actual* evidence, rather than just someone's personal objection to XFX's (an otherwise unrelated company's) packaging strategy, which actually refutes this. I'm sure it exists, it just hasn't been supplied yet.
I mean, what is the actual counter-argument there, anyway? "They put it in a packaging box that looked like a submachinegun and yet the GPU inside doesn't fire bullets?". How is that even a counter-example of what I'm saying (although I admit, I could/should have been clear about that in my first post), which is that Nvidia and Intel for that matter have a history of advertising their products in a misleading way? What is misleading about the shape of the box to a person with ordinary common-sense?
You've basically written two short paragraphs, both of which are either completely wrong or feature substantial inaccuracy. Pardon me for saying but I thought the owner of the site would treat the users with some greater degree of care, respect and courtesy than that.
-
This activates the curiosity of my inner psychology student.
I sense there may be more to this than you're letting on ;).
It sounds like the way I feel when youtube videos of Descent make Rebirth out to be the only port, and don't even mention D2X-XL. Sure, Rebirth is a good port, but so is D2X-XL and if people have a choice I get... pissed off if people who should mention they have a choice don't.
But as a psychology student I can't make judgements or take sides or anything.
-
Well, I'll tell you what I think that is.
It's a reaction to people who second-guess you and tell you to do *your* own research, when it's actually their argument and understanding that appears to be limited. Although I admit that I am very touchy when it comes to that but that is borne out of long experience and associated disappointment and confrontation.
I encourage you to psychoanalyse me, please. I took an A-level in psychology for two years and it was the greatest waste of time I've ever entertained, so I encourage you to lift my disillusionment in a sense.
Actually, I particularly enjoyed "evolutionary psychology". I found that to be a most entertaining element of the course.
Ah, looks like your message changed a little... I completely agree. I'm just admiring the OP's willingness to say with confidence, "well, AMD yeah, that sounds like a good deal and it should work really well". And I hope it does for him because there's nothing worse than an unstable machine.
I'm just saying that because I don't think, especially Intel is a particularly ethical firm, to say the very least.
My motivation for saying that comes from my time convincing St-Andrews University to develop an ethical investment policy whereby they refused to invest in unscrupulous firms. It took a huge amount of effort where University officials would make meetings and never show up to them to respond to our campaign and concerns.
I think ethical investment is an important issue. I haven't purchased (knowingly) anything from Nestle for example for ... about a decade and I'm 25 years old.
That's part of what drives me in this issue.
If anyone wants to attribute any other motives then they're welcome to do so and I'll happily debate them.
-
Nice impromptu research paper, Crash. ;D
And in my defense, I only made my above comment because WillyP had made it sound like somebody was being presumptuous about the matter, and I didn't know enough about the subject to say either way, so I opted to clarify his point (because I worried it got diluted in his post unintentionally) just because I felt a need. Otherwise, this is a matter I won't take sides in, at least not until I become much more educated on the subject at hand.
Now, at risk of further derailing the thread, I gotta ask, why haven't you (knowingly) purchased anything from Nestle?
-
Sorry for clearing my magazines into half the forum members and then reloading and emptying them again over what was just a misunderstanding. I was not having a good day on Sunday and I apologise. You should award yourselves a free copy of X-Bomber on me. Sorry.
I'm sure we can manage another little detour.
Nestle - if you look up "baby milk marketing", "Third World countries" and "Boycott" in conjunction with Nestle as well the "World Health Organisation" you'll be on the fast track.
When it comes to seriously endangering the lives of children in third world countries to the extent where many, many have been proven to have died as a result, for a profit, that's when my regard for a firm truly hits rock bottom.
It's a scandal that the issue is not more widely reported given that the issue has never gone away over the decades and in some respects has grown worse because they're simply evading international WHO rules by bribing African Doctors and officials to market their dangerous product for them instead. According to The Guardian and Care2.com, Nestle are now developing a kind of Nespresso-like system that will help them do the same thing even more effectively although for the time-being it is restricted to it's parent country; Switzerland.
You can also find some interesting videos of their CEO / Chairman on Youtube espousing some rather shocking views; some verging toward Neo-Naziism unless the Nestle PR division has been hard at work.
Nestle are also very keen on anti-union practices or "Union-busting".
Until I'm satisfied that things have changed (and that will take a lot given the stakes), I will never knowingly purchase another Nestle product. The problem is that Nestle products are sold under other names (for example when I was in Germany, I was unaware that 'Moewenpick' icecream was a Nestle product and so I bought a tub of that by accident but when I saw the logo on the bottom, I returned it to the supermarket (the principle behind which, I have to say, the Germans didn't really understand but I pressed the point and got my refund)).
It's only through years of gentle, sustained attrition that my parents have begun to move away from Nescafe.
-
What is the product that is endangering lives?
Is it the product itself or the process they use to make it?
-
Well baby milk formula is inherently dangerous for use in developing countries because the water used to dilute it is often dirty/contaminated. And so 'human milk' is better because the mother works as a human filtering system.
So, the sale of baby formula in developing countries is severely restricted on those grounds by the World Health Organisation who has made many criticisms of Nestle. But those criticisms have been ignored and the rules and restrictions have been bent to breaking-point.
So, to answer the question: it is the product. There is no real way of making the product which makes it anywhere near as good as the natural, free alternative that it seeks to replace and yet the marketing "puff" and blerb always states the opposite. People are effectively told by the company that they're putting their children at risk by *not* purchasing and using Nestle's product and then the child dies from water-borne disease/poisoning.
Disgraceful
-
You have misunderstood my point completion, and your further post underscores exactly what I meant. You have made some wild, extravagant, yet completely vague accusations, provided no verifiable facts and references, yet you say to IHateHackers:
Your examples seem a little ill-informed (or distorted) and ... perfunctory in comparison.
His comment was clearly off the cuff and perhaps sarcastic, I don't think he was seriously attempting to debate you based on eyefinity or gun case packaging.
My point is not whether you have built a good case, you are not required to do so in order to discuss these issues. But don't be the pot calling the kettle black.
-
Basically my point was that AMD/ATI is no better than NVidia or Intel.
-
Well, again at WillyP - your understanding of facts must be different to mine entirely.
You keep saying I provide no support or facts. Just what is it that you would like?
And yet my understanding of your "point" if there is one is no clearer than it was previously.
I stated that Intel is a corrupt firm. It is a statement of fact that AMD sued them for it and Intel caved on the matter to the tune of $1.25 Billion and US competition bodies have seized upon Intel's practices as well. Those are verifiable facts which I have already stated. What is wrong with you? The fact that you either can't be bothered to read them, weren't aware of them yourself and therefore distrust them (and can't be bothered to look them up) or that you find them inconvenient in some way is not my problem.
I do accuse you of not actually reading my earlier post and then going on to accuse me of saying various things which I infact hadn't (ie that AMD was in some way superior to Intel in terms of product quality) and implying that I had omitted things (ie. facts) which I had infact provided on careful reading. Those are not wild allegations. They are not vague. They are specific and they are based on a reasonable interpretation of the thread infront of me.
how is that wild, extravagant, vague etc? Not that nice I'm afraid but I think a fair and reasonable interpretation. Now, if I'm wrong about that then please explain it to me and I will apologise if necessary.
I think you've started sounding a bit like a broken record and wind-up merchant. I provide plenty of evidence (although I can think of more issues relating to Intel (ie. intentionally slowing down their own products when working with those of competitors)) backed up by a legal case (two infact) and you accuse me of not stating facts. The thing is - where are your facts exactly? All you can do is criticise *me* for not stating facts - where are *your* facts? Where is *your* actual counter-argument? Apart from the seemingly fallacious argument of "Crash can't state facts".
I think IHateHackers points were probably seriously made but not entirely representative once you got into the detail. I see no evidence to suggest otherwise apart from your suggestion and it's interesting that you only now bring this possibility to light. Why not mention it before when you were defending them? I would have thought it as relevant then as it is now.
Now if you want proof and links to articles that's fine but that's a different matter. That's saying instead "Crash, I don't believe the facts as you've stated them. Either you're a liar or too unintelligent to interpret them correctly and so I want *proof* of what you say". Is that what you'd like because I'll be happy to go on a link hunt because I am not backing down over this but I would like to know which you think me; a liar or unintelligent or both.
And I'll tell you another thing, since you've risen to that too. If I still had the time to run my own forum, I wouldn't treat my members with the 'wind-up merchant' "where are your facts" attitude that you show me! I tell you that right now! I would treat my visitors with a damn-side more respect than that because I would actually read their posts carefully and take the points on board and debate them in a normal way.
And if you want an apology over that, forget it because it's true and maybe you should just deal with it as and admin rather than saying "oh well that's too vague for me to bother taking seriously".
-
I stated that Intel is a corrupt firm. It is a statement of fact that AMD sued them for it and Intel caved on the matter to the tune of $1.25 Billion and US competition bodies have seized upon Intel's practices as well. Those are verifiable facts which I have already stated. What is wrong with you? The fact that you either can't be bothered to read them, weren't aware of them yourself and therefore distrust them (and can't be bothered to look them up) or that you find them inconvenient in some way is not my problem.
I have read all your posts and you have not presented a fact, it is your opinion that Intel is corrupt. It may or may not be a fact that Intel was sued by AMD. However, being sued does not make a company corrupt. Neither of which has anything to do with your original claim, which was that Intel and Nvidia are 'monopolizing crooks'.
-
The AMD CPU is a crippled one, with less CPU cache. A 955 BE would be a good choice - you can insanely overclock these. One of my systems uses such a CPU @ 3.6 GHz w/o overvolting.
Excellent sounding machine. Bravo to you for staying clear of the Intel/Nvidia monopolising crooks. With those two it's always advertising first, product second.
You may (probably rightfully) dislike the behavior of these companies, but their products (currently) are very good. Your initial comment was very condensed and may therefore have been appearing too provocative. I am just learning myself though that comments made by IHateHackers shouldn't be taken too seriously. ;)
-
I am just learning myself though that comments made by IHateHackers shouldn't be taken too seriously. ;)
I'm sorry for hurting your sensitive feelings, but can you keep it where it belongs?
-
Are you trying to destroy this thread? Seriously?
-
... I'm not even going to touch the irony of that.
I've made as good a point in this thread as anybody, I did it without a wall of text. Problem?
-
I'm sorry for hurting your sensitive feelings, but can you keep it where it belongs?
-
Karx has summarised my stance perfectly. Now that may not have been clear from the start because it was only a passing comment and very brief. But I think that stance has become clear since then by what I subsequently said.
QUOTE::
---------
I have read all your posts and you have not presented a fact, it is your opinion that Intel is corrupt. It may or may not be a fact that Intel was sued by AMD. However, being sued does not make a company corrupt. Neither of which has anything to do with your original claim, which was that Intel and Nvidia are 'monopolizing crooks'.
Oh this is just pathetic. ... "It may or may not be a fact"? Really? ... and I don't think that denying an obvious causal link is really going to save the day for Intel either.
Perhaps then, you should go and take a look at what the case was about. The evidence that came out in court that Intel had engaged in ... yes! ... anti-competitive practices ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/nov/05/breakfast-briefing
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2009/tc20091112_354928.htm
... and Intel are being investigated in the US for ... yes! ... anti-competitive practices by an independent body.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10416443-92.html
The fact is so well-known that I find your effective denial of it gobsmacking. It simply equates to burying one's head in the sand and going "Nah nah nah, I can't hear you!"
Anti-competitive operations on this scale and of the nature described are unethical, dirty, outrageous and more-to-the-point, illegal, so ..., all the things I said about Intel from the start.
So, you're right, it is my opinion, backed up by overwhelming legal and industry evidence that Intel is unscrupulous. It has nothing to do with the quality of many of their products as you seemed to originally interpret somehow although when Intel retards its own products to operate more slowly in conjunction with products of competitors, that certainly affects the quality of the product in the described situation.
That you fail to accept other common knowledge about Intel's dishonest attempts to squeeze competitors out of the market place by bullying its OEM 'customers' given your persistence in this discussion despite overwhelming evidence is, I find, remarkable.
Now, I'm not posting another thing on this issue until you come up with some counter-evidence or evidence of equivalent moral wrongdoing at either AMD or ATI. I'm not going to lose sleep over that happening because I know how unlikely it is.
At IHateHackers - I hate to inform you but at least one of those points was incorrect in the details. I'm not really sure how I see that as being as valuable a contribution as you might think.
-
I'm sorry for hurting your sensitive feelings, but can you keep it where it belongs?
I can. Can you?
-
Lord, give me strength.
Yea though I walk through the childrens' play area of the shadow of death ...
-
lol, you still don't get it, whatever.
-
Oh, for the love of...
C'mon, you four, must we really act like we're all five years old? None of you are making this forum very pleasant to visit at the moment.
Karx, IHateHackers, can't you two just move on from that? Stop trying to provoke each other into a fight, and even when one does, however intentionally or not, be man enough to LET IT SLIDE. Obviously, trying to continue that fight hasn't been getting either of you very far. At the very least agree that you hate each other and leave it at that. The rest of us don't need constant reminders.
WillyP, Crash, there's a lot I could say about this that I won't, but what I will say is that you've both made your points, you both made it clear you don't agree with each other, so let's just leave it at that, and get back to the original topic.
Which was Canceler's new computer.
-
Wait, canceller is getting a new computer? :o
;)
-
Scyphi,
what would you do if nobody gave you an opportunity here to show how mature you are? :P
WillyP,
it has become very clear over the years that Intel is using illegal practices in a broad manner to damage their competition. I cannot understand your point either (unless you are working for Intel ;D). If you'd dig into NVidia's history, you'd also understand that it was NVidia's marketing that e.g. ruined 3dfx years ago (I am not give proof or links here, you can easily find them if you want to).
I am still using Intel and NVidia products though, because right now they are faster than their AMD counterparts and I can afford them. I am also using AMD hardware in my Linux box though.
-
I think Scyphi is right though. I think the discussion has run its course and Karx makes his point to WillyP as well, calmly and succinctly as could be.
Just as an aside, though, I found an amazing thing out last night, where if you purchase an Nvidia discrete PhysX card and it detects an ATI graphics system ... The Nvidia PhysX refuses to work. It's not that the ATI and Nvidia systems are truly incompatible in any way because if you hack the PhysX drivers, they perform better with ATI cards than with Nvidia by all accounts. So the device has been purposefully made to coerce people into buying an Nvidia GPU once they've already purchased a PhysX card from them.
If found that remarkable and that situation is marked nowhere on the packaging. You just expect in this day and age for an ATI GPU to play ball with an Intel CPU, Nvidia with AMD etc etc. And that principle should extend to Nvidia and ATI cards of various types.
Having said that, anyone who buys a separate PhysX card has to be slightly deranged anyway because although you get better PhysX that way than with PhysX chips built onto the graphics cards (because of how the graphics cards are controlled by the processor) the list of PhysX-compatible titles is pretty short and actual GPU-based physics processing is not far around the corner, I don't think. For example, cancer research folding has been done in the GPU for years and years.
-
Don't take this post the wrong way. It's all constructive.
Anything from IHateHackers.
Could you please keep your thoughts to yourself? You don't *need* to post every insulting comment that comes to mind. You may think you have a right to defend yourself from Karx but you are always the one who starts attacking him without any provocation. If one thing happened in one thread that made you angry, just let it go. Trust me, that's more satisfying than attacking him -- because it's the one of thing that angry trolls the world over don't understand. If you want to be better than them that's all you need to do.
You may not intend it, but trust me that the majority of us see you as an angry troll. If you don't want to be seen that way it's *you* who has to change, not us. And in the meantime you're ruining this board for the rest of us.
I am not attacking you, only informing you that whatever it is you think you're doing, you're only succeeding in showing yourself in a bad light to the rest of us. I don't think this is your intent, and if it is... then you seriously need some psychological help.
-
Ok, one more time. ;)
My point had nothing to do with Intel or Nvidia or any other company, it was more directed to Crashes comment on IHateHackers comment.
Crash expressed his opinion on Intel and Nvidea:
...the Intel/Nvidia monopolising crooks. With those two it's always advertising first, product second.
Fine. Opinions are good, everybody should have one. At that point in time this is presented with no reference, or corroborating facts, therefore it is Crash's opinion.
IHateHackers presented two examples which he felt illustrated the opinion that other companies engage in 'advertising first, product second' tactics.
Excellent sounding machine. Bravo to you for staying clear of the Intel/Nvidia monopolising crooks. With those two it's always advertising first, product second.
Because buzzwords like "Eyefinity" and selling cards in a gun case is totally not advertising first...
At this point this is just casual conversation. Crash's next post went a little deeper, still, no problem but at the end of his post is this line:
Your examples seem a little ill-informed (or distorted) and ... perfunctory in comparison.
Which may be true, but so what?
'a little ill-informed (or distorted)' Are you saying there was not a such thing as Eyefinity or a card in a gun case?
'perfunctory in comparison' In comparison to what? I can only think, your comment. Your prior comment was so well thought out that no one should question it's veracity? At the point in time where IHateHackers made his comment, you presented no verifiable facts, no references or even a hint as to what would make 'Intel/Nvidia monopolising crooks'. Yes you have added some explanation and even some links which if I cared I suppose would support your claims. Whatever. My point really had nothing to do with that. My point is that you accused someone else of doing exactly the same as what you did.
Let's not blow this out of proportion, ok? It is not a life or death situation, we are all just expressing our opinions, which is good, but lets keep the tone light, and civil. If you want a fight, take it to the mines.
edit: split from the pc build thread.
-
Scyphi,
what would you do if nobody gave you an opportunity here to show how mature you are?
Karx, with all due respect, I don't believe that's the case here. :)
Don't take this post the wrong way. It's all constructive. (cont'd)...
You said exactly what I've been thinking. :D
My point had nothing to do with Intel or Nvidia or any other company, it was more directed to Crashes comment on IHateHackers comment.
Wait, wait, wait, you mean to say that this all started because you thought Crash needed to support his argument with his first post? Willy, everyone one of us does that all the time on here. Almost nobody is going to present a detailed argument about what they think about something in derailed discussions like this with their first post, because nobody here is going to be thinking that far ahead. It'll almost always be the second or third post when that stuff starts popping up if it's requested by others, so surely we shouldn't have to tack on bibliographies with our posts. These aren't exactly supposed to be professional research papers here that we post, y'know. Furthermore, Crash did more or less get what you were saying, and did exactly as I just described above. With his next post, he provided the details you thought were missing, so really, what's left to argue?
But that said, the big important thing I think we really need to be walking away with from this is that maybe what was posted was presumptuous and could've been done better (but what posts aren't? Personally, WillyP, I think that if this was all you were trying to point out, there could've been a whole heck of a lot better way to do it) but it's too late now to really make that big a deal about it. So rather than trying to continue this futile argument, let's stop trying to sort out what has clearly been a mere misunderstanding and just set it aside, not go to war over it. :-\
-
Don't take this post the wrong way. It's all constructive.
Anything from IHateHackers.
Could you please keep your thoughts to yourself? You don't *need* to post every insulting comment that comes to mind. You may think you have a right to defend yourself from Karx but you are always the one who starts attacking him without any provocation. If one thing happened in one thread that made you angry, just let it go. Trust me, that's more satisfying than attacking him -- because it's the one of thing that angry trolls the world over don't understand. If you want to be better than them that's all you need to do.
You may not intend it, but trust me that the majority of us see you as an angry troll. If you don't want to be seen that way it's *you* who has to change, not us. And in the meantime you're ruining this board for the rest of us.
I am not attacking you, only informing you that whatever it is you think you're doing, you're only succeeding in showing yourself in a bad light to the rest of us. I don't think this is your intent, and if it is... then you seriously need some psychological help.
That's all well and good, but I was having a legitimate conversation here before he started talking about how nothing I say should be taken seriously. How is that me attacking first? It'd be one thing if I had started it, but in this case I didn't!
-
I'm not talking about this thread in specific, this thread gave me an opportunity to say it.
Why do you think Karx said you shouldn't be taken seriously?
And my advice to let it go still stands.
-
IHateHackers and Wazzazzle, you two are perpetuating a divisive argument. Let's not do that. Move it to private messages if you must continue it.
I sense the ban-hammer and/or lock switch are getting warmed up.
----------
On topic "advertising first, product second" ...
That is normal practice when releasing new products.
There is always advertising BEFORE the product goes out, regardless how pathetic the product may be. An example would be the huge media blitz Disney did to try to sell 'direct to disc' collection of Christmas stories by "Bell" (from Beauty and the Beast) months before the very forgettable product came out.
Sure, video is not the same as computer products, but the practice applies.
Apple just announced "iCloud" which won't be actually available for a while, regardless how good or bad it is, and will be free at first, but a pay service later.
It's just advertising.
-
Develop product first, advertise second, release product third.
-
Wait, wait, wait, you mean to say that this all started because you thought Crash needed to support his argument with his first post?
Wrong...
Willy, everyone one of us does that all the time on here.
...and Right! There is a big difference between casual commenting and serious debate. No need for Crash to support the claim he made in his first post... at that time! But when he jumped IHateHackers for doing essentially the same thing... making a casual, off the cuff remark... and came back with a longer post, then the conversation took a different turn.
-
I think this needs to be locked as well, if even the admin is in on the arguing.
-
I now see where WillyP is coming from but I surely meant that it was "perfunctory" compared to the my points in my same post, not my original one.
If saying that is unreasonable then I'm effectively being held to a different standard to what I've seen elsewhere here, like Scyphi says.
You're right. I just made a passing comment originally and I didn't back it up. I doubt it would have matted if I had. It was just a throw-away thing. But later I think I argued the point pretty well and it seemed as though you were looking at all of that and saying "Well, where are your facts in this whole discussion?", (when the facts were there), rather than saying "Where are the facts in your original post?", which you're right, they weren't.
I thought you were getting at the former, which is what exasperated me totally and I think it would exasperate most people.
But I didn't accuse IHatehackers of doing anything.
It was reasonable to say to IHateHackers "well, you've made your points and I don't think they're very strong in comparison to what I'm saying right now in this current message, not my former one". I don't see how I could have made that clearer. Looks like Scyphi sees it that way too.
That's not how WillyP took it and I understand that. It just seemed like a peculiar way to interpret it. And there were a few things that WillyP said in his arguments that encouraged that view (such as effectively saying that a settlement over corruption charges didn't mean that a company was corrupt, which is counter-intuitive).
Now, I'm willing to accept the explanation but looking back at the course of WillyP's posts, I couldn't have reasonably inferred that from what he was posting.
The discussion started as soon as IHateHackers started overturning my statement with evidence. After that ... I think criticising that evidence on the basis of your returning argument is perfectly reasonable. I mean, if that's how legal proceedings work, which they do ...
The point is that they weren't just off-the-cuff remarks, I took those as chosen examples that just didn't really support the intended argument.
-
...such as effectively saying that a settlement over corruption charges didn't mean that a company was corrupt, which is counter-intuitive...
...Well... in an ideal world. The settlement certainly makes it more likely. I wouldn't say it proves it though. The only thing it directly means is they got charged and lost the case...
So I can see where WillyP is coming from there. But maybe he came off too strong? When someone is found guilty they usually are guilty... but just like anything else it's never absolute. There are plenty of examples of people who are wrongly found guilty (recently I've been reading about some in the news here).
In an ideal world, I could be a particle physicist or a chemist, because all gases would obey the ideal gas laws and the universe would be perfectly understandable and calculus would be easy.
-
Well, Intel didn't allow it to go to judgment because, given the evidence, they knew which way it would fall and so a settlement was reached instead.
Looking at the evidence presented, had the court found Intel guilty, it would have been a clear and obvious correct decision. Intel knew where they were headed.
I mean, I don't know how it works in the US but here they might probably have been sued for something similar to deceit in Tort and in cases like that there are no forseeability limitations on damages. So any damage that AMD could prove would be claimable irrespective of how unforseeable it might have been.
So, Intel might have ended up paying a lot more than the $1.25 BN settlement, had the train gone all the way to the buffers.
And I suppose the other thing is that the obvious bias that happens when a large company attacks a small one or an individual wasn't present here either. There wasn't an economic imbalance against Intel, infact probably quite the reverse.
Intel being larger than AMD should have had an advantage in a marginal case because of greater funding and therefore, presumably, better legal representation.
But it was abundently clear that even companies like Dell were being pressured by Intel into not buying AMD stuff. The threat from Intel went along the lines of "if you buy any more AMD, we'll either stop supplying you or we'll charge you far more than our other customers. And without our stuff, you'll go bust."
That was the thrust of it and they tried it with everyone. It was absolutely rife and everyone knew about it but weren't necessarily in a position to speak out.
-
That doesn't necessarily mean that Intel is "Advertising first, product second". And just ebcause Intel was caught being corrupt doesn't mean NVidia is.
-
Absolutely, you're right, it doesn't. It addresses the corruption aspect only. That much is clear.
If you'd like me to enter into discussion on points of advertising I can.
AMD has a long history of allowing its userbase to advocate for them on the strength of their products. I have never actually seen and AMD advert ever in print or on television and I can't remember when I last saw one on a website either. (I don't pay a lot of attention to those, I must admit) (although I have seen them).
In comparison, Intel frequently advertises its new processors on television here in the UK, claiming that sound and music quality will be improved, that games will appear more impressive, that networking will run faster and more smoothly.
These are borderline false claims that really have nothing to do with the processor.
Certainly the soundcard is controlled as a subsidiary of the operating system and the CPU and so the CPU is involved in making sound in much the same way as it issues command packets to a graphics card for execution in the GPU but that doesn't make them responsible (wholly or even substantially) for any increase in graphics or sound quality. And the same holds true for networking.
So, I find such claims, which are repeated every time Intel rebadges its CPUs (it was said for the Pentiums, Core(2)Duo etc and now for the i3/5/7), to be false because the CPUs are clearly not responsible for the improvements that they claim (which should nevertheless still be present in a newly purchased machine with new GPU, sound and networking subsystems).
And I also find it disingenuous to claim that these improvements often yielded chiefly by other manufacturers' components are a result of their own CPU.
That addresses Intel and as to Nvidia, I've seen Nvidia badmouth ATI/AMD to libelous proportions even in their press releases. But I've never seen ATI/AMD do the same to Nvidia.
I've also never purchased an ATI product that failed to do what it claimed and I can't say the same about Nvidia.
So yes my personal opinion based on little more than personal experience there but I suppose it entitles me to my view.
What I really meant by "advertising first, product second" (and I should have said that instead, and you're right to pick me up on it) is that their advertising is not always representative of their products and I think that's true.
I probably shouldn't have lumped Nvidia in the same bandwagon as Intel in terms of sleaze and corruption, you're right. They can be dodgy (and I think I've hinted at that before now) but not in the same league or order of magnitude as Intel. But it was originally just a very quick remark.
-
Well, Intel didn't allow it to go to judgment because, given the evidence, they knew which way it would fall and so a settlement was reached instead.
This is exactly what I mean by making assumptions. True, you're very probably right. But don't present something as definite unless it is definite. Can you read the minds of those people at Intel and know with absolute certainty which way they were thinking? I doubt they'd say in a press release 'Yeah, well, we actually are corrupt'. So that's probably not where you're getting this - but it could be. That's what I mean. Where are you getting your information about what Intel's execs were thinking? If it's personal reasoning... well, reasoning can be flawed. And court cases can't really prove anything.
My point is, if there is always doubt, don't present something as an incontrivertible fact. I think that's what was getting to WillyP.
-
This is going to be good but hold on for the end ...
Settlement in a court case is always seen as admission of guilt and blameworthiness though. That's why people don't like doing it on principle if they have a clear conscience.
When I've been sued, even when I could have made the whole matter disappear quickly and cheaply (and would have been wise to do so) by settling I never have because I knew I was right and to settle always suggests otherwise. It's just a negative inference made by society. That's the risk of doing it, which Intel must surely have weighed in their minds.
That's legal theory.
This widespread illegal anti-competion practice was so well-known and documented that it can only be described as fact. That was the evidence that Intel knew without-a-doubt they couldn't disprove.
AMD's case was unanswerable and so no other motivation was needed for Intel to back down. Any other remotely-possible considerations in the minds of Intel execs would be completely inconsequential and immaterial compared to their main motivation, which was to protect their profits from an inescapable judgment and even larger damages.
If you stop a ball from rolling off a table by grabbing it, if it was clearly about to fall, given its momentum and the absence of obstructions, you don't make its falling (without intervention) any less of a certainty by intervening. That seems a fitting analogy from my reading of the case.
That's the whole principle of decision-making.
If the court had been ruled against them, it would become legal fact but Intel pre-empted it so we don't have that.
Even so, the conclusion is inescapable. To conclude otherwise would be irrational and naiive because I can find no counter-evidence.
That substances are made up of atoms is regarded as fact according to our current understanding because the evidence far outweighs the counter-evidence but, like everything else, we don't know 100%.
How do you know that your whole perception is 'real'? Nobody can know. You always have to take some things at face-value because otherwise nothing would work and people would go insane. A degree of 'uncertainty-tolerance' is necessary for the world to proceed and that's what I'm asking for here.
The point is though, there is always doubt about everything; even things that are seen as incontrivertible facts. There is nothing that can be presented as incontrivertible fact that isn't still uncertain in some way.
You present me with any 'incontrivertible fact'. There is always an unlikely explanation that seeks to disprove any statement.
Infact, linguistically, once you start closely examining the phrase 'incontrivertible fact' you see that it is infact a misnomer. If anything, that is an incontrivertible fact.
-
I concede.
I don't think I've ever met anyone who was sued. But that's the risk in being an activist, right?
Anyway
What if the court ruled that atoms cannot exist, found the tomato guilty and then abolished all laws of physics, and calculus?
-
I almost never see adverts for individual Intel CPUs, usually I see them as part of a system (generally a laptop). But then again I don't pay much attention to advertisements in general. I don't buy intel, but that's more of a cost-to-performance issue than anything (Although I personally think hyperthreading is just a buzzword that does little to improve performance in practical situations), not a vendetta against intel for being corrupt or false advertising. And it doesn't stop me from buying NVidia instead of ATI.
-
Well, I can imagine that happening in a court in Scotland.
That is a first world country (thanks to being funded by England) with the judicial system of a banana republic and this comes from someone who's fought more than one court battle there in the last 3 years. But even when the court rulings (sometimes) and the solicitors (always) there are bent, things in life have a way of working out for you, nomatter how grievous they might seem up-front.
You don't have to be an activist to be sued senseless there, I think you just have to try and be an honest soul.
Hyperthreading really was just a buzzword in the Pentium 4 era because of how the CPU architecture was backed-up by a buffer that stored instructions for later execution (ie. they were stored when the CPU was too busy and they would be executed later when the CPU was idle). That was a really convoluted system and it defeated the HT implementation on the Pentium 4 completely.
With the Core2Duo, they're based on what was then the Xeon architecture and with those, and particularly the i7, the HT makes a good impact apparently.
My difficulty is that I always confuse it with Hypertransport which was the Athlon64 equivalent of the FSB ... ?
-
What if the court ruled that atoms cannot exist, found the tomato guilty and then abolished all laws of physics, and calculus?
Well, first off, the science world at large would object and seek a repeal. :P
In other news, since you mentioned tomatoes, the US courts once ruled that tomatoes are vegetables and not fruits, a ruling I believe still stands today. Before you complain about how idiotic that seems, they did it to resolve an importing issue, because the prices for importing tomatoes varied on whether or not it was called a fruit or a vegetable, and people were, of course, exploiting it, so the courts had to put an end to it.
-
Yeah, scientifically that's nonsense because they have the seeds inside. Just shows that legal decisions can be right in some ways while being totally wrong in others.
I guess the court was more interested in what section of the supermarket the tomato ended up in - among vegetables or fruit, rather than what the scientists called it.
I read somewhere that a strawberry isn't a fruit either because it effectively is the seed, rather than containing them.
-
I just don't see how splitting 1 core into 2 helps at all. Unless you're running 8 processes that all demand total control of the processor. Now, I don't know about you, but I can't even find enough to do to load up 4 cores, much less 8. Now, if there was a tech that let 2 cores act as 1, I'd buy that in a heartbeat for all the poorly or not-at-all multithreaded applications out there.
-
As I remember, the courts ruled tomatoes to be a vegetable on the prompting of chefs from restaurants. Apparently, in the cooking world, tomatoes are considered vegetables because of how they are used in dishes, which makes sense. They aren't really used like other fruits in many dishes.
Anyway, hearing this made me happy, because I always considered tomatoes as vegetables, partly because I heard enough dispute over it even in the scientific world that I decided that I would just decide for myself.
I know that technically they probably should be a fruit, but they just never seemed...fruity...to me.
Anyway, we're getting off subject. :P
-
If someone sent you to the shop for just fruit and you came back with tomatoes ... they'd automatically think you were either a smart-ass or mentally deficient in some way.
-
Concurred. I'd only bring back tomatoes if they specifically asked for them. :)
-
That gets back to how they are used... like a vegetable. You would not put tomatoes in a fruit salad, would you? Yet, you would put them in a toss salad, with veggies.
-
So at least they got that one right in practical terms.
What do you guys make of this whole class action against Walmart being dismissed though?
-
Walmart? Meh...
Zellers FTW.
Now there's a department store that I like.
-
What do you guys make of this whole class action against Walmart being dismissed though?
I'm actually not very surprised. Sure, they had like a million (or was it a thousand? oh well) all banded together to try to claim that it was Walmart's policy to discriminate against women in the leadership roles. However, the high court could not find that their evidence (the evidence was the fact that these women had been apparently passed over) was sufficient to show that it was Walmart's policy. The only thing the women managed to demonstrate was that a lot of men appeared to have been promoted instead of those women.
There was a significant downside possible whichever way the case came out. As is, a number of the judges dissented from the final ruling, which goes to show just how divisive the decision was.
If Walmart won the case (and they did) ... Unfortunately, this decision by the high court will probably make it more difficult for future discrimination (tort) cases because there will now be a greater need to show clear evidence.
If the claim against Walmart had succeeded, it probably would have had a reverse effect and made it easier for discrimination (tort) cases in the future, which would of allowed a lot more "sue happy" people to cost the public huge amounts of money supporting the courts dealing with too many fabricated cases.
Personally, I think the court made the right ruling, but failed to send the much needed message to corporate industry that there needs to be stronger effort to avoid discrimination when considering who gets promoted and who does not.
-
Personally, I think Walmart, being a business, not supported by taxpayers, should have a right to set whatever policy it wants, even if it is discriminatory. That is not to say I favor discrimination, far from it. But if a woman is the best suited for a particular job, how would a business benefit by having a blanket policy of not promoting women, or any other group, for that matter?
I suspect, there is not really a policy of discrimination, more like a general perception by the (mostly male, I assume) management at Walmart that women in general don't perform as well as men, or cause other problems. This could be bad business for Walmart, if they lose the benefit of highly capable women. However, I don't see that as an issue for the courts to decide.
-
Be careful with that line of thought WillyP. You might not think it, but I know of a lot of women who would still take quite a LOT of offense to that sort of thinking. ::)
As for Walmart, this isn't the first time in recent years that they've gotten into legal trouble. In fact, I believe they've been getting in trouble of some sort fairly frequently lately, but that might just be me. For instance, I had heard once they had actually tried to start their own bank, (yes, a bank!) but the federal government didn't like that idea one bit, declared it a monopolistic move, and halted their plans.
Other than that, though, I've got nothing against Walmart. Kmart on the other hand...
-
Actually nothing to do with women, every individual should be treated fairly, by everybody, but if I own a business, and I feel like I don't want, say, left handed red-heads working for me, it should be my right to choose not to hire or promote left handed red heads.
And as far as women being offended by that, so what? There is something wrong in saying everyone should be promoted based on their own merits? Or that I, or Walmart, should have a right to develop a hiring and promotion policy that suits our own interest? The purpose of being in business is to make money. Don't like my opinion of how best to do that? Go work somewhere else.
-
Truth is, there are some VERY discriminatory business practices that are ... accepted, even though they are technically wrong.
For example, the "Hooters" restaurant chain is (how shall I say it) known for hiring girls with certain characteristics, and WILL NOT be hiring guys to do the same job, regardless of how much better the guy (or guys) may be at the job, simply because the guys do not have those certain characteristics. The same would apply to girls who apply for the job yet lack those certain characteristics.
Is that discriminatory? You decide. In my opinion, it is allowable because the business desires certain characteristics in their employees in order to bolster their business with certain demographics. I don't think it's discriminatory because the persons who are being discriminated against do not have the characteristics that the job requires.
As for Walmart, it could very well be that the ladies were usually passed over not because they are female but because they lacked certain characteristics that the business desired in the employees for those jobs. That was the thing the ladies were saying was not the case, but according to the high court ruling were not successful in providing sufficient evidence. I'll have to trust that the high court knew what they were doing.
-
Yet, you haven't opined whether you think a business should be allowed to choose who they want to hire or promote, or not. Technically wrong? What does that mean, really? Technically, Hooters should hire men even though that does not fit with their business model?
-
And as far as women being offended by that, so what?
Well, I'm not saying they're right to think that, and in fact, I pretty much agree with what you've said, WillyP. I just wanted to put the detail that some people are probably going to take offense anyway out there for all to see, because I'd really be lying if I said differently.
-
Truth is, there are some VERY discriminatory business practices that are ... accepted, even though they are technically wrong.
For example, the "Hooters" restaurant chain is (how shall I say it) known for hiring girls with certain characteristics, and WILL NOT be hiring guys to do the same job, regardless of how much better the guy (or guys) may be at the job, simply because the guys do not have those certain characteristics. The same would apply to girls who apply for the job yet lack those certain characteristics.
Is that discriminatory? You decide. In my opinion, it is allowable because the business desires certain characteristics in their employees in order to bolster their business with certain demographics. I don't think it's discriminatory because the persons who are being discriminated against do not have the characteristics that the job requires.
As for Walmart, it could very well be that the ladies were usually passed over not because they are female but because they lacked certain characteristics that the business desired in the employees for those jobs. That was the thing the ladies were saying was not the case, but according to the high court ruling were not successful in providing sufficient evidence. I'll have to trust that the high court knew what they were doing.
Whether it be right or wrong, I sort of side with Techpro. That restaurant is looking for something, and guys simply don't have that; and some girls don't either.
I guess it's like filming a movie or T.V. show. someone is looking for a hot actress, or an actor/actress that is 250 pounds that fits the part where ever in the story. Some director may want someone bald, someone small, someone tall.
In most careers, I don't think it should matter. If it requires a ton of heavy lifting, okay, maybe just the guys.
they pick women over men to be receptionists. I hear it's because women tend to sound more pleasant and sweet on the phone than guys do.
Chip 'n' Dales, about the same as that restaurant (I keep thinking of Chris Farely on SNL when I think of that place). They won't pick some heavy set guy.
-
I went to a concert over the weekend in London and among the various, stylish, young people there, (who you might describe as 'normal') was one young man who obviously suffered from down syndrome.
How is this relevant? There are some things in life that you can't change but there are many that you can.
I think we have a duty to make society as fair as possible by changing those things that are changeable.
One thing I will say in favour of the European Union, is that it has enforced very, very powerful employment legislation, which can be enforced (at least indirectly) against any employer and directly against the "state" in any EU country and prohibits any kind of discrimination in the workplace. So this kind of court decision would hardly be acceptable in a European Court.
Were it to come about, it would surely be appealed up to the European Court of Justice and I'm certain that they would take an extremely dim view of (what seem to be fairly commonly-known) practices at Walmart.
Where you have evidence that women of certain performance and qualification are being excluded from progressing up the company ladder in favour of equally or lesser-qualified men, that in-and-of-itself is strong evidence (which the company might be able to refute) of sexual discrimination in the workplace.
Plus, if you read the opinion of the dissenting (female) judge in the Walmart matter, she highlighted procedural peculiarity with the case, which indicated to me that the plaintiffs were hardly given a fair and equal hearing.
Another thing the commentators seized upon was that one reason the action was dismissed was because there were too few claimants (???). This went against your own caselaw on the matter, I believe.
And the final thing was how similar the individual claimants' claims were, given that this was employment-related. Usually, in cases such as these the claims are far from identical yet may indicate a pattern. Here they were very similar, indicating a systemic prejudice. That also normally behoves the court to permit a class-action when claims are, essentially, identical.
I read back and someone said how the claimants had lost the case. Yes, this is true but the trial itself had not been held. They had asked permission to launch a class-action and that had been denied. That's not the same as having the case heard and losing on the facts and evidence.
So, I think Walmart has had a lucky or convenient escape and if I weren't such a cynic, I might think that lobbying power had nothing to do with it.
-
You would choose to give up your right to decide for your self, and give over all your personal freedom to a govt panel, they will decide what is best for you, who you can like or not like, who you can hire or promote, whether or not you should invest in insurance, how much you should put away for retirement, and on and on. Europeans will conform, or pay the penalty. Americans patriots will fight for freedom and liberty. Discrimination against women and minorities is wrong, I agree with that, but I don't want govt nose-pickers telling me how to run my business.
Where do you draw the line?
-
As an employee, I don't see that I personally would have to give anything up to maintain equality.
As an employer, that might differ but what legitimate business does anyone have promoting someone on the basis of nepotism or sexism rather than qualification? How does legislating against that disadvantage you financially as an employer (or disadvantage the business in practical terms) if the best person (albeit not a man) gets the job?
No-one would argue that putting a less-qualified woman ahead of a man is the right thing to do, so where is the sacrifice being made?
The law makes sense, from an egalitarian perspective, for the employee and, from a practical perspective, for the employer.
If he (the employer) has taken due diligence to ensure that the best, most qualified person is in the post, where does the problem lie and how is he liable?
I draw the line by asking myself which is more important ... equality (which you support) or my right to make a wrong decision (ie. choose to employ a less-qualified person over a more qualified person). I think that's an easy question to answer and I suppose I apply the same test across the board.
To take another example ... car insurance is a legal requirement. Which is more disanvantageous? having to pay for insurance myself? Or, possibly having no legal recourse when an uninsured driver causes an accident and injures me irreverably?
Living in a world without obligation is great but what happens when you need something from someone else? Nomatter how independent you are, there will be a time. What happens when no legal obligation lies upon a policeman or doctor to ... protect or treat you? You shouldn't have the burden of paying taxes and they shouldn't be obliged to do anything, just like everyone else.
That exaggerates the point but I think it makes it.
I think you not only risk sounding like a complete jingoist but sound like one outright when you say "Europeans will conform" and "Americans ... fight for freedom and liberty". I personally take that as an affront after the number of British soldiers that have died fighting, in part, for American freedoms.
I'm no great historian but America has a poor record of fighting for anyone's freedom but its own. WWII illustrates that.
Now, I myself am frustrated at the lack of contribution by our supposed European NATO allies to the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan but to say 'we're all about freedom and the rest of the world (what little we may know about it) is weak and virtueless' is part of what got us into the post 9/11 situation in the first place.
-
Crash, you are missing the point completely. Don't you even read what you are responding to?
Nowhere did I say anything that could be misconstrued as to be saying that not promoting a more qualified woman would be good for business. Yet, business owners make bad desicions every day. Maybe the owner does not like women. Lets talk not about women, but left handed red headed people. Surely they deserve as much rights to promotion as anyone else right? But what rights do the business owners have? They are the ones who spend long hard hours, and every penny they can scrape up, building a business bit by bit. Maybe he has a fear of left handed red headed people. Should the owner of a business be forced to surround himself with people he is afraid of, however irrational that fear may be?
What you are saying, is that promoting more qualified women is good business practice, therefore it should be a law that a business has to promote more qualified women. It might also be a good business practice to change the oil in your company vehicle every 3,000 miles, should we have a law mandating that too? Business owners are not egalitarian, they are human. Not every disadvantage is financial. If every decision is to be reviewed and approved by the govt, why bother having business owners at all? If you say, 'no not every decision is reviewed and approved', then where do you draw the line?
To answer your question, 'where is the sacrifice', what more sacrifice could there be, for a business owner, than to loose control over the business he has slaved over the last thirty years?
Oh, and by the way, car insurance is not a legal requirement. But the point I make is not about which is more disadvantageous, it is whether I have the freedom to make my own choice.
By fighting, I meant against those in your own govt who take away your freedoms by law. You are so used to being govt children, you don't know any other way. You have given up so many rights, that Americans take for granted.
-
Living in a world without obligation is great but what happens when you need something from someone else? No matter how independent you are, there will be a time. What happens when no legal obligation lies upon a policeman or doctor to ... protect or treat you? You shouldn't have the burden of paying taxes and they shouldn't be obliged to do anything, just like everyone else.
That exaggerates the point but I think it makes it.
Completely irrelevant to the discussion. If I enter into a contract to provide certain services then I am obligated to do so, otherwise I am in breach of contract. A doctor and a policeman, enter into contracts to do certain thing, such as protect you or treat you, when they accept the job. No different then when I make a contract to build a deck or remodel a bathroom. Where did you get the idea that freedom equals no obligations? Quite the opposite is true, being free to make your own decisions require a much higher level of responsibility and sense of obligation.
-
Ugh, politics... ::)
Okay, where do I want to begin?
Well, first off, let it never be said that WillyP isn't American, which I commend him for, but I should also point out that it is possible to be a little too American, and the USA has been guilty of this for many, many, years.
Second, I also wish to point out to both parties that this matter all boils down to personal opinion over matters that have been under debate for decades, if not centuries, and even today, there is no set "line" that has been drawn that decides when things are going too far or not far enough, simply because no one can come to an agreement that everybody is happy with. This very discussion can be used as evidence for that if you so wish.
Third, you both need to keep in mind that you're obviously from different countries and have been greatly exposed to their practices for some time, and, don't take it the wrong way, are thus a little bias. These two regions of the world have had a long history of doing things differently from each other, and I should further point out have also had a long history of not seeing eye to eye on political matters such as this, and that's okay. There is nothing wrong with discussing the differences and which is right or wrong or neither, but also keep in mind that for something like this, I doubt there's going to be one "right" solution that's good for everybody, so try and keep this from an argument over who's doing it better than the other, because nothing productive short of warfare is going to come from that (to your credit, though, you have both been doing a fair job with this. I can just feel the tension rising, so I wanted to try and nip it in the bud before the flame wars start).
Now, I'm going to try and make a few comments on your guys's comments whilst trying to keep from undoing all of the attempted peacekeeping I just did.
You would choose to give up your right to decide for your self, and give over all your personal freedom to a govt panel
Crash was more of trying to explain how things are done on his side of the globe, and when you compare it to how things are done on the American side, it not only probably seemed odd to him, it also seemed a little ridiculous, and to a certain degree, it is, but I'm sure the same can be said about some of the governmental actions Europe's made over the years. No government is perfect, every now and then they make bad choices, choices that sooner or late can come back and bite them.
My point, though, is that Crash was not saying we should let the government rule our lives, just that sometimes government intervention, whether we like it or not, IS necessary. An excellent example of this in America is it's long history of discrimination against African Americans, in which government intervention DID occur to put an end to certain hypocritical practices, and even today, that discrimination is not all gone. Had it been left up to the people, this may have never happened, so in order to right the wrongs that had been made, the government needed to intervene. Obviously, they shouldn't intervene too much, an idea we're all no doubt a little leery of, but that's exactly the reason why the American government works the way it does. By letting the citizens choose the governmental officials, it's our job to elect people who can make the actions the government needs to make, but not overstep their authority. If this isn't happening, then we the people are not doing our job.
I'm no great historian but America has a poor record of fighting for anyone's freedom but its own. WWII illustrates that.
This is true more than any American is willing to admit. In my studies of history, I've discovered that America has been more concerned about their own freedom than the freedom of others, and sometimes that was only limited to the freedoms of a certain select. This isn't to say this was done intentionally, because it certainly wasn't. It's just certain ideals were common at certain times, and it led to events that in retrospect seem faulty with our modern day of thinking. But even our modern day of thinking is not without flaws. Not to say that anyone here is guilty of this, and I highly doubt anyone is, but there has been a bad habit spreading among Americans where they consider America to be, to put it bluntly, better than everyone else, when this just isn't true. And even when America did act to support the freedom of others in other countries (Iraq, Korea, the Philippines, etc.) they usually did it by trying to force their own alien ideals onto a people that weren't entirely welcoming of it or prepared for it, and it led to conflict. America has actually been doing that for awhile now, since as far back as the late eighteen hundreds, and while our tactics have changed, probably for the better, we still face the same issues.
While the subject of the World Wars is still fresh, though, I'd actually like to back up America's actions in both wars with a brief history lesson. WWI really began because of a really pretty childish dispute in Europe that got way out of hand, and America not only recognized it, but also saw that nothing would be gained by intervening so they didn't. And for a long time, the rest of Europe tried their hardest to keep America out of the war (for whatever reason, some, like Germany, were more interested in simply not having yet another force to reckon with). But the events of the war still slowly bled their way into American affairs, one thing led to another, and America stepped in and in doing so, actually turned the tide of the war. Afterwards, though, with WWI being so brutal and violet, America was not at all keen in getting involved in such a war again, and wanted peace instead. Their solution in getting it was to seclude themselves from the affairs of the rest of the world, thinking that if they just kept completely and utterly to themselves as much as possible, that would protect them from ending up in more unwanted wars. But then WWII came along and proved them wrong with the combined threats of the invading Axis powers Japan, Italy, and especially Nazi Germany risking their well being, with the attack on Pearl Harbor finally being the last straw, and so America was again pulled into the war. Whether or not America's actions in both wars were right or wrong, not a whole lot of blame can be put on them either.
But as WillyP said, this isn't entirely relevant to the discussion, so moving on...
I draw the line by asking myself which is more important ... equality (which you support) or my right to make a wrong decision (ie. choose to employ a less-qualified person over a more qualified person).
This is an important point that must be considered. Yes, business owners, and in fact everyone, need to have the right to make their own choices, but that still doesn't necessarily make them the right choices. Again, it is the government's job to try and insure the wrong choices are thwarted from going too far while at the same time trying to maintain fair equality among everyone, and this is EXTREMELY difficult at times, and so sometimes the best solution is to try and compromise. We may not always like the compromise, but sometimes it's the best choice that can be done. In my personal opinion on the matter, I think you're both right, that WillyP's right to say that the government shouldn't interfere too much in the affairs of business owners, and that Crash is right that the government should make sure those business owners don't take their rights too far. If they didn't, then the working conditions of today would probably still be like they were back in the early nineteen hundreds during the Industrial Revolution, which I would hope would be undesirable to all. And part of the reason working conditions were like that is because business owners were allowed to run things however they wished, and they got greedy, caring more about the profit than the people working for them. As a result, a lot of harm was done, and even innocent lives were lost at times because of it. It wasn't until the government started to step in that these conditions really started to change, so in a way, you can thank the government for making the workplace what it is today.
Crash, you are missing the point completely. Don't you even read what you are responding to?
No, he's not missing the point, it's just a case of your opinions clashing with each other, and with neither side being too willing to concede that this is just they way they think and are letting their opinions, I hate to say it, blind them, even if only partially.
...then where do you draw the line?
There is no right or wrong answer to this question in my opinion. Like I said before, though, I have no problem with it being discussed just so long as it's kept from turning into a flame war, which means both sides need to take an active part in keeping it from reaching that point. Don't comment recklessly and angrily. Try and stop and think about things as you post and consider all side of the argument, like what I'm attempting to do with this post (and am hopefully at least partially successful). Again, though, you both have been doing an okay job at this. :)
By fighting, I meant against those in your own govt who take away your freedoms by law. You are so used to being govt children, you don't know any other way. You have given up so many rights, that Americans take for granted.
I hate to say it, WillyP, but this is an extremely American and extremely bias thing to say, and is an example of what NOT to say in discussions such as this. Even if it was true, though, nothing but trouble is going to come from saying it, and is really only an inflammatory comment. So at the very least, I ask you try and keep comments such as this to yourself.
Completely irrelevant to the discussion.
This depends on how you look at it. I see it as more of an instance of Crash trying to provide an example to try and prove his point, and maybe just wasn't as successful as he had hoped.
There...I think that's everything I want to say. Hopefully none of my points will be taken the wrong way.
We've really been prone to getting into situations such as this a lot lately. :-\
-
It is NOT NOT NOT the US govt's job to right every wrong! Scyphi, all due respect, but your whole post, your attitude, is what is wrong in this country. You have grown up knowing only the liberal, socialist attitude you are expressing.
I am American, and always will be. This is the greatest country in the world, no doubt about it. Of course I am biased! But, I am right. If you want a govt nanny, move to a country that has a history and tradition of this. It isn't the American way of life.
Crash IS saying we should let govt run our lives, our business, because if you don't fight against govt scope creep, that is what you end up with.
-
If you fail to change the oil, no individual employee is disadvantaged in terms of salary etc. This example is not parallel.
In your other example you're talking about promoting the importance of admittedly "irrelevant", and (in the case of women) outdated preferences/fears above fears of real, personal detriment.
You're also forgetting that here the law recognises that the employer is in a more powerful position than the employee due to economic pressures right from the outset. That's an issue that should always be borne in mind.
In the UK, it is a sensible legal requirement to possess insurance when driving a motor vehicle, just as employers are required to have personal injury insurance for their employees. Perhaps this non-contractual obligation is too burdensome on employers too?
The fact that some duties are contractual and some are general is not really an issue for me either.
Besides, these duties bring about criminal liability which has nothing to do with any contract that a doctor might have signed. It has to do instead with their non-contractual, legal duty of care, which can give rise to such things as gross negligence manslaughter etc. if that duty is breached.
You say you shouldn't have the burden of following employment law, that being obliged to is contrary to your freedoms. Your freedom is curtailed by obligations. Therefore, how is discussion of various obligations irrelevant?
"You are so used to being govt children, you don't know any other way. You have given up so many rights, that Americans take for granted."
- This is bullshit. This is not a discussion. What facts are you basing that on?
The problem is that you don't know what freedom is. One of your political parties uses the word "Freedom" to instill fear. "Do this, support us or your american freedoms will be taken away" and so forth.
It's interesting because my mind automatically races to analogise this with Nazi Germany but instead of inciting hatred to acquire total control, they exploit peoples' fear of losing their freedom to the precise same end.
Freedom is a sense of accomplishment that you obtain after struggle. The British have learned that as a nation although that sensation has dimmed with the passage of time. It is not a bargaining chip that you can threaten to take away.
I totally agree with what you were saying though that Government should be as hands-off as possible. This year some 600 quangos have been eliminated by the coalition here. Never let it be said that efficiency savings are altogether a dreadful thing. But we still have a long way to go with local government.
If you knew how many times this family has stood up and claimed its rights in almost every area; (law-enforcement, local government, private litigation, education), you name it, you might think twice about some of your statements.
-
Willy posted in the same time that I was writing mine.
I didn't see any need to alter it, although I will say this:
If you were employed by a firm - who would you rather give discretion to? - the government and the courts or your employer (bearing in mind that that could be anybody - a complete roll of the dice).
You're basically saying "I want to live in a country where my ability to make a childish, immoral and senseless decision is more important than guaranteeing that people are employed and paid fairly and in accordance with their abilities".
I don't think that America is such a country or ever was and I seriously doubt that most americans view it as such either.
Somewhere, yes, you draw the line to stop government interventionism. We had waaay too much of it under our last government and we were aware of that at the time and it is now being reversed. The coalition may have its faults but is very busy undoing a lot of the damage that Labour did.
I don't know where it is but as surely as I know anything I know it isn't with employment equality. And I suppose you can tell in each individual case where the line is or isn't to be drawn by balancing the implications of each possible decision outcome (as with anything else).
-
If you fail to change the oil, no individual employee is disadvantaged in terms of salary etc. This example is not parallel.
In your other example you're talking about promoting the importance of admittedly "irrelevant", and (in the case of women) outdated preferences/fears above fears of real, personal detriment.
This is at the heart of what I am telling you: An employer/employee relationship is a form of contract between the two parties. As an employer, I should have the right to enter into contracts with such parties as I choose. Yes I am well aware of anti discrimination laws, that is what I am talking about! Should I have no rights to my outdated preferences/fears? The Constituition makes no provision for regulating pay scale for men vs women. Don't get me wrong, I believe in a perfect world everyone would get what they are worth, BUT the right is to a potential earnings, not that everyone gets treated fairly by every other individual. If I hire you for 10/hour and someone else for 20, have I cheated you? No, you agreed to work for 10. That was your choice. Don't you want the right to make that choice for yourself?You're also forgetting that here the law recognises that the employer is in a more powerful position than the employee due to economic pressures right from the outset. That's an issue that should always be borne in mind.
How can you say that I have forgotten that? This is all about what we are discussing, whether laws of this nature are appropriate or not. Of course I know what the laws are, I am saying the laws got to far, intruding into what should be a business owners decision.In the UK, it is a sensible legal requirement to possess insurance when driving a motor vehicle, just as employers are required to have personal injury insurance for their employees. Perhaps this non-contractual obligation is too burdensome on employers too?
It should be a matter for employers and employees to decide. If both employer and employee don't want it, why should the govt interfere?The fact that some duties are contractual and some are general is not really an issue for me either.
Besides, these duties bring about criminal liability which has nothing to do with any contract that a doctor might have signed. It has to do instead with their non-contractual, legal duty of care, which can give rise to such things as gross negligence manslaughter etc. if that duty is breached.
You say you shouldn't have the burden of following employment law, that being obliged to is contrary to your freedoms. Your freedom is curtailed by obligations. Therefore, how is discussion of various obligations irrelevant?
I never said that! Not even close!
"You are so used to being govt children, you don't know any other way. You have given up so many rights, that Americans take for granted."
- This is bullshit. This is not a discussion. What facts are you basing that on?
No facts, just an observation based on what you wrote.
The problem is that you don't know what freedom is. One of your political parties uses the word "Freedom" to instill fear. "Do this, support us or your american freedoms will be taken away" and so forth.
That would be the liberal party, the Democrats, which I assume would be your party if you were an American citizen. This is what I fight against.It's interesting because my mind automatically races to analogise this with Nazi Germany but instead of inciting hatred to acquire total control, they exploit peoples' fear of losing their freedom to the precise same end.
Freedom is a sense of accomplishment that you obtain after struggle. The British have learned that as a nation although that sensation has dimmed with the passage of time. It is not a bargaining chip that you can threaten to take away.
I totally agree with what you were saying though that Government should be as hands-off as possible. This year some 600 quangos have been eliminated by the coalition here. Never let it be said that efficiency savings are altogether a dreadful thing. But we still have a long way to go with local government.
If you knew how many times this family has stood up and claimed its rights in almost every area; (law-enforcement, local government, private litigation, education), you name it, you might think twice about some of your statements.
What is a quango? Anyway, this section sounds like you are coming around to agreement with me. Good job!
-
Willy posted in the same time that I was writing mine.
I didn't see any need to alter it, although I will say this:
If you were employed by a firm - who would you rather give discretion to? - the government and the courts or your employer (bearing in mind that that could be anybody - a complete roll of the dice).
You determine your employer by a roll of the dice? I don't think so. You need to research the firm, make sure you are a good fit, make sure the policies there jibe with your personal belief, that the company is reputable and will advance your own personal growth goals, and that you will in good conscience be able to promote the goals of the firm. Do you really see getting a job like a lottery draw? Just go work for some random company, no care as to what philosophy the business might promote, whether or not the company discriminates against women or left handed red heads? Well, I guess that would explain a lot about why you have the attitude about labor laws. You want the govt to insure that any random company you go work for will meet your needs. Never mind what the company needs. Do you see your employer as some faceless, nameless corporate entity, existing solely to provide employment to random masses?
You're basically saying "I want to live in a country where my ability to make a childish, immoral and senseless decision is more important than guaranteeing that people are employed and paid fairly and in accordance with their abilities".
I don't think that America is such a country or ever was and I seriously doubt that most americans view it as such either.
I do live in such a country, in the US anyone can make childish, immoral, and senseless decisions, and millions do every day. We all have the equal right to peruse an income, but there are no guarantees. As a business owner IF I make childish, senseless business decisions, I won't be a business owner for long, I'll be bankrupt. There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees anyone employment. And fairness is a very subjective thing. If we make a law that everyone gets 20 instead of 10, I have to let half my work force go. Is that fair to those who are now unemployed? Is it fair to the taxpayers who are funding their unemployment checks? What about when the unemployment checks run out, and half of those are still unemployed because the economy now sucks as a result of millions being unemployed? Somewhere, yes, you draw the line to stop government interventionism. We had waaay too much of it under our last government and we were aware of that at the time and it is now being reversed. The coalition may have its faults but is very busy undoing a lot of the damage that Labour did.
I don't know where it is but as surely as I know anything I know it isn't with employment equality. And I suppose you can tell in each individual case where the line is or isn't to be drawn by balancing the implications of each possible decision outcome (as with anything else).
Right.
-
In the current economic climate, especially, people will take whatever job they can get. Do you think most people work at Walmart out of some lifelong aspiration?
The rest of your statements and accusation in this paragraph are wholly unsupported by what I've said. And again, I find them absolutely remarkable coming from a forum admin. I think you do yourself a great disservice and disgrace yourself with your argument.
You're essentially saying "I want to be the little king of my castle and to hell with my obligations, nomatter how trivial they may be, to hell with everyone else's rights and, to anyone who disapproves, well I'm going to call them everything under the sun until they agree or go away".
I'm not saying that you should work for any random company, I'm saying that people in general might take up any job that is available out of desperation and in that situation the employer might be reasonable or unreasonable. In that way it is like rolling a dice. I wonder whether you've intentionally misinterpreted.
Would you rather people didn't seek employment and instead of taking the only job that was available to them were financed by the state? These people, if they are providing a useful service to the employer, deserve protection from the state in return for paying their taxes rather than being a burden on the state's finances.
We don't live in the perfect world, where employment supply far outstrips demand and where you can work for the company of your dreams just by preference. We're talking about the *real world* here.
The situation you describe is highly desirable, I agree. I would love to live in that world where you could cherry-pick a firm to work for but that's not how the employment market works. And then ... what happens after doing the research that you feel is a bare minimum about the company, you work for it and then things turn bad. What happens when the company misrepresents itself or is taken over by another or has a change of management. Did you enter into that contract freely and with full knowledge?
No-one is stating that there should be a set amount paid to each employee - you've desperately pulled that argument out of some orifice. We're talking about parallel pay, not a set/fixed amount of pay. By saying 'If I pay equally I might have to employ half as many people', that is totally false and is a complete sham of an argument. You must be aware of that. By paying two people the same figure for the same work, it does not follow in any way that you are only able to employ a smaller number. If one person demands twice as much, you let him go because he isn't economical.
By saying "Right" I don't know if you're being sarcastic because it seems the text you're responding to is reasonable and fairly-well considered.
A contract of employment is just that, a contract, but one which an employee may not enter freely but due to economic need/duress. You say you know these things and yet you take no account of them.
You're saying that employees shouldn't be required to possess liability insurance for their employees? I'd love to come and work for you.
The following is not an observation. It is a ridiculous, intentionally inflammatory and childish statement that has no bearing in facts despite your claim.
>>> "You are so used to being govt children, you don't know any other way. You have given up so many rights, that Americans take for granted"
If you don't know what a quango is, Google it.
-
Look, you continue to say that I am saying this or that when I have said nothing of the kind. I have repeatedly corrected you, yet you continue to read into what I wrote, only what you want to believe.
Your entire discussion is based on gross distortions of what I am telling you. Is your reading comprehension that low, or are you doing this deliberately? There isn't any point in further discussion if you cannot read what I wrote.
-
*sighs*
Y'know, if you two were politicians, I wouldn't vote for either of you, because it's clear to me that you two just aren't willing to come to a consensus, even when it's already clear to me that you both already support the same darn thing (minimalistic government). There have even been instances where the two of you have outright agreed with each other, but overlook at it to continue to jib at each other.
This is exactly why I hate politics, because this is all politics is. Two people claiming to be educated adults trying to bash each other down just so to get a shot at glory.
It is NOT NOT NOT the US govt's job to right every wrong! Scyphi, all due respect, but your whole post, your attitude, is what is wrong in this country. You have grown up knowing only the liberal, socialist attitude you are expressing.
To which I respond with another quote from yourself:
...you are missing the point completely. Don't you even read what you are responding to?
Oh yes. You missed my point. What I was saying was exactly what you're looking for me to say, which is for the government to keep out of private affairs. I support that one hundred percent. What I was ALSO saying is that you HAVE to concede that sometimes the government is just going to have to get involved every now and then, or everything in this country WILL go to heck. For them to sit back and do nothing makes one wonder why you even have the government. And America HAS been down that road once before. I'm assuming you know enough American history WillyP to remember the original Articles of Confederation America came up with PRIOR to the writing of the constitution? In those articles, the federal government had next to no power, and it wasn't long before everyone saw that unless they changed that VERY soon, the whole union would fall apart, and that's why they wrote the darn constitution in the first place. And I KNOW that had they not done that, America WOULD have fallen apart. It is simply NOT POSSIBLE for the government to play next to no role in the affairs of the country, and if you can't see that, I honestly have to question how well you truly understand how this government is supposed to work.
I am also honestly offended that you feel the need to call me a liberal Democrat, because I certainly don't support them, nor the republicans, nor any political party in America at the moment, because, quite frankly, I can't see any of them making anything any better in this country, and they're all too busy arguing and bickering with each other (much like what we're doing right now, BTW) anyway to really seem to care (though I REALLY hope that some part of them DO care, and if so, they need to listen to that part more).The problem is that you don't know what freedom is. One of your political parties uses the word "Freedom" to instill fear. "Do this, support us or your american freedoms will be taken away" and so forth.
That would be the liberal party, the Democrats, which I assume would be your party if you were an American citizen. This is what I fight against.
The republicans, Tea party people, and just about everybody, are all guilty of this. It's traditional political mudslinging, and is as old as the country itself. The idea is for one politician to try and portray his opponent in as bad a light as possible so to get the voters to vote for him instead of the opponent, and one thing that gets a major response from the populace is to suggest that the electing your opponent will rob you of your freedom. It's very rarely ever true, but they're ALL guilty of doing this. I would sincerely hope WillyP that you are not caught up in that fanaticism.
As a business owner IF I make childish, senseless business decisions, I won't be a business owner for long, I'll be bankrupt.
I think we'd ALL be amazed at the things business owners can get away with at times that undermine the system, whether it be good or bad, and are not only still in business, but are quite successful. Walmart, the very subject that instigated this argument, is even an example of this. Basically, what you say is true, but only to a certain extent. Again, I can site the choice of business owners back in the Industrial Revolution as examples. Some of the things they did back then were atrocious in comparison to the here and now that we wouldn't tolerate for a second because it's just flat out wrong. Heck, even the people back then couldn't tolerate it, but there wasn't much they could do about it at the time except protest. It wasn't until the government finally heard their calls and interfered, putting a stop to it, that things turned around. Proof that business owners CAN and WILL get away with murder if they know how to play their cards. This is exactly WHY the government must step in every now and then. I don't expect you to like it, because I certainly won't, and yes, there will be a lot of little affairs they'll want to mess with that they don't need to, but I'm not talking about the little affairs and never were. I'm talking about the BIG things, things that sometimes the citizens of this nation simply don't have enough power to change unless they get the government to side with them.
If you cannot see that logic WillyP, and again say I'm rooting for total governmental domination (which is AGAIN not my point at ALL) then, as much as I hate to say it, I have no hope for you.
Please don't prove me right on that, because this is one area I don't WANT to be right on.
You determine your employer by a roll of the dice? I don't think so.
This is, admittedly, a bad analogy. I saw Crash's point, but WillyP clearly did not, so...yeah. Hopefully Crash's further explanation of the matter in his later post clarifies what he was trying to say. I'll help by quoting what he says:
We don't live in the perfect world, where employment supply far outstrips demand and where you can work for the company of your dreams just by preference. We're talking about the *real world* here.
The situation you describe is highly desirable, I agree. I would love to live in that world where you could cherry-pick a firm to work for but that's not how the employment market works. And then ... what happens after doing the research that you feel is a bare minimum about the company, you work for it and then things turn bad. What happens when the company misrepresents itself or is taken over by another or has a change of management. Did you enter into that contract freely and with full knowledge?
Listen to what he's saying here, WillyP. Despite your apparent belief, he DOES know what he's talking about here. He's being realistic. I, too, would love to see the better world you describe, but I gotta be realistic too, and say that it can either never happen, or be really hard to create in our world. Preferably the latter as there's something to hope for with that, but my point is why can't you see this?
The following is not an observation. It is a ridiculous, intentionally inflammatory and childish statement that has no bearing in facts despite your claim.
>>> "You are so used to being govt children, you don't know any other way. You have given up so many rights, that Americans take for granted"
It's also not true. One could argue, WillyP, that by being raised American, you don't know any other way yourself. Whether or not that's a good thing or a bad thing is a debate I really don't think needs to be answered, nor, for that matter, CAN be answered. Just...try to be a bit more open to an outsider's point of you. Often times, the outsider looking in can see truths the insiders cannot, thus it can very well be the outsiders who could make all the difference. Of course they're not always going to be right, but keep in mind that they're not always going to be wrong, too. You just have to take the time and stop and think about it, and I mean REALLY think about it. Furthermore, how do you know that Americans themselves haven't lost many rights of our own that others (like the UK) might take for granted? It's an argument that can really and easily go both ways, so one can easily turn that statement against you.
Of course I am biased!
That's not a good thing, especially in this instance.
This is the greatest country in the world, no doubt about it.
Yes, but it could be greater, and arguing pointlessly over it won't make it that way. You want to make the world a better place? Then the best course of action is to stop talking about it, and actually DO something about it. THAT is what freedom is, BTW, the right that you CAN make a difference, but ONLY if you make the effort to. You can't sit back and expect things to fix themselves. (heh, considering my earlier comments about my hatred for politics, maybe this is advice I need to follow myself :P)
But, I am right.
Are you? That's really the question here, who is right about this? Speaking rhetorically, are any of us right? Or could we ALL be wrong? And how would we ever know for certain without a perfect knowledge about...well...everything? These are all points we need to consider in a civilized debate over subjects like this. To automatically presume that you know best is an unwise practice, because how would you really know?
Look, you continue to say that I am saying this or that when I have said nothing of the kind. I have repeatedly corrected you, yet you continue to read into what I wrote, only what you want to believe.
Your entire discussion is based on gross distortions of what I am telling you. Is your reading comprehension that low, or are you doing this deliberately? There isn't any point in further discussion if you cannot read what I wrote.
Right back at ya, WillyP. This makes me really think you're just going to more or less ignore what I've said here like before, but I want believe you're better than that WillyP, and somebody's gotta try. :)
You're essentially saying "I want to be the little king of my castle and to hell with my obligations, nomatter how trivial they may be, to hell with everyone else's rights and, to anyone who disapproves, well I'm going to call them everything under the sun until they agree or go away".
Now I gotta criticize you, Crash. Yes, WillyP has been a little reckless with his comments and at times purposely inflammatory, but that doesn't mean you need to be either. Furthermore, it's not true. It's not that he thinks he knows best and everybody else is just simply wrong, he just feels very strongly about this subject (obviously :P) and sees our comments going against all of that, when they really aren't as much as is clearly thought. The same bounces back to us, of course, though. The best way to avoid these kind of situations is to consider all the sides of the argument and consider the possibility that the other side might actually have some points that need considering too, and to not just simply ignore them. I know we've ALL been guilty of this more than once, but there's enough hard feelings bouncing around now that I'd be surprised if there suddenly wasn't, and after all, we're only human, so of course we're not going to be able to handle this perfectly. Still, we really ought to try, probably harder than we've been trying.
I could say more, but I've already said more than I intended, so I just end it here. But I will say that from what I read (albeit briefly) about a quango, I think you'd like it, WillyP. ;)
-
I wasn't going to reply but Scyphi has made it worthwhile.
Oh, I absolutely agree with WillyP that it would be good if it were possible for everyone to go about their business the way they wanted to. I would genuinely want that too.
I am all in favour of slim government and teachers deciding what goes on in schools and doctors what goes on in hospitals but this isn't a narrow issue of teaching or treatment methods. It's a bigger matter that shouldn't necessarily just be lumped in with government aggrandizement because it affects almost everyone nearly every day.
The problem is that you have to legislate for people who are just more evil than we would like to recognise and who mistreat their employees in dreadful and shameful ways. It happens all the time and EU legislation here has made *massive* inroads into that problem.
I completely appreciate WillyP's point and I should have said that, I just think there are considerations that are even more important and therefore make it impossible.
You can't be in a position where you allow employers to make completely malevolent decisions that affect the employee. Like I say, t's not a contract that's really been entered into freely by both parties.
I don't see how rolling a dice is a bad analogy though. Your boss is something you have very little control over (by definition) or choice in. It is really luck of the draw how well you see eye-to-eye. The fact that that wasn't clear to everyone how it was relevant is a different matter.
And I apologise for paraphrasing Willy's argument. All I wanted to do was exaggerate the point to make the point how different a perspective it was from where I was sitting.
-
Well, I'm glad to see I did something right. :)
I think we can all agree that we agree with what WillyP's saying. We all want exactly what you want, WillyP. All we're trying to say is that there are other factors that need to be considered too.
As for the rolling the dice analogy, it wasn't that the analogy itself was bad (maybe I should have phrased that differently) it was more of how you used it. You knew what you were getting at, and I obviously got it, but WillyP didn't, and misconstrued it to mean something else, and in retrospect, I can see how that could be done. Otherwise, the analogy is solid. :)
-
Again, you are saying I have said things when I clearly did not. I am not going to go through your post line by line and point out everything you have said.
Exaggerating my points beyond all reason does not prove your points.
-
Well, if we're really missing your points, and it bugs you that much, maybe you should consider going through line by line and point out everything you're trying to say (or not say), because if this really isn't what you're saying (we gotta be close, though), I am interested in trying to figure out what you ARE saying. I promise to be patient and non-inflammatory if you do.
In our defense, though, we're not purposely "exaggerating" your points, at least I'm not. I'm just calling it as I see it, which doesn't necessarily mean I've been doing it right.
If you don't want to, though, I'm willing to let the subject drop here and now. It's probably gone on long enough anyway.
Admittedly, all I really care about all of this is that we walk away from this as civilized people, and not angry at each other. That's really the big reason why I even let myself get involved in the first place.
-
/me assumes a "mock" voice ...
I would like to thank all of you for coming to my press conference. At this time I would like to say .... I have no comment on the matter.
;D
-
Is that really all you had to say? :P
-
What I am trying to say is that an employer (unless that employer is tax-payer funded) should have a right to employ or not employ, to promote or not to promote anyone based on whatever criteria that employer should choose, even if that criteria may be unfair, or discriminatory, or a bad business decision. The business owner(s) owns the business.
Personally, I strongly believe best business practice would be to promote based on performance or other genuine job qualifications, not on gender or the owners personal prejudice. I think we are in agreement on this. What we don't agree on is what the role of the federal govt should be in this particular matter.
-
Okay, yeah, we are in agreement with this. We're just saying that said business owner still can't be given TOO much liberty, otherwise bad things will happen. This would be where the government would step in. HOWEVER, that does NOT mean the government plays that big a role in the matter, in fact, I doubt the government would play that big a role at all. All that would be required of them is the occasional monitoring, and they don't even really need to do that. Heck, the citizens, as you said, would probably do much of it on their own, which, from what I understand, is exactly what I want.
Lemme clarify how I see this before you start jumping to conclusions about that. Let's say we've got your basic business owner running his business. About the full extent of the government's involvement in his business is the various permits, licensing, and taxes that come from owning a business. Beyond that, it's not the government's business, so they stay out of it and let the business owner to his own devices. He hires who he wants, does what he wants, and so forth.
Now let's say the business owner starts doing some undesirable practices, strong discrimination, dirty dealing, whatever bad things we generally don't like business owners doing. Somebody finds out about it and catches on to his actions. At this point various outcomes could come about. One would be the owner losing his job and getting replaced by someone else. Probably common in big businesses, with their management hierarchies and the such. Two would be word getting around about said owner's actions, it hurts business, and the business begins to struggle, and assuming that the owner doesn't do enough to turn things around, goes out of business. Ideally, this is the outcome we'd except in the American free market, but sometimes it doesn't, especially when said bad actions could be good for profits and the powers that be of the business, being greedy, look the other way. Which leads to the third outcome that we apparently disagree or misunderstand on. The government steps in.
Stick with me on this, because they aren't going to do that, though, unless it's brought to their attention, and that's probably going to be done by the citizens disgruntled by these bad actions. Exactly what happened in the Walmart case we were discussing when this all began. Certain employees didn't like what they thought Walmart to be doing, so they pretty much asked the government to step in by taking the matter to court. With the Walmart case, it can be debated whether or not Walmart was really guilty of anything, and whether or not the end outcomes of the attempted suing was the right choice, but that's not our issue. Back to our hypothetical case, if our disgruntled citizens can present enough evidence to convince the government there's wrong doing afoot, it's then the government's job to step in and say to the business owner "Hey man, cut this out now or there's going to be trouble!"
BUT NOT BEFORE.
This is ALL I've personally been trying to say (besides trying to keep the peace). I hear what you're saying WillyP, and totally on board with the idea that the government needs to stay out of business affairs. They totally should stay out of the affairs of businesses because they don't own the business, the owner does, as you've said. The only time I would want them to step in is in instances like what I described above, and that's probably only going to be in rare instances, and ONLY as a last resort, when everything else has failed to produce results. Otherwise the government is to BACK OFF from the affairs of privately owned business.
I can't vouch for Crash, but I strongly suspect this is pretty much what he's been trying to say too (if not, he's free to correct me).
My guess the subject came up is because your comments WillyP seemed to suggest more than once that you were not considering this possibility, and were saying that whether or not the business owner was making bad choices of any sort, it wasn't ever the government's spot to interfere, they just had to sit back and watch, and hope things resolve themselves. And with little affairs I can totally see that. They SHOULD stay out of the little and even medium affairs usually. I was just thinking about the big matters, and knew business owners could get away with such things if the government didn't DO something about it, and I think Crash did too, so we were trying to point this out so it'd still be considered.
Why you responded back the way you did only you can say WillyP. Maybe you saw it as attacks against your arguments, trying to shoot down the whole idea of the government staying out (when we really weren't), or maybe you really don't agree, and think even this is too far (if so, then whether or not I actually agree with it, I say "okay, you're welcome to believe that" and leave it at that, just so long no new arguments erupt over our differing opinions), I don't really know at this point. Just know that I, at the very least, am not deliberately trying to oppose you. I'm just pointing out my views on the matter, and how I see it should be handled, which, you gotta admit, even if you still don't agree, it's not that far off from it.
On the subject of discrimination, however, there's no argument. Right or wrong, that's really the employer's choice, and if wrong, the best way to handle it is to A: get the business owner to change his mind, or B: get a job somewhere else where this isn't a problem. And yeah, a business owner is going to be at least a little discriminatory when picking his employees, that's just a fact of life. For example, one could argue that not hiring bad workers is discriminatory, but no one is going to want to hire them because they're bad workers. Furthermore, every job is specialized for certain people, and some people don't make the qualifications. Like I couldn't get a job as a nuclear physicist because I don't meet their qualifications. One could argue that's discriminatory, but I'd rather have that than a bunch of untrained people making a mess of things. Those who say otherwise are, quite simply, aren't thinking logically. :P
So I guess the only matter left in question, WillyP, is the role of the government in business, and whether or not we're in agreement of my interpretation of the events or not. I won't hold it against you if you say no, just so long as you aren't harsh about it. we've had enough harshness in this thread already, I really don't think we need more. :)
Anyway, that's my two bits. Take 'em or leave 'em. ;)
-
TL;DR
I read the first part, here's the thing, Scy, govt does interfere. There is a law called Equal Opportunity Employment Act. It is law. And you are practically forced to practice reverse discrimination as a result. If you don't believe that, Google it.
There is a mountain of paperwork associated with hiring employees. And one misstep could spell big trouble for everyone, employer, and employees too, who suffer along with the business especially in smaller companies like mine where payroll is a huge portion of cash flow. I am not jumping to conclusions, I have been there.
Owners don't lose their job over this. Being a business owner is not a job. What usualy happens is the company gets fined, which could lead to bankruptcy, foreclosure, or in the case of publicly traded companies, loss of stock value.
-
I take it you don't like this law, but judging from your description, I suppose I can see why. Filling out all those forms sounds a lot like filing taxes. :P
I read the first part
I do hope you still read all of it anyway, though. Still, I think we're closer than ever to seeing eye to eye. At the very least, the tension has been reduced immensely, and I'm glad for that much. I really don't like to see fighting on this forum. I know it can be above such things.
-
"you are practically forced to practice reverse discrimination as a result" - I wasn't aware of that.
To be fair, our EU legislation is well-drafted, partly because it has to be translated into so many languages and so much money goes into its drafting. It really does mean just what it says and it doesn't go to those lengths by going so far as to create an equal but opposite injustice.
Perhaps it's the half-way house that we all want because it shouldn't curtail any employer's legitimate interest in business efficacy. Having said that, I've only studied employment cases as a launchpad to explain more general principles of how EU and national laws compound (but what I have seen of them certainly supports what I said).
-
Well look at Walmart, they spent millions on this stupid case even though it went nowhere. Just like rape, it is a heinous crime, but all a woman has to do is threaten to yell rape and the man is ruined. Who knows what Walmart did or didn't do, but you can bet people who are looking for an excuse to hate Walmart aren't going to let this die. People who are indifferent to Walmart won't know what to think but if a lie is repeated often enough...
-
I take it you don't like this law, but judging from your description, I suppose I can see why. Filling out all those forms sounds a lot like filing taxes. :P
I read the first part
I do hope you still read all of it anyway, though. Still, I think we're closer than ever to seeing eye to eye. At the very least, the tension has been reduced immensely, and I'm glad for that much. I really don't like to see fighting on this forum. I know it can be above such things.
No, sorry, too much text, my eyes glazed over my tongue hung out and I started drooling on the keyboard when I saw that wall of text. ;) I had to stop reading when my forehead smashed the keyboard and became stuck there due to the cerebral fluid oozing out of the fractures in my skull. :P
Seriously, no one is fighting, and no, we are not any closer to a consensus on this issue. At least, I know my opinion has not changed. But if you guys think it is ok for govt to dictate every aspect of your lives, and to dictate on what terms you can be employed, or to dictate policy for hiring and promotion in a company you guys might care to own someday, well, there is no hope for you and I give up trying to help you see reason.
-
That explains a lot actually. How long have you not been reading whole posts, out of curiosity?
As I've said before (repeatedly actually), I do not want the government dictating every aspect of my life, and never have stated as such. (maybe if you had read my whole posts...)
Despite your claims, I think I am starting to see what you have against all of this. Obviously, the government wasn't as uninvolved as I had thought it to be, and yes that realization unnerves me a little. (Happy?)
I can't talk about it any further, though, because that will result in a long post you won't read, so no real point in me doing it.
Probably no real point in me reading your posts all the way through, either, but knowing me, and my polite, trying to cover all the aspects, nature probably won't let me.
Seriously, no one is fighting...
We came darn close, and apparently we're not out of the woods just yet.
-
That explains a lot actually. How long have you not been reading whole posts, out of curiosity?
For me ... it could be the second sentence in any given post ... including my own. ;D
-
That was the first one I didn't read. Sorry, I was tired, not enough time, and the dog are my homework.
And it was pretty obvious Crash was not going to read, or at least comprehend, my posts, so I was just tired of going around and around with him.
In fact, I meant to end this thread when I wrote this:
Look, you continue to say that I am saying this or that when I have said nothing of the kind. I have repeatedly corrected you, yet you continue to read into what I wrote, only what you want to believe.
Your entire discussion is based on gross distortions of what I am telling you. Is your reading comprehension that low, or are you doing this deliberately? There isn't any point in further discussion if you cannot read what I wrote.
Which, by the way was directed at Crash, not you, Scyphi.
-
...Okay, sorry if I sounded a little miffed earlier. ::)
If it's any constellation, I think Crash has given up on you too, because he certainly hasn't been posting in this thread anymore.
On a slightly unrelated note, I think maybe Techpro's got the right idea with his recent posts. It's gotten to the point that I think he's actually making fun of the thread now. This is probably one of those things that we'll look back at and laugh upon later.
*resists urge to make an obvious Portal quote here*
:P
-
Since someone decided to volunteer to be grammar nazi (http://www.planetdescent.net/index.php?topic=688.msg11341#msg11341)... I volunteer to be "word nazi"
...
If it's any constellation, I think Crash has given up on you too, because he certainly hasn't been posting in this thread anymore. ...
The word you're looking for is "consolation" (Comfort received by a person after a loss or disappointment.) instead of "constellation" (a group of stars forming a pattern).
However this one seemed rather funny:
... and the dog are my homework. ...
-
(http://www.prepare4descent.net/p4dfiles/lmao.gif)
-
Look back at and laugh? I'm already laughing.
I gave up on WillyP at this recent point after everything that we'd said: "you guys think it is ok for govt to dictate every aspect of your lives". If that isn't 'a gross distortion after everything, showing a complete lack of comprehension', I don't know what is.
You're the one that's admitted to not reading people's messages and the idea that I somehow am too stupid to understand your argument hasn't really washed with Scyphi either.
You're right, I gave up and was amazed to see new messages in this topic.
-
LOL, you are right about the first part, but I only admitted to not reading one post. I did read all the rest.
-
I say we all just forget the whole thing now. The more I think about it, the more I think this isn't really worth bickering about. :D
-
+1 for Scyphi for that...
Well... if I could :P.
-
We should re-enable the powerups feature for Scyphi exclusively and see how many he racks up in the end :P