FAQ and Primer for COLA, Edition III

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1649

Mark Kent wrote:

>Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz espoused:
>>
>> Oliver Wong said:
>>>
>>> I think this is much closer to the central issue. It's not
>>>whether Microsoft is evil or not. It's just that Microsoft has been
>>>so successful as a capitalistic corporation. Every corporation has
>>>a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profit. And if
>>>breaking the law brings in more revenues than costs, then damn
>>>straight they're going to break the law.
>>
>> No; their responsibility to their stockholders is to maximize revenue
>> *within* the law.
>
>That is absolutely incredible - Mr Wong is actually advocating /breaking
>the law/ in order to make a profit. Presumbly he sees nothing wrong in
>drugs cartels, prostitution pimping gangs, loan sharking,
>theft/burglary/mugging, /so long as/ they're by a company with
>shareholders!

With an attitude like that, Mr Wrong should be working for Micro$oft.
Indeed, if he does not, he's missing his calling!

"If I have to break the law to make more money, then damn straight I'm
going to break the law!"

"Oh, but I'm not evil. I'm actually a really nice guy."

Kier · External Since: Feb 07, 2005 Posts: 2207

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 07:25:00 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:

> begin oe_protect.scr
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap RemoveThis @library.lspace.org.invalid> espoused:
>> begin In <GZwSg.34631$bf5.1718@edtnps90>, on 09/27/2006
>> at 03:42 PM, "Oliver Wong" <owong RemoveThis @castortech.com> said:
>>
>>> For example, if you want to argue that Microsoft is evil, you
>>>should probably state something they did which was morally wrong, as
>>>opposed to something which was illegal (there's a subtle, but
>>>important difference).
>>
>> Ripping off Stac Electronics was morally wrong. Using the money that
>> IBM paid them to devlope OS/2 code for NT was morally wrong.
>> Sabotaging DRDOS was morally wrong. The list goes on.
>>
>>> I think this is much closer to the central issue. It's not
>>>whether Microsoft is evil or not. It's just that Microsoft has been
>>>so successful as a capitalistic corporation. Every corporation has
>>>a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profit. And if
>>>breaking the law brings in more revenues than costs, then damn
>>>straight they're going to break the law.
>>
>> No; their responsibility to their stockholders is to maximize revenue
>> *within* the law.
>>
>
> That is absolutely incredible - Mr Wong is actually advocating /breaking
> the law/ in order to make a profit. Presumbly he sees nothing wrong in
> drugs cartels, prostitution pimping gangs, loan sharking,
> theft/burglary/mugging, /so long as/ they're by a company with
> shareholders!

Oh come on, Mark, he's doing nothing of the kind. He's saying that some
companies *will* almost certainly bend or break the law in order to make
money, which is hardly news. Big business is unfortunately
very often cut-throat. How is that *him* advocating breaking the law? And
to suggest that this means he sees nothig wrong in drugs cartels, etc, is
not only ludicrous, but dishonest of you. I thought you a better man than
that.

>
> That position is outrageous. Perhaps Kier might see a problem here?

Yes, I see one. You aren't being honest here. Sorry, Mark, but that's the
truth.

--
Kier

Kier · External Since: Feb 07, 2005 Posts: 2207

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 07:22:46 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:

> begin oe_protect.scr
> Kier <vallon.RemoveThis@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:28:14 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de> espoused:
>>>> Kier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:02:18 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Kier wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:38:13 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oliver Wrong wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I'm just trying to be helpful,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, you're "just" trying to be helpful, Wrong?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>and letting the Microsoft bashers know
>>>>>>>>>that Microsoft-bashing is offtopic in this newsgroup, and that if they
>>>>>>>>>wish to continue bashing Microsoft, there are newsgroups specifically
>>>>>>>>>set up or that purpose.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, thanks for the tip, Wrong. Now, I'll be helpful and inform you
>>>>>>>> that your M$ apologizing is off-topic in this group.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It doesn't help when you attack a fairly neutral and balanced poster,
>>>>>>>call him stupid names and accuse him of being a 'apologist' just because
>>>>>>>he doesn't assume MS is evil. There is not much point in driving away
>>>>>>>users who might be receptive to using Linux.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this the same "fairly neutral and balanced poster" who accuses
>>>>>> advocates of hypocrisy and double-standards where none exist? The
>>>>>> same "fairly neutral and balanced poster" who feels the need to
>>>>>> chastise advocates for occasional M$-bashing? With all the dross in
>>>>>> this group, a little M$ bashing is hardly worth worrying about.
>>>>>
>>>>> He's a damn sight more balanced than many here. You didn't give him a
>>>>> chance from day one. Try reading what he actually writes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He actually *did* have his chance. Even a second one
>>>> He blew them
>>>
>>> I remain suspicious of Kier's motives... he does seem to go out of his
>>> way to encourage the trolls, even when their position is blindingly
>>> clear to the rest of us.
>>
>> What 'motive's are you ascribing to me, Mark? Frankly, I think Oliver is
>> far less of a troll than many supposed wintrolls here.
>>
>
> I genuinely don't know, but as I said just above, you seem to be able to
> blind yourself to off-topic posting and seem to go out of your way to
> encourage it. I do not understand why you do it. I do not know what
> your motives are, but they might not be good, hence, I remain suspicious
> of them.

You complain of off-topic posting, yet you aren't worried about MS
bashing, which is pretty much the same, and you assume that somehow this
means I have a hidden agenda of some sort? Please don't be stupid, Mark.

I argue with trolls because I hate them. That good enough for you?

If you are going to assume every poster here who is not a Linux advpcate,
and who doesn't automatically think MS is eveil is wintroll, you might as
well stop posting at all. Int is perfectly possible to be interested in
Linux without hating MS or Windows.

--
Kier

--
Kier

"Shmuel · External Since: Mar 31, 2004 Posts: 292

begin In <AyASg.34678$bf5.1105@edtnps90>, on 09/27/2006
at 07:46 PM, "Oliver Wong" <owong RemoveThis @castortech.com> said:

> So AFAICS, Microsoft got rich because it got a lucky deal with
> IBM,

Lucky? M$ got the deal because it misled both IBM and Seattle. Some
might consider that evil, or at least unethical.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap RemoveThis @library.lspace.org

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1649

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:

> "Oliver Wong" <owong.TakeThisOut@castortech.com> said:
>
>> So AFAICS, Microsoft got rich because it got a lucky deal with
>> IBM,
>
>Lucky? M$ got the deal because it misled both IBM and Seattle. Some
>might consider that evil, or at least unethical.

Hehe. I was just thinking, wondering what would happen if you worked
at Micro$oft and you stood-up at a meeting and said "but that would be
unethical!"

I wonder how much time they'd give you to clean-out your desk. Cool

Jim Richardson · External Since: Jan 15, 2005 Posts: 1227

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:49:29 -0500,
chrisv <chrisv.RemoveThis@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>
>> "Oliver Wong" <owong.RemoveThis@castortech.com> said:
>>
>>> So AFAICS, Microsoft got rich because it got a lucky deal with
>>> IBM,
>>
>>Lucky? M$ got the deal because it misled both IBM and Seattle. Some
>>might consider that evil, or at least unethical.
>
> Hehe. I was just thinking, wondering what would happen if you worked
> at Micro$oft and you stood-up at a meeting and said "but that would be
> unethical!"
>
> I wonder how much time they'd give you to clean-out your desk. Cool

>

one of the "Benefits" MS offers their execs, is free psychiatric
counseling for some things. I wonder if it's optional Smile

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFG/2Gd90bcYOAWPYRAginAJ0SM+mJyPZIr7koALmXbVC9dzr45ACdGDJf
uuiMJ//6Rx2JY93f7CTWMUY=
=RqFd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
I'd explain it all to you, but your brain would explode.

"Shmuel · External Since: Mar 31, 2004 Posts: 292

begin In <pan.2006.09.28.08.29.44.109791.TakeThisOut@tiscali.co.uk>, on
09/28/2006
at 09:29 AM, Kier <vallon.TakeThisOut@tiscali.co.uk> said:

>Oh come on, Mark, he's doing nothing of the kind. He's saying that
>some companies *will* almost certainly bend or break the law in order
>to make money, which is hardly news.

Wrong wrote

I think this is much closer to the central issue. It's not
whether Microsoft is evil or not. It's just that Microsoft has
been
so successful as a capitalistic corporation. Every corporation
has a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profit.
And if breaking the law brings in more revenues than costs,
then damn straight they're going to break the law.

That fourth sentence, by itself, would be unexceptionable, but
sandwiched into the middle of the paragraph it is clearly an attempt
to justify illegal behavior.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap.TakeThisOut@library.lspace.org

flatfish+++ · External Since: Dec 12, 2004 Posts: 2793

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 07:25:00 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:

> begin oe_protect.scr
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap RemoveThis @library.lspace.org.invalid> espoused:
>> begin In <GZwSg.34631$bf5.1718@edtnps90>, on 09/27/2006
>> at 03:42 PM, "Oliver Wong" <owong RemoveThis @castortech.com> said:
>>
>>> For example, if you want to argue that Microsoft is evil, you
>>>should probably state something they did which was morally wrong, as
>>>opposed to something which was illegal (there's a subtle, but
>>>important difference).
>>
>> Ripping off Stac Electronics was morally wrong. Using the money that
>> IBM paid them to devlope OS/2 code for NT was morally wrong.
>> Sabotaging DRDOS was morally wrong. The list goes on.
>>
>>> I think this is much closer to the central issue. It's not
>>>whether Microsoft is evil or not. It's just that Microsoft has been
>>>so successful as a capitalistic corporation. Every corporation has
>>>a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profit. And if
>>>breaking the law brings in more revenues than costs, then damn
>>>straight they're going to break the law.
>>
>> No; their responsibility to their stockholders is to maximize revenue
>> *within* the law.
>>
>
> That is absolutely incredible - Mr Wong is actually advocating /breaking
> the law/ in order to make a profit. Presumbly he sees nothing wrong in
> drugs cartels, prostitution pimping gangs, loan sharking,
> theft/burglary/mugging, /so long as/ they're by a company with
> shareholders!
>
> That position is outrageous. Perhaps Kier might see a problem here?

Here comes the typical COLA Nutsack Gang lynch mob in action.

In the previous posts we see kier being ganged up on because he has the
*audacity* to disagree with the COLA Gang and support, at least in part, a
somewhat more moderate poster, Oliver Wong.

In *this* post we see Mark Kent setting up the trap by making a completely
false statement.

Oliver Wong NEVER CONDONED BREAKING THE LAW (inlike Roy Schestowich, who
seems to be an expert at it), he merely STATED the reality of what
corporations do.
See Enron and many more for details.

Get ready now for the feeding frenzy...

BTW are you watching this kier?
You should be.

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1649

flatfish+++ wrote:

>Oliver Wong NEVER CONDONED BREAKING THE LAW

Liar. He did EXACTLY that.

flatfish+++ · External Since: Dec 12, 2004 Posts: 2793

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:29:45 +0100, Kier wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 07:25:00 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap DeleteThis @library.lspace.org.invalid> espoused:
>>> begin In <GZwSg.34631$bf5.1718@edtnps90>, on 09/27/2006
>>> at 03:42 PM, "Oliver Wong" <owong DeleteThis @castortech.com> said:
>>>
>>>> For example, if you want to argue that Microsoft is evil, you
>>>>should probably state something they did which was morally wrong, as
>>>>opposed to something which was illegal (there's a subtle, but
>>>>important difference).
>>>
>>> Ripping off Stac Electronics was morally wrong. Using the money that
>>> IBM paid them to devlope OS/2 code for NT was morally wrong.
>>> Sabotaging DRDOS was morally wrong. The list goes on.
>>>
>>>> I think this is much closer to the central issue. It's not
>>>>whether Microsoft is evil or not. It's just that Microsoft has been
>>>>so successful as a capitalistic corporation. Every corporation has
>>>>a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profit. And if
>>>>breaking the law brings in more revenues than costs, then damn
>>>>straight they're going to break the law.
>>>
>>> No; their responsibility to their stockholders is to maximize revenue
>>> *within* the law.
>>>
>>
>> That is absolutely incredible - Mr Wong is actually advocating /breaking
>> the law/ in order to make a profit. Presumbly he sees nothing wrong in
>> drugs cartels, prostitution pimping gangs, loan sharking,
>> theft/burglary/mugging, /so long as/ they're by a company with
>> shareholders!
>
> Oh come on, Mark, he's doing nothing of the kind. He's saying that some
> companies *will* almost certainly bend or break the law in order to make
> money, which is hardly news. Big business is unfortunately
> very often cut-throat. How is that *him* advocating breaking the law? And
> to suggest that this means he sees nothig wrong in drugs cartels, etc, is
> not only ludicrous, but dishonest of you. I thought you a better man than
> that.
>
>>
>> That position is outrageous. Perhaps Kier might see a problem here?
>
> Yes, I see one. You aren't being honest here. Sorry, Mark, but that's the
> truth.

Exactly kier!!!

Now you are seeing how the COLA Nutsack Gang works to discredit people.

Here is what Oliver wrote and nowhere does he condone it.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d73ba3d96803...f?hl=en

"Every corporation has a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize
profit. And if breaking the law brings in more revenues than costs, then
damn straight they're going to break the law. That's the winning strategy,
after all. EVERY corporation cares only for themselves (or more
specifically, their shareholders), and the world can go to hell, and they
won't care. How can they care? They're not a sentient being. They don't
experience emotions. They're corporations."

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1649

flatfish+++ wrote:

>Exactly kier!!!

Proof that Kier is wrong. I rest my case.

flatfish+++ · External Since: Dec 12, 2004 Posts: 2793

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:01:28 -0300, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:

> I think this is much closer to the central issue. It's not
> whether Microsoft is evil or not. It's just that Microsoft has
> been
> so successful as a capitalistic corporation. Every corporation
> has a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profit.
> And if breaking the law brings in more revenues than costs,
> then damn straight they're going to break the law.
>
> That fourth sentence, by itself, would be unexceptionable, but
> sandwiched into the middle of the paragraph it is clearly an attempt
> to justify illegal behavior.

Now shmoolie arrives to the feeding frenzy to further propagate the wrong
statement Mark "the shill" Kent started this with.

See what's going on kier?

Baloney.

Al he is saying is that corporation WILL BREAK THE LAW in order to
generate more income.
It's been proved over and over again.

NOT that HE CONDONES them breaking the law.

Get real.

flatfish+++ · External Since: Dec 12, 2004 Posts: 2793

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:37:32 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>>Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz espoused:
>>>
>>> Oliver Wong said:
>>>>
>>>> I think this is much closer to the central issue. It's not
>>>>whether Microsoft is evil or not. It's just that Microsoft has been
>>>>so successful as a capitalistic corporation. Every corporation has
>>>>a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profit. And if
>>>>breaking the law brings in more revenues than costs, then damn
>>>>straight they're going to break the law.
>>>
>>> No; their responsibility to their stockholders is to maximize revenue
>>> *within* the law.
>>
>>That is absolutely incredible - Mr Wong is actually advocating /breaking
>>the law/ in order to make a profit. Presumbly he sees nothing wrong in
>>drugs cartels, prostitution pimping gangs, loan sharking,
>>theft/burglary/mugging, /so long as/ they're by a company with
>>shareholders!
>
> With an attitude like that, Mr Wrong should be working for Micro$oft.
> Indeed, if he does not, he's missing his calling!
>
> "If I have to break the law to make more money, then damn straight I'm
> going to break the law!"
>
> "Oh, but I'm not evil. I'm actually a really nice guy."

And now chris "the plonk king" arrives at the frenzy to make another false
statement based on the other false statements.

We now have the beginnings of "The Tower Of Babel".

Are you updating your scorecard kier?

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1649

flatfish+++ wrote:

>chrisv wrote:
>>
>> With an attitude like that, Mr Wrong should be working for Micro$oft.
>> Indeed, if he does not, he's missing his calling!
>>
>> "If I have to break the law to make more money, then damn straight I'm
>> going to break the law!"
>>
>> "Oh, but I'm not evil. I'm actually a really nice guy."
>
>And now chris "the plonk king" arrives at the frenzy

Liar. For better or for worse, It was my posts that begot this little
sub-thread. I did not just "arrive".

>to make another false statement based on the other false statements.

Liar. Wrong said pretty much exactly that.

flatfish+++ · External Since: Dec 12, 2004 Posts: 2793

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:33:14 +0000, Mathew P. wrote:

> Sorry, I am going to be addressing things fairly often.
>
> I agree that the singular, generalized statement, "microsoft is evil", is
> a fairly simplistic view of the company and it's influence. As I said
> in my previous post, actions are the true measure of character, and
> as an extension, actions are the true measure of ethical non-evil
> behaviour, and speak much louder than words. I feel fairly sure that the
> statement, "microsoft is evil" is simply a statement reflecting those
> business practices of microsoft that are blatantly unethical, and yes,
> evil. Amoung these is a history of victimizing others; individuals,
> business entities, and governments, in many, many different ways.
>
> Microsoft is company made up of many parts and many thousands of
> employees. Microsoft in and of itself, is not evil. Those that create
> and steer it's unethical practices, are.
>
> At least in this thread, there has been no claim that contrasts microsofts
> misdeeds in a comparitive fasion, with those of other business entities.
> It's really irrelevant anyway. Relative evil is a meaningless concept. Evil
> is evil. There are no shades of grey. Whether or not microsoft is 'more evil'
> than, say, google, is as I said, irrelevant. This is true of any kind of
> company, and any individual or group. As I said previously, it's all about
> the choices that are made. Animals have instinct and must act according to
> them. We have the power of reasoning, and the responsibility of choice.
>

> I find this conversation quite interesting. Thanks Smile

>
> regards,
>
> Mathew

And finally a rational post.
Good post Mathew

flatfish+++ · External Since: Dec 12, 2004 Posts: 2793

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:33:43 +0100, Kier wrote:

> You complain of off-topic posting, yet you aren't worried about MS
> bashing, which is pretty much the same, and you assume that somehow this
> means I have a hidden agenda of some sort? Please don't be stupid, Mark.

See the paranoia and the double standard at work?
You should.

> I argue with trolls because I hate them. That good enough for you?

You will never please the COLA Nutsack Gang until you conform TOTALLY to
what they want and NEVER say a bad word about Linux.

IOW, NEVER reply to the topic when you can attack the poster.

> If you are going to assume every poster here who is not a Linux advpcate,
> and who doesn't automatically think MS is eveil is wintroll, you might as
> well stop posting at all. Int is perfectly possible to be interested in
> Linux without hating MS or Windows.
>
> --
> Kier

And Mark Kent has been doing this for years.
So has William Poaster and more recently Roy Schestowich.

You are NOW seeing and experiencing what I have been sayng for YEARS.

And we rarely agree kier.

flatfish+++ · External Since: Dec 12, 2004 Posts: 2793

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:29:56 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> flatfish+++ wrote:
>
>>Oliver Wong NEVER CONDONED BREAKING THE LAW
>
> Liar. He did EXACTLY that.

All your lies won't change the facts which have already been posted.

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1649

flatfish+++ wrote:

>won't change the facts which have already been posted.

What's been posted speaks for itself, true.

Oliver Wong · External Since: Apr 27, 2006 Posts: 1398

"Kier" <vallon.DeleteThis@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.09.28.11.55.29.445671@tiscali.co.uk...
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:36:06 +0200, Peter KÃ¶hlmann wrote:
>
>> Kier wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:30:41 +0200, Peter KÃ¶hlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 07:25:00 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>>>>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap.DeleteThis@library.lspace.org.invalid>
>>>>>> espoused:
>>>>>>> begin In <GZwSg.34631$bf5.1718@edtnps90>, on 09/27/2006
>>>>>>> at 03:42 PM, "Oliver Wong" <owong.DeleteThis@castortech.com> said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think this is much closer to the central issue. It's not
>>>>>>>>whether Microsoft is evil or not. It's just that Microsoft has been
>>>>>>>>so successful as a capitalistic corporation. Every corporation has
>>>>>>>>a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profit. And if
>>>>>>>>breaking the law brings in more revenues than costs, then damn
>>>>>>>>straight they're going to break the law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No; their responsibility to their stockholders is to maximize
>>>>>>> revenue
>>>>>>> *within* the law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is absolutely incredible - Mr Wong is actually advocating
>>>>>> /breaking
>>>>>> the law/ in order to make a profit. Presumbly he sees nothing wrong
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> drugs cartels, prostitution pimping gangs, loan sharking,
>>>>>> theft/burglary/mugging, /so long as/ they're by a company with
>>>>>> shareholders!
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh come on, Mark, he's doing nothing of the kind. He's saying that
>>>>> some
>>>>> companies *will* almost certainly bend or break the law in order to
>>>>> make
>>>>> money, which is hardly news. Big business is unfortunately
>>>>> very often cut-throat. How is that *him* advocating breaking the law?
>>>>> And to suggest that this means he sees nothig wrong in drugs cartels,
>>>>> etc, is not only ludicrous, but dishonest of you. I thought you a
>>>>> better
>>>>> man than that.
>>>>>
[...]
>>>> What part of "Every corporation has a responsibility to their
>>>> shareholders to maximize profit. And if breaking the law brings in more
>>>> revenues than costs, then damn straight they're going to break the
>>>> law."
>>>> was too difficult for you to understand?
>>>
>>> I understood it perfectly.
>>>
>>
>> Apparently not
>
> I understood it perfectly.
>
>>
>>>> Because that is exactly, verbatim what O. Wong has written. In short,
>>>> he
>>>> says that companies have the *responsibility* to their shareholders to
>>>> brake the law in order to maximize profits
>>>
>>> NO, he said that they would in all probibility resort to breaking the
>>> law
>>> if that's what it took.
>>
>> "then damn straight they're going to break the law" has now the meaning
>> of "all probibility"? Welcome, Erik II
>
> Where does it make him in approval of it? Nowhere.

For the record, Kier has correctly interpreted the message I wish to
convey. I am not saying breaking the law is a good thing. I'm saying it
happens. I've seen it often enough to become cynical enough to believe it
happens in every business in the world. I've seen it in restaurants when I
worked as a busboy and waiter as a teenager (I was paid under the table),
I've seen in it lawfirms where I've done some network setup and
administration (they had pirated copies of Windows XP), I've seen it in AT&T
as a telemarketer, etc.

I see it every day in my home town in Montreal, Quebec: People jaywalk
here like crazy. Many (most?) people will break the law without a second
thought if they think the advantages it'll bring outweight the drawbacks.
And if they believe they're not going to get caught, then the drawbacks are
essentially zero.

I'm trying to tell you guys not to be surprised when a big corporation
(whether that corporation is Microsoft or otherwise) breaks the law. I'm not
saying that I encourage it.

The point that I'm sort of hinting at, but am a bit too lazy to discuss
in depth right now, is that Microsoft is just maximizing utility, just like
every other rational agent (whether they be corporations or individual
humans). What I don't really care to get into is whether the ethics of
utilitarianism is morally "good" or "evil".

- Oliver

Oliver Wong · External Since: Apr 27, 2006 Posts: 1398

"chrisv" <chrisv.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:8pjnh21iij7lce3qoaktn0o6c2mj8g4a33@4ax.com...
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>>Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz espoused:
>>>
>>> Oliver Wong said:
>>>>
>>>> I think this is much closer to the central issue. It's not
>>>>whether Microsoft is evil or not. It's just that Microsoft has been
>>>>so successful as a capitalistic corporation. Every corporation has
>>>>a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profit. And if
>>>>breaking the law brings in more revenues than costs, then damn
>>>>straight they're going to break the law.
>>>
>>> No; their responsibility to their stockholders is to maximize revenue
>>> *within* the law.
>>
>>That is absolutely incredible - Mr Wong is actually advocating /breaking
>>the law/ in order to make a profit. Presumbly he sees nothing wrong in
>>drugs cartels, prostitution pimping gangs, loan sharking,
>>theft/burglary/mugging, /so long as/ they're by a company with
>>shareholders!
>
> With an attitude like that, Mr Wrong should be working for Micro$oft.
> Indeed, if he does not, he's missing his calling!
>
> "If I have to break the law to make more money, then damn straight I'm
> going to break the law!"
>
> "Oh, but I'm not evil. I'm actually a really nice guy."

You misrepresent me. I do believe in utilitarianism, in the sense that
if breaking the law brings me more advatanges than disadvantages, then yes,
I'm going to break the law. For example, if I have to cross a red light to
save my mother's life, then I will do so.

However, the above statement seems to have you assume that the advantage
of "more money" is worth more than the risk of going to jail or paying
penalties. They're not. And that's why I don't break the law in the ways you
are implying. I don't shoplift candy bars, for example, because although the
risk of getting caught is probably low, if I *DO* get caught, the penalties
vastly outweight the advantage. I don't rob a bank because although the
potential benefits are very high compared to the penalties, the risk itself
is very high (i.e. I'm very unlikely to succeed without special training in
urban firearm tactics, for example), so I don't rob banks.

I acknowledge that this philosophy is a very controversial one, but I
think it underlies the behaviour of all rational agents. If you claim that
you don't consider all possible actions and always choose the most optimal
one, then you are either irrational, stupid, or dishonest.

- Oliver