OT: Public referrendums on destroying evil companies [Archive]

DavidG

October 24th, 2003, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Loser:

No legislating more protection for foolishness. You didn't get Gator without clicking yes on something you shouldn't have. If anyone Posts after this saying they didn't click on anything and got it they are mistaken. I apologize if I offend you, but I deal with this stuff all day.
So what your saying is that when I install an app that has Gator hidden in it It will pop up a nice clear message. 'Do you want to also install Gator. It is a advertising program that will deluge you with annoying popups?" Yea right. It's pretty obvious companies like Gator specifically attempt to get their software on your computer without your knowledge. And that should be illegal.
Legislating protection for the foolish? Sure we should. We do it all the time. ie Seatbelt laws. There are a lot of very intelligent people who just don't happen to be computer experts (Hi Mom, Hi Dad!) These companies should not be allowed to annoy them and bugger up their computers. (and waste their sons time to go up and fix the computer)

David E. Gervais

October 24th, 2003, 12:44 PM

FYI: (and this might shock the **** out of you..) When a 'Gator' dialogue box pops up and asks if you wish to install it [YES] [NO].

Clicking on either answer will promptly install the spy/ad ware. In fact the 'Gator Dialogue' only pops up after it is installed.

nuf said.

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Edit: P.S. Here's some more food for thought..

ALL Software companies are ".. not responsible for any damage or loss of data caused by the use of this product.. blah, blah, blah.." Do you agree to these terms? [YES] [NO]

How can someone (Corporation) Design, build and sell a product and claim absolutely no responsibility for it's preformance and or and damage directly caused by it's product?

I think 'Drug Companies' should all list 'Death' as a possible side effect, and then they would be safe from any lawsuits. (It makes as much sense as the software licence.)

..sometimes I can babble too much, just kick me in the head and I'll stop. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ October 24, 2003, 11:57: Message edited by: David E. Gervais ]

Cyrien

October 24th, 2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
Software will always have bugs, always. Requiring that a company put anything more than their reputation on the line is just unfair. Add to that the strange and eldritch ways that certain pieces of software work fine separately but clash together and you're putting Atlas' burden on anyone who wants to make any piece of software. You don't want to take the risk, you don't install the software. Yeah, it's expensive, but the law doesn't guarantee cheap computer services, and I don't think it should. So... people shouldn't be allowed to post lawsuits against faulty mechanical construction. All mechanical devices will have some faultiness in them i]always[/i]. So if we require say... automobile companies and tire manufacturing companies to put more on the line than just their reputations that would be unfair.

Of course we do. If something goes wrong with your car you can take legal action against those responsible, against either the people that put it in incorrectly or manufactured it in a faulty manner, regardless of your permission to install it you have a right to expect that once installed it will work as advertised without conflicting with something else that you already have, and if it does then you should be informed and asked if you still want to go through with it.
In software it just so happens that the people that "manufacture" it and install it are one in the same in most cases. Does that mean that they shouldn't be held responsible?

No you could argue that in auto and most other mechanical industries a persons physical well being and life could be put at risk so they have to be held to higher standards. However with a computer a persons economic well being can be put at risk. Is this any less important than their physical well being? By holding a company responsible for far more than just its reputation you help to ensure that it will at the very least attempt to prevent these harmfull defects. Will some still get through? Of course. Will as many? NO.

This is the difference between the software industry and automotive and other industries. We don't let them get away with foisting a poorly made product on us and telling us that we are responsible for it. Oh... the engine needs to be replaced one week after you bought it... you can deal with it, it is your problem.

Ok... so patches... we have patches. They can fix many problems that exist when it is released. Imagine that business model with anything else. What? The door doesn't work? Oh ok... we will just pop on a new one that a week later we will learn doesn't let the windows roll down and then we will replace that which will of course cause the windshield wipers to fail...

I wonder how much unreported economic damage is caused due to this BS? I can talk to close friends in multiple different industries and hear stories of thousand, hundred thousand, and even million and multi million dollar business decisions, legal cases, deals, etc failing or almost failing due to software glitches that the companies that produced are not held responsible for.
So Microsofts reputation is hurt... they have a monopoly or near monopoly on several areas. What is your alternative? A secondary software product which your fellows don't support on their system? OH yah... a real alternative. Or maybe a freeware product with no support? That isn't an improvement.

Quite simply the companies due need to be held responsible for their products and not just based on their reputation, just like every other industry that currently exists in the world. If your bank screws up it is their responsibility. If your computer hardware screws up it is their responsibility. If your car screws up it is their responsibility. Not always. After all we make mistakes as well, but so do they and they need to be held accountable for theirs just like we are for ours.

You hit another persons car in an accident and no on is hurt but the cars are totalled. The person you hit has no other means of transportation and can no longer reach their place of work or run other necessary chores, but you are not responsible except for your reputation as a bad driver? No. You and everyone else must be held responsible for their actions and damages that result from them.

Is the computer a different and complicated medium? Yes. Will the rules need to be changed a little? Yes. Must we all be held accountable for our actions in this new medium? Yes.

BC3000AD released totally unworking. The designer (whatever other faults he may have) told the company it wasn't ready to be released. They released it anyways. A lawsuit ensues between the designer and the company for ownership rights with the company just wanting to call it a flop and the designer wanting to get it to work.

Imagine this in any other industry? The car company releases a car that doesn't just work badly it doesn't work at all and they just want to call it a flop and move on with all the people who purchased it left stranded? BS.

Price you say? So we move down to say a video game system. Release one of those and it doesn't work and you still have a *bleep* storm and pubklic accountability. Modern software can cost less than the $150 for a video game system. But it can also cost MORE! So why don't they have the same accountability? Why shouldn't they?

PS: Sorry for the bit of rant in there.

Thermodyne

October 24th, 2003, 05:30 PM

Gator installs software without the expressed permission and consent of the user. This is against the law in many states,

The RIAA is an evil solution, but the industry was left few alternatives. If the current situation continues, there will be little or no music industry left by the end of the decade. People and business have to make a profit; such is what makes to world go round. And the owner of a song or movie or code is entitled to charge for its use. Most bands make very little money as it is, and P2P has already adversely impacted the ability of new Groups to break into the industry. Just look at what has happened to the music industries profits and then graft it to CD-R sales and P2P net use. Do you want new music, or free oldies? That is where we are heading.

Microsoft is a well run company and is at best over aggressive in finding and protecting markets. But current law is sufficient to control them. Personally, I would like to see American industry adopt MS�s management strategies. Very few corporations are looking past the next few dividend checks these days. It should also be noted that MS was able to gain control of many of its smaller competitors with the lure of quick money; so much of the current situation was brought upon the industry by its own greed. I think things will continue as they are for now. And it should be noted that MS is investing more money in its next OS than any American company has ever invested in a new product in the history of America. Now to drop the other shoe, I would like to see product liability law applied to software. Not just MS, but all software. That is the protection that the consumer needs at this time.

Who gives a rats behind about what McD�s sells. You eat there or you don�t, so what. You could package doggy doo and sell it as health food; someone would be stupid enough to buy it.

No, public referendum is an evil perVersion of democracy. It was seen as such by our founding fathers, and more than a few of them warned of it in their writings. Public opinion is far too susceptible to manipulation, and far too small a percentage of the population is capable of having an independent thought or opinion. There is even a smaller percentage that can reason events out in a responsible reasonable fashion. The counter to this has always been delay. The government delays action and waits for public opinion to change; changes were only made if the support for an idea continued to carry a majority over a long period of time. Sure this has been to the displeasure of some, but to swing the other way would end up being to the displeasure of many. An American example would be prohibition. An American experience would be pot and tobacco. On the smaller scale of the question, if it were that way, Toyota would be out of business, their early cars and service sucked. The Vega would have been the end of GM. And Ford would have died with the Mustang II and Fairmont. Every company that dared to bring a new cutting edge technology to market would end up being disbanded. Anyone remember the first cell phones (bricks). Heck, what about the internet and 12k or less dial up. And let�s not forget the crud that passed for color TV back in the day. No, I think it is best left to the open market and the courts as to how long a corporation survives. Think about it, if public opinion ruled, the IRS would be gone long ago. And with it all resemblance to the America as it is today. Electricity would be free; there just wouldn�t be any to be had. Same with food and every thing else. What people want, and what is workable, just don�t often go together.

narf poit chez BOOM

October 24th, 2003, 08:20 PM

ok, seeing as this thread is getting really long Posts and i don't really want to read page and a half Posts, i'll just say that mechanical devices can be built to a standard because mechanics has been around for thousands of years. the principle's are well-known. computers are very, very new and the principle's are still being established. therefore, a company that produces mechanical devices can be expected to make them compatable with standardized tools, while a company that makes computer's cannot. also, a mechanical device with the complexity of the average computer would probable be the size of a football stadium.

apples and pineapples.

Cyrien

October 24th, 2003, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
ok, seeing as this thread is getting really long Posts and i don't really want to read page and a half Posts, i'll just say that mechanical devices can be built to a standard because mechanics has been around for thousands of years. the principle's are well-known. computers are very, very new and the principle's are still being established. therefore, a company that produces mechanical devices can be expected to make them compatable with standardized tools, while a company that makes computer's cannot. also, a mechanical device with the complexity of the average computer would probable be the size of a football stadium.

apples and pineapples. It would probably be larger than a football stadium, maybe a continent.

Further the principles of modern mechanical manufacturing have not been around for 1000s of years (you still got that old Roman SUV made in 25BC? So do I) more like 200 or 300 total years, which is still quite abit... except they are constantly evolving and innovating.

The way you make cars today with modern steels and pLastics AND microchips for the internal computers is not very much like what Ford did.

My post wasn't against computer manufacturing, who are still held accountable for the mistakes they make in their machines as are the auto inudstry and other manufacturing industries.
My point was that in all these industries, the automotive, the computer making, the banking, etc... there is always accoutability to the indivual Users for a product that fails. There is not the same level of accountability for software. And there should be. And if you want to go back in time then you can find accountability to the user for defective merchandise even 1000's of years ago. Checkout Hammurabis code. If the house you build for another collapses and kills the owner or son or slave etc... accountability for the job you do for someone else in the oldest written law code.

DavidG

October 24th, 2003, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
First, DavidG, seatbelts and motorcycle eye-protection are both matters of public safety and work to prevent bodily injury. That hardly compares to ad/spyware.

Second, there's a whole heck of a lot of software built into just about every thing you install. If a software maker wants to take Gator's money and include it in their package they're responsible for that bit of subVersion, and are risking their reputation.
I can't believe you are defending spyware companies?? It is pretty obvious (at least to me) that these companies make an extra effort to get their crap on your computer without your knowing.
The seatbelt law may be a bad example but there are numerous examples of laws to protect the foolish (or at least what you may percieve as foolish)

Loser

October 24th, 2003, 09:33 PM

I loath spyware, who doens't?

But the software company that chose to include Gator in their product should be your target on those 'stealth' installations.

DavidG

October 24th, 2003, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
I loath spyware, who doens't?

But the software company that chose to include Gator in their product should be your target on those 'stealth' installations. I believe they are both equally guilty.

Cyrien

October 24th, 2003, 09:44 PM

You should go after both of them. Unless Gator went to those companies and said
"Gee, we will pay you this money to have this program install with yours but you have to make sure that the user knows they are installing it and exactly what it does when it installs with yours."

I doubt that conversation occurred at all, ever. Thus both companies would be on my target list, but Gator would be on top because they produced it. I can target the other company but then Gator will just goto the next one and the next one over and over against and it keeps going. Get the source and it stops, get the symptons and you will be doing it over and over.

narf poit chez BOOM

October 24th, 2003, 10:44 PM

guess i will read this a bit longer.

my point is that computer software can't be held to the same standard becuase it's impossible or nearly so for the maker to understand how it will perform in enough situations; unlike mechanics which is a lot more simple and has been practiced for thousands of years. of course it's not modern mechanics, but that's a lot of background and theory for something a lot more simple.

also, your computer games are unlikely to kill you if they fail. i do think there should be accountability for known bugs that they know they could fix, but how would you determine that? get a court order for another company to fix it, paid for by the first one?

PvK

October 25th, 2003, 12:49 AM

In reply to the quote below, the current businesses behind the RIAA don't make much music at all, if any. Mainly they just monopolize the sales and distribution of the music, and reap billions of dollars off of the work of others, via cartel-like operations. They don't serve much useful purpose except for themselves, their stock holders, and the puppet stars who don't have enough actual talent to be successful musicians without a megacorporate hype engine behind them.

PvK

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
...
The RIAA is an evil solution, but the industry was left few alternatives. If the current situation continues, there will be little or no music industry left by the end of the decade. People and business have to make a profit; such is what makes to world go round. And the owner of a song or movie or code is entitled to charge for its use. Most bands make very little money as it is, and P2P has already adversely impacted the ability of new Groups to break into the industry. Just look at what has happened to the music industries profits and then graft it to CD-R sales and P2P net use. Do you want new music, or free oldies? That is where we are heading.

...

DavidG

October 25th, 2003, 12:57 AM

So what's with McDonalds making the list? Don't like it don't go there. I've been there about once in the Last couple years. Now if they were like MS and say used illegal business practices to ensure that I had to have a Bic Mac because every meal I ordered anywhere in the world had to be eaten with a Big Mac and the Big Mac cause me all kinds of problems then I'd be pissed.
McDonalds is easy no ignore or avoid. MS not so much.

Loser

October 25th, 2003, 01:17 AM

First, DavidG, seatbelts and motorcycle eye-protection are both matters of public safety and work to prevent bodily injury. That hardly compares to ad/spyware.

Second, there's a whole heck of a lot of software built into just about every thing you install. If a software maker wants to take Gator's money and include it in their package they're responsible for that bit of subVersion, and are risking their reputation.

Also, David G., I've gotten that dialog box and I don't have Gator. The Internet Explorer can be set to demand confirmation for any ActiveX action, including the installation of software, and I'm fairly sure it defaults to asking confirmation for that specific action. Of course, if you installed an IE upgrade from a third-party vendor, like an ISP or OEM hardware vendor, tags can be set in the installation that change these defaults.

Software will always have bugs, always. Requiring that a company put anything more than their reputation on the line is just unfair. Add to that the strange and eldritch ways that certain pieces of software work fine separately but clash together and you're putting Atlas' burden on anyone who wants to make any piece of software. You don't want to take the risk, you don't install the software. Yeah, it's expensive, but the law doesn't guarantee cheap computer services, and I don't think it should.

[ October 24, 2003, 12:18: Message edited by: Loser ]

deccan

October 25th, 2003, 01:49 AM

I think it is true that the software industry gets away with things that would not be tolerated in any other industry. Legislating for things like minimum performance guarantees etc. is a perfectly valid subject for debate but then there is the question of whether or not we are willing to pay for it in terms of more expensive software and possibly less innovation.

PvK

October 25th, 2003, 02:15 AM

Well I was mainly interested to actually poll and see what people's opinions were, and to offer a range of businesses some people don't like in various different ways, to see how it affected the poll.

Including McFonalds on the poll was also partly for humor, and also partly to see how many fellow McDonalds loathers there were.

As far as my personal opinion (which I didn't expect the majority to share - and I see they don't - hehe), my main objection to McDonalds is that there are so many of them, all nearly identical, depressingly pLastic, and their corporate agenda seems to be to cover the entire planet with them. Their annoying advertizing with actors pretending their food is wonderful, combined with their food being awful, earns them more animosity points. I think the world would be a better place if they were restricted to the US, Canada if the people want them there, and then maybe like one per foreign nation. When I visit an ancient foreign city and see McDonalds logos on the trash buckets and lamp Posts, I think they've gone too far. They're a megacorp driven by investment capital, so unless someone tells them it kinda sucks to have them everywhere, they're just going to keep spreading.

PvK

Originally posted by DavidG:
So what's with McDonalds making the list? Don't like it don't go there. I've been there about once in the Last couple years. Now if they were like MS and say used illegal business practices to ensure that I had to have a Bic Mac because every meal I ordered anywhere in the world had to be eaten with a Big Mac and the Big Mac cause me all kinds of problems then I'd be pissed.
McDonalds is easy no ignore or avoid. MS not so much.

SpaceBadger

October 25th, 2003, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by David E. Gervais:
FYI: (and this might shock the **** out of you..) When a 'Gator' dialogue box pops up and asks if you wish to install it [YES] [NO].

Clicking on either answer will promptly install the spy/ad ware. In fact the 'Gator Dialogue' only pops up after it is installed.
You're sure about this? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Dang, I run into one of those dialog boxes a couple times a month I think, just surfing the web (seems like one of those freebie places, like fortunecities or geocities or something like that, pops up the box every time I go there). Always click NO, of course. You mean that each time that has happened the site has installed Gator on my machine? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Sigh, I guess it is time to hunt up and install some anti-spyware app - any recommendations? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

SpaceBadger

Phoenix-D

October 25th, 2003, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by Cyrien:

My post wasn't against computer manufacturing, who are still held accountable for the mistakes they make in their machines as are the auto inudstry and other manufacturing industries.
My point was that in all these industries, the automotive, the computer making, the banking, etc... there is always accoutability to the indivual Users for a product that fails. There is not the same level of accountability for software. And there should be. And if you want to go back in time then you can find accountability to the user for defective merchandise even 1000's of years ago. Checkout Hammurabis code. If the house you build for another collapses and kills the owner or son or slave etc... accountability for the job you do for someone else in the oldest written law code. Mmm. And who is accountable if you select un unstable site to build your home on, and prevent the builders from learning of it?

Who is accountable if you let your tires go flat, but insist on driving on them anyway, and something goes wrong?

Essentially your accountability would drive the -smaller- publishers of software out of business. I can go into any PC store and put together at least 1000 combinations of software. Add to that OS and driver updates (even including ONLY those that improve performance or add features) and the number of possibilities gets ridiclous. And any one of those possibilites could cause a problem.

rextorres

October 25th, 2003, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
So what's with McDonalds making the list? Don't like it don't go there. I've been there about once in the Last couple years. Now if they were like MS and say used illegal business practices to ensure that I had to have a Bic Mac because every meal I ordered anywhere in the world had to be eaten with a Big Mac and the Big Mac cause me all kinds of problems then I'd be pissed.
McDonalds is easy no ignore or avoid. MS not so much. McDonald's because of their buying power has a HUGE influence on the way our food is produced so even if you never set foot in one if affects what you eat. There are many negatives examples of why we should care, but I will provide a positive one: McDonald's is one of the largest consumers of eggs and they decided not to use eggs from battery chickens - it's turned the egg industry on its head and battery chickens will soon be a thing of the past.

If you don't know - battery chickens are kept in a dark cage for their entire existance, they get stir crazy so their beaks are burned off so they don't peck themselves to death, their feet get fused to the cage, etc. A gruesome existance for a chicken. One might care, though, because all the anti-biotics the chicken needs to survive in this existance is passed on to us.

Anyway - an egg mcmuffin hits the spot now and then.

narf poit chez BOOM

October 25th, 2003, 03:51 AM

Essentially your accountability would drive the -smaller- publishers of software out of business. I can go into any PC store and put together at least 1000 combinations of software. Add to that OS and driver updates (even including ONLY those that improve performance or add features) and the number of possibilities gets ridiclous. And any one of those possibilites could cause a problem.
my point, exactly. and with cars, at least you can tell if you have a flat tire - or a bad road interface. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Cyrien

October 25th, 2003, 03:52 AM

Each person is indeed responsible for their own actions, as are the companies. Can they make sure that their software runs well and perfectly with every other piece of software out there? No.

Can and should they be held responsible for the quality of their own product running on its own? Yes.

Are they?
Why don't you check that Last EULA you agreed to on your software. It quite plainly says that they aren't.

Can a car manufacturer ensure that each of the hundreds of pieces that make up each car will work perfectly with any piece made by anyone else? No.

Can and should they be held responsible for the quality of their own product running on its own?
Yes.

Are they?
Yes.

Brief Exerpt from a EULA: Name of Company edited out.

4. Exceptions to Warranties; Disclaimers. Except for the above express limited warranty, blahblahblah disclaims any and all other warranties, express or implied, including any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for particular purpose. Blahblahblah does not warrant that the Software, its use, operation or your ability to use the Software will be uninterrupted or error-free or that all Software errors will be corrected . The warranty set forth above shall not apply to any defect or problems caused by any defect in any hardware or software used in combination with the Software, or use of the Software in execution environments not specified in the Documentation. Blahblahblah does not warrant that the Software or service will meet your requirements or that the operation of the Software will be uninterrupted or error free.

5. Limitations of Liability. In no event shall blahblahblah be liable for any damages to you or any other party whether arising out of contract or from tort including loss of data, profits or business or other special, incidental, exemplary or consequential damages, even if blahblahblah has been advised of the possibility of such loss or damages. Blahblahblah cumulative liability shall not exceed the license fee paid, if any, for use of this Software and Documentation. This section shall survive termination of this License.

Now the bold parts are intersting. So even if under the limited warranty you have damages that don't result from other software or a bad and unsupported OS and even if it was reported to them that hitting the F key five times in a row caused the software to format your harddrive even under those circumstances they aren't responsible. Even if they are responsible by some miracle of divine intervention then total damages payed by them to you shall not exceed the cost of said software.

So you lose 2 million dollars due to a fried server running software that the manufacturer knew before hand was faulty but did not inform you or do anything to correct it and it isn't their fault. So, that software company will probably go under now. Fat lot of good it does you and your now bankrupt butt that is penniless and jobless.

In fact the software people are probably still better off than you because they aren't responsible for you and hundreds of others losses and they could probably see their own collapse coming and prepared for it.

That sort of "Contract" is what I have a problem with.

Imagine signing a contract with a car dealer and in the contract it stated that even if the dealer knew that after ten miles distance it would explode and kill you he wasn't responsible.

Baron Munchausen

October 25th, 2003, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
So what's with McDonalds making the list? Don't like it don't go there. I've been there about once in the Last couple years. Now if they were like MS and say used illegal business practices to ensure that I had to have a Bic Mac because every meal I ordered anywhere in the world had to be eaten with a Big Mac and the Big Mac cause me all kinds of problems then I'd be pissed.
McDonalds is easy no ignore or avoid. MS not so much. I'm surprised you need to ask this. McDonalds is a multi-billion dollar international corporation. Do you think they could be so huge without being deeply involved in the same sleazy practices as the other corporate giants? Pay a visit to www.mcspotlight.org (http://www.mcspotlight.org) some time and you will learn something about how they obtain the cheap food that makes their business model possible, how they treat their workers, and how utterly amoral their management is.

narf poit chez BOOM

October 25th, 2003, 06:58 AM

Cyrien made sense.

rextorres

October 25th, 2003, 08:17 AM

Cyrien:

Those types of license agreements - although menacing - aren't really binding they are just there to prevent the crackpots from filing frivolous lawsuit.

Typically it's not worth challenging these agreements anyway because one has to show damages and if WORD, for instance, crashes my machine it would be nearly impossible for me to show any real damages. What would be the loss? My intellectual property. How does one value that?

Also it may SEEM that it's easier to sue a car company. In reality, however, the cases that people usually refer to were huge class action lawsuit that took years to go through the courts and involved hundreds of documented deaths and millions of dollars in damages.

I think a more fair analogy would be something like this. I bought a lemon and it broke down and caused me to be late to work resulting in me being fired. It was the automobile company's fault for me being late but see what happens if I tried to sue for the lost wages. The best that I could hope for would be to get my money back for the car and MAYBE a free car wash for my troubles. Something similar to the standard license agreement you quoted.

With that said I guarantee you that if a corporation drops lots of money on a piece of software there will be an agreement that supercedes the standard license agreement and the software company will be liable if the software causes monetary damages to the purchaser.

[ October 25, 2003, 08:03: Message edited by: rextorres ]

deccan

October 25th, 2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
I'm surprised you need to ask this. McDonalds is a multi-billion dollar international corporation. Do you think they could be so huge without being deeply involved in the same sleazy practices as the other corporate giants?This is an incredibly incendiary statement. So all big corporations are sleazy and immoral by default? Or is it the basic drive for profits itself that is immoral?

What are you asking for precisely? If McDonald's has broken any laws, then of course they should be punished for it. Perhaps you want to campaign for some additional laws to regulate companies like McDonalds. You are free to do so.

In the meantime, you are also free not to eat at MacDonalds and ask your friends and family members to do the same, in the same way that other people can decide for themselves whether or not McDonalds' practices are really horrible enough to make them boycott the firm's products. This is simply the court of public opinion.

Personally, I do eat at McDonalds from time to time, though not often, and it doesn't bother me the least.

Cyrien

October 25th, 2003, 07:40 PM

Actually the legal status of EULAs is still a matter open to debate. Whether a specific clause is valid or not is upto the courts. So how things get applied is upto the Judge you get deciding the case. In the case of the software companies they can often afford to take it all the way to the extreme if they so decide. How far can the average person take it? And yes this does also apply to the automative industries and other large industries but at least in those cases they don't have the legal "contract" of the EULA binding you with those ridiculous claims. If you get a bad judge who ignores or doesn't know the law then you are likely to lose to the "Contract". Can you afford to take a bad ruling to the next level? The software companies can.

Here is a nice LINK (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23073.html) to a case where the court was in favor of us the people for a specific clause in a EULA. That does not however overrule all of them and any recent EULAs will not have that clause in them anymore. However now they are trying a new tactic the tactic of

Exerpt from EULA:

6. General. This agreement shall be governed by the laws of X.

Where X is whatever country or state has the laws that would most favor them. How that will be handled has yet to be seen.

narf poit chez BOOM

October 25th, 2003, 10:06 PM

actually, that 'governed by the laws of X' seems to refer to the place the company is at. still, your the one that'll pay airfare.

Saber Cherry

October 25th, 2003, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by SpaceBadger:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by David E. Gervais:
FYI: (and this might shock the **** out of you..) When a 'Gator' dialogue box pops up and asks if you wish to install it [YES] [NO].

Clicking on either answer will promptly install the spy/ad ware. In fact the 'Gator Dialogue' only pops up after it is installed.
You're sure about this? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Dang, I run into one of those dialog boxes a couple times a month I think, just surfing the web (seems like one of those freebie places, like fortunecities or geocities or something like that, pops up the box every time I go there). Always click NO, of course. You mean that each time that has happened the site has installed Gator on my machine? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Sigh, I guess it is time to hunt up and install some anti-spyware app - any recommendations? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

SpaceBadger <hr /></blockquote>I'm not sure about that, but who knows. I use Lavasoft's Ad-Aware. It's free, small, fast, and works well.

DavidG

October 26th, 2003, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Pay a visit to www.mcspotlight.org (http://www.mcspotlight.org) some time and you will learn something about how they obtain the cheap food that makes their business model possible, how they treat their workers, and how utterly amoral their management is. Hmmm some intersting stuff there... and also a lot of funny crap. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif One one of the pages it suggest McD is causing world hunger by promoting the meat culture. Like if it wasn't for McD we'd all be vegitarians and there'd be enough food for the whole world. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif And McD is responsible for global warming cause of all that methane cows produce. Like if McD's dissapeared tomorrow we all start eating salads.

minipol

October 26th, 2003, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
I'm not sure about that, but who knows. I use Lavasoft's Ad-Aware. It's free, small, fast, and works well. I also use Spybot. Together they rock.

Erax

October 27th, 2003, 01:11 PM

This may surprise some of you, but down here McDonald's is in many ways an admirable company. They have a standard for quality, which many of our national fast-food chains do not. While expensive for the average Brazilian, they are still cheaper than comparable competitors. Their employees are always polite - it's impossible to have an argument with them because they always agree with you. Their places are generally clean and tastefully furnished. The food is always the same, but they usually come up with a dozen 'special' recipes every year. Every year they have a 'charity day' in which all of the Big Mac sales are donated to child cancer hospitals. Much of this is probably because they are run as a franchise, so most decisions are made on the spot and not in some boardroom half a world away. I personally have nothing against them.

Instar

October 27th, 2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
The Last question is the most important. Companies are NOT people and should not be given the rights of people. Yet some senile old Supreme Court judges in the late 19th century gave them the rights of people and no one since has had the brains or guts to fix this ****up legislatively. Prior to this disaster a 'company' was a public trust and was vulnerable to the public if it exploited and harmed them. Since that Supreme Court ruling they are the proxy shields for the new Robber Barons. Someday, someone has got to stand up and say 'no quasi-governmental power without commensurate responsbility to the public!' Corporations need the rights as individuals, its necessary for them.
Also, the public *can* get rid of companies -- just stop buying their bloody products! X10.com went out of business recently, no one bought their schlock and thus they ran outta money.
And I rather like Microsoft, so you can bugger off!

Growltigger

October 27th, 2003, 05:05 PM

Instar is exactly correct. Corporations need the same rights as individuals if only for the customer's own protection - so they can sue the company!! you couldn't do that if the company had no separate legal identity!

As to customers, there is no company in the world that has such a monopoly that you cannot exercise your legal right to object to that company by not buying its products.

As to McDonalds, I dont have any real objection to them at all. I dont eat it, and am not particularily happy when the "golden arches" are suspended 50 feet in the sky glowing cos I am anti-light pollution.

I suppose the only thing I dont like about McDonalds (other than the burgers) is the marketing bias they have toward children, but then KFC tends to do the same, and I do like Kentucky Fried Rodent

PvK

October 27th, 2003, 09:32 PM

Corporations do not need, nor should they have, the same rights as humans. Growltigger, your example is non-sequitur - equal rights is not the same thing as legal existance.

Nor do humans need corporations. Corporations should only exist to do beneficial things, and when they start becoming monsters, they should be controlled.

Saying that the people who are sufficiently informed can avoid buying certain products is a ridiculous non-solution.

As I said before, I included McDonalds on the list mainly out for humor and curiosity.

PvK

Cyrien

October 27th, 2003, 09:46 PM

I have to agree with PvK.

Corporations do not need the same rights you and I have. Lets look at that.

Should a Corporation have the right to vote in elections? Does a coporation have a fundamental right to exist? If a corporation commits murder does it get the death penalty? Can it change citizenship and get a drivers license? A student loan so it can better itself with a better education?

No. All of those would be absurd because a corporation IS NOT a person. So why should it be given the rights of one? The reason is simple. Because by doing so you save time and effort on lazy legal law makers who don't want to create a seperate class for Corporations so you just say they are people. That gives them lots of rights, some they should have and some they shouldn't and you don't need to do anything cept let the courts decide.

Mephisto

October 27th, 2003, 11:54 PM

Corporations of course have not ALL the rights of a person but they have some and they need them. Behind every corporation there are people. A corporation is nothing but a group of individuals. Each individual has certain rights and just because they act as a group you cannot take their rights away from them. If you deny the corporation adequate rights you deny the people behind the corporation these rights.

Phoenix-D

October 27th, 2003, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
Corporations do not need, nor should they have, the same rights as humans. Growltigger, your example is non-sequitur - equal rights is not the same thing as legal existance.

Nor do humans need corporations. Corporations should only exist to do beneficial things, and when they start becoming monsters, they should be controlled.

Saying that the people who are sufficiently informed can avoid buying certain products is a ridiculous non-solution.

As I said before, I included McDonalds on the list mainly out for humor and curiosity.

PvK Really, PvK? Because if non one buys a corps products..the corperation GOES BACKRUPT. This is gennerally considered a bad thing for them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And please define what you mean by benifical, because using just that I know of more than a few people who would leave McDonalds and the other corps you listed alone, but close down MM, Shrapnel and quite a few others you would like to see stay in one piece.

deccan

October 28th, 2003, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
And please define what you mean by benifical, because using just that I know of more than a few people who would leave McDonalds and the other corps you listed alone, but close down MM, Shrapnel and quite a few others you would like to see stay in one piece. I have to agree with that. Reminds of that time when people were complaining that Magic: The Gathering is an evil game because it has satanic icons on some cards. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

October 28th, 2003, 01:18 AM

someone once told me that once MS releases a new OS, they make the old ones freeware. personally, i think there's about a 1.5% chance of that being true, but i decided to ask anyway.

Fyron

October 28th, 2003, 01:20 AM

It is hardly true. They still sell Win 98 and 2000. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

October 28th, 2003, 01:24 AM

well, i'd tell the guy, if i still remembered who it was. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Baron Munchausen

October 28th, 2003, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
Hmmm some intersting stuff there... and also a lot of funny crap. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif One one of the pages it suggest McD is causing world hunger by promoting the meat culture. Like if it wasn't for McD we'd all be vegitarians and there'd be enough food for the whole world. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif And McD is responsible for global warming cause of all that methane cows produce. Like if McD's dissapeared tomorrow we all start eating salads. Does it really say McDonalds is responsible for these problems? Or are you reading it in Rush Limbaugh style, pushing the claims to their most absurb extreme in order to avoid having to consider them? I think it says McDonalds contributes to these problems, actually. And they certainly do as one of the largest food companies on the planet. It's not so simple as saying that the 'free market' determines this, either. If not for McDonalds advertising vast numbers of people would eat differently. Corporations are not just passive receivers of market forces. They also create them. Just like Walmart has a measurable effect on inflation nation-wide by its push to reduce prices, McDonalds has a real effect on peoples' diets world-wide through its huge advertising campaigns.

Cyrien

October 28th, 2003, 02:52 AM

I don't have anything against McDonalds either. They are a well run business as fast food goes, good marketing, and they aren't a monopoly. I have in the past traveled extensively and in many cases I would see more Burger Kings than McDonalds. I will admit that was at least five to ten years ago for foreign nations that were located in Europe so maybe things have changed.

Sometimes they do things that are stupid such as suing in Scotland for the exlusive rights to McDonald.

I don't really like the food and much prefer Whataburger for quality but every now and then I do get a light craving for McDonalds and go have one and that is it until a few months later when I will have another one or will be in a rush and it is what is available.

Is McDonalds evil? Nah. Just a super corporation and at least in my book not one of the bad ones as at least it isn't a super global monopoly with control of all or almost all fast food everywhere.

Baron Munchausen

October 28th, 2003, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by deccan:
This is an incredibly incendiary statement. So all big corporations are sleazy and immoral by default? Or is it the basic drive for profits itself that is immoral?

What are you asking for precisely? If McDonald's has broken any laws, then of course they should be punished for it. Perhaps you want to campaign for some additional laws to regulate companies like McDonalds. You are free to do so.

In the meantime, you are also free not to eat at MacDonalds and ask your friends and family members to do the same, in the same way that other people can decide for themselves whether or not McDonalds' practices are really horrible enough to make them boycott the firm's products. This is simply the court of public opinion.

Personally, I do eat at McDonalds from time to time, though not often, and it doesn't bother me the least. This is an incredibly funny statement. How could it possibly be 'incendiary' to say that sleazy corporations are sleazy? Yes, since corporations have more influence on the writing of laws that govern corporations than the 'general public' (non-wealthy ordinary people) they are pretty much sleazy by default.

What would happen if athletes controlled the various sports governing bodies, and manipulated them to stop testing for steroid use? Obviously, athletes who did use steroids would start winning competitions and not getting caught, so they'd be making all the money and the honest athletes would be frozen out. In a relatively short time, you'd have almost nothing but steroid using atheletes in the national and international levels of most major catagories of sports. Would it then be 'incendiary' to say that these athletes are all steroid using cheats? I think even the few who were not using them and somehow staying in the competition would understand why people would say that.

As I hope anyone who watches the news is well aware, corporations have been writing their own rules for decades, with only the occasional break due to some huge scandal or other to reign them in a bit. All those Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, etc., executives were/are buddies of GW Bush and Dick Cheney and were personally visiting the White House to tell Santa-Bush what sham regulation they wanted as recently as Last year. Only the collapse of their companies has exposed the extreme cheating and stealing they were up to. You think there aren't hundreds or thousands of other executives doing the same thing but with just a tad more sense?

And no, I don't eat at McDonalds. Can't stand the food anymore. I wonder now how I could stand it when I was a kid.

Baron Munchausen

October 28th, 2003, 03:17 AM

There are so many comments missing the point about the definition of a corporation that I can't see how to reply to them individually. So I'll make one general statement:

The problem with the current definition of a corporation is that it limits the liability of the corporate officers too much. You can pretty much murder people with impunity and get off with your corporation being fined, whether by actual government regulators or by lawsuit doesn't matter. It's only a monetary risk no matter how many lives you ruin. This is literally gambling with peoples' lives and thanks to the 'corporate person' being such a popular business dodge it extends into every area of life.

From the alphabet soup of chemical dumpers at Love Canal who never had to pay squat for their pollution, to the Ford Motor Company deciding to ignore the known problems with Pinto gas tanks, to the various pharmaceutical companies who ignored the obvious health problems with breast implants for decades, an the tobacco companies who waged open propaganda campaigns to disguise the problems caused by smoking, there is a clear pattern of both the executives and the 'corporate Boards' that are supposed to supervise them skirting both the law and common sense in their quest to make a buck. And why not? Even in the crash of Enron Ken lay has come away with 100+ million dollars while his employees have had even their retirement savings reduced to dust. I hear there are some lawsuits underway to recover some of that money from him, but they will be breaking new legal ground if they succeed. IF these people knew they could actually pay the penalty for their crimes, and be sent personally to prison, or at least have their fat executive bonuses confiscated, I think we'd see a great deal more responsible behavior. But that would require changes to corporate law. Guess who writes that? The corporations themselves, and then they give it to some bought congressman, senator, or President to push through the system. Somehow I don't think we're going to see real reforms any time soon. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[ October 28, 2003, 02:34: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

PvK

October 28th, 2003, 03:42 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PvK:
...
Saying that the people who are sufficiently informed can avoid buying certain products is a ridiculous non-solution.
...
Really, PvK? Because if non one buys a corps products..the corperation GOES BACKRUPT. This is gennerally considered a bad thing for them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
<hr /></blockquote>Yes, really! Because the percentage of people "who are sufficiently informed" is small enough that megacorps don't care, particularly once they've dominated a market. Some corporations don't deal much or at all in public sales anyway (e.g. Gator, chemical manufacturers, research companies).

And please define what you mean by benifical, because using just that I know of more than a few people who would leave McDonalds and the other corps you listed alone, but close down MM, Shrapnel and quite a few others you would like to see stay in one piece. When I wrote "corporations should only exist to do beneficial things", I didn't mean to say that they should be destroyed if some people don't appreciate what they do. I was reacting to people seeming to say that corporations just abstractly needed to exist. However, I didn't mean to say that a corporation should need to justify its existance.

However I do think that when their behavior causes problems, someone ought to consider controlling that behavior. Corporations certainly can't be counted on to do it themselves, because they their whole purpose is generally to maximize their own profits, by doing whatever they can get away with. This can and does frequently get way out of control, and in the case of megacorps, on a vast scale compared to what mischief individual humans can do.

PvK

[ October 28, 2003, 01:44: Message edited by: PvK ]

DavidG

October 28th, 2003, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DavidG:
Hmmm some intersting stuff there... and also a lot of funny crap. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif One one of the pages it suggest McD is causing world hunger by promoting the meat culture. Like if it wasn't for McD we'd all be vegitarians and there'd be enough food for the whole world. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif And McD is responsible for global warming cause of all that methane cows produce. Like if McD's dissapeared tomorrow we all start eating salads. Does it really say McDonalds is responsible for these problems? Or are you reading it in Rush Limbaugh style, pushing the claims to their most absurb extreme in order to avoid having to consider them? I think it says McDonalds contributes to these problems, actually. And they certainly do as one of the largest food companies on the planet. It's not so simple as saying that the 'free market' determines this, either. If not for McDonalds advertising vast numbers of people would eat differently. Corporations are not just passive receivers of market forces. They also create them. Just like Walmart has a measurable effect on inflation nation-wide by its push to reduce prices, McDonalds has a real effect on peoples' diets world-wide through its huge advertising campaigns. <hr /></blockquote>No it said McD contributes to the problem. But even that is ridiculous. The one I read was just a rant by a hardcore vegitarian. I dislike McDonalds but one can hardly blame them for the fact that we eat meat. Do you really think we eat more beef becuase of McD's?
Now if you want to critisize McD's for pushing unhealthy junk food on us and being a major contirbutor to the rise in obesity (and god knwos what other health problems) well I couldn't argue with that.

deccan

October 28th, 2003, 04:36 AM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
How could it possibly be 'incendiary' to say that sleazy corporations are sleazy? Yes, since corporations have more influence on the writing of laws that govern corporations than the 'general public' (non-wealthy ordinary people) they are pretty much sleazy by default.It's incendiary because you are saying, "You're rich therefore you must have done something bad in order to get so rich, therefore you are evil." Whatever happened to presumption of innocence?

If the authorities have suspicions, then it is okay for them to investigate. If investigations turn up evidence of wrongdoing, then I'd be happy to say that that corporation is sleazy. Otherwise, I do not believe that it would be fair to call corporations and even as you seem to imply, rich individuals, sleazy by default.

In McDonald's case, what is it precisely that you think they have done wrong?

deccan

October 28th, 2003, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
I didn't mean to say that they should be destroyed if some people don't appreciate what they do.Hey, PvK, you named the thread "Public referendums on destroying evil companies". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Fyron

October 28th, 2003, 09:48 AM

Deccan, didn't you know that if you are not a poor Joe-schmo, you are by default a sleazy scum-bag? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Even though the majority of wealthy people are honest, hard-working people that got their money by working long hours, taking great personal (financial) risks, etc., they are still sleazy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Sounds like a lot of stereotyping is going on here to me...

Fyron

October 28th, 2003, 09:58 AM

Keep in mind that were it not for corporations and other large businesses, you would most likely not be able to own a car, the computer you are using right now, or have canned foods, packaged foods, processed foods, or even much food that you did not grow yourself or was not grown within a couple of miles of you (very problematic for large cities http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ), nor be able to buy much in the way of cheap (comparatively based on quality versus cost) clothing, shoes, furniture, etc. that you did not make yourself, have a house that you did not build yourself, and so on. All of these things would be way to expensive if they were made by small companies that were not able to produce on such a large scale as to be able to lower costs to more affordable levels. It takes a lot of capital to get production costs down so that prices can be relatively low (as well as to develop methods to reduce such costs, allowing other companies to copy them). Small businesses and cottage industries rarely have that capital.

[ October 28, 2003, 08:00: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

deccan

October 28th, 2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Deccan, didn't you know that if you are not a poor Joe-schmo, you are by default a sleazy scum-bag? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Even though the majority of wealthy people are honest, hard-working people that got their money by working long hours, taking great personal (financial) risks, etc., they are still sleazy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Sounds like a lot of stereotyping is going on here to me... Oh no, I must find a way to lose all my money then. Oh dear, poverty is virtue isn't it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Growltigger

October 28th, 2003, 11:48 AM

I agree with Mephisto. Corporations have separate legal personality to individuals and, to reflect that nature, are governed by a completely different set of legal obligations than those that apply to individuals.

I was not suggesting that they should have the same rights as individuals, simply that they must have separate legal personality in order for any rights empowered by law to be able to be enforced against them.

As to whether or not corporations should always act in a beneficial manner, I consider that this is a naive view. Corporations act for one purpose, to make profits in order to realise value for their shareholders. As to how they make those profits is a matter driven by market forces and business opportunities.

If you dont like the way a corporation does business, then as an individual, you only really have one method to show that dislike - dont buy their products. You have certain more rights if you are a shareholder, but practically, you will hold too few shares to make any real differences.
The only other option is lobbying in its many forms.

Failing this, you must exercise your franchise as a voter in order to put pressure on governments to police corporations.

deccan

October 28th, 2003, 01:29 PM

Baron Munchausen,

Here's a peace offering, my idea of a specific, clear and legitimate grievance against how many corporations operate, excerpted from the 17th October 2003 issue of The Economist. The issue concerns the wage inflation of bosses of corporations.

One of the first things that the Motorola search committee did was to follow the standard procedure of selecting a recruitment consultant to help them - in their case, the well-established firm of Spencer Stuart. To determine what a new CEO's salary should be, consultants make use of benchmarks. For Tenet Healthcare's new boss, for example, the comparison was with "compensation levels and opportunities made available to executives at the company's peer companies".

This has the effect of continually ratcheting up bosses' pay. No selection committee wants to award their new choice less than the industry average. That will, they feel, not attract the best man to the job, and it will also suggest that their company has settled for someone less than average. Since the tenure of top bosses is getting shorter and shorter, this ratcheting effect is accelerating, especially in Europe where, according to a recent report from consultants at Booz Allen Hamilton, the turnover of top CEOs has almost tripled since 1995.

Growltigger

October 28th, 2003, 01:42 PM

Ahh, if this discussion is more focussed on fat cat's pay, then I believe we are on firmer ground.

The sad thing is that the only people who can really do anything to curb extoritionate director's pay are the shareholders of the corporation, or a direct regulatory body such as the Stock Exchange.

Governments have tried to legislate (as the Blair government is trying to do at the moment, primarily in relation to privatised utility companies) but currently, nothing is progressing.

The allies here though are the large investment funds into which most of our pension monies are invested. These generally hold large slugs of public companies' equities and therefore, directors really have to listen to fund managers if they have an objection. This approach appears to be polarising and I think we will see a lot more direct shareholder action to stop excessive pay awards..

The UK is bad enough, but when you see what the CEO's of US companies pay themselves!!!!!

macjimmy

October 28th, 2003, 04:42 PM

A large part of executive pay comes from stock options, right? At least, during the stock boom of the late 90s options were the bulk of executive compensation plans. The idea being, that a profitable company = a sucsessful company. Of course, the American way is to hire a team of lawyers to analyze the rules and systems and find the best ways to exploit them, so stock options eventually started leading to companies taking drastic short cuts, using creative accounting practices, selling unsafe products, and shredding the evedince of these activities. Taking illegal shortcuts raises corporate profits, thereby raising stock prices and executive pay. So maybe doing away with stock options as compensation would have a positive effect on corporate behavior. Just my 2 cents worth of rant. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Growltigger

October 28th, 2003, 04:50 PM

Macjimmy, you are quite right that option schemes, and phantom option schemes, used to be a fair percentage of director's remunerations.

This is less the case these days, where the bulk of remuneration packages come from guaranteed bonueses irrespective of whether or not the company performs.

It sometimes seems that the rationale is

Success should be rewarded
Failure should be compensated!

macjimmy

October 28th, 2003, 05:02 PM

I don't understand the reasoning for options then, and bonuses now. Why not just pay executives a larger salary than everyone else? I know they already do get larger salaries than average employees, but then it is combined with all of this doublespeak for money. Just increase their salaries. And while I'm here, what about the practice of creating offshore accounts to evade income taxes? I am under the impression that this is a fairly common practice among larger corporations and richer individuals who can afford accountants and lawyers to set up things like this. I remember when Enron & pals were big in the news that there was some talk about trying to fix it, but like the rest of corporate reform, it has been drowned out in the flood of news from Iraq, Afganistan, and Kobe Bryant.

Ahhh, someone shut me up http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ October 28, 2003, 15:03: Message edited by: macjimmy ]

Growltigger

October 28th, 2003, 06:05 PM

Macjimmy, the clever executive will get a salary, but benchmarked at a level that hopefully wont upset the shareholders too much.

He will then get bonuses, discretionary and non-discretionary.

He will also get pension contributions.

Add then stock options and some sexy advanced payment mechanism to get money paid offshore to avoid taxes as a "sweetener" and then your average board chappie is wealthier than Croesus

Oh, and the clever ones negotiate golden handshakes and golden parachutes, so it makes it damn expensive to get rid of them.

Eg head of AstraZeneca in England, sack him? no worries, but that will be �38,000,000 please

narf poit chez BOOM

October 28th, 2003, 06:24 PM

poverty isn't so much of a virtue as it's hard to be tempted to be arrogant about your wealth when you don't have any. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Cyrien

October 30th, 2003, 04:01 AM

Hate to bring this topic to the top again... but in regards to GATOR and installing even when you say no. I just ran into that when I downloaded a DivX Codec. It popped up twice asking if I accepted the Gator install and Gator EULA. I said no. The Codec installed. I run a program that uses the Codec and... My firewall pops up asking if I want to allow a program titled Gain to connect to a website with Gator in the URL. I say block all connections from said application.
I ran Adaware. And... 29 Gator files, 2 Gator regkeys, 2 Gator Regvalues, 1 Gator Process.

So it seems that in at least a few cases, though probably not all. Gator will install even if you say no. And if they are willing to do that then they are probably willing to install without asking at all.

Now THAT fits my description of a sleazy company. Both Gator and the one allowing it to run in their software/downloads in such a misleading way.

PvK

November 5th, 2003, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by deccan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PvK:
I didn't mean to say that they should be destroyed if some people don't appreciate what they do.Hey, PvK, you named the thread "Public referendums on destroying evil companies". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>Non-appreciation is not the same thing as evil.

PvK

Instar

November 5th, 2003, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by Cyrien:
Hate to bring this topic to the top again... but in regards to GATOR and installing even when you say no. I just ran into that when I downloaded a DivX Codec. It popped up twice asking if I accepted the Gator install and Gator EULA. I said no. The Codec installed. I run a program that uses the Codec and... My firewall pops up asking if I want to allow a program titled Gain to connect to a website with Gator in the URL. I say block all connections from said application.
I ran Adaware. And... 29 Gator files, 2 Gator regkeys, 2 Gator Regvalues, 1 Gator Process.

So it seems that in at least a few cases, though probably not all. Gator will install even if you say no. And if they are willing to do that then they are probably willing to install without asking at all.

Now THAT fits my description of a sleazy company. Both Gator and the one allowing it to run in their software/downloads in such a misleading way. Ive had to deal with a browser hijacking lately. Installs without any notice usually. Ad aware only helped so much, I had to manually root around in my files and zorch those files. I added 00hq.com and 8ad.com to my block list, I'd reccomend you all do the same.