I am bringing the conversation over from the other thread about Socialism and the US.

In here though, I'd like to talk about the so called "Corporate Fascism."

I've heard everything from crooks to corprate welfare.

So please have people failed to see the Charitable work some of these corporations have done to help their communities as well as others? Or how many of them have helped their workers better their lives by footing the bill for College?

Geez, I am beginning to think no one appreciates having a job. Cause I know at least more than 20 of you in this group have worked somewhere for a corporation before.

Like you, Candace, I would like to see some clarification of what people mean, specifically, by Corporate Fascism.

I don't discount the good work many corporations do or the good work many wealthy people do.

Like with anything else, I like to see the complete picture, the total truth; not from one angle or another.

I live in Seattle; Microsoft country.  Many people throughout the world and country are always dissing Microsoft and, even more, dissing Bill Gates.

I can't speak for all their business practices but I do know quite a bit about this: Many of their top execs and top money-making employees give extremely large amounts of money for charitable work and they also spend much energy helping and serving with charitable organizations.

The personal foundation set up by Bill and Melinda Gates, for instance, gives vast amounts of money to charitable works - yes, much of it outside of the States, but much of it here, too.  This is good work they do. Work that helps people; work that saves lives.

They deserve praise for the good works they do; the individuals and the corporations.

That is my opinion.

Corporate fascism:

To me the big multinational corps, that have shipped out jobs to other countries is as good a place as any to start.  There sole purpose seems to be profit at any cost, environmental to human resources.  I know that the bottom line is the primary mover in business.  But where are the ethics and loyalty to workers who have been there for them, or to their nation of origin.

I know of no companies that pay for college education of it workforce.  Prehaps some limited class expousure in their current line of work.  That is not to say that this does not exist.  I am not familiar with Microsofts business practices for example.

I am tired of seeing billion dollar bonuses for corporate leaders, when there is such a gulf between the haves and have nots in this nation. 

Take China Mart, my sweet wife is from Hungary.  She is coming up on one year in the country.  A teacher by profession, we hope to get her accredited next year, another costly endeavor.  She works for China Mart.  She just got insurance, we can hardly afford to have it, but cant afford not to.  Their new affordable program has a 2500 dollar out of pocket before anything is kicked in.  Off of these wages we would not get by, however, my father lives here and pays part of the rent, a little on utilites and buys the meat for the household. I see more and more Americans having to do without so the top one percent of wage earners in this country can continue their opulent life styles.

Since corporations only live by the bottom line and employ draconian measures to achieve this, I refer to them as fascist.  Their power is environmentally distructive, physical assaulting upon workers of the world an fiscal elitism run wild. 

Many companies do good, of course they do.  Alot of this of course is public pr campaigns.  We need anti trust and stricter regulations monitering international corporations.  IMO.

"To me the big multinational corps, that have shipped out jobs to other countries is as good a place as any to start." - AnthonyWhen I have telemarketers calling my house that clearly are not calling from the United States or if I have doubt I ask where they are calling from. If they tell me it from some foreign country on behalf of whatever American company they are working for. I tell them I will not entertain conversations or buy product from companies that outsource American jobs.To be honest, I don't really entertain conversations with any telemarketers but it makes me feel a little better when I give that response.I also agree with the huge bonus structure. So out of wack with everyday people's realities. However, I am for small business and business in general. Definitely could use some tweaking.
This post was modified from its original form on 21 Oct, 17:07

This post was modified from its original form on 21 Oct, 17:08

I agree that small businesses are crucial for the national well being of America's economic future.  In fact they are the small town and main streets of our nation.  The White House is launching a new intiative with the bail out funds, to aim directly at small banks that loan to small buisnesses that are having problems meeting payrolls.

For that matter, I have no problem with big business as long as they are held in check.  That bird flew out the window sometime ago.  Having been a political science major, I know better than to employ fascism so flippantly as well.  I openenly admit that I use this language as a reverse scare tactic, trying to awaken many on the right, here in Iowa, to what they are really supporting.

Many are supportive of ideas that were propaganda during the cold war.  The ideas are not bad mind you, work hard try your best and you can succeed.  In limited cases there is still upward mobility in our nation.  However, a recent study not that long ago shown that America is down the ladder on this becoming the reality. 

It is crucial to have a groundswelling of new businesses in this nation, for the common man.  I feel this will come about on the environmental front.  In reality it is happening now, there is just to much obstruction from the energy interest.  Competitive forces in our nation are sqaushed out of existence, as we live in Potters field.  I long for a return to family owned businesses that care and work with their employers.  Not the corporate hand outs to communities in order to apease the local power brokers.

I heard only a portion of the initiative for small banks today. Freeing up some money for loans or credit would be huge. I am hoping it will actually be that aid small business so desperatly need. They have been hurt drastically in the economic downturn. My husbands small business has really been hit hard since about January. There has been no assistance or bailouts in anyway for them. Small family businesses are using all business and personal resources to try to stay alive. The debt and the holes they are digging are getting very deep. It would be very nice to have some relief at least on a Federal level.

The State of New Jersey remains up in the air for small business. We will have to see who wins the election in November. If it Corzine, I guarantee more small businesses will die.

I think you are right about green jobs being the future, just like tech jobs were. The problem I see is it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

About Insurance, Your problem is not with the Corporation. It should be with the Insurance provider(be it Blue Cross, Blu Shield, Aetna, etc.) Those compmaies are the ones who choose what the deductibles are and to deny based on medical history.

And Knate, Good to hear you're in Seattle(that's where I was born =) ), I agree. Bill and Melinda are on the top of the top as far as donors. They have donated in the BILLIONS.

Candace, I don't think I said it was with the Corporation. I believe I was trying to show support to you in that paying so high in taxes that you yourself can not afford the very things your tax dollars provide to others. Agreed the insurance companies suck.

Sorry Sunanne, That was meant for Anthony(lol... you can tell when my brain isn't working in the morning when I forget to address the proper person)

And I agree about the taxes.

Corporate Fascism:  When 'the corporations' or big business dictates to our elected representatives the actions or inactions they will take that serve only the corporation at the expense of the people on every level from poverty wages to death by pollution - or no health care, that they most probably need to treat some disease directly or indirectly related to pollution.

Charitable works?  Someone please list them because I'm unaware of them, then weigh the $ amounts against profits.

Bill Gates?  Pulease, the only reason he has "billions" to give to charitable endeavors is because he all but completely monopolized the pc operating system industry to the point you can't buy a pc without 'windows' which translates into  Gates making $1 Million dollars per HOUR.  Which means if he dropped a $1,000 bill on the ground it wouldn't be worth his time to pick it up on his way to work.  I'm all for free enterprise but when money like that is being horded by one person something is very wrong - like people are paying WAY TOO MUCH MONEY for his crappy products. 

Charity?  What he contributes to charity is great, don't get me wrong, but it is a drop in his bottom bucket of money - it's not like he's paying everyone's medical bills (sans the $800/year insurance industry's profits), but he probably could and still be an extremely wealthy man.

Did you know Gates has his own special computer at the IRS because of his income?  If that isn't obscene wealth I don't know what is.

If you don't like Microsofts "Crappy Products" Buy Unix and install it or design one of your own. And Bill Gates hasn't been the Head of MS for sometime.

Furthermore, Bill Gates has obscene wealth, but did you know he started at the bottom?

About Insurance, Your problem is not with the Corporation. It should be with the Insurance provider(be it Blue Cross, Blu Shield, Aetna, etc.)

The insurance (non)provider is a corporation - in the case of ChinaMart, another corporation, it's the insurance corporation ChinaMart refuses to pay premiums to favoring instead saddling of their employees with the burden (partial that it is) they can not afford to bear (has anyone heard of ChinaMart, the biggest most profitable corporation in the world who employs more people than any corporation in the world, advocate for non-profit insurance? or negotiating in favor of their employees?  No).  Not that I am high on businesses being forced to provide health insurance to employees, but that's the system the state built and still endorses and takes pay-offs to protect - even in the face of the amoral issue of for-profit medicine.

Candace, I don't buy Gates' crappy products.  Instead I pay out the ass for  (superior) Apple products because their market share is so small, because Gates ate the market.

Yes, we all know Gates started at the bottom - stealing his idea from Jobs, but I don't care where Gates started - it's where he's wound up and the way he did it is what I take issue with.

Candace, why should people pay so much for a product when it translates into tens of billions of dollars in profits for one person or corporation?

Katii, You don't have to buy his product. It's not the only one that works on a Personal Computer, or you could even buy a MAC. People pay for the product because they like it, or they just don't quite know about the others. It's not Microsofts problem if people do not educate themselves

I am not being a "Gates basher", but charity donations are relative to the donors income. There are probably little old ladies who possibly donate a bigger percentage of their income.

Candace, see my post - two posts up.  I do buy Apple products.

No, people don't pay the price for Microsoft because they "like the product."  I don't know ANYone who 'likes' Windows more than they just put up with it.  What people 'like' is being able to use a computer, but unless they want to or are able to (most aren't) afford to pay at least twice the price for a Mac and it's beautiful intuitive OS, it's a PC with Windows.

People pay the price because for all intents and practical purposes it's all that is available to them, because Gates grew a huge monopoly in the market.  They pay the price because that's the price Gates charges.  Period.

I saw a programme a little while ago about free software available online which is just as good as Windows, if not better. There is a site you can go to and download all your software free. Stupidly, I forgot to write it down and probably you have to be a bit more computer literate than me to use it!

I agree with Katii that people buy Gates' products because, effectively, there isn't a choice. Where are the Monopolies commission when you need them???

Corporations, like Government, get power from humans.  Humans (ultimately God/Creator) is where all power is controlled.  We created both Government, & Corporation.  They become dysfunctional when they stray from their purpose (not unlike humans when we "eat from the tree of the knowledge of good, & evil").  The purpose of humans was to live abundantly, & glorify creation.  The purpose of Corporations, was to serve the needs of humans.  The purpose of Government was to regulate behavior in a  way that serves the greater good for their domain.  Money seems to be the common denominator in areas of power, so the struggle begins, to acquire as much as possible.  Corporations use it to acquire more, Government uses it to acquire jobs of distributing power, & humans use it to make their lives more.  When Government, & Corporations partner together, humans get left out, or diminished.  This is what we are dealing with today.  Humans are fighting among ourselves over all the propaganda coming from media (abortion, pollution, homosexual living, food, pets, lifestyle in general, greed, religion, labor, health care, education, etc., etc., etc.,).  How much power can humans have while fighting over such b.s.?  It's so easy for a Congressperson to listen to one voice, if that voice is donating thousands for their election campaign.  Many times, that voice comes in the form of new legislation that can benefit only that voice.

I just learned that insurance companies are exempt from price fixing that is illegal for other industries.  Should that be important enough to make sure the average person is aware?  I'm sure the average person is totally aware that abortion is an issue.  There are many secrets within business, & government that have more news worthiness than those things we commonly fight over.  Who determines what is news?  Who determines the slant it gets?

My opinion on how to fix it?  It's like living in the Garden of Eden;very simple, yet the most difficult thing one can ever accomplish.  Wake up the population of the U.S.A.  Turn off the media, & become the human you were created to be.  Plants, & animals know how to be that which they were created to be, why can't we?  Lose the fear.  Greed is the fear of not enough to go around.  The universe has no center, your ego is for your own entertainment-I'm not impressed.  Serving others is a high calling, & should be celebrated.  Quit being a monster to those who are differant, or those who don't agree with you. 

It's not what happens in life that matters, it's how we show up that matters.

David, that is a very interesting post from an interesting perspective and brings up some very good points.

Thanks, Lynn

Okay I'm not going to get into a technology debate here, but apple and superior do not go into the same sentence(in my opinion)

And if you read my post, windows is not the only OS for a PC. Google Linux or Unix.  A Person can purchase a PC with windows and untistall it to put a different OS on it. I've personally seen it done. Technology wise Both of those are command prompt vs. gooey(like windows everything is visual)

Considering that most new PCs have a version of Windows built into them, the issue of consumer choice seems moot, Candace. Replacing one OS with another just adds to the complexity of dealing with new computers. Most people wouldn't bother because they assume Windows is good enough and have never seen others.

Do you own stock in one or more corporations?

Moonbat, I agree with what you say. If you buy a PC in Europe, it comes with Windows. To me, replacing one OS with another would be something I wouldn't even think about doing because I am not a "computer" person, therefore, I have Windows thrust upon me!!

I use a Mac.  No windows problems. 

Moonbat,

Why would you ask if I own stock?

Here is one for all of you to consider .... My wife got into a CD club a few years ago (I think it was a Reader's digest thing) - this happened because she got a telephone call about the offer and she signed right up. I now have a rack full of Country and Western CD's from the beginning of time (and I am not really a fan) .... Cost me an arm and a leg ....

Point is the call did not come from overseas! America does do some of their own telemarketing - but I was later to find out that this particular telemarketing call came from inside a prision somewhere in America!

WTF! You put them there because they are crooks and now some crook has my name, address and telephone number .... worse than that they had my credit card number as well (which I promptly cancelled when I discovered what was going on) ..... I am all for keeping jobs in America but I hardly think the inside of a prison is where they should be telemarketing from and I have yet to hear they no longer do this ....

One of the problems with those kinds of jobs is that they are low paying. Here in Vancouver you can get a job that starts out at 12 bucks an hour with benefits and work your way up so they have worked on making it attractive to many. I have a friend who's daugher is a pro at it and makes good money .... good pay for good results ....

If I get a call and do not understand the language I simply hang up - if you want to deal with me in Canada then call me from Canada - or America for that matter - just don't call me from prison!

True story I swear on my wife's CD collection (that I despise - nothing but a dust collector - now if it were disco - THAT I liked!)

Northern, that was on Sixty Minutes years ago.  And I do think we Americans were all shocked.  But the inmates go into a room with no paper or pen/pencil.  They enter the information directly into a computer.  The info is then coded and they only see part of it.  They'd have to have really good memories to remember everything they would need in order to then use the crad number or pass it to someone.  They also only use certain kinds of criminals in these situations.

I have mixed feelings about it.  Initially exactly what you said.  On the other hand, the inmates do learn some computer skills, the prisons are paid (athough I am sure less than a minimum wage aamount of money per prisoner) and the funds ehlp support the prison.  So it does help minimize the amount of tax dollars needed to support the prison.  Those are the "positives".  Thus, I am left with mixed feelings. 

Unfortunately we have way too many people in prison.  Seom states don't have enough beds for every inmate that could use a bed.  What to do?

But now I have gone off topic.

It still happens actually. I'm not going to say where my sources come from(just know it's someone I'm close too) was in prison not to long ago and part of a program like that.

And if you read my post, windows is not the only OS for a PC. ~Candace

And if you read my post you'll note I highlighted practicality.  Dale responded to your statement very well when he said,

Considering that most new PCs have a version of Windows built into them, the issue of consumer choice seems moot, Candace. Replacing one OS with another just adds to the complexity of dealing with new computers. Most people wouldn't bother because they assume Windows is good enough and have never seen others.

And Lynn when she said,

If you buy a PC in Europe, it comes with Windows. To me, replacing one OS with another would be something I wouldn't even think about doing because I am not a "computer" person, therefore, I have Windows thrust upon me!!

Yes, in my experienced opinion after spending a decade using both, a MAC OS is superior to Windows - by miles.  The only trouble someone will run into online using a Mac is when websites are set up to interface exclusively with  Windows - and we know why that is.  The only trouble someone will run into operationally is when they try to use or incorporate something something that was created to work only with Windows - and we know why that is.  It's called market monopoly.  And, Mac's crash rate is minuscule while Windows' is astronomical.

Inmates can learn computer skills without doing telemarketing.  What they are learning in telemarketing is telemarketing, and personally I don't think we need more telemarketers    I can't stand telemarketing or 'ers'

I have no problem with an inmate earning his keep tho, that's for damn sure.  I think they should have go grow their own food and do their own laundry - by hand.  Why should I have to support their sorry asses?  We already pay for their shelter and guards to help prevent escape or killing each other.  I think that's enough.

And it's microsofts fault that a person could not simply pic up a book and learn a new OS? I get what it's like for some people to not have a natural talent for technology, but most people who use a computer can read and have the ability to learn something new.

The point I am getting at, is you can not call it a monopoly when the public has a choice.

PS.. I'll give you that MAC is good for networking

And it's microsofts fault that a person could not simply pic up a book and learn a new OS?

You mean like they have to pick a book and learn 'a new OS' like Windows because there is some other OS out there that has monopolized the market? C'mon, Candace.  Nobody can rightly defend the straight-up monopoly Gates has on the PC market!

But yes, it is MS's fault that anyone would need to learn a whole new OS, which they would have to do if they couldn't afford a Mac.  Yes indeed.

The point I am getting at, is you can not call it a monopoly when the public has a choice.

Short of building one themselves, who has the 'choice' of buying a PC without Windows on it?  Nobody, which = MS monopoly.

Anthony -

Katii -

Small businesses are the heart of the country - your country, my country, all of us on this forum. Suzanne's business, my husband and my business - we are all suffering. Big corporations, and big business, on the other hand, are killing us all.

Candace, there is a lot to know about Bill Gates. You should study up on him. Those who know about him would not be extolling his virtues or his "philanthropic" endeavours. I will give you a few links to look at, at the end of this post, if you want to check out him and the history of his corporation.

It is worth noting that Microsoft is a virtual monopoly, with all that term implies. Most certainly in the USA, but also in many parts of the world.

BG made his fortune on something that was developed by other people. MS-DOS was based on the Unix OS. He never developed it at all. Unix was written by a number of people, and its code was open to all.

If he should give one hundredth of one percent of the billions he made off something that was originally an open source code, available to everyone, AND off monopoly abuses, back to charity, that does not make him worthy of praise!

M$ was sued in 1998 by the US government for monopoly abuses. Unfortunately, the corporation was so big and powerful (even then) that eventally the government had to settle out of court, to the disadvantage of the people of the USA and the people of the world.

Unlike M$ products, which were developed solely for profit, the Linux OS and almost all the programs for it are FREE in every way. It was developed by Linus Torvalds, a Finnish software engineer. Torvalds chose not to profit from something that he developed from other people's open source, freely available work. If he had been less honourable, he could have been another multi-billionaire like Bill Gates.

Instead, Torvalds and thousands of engineers all over the world develop Free Software that is available for you and me - all of us, to download and use for free. This software is superior to M$ products (IMO, and in many computer experts' opinion). It is not affected by viruses, and you will not have your privacy interfered with, nor be asked to comply with some "Windows Genuine Advantage" that is no advantage to you, the customer, but only an advantage to BG, in order to use your computer, and update your OS.

The operating system to use if you do not want to support this corporate monster is not Unix, as Candace suggests, but Linux, that is based on Unix code. Unix is not user friendly, but Linux is becoming more and more user friendly all the time.
 
I use Ubuntu Linux on my computer, with all free software, including a very fancy photo processing program to rival Photoshop, several excellent music processing programs, word processing programs, database, spreadsheet, layout programs, etc. These would all be worth many thousands in the M$ world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds
http://www.ubuntu.com/

Candace, it's "GUI", which actually means "graphical user interface". I USE Linux, and I INSTALLED it on my computer. I know whereof I speak. Katii, Mac is also excellent, but of course it costs a lot of money, while Linux is free.

Candace, Windoze IS a monopoly. Please look up the word "monopoly", and check out that court case I gave you the link for in the post above. Do you actually think the United States Department of Justice would take the trouble to sue someone if they didn't have a case?

Dale, I don't believe Windoze is good enough, and I won't support that monopoly. Linux is far, far better.

This post was modified from its original form on 22 Oct, 16:35

People who use Macs, LOVE Macs.  And Macs LOVE people.

People who use PCs either love the endless hassles of trying to keep user-unfriendly PCs from doing what they do naturally.  Or they received the PC as a present.  Or they found the PC in the dumpster.

People who use Linux, LOVE Linux.

People who use a Windows O/S are masochists.

"Bill Gates?  Pulease, the only reason he has "billions" to give to charitable endeavors is because he all but completely monopolized the pc operating system industry to the point you can't buy a pc without 'windows' which translates into  Gates making $1 Million dollars per HOUR."--Katii

I think this raises an important point.

Not about Gates in specific, but whenever I think of the charitable donations of the super-rich, I always remember where they got the money to be so charitable, and nobody becomes super-rich based on the sweat of their own brow.

Perhaps many of the rich give out of a sense of charity, because they are personally good people.  I imagine that is the case, and they just don't think too much some times about the things that happen so they can amass wealth or don't know what happens.  They know they make a certain amount of money and perhaps don't think about the effect on the country in general.

In France before the French Revolution, the aristocracy thought of itself as benevolent and moral, and they might have personally been good people.  But it was an unfair and unjust system that held them in place and allowed them to be generous to a church to take care of the poor or to sponsor an artist.

Kevin! I've missed you!

You put it very well.

Kevin

Bill Gates and his wife also give an awful lot back to their community do they not?

NO, Northern, not percentage wise. That's the whole point people are making here. Compared to our income, I believe most of the people in this forum give thousands of times the amount that BG does. Many thousands, if not millions of times.

Since some of you are highly judgemental about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations, I will be judgemental in return.

People can diss and moan about Bill and Melinda Gates all they want, but no matter what, because of their Foundations - which some seem to think are useless and insignificant - thousands upon thousands of people's lives in the poorest areas of the world are being improved because of their gifts.

Don't think they give enough?  They give more than almost anyone else in the world; than any other wealthy folk.  I don't think the improved lives of thousands and thousands of children are insignificant.

Many wealthy and super-wealthy people do nothing.  Nothing. Give nothing back. Bill and Melinda Gates give back billions of dollars.  Maybe that's insignificant to some of you, but not to me. At least they do something good.

Want to pick on people who do nothing to improve the world, who only exploit others for personal gain?  Maybe check out hundreds of US politicians.  I'd say, then you'll see what a self-serving parasite really is.

When I worked for Boeing Aerospace They would comp me 90% of my education expenses.

I had to pay up front and complete the courses but I would get 90% of my money back. Then I had the GI bill to fall back on.

The "evil corporation" rhetoric is not as simple as people try to make it out to be...

If that isn't obscene wealth I don't know what is.

How much tax money do you think the Bill Gates and the Microsoft corp. pay each year?

Obscene wealth has it's price. Since when is monetary wealth obscene?

And the PC is as good as the person operating it...

Calling all of corp. america or bill gates as obscene, evil. whatever is very simplistic. I worked for AT&t for a short while. They came to this area because we have super high unemployment. The call center provides jobs for welfare moms, former drug addicts, and other assorted unskilled worker. They worked us to death starting at 8.75 an hour. The pressure was horrible. The worst job of my life. So I am older and not a tekkie so I was not a good fit but for hundreds of other people they provided a job and full med/dental benefits. Jerry Brown is coming down on a bank that has stolen million from calif state pension funds. So here we go. If we didn't have a Democrat like Brown these corporate crooks might have gone scotfree. Finding the balance is probably the biggest challenge that faces our economy. People do have a right to a decent wage but not a wage so high it screws the industry-cars. When people go on about farmworkers being exploited. That is total bulls t. My friend is a farmworker and he does well. People compete for farm worker jobs. I have neighbors who as a farmworker put three of his kids thru college. I just hope to god O pulls his head out.

'Too big to fail' violates anti~trust laws.

They should be broken up.

The argument that it will just created a lot of failing enities seems weak.

'Obscene wealth has it's price.'

Yeah, something like 39.5 %, before the lawyer reduces it to zero...

That & the houses, the cars, the food, the trips, the jewelry...

It is a beetch, I tell you!

'And the PC is as good as the person operating it...'

And he knows, he drives a Pinto!

I would rock a Pinto...

I will take my Si...

A corporation's existence centers only around its bottom line. The good of society is not part of the equation, just by its nature. To increase the bottom line a corporation will find the cheapest workers in the world (those that have no rights) and lay off the worker from its country of "origin", it will externalize costs by polluting the air, water, and/or land, (society pays the price), and then put its profits in an out of country account so they aren't taxed.

There's also the fact that the biggest corporations control our "democratic" government with their $millions and army of lobbyists. We may have it bad here, but in a country like Ecuador, Texaco (now Chevron) dumbed billions of gallons of toxic oil sludge into the rain forest to cut costs while leaving an army of lawyers to tidy up. One example.

And we're all seeing the great effects of those wheeling dealing Wall St. financial corporations left to run with scissors in their hands.

Sure, jobs are provided under this system, but that says nothing as to if it's a good sytem or better or worse than 30 or 40 years ago. The middle class keeps shrinking and the top 1% keeps growing.

Oh ya, well my Pinto has a BioDiesel engine.

It's so nice of you to keep Super Injecting the earth with your fossil fuel emissions.

Didn't you hear a word Al Gore said??...

Vtec, man!

Six~speed manual!

And she still can sip the gas... 

*coughcough*

I mean, she can, like a nymphomaniac...

...But comparing her to the alternatives, her flexibility puts them to shame.  If GM had kept making the Corvair...

Technology, still the answer...

{'span style', it is like mayonnaise, it sounds good...}

Whatever, Polar Bear killer...

You miss the point, Rider.

My car uses less gas for more available power.

Not to mention it is light.

Scaling it down would allow a reduction in consumption.

Without the huge cost.

Allowing a wider application and a greater savings.

Saving more Polar Bears.

Technology, the future...

Stephanie and Buck: You are absolutely correct.  Simplistic statements and ideas are nothing more than simplistic statements.  They're cute.  They're clever.  They're sound bites.  And they are wrong.

As to a Pinto or a Honda, or Mercedes or a Bentley....I don't know....

But if you want horsepower....

I didn't miss the point catman. 

You pollute the earth with your fossil fuel emissions even though Al Gore told you it will sink NY.

I thought the point was to let go of the past and embrace change.

Maybe we should go back to the real horsepower like Knate illustrated...

Candace, it's "GUI", which actually means "graphical user interface". -Kath

Yes I know that, my professor awhile ago used "gooey" just because it was easier to remember how to say GUI.... lol it just stuck with me.

Obscene wealth has it's price. Since when is monetary wealth obscene?

And the PC is as good as the person operating it..." -Buck

I couldn't agree more! 

"Small businesses are the heart of the country - your country, my country, all of us on this forum. Suzanne's business, my husband and my business - we are all suffering. Big corporations, and big business, on the other hand, are killing us all.: - Kath


I would have to say the government (whether it be state or federal) and the unions are playing a really nice hand in destroying small business.

Hear Hear! Way to nail it Suzanne.

Dear Suzanne,

And I would have to add, the fact that we all spend so much time opposing and demonizing - demonizing - each other - and sometimes using and exploiting each other - is what is destroying us all. 

We have fallen into the trap - the self-defeating trap - where we define ourselves as eternal enemies.  Big business vs the consumer.  Small business vs the government.  Government versus or in bed with the unions.  The wealthy vs the un-wealthy.  Everyone fighting each other for a slice of the pie instead of realizing we can all share this pie and work together so that everyone, each in their own way, can benefit.

On that other issue, I agree with Buck and Candace. 

Wealth is not evil or obscene.  Wealthy people aren't evil or obscene.  Poor people can be evil and obscene, too.  Poor doesn't make someone automatically righteous.  It is how people act in this world, towards others, that determines who and what we are; not the size or lack of our bank accounts.

I will second Kath and say Bryons post was brilliant.

Now Knate: "You are absolutely correct.  Simplistic statements and ideas are nothing more than simplistic statements.  They're cute.  They're clever.  They're sound bites.  And they are wrong."

It all depends upon ones target auidence and how you deliver a concept. 

I like the ongoing work of the Gates foundation in Africa with local farmers.  The dialogs above, are biased opinions of course. I would say the voices who say balance is missing here, are right.  Thank you Buck or Blackcat for pointing out Boeing paying 90 percent of your education.  You failed to mention however, if that was directly connected to your job.  The GI Bill that you had to fall back on, doesn't count. After all that is from the govt. 

In regards to it being about environmental jobs, no, jobs and decent wages.  I think Bryon said it best.

"Sure, jobs are provided under this system, but that says nothing as to if it's a good sytem or better or worse than 30 or 40 years ago. The middle class keeps shrinking and the top 1% keeps growing."

That said there are several good post and valid points here. 

Knate, I can't say I disagree with what you are saying.  However, in New Jersey in particular because I can speak to what takes place here.  We are ranked 50th as a business friendly state.  Also, one of the biggest employers is the State and our governor literally was in bed with the state union leader for those workers.  I don't know what else to think.

'Too big to fail' violates anti~trust laws.

A corporation's existence centers only around its bottom line. The good of society is not part of the equation, just by its nature.

Bryan, I would just qualify that to say it's not all corporations but those listed on the stock exchange with boards of directors whose existence centers only around it's bottom line.

"Sure, jobs are provided under this system, but that says nothing as to if it's a good sytem or better or worse than 30 or 40 years ago. The middle class keeps shrinking and the top 1% keeps growing." ~Bryan

Amen and Hallelujah

Since when is monetary wealth obscene?

Since 90% of it is in the hands of only 24%, that's when.

Dear Anthony, Bryan, Katii and Suzanne...

There's certainly - IMO - a lot of leeway within and between our statements where we can - and are! - all valid.  Places where they overlap in agreement and some places where they somewhat oppose each other.

You all state your points of view well.

For all who have stated that Wealth is obscene, do you boycott music and movies? How many of you watch Oprah? It's not only corps with a lot of money, take a good look at your favorite celebrity and ask yourself; "Do their contributions to charity(if any) make up for that $10K YSL dress?"

Katii.....hurrah!  Candace...good point, but the society in which you live really means that boycotting anything, anybody, that is involved in too much wealth would mean you would have to move somewhere else.

The whole point is that it is no longer governments that run countries, or even fat cat bankers, it is the trillionaires.

Thank you Knate!

Candance, while I was trying to be topic specific, I will bottom line my opinion.

It is the discrepency between the abilities to a have culturally accepted standard of living, where most people have a decebt standard of living.

This compared to all who comprise the ten percent.

For the record there are many people of wealth who support society, the arts, history etc. . .  All wealth is not evil. . .

Since 90% of it is in the hands of only 24%, that's when.

What makes you the judge?

Representative Democray is suppose to.

I understand the points - and I say they are valid points - of those who question the wealthy - and those who disagree with me on this. But I do still feel, IMO, wealth and the wealthy are not, just because they are wealthy, necessarily obscene.

I don't think any society can exist - or ever has existed - where there weren't a small number of "wealthy" at the top and a large number of others below them.  There are always privileged and those without the same privileges.

There is no such thing as as an equal society.

But I do agree, there can be situations where too much wealth is in the hands of too few - and that may be the case in the States.

However, IMO, it is not wealth that is the problem - or that there are wealthy; not in my opinion.  It's how people deal with it and act on it that, to me, determines if they or the conditions are obscene.

Representative Democray is suppose to.

The USA is not simply a Representative Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. Our founding fathers liked that whole crazy idea of Government having limited power over it's citizens and protection from tyranny of the majority.

And no one should inhibit the ability for any man to be successful or gain wealth. When you do things like this you will stifle progress. People dream about these things and it is what keeps them motivated to get through school or too keep working on that invention.

Do you think people in Third World countries dream of coming to America to strike it rich and then have to share everything they earn with other people who are less motivated and/or have the Gov tell them how much they are allowed to make?

The whole concept of "everyone gets a trophy" will have a huge negative impact on this world...

The USA is not simply a Representative Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. Our founding fathers liked that whole crazy idea of Government having limited power over it's citizens and protection from tyranny of the majority. 

Very true, however when that government is now controlled by corporate interests, the majorities voice in that government is no longer heard.

Trophy for everyone in the world. Depends on the difinition of Trophy.  To have the opinion it is humanities duty to at least try and feed, water and provide shelter for our collective species is: a step toward enlightenment I suppose.  There are legions upon the globe who will never endorse or entertain that concept as a thought.

For all who have stated that Wealth is obscene, do you boycott music and movies? How many of you watch Oprah? It's not only corps with a lot of money, take a good look at your favorite celebrity and ask yourself; "Do their contributions to charity(if any) make up for that $10K YSL dress?"

Of course I don't boycott music and movies.  Why should I? 

No, I don't watch Oprah but I will remind you that her fortune is the product of the Oprah Corporation (Harpo), but still her (reported) wealth is $1.5 Billion - Gates' wealth is 50 THOUSAND+ times greater - and that's not counting the $33 Gates Billions in the B&M Gates Foundation.

There are no movie stars or music stars anywhere near being in the league of Bill Gates or Buffet and their obscene - offensive to morality - wealth.

I am grateful, however, to Melinda Gates, who is the driving force behind the Gates' philanthropy, and to who Bill credits for his own philanthropy admitting he wouldn't being doing so much of himself if not for her - which is no small thing, to be sure.  I expect her dream to defeat malaria will come true being she can afford to buy and sell any politician who might stand in her way.

"

Kevin! I've missed you!

You put it very well.

"--Kath

Thanks, but I wasn't gone very long.  But it's nice to be missed.

offensive to morality--- Katii

Wow.

And I don't care if she can buy or sell a politician. If she can shove enough money at researchers, doctors and drug companies to defeat something like malaria, by all means go Melinda Go!!!

They are also involved in trying to find a cure for HIV

"offensive to morality" ... that's is one official definition for the word obscene so I thought I'd include it so that it's clear how I see the kind of greed Gates has practiced. Yay for his philanthropy, to be sure, but that doesn't change the fact that he screwed everyone first which is the only reason he's able to philanthrop.

Kevin,

I missed you!   I'll try to aim the custard pie better next time.

(Just kidding, my friend).

Dear Candace,

I am totally with what you just said.  The Gates Foundations should be applauded for the magnificent charity work they are doing tio combat diseases that affect millions.

And in fairness to you, Katii, even though I applaud the great work they do now, that does not mean I am unaware of all the negative things Bill Gates may have done in his life, in his business practices, etc. These people are human - and being human - just like the Framers of the Constitution - they are not all good or all bad.

History is not history, IMO, unless it tells the truth.  And truth is not truth unless it tells all the truth.

Te truth about Bill Gates includes all of it.  I say we respect the truth and make sure we tell all of it.  When wrong things are done, they need be countered and opposed and exposed for what they are.  When good things are done they should be praised and applauded.

That is my opinion.

Knate - as Lord Acton said:
"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely".

"Progress" - what is "progress"? What a meaningless word that has been bandied about by everyone for 100 years or more. That stupid word just means more pollution and more ruination of our precious earth. To "stifle progress" would be a very good thing IMO.

"take a good look at your favorite celebrity" (Candace)

Favourite celebrity? An oxymoron, if I ever heard one.

Knate, as you know I do not disparage Gates for his good works.  But I'm not going to put him on a pedestal and gloss over his ill-work either.

How did Gates screw everyone?

90% of the people on Care2 would not be here if it were not for him...

I've answered that question and addressed that arguement already in this thread, Buck.

Thanks Kath (and Anthony) and i agree, we need to take a good look at what is meant by "progress". Progress toward what - mass extinction of species, billions without adequate land, food, water, or health, wars over resources?

You are right Katii, it's not every corporation that has profit as the only motivation. And i agree with those who say rich people do good things. I'm reminded of a recent book by Ralph Nader, of all people, called "Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us". I haven't read it but it's a fictional work about a group of very wealthy people who decide to change society for the better.

"The Corporation" is a great documentary that highlites the problems of corporate power, but also features the president of a huge carpet manufacturing business who decides to change his business model to be much less environmentally destructive.

It seems there's two issues: Is it wrong to be ultra-wealthy and have a lavish lifestyle, and what the societal effect of corporations having so much power is. I might not agree with what people do with their money, but it's the second issue that is important and effects all of us.

I agree with Anthony that all people should have the basic necessities, but i don't believe in trying to make it so that  no one can be rich, or change the fact that there will be poor. But there are many decisions, such as how we obtain and use resources, what rights people have, what wars are fought, and if the environment is protected that shouldn't be decided by those with the most financial power.

"Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us"

Well, if that's the end result of their hording most of the world's currency for themselves at least there's that

Dear Katii,

You said,

Knate, as you know I do not disparage Gates for his good works.  But I'm not going to put him on a pedestal and gloss over his ill-work either.

I agree, Katii.  I think that is the right way to look at Bill Gates. That is the right way to look at anyone; to see the truth; the good and the bad.  That is exactly the right way to look at the Framers of the Constitution, as well.

Sometimes good people do bad things and sometimes bad  people do good things........................................

Bill Gates? I think he is a well meaning soul by and large.

Bank reform: The radical way

Goodness me, Blackcat!!! You are not suggesting that the Banks should be governed by rules, regulations and codes of practice are you??? Surely that is some sort of action against their rights under the Constitution?

That is exactly the right way to look at the Framers of the Constitution, as well. ~Knate

Exactly.

Dear Katii,

I think you and I believe, when it comes to corporations and corporate America - and such - that fair treatment is the right way to go. When it comes to the banks, to banking, to regulations for the banks, I guess you and I, Katii, may share some of the same feelings about fairness.

The banks seem to think, and bankers seem to think, that the only fair way for them to conduct their business is without restraint, without restraints, because they seem to think being restrained by law is somehow un-American. Yet the banks and bankers - at the same time - seem to think they can enact their own rules, their own regulations, their own laws and their own practices that totally and completely restrain us, the consumers.

Yes, they say, no restraints on them by us; but total restraints on us by them.  Now - (the rhetorical question) - is that fair?

Gates' largesse sways government spending

 October 25, 2009

By LIBBY QUAID and DONNA BLANKINSHIP
Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON -- The real secretary of education, the joke goes, is Bill Gates.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has been the biggest player by far in the school reform movement, spending around $200 million a year on grants to elementary and secondary education.

Now the foundation is taking unprecedented steps to influence education policy, spending millions to influence how the federal government distributes $5 billion in grants to overhaul public schools.

The federal dollars are unprecedented, too.

President Barack Obama persuaded Congress to give him the money as part of the economic stimulus so he could try new ideas to fix an education system that most agree is failing. The foundation is offering $250,000 apiece to help states apply, so long as they agree with the foundation's approach.

Obama and the Gates Foundation share some goals that not everyone embraces: paying teachers based on student test scores, among other measures of achievement; charter schools that operate independently of local school boards; and a set of common academic standards adopted by every state.

Some argue that a private foundation like Gates shouldn't partner with the government.

"When you team up with the government, you compromise your ability to be critical of the government, and sometimes you compromise your ability to do controversial and maybe unpopular things with your money," said Chester E. Finn Jr., president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education think tank. The institute, is among the many that have received money from the Gates Foundation.

Another concern is that as a private foundation, Gates doesn't have to disclose the details of its spending like the government does.

(continued)

The big teachers' unions dispute some of the goals shared by Obama and the foundation. They say student achievement is much more than a score on a standardized test and that it's a mistake to rely so heavily on charter schools.

"Despite growing evidence to the contrary, it appears the administration has decided that charter schools are the only answer to what ails America's public schools," the National Education Association, the largest teachers' union, said in comments about the grant competition submitted to the Education Department.

The NEA added: "We should not continue the unhealthy focus on standardized tests as the primary evidence of student success."

The American Federation of Teachers submitted similar comments. Together the unions have 4.6 million members.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan welcomes the foundation's involvement.

"The more all of us are in the game of reform, the more all of us are pushing for dramatic improvement, the better," Duncan said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Duncan's inner circle includes two former Gates employees. His chief of staff is Margot Rogers, who was special assistant to Gates' education director. James Shelton, assistant deputy secretary, was a program director for Gates' education division.

Rogers said she joined the administration because she was inspired by its goals for helping kids graduate from high school and finish college.

The administration has waived ethics rules to allow Rogers and Shelton to deal more freely with the foundation, but Rogers said she talks infrequently with her former colleagues.

Bill Gates said his foundation is not the government's partner in the new grant program, which the government has called the "Race to the Top."

"It's no secret the U.S. education system is failing," Gates said. "We're doing all kinds of experiments that are different. The Race To The Top is going to do many different ones. There's no group-think."

Gates stepped away last year from his daily role at Microsoft, the software company he co-founded, to focus on the work of his foundation.

Vicki Phillips, the Gates Foundation's director of education, said it originally offered help to states and school districts that it was working with and that are in agreement with many of the foundation's goals. She said the foundation shares Obama's priorities and sees itself as part of a larger reform effort.

The foundation's rising profile comes as the recession has gutted state and local budgets, which spend more money on education - roughly 35 percent - than anything else. Many states and districts can't keep all their teachers on the payroll, let alone spend money on a high-stakes application for federal money that includes some 44 pages of rules.

In Minnesota, more than a dozen education department staffers are working with consultants from the McKinsey & Co. global consulting firm to prepare the state's application, using about $250,000 in Gates Foundation money, spokesman Bill Walsh said.

When the foundation offered to help states apply for the grant money, it initially offered the $250,000 to only 15 states.

Officials in other states complained when they learned of the plan. The governors and chief school officers groups pressed the foundation to expand its offer, and it has now agreed to help any state that meets eight criteria, including a commitment to the common standards effort and the ability to link student data to teachers.

The foundation also is helping some districts that are eligible for a share of the money if they are working in partnership with nonprofits such as the Gates Foundation.

Not all the states are willing to discuss the help from Gates or their applications for the federal grants. In more than half a dozen states, education officials did not return phone calls seeking interviews about the applications.

Those who receive money from the Gates Foundation often are reluctant to talk about their work for fear of upsetting their benefactor.

When the foundation offered to help states apply for the grant money, it initially offered the $250,000 to only 15 states.

Am I reading that right, that it costs a quarter of a million dollars to 'apply for a grant' ?  What?

Dear Katii,

The initial grant offered wass for $250,000 to 15 States; that is not the money States needed to offer.

Oh, I see.  They were applying for $250k?  That's better

It was this wording that confused me...

In Minnesota, more than a dozen education department staffers are working with consultants from the McKinsey & Co. global consulting firm to prepare the state's application, using about $250,000 in Gates Foundation money, spokesman Bill Walsh said.

I've answered that question and addressed that arguement already

Oh, right, I thought you would have something more convincing to to make your point about it.

There is a lot more detail to the history of MS but I guess you wish to keep it simple to try and marginalize Gates and make him out to be nothing more than a slimy little geek thief.

Very well then...

"paying teachers based on student test scores, among other measures of achievement"

Oh My Oh My! I agree with a liberal...lol. I think this is a fantastic Idea!!

Although not on standardized testing. Here in Texas, the TAKS test is a joke.

**And good morning all. It's nice to be back after the weekend. I miss so much good discussion during the weekend though.**

I will say one thing in defense of Windows as far as the security level and hackability:

Window is the most popular OS in the world and has been since the late 80's. What this means is Hackers will focus their attention on it. Just like Internet Explorer, it is the most widely used browser S/W so it is the focus of hackers.

If Mozilla was the most widely used browser it would be in the same position...

I think you make a good point, Buck.

Hackers (etc) go after the big prey because that's where the money (and the information) is. Mozilla, as it becomes bigger, is becoming a more-frequent target.

As for security, the Windows 7 O/S is certainly an improvement over Vista and XP - but no operating system - or anything - can be totally security-safe.  It's a daily task to protect even the most security-cobscious government agencies and their records.

Oh, right, I thought you would have something more convincing to to make your point about it.

There is a lot more detail to the history of MS but I guess you wish to keep it simple to try and marginalize Gates and make him out to be nothing more than a slimy little geek thief.

Very well then... ~Buck

Buck, I didn't think you'd need someone to spell out for you what a market monopoly is, but don't think for a moment that it is of the least bit of interest or importance to me that I convince you or anyone else of anything.

Instead of trying so hard to be argumentative and taking cheap shots, you might instead read all of my posts then learn how off the mark your snide accusations are - or does it not matter to you that your accusations are actually qualified because it's more satisfying for you trying to make others look stupid?

Buck, this post not withstanding, if you want to question my remarks and you want a response from me, do so without insulting my intelligence because from here forward I will not respond to your snotty posts but to remind you of this group's rules if someone else doesn't beat me to it.

My statement stands and is far from a violation of the groups rules. I did think for making the claim you would have a more convincing argument.

You response let's me know that this is not the case.

I did read all of your posts.

Your initial post concerning Gates was that of your opinion that his wealth is obscene. Then you joked his contributions to charity as being essentially nothing. Then you said people are paying too much money for his crappy products.

Then your next post, all in one sentence, you claim you are not interested in how he started but you still manage to accuse him of stealing from Jobs. So it obviously bothers you even though you state you don't care about it.

These next couple posts are odd ones. You do know that you can buy a CPU with a blank hardrive and then download a free OS from the internet that has user support forums and all? You don't have to pay anything for S/W to get a home computer up and running.

They pay the price because that's the price Gates charges.  Period.

Short of building one themselves, who has the 'choice' of buying a PC without Windows on it?  Nobody, which = MS monopoly.

People pay the price to buy computers bundled with Windows OS because it is their decision and their decision alone.

No one is forcing their hand. They have options.

the issue of consumer choice seems moot

This is Dales statement that you quoted. How in the world could this be moot? If people do not want to research their options then that is their decision. The alternatives are out there and they are good and they are very well supported.

The choices are out there, quit defending peoples laziness.

I happen to know a lot of people who are very happy with their Window OS and use it very successfully without any problems. I am not saying the OS is perfect but it has it's purpose and fullfills it.

Now we get to your exlpanation of how MS is a Market Monopoly. Your reason is this:

The only trouble someone will run into operationally is when they try to use or incorporate something something that was created to work only with Windows - and we know why that is

S/W developers are not obligated to write their programs for every OS on the market. You can get all of your basic computing needs through a free version of Linux, third party browser, anti virus etc...

So that is the extent of your argument and that is why I thought you might have something more convincing.

Your whole argument is essentially based on the statement that "consumers do not have a choice" and that is just plain wrong. In fact, they do have a choice and that choice will be even cheaper than buying a comp with a MS OS installed.

I guess I see your argument as being like saying Adobe is evil and has a monopoly because everyone decided they want to use .pdf as the standard for passing/presenting business related digital documents...

I am a business owner and I firmly believe in the opportunity to create and benefit from your own hard work. I think most people who don't, most people who are against capitalism, are either incapable of doing so or have never tried.
Should we remove the opportunity to better oneself, albeit solely regarding financial profit, where is the drive to do great things?
If the government tells me how to run my own business, how much money I can or cannot make for myself and my family, where is the incentive to even bother with it...why not just jump in line with all the other gray-suits and wait for my portion of the re-distributed wealth?
To consider someone like Buffet or Gates anything but incredibly intelligent and highly respectable as business-minded people, simply because they've created incredible wealth for themselves, (and not due to the demise of others, mind you) is illogical and ignorant.

Another thing, Katii:

You invoked the idea that he is a thief in this thread. That is a pretty strong statement. Don't you think it warrants providing people with a little reasoning behind such a libelous statement? Especially since no court of law has ever convicted him of such an offense.

I would be curious why you would say he stole from Jobs.

I would also like to know your opinion of how Jobs acquired the idea, plans, and S/W for his revolutionary digital music player we all know as the iPod.

What is your opinion of MS basically saving Apple from going under in 1997?

...

Dear Sheena,

Welcome to the group.

I agree with you.  I see nothing wrong with the profit motive or with what some call "capitalism."  To me, it all depends on how each person acts; money is not an evil in itself. Profit, IMO, is also not an evil.

When you think of regulations or standards, do you believe the government should have some regulations on some businesses or corporations...or do you believe all enterprizes should be without regulations or standards of any kind?  Or something in between?  What do you feel is fair?

Also, what taxes, if any, would you believe are fair when it comes to business?

Thanks, Sheena.

Thanks Knate.
I'm of the opinion that our government has one main purpose, and that is to protect it's people. Our government was not formed to police free market or reach into the pockets of those creating jobs at it's whim. I feel it's fair for the government to use my tax dollars to take care of it's elderly and disabled, it's veterans, it's needy children and to protect my family when necessary. I have no problem supporting those physically or mentally unable to work and rehabilitating them so they can. But I do not agree with a government telling corporations how much their CEO's are allowed to make, UNLESS that company has benefitted from government loans.

People pay the price to buy computers bundled with Windows OS because it is their decision and their decision alone.

Bravo Buck!

To consider someone like Buffet or Gates anything but incredibly intelligent and highly respectable as business-minded people, simply because they've created incredible wealth for themselves, (and not due to the demise of others, mind you) is illogical and ignorant.

Thank you Sheena. That's what I've clumsily tried to say and failed. You put it much more eloquently.  

Another issue I have with this particular topic is that some people think to seem they have some sort of unalienable right to user friendly personal home computing without having to learn anything.

Well, you don't, it is a consumer choice and you do not need a computer and you do not need to be online. Most any job that requires you to have the ability to be online or access documents that require a certain program will provide you with a computer.

You also have the option to use computers at public places like your local library.

If you want to be secure and safe on the web and keep your programs running smoothly and avoid spyware or viruses then YOU have to eductate yourself and YOU are responsible for whatever happens.

You know why most people have problems with their computers?

1. They surf Porn.

2. They cruise hacker sites trying to pirate S/W.

3. They don't pay attention to Virus and Spyware news.

4. They click on emails without discretion.

It's mostly internet related.

I have operated every version of Windows OS from Windows 3.1 to Windows XP Pro. I have had great success with it but I also have operated the linux OS and I like that as well and it does not take much to educate yourself to a point where you can do your own install.

I also took it upon myself to make sure I learned security features because that is my responsibilty and no one elses. right now I use Windows XP on all of my computers. I assume the risk of using this OS even though I know it is THE most targeted OS in the hacker world.

I take steps to minimize this though by using third party programs for web essentials like a browser, firewall etc...

I am a business owner and I firmly believe in the opportunity to create and benefit from your own hard work. ~Sheena

Same here, and me too, Sheena.

I think most people who don't, most people who are against capitalism, are either incapable of doing so or have never tried. ~Sheena

That may be true, but it's my thinking what people have against "capitalism" isn't that someone has the opportunity to build a successful business but that while a business makes gigantic profits - not revenue, but profits - in the 100's of billions of dollars, the majority of their employees still don't make a profitable wage themselves and sometimes not even a wage that could prevent them having to struggle to make ends meet.  Case in point would be so many of ChinaMart's employees who are advised by their employer how to apply for food stamps while it exploits Chinese labor that helps translate into theose Billions in profits.  In that case it's not so much the system that is to blame but rather the people using the system to make astronomical profits while the workers who make it possible for a company to prosper to such a grand extent are not profiting as well - which is why unions will likely always be needed and favored by labor forces.

I have no problem at all with people making lots and lots of money, but in our own business for instance, if we were making $100's of Billions in profits, at least in our economy today, I would have to conclude that we were charging an unfair price for our products and/or were not paying our employees enough money. And when a company has an essential product (like gasoline and computer operating systems) and has the market all but sewn-up and still charges prices that translate into that kind of profit it's much more profiteering than "just doing business."

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however to compare all profitable corporations to (what I'm assuming is your referrence to WalMart...with ChinaMart?) is a bit skewed. Fine, though...let's go there. Granted, there is a reason I don't shop at Walmart, (many actually) but their treatment of employees is not one. My Grandma retired from a Walmart in Tennessee quite a few years ago with not a bad word to say about the company. She never once applied for social benefits, nor was she advised to do so.  Her health declined in later years and her package paid for her needs. I'm sure there are some employees who do have bad things to say about the company and the way it's treated them, but the simple fact is that if you don't like your job (which many people don't) and don't feel like you're being treated fairly, you leave after you find a new one. A likely arguement for this is "lots of people can't find any other job" but ALL those employed by Walmart? However popular it may be, it's not viable, it has very little backbone. You say that if your company were making hundreds of billions in profits you would assume ('conclude') that you were charging unfairly or being unfair to your employees, I think that's sad. If I found my company to be profiting that much, I would rest assured it was due to good decision making, fiscal responsibility, hard work and determination. As for your referral to there being a difference between revenue and profitability, in order to be profitable, a company must receive revenue...perhaps it's just me, but I don't quite catch where you're going with that statement.
I'm not suggesting that there aren't people out there reaping benefits from the labor of others, to their detriment, but to punish all of corporate America for the small percentage who practice this type of business and allow government to stick their already long and greedy fingers into the pockets of people like me, is unfair and unAmerican.
I'd like someone (anyone, everyone?) to give their own answer to this question:

What gives our government the right to say how much money I can make, so long as my taxes are paid and my business is legal?

Where did they get the impression that they have the right to suffocate my opportunity? To put a cap on my ingenuity and what I can benefit from sharing that?

"What gives our government the right to say how much money I can make, so long as my taxes are paid and my business is legal"

Sheena, In my opinion they have no right whatsoever.

"Case in point would be so many of ChinaMart's employees ..."   --Katii

Exactly. Some have this idea that we must leave big corporations unfetterd becuase they provide us jobs, when in reality it's becuase these corporations are only concerned with finding the cheapest labor and goods that causes the US to loose jobs.

And since when is the government telling anyone how much they can make?

Possible salary caps on CEO pay at financial institutions that recieved government bailout is not the same as the government telling private business owners how much they can make.

Or, for example, if the insurance cartel wasn't exempt from anti-trust laws, this wouldn't be the same as the government telling a business owner how much he/she could make.

What gives our government the right to say how much money I can make, so long as my taxes are paid and my business is legal?

They have no right. Their actions would actually be illegal.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however to compare all profitable corporations to (what I'm assuming is your referrence to WalMart...with ChinaMart?) is a bit skewed.

Sheena, nowhere did I compare "all profitable corporations" to ChinaMart, in fact I'd bet the vast majority of corporations are nowhere close to being in the same league as ChinaMart et al who do make multi-100's of Billions of dollars in profits every year at the expense of it's labor force and/or vendors.

My Grandma retired from a Walmart in Tennessee quite a few years ago with not a bad word to say about the company. She never once applied for social benefits, nor was she advised to do so.  Her health declined in later years and her package paid for her needs.

That's a nice anecdotal story, Sheena,  and I'm truly happy for your Grandma, but hers is not every WalMart employee's story.  My mother-in-law never complained either about being paid less than her male counterparts doing the same exact job but that didn't make it right that she was paid less and treated differently. 

Yes, WalMart purchases many, probably most, items to sell in their stores from other manufacturers but those manufacturers are not going to get their products in a WalMart store unless they also exploit the Chinese labor force in order to be able to get pricing cheap enough to make WalMart happy and mega profitable.  Practices like this are largely responsible for the loss of manufacturing in the U.S. especially when WalMart has worked so hard and successfully to eliminate any real competition.

Some have this idea that we must leave big corporations unfetterd becuase they provide us jobs, when in reality it's becuase these corporations are only concerned with finding the cheapest labor and goods that causes the US to loose jobs.

And since when is the government telling anyone how much they can make?

Possible salary caps on CEO pay at financial institutions that recieved government bailout is not the same as the government telling private business owners how much they can make.

Or, for example, if the insurance cartel wasn't exempt from anti-trust laws, this wouldn't be the same as the government telling a business owner how much he/she could make. ~Bryan

Exactly.

My mother-in-law never complained either about being paid less than her male counterparts doing the same exact job but that didn't make it right that she was paid less and treated differently. 

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa.... That part right there is not coporations! That stems way way back. That is a mass view of women. I know we're in times where prejudice and genderbias is way down compared to 1900, but society still views a man as greater than a woman. And that really is no coporations fault. That is lack of balance in out society and even in most parts of the world.

receiving an average wage of $9.70 per hour compared to the $14.01 average hourly earnings for employees in large retail....

Ha Ha they're kidding right? They must be talking about pharmacy employees cause I've worked at several large chains and capped out at 10$ an hour while I made them about 30K a month(electronics store) and at grocery stores, you barely make above minimin wage(at that time I made 5.85$ at a grocery store)

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa.... That part right there is not coporations! That stems way way back. That is a mass view of women. I know we're in times where prejudice and genderbias is way down compared to 1900, but society still views a man as greater than a woman. And that really is no coporations fault. That is lack of balance in out society and even in most parts of the world. ~Sheena

You're right of course, but of course that wasn't the point I was making.  My point was just because your Grandma never had a bad thing to say about her employer doesn't mean she couldn't or shouldn't have been treated better, and even if that were not true it certainly doesn't speak for the tens of thousands of WalMart employees who do have something to say about the unfair employment practies of WalMart.   Just because someone doesn't 'say' anything about something being unfair or wrong doesn't mean they are aware of the wrong-doing or that everyone is being treated fairly.

And how 'bout that burden WalMart dumps on tax payers, and monopolizing markets via shutting down main street ... I think it's pretty shytty.

You're right of course, but of course that wasn't the point I was making. My point was just because your Grandma never had a bad thing to say about her employer doesn't mean she couldn't or shouldn't have been treated better, and even if that were not true it certainly doesn't speak for the tens of thousands of WalMart employees who do have something to say about the unfair employment practies of WalMart. Just because someone doesn't 'say' anything about something being unfair or wrong doesn't mean they are aware of the wrong-doing or that everyone is being treated fairly.

Ahem, it was MY Grandma to which I referred, not Candaces (not to be too persnikity)  
More importantly, I said earlier that not only did she not have anything bad to say about Walmart, she also was taken care of financially in her retirement package, and her health coverage was never an issue, even with diabetes and all it's issues.
While I'd agree that surely (employing that many people) Walmart has some unhappy employees, the problem might lay more with the perpetuating need by consumers for stores like Walmart...feeding the beast, so to speak. If Americans put away their constant need for plastic outdoor picnic chairs and such so readily available at Walmarts, perhaps they'd crumble on their own accord. (Not to suggest they deserve that end, however) They're just profiting from the greediness of ultra-consumerism
You want to kill Walmart? Kill the tv machine. Convince people they don't need to redecorate their bedrooms every season for 100$ bed-in-a-bag.

Walmart is a tougher one to call a monopoly than MS. Here in Texas, we still have plenty of place to choose from and I know several individuals that still shop at Kroger because with sales and convienent locations, it's cheeper.

And when someone does complain about the employer, 50% of the time, it's about their boss. And I don't mean the CEO or company policy

and monopolizing markets via shutting down main street

I have not seen one example yet in this thread of an actual monopoly and it has now been brought up more than once.

I know plenty of retailers that do just fine even being in the same shopping center that a Walmart is in.

Not to mention all of the K-Marts and Targets that are still out there, usually not too far from a Walmart.

I would like to see an example of just one "market" that Walmart has complete control over...

I know very little about Walmart, I'm not about to place judgement on it either way (besides not supporting it with my dollars because most of the junk there comes from China and supports them more than the U

I did find it interesting how much charitable work they do:

http://walmartstores.com/FactsNews/FeaturedTopics/?id=11

Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Walmart Donates $350,000 to Support Disaster Relief Around the World

The Walmart Foundation announced today a donation of $350,000 in disaster relief for people impacted by recent droughts in Guatemala, flooding in southern India and natural disasters in Southeast Asia.

Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Walmart Joins Army Spouse Employment Partnership

Walmart announced it joined the Army Spouse Employment Partnership (ASEP) as part of its ongoing commitment to provide employment and career opportunities to the military community.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Walmart and Sam's Club Donate More Than $4 Million to U.S. Teachers through New Teacher Rewards Program

To help offset rising expenses for classroom supplies this back-to-school season, Walmart and Sam’s Club have launched Teacher Rewards, a new program to provide more than $4 million to 40,000 deserving teachers across the United States.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Walmart's "Write to Change the Classroom" Program Provides School Supplies Nationwide

After hearing about a letter from eighth-grader Ty’Sheoma Bethea to her congressman pleading for the basic school necessities she and her classmates needed, Walmart (NYSE:WMT) began to wonder: how many other pleas are going unheard?

Monday, August 17, 2009
Walmart Foundation Donates $325,000 to 10 Nevada Charities

The Walmart Foundation has announced the 10 organizations that have received the first round of grants in the State Giving Program, totaling $325,000.

Window is the most popular OS in the world and has been since the late 80's. What this means is Hackers will focus their attention on it. Just like Internet Explorer, it is the most widely used browser S/W so it is the focus of hackers.

If Mozilla was the most widely used browser it would be in the same position... (Buck)

That argument has gone back and forth for years - it's a bit too simplistic. Not wanting to go into it deeply here for reasons of space, I've given a couple of links below where it is discussed fully. The first link is particularly good, and I've included both pro and anti links.

You have to go deep into the architechture of the operating systems to understand the reasons behind vulnerabilities, and to be able to discuss this subject meaningfully, and to be quite honest, it would help to have a good understanding of computers and their history.

From what I've been reading, Mac and Linux are the safest systems to use, with Mac having the edge.

Buck, I have respect for you that you started with Windows 3.1, moving on through to XP, and you've tried Linux. Good! I did the same, and ever since 2000, dreamed of the time when I would have the technical ability to install and use Linux.

I've used exclusively Linux for three years now, and never had even the whiff of an attack by virus, adware or anything. I use no extra firewalls, because Linux has a built-in firewall, and the good quality router that I use to connect to the net also has a hardware firewall. No other protective software is necessary.

I wouldn't even dream of using any other browser but Firefox.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, IMO.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/

http://news.techworld.com/security/2983/linux-servers-safer-than-ever/

http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/linux/2006/0109linux1.html?prl

While in most small-towns USA WalMart does monopolize the retail market in any area represented by the products they sell, WalMart is more a monopsony than a monopoly because it has the power to under-pay it's suppliers - right out of business unless they are as ruthless as WalMart and willing to go the route of  exploitating of cheap labor in other countries leaving no manufacturing jobs at home.

Call it whatever you want, but any business having as much power as WalMart is not a good thing and the countries that allow WalMart to rule such  a huge portion of their marketplace will live to regret the day they ever met a WalMart representative asking for or buying concessions to local tax structures, zoning rules, etc. so that they can (and will) put any mom and pop in the same neighborhood out of business.

I'm sorry girls for getting names mixed up your avies are very similar and once I'm used to one I tend to quit looking at the names typed under them.

the problem might lay more with the perpetuating need by consumers for stores like Walmart...feeding the beast, so to speak. If Americans put away their constant need for plastic outdoor picnic chairs and such so readily available at Walmarts, perhaps they'd crumble on their own accord.  ~Sheena

The consumer is a part of the problem to be sure, but the consumer doesn't write hiring, firing, or employement policy at WalMart. 

Personally I would love nothing more than for WalMart to implode on itself.

I understood your point about your Grandma, but again, WalMart has a very long history of unfair employment, business and purchasing practices which are easily researched online.

I don't understand what you are looking for with Walmart, Katii.  I think most people who start companies do so to support themselves and their family.  Some do so out of sheer determination to achieve their dreams, and financial windfall follows, others do it just to make a profit and yet others do so to support a charitable cause for which they're passionate.  Do you think that because I could buy my child twice as many toys as his friends (even though he shared them) that I am evil or corrupt?  Wealth is relative, like many things.  Wealth and the accumulation of it does not automatically mean those acquiring that wealth have done so at the expense of others.

I'm reading that pdf you posted, but with an open mind and an unawareness of who these authors are, or where they derived their 'figures'...it states many places that they are 'estimating', but I haven't dug far enough yet to see what led them to their estimates.  Also, this study was done in 2004. 

There will always be people like me who avoid places like Walmart in favor of 'mom and pop' organizations, that's specifically why the Walmarts haven't completely obliterated the free market in their industry.  But as I said before, the only way to hurt them, if that's the whole point, is to not spend our money there.

The main reason they can offer such low prices is that they buy in bulk, from overseas.  We can do the very same thing in our business, without hurting the employees upon which our business relies.  (on a smaller scale)

Walmart may have some unhappy employees, but I wonder (by percentage) how many...with over a million (back in 2004) how many are using public assistance or governmental help.

They also do good things for their community.  Did you see the post above with their chiaritable work?

Here is what I would suggest for people who want to have a taste of Linux without having to do any installs on their HD. It will boot from CD and allow you to see what it is all about:

I have used Knoppix a couple of times to do recoveries of data from downed machines. It was my first introduction to Linux. Knoppix has a LiveCD version of its OS.

http://www.knoppix.org/

It is as simple as downloading their ISO from a bittorrent site and burning that image onto a CD. Once you have done that all you do is adjust your boot priority to boot from CD.

Here is the link to their Bittorrent download:

http://torrent.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/

You have to have a bittorrent program installed before you attempt to download this.

I use:

http://www.utorrent.com/downloads

Once you have the download complete you need to burn it as an image.

I use:

http://isorecorder.alexfeinman.com/isorecorder.htm

ISO Recorder is a shell extension so after you install it there will be no program icons. It allows you to right click on an ISO file and gives you the option to burn image.

The recorder does the rest. Once that is done change the boot priority if necessary and then put the CD in and start'er up.

...

Thanks for that great info, Buck. Guys, if you want it even simpler, and still free, click on the first link below. These people will SEND YOU THE UBUNTU DISC FREE OF CHARGE.

Then, when you get it, you just put it in your DVD drive with the computer off, and fire up the computer. You'll get offered the option to try out the OS without it touching your computer's hard drive at all.

Don't worry about changing the boot order, as that might be a bit much for most people. It shouldn't be necessary, but if it is, just ask a question on here, and I'll walk you through it.

The second link gives you three ways of getting Ubuntu Linux.

You can use this DVD or CD as much as you like, copy it and give it to friends and pass it around to EVERYONE. All perfectly legally.

I'm aware of the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." So, to the few of you who are willing to try something new - Good Luck!

https://shipit.ubuntu.com/

http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu

Great information, Buck and Kath.

I went the route of acquiring the Ubuntu CD.....for free.  Can't get much better than that and, yes, it is easy to do.

Sheena, comparing the wealth of a corporation like WalMart's to a consumer being able to buy lots of toys for their kids is not an analogy that works  in any arguement in favor of an entity like WalMart (key words: like WalMart).

Wealth and the accumulation of it does not automatically mean those acquiring that wealth have done so at the expense of others" ~Sheena

(which WalMart has acquired it's wealth at the expense of others)

In the event I've not made myself clear by only mentioning or referring specifically to companies - like WalMart, Gates, or Big Oil - who's wealth can not be compared to by the vast majority of other businesses let me be very clear that I've not made any such claim whatsoever that wealth or the accumlation of wealth necessarily means it's been at the expense of others, but show me a large successful profitable business that hasn't made it's mega-fortunes at the expense or exploitatin of others and I'll eat my hat. 

While I have no problem with capitalism as long as appropriate restraints are in place to prevent the greedy from harming or disabling others I do take issue with the very lopsided distribution of wealth in our country which is demonstrated by  this graph (be sure to zoom in all the way and zoom out all the way).  I am not able to rationalize this lopsidedness when there is a finite amount of money to go around.  A lopsidedness which inevitably will mean more and more taxes imposed on the working class to support those who are squeezed out and prevented from making enough money because no amount of success or money is enough for people like Bill Gates et al.

I don't understand what you are looking for with Walmart, Katii.

Sheena, for me it all boils down to one thing, one little 3 word rule I live by and I believe everyone should live by whether personally or professionally, in business or in government is: 

Do No Harm.

I like doing things the hard way with Comps, that way I learn.

That is just me though.

I am getting that free DVD anyway LOL!

But I already have Knoppix so if you want it faster than 10 weeks it looks like they offer a download as well that you can burn to CD.

It will probably be about the same as the Knoppix scenario...