Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Have you submitted your nominations for worst comapny in America?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
35 replies to this topic

#21 MrDaaark   Members   -  Reputation: 3551

Posted 12 March 2013 - 05:35 AM

Can you cite this?

Sponsor:

#22 samoth   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4705

Posted 12 March 2013 - 06:00 AM

Can you cite this?

Certainly, refer to Wikipedia:

Smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death globally. In the United States about 500,000 deaths per year are attributed to smoking-related diseases and a recent study estimated that as much as 1/3 of China's male population will have significantly shortened life-spans due to smoking.

Now add to that the fact that Altria has been aggressively attacking any evidence of harmful effects, playing down harmful effects, and has been seducing teenagers to smoke for decades. Plus, the active "product placement" in movies for decades. I don't know exactly how large their worldwide market share for cigarettes is, but it's likely something like 90%, too.

Stunning: According to WHO's data, smoking makes up 1/2 of all preventable deaths in the USA (18.1% out of 36% total), about 10 times as much as traffic accidents.

As for Kraft Foods, just go to your local supermarket and pull any of their products that is labelled "health", "fit", or "low fat" or any other deceptive product (say, Philadelphia) out of the shelf. Look at the list of ingredients (which, too, is kept as deceptive as possible).
Millions of people buy (and eat) these harmful products every day under false premise. Why do you think the US americans are so fat and suffer from diabetes? It's not the burgers and the fries. It's the deceptive health food which is even worse.

#23 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 12 March 2013 - 08:46 AM

Except in one case we're talking about duplicating a creative work within a system where humans have decided to reconcile capitalism the need to reward people who propagate culture, and the other case we're talking about a living being that is designed to reproduce by it's very living nature. Pretending that they're at all comparable requires you to completely disconnect yourself from reality.

It's easy to trivialize either argument as more different than it actually is.

Except in one case we're talking about duplicating an engineered work within a system where humans have decided to reconcile capitalism with the need to reward people who propagate agriculture development, and the other case we're talking about a bunch of 1s and 0s that could show up randomly given enough time.

In reality they are both products engineered for others to benefit from that have been actively obtained, copied, and resold without the providers permission.

#24 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 29672

Posted 12 March 2013 - 09:23 AM

Ok, imagine...

You go out and buy a DVD. You take the DVD out of the case and close the case. Later you go to put it back in the case but there's a new DVD in there! You leave the original one out in a dark room, and the next morning a new case has sprung up around it. You've been sold a magical DVD that makes copies of itself.

But you can't give any of them to your friends. Despite it being the nature of this magic DVD to copy itself, you're not allowed to allow those copies to exist outside your home, or the wizard who sold it to you will threaten you with violence. Maybe he should have just not given you a magic DVD in the first place.

 


You spend a lifetime selectively breeding cows, resulting in a bloodline that is resilient to harsh conditions and produces a large amount of meat at a young age. You take a herd of this animal to a sale-yard, and sell them to many farmers who are convinced by your fancy "estimated breeding value" graphs. When these farmers continue to breed and on-sell the cows themselves, you step in and threaten them into giving you the money they obtained from these sales, as you claim to own these cows still.
 

An early scan shows that your unborn child will most likely have down syndrome. You're referred to a specialist who has a new treatment to cure the syndrome in the womb. You decide to undergo this therapy, but after birth, the company you paid to do this claims they now own your child. Your child grows up and becomes pregnant, but is forced into an abortion by their "owner" company with threats of violence.

 

 

Owning life, a living thing, or a species, or family of organisms, beyond regular property laws ("this is my dog, I bought it, it's registered in my name") is completely absurd.

 

Selective modification of an organism's genetic make-up has been going on for thousands of years. Modern genetic engineering is just doing it with a new bag of tools that make it easier and open up new possibilities. Patenting the tools and processes that you use to create a modified organism fits within existing frameworks, but owning the design of the organism itself and all of it's offspring is ridiculous. As a side note: when this organism reproduces, it's not even the same design any more, it's evolved....

 

You're modifying an existing replicating machine in some small way, and then selling instances of that replicating machine to others, and then claiming that anything that is produced by this machine is your property.

Breville don't own the sandwiches I make in my sandwich machine, Electrolux doesn't own the coffee from my coffee machine, no one can stop me using a 3D printer to build a new 3D printer, when I buy a kitten the breeder doesn't own it's future offspring, when I pay a doctor to modify or create my unborn child they do not own my child and grandchildren, and the games that I produce with a piece of software do not belong to that author of that software -- Microsoft doesn't own my MSVC projects and Adobe/Autodesk don't own my art.

 

If you design and sell a machine that makes things, your client owns the things that it makes. That's a very long standing precedent.



#25 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4688

Posted 12 March 2013 - 09:32 AM

Ok, imagine...

You go out and buy a DVD. You take the DVD out of the case and close the case. Later you go to put it back in the case but there's a new DVD in there! You leave the original one out in a dark room, and the next morning a new case has sprung up around it. You've been sold a magical DVD that makes copies of itself.

But you can't give any of them to your friends. Despite it being the nature of this magic DVD to copy itself, you're not allowed to allow those copies to exist outside your home, or the wizard who sold it to you will threaten you with violence. Maybe he should have just not given you a magic DVD in the first place.

 

Are we talking about DVDs or Gizmo?


Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#26 ysg   Members   -  Reputation: 192

Posted 12 March 2013 - 09:53 AM

If you rank the top 500 things in order of severity, that would be the one of the lowest things.

They pretty much own the water supply in one South American country. You can't collect rain water off your own roof and drink it. It belongs to Coke.

They are accused of telling people to quit their unions or be killed, and then further accused of actually following through with it. ther e is more than one case of this, in several south american countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Coca-Cola#Bottling_plant_murders

They are accused of using highly polluted waste water (to cut costs) in some of their over seas bottling plants.

They had Nazi ties.

I could go on listing stuff all day, and of all the stuff I am aware of, it seems to not even scratch the surface.

Using polluted water, killing people, making coke cheaper than water in some countries, lawfully owning every drop of water, etc, etc, is qualified as poor interaction with customers.

Ha!  I stopped drinking soft drinks because I knew the effect it had on your health (sugar is kryptonite to your teeth), but this is just icing on the cake ^_^ .



#27 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 12 March 2013 - 09:59 AM

Ok, imagine...
You go out and buy a DVD. You take the DVD out of the case and close the case. Later you go to put it back in the case but there's a new DVD in there! You leave the original one out in a dark room, and the next morning a new case has sprung up around it. You've been sold a magical DVD that makes copies of itself.

That's not how farming works though. Seeds don't just magically grow without the farmer doing anything. Likewise all the plants the farmer doesn't want don't just magically die without the farmer doing anything. The farmers actively plant the seed, then actively kill off the plants they don't want, then actively gather the crop, then actively resell it. It's not like, "Oh shit suddenly I'm buried in soybeans and I can't do anything with them!" It's like, "Oh shit I planted all these soybeans, then killed all the soybeans except for these ones I know to be covered by a license, then I tended to them for 3 months, and then I took them to the market and sold them!" No part of that should be a surprise to the farmer.

The better example I thought of was lets say I make a 3D printer capable of 3D printing itself but it's not open source. Is it legal for you to 3D print a copy of the printer? (yes) Is it legal for you to then resell the copy you made without my permission? (no)

#28 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4688

Posted 12 March 2013 - 10:01 AM

The better example I thought of was lets say I make a 3D printer capable of 3D printing itself but it's not open source. Is it legal for you to 3D print a copy of the printer? (yes) Is it legal for you to then resell the copy you made without my permission? (no)

 

But is it legal for you to use that copy of the copier that you don't have the lease on? hmmm.......


Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#29 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 12 March 2013 - 11:12 AM


The better example I thought of was lets say I make a 3D printer capable of 3D printing itself but it's not open source. Is it legal for you to 3D print a copy of the printer? (yes) Is it legal for you to then resell the copy you made without my permission? (no)

 
But is it legal for you to use that copy of the copier that you don't have the lease on? hmmm.......


I'd presume yes (not sure. It probably gets messy if you start selling things with the 3D printer you copied), but I'm pretty sure you're also allowed to use the crop you grew as well as long as you don't sell it or it's derivatives.

#30 Milcho   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1175

Posted 12 March 2013 - 11:39 AM

lets say I make a 3D printer capable of 3D printing itself

This sounds suspiciously like the replicators 

this topic was already going off topic, don't blame me



#31 ysg   Members   -  Reputation: 192

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:27 PM

lets say I make a 3D printer capable of 3D printing itself

This sounds suspiciously like the replicators 

this topic was already going off topic, don't blame me

And if I have something like that, I'll pretty much stop working and enjoy life :) .



#32 wintertime   Members   -  Reputation: 1650

Posted 13 March 2013 - 07:07 AM

Suppose someone made selfreplicating robots and set them free, they get very widespread cause of their usefulness, but have a tiny flaw cause when hit by water they stop working.

Some completely unrelated company gets its hands on a robot and instructs it to go under a roof if it starts raining. Then the company sells replications of that robot and claims noone should allow those to selfreplicate cause they had invented the robots and would now own exclusive rights on them although they never even asked the original inventor. Also the company makes use of airships which they had build and sold earlier for some other purposes to spread water everywhere to extinguish all original robots and generate a monopoly. Wouldnt that be ridiculous?



#33 Milcho   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1175

Posted 13 March 2013 - 08:20 AM

Wouldnt that be ridiculous?

That one specific scenario - yes, that would be absolutely bloody ridiculous.

 

Translated into more everyday terms, it seems like a good, albeit a dirty and underhanded, strategy to eliminate the competition. Also illegal, depending on gov. regulations on monopolies. 

 

And if I have something like that, I'll pretty much stop working and enjoy life .

Sure, until the inevitable happens and the self-printing 3d printers consume all matter in the world, turning the earth into one huge ball of 3d printers orbiting the sun. :)



#34 samoth   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4705

Posted 13 March 2013 - 11:31 AM

Wouldnt that be ridiculous?

That one specific scenario - yes, that would be absolutely bloody ridiculous.

Actually that sounds like something the USPTO would grant a patent for.

 

Much like Method and Apparatus to send messages from one computer to another where a) network is a LAN b) network is a WAN c) network is the internet.

 

Or like Steal the design of 1960-1980 Braun devices and sue a Korean competitor for making something that looks the same.


Edited by samoth, 13 March 2013 - 11:55 AM.


#35 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 13 March 2013 - 11:41 AM

Also the company makes use of airships which they had build and sold earlier for some other purposes to spread water everywhere to extinguish all original robots and generate a monopoly.

What is this analogous to?

#36 samoth   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4705

Posted 13 March 2013 - 12:15 PM

Also the company makes use of airships which they had build and sold earlier for some other purposes to spread water everywhere to extinguish all original robots and generate a monopoly.

What is this analogous to?

Actively advertising against the use of GIF because of its patents. Then, pretending to own a patent for JPEG, blackmail around $100 million from every major company using JPEG in frivolous lawsuits. Then quickly changing the company's name to Asure, so none of the victims can get their money back.


Edited by samoth, 13 March 2013 - 12:15 PM.





Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS