Quote from: jpinkman on July 21, 2012, 03:39 pmQuote from: anarcho47 on July 21, 2012, 02:27 pmSo what you are essentially saying is that your subjective interpretation of "fair" bears more weight than a universally applicable moral code that applies equally to all human beings on earth... nice. Microsoft's actions with IE might not have been "fair" (to whom?? on what basis?), but they were certainly moral. How interesting that you find the need to put words in my mouth in order to set up your little straw man... nice, well not really.But what I find entertaining is your implication that you hold the keys to a "universally applicable moral code that applies equally to all human beings on earth" (says who? you?) that somehow supersedes subjective interpretations you accuse me of harboring.Alright! I've gotta make some popcorn to watch how skillfully you can squirm trying to avoid hypocrisy on this.Fire away! What hypocrisy. All human beings are endowed with negative inalienable rights that can ONLY be rights if, by exercising them, they are not violating the commensurate rights of another human being.For example. I cannot own your car 100% while you own it 100%. I can tell you I think you're a fucking asshole for not selling them to me, and that doesn't infringe on your right to tell me I'm a dick for offering way too low of a price. You see? how that works? There are certain actions you are able to perform that are voluntary and right/moral, in that they don't violate the rights of another human being.Now, I'd like you to explain your subjective interpretation of "fair" in the instance of Microsoft. What would you, wise benevolent overlord of the morality of the planet earth, decree upon those of us who wish to serve our customers by giving them something they are currently paying for for nothing, while simultaneously freeing up billions of tied-up capital, human intellect and labour, and scarce resources to be put to use in a better consumer-serving capacity. Please, bestow your wisdom upon us.You build a business model on a shitty idea, eventually you go bust. Henry Ford was a fucking nightmare to the hundreds of thousands of carriage drivers and builders and ferriers and horse-feed growers and shippers, etc. He was extremely unfair. Just as Rockefeller was so unfair to all of those whalers out there hunting whale oil so that we could burn our insanely expensive lamps at the time. I mean, fuck, rue the day that average humans actually got to stay up after dark because someone invented this brilliant product called kerosene that destroyed the whale-oil industry and dropped the price of lighting a human house by about 90%.You are going to be swimming around in that disgusting swamp called the postmodern subjective for a while, so I'll leave you to it. Let me know when you've decided what "fair" is (please make it something that can be applied to more than just Microsoft or another disruptive business move that saves consumers money). And leave Kodak out of this - they tried, film was great for a while, but those evil digital camera people that made taking and sharing infinitely replicate-able images ridiculously easy and cheap just destroyed Kodak's business model. It's not "fair" that a consumer can take 500 pictures for $2.00 of battery power. Sickening. They should be paying $50 - $100 for the film alone! Think of all those people who worked in film manufacturing and development!