Most Hated Meddling Billionaire

Post Reply New Topic

But why should a computer file be different from everything else you buy? Other companies won't replace things you lose (even if they get stolen or destroyed by accident) even if they have a record of you buying them. Why should it be different for purchased files? Like Asp-Z said, companies that sell games won't replace a game you accidentally lose or have destroyed (unless it self-destructed because of some defect).

I think it's grand if Apple really has replaced some peoples' libraries. Perhaps when I inadvertently erased some songs out of my computer I could have called them up. But I had them on CD in a folder on my shelf so I just re-loaded them from there. Yes, I know I'm being smug about backing things up. But really, when you buy files from them it even tells you to back them up and has an annoying little prompt that won't go away until you have acknowledged it. I don't think it's fair to hold Apple accountable for replacing something when literally no other company will replace things you buy (even with a record of purchase) unless you buy special insurance for that. Walk into BestBuy with a receipt for a DVD you bought and tell them you left it on the bus and can you have another one and they will just laugh.

Well, if it comes down to "meddling," there are a few prime suspects missing:

Rupert Murdoch
Bill Gates (Who has meddled with more of us, more directly, than all the rest put together!)
The Barclay brothers

Since that was perfectly possible before any meddling from Steve Jobs. I can conclude that he didn't make that possible, he deserves kudos for managing to make it more expensive though.

The engineers at apple are to blame for the awful format ipods use (read: Steve Jobs is not one of them). They are also responsible for the most restrictive music library db format, and for encrypting the ipod's firmware so that the thing remains as useless as they want it to be. Steve Jobs has not innovating or inventing anything since the last 20 years. Even the most reality distortion field-affected documentary I've seen about the iPod (That crappy one that aired in the Discovery channel some years ago). Was pretty clear what were Steve Jobs' main 'revolutionary' ideas behind the ipod : a) Make it white and b) Make the head phones white. Cue to people stating about how innovative it was for the headphones to be white so that it would attract the kids' attention when people used them. o_O. I wish I was making this up.

It is different BECAUSE of DRM. If I buy music from apple store , I can't share it. If I buy a chair, I can share it. I could also sell my chair to someone that needs it, but with DRM that's not the case.

So, in other words, your argument does not work. If the computer file's purchase worked the same as anything else, it wouldn't use DRM and thus the rants about apple not giving it back to you after a failure wouldn't be necessary (IE: it would be just easy to make a backup of the file to prevent loss). It is the companies themselves that wanted the purchased file to behave differently than a physical purchase. So, the issue here is, why does it seem that the differences they have artificially added to them only benefit themselves and screw costumers up?

So, that's with DRM. You tried to equate a hardware failure with losing a physical object. Well, not quite. If DRM applied to a chair, it would restrict the usage of the chair so badly that only I would be able to use it, and I would not be able to do anything to prevent it from getting lost. In that case, since losing the chair is no longer my responsibility, then the chair company would have to give me the chair again.




If you make backups of DRMed music, you are ripping it, which means you are attempting to bypass the DRM protection which means you are liable to the DMCA.

Murdoch !?

Because it IS different. This is not something that was very mobile, I couldn't really move it around, if i did, I'd not be able to play it from that source. If you're going to make something THAT locked down, I'd better be able to re-download it when I need it. It's not like it's hard to keep that information associated with an account. In fact, it's quite negligent of them not to.

The only reason why someone would want to be a billionaire is because that person wants power. Power to buy and sell people. Power to order people about. Power to make people lick your feet. Power to turn people into puppets on a string. It's the desire to be a tyrant above all other considerations. I would never trust such a person - such a person is dangerous.

As for claiming not to like billlionaires being envy, well, people don't like tyrants telling them what to do, buying their government and using the police to execute their deranged whims. That is not envy, it's the desire for freedom.

You're wise. I wouldn't trust myself, in fact. But for that reason, I will be rich. And yes, money is power, but it's power over yourself as well as other people, and that's more my personal motivation. I want the power to do what I want, go where I want, and buy whatever I want, whenever I want. I also want to prove wrong anyone who said I couldn't do it, or anyone who thinks Aspies are worthless.

As for buying the government, that depends on who it is you're talking about. I see a lot of ex-Goldman Sachs guys in the US government, but I don't see Bill Gates there.

It's gratifying to be right - someone admitting to wanting to become a billionaire in order to become a tyrant. It is about power. To gain security, to gain experiences, one can do this without having billions... now if there was more socialism, people can achieve security without having to have large cash reserves. People should know that there comes a point where extra money cannot buy much in the way of experiences, of comforts, the "reward" for "success" in society - that money only buys cold, hard power, power to be a tyrant and to command others who are to obey without question. Then people who support this speak of freedom.

What if someone wants to become a billionaire so he can undertake projects that interest him?

ruveyn

Unless your vision is grandioise projects don't require billions. But even if you have some wonderful vision to do good in the end you have immense power - power to do these things... you might be a good king instead of an evil one. But nonetheless there's this domination.

There's a certain feeling attached to making money, it's addictive. It appeals to our nature. Socialism has never really worked. Humans are natural capitalists, that's why we've been trading instead of giving ever since the dawn of time.

I'd hate socialism. I want luxury. I want, in all honesty, to be elite. This, again, is something that appeals to our natural nature, and something socialism is fighting against.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: any system which fights human nature is doomed to fail.

All of this means that socialism, in practice, is worse than capitalism. You still have an elite few controlling most of the resources, they're just a different corrupt government to the ones we have now, but they have even more power and it's a lot harder to join them.

O.K. then millions. In any case having sufficient money enables one to undertake projects of interest. The principle is the same: money is a tool as well as a medium of exchange.

ruveyn

*facepalms self*

I knew I missed a few, but Murdoch should have been at the top of my list. I even forgot to put in an "other" option, so you can tell I was distracted when I created the poll, teach me to try to talk to the wife and post at the same time...

I actually considered both Gates and Warren Buffet when I created the poll, but decided against them since I don't consider either of them to be particularly political, and both com off as fairly benevolent as far as what they're doing with their money. I'm surprised that Steve Jobs has so much activity as a write in, I mean the man's kind of a jerk but he doesn't strike me as much of a "meddler" like the others on the list.

My personal choice was Bloomberg, his purchase of his mayorship in spite of violating term limit laws was just particularly egregious IMHO.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AitHxiOGSs[/youtube]

Some more reasons I don't like Mike.

to the extent that the koch brothers are boosters of punitive republican regimes, what i would do on their graves would not pass for flowers.

Uh oh, looks like someone's been reading The New Yorker...