| The problem is SELF-INTEREST is not COMMON-INTEREST Sure, Intel makes more money, but that's not necessarily the best COMMON interest. That's the problem with the megacorps. They are always about 'self interest' over the needs of the people.
Getting a computer at the lowest price running linux goes against everything the megacorps stand for. They are WORKING to MAINTAIN their 'effective monopoly' position, and anything that works against their goal, is by definition, a threat.
The world would be a much better place if the interests of the people were more important that the interests of the megacorps. You see it every day, in every story, from AT&T filtering to usage caps. Those policies are NOT in the best public interest, but only in the interest of the coke snorting, whore screwing, corrupt and EVIL megacorp executives.
--
Relgion and Politics don't mix! I have firsthand knowledge of what happens when ANY religion mixes with ANY politics. |
|
|
|
| Intel isn't a monopoly, there are tons of other chipmakers. In the general PC market though it is mainly Intel vs. AMD. Also what is this BS about linux? Intel makes tons of chips for linux servers. Don't consider Microsoft and Intel as synonymous.
»news.theage.com.au/intel-withdra···k6r.html |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
1 edit | reply to karlmarx
So who, specifically, at intel do you know who snorts coke or screws whores?
'sounds like you're getting confused with that former CEO of Broadcom. |
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:Getting a computer at the lowest price running linux goes against everything the megacorps stand for. They are WORKING to MAINTAIN their 'effective monopoly' position, and anything that works against their goal, is by definition, a threat. .....corrupt and EVIL megacorp executives. selling as many chips as possible, at the highest average price, is what intel does.
Not only, is it not corrupt and evil, it is the fiduciary responsibility of the executive at any company to do everything possible in the interest of the stockholders.
Since there is far more need for computers in developing nations then the "one laptop per child" program can provide alone, intel can sell/provide there product to those areas with slightly higher budgets then the minimum that OLPC charges.
I'm not sure where you think the money comes from to pay for either effort without "for profit" industries. |
|
 TzaleProud Libertarian ConservativePremium
join:2004-01-06
NYC Metro | reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:Sure, Intel makes more money, but that's not necessarily the best COMMON interest. That's the problem with the megacorps. They are always about 'self interest' over the needs of the people. Getting a computer at the lowest price running linux goes against everything the megacorps stand for. They are WORKING to MAINTAIN their 'effective monopoly' position, and anything that works against their goal, is by definition, a threat. The world would be a much better place if the interests of the people were more important that the interests of the megacorps. You see it every day, in every story, from AT&T filtering to usage caps. Those policies are NOT in the best public interest, but only in the interest of the coke snorting, whore screwing, corrupt and EVIL megacorp executives. OK KarlMarx, we'll listen to your rant on 21st century American Capitalism...
-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not real conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
|
|
| said by Tzale:said by karlmarx:Sure, Intel makes more money, but that's not necessarily the best COMMON interest. That's the problem with the megacorps. They are always about 'self interest' over the needs of the people. Getting a computer at the lowest price running linux goes against everything the megacorps stand for. They are WORKING to MAINTAIN their 'effective monopoly' position, and anything that works against their goal, is by definition, a threat. The world would be a much better place if the interests of the people were more important that the interests of the megacorps. You see it every day, in every story, from AT&T filtering to usage caps. Those policies are NOT in the best public interest, but only in the interest of the coke snorting, whore screwing, corrupt and EVIL megacorp executives. OK KarlMarx, we'll listen to your rant on 21st century American Capitalism... -Tzale He should record his posts and play them back over and over again because it is always the same thing.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
 koamPink PeckerPremium
join:2000-08-16
East Puddle | reply to karlmarx
more tedious anti-capitalist drivel. dry up and go to cuba if you love karl marx so much. enjoy. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to grandpinaple
I can see his point. Intel (among others) benefit when Windows upgrades an OS or app, triggering huge numbers of hardware upgrades. A reduction of Windows users would affect that.
This could mean Intel (and video card, memory, motherboard manufacturers, etc.) are sensitive to MS as a market maker. It might go the other way, with MS being dependent upon the hardware manufacturers as market makers (allowing Microsoft to add features, bloat.). With Linux (as a desktop) it can survive on hardware a few generations old.
Mark |
|
2 edits | Those that use old hardware, would find a way to use it either way, whether it is some other open source OS or Windows 95. The bottom line is those old boxes are being used for mundane use such as testing tweaks and running routers. The corporations and individuals running real applications will always have a need for ever increasing computing power. People don't buy higher end PCs (or at least the sector of the market that is actually a significant percentage of Intel's clientel) to run Vista bloatware gui crap. They do it to run the latest game, the latest data crunching application, to accommodate an increasing amount of server traffic, or to handle larger databases of their own clients.
While I see your point I think it is a very weak one because in reality while linux market share may be low, it's open source and adaptable nature is of no threat to Intel. Microsoft might have some leverage over Intel, but not enough to dictate OS usage as companies like IBM are distributing linux on a mass scale.
The issue here is actually that people in the US wanted a machine... |
|
| reply to koam
said by koam:more tedious anti-capitalist drivel. As opposed to the tedious pro-capitalist dogma that comes from other posters... |
|
| reply to PDXPLT
said by PDXPLT:So who, specifically, at intel do you know who snorts coke or screws whores? 'sounds like you're getting confused with that former CEO of Broadcom. Go back to the 70s and 80s, when "coke snorting" and "whore screwing" were HUGE and I BET you could find at least a couple execs from Intel...  |
|
