On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 00:53:40 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>____/ George Barca on Monday 26 January 2009 00:45 : \____
>
>> The reason I ask is because I have and I can assure you that this
>> type of communication goes on all the time. Do you not believe
>> that Pfizer is concerned about what Astrazeneca is up to? Do you
>> not believe that research reports and so forth are fudged in
>> order to keep the stock price up (ie:we almost have the cure for
>> AIDS etc). Do you not think that Ford is trying like the dickens
>> to learn how Toyota measures market share and reaction to their
>> cars?
>
>This memo is highly relevant for the reasons that I stated at the top: it
>relates to a batch which shows paid-for (i.e. manufactured) cases against
>GNU/Linux.
>
>This helps:
>
> * discredit the analysts who sell out
>
> * discredit the Linux-hostile 'studies' paid for by Microsoft
>
>Transparency is typically honoured in an economy that does not lead itself to
>bubbles (caused by recklessness and corruption), such as the one the world
>encounters these days.
>
>Obama too has realised that betterment will come through transparency, which
>relates to honesty.
>
>By the way, this is activism; it's not business.
What makes you think that activism is not a business for some?
You are naive if you think otherwise.
A lobbyist is nothing more than a paid activist.
Haven't you seen commercials on TV where the implication is our
product works without "side effects" that other products will
impose?
There is nothing wrong with calling to task bogus studies, get
the facts for an example, however in general it seems that you
don't realize how big business operates.
Transparency is NOT in the vocabulary of most large companies.
Profit margins are slim.
Research costs are astronomical.
Competition from foreign funded startups is enormous.
If you decide to be transparent you will be eaten alive, chewed
on and spit out.
Protection of one's intellectual property is the name of the
game.
Do I agree?
Mostly, however I do draw the line when it comes to medical
research. Personally I feel the drug companies should work
together to cure disease, say AIDS, and be compensated from a
pool of money provided by the countries of the world.
It's all warm and fuzzy to see Obama using the share word but it
doesn't work that way in real life.
Why?
Human nature, like I said. At the end of the food chain you can
be certain someone is making a buck and making significantly more
than the grunts doing all the work. It's a fact.
I'm a product of the 60s and I once thought like you do now so I
can relate in some way. I woke up when I had to feed myself,
raise a family, deal with health care costs, buy a home and a car
and plan for my retirement. It's great to be a freedom fighter
when your responsibilities involve paying for a small apartment
and some food but things take on a whole new meaning when you get
married and raise a family.
The best advice I can give you Roy is to experience real life as
it exists today for typical families.
You seem to be an intelligent person but I wonder if you are too
much on the theoretical side and not enough on the practical
side.
I have blubbered too much already.
George Barca
georgebarca1981@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
|
