Volume licensing is often more expensive. A copy of XP from release day to last supported day costs a whole lot less to buy a single retail copy, than to volume license it for most companies. Volume licensing is usually a license rental, while a retail copy is a license purchase (as much as you can purchase a license). This makes a large difference to cost. Even better is when you compare "cheap" licenses to volume. OEM is cheaper than retail, so if you use the OEM options when buying new PCs, you'll get cheaper licenses.

Volume sucks. It's good if you have an unlimited budget and prefer ease of license management. But "unlimited budget" doesn't describe anywhere I've ever worked.

So you don't hate them, you just think they are ridiculous. I'm not seeing that as a big distinction.

You don't abandon it. But you don't punish your low-margin customers because your high-margin business model is failing.

I was told something was "impossible" 10 times, until I got tired of their lies, and sent a complaint to the FCC, local regulator, and multiple departments in SBC (formerly and finally ATT), and within 48 hours of dropping a letter in the mail, the service was fixed, and a couple days later, a letter came indicating the problem was fixed and essentially gave a script to read from when the FCC contacted me.

From "impossible" to "done" in a few hours, once I sent a letter to the regulatory bodies. They won't do the job they are required by law to do, unless threatened with legal action. And, sadly, that was my best experience with ATT, as the problem was fixed, even if it took them 6 months to fix their DSL service, and required I send letters to the national and state governments.

Beats the idiots who demand non-Wikipedia cites for everything. I remember millions of details I don't remember how I learned, but I know them, like you know how to work an elevator. Prove the "down" button sends the elevator down to someone who is sitting where you can't see them and claims to not have access to an elevator to check. Proving "common knowledge" is hard. You don't realize it's special when you learn it, so you don't memorize that it's Otis Manual 1997, or whatever.

Gauge the person, then accept what they say or don't. Demanding cites like everything is a Slashdot thread makes *you* the idiot. What, are you to dumb or too lazy to look it up yourself?

They'll use 1% of the new 50%, but that's enough for them to want the new thing. Why do you hate people making choices you don't like? Just accept that people will make choices you wouldn't make.

True enough- IF you can prove it was a murder and not an accident.
 
Can you prove intent with global climate change? If you ignore the utterly non-scientific process of "scientific consensus", do you even have enough data left to prove the murder weapon?
 
And in the long run, does it matter? We're still left with the decision to either adapt or die; we're far too late for any mitigation attempt to work. Blame the culprit is a waste of time in this case.

In what way is insuring a fair and free market collectivism?

Species that are unable to adapt have been going extinct without mankind's help for 9/10ths of the planet's history. For the remaining 1/10th, we've been a major motivator of evolution, that's true- Dodos and wooly mammoths and the like. But we are also to the point with GMO research that we can be a major cause of increased adaptation- we can speed up evolution, and likely will, because beef is tasty (among many other species that are directly useful to us, such as bees). Speaking of that last, just saw a report on OPB about a pair of beekeepers with a unique solution to colony collapse disorder- they're breeding stronger queen bees that can live through Oregon winters.

If mankind wants to survive, food needs to be our top priority. Luckily, as I mentioned someplace above I think, food production is also an answer to excess atmospheric carbon. Especially if we keep locking our own carbon up in airtight containers buried in concrete when we die.

Blonde is "race". If you discriminate against "fair haired" people, that will be considered under race. There are thousands (if not more) of cases on race.

The shutdown was caused by the veto, not the passing of the bill. The passing of the bill was valid and would have resulted in a working government, then Clinton took an action that caused the government to shut down.

I don't see why it matters so much to you. What does it matter who you blame for the shutdown? It was a good thing, not a bad thing.

Yes, there are. If you discriminate consistently against blonds, then you will be open to legal action. You are using a strict definition of "race", and the application of the laws doesn't work that way.

Has there ever been a documented case of someone discriminating against a Mi based on name? No? Then why do you think you deserve special laws?

I've seen some that explicitly list LGBT (as a non protected class). That's not an omission, but a license to discriminate. Is that any different?

Nope, there are hundreds, if not thousands of laws that single them out, whether by name or omission. There are piles of laws on housing and other things that state you can't discriminate on race, gender, age, family status, religion, and/or other factors, but very few of them extend anti-discrimination laws to LBGT. This is singling them out as one of the non-protected classes is singling them out.

" The government shut down after Clinton vetoed the spending bill the Republican Party-controlled Congress sent him. " It was Clinton who "shut it down" by vetoing the budget he didn't like. (if you don't like it, argue with Wikipedia, not me)

Then why did Clinton get in so much trouble with the Conservatives by shutting down the government to get a budget he liked?