The whole point of capitalism is, via a free market where YOU have the choice, to let people decide for themselves that those who "do the stupidest shit" CAN'T "come out okay". You surely are not speaking of true, laissez-faire capitalism - you must be speaking of bastardized capitalism (see the USA), which is not capitalism at all.

Lamenting the fact that a successful company can correct mistakes and offer a product that you admittedly buy yourself is no reason to damn the very politico-economic system that allows them to be successful in the first place.

Advancements towards prosperity of human life?

Thanks for the link, but I asked the question here because I WANT opinions from fellow tech enthusiasts. If I wanted opinions from the /. of travel forums, then I'd ask my questions there.

Is it that difficult to comprehend the technology-related aspects of an airline carrier's existence? Maybe one airline uses open source and another uses Microsoft; maybe one airline uses weak wireless encryption; etc. etc.

In my experience, Northwest/Delta has been the best (I typically fly from the Northeast to the Midwest through Detroit). I have flown multiple times overseas to Europe, and enjoyed Northwest flights there as well (Rome, Italy, for example).

United has been the worst experience, by far. Although I will say, I just travelled to California (a 3-leg trip) and had a very enjoyable flight experience both there and back!

I used to prefer USAirways, however when they switched their main Northeast/US hub from Pittsburgh, PA to Philadelphia, PA, their performance seemed to take a turn for the worse! I think this is just a product of the airport (Philly).

For those /.ers that fly, what are your favorite and least favorite airlines and why? Do you prefer longer flights with less connections, or shorter flights with more connections? Personally, I prefer longer flights with less connections. The more connections, the greater the chance of delays, it seems!

You're missing the point, though. The point is, Sony should NOT be allowed to sell a device with Feature X, and then take it away. Sony should be praised for adding a lot of new features; that's great. What they shouldn't do is take away functionality that was included at the time of sale. And a full refund isn't even enough; what about all the time that is wasted by a PS3 owner who DID use the Other OS feature? Now they have to take the time to research what happened to the feature, why it was removed, if they can get it back, try to sell or return the PS3, etc. etc.

If you've got 9 inches you better spit it out, because it doesn't belong to you.

:)

Hello hairyfeet,

I think more responsibility falls on the consumer. If Sony demands ridiculous terms, it's up to us to boycott their products and send a message. The problem is, consumers want to have their cake and eat it too. They want a reasonable EULA, but they're not willing to refuse unreasonable EULAs. The choice is ours, folks.

Having said that, if Sony sells a product with Feature X and then takes it away... that is plain wrong.

Can any /.ers here with a legal/law background comment on the legality of a contract that grants infinite powers over said contract to one party?

That's exactly it; you're doing the right thing. Don't give in to their unreasonable EULA, boycott their product, and either choose another gaming platform or none at all if you can't find one that suits you.

Hello treeves,

How come that's a problem? If I plant some flowers on my property, it benefits all those who drive past my property and like to look at flowers. Are they expected to pay for the cost of my own flowers?

And the person who doesn't drive still pays indirectly when they pay for said food, ambulances, fire trucks, mail, shoes, bicycle parts, etc.

Hello petermgreen... do you live in the USA?

Regarding things like the library and school, there is a very important point: -Someone- has to pay for the library. -Someone- has to pay for schools. So many people reference "free" healthcare or "free" schools... it's not free at all. The question is, does one feel entitled to the product of someone else's life (voluntary vs mandatory taxes).

If providing a service is positive for society, shouldn't it be voluntary? ie, if you think having libraries is positive for society, you can pay a library tax (as would I), even if we don't actually use the library ourselves. If you think a welfare program is positive for society, you can contribute to it through a welfare tax, even if you aren't yourself on welfare.

Another question to be asked is: Positive for society by whose standards?

Wouldn't that question have to be answered by society itself? And if that's the case and nobody wants to pay for something, then is it really what's best for society?

Hello,

The police force / lawmakers is definitely a wrinkle into the "pay for what you use" idea. Take your example of police officers... if we had voluntary taxes for the police force, you would inevitably have many people who wouldn't want to pay for police officers (all while benefiting from them). Is it possible to have a voluntarily funded service (police / military) and have it not collapse?

That is an interesting idea about having the police fund themselves with fines... it definitely could be open to abuse by police officers, but that would actually shed some light on the issue of ambiguous / "gray area" laws.

Regarding your comment on poor people not being able to climb the ladder, do you think it's a requirement that people who live by their own means help people who cannot (either by choice or luck)?

Thanks for the reply, MrZilla.

That is interesting... What is the political climate in Sweden at the moment? ie, is there an outcry of people unhappy with current taxes?

What do /.'ers think of making all taxes a choice? For example:

If you want to drive on the roads, you pay a road tax.
If you want to send your children to public schools, you pay a school tax.
If you want to use a local library, you pay a library tax.

etc. etc. The idea is, the people would pay the government when they wanted a specific service, and the government would use that money to maintain that service. Do you think this structure would promote more self-responsibility? What would be the shortcomings?

Thanks again for anyone's comments!

Just curious... can other /.'ers comment on the "tax days" of other countries besides the USA?

Do you have to file a tax return? By what date? What percentage do you pay to your respective governments during the course of a year? (Bigger question: What are the tax brackets?)

Also, given your own personal tax bracket, do you feel you pay too much, too little, or a fair amount?

Just curious... Thanks everyone!