Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!

Click here to return to the 'Ugh. Enough!' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Ugh. Enough!
Authored by: TonyT on Oct 18, '09 09:19:07AM

>If you don't believe there's a moral reasoning issue here, you haven't read the Kohlberg link I provided, and haven't really followed the arguments that have been presented.

I have, and I agree.

>It's essentially the same as wondering whether you can park in a handicapped zone when you're sure that no disabled people or meter police are around. Sure you can do it, sure you can get away with it, sure you can claim you're not harming anyone - does that make it right? you'll get different responses to that question depending on the moral reasoning of the person you ask.

I always assumed that anyone that does this would agree that doing so is wrong (...but now I remember that old Seinfeld episode).

>The way I see this issue, Apple recognized that 10.6 is actually closer to an update of Leopard than a new OS. There are a lot of changes under the hood, of course - too much for Apple to give it away as a free update - but not very many changes to the actual top-level functioning of the OS. Apple compromised, and released it as a new OS at a greatly reduced price. Now, if they had released it as an update, Tiger users would have been forced to buy Leopard for $129, just like every other Leopard user. Doing it this way, though, current Leopard users will have paid $169 dollars (over the long run) while Tiger people will end up getting exactly the same software for only $29. Apple doesn't want that (obviously - even the people who say that the SLA allows it can't claim that Apple wants it), and current Leopard users have a right to be somewhat annoyed by it. The only question here is whether or not a given person gives a flying fig about what Apple wants, or about what annoys other people, or about what the 'correct' thing to do in the situation is; or whether that person is merely interested in getting the best deal possible for him/herself by hook, or crook, or schnook. That question is answered by any given person according to the stage of moral reasoning s/he is at when s/he asks it.

Again, agreed.

>I'm not here to say what's right or wrong in the situation. I'm just pointing out that there's no sense going on about it. Any argument that gets made is only going to get heard by the people who are already predisposed to agree with it, and is just going to sail right by anyone else.


> Ugh. Enough!

....And finally, --- Agreed

[ Reply to This | # ]
Ugh. Enough!
Authored by: tedw on Oct 18, '09 10:23:34AM

lol - ok, I can agree with that. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]