I don't like having threads polluted with ill-willed debates, and I'm sure you don't either, so I'm moving this argument over here where people who don't give a rip, don't have to read it.
While I'm here I'd also like to suggest this model for others- if you are about to derail a thread with off-topic comments, please make a new thread instead.
This is regarding the corporate profit argument. [url]https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/1061791/3d-vision/rtx-2080-incoming-/post/5856994/#5856994[/url]
But really my fundamental problem is in the post title. I come here to learn and discuss 3D Vision. I really, really, [i]reall[i][/i]y[/i] do not want to discuss politics, or other people's opinions of how the world should work, or things that tend to be click bait. Well meaning people of good will do not post click bait. That's what FaceBook is for. :->
This discussion of corporate profit motives has absolutely zero do with 3D Vision. I can easily understand discussions of video card prices, and personal opinions about whether it is [i]personally[/i] worth it or not.
RageDemon's original post had some good discussion and personal opinion about whether it is worth spending the money, all worthy topics. Even some great suggestions on how to decide for yourself whether a card has good value to you or not.
Then of course, he had to veer off into click bait conjecture and poison the thread.
[quote="RAGEdemon"]No company in their right mind would sell a product for $10 if they could sell it for $20 and shift a similar volume. In fact, it is illegal to do so, as by the company's and country's own rules and regulations - the articles of association et al.[/quote]
That right there is absolutely false, as I showed from the supreme court ruling. It is not [i]illegal[/i]. There is no corporate case law, and certainly no congressional laws that dictate this. Even in this example, corporation X would absolutely be allowed to sell their product for $10 if they felt it was in their long term best interest.
There are a lot of 'socially conscious' types who want to believe this meme is true, because it matches their beliefs and angst about the world. But the US Supreme Court ruled in HHS vs. Hobby Lobby that in fact for-profit corporations are allowed to put some values above corporate profit.
Note that I said [i]profit[/i], not [i]welfare[/i]. The rulings from the Delaware Supreme Court use the word corporate [i]welfare[/i], and in fact never use the word profit, nor the word wealth. Wealth is not a synonym for welfare. A corporation can have all the money in the world, and gain unwanted regulatory attention that is bad for their welfare.
[quote="RAGEdemon"]You will note that the [u][b]opinion[/b][/u] piece you linked to is in agreement that the "Directors must make stockholder welfare their sole end" - a direct quote from Chief Justice Leo Strine of the Delaware Supreme Court (Delaware being the preeminent state for corporate law). All the opinion is saying is that short term and short sighted profit is not necessarily the best thing for shareholders; she argues that Directors should be concerned about the long term profits and strategise towards that for the long term benefit of the shareholders.
Furthermore, Honorable Leo E. Strine, Jr. of the Delaware Supreme Court, [color="gray"][[i]The Dangers of Denial: The Need for A Clear-Eyed Understanding of the Power and Accountability Structure Established by the Delaware General Corporation Law, 50 Wake Forest L. Rev. 761 (2015).[/i]][/color] rails against such opinion.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court specifically writes:
"In current corporate law scholarship, there is a tendency among those who believe that corporations should be more socially responsible to avoid the more difficult and important task of advocating for externality regulation of corporations in a globalizing economy and encouraging institutional investors to exercise their power as stockholders responsibly. Instead, [b]these advocates for corporate social responsibility [url="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pretend"] [u]pretend[/u] [/url] that directors do not have to make stockholder welfare the sole end of corporate governance, within the limits of their legal discretion, under the law of the most important American jurisdiction--Delaware."[/b][/quote]
This sounds impressive, because it comes from the Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court, but in fact, this is an essay that he wrote for a law journal, and is not a court judgment. It's his opinion. A damn good one with impeccable research, but it's not a case precedent.
The original essay: [url]https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2581714_code711466.pdf?abstractid=2576389&mirid=1&type=2[/url]
It seems most telling that [i]the v[i][/i]ery next phrase[/i] that he writes is:
[quote]I say stockholder welfare for a reason. To the extent that these commentators argue that directors are generally empowered to manage the corporation in a way that is not dictated by what will best maximize the corporation’s current stock price, they are correct.8
8See Paramount Communications, Inc. v. Time Incorporated, TW, 571 A.2d 1140, 1150 (Del.
1989) (“[A]bsent a limited set of circumstances as defined under Revlon, a board of directors,
while always required to act in an informed manner, is not under any per se duty to maximize
shareholder value in the short term, even in the context of a takeover.”); Air Products and
Chemicals, Inc. v. Airgas, Inc., 16 A.3d 48, 112 (Del. Ch. 2011) (“When a company is not
in Revlon mode, a board of directors is not under any per se duty to maximize shareholder value
in the short term. . . .”) (internal quotation omitted). [/quote]
Gee, I wonder why that part was skipped.
Note that all of these 'counter-examples' use the phrase [i]corporate welfare[/i]. Corporate welfare is not solely wealth. People who are quoting these examples and deliberately conflating 'welfare' to 'wealth' are engaging in click bait, to stoke the outrage against corporations.
[i]Corporate welfare[/i], can, and often does include things that deliberately reduce profits. Giving money to charity. Why would any corporation give money to charity if profit is the only goal? Shouldn't they be sued? Paying matching money to employee 401ks. That cost the shareholders cash right there, shouldn't they be sued? What is best for the corporate welfare can in fact include things that cost short term profits. It is absolutely not illegal to do so.
I'm not fan of our corporate structures and the power they wield over all of us, but I hate click bait more.
Now I get that RageDemon is deliberately trolling me. And I took the bait of course.
My request here is that we all try to avoid adding irrelevant click bait into our posts. Naturally RageDemon will not respect my request, but I still want to always encourage all of us to be our better selves in this tiny corner of the interwebs.
I don't like having threads polluted with ill-willed debates, and I'm sure you don't either, so I'm moving this argument over here where people who don't give a rip, don't have to read it.
While I'm here I'd also like to suggest this model for others- if you are about to derail a thread with off-topic comments, please make a new thread instead.
But really my fundamental problem is in the post title. I come here to learn and discuss 3D Vision. I really, really, really do not want to discuss politics, or other people's opinions of how the world should work, or things that tend to be click bait. Well meaning people of good will do not post click bait. That's what FaceBook is for. :->
This discussion of corporate profit motives has absolutely zero do with 3D Vision. I can easily understand discussions of video card prices, and personal opinions about whether it is personally worth it or not.
RageDemon's original post had some good discussion and personal opinion about whether it is worth spending the money, all worthy topics. Even some great suggestions on how to decide for yourself whether a card has good value to you or not.
Then of course, he had to veer off into click bait conjecture and poison the thread.
RAGEdemon said:No company in their right mind would sell a product for $10 if they could sell it for $20 and shift a similar volume. In fact, it is illegal to do so, as by the company's and country's own rules and regulations - the articles of association et al.
That right there is absolutely false, as I showed from the supreme court ruling. It is not illegal. There is no corporate case law, and certainly no congressional laws that dictate this. Even in this example, corporation X would absolutely be allowed to sell their product for $10 if they felt it was in their long term best interest.
There are a lot of 'socially conscious' types who want to believe this meme is true, because it matches their beliefs and angst about the world. But the US Supreme Court ruled in HHS vs. Hobby Lobby that in fact for-profit corporations are allowed to put some values above corporate profit.
Note that I said profit, not welfare. The rulings from the Delaware Supreme Court use the word corporate welfare, and in fact never use the word profit, nor the word wealth. Wealth is not a synonym for welfare. A corporation can have all the money in the world, and gain unwanted regulatory attention that is bad for their welfare.
RAGEdemon said:You will note that the opinion piece you linked to is in agreement that the "Directors must make stockholder welfare their sole end" - a direct quote from Chief Justice Leo Strine of the Delaware Supreme Court (Delaware being the preeminent state for corporate law). All the opinion is saying is that short term and short sighted profit is not necessarily the best thing for shareholders; she argues that Directors should be concerned about the long term profits and strategise towards that for the long term benefit of the shareholders.
Furthermore, Honorable Leo E. Strine, Jr. of the Delaware Supreme Court, [The Dangers of Denial: The Need for A Clear-Eyed Understanding of the Power and Accountability Structure Established by the Delaware General Corporation Law, 50 Wake Forest L. Rev. 761 (2015).] rails against such opinion.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court specifically writes:
"In current corporate law scholarship, there is a tendency among those who believe that corporations should be more socially responsible to avoid the more difficult and important task of advocating for externality regulation of corporations in a globalizing economy and encouraging institutional investors to exercise their power as stockholders responsibly. Instead, these advocates for corporate social responsibility pretend that directors do not have to make stockholder welfare the sole end of corporate governance, within the limits of their legal discretion, under the law of the most important American jurisdiction--Delaware."
This sounds impressive, because it comes from the Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court, but in fact, this is an essay that he wrote for a law journal, and is not a court judgment. It's his opinion. A damn good one with impeccable research, but it's not a case precedent.
It seems most telling that the very next phrase that he writes is:
I say stockholder welfare for a reason. To the extent that these commentators argue that directors are generally empowered to manage the corporation in a way that is not dictated by what will best maximize the corporation’s current stock price, they are correct.8
8See Paramount Communications, Inc. v. Time Incorporated, TW, 571 A.2d 1140, 1150 (Del.
1989) (“[A]bsent a limited set of circumstances as defined under Revlon, a board of directors,
while always required to act in an informed manner, is not under any per se duty to maximize
shareholder value in the short term, even in the context of a takeover.”); Air Products and
Chemicals, Inc. v. Airgas, Inc., 16 A.3d 48, 112 (Del. Ch. 2011) (“When a company is not
in Revlon mode, a board of directors is not under any per se duty to maximize shareholder value
in the short term. . . .”) (internal quotation omitted).
Gee, I wonder why that part was skipped.
Note that all of these 'counter-examples' use the phrase corporate welfare. Corporate welfare is not solely wealth. People who are quoting these examples and deliberately conflating 'welfare' to 'wealth' are engaging in click bait, to stoke the outrage against corporations.
Corporate welfare, can, and often does include things that deliberately reduce profits. Giving money to charity. Why would any corporation give money to charity if profit is the only goal? Shouldn't they be sued? Paying matching money to employee 401ks. That cost the shareholders cash right there, shouldn't they be sued? What is best for the corporate welfare can in fact include things that cost short term profits. It is absolutely not illegal to do so.
I'm not fan of our corporate structures and the power they wield over all of us, but I hate click bait more.
Now I get that RageDemon is deliberately trolling me. And I took the bait of course.
My request here is that we all try to avoid adding irrelevant click bait into our posts. Naturally RageDemon will not respect my request, but I still want to always encourage all of us to be our better selves in this tiny corner of the interwebs.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Wow, quite a list of charges you are levying against me there bo3b, also kudos on your continuous post edits :)
Troll... Click-bait... Thread pollution... making "patently false statements" - a liar?... once, even an "ungrateful wretch", though I see you have deleted that bit as of late, as you continue to edit your posts... And now, a thread towards making me look bad in the guise of continuing a 'separated discussion for the benefit of the community' (oh how noble of you ;>), while using [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man[/url] and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem fallacies...
...Now reaching the extent that, after a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court opposed your armchair opinion, you are nitpicking the difference between shareholder welfare/wealth and shareholder profits in an effort to save face - even going as far as to create yet another [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man[/url] where in your imagination profits are somehow short term only, as opposed to both short and long term. I shouldn't find this so amusing, forgive me, but I do; - Perhaps the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is "trolling" you ;-)
Tsk tsk mate, personal attacks are simply uncool, especially those disguised as "discussion" - I have faith that the awesome people of this community will see through this charade. You will note that I have been completely civil in spite of your attacks, even trying to dissuade you from arguing over semantics to focus on the message rather than the exact wording.
I regret that I shall not be wasting my valuable time - If you like, you can take that as having won an imaginary argument on an internet forum. I shall leave you with the last part of my previous post, as I always try to finish posts, especially with you, respectfully. My invitation to meet you if you're ever in the vacinity of Cambridge, England, still stands BTW, I'm sure it would be a pleasure. All the best mate... :)
[quote="RAGEdemon"]bo3b, you know, a wise man once said that arguments try to decide [u]who[/u] is right, while discussions try to decide [u]what[/u] is right.
[u]What is right[/u] is that corporations have no obligation towards consumers' welfare; it only matters to them when it fits in with their strategy of maximising shareholder value/wealth. We, as consumers, need to always be weary of this fact.
Whether it is against the law or not has no real bearing in regards to the above point. Such an argument is a personal, ego-driven notion you pose to try and prove [u]who is right[/u], and I don't want to entertain that.
.
.
We as consumers have to be wise to this fact so that we too can maximise the value of their products; e.g. by seeing through their marketing.
Otherwise, whatever man.
[/quote]
Reference for anyone who is interested in my offending heinous (/s) forum post, the entire post can be found here:
[url]https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/1061791/3d-vision/rtx-2080-incoming-/post/5857060/#5857060[/url]
Wow, quite a list of charges you are levying against me there bo3b, also kudos on your continuous post edits :)
Troll... Click-bait... Thread pollution... making "patently false statements" - a liar?... once, even an "ungrateful wretch", though I see you have deleted that bit as of late, as you continue to edit your posts... And now, a thread towards making me look bad in the guise of continuing a 'separated discussion for the benefit of the community' (oh how noble of you ;>), while using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem fallacies...
...Now reaching the extent that, after a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court opposed your armchair opinion, you are nitpicking the difference between shareholder welfare/wealth and shareholder profits in an effort to save face - even going as far as to create yet another https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man where in your imagination profits are somehow short term only, as opposed to both short and long term. I shouldn't find this so amusing, forgive me, but I do; - Perhaps the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is "trolling" you ;-)
Tsk tsk mate, personal attacks are simply uncool, especially those disguised as "discussion" - I have faith that the awesome people of this community will see through this charade. You will note that I have been completely civil in spite of your attacks, even trying to dissuade you from arguing over semantics to focus on the message rather than the exact wording.
I regret that I shall not be wasting my valuable time - If you like, you can take that as having won an imaginary argument on an internet forum. I shall leave you with the last part of my previous post, as I always try to finish posts, especially with you, respectfully. My invitation to meet you if you're ever in the vacinity of Cambridge, England, still stands BTW, I'm sure it would be a pleasure. All the best mate... :)
RAGEdemon said:bo3b, you know, a wise man once said that arguments try to decide who is right, while discussions try to decide what is right.
What is right is that corporations have no obligation towards consumers' welfare; it only matters to them when it fits in with their strategy of maximising shareholder value/wealth. We, as consumers, need to always be weary of this fact.
Whether it is against the law or not has no real bearing in regards to the above point. Such an argument is a personal, ego-driven notion you pose to try and prove who is right, and I don't want to entertain that.
.
.
We as consumers have to be wise to this fact so that we too can maximise the value of their products; e.g. by seeing through their marketing.
Umm..
I've been off the board and don't know anything about the above topic, but....
One thing I've learned is that:
- We all love 3D gaming and 3D Vision
- Let's not "attack" or "kill" each other
- People can become very irascible and whole topics can become very toxic due to miss-communication.
On a personal note, I had arguments before with a lot of members here, including RAGEdemon and possibly bo3d (just to name a few). BUT, I NEVER HOLD TO HEARTH ANY OF these long forgotten chats!
I consider anyone here a good friend and a valuable member of this community!
Thus, I was wondering, if we can all just focus on what we really care : 3D Gaming and 3D Tech and the likes and not do anyone any harm?
(I don't want anyone from this post to fell offended, I just really hope these type of posts or discussions would not exist at all, as I think it would be best if we all focus on what we love and how we can genuinely help)
Thank you!
Edit:
Fixed typos...grr
Umm..
I've been off the board and don't know anything about the above topic, but....
One thing I've learned is that:
- We all love 3D gaming and 3D Vision
- Let's not "attack" or "kill" each other
- People can become very irascible and whole topics can become very toxic due to miss-communication.
On a personal note, I had arguments before with a lot of members here, including RAGEdemon and possibly bo3d (just to name a few). BUT, I NEVER HOLD TO HEARTH ANY OF these long forgotten chats!
I consider anyone here a good friend and a valuable member of this community!
Thus, I was wondering, if we can all just focus on what we really care : 3D Gaming and 3D Tech and the likes and not do anyone any harm?
(I don't want anyone from this post to fell offended, I just really hope these type of posts or discussions would not exist at all, as I think it would be best if we all focus on what we love and how we can genuinely help)
Thank you!
Edit:
Fixed typos...grr
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
I am with Helifax on this one too, We are Small enough no need to make ourselves smaller and divided..
We are here because of 3D Nothing else matters..
@helifax, @Th3_N3philim, @mgriggs22: Apologies in advance, but anytime people are trying to make me look bad, I feel the need to respond. I also like to write down my opinion, so that people who stumble across this sort of thing later can have my perspective. Generally speaking no one will care, but I use my real name and my real voice on forums, and so consequently it can impact me professionally. [url]https://www.linkedin.com/in/bo3bjohnson[/url]
I also have learned over time that ignoring anger and resentment does not actually make anything better. Talking it through does.
That's why I don't just ignore them. But my hope is that we can keep this sort of junk in obvious threads so people do not have to read if they prefer not to. Again, my apologies, but I must. Plus, I'll confess that it's an intellectually interesting question, and I wanted to know the answer.
[quote="RAGEdemon"]Wow, quite a list of charges you are levying against me there bo3b, also kudos on your continuous post edits :)
Troll... Click-bait... Thread pollution... making "patently false statements" - a liar?... once, even an "ungrateful wretch", though I see you have deleted that bit as of late, as you continue to edit your posts... And now, a thread towards making me look bad in the guise of continuing a 'separated discussion for the benefit of the community' (oh how noble of you ;>), while using [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man[/url] and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem fallacies...[/quote]
Well... I don't know what happened to you man.
Previously you argued in good faith, and were interested in learning. You could argue and discuss in a good natured way. You'd focus on the data and try to prove or disprove the data. You were genuinely civil.
Every post you make now is some sort of Professor Demon approach, where you have all the answers and are bestowing it upon us poor hapless denizens of the net. There is the one truth, yours, and anyone who disagrees must just be stupid and needs to be tutored. The actual data and arguments are ignored as you pedantically quote irrelevant fallacies. Straw man wikipedia? Ad-hominem wikipedia. Really? Again? I can only assume you are doing that again because I said before it seriously pissed me off.
Somewhere along the line you decided to bait me at at every turn, and now seem surprised that I respond in kind? Every chance you get you put in a personal dig like "(oh how noble of you ;>)" "Now now bo3b, let's not play the nitpicking game." "Otherwise, "that's cool man, whatever you say" :)" "That's up to you mate. The great thing about science/truth is that it does not change whether someone believes it or not." "This is a fallacy known as X" "Kudos to bo3b for trying though, he did quite well with what he had..." Now be a good little boy and run along.
Yeah, no. If you call me out in a public forum, and treat me like a child, I will respond. You can continue to use bullshit trolling techniques, and I will keep responding with accurate and factual information.
If you think I've veered off into an ad-hominem attack, then please quote the section and explain. I do not believe I have done so, and as this is my real name, it behooves me to not engage in that type of behavior.
I respond because I'm actually interested in objective reality. Not made up internet hogwash, click bait, trolling and other time wasters.
The reason this topic is interesting is because it's an actual debate in the world, and people of good will can debate it and try to understand it. There is a lot of confusion as to whether corporations are actually required to put profit ahead of all other concerns. It's an interesting question, if people approach it with intellectual honesty.
You are choosing not to debate, but to deflect and try to make me look bad. All of your examples are weak and don't prove your point. When I point that out, you directly attack me instead of debating the point. My HHS vs. Hobby Lobby example is from the US freakin' Supreme Court, and you choose to ignore it, while posting other deliberately misleading examples. Only trolls can think the US Supreme Court got this wrong.
In any case, I think the US Supreme Court [i]judgment[/i] is a far stronger argument than a Delaware Supreme Court Justice essay.
Other people worldwide may not understand the nuance, but the US Supreme Court is the final stop for any court case. It cannot be appealed, although Congress can write a new law. The Delaware Supreme Court is only for the state of Delaware, although it has outsized importance as the home of most corporations.
You are also lying about my post edits, in an effort to make me look bad and sow distrust. The only one I removed was "ungrateful wretches" because that was needlessly inflammatory, and did not change the crux of the post. And in point of fact, was not directed at you. I cannot edit [i]quoted[/i] versions of my posts, which you have quoted, so falsely accusing me of editing them without evidence is serious troll behavior.
That is an extremely serious accusation, and I would request that you remove that false accusation.
@helifax, @Th3_N3philim, @mgriggs22: Apologies in advance, but anytime people are trying to make me look bad, I feel the need to respond. I also like to write down my opinion, so that people who stumble across this sort of thing later can have my perspective. Generally speaking no one will care, but I use my real name and my real voice on forums, and so consequently it can impact me professionally. https://www.linkedin.com/in/bo3bjohnson
I also have learned over time that ignoring anger and resentment does not actually make anything better. Talking it through does.
That's why I don't just ignore them. But my hope is that we can keep this sort of junk in obvious threads so people do not have to read if they prefer not to. Again, my apologies, but I must. Plus, I'll confess that it's an intellectually interesting question, and I wanted to know the answer.
RAGEdemon said:Wow, quite a list of charges you are levying against me there bo3b, also kudos on your continuous post edits :)
Troll... Click-bait... Thread pollution... making "patently false statements" - a liar?... once, even an "ungrateful wretch", though I see you have deleted that bit as of late, as you continue to edit your posts... And now, a thread towards making me look bad in the guise of continuing a 'separated discussion for the benefit of the community' (oh how noble of you ;>), while using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem fallacies...
Well... I don't know what happened to you man.
Previously you argued in good faith, and were interested in learning. You could argue and discuss in a good natured way. You'd focus on the data and try to prove or disprove the data. You were genuinely civil.
Every post you make now is some sort of Professor Demon approach, where you have all the answers and are bestowing it upon us poor hapless denizens of the net. There is the one truth, yours, and anyone who disagrees must just be stupid and needs to be tutored. The actual data and arguments are ignored as you pedantically quote irrelevant fallacies. Straw man wikipedia? Ad-hominem wikipedia. Really? Again? I can only assume you are doing that again because I said before it seriously pissed me off.
Somewhere along the line you decided to bait me at at every turn, and now seem surprised that I respond in kind? Every chance you get you put in a personal dig like "(oh how noble of you ;>)" "Now now bo3b, let's not play the nitpicking game." "Otherwise, "that's cool man, whatever you say" :)" "That's up to you mate. The great thing about science/truth is that it does not change whether someone believes it or not." "This is a fallacy known as X" "Kudos to bo3b for trying though, he did quite well with what he had..." Now be a good little boy and run along.
Yeah, no. If you call me out in a public forum, and treat me like a child, I will respond. You can continue to use bullshit trolling techniques, and I will keep responding with accurate and factual information.
If you think I've veered off into an ad-hominem attack, then please quote the section and explain. I do not believe I have done so, and as this is my real name, it behooves me to not engage in that type of behavior.
I respond because I'm actually interested in objective reality. Not made up internet hogwash, click bait, trolling and other time wasters.
The reason this topic is interesting is because it's an actual debate in the world, and people of good will can debate it and try to understand it. There is a lot of confusion as to whether corporations are actually required to put profit ahead of all other concerns. It's an interesting question, if people approach it with intellectual honesty.
You are choosing not to debate, but to deflect and try to make me look bad. All of your examples are weak and don't prove your point. When I point that out, you directly attack me instead of debating the point. My HHS vs. Hobby Lobby example is from the US freakin' Supreme Court, and you choose to ignore it, while posting other deliberately misleading examples. Only trolls can think the US Supreme Court got this wrong.
In any case, I think the US Supreme Court judgment is a far stronger argument than a Delaware Supreme Court Justice essay.
Other people worldwide may not understand the nuance, but the US Supreme Court is the final stop for any court case. It cannot be appealed, although Congress can write a new law. The Delaware Supreme Court is only for the state of Delaware, although it has outsized importance as the home of most corporations.
You are also lying about my post edits, in an effort to make me look bad and sow distrust. The only one I removed was "ungrateful wretches" because that was needlessly inflammatory, and did not change the crux of the post. And in point of fact, was not directed at you. I cannot edit quoted versions of my posts, which you have quoted, so falsely accusing me of editing them without evidence is serious troll behavior.
That is an extremely serious accusation, and I would request that you remove that false accusation.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
I understand completely b03b, I just hope you guys can sort this out peacefully..
I wish I knew the answer to the question at hand about corporations. but I would think they do want to make a profit either way I am sure more is better too..
I do know the new nVidia cards are way overpriced.. I would love to see the internal numbers on what exactly it cost to make a video card..
I understand completely b03b, I just hope you guys can sort this out peacefully..
I wish I knew the answer to the question at hand about corporations. but I would think they do want to make a profit either way I am sure more is better too..
I do know the new nVidia cards are way overpriced.. I would love to see the internal numbers on what exactly it cost to make a video card..
I don't really know any of you, but I like and respect you both (aimed at Bob and Shahzad).
I've loosely followed this, glad you moved it into a separate thread as well. Obviously the internet is a nightmare and being a pretty technical forum, most of us want to be technically correct with what we post.
As an observer is does feel that it's escalated a bit more than you'd hope for. I'd rather it hadn't got to this point because it's not productive but I understand that people want to explain themselves and actually defend themselves too.
For what it's worth, I don't actually care about the legalities. Not at all. I'm just happy to accept that corporations maximise profit and they will market products at whatever price the market will bear.
Referring back to graphics cards in general, I think it's a good thing that Nvidia have released newer better cards and I think it's a big step that they are pushing ray tracing as well.
Forgetting the marketing side of RTX and forgetting the fact that they are 'greedy', they are actually still innovating, pushing the envelope and giving us more choice as consumers. No-one is forced to buy anything and there is no real competition from AMD. The fact that they are innovative is I think reflected in the companies growth over the last 5-10 years.
By the way, I don't own any shares in Nvidia or AMD!
I don't really know any of you, but I like and respect you both (aimed at Bob and Shahzad).
I've loosely followed this, glad you moved it into a separate thread as well. Obviously the internet is a nightmare and being a pretty technical forum, most of us want to be technically correct with what we post.
As an observer is does feel that it's escalated a bit more than you'd hope for. I'd rather it hadn't got to this point because it's not productive but I understand that people want to explain themselves and actually defend themselves too.
For what it's worth, I don't actually care about the legalities. Not at all. I'm just happy to accept that corporations maximise profit and they will market products at whatever price the market will bear.
Referring back to graphics cards in general, I think it's a good thing that Nvidia have released newer better cards and I think it's a big step that they are pushing ray tracing as well.
Forgetting the marketing side of RTX and forgetting the fact that they are 'greedy', they are actually still innovating, pushing the envelope and giving us more choice as consumers. No-one is forced to buy anything and there is no real competition from AMD. The fact that they are innovative is I think reflected in the companies growth over the last 5-10 years.
By the way, I don't own any shares in Nvidia or AMD!
GTX 1070 SLI, I7-6700k ~ 4.4Ghz, 3x BenQ XL2420T, BenQ TK800, LG 55EG960V (3D OLED), Samsung 850 EVO SSD, Crucial M4 SSD, 3D vision kit, Xpand x104 glasses, Corsair HX1000i, Win 10 pro 64/Win 7 64https://www.3dmark.com/fs/9529310
@bo3b: I totally understand it! I also have my RL name on the interwebs since the first launch of my wrapper (if not before with my website).
I really didn't follow the discussion and I have really no idea about what the discussion is/was.
You have nothing to apologise to me for!
My only take is, that in the past, every time I had an argument here, it never ended well. I do approve having arguments and discussions, but I wanted to point one thing: We are all friends here! And sometimes we forget and we start reacting weird to one-another. I really don't like that (even when I've done it for "my right" reasons).
My only idea is to, please ALL, try to be all friends again, like WE ARE :)
@bo3b: I totally understand it! I also have my RL name on the interwebs since the first launch of my wrapper (if not before with my website).
I really didn't follow the discussion and I have really no idea about what the discussion is/was.
You have nothing to apologise to me for!
My only take is, that in the past, every time I had an argument here, it never ended well. I do approve having arguments and discussions, but I wanted to point one thing: We are all friends here! And sometimes we forget and we start reacting weird to one-another. I really don't like that (even when I've done it for "my right" reasons).
My only idea is to, please ALL, try to be all friends again, like WE ARE :)
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
nvidia is allowed to recoup cost on the more expensive parts they are utilising on the cards, GDDR6 is 1.5-2x the price of similar specced GDDR5 (lets not talk about 5x because its fundamentally inferior to 6)
There is a USB controller built right into the GPU that nvidia has to have licensed from either asmedia or via, so theres more towards the cards cost.
a far bulkier heatsink with a full length vapor chamber, this also costs money.
The initial run of these cards isn't going to be cheap till all aspects of the cards successes is factored in and resource costings are payed out.
nvidia is allowed to recoup cost on the more expensive parts they are utilising on the cards, GDDR6 is 1.5-2x the price of similar specced GDDR5 (lets not talk about 5x because its fundamentally inferior to 6)
There is a USB controller built right into the GPU that nvidia has to have licensed from either asmedia or via, so theres more towards the cards cost.
a far bulkier heatsink with a full length vapor chamber, this also costs money.
The initial run of these cards isn't going to be cheap till all aspects of the cards successes is factored in and resource costings are payed out.
To me it seems unlikely that for profit companies are forced to maximize profits.
Examples:
IKEA
Volvo (Trucks, buses etc...)
Ericsson
SKF
Spotify (Keeps filing losses)
Greenbyte
Gluteus (Bankrupt)
To clarify, the disagreement is not about whether companies try to maximize their profits. They do, no question. And it is in fact the [i]primary [/i]goal of a corporation. On this there is no disagreement.
The only question is whether it must be their [i]sole [/i]goal or not. That there cannot be any other secondary goals. That having another goal is actually illegal.
In my judgment, it is clearly not illegal, and there are hundreds of examples to choose from.
There are some goals that would clearly be illegal. If a board of directors votes to give themselves all a bunch more stock, that is going too far. A corporation that makes money off selling books, deciding to take all profit and build a moon rocket, because their CEO likes it... probably not going to fly.
This rapidly gets into second guessing the owners/directors/board however. Is it going to far to give the CEO a $50M raise? That's money directly out of the shareholders pockets, going to one person. There are numerous egregious examples where this would clearly not be better for the corporations welfare- but it's super common. In general, the courts give wide latitude to board members.
Corporations are clearly formed with the goal of making money. But the meme that it is the [i]only [/i]thing they ever care about, or that it is illegal for them put other goals higher- is false.
Case: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/13-354.html
From the US Supreme Court judgment in HHS vs. Hobby Lobby, there is a specific paragraph addressing the claim that for-profit corporations must ever and always put profits first. The argument was part of the case, referencing lower court judges, of which Delaware Supreme Court would be a lower court. This is a rebuttal to that idea, written by the majority in this ruling. That means that for now at least, this is US Law.
[quote] Some lower court judges have suggested that RFRA does not protect for-profit corporations because the purpose of such corporations is simply to make money.23 This argument flies in the face of modern corporate law. "Each American jurisdiction today either expressly or by implication authorizes corporations to be formed under its general corporation act for any lawful purpose or business." 1 J. Cox & T. Hazen, Treatise of the Law of Corporations §4:1, p. 224 (3d ed. 2010) (emphasis added); see 1A W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Corporations §102 (rev. ed. 2010). While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives. Many examples come readily to mind. So long as its owners agree, a for-profit corporation may take costly pollution-control and energy-conservation measures that go beyond what the law requires. A for-profit corporation that operates facilities in other countries may exceed the requirements of local law regarding working conditions and benefits. If for-profit corporations may pursue such worthy objectives, there is no apparent reason why they may not further religious objectives as well.[/quote]
For anyone interested in where this meme got started, here is a good article from the Washington Post Business section that details where it came from.
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-goal-that-changed-corporate-america/2013/08/26/26e9ca8e-ed74-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_story.html[/url]
The reason I'm personally interested in this topic, is because this meme is where the endless corporate greed and the 1% comes from. It's bad for everyone, including the rich, to have such a disparity between rich and poor.
Edit: Just adding a closing note here, on the very outside chance that anyone cares. I'm specifically making an Edit and not another post because I don't care to bring this topic up on the forum again.
RageDemon has falsely accused me of editing my posts. He has refused my request that he remove that post. He refuses to discuss it and no longer responds to me at all, which means we cannot work it out. He continues to troll me and others with ad homimem attacks and outright disrespect.
I asked a moderator to take a look, and they did nothing. They either did not look, or don't care, either way, nothing will be done.
For me, I'm not going to visit forums that are hostile, where trolling and disrespect is accepted. No one else on the forums agrees with my concerns, so since I clearly am the only one who is concerned, I'm the one who needs to leave. I had a good run. 6800 posts. 19 topics. 8 years.
Best wishes to all of the people of good will here.
To clarify, the disagreement is not about whether companies try to maximize their profits. They do, no question. And it is in fact the primary goal of a corporation. On this there is no disagreement.
The only question is whether it must be their sole goal or not. That there cannot be any other secondary goals. That having another goal is actually illegal.
In my judgment, it is clearly not illegal, and there are hundreds of examples to choose from.
There are some goals that would clearly be illegal. If a board of directors votes to give themselves all a bunch more stock, that is going too far. A corporation that makes money off selling books, deciding to take all profit and build a moon rocket, because their CEO likes it... probably not going to fly.
This rapidly gets into second guessing the owners/directors/board however. Is it going to far to give the CEO a $50M raise? That's money directly out of the shareholders pockets, going to one person. There are numerous egregious examples where this would clearly not be better for the corporations welfare- but it's super common. In general, the courts give wide latitude to board members.
Corporations are clearly formed with the goal of making money. But the meme that it is the only thing they ever care about, or that it is illegal for them put other goals higher- is false.
From the US Supreme Court judgment in HHS vs. Hobby Lobby, there is a specific paragraph addressing the claim that for-profit corporations must ever and always put profits first. The argument was part of the case, referencing lower court judges, of which Delaware Supreme Court would be a lower court. This is a rebuttal to that idea, written by the majority in this ruling. That means that for now at least, this is US Law.
Some lower court judges have suggested that RFRA does not protect for-profit corporations because the purpose of such corporations is simply to make money.23 This argument flies in the face of modern corporate law. "Each American jurisdiction today either expressly or by implication authorizes corporations to be formed under its general corporation act for any lawful purpose or business." 1 J. Cox & T. Hazen, Treatise of the Law of Corporations §4:1, p. 224 (3d ed. 2010) (emphasis added); see 1A W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Corporations §102 (rev. ed. 2010). While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives. Many examples come readily to mind. So long as its owners agree, a for-profit corporation may take costly pollution-control and energy-conservation measures that go beyond what the law requires. A for-profit corporation that operates facilities in other countries may exceed the requirements of local law regarding working conditions and benefits. If for-profit corporations may pursue such worthy objectives, there is no apparent reason why they may not further religious objectives as well.
For anyone interested in where this meme got started, here is a good article from the Washington Post Business section that details where it came from.
The reason I'm personally interested in this topic, is because this meme is where the endless corporate greed and the 1% comes from. It's bad for everyone, including the rich, to have such a disparity between rich and poor.
Edit: Just adding a closing note here, on the very outside chance that anyone cares. I'm specifically making an Edit and not another post because I don't care to bring this topic up on the forum again.
RageDemon has falsely accused me of editing my posts. He has refused my request that he remove that post. He refuses to discuss it and no longer responds to me at all, which means we cannot work it out. He continues to troll me and others with ad homimem attacks and outright disrespect.
I asked a moderator to take a look, and they did nothing. They either did not look, or don't care, either way, nothing will be done.
For me, I'm not going to visit forums that are hostile, where trolling and disrespect is accepted. No one else on the forums agrees with my concerns, so since I clearly am the only one who is concerned, I'm the one who needs to leave. I had a good run. 6800 posts. 19 topics. 8 years.
Best wishes to all of the people of good will here.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
A companies main goal can vary drastically from company to company. Companies can offer many different things like services or products, etc. In my opinion, this is their goal.
I don't doubt there are companies where the main goal is money. But, they tend not to be as profitable as compared to companies with goals to make their customers happy.
Think of "money," as the result of any company successfully compleating their goals.
I hope this explains what bob is trying to say.
Disclaimer.... I do benefit from Nvidia if they do well in the market.
A companies main goal can vary drastically from company to company. Companies can offer many different things like services or products, etc. In my opinion, this is their goal.
I don't doubt there are companies where the main goal is money. But, they tend not to be as profitable as compared to companies with goals to make their customers happy.
Think of "money," as the result of any company successfully compleating their goals.
I hope this explains what bob is trying to say.
Disclaimer.... I do benefit from Nvidia if they do well in the market.
While I'm here I'd also like to suggest this model for others- if you are about to derail a thread with off-topic comments, please make a new thread instead.
This is regarding the corporate profit argument. https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/1061791/3d-vision/rtx-2080-incoming-/post/5856994/#5856994
But really my fundamental problem is in the post title. I come here to learn and discuss 3D Vision. I really, really, really do not want to discuss politics, or other people's opinions of how the world should work, or things that tend to be click bait. Well meaning people of good will do not post click bait. That's what FaceBook is for. :->
This discussion of corporate profit motives has absolutely zero do with 3D Vision. I can easily understand discussions of video card prices, and personal opinions about whether it is personally worth it or not.
RageDemon's original post had some good discussion and personal opinion about whether it is worth spending the money, all worthy topics. Even some great suggestions on how to decide for yourself whether a card has good value to you or not.
Then of course, he had to veer off into click bait conjecture and poison the thread.
That right there is absolutely false, as I showed from the supreme court ruling. It is not illegal. There is no corporate case law, and certainly no congressional laws that dictate this. Even in this example, corporation X would absolutely be allowed to sell their product for $10 if they felt it was in their long term best interest.
There are a lot of 'socially conscious' types who want to believe this meme is true, because it matches their beliefs and angst about the world. But the US Supreme Court ruled in HHS vs. Hobby Lobby that in fact for-profit corporations are allowed to put some values above corporate profit.
Note that I said profit, not welfare. The rulings from the Delaware Supreme Court use the word corporate welfare, and in fact never use the word profit, nor the word wealth. Wealth is not a synonym for welfare. A corporation can have all the money in the world, and gain unwanted regulatory attention that is bad for their welfare.
This sounds impressive, because it comes from the Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court, but in fact, this is an essay that he wrote for a law journal, and is not a court judgment. It's his opinion. A damn good one with impeccable research, but it's not a case precedent.
The original essay: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2581714_code711466.pdf?abstractid=2576389&mirid=1&type=2
It seems most telling that the very next phrase that he writes is:
Gee, I wonder why that part was skipped.
Note that all of these 'counter-examples' use the phrase corporate welfare. Corporate welfare is not solely wealth. People who are quoting these examples and deliberately conflating 'welfare' to 'wealth' are engaging in click bait, to stoke the outrage against corporations.
Corporate welfare, can, and often does include things that deliberately reduce profits. Giving money to charity. Why would any corporation give money to charity if profit is the only goal? Shouldn't they be sued? Paying matching money to employee 401ks. That cost the shareholders cash right there, shouldn't they be sued? What is best for the corporate welfare can in fact include things that cost short term profits. It is absolutely not illegal to do so.
I'm not fan of our corporate structures and the power they wield over all of us, but I hate click bait more.
Now I get that RageDemon is deliberately trolling me. And I took the bait of course.
My request here is that we all try to avoid adding irrelevant click bait into our posts. Naturally RageDemon will not respect my request, but I still want to always encourage all of us to be our better selves in this tiny corner of the interwebs.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Troll... Click-bait... Thread pollution... making "patently false statements" - a liar?... once, even an "ungrateful wretch", though I see you have deleted that bit as of late, as you continue to edit your posts... And now, a thread towards making me look bad in the guise of continuing a 'separated discussion for the benefit of the community' (oh how noble of you ;>), while using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem fallacies...
...Now reaching the extent that, after a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court opposed your armchair opinion, you are nitpicking the difference between shareholder welfare/wealth and shareholder profits in an effort to save face - even going as far as to create yet another https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man where in your imagination profits are somehow short term only, as opposed to both short and long term. I shouldn't find this so amusing, forgive me, but I do; - Perhaps the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is "trolling" you ;-)
Tsk tsk mate, personal attacks are simply uncool, especially those disguised as "discussion" - I have faith that the awesome people of this community will see through this charade. You will note that I have been completely civil in spite of your attacks, even trying to dissuade you from arguing over semantics to focus on the message rather than the exact wording.
I regret that I shall not be wasting my valuable time - If you like, you can take that as having won an imaginary argument on an internet forum. I shall leave you with the last part of my previous post, as I always try to finish posts, especially with you, respectfully. My invitation to meet you if you're ever in the vacinity of Cambridge, England, still stands BTW, I'm sure it would be a pleasure. All the best mate... :)
Reference for anyone who is interested in my offending heinous (/s) forum post, the entire post can be found here:
https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/1061791/3d-vision/rtx-2080-incoming-/post/5857060/#5857060
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
I've been off the board and don't know anything about the above topic, but....
One thing I've learned is that:
- We all love 3D gaming and 3D Vision
- Let's not "attack" or "kill" each other
- People can become very irascible and whole topics can become very toxic due to miss-communication.
On a personal note, I had arguments before with a lot of members here, including RAGEdemon and possibly bo3d (just to name a few). BUT, I NEVER HOLD TO HEARTH ANY OF these long forgotten chats!
I consider anyone here a good friend and a valuable member of this community!
Thus, I was wondering, if we can all just focus on what we really care : 3D Gaming and 3D Tech and the likes and not do anyone any harm?
(I don't want anyone from this post to fell offended, I just really hope these type of posts or discussions would not exist at all, as I think it would be best if we all focus on what we love and how we can genuinely help)
Thank you!
Edit:
Fixed typos...grr
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com
(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)
We are here because of 3D Nothing else matters..
Intel i5 7600K @ 4.8ghz / MSI Z270 SLI / Asus 1080GTX - 416.16 / Optoma HD142x Projector / 1 4'x10' Curved Screen PVC / TrackIR / HOTAS Cougar / Cougar MFD's / Track IR / NVidia 3D Vision / Win 10 64bit
Also, it is good to see you around again Helifax!
Intel 7700k @ 4.2Ghz / 32GB @ 3200
Asus Z270 / 2 x Evga 1070
4 x Samsung 840 Raid 0
4 x Samsung 850 Pro Raid 0
Samsung 950 Pro
Epson 5040UB 3DTVPlay
I also have learned over time that ignoring anger and resentment does not actually make anything better. Talking it through does.
That's why I don't just ignore them. But my hope is that we can keep this sort of junk in obvious threads so people do not have to read if they prefer not to. Again, my apologies, but I must. Plus, I'll confess that it's an intellectually interesting question, and I wanted to know the answer.
Well... I don't know what happened to you man.
Previously you argued in good faith, and were interested in learning. You could argue and discuss in a good natured way. You'd focus on the data and try to prove or disprove the data. You were genuinely civil.
Every post you make now is some sort of Professor Demon approach, where you have all the answers and are bestowing it upon us poor hapless denizens of the net. There is the one truth, yours, and anyone who disagrees must just be stupid and needs to be tutored. The actual data and arguments are ignored as you pedantically quote irrelevant fallacies. Straw man wikipedia? Ad-hominem wikipedia. Really? Again? I can only assume you are doing that again because I said before it seriously pissed me off.
Somewhere along the line you decided to bait me at at every turn, and now seem surprised that I respond in kind? Every chance you get you put in a personal dig like "(oh how noble of you ;>)" "Now now bo3b, let's not play the nitpicking game." "Otherwise, "that's cool man, whatever you say" :)" "That's up to you mate. The great thing about science/truth is that it does not change whether someone believes it or not." "This is a fallacy known as X" "Kudos to bo3b for trying though, he did quite well with what he had..." Now be a good little boy and run along.
Yeah, no. If you call me out in a public forum, and treat me like a child, I will respond. You can continue to use bullshit trolling techniques, and I will keep responding with accurate and factual information.
If you think I've veered off into an ad-hominem attack, then please quote the section and explain. I do not believe I have done so, and as this is my real name, it behooves me to not engage in that type of behavior.
I respond because I'm actually interested in objective reality. Not made up internet hogwash, click bait, trolling and other time wasters.
The reason this topic is interesting is because it's an actual debate in the world, and people of good will can debate it and try to understand it. There is a lot of confusion as to whether corporations are actually required to put profit ahead of all other concerns. It's an interesting question, if people approach it with intellectual honesty.
You are choosing not to debate, but to deflect and try to make me look bad. All of your examples are weak and don't prove your point. When I point that out, you directly attack me instead of debating the point. My HHS vs. Hobby Lobby example is from the US freakin' Supreme Court, and you choose to ignore it, while posting other deliberately misleading examples. Only trolls can think the US Supreme Court got this wrong.
In any case, I think the US Supreme Court judgment is a far stronger argument than a Delaware Supreme Court Justice essay.
Other people worldwide may not understand the nuance, but the US Supreme Court is the final stop for any court case. It cannot be appealed, although Congress can write a new law. The Delaware Supreme Court is only for the state of Delaware, although it has outsized importance as the home of most corporations.
You are also lying about my post edits, in an effort to make me look bad and sow distrust. The only one I removed was "ungrateful wretches" because that was needlessly inflammatory, and did not change the crux of the post. And in point of fact, was not directed at you. I cannot edit quoted versions of my posts, which you have quoted, so falsely accusing me of editing them without evidence is serious troll behavior.
That is an extremely serious accusation, and I would request that you remove that false accusation.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
I wish I knew the answer to the question at hand about corporations. but I would think they do want to make a profit either way I am sure more is better too..
I do know the new nVidia cards are way overpriced.. I would love to see the internal numbers on what exactly it cost to make a video card..
Intel i5 7600K @ 4.8ghz / MSI Z270 SLI / Asus 1080GTX - 416.16 / Optoma HD142x Projector / 1 4'x10' Curved Screen PVC / TrackIR / HOTAS Cougar / Cougar MFD's / Track IR / NVidia 3D Vision / Win 10 64bit
I've loosely followed this, glad you moved it into a separate thread as well. Obviously the internet is a nightmare and being a pretty technical forum, most of us want to be technically correct with what we post.
As an observer is does feel that it's escalated a bit more than you'd hope for. I'd rather it hadn't got to this point because it's not productive but I understand that people want to explain themselves and actually defend themselves too.
For what it's worth, I don't actually care about the legalities. Not at all. I'm just happy to accept that corporations maximise profit and they will market products at whatever price the market will bear.
Referring back to graphics cards in general, I think it's a good thing that Nvidia have released newer better cards and I think it's a big step that they are pushing ray tracing as well.
Forgetting the marketing side of RTX and forgetting the fact that they are 'greedy', they are actually still innovating, pushing the envelope and giving us more choice as consumers. No-one is forced to buy anything and there is no real competition from AMD. The fact that they are innovative is I think reflected in the companies growth over the last 5-10 years.
By the way, I don't own any shares in Nvidia or AMD!
GTX 1070 SLI, I7-6700k ~ 4.4Ghz, 3x BenQ XL2420T, BenQ TK800, LG 55EG960V (3D OLED), Samsung 850 EVO SSD, Crucial M4 SSD, 3D vision kit, Xpand x104 glasses, Corsair HX1000i, Win 10 pro 64/Win 7 64https://www.3dmark.com/fs/9529310
I really didn't follow the discussion and I have really no idea about what the discussion is/was.
You have nothing to apologise to me for!
My only take is, that in the past, every time I had an argument here, it never ended well. I do approve having arguments and discussions, but I wanted to point one thing: We are all friends here! And sometimes we forget and we start reacting weird to one-another. I really don't like that (even when I've done it for "my right" reasons).
My only idea is to, please ALL, try to be all friends again, like WE ARE :)
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com
(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)
There is a USB controller built right into the GPU that nvidia has to have licensed from either asmedia or via, so theres more towards the cards cost.
a far bulkier heatsink with a full length vapor chamber, this also costs money.
The initial run of these cards isn't going to be cheap till all aspects of the cards successes is factored in and resource costings are payed out.
How to enable NVIDIA Graphics Driver and GeForce Experience installer logging
Wagnard Tools (DDU,GMP,TDR Manupulator)-(Updated 09/19/14)
Fix for Control Panel not saving settings
How to make the NVCP display in English
PASCAL WARNING: Bundled and Cheap PCI-E Riser cables can cause decoder corruption and TDR's
In Memory of Chris "ChrisRay" Arthington, 1982-2010
OS:Windows 7 SP1, Case:NZXT Phantom 820, PSU:Seasonic X-850, Cooler: ThermalRight Silver Arrow IB-E Extreme
CPU:Intel Xeon x5690 @ 4.2Ghz, Mainboard:Asus Rampage III Extreme, Memory:48GB Corsair Vengeance LP 1600
Video:EVGA Geforce GTX 1080 Founders Edition, NVidia Geforce GTX 1060 Founders Edition
Monitor:ROG PG279Q, BenQ BL2211, Sound:Creative XFI Titanium Fatal1ty Pro
SDD:Crucial MX300 275 and 525, Crucial MX500 2000 and 1000
HDD:500GB Spinpoint F3, 1TB WD Black, 2TB WD Red, 1TB WD Black
OS:Windows 10, Case:NZXT Phantom 410, PSU:Corsair 620HX, Cooler: ThermalRight TRUE Spirit 120M BW Rev.A
CPU:Intel Xeon x5670 @ 3.8Gz, Mainboard:Asus Rampage II Gene, Memory:24GB Corsair Vengeance LP 1600
Video:EVGA Geforce GTX 680+ 4GB
Monitor:55" Thorn TV, Sound:Sony Muteki 7.1
SDD:Crucial MX200 250, HDD: 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3
Examples:
IKEA
Volvo (Trucks, buses etc...)
Ericsson
SKF
Spotify (Keeps filing losses)
Greenbyte
Gluteus (Bankrupt)
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com
The only question is whether it must be their sole goal or not. That there cannot be any other secondary goals. That having another goal is actually illegal.
In my judgment, it is clearly not illegal, and there are hundreds of examples to choose from.
There are some goals that would clearly be illegal. If a board of directors votes to give themselves all a bunch more stock, that is going too far. A corporation that makes money off selling books, deciding to take all profit and build a moon rocket, because their CEO likes it... probably not going to fly.
This rapidly gets into second guessing the owners/directors/board however. Is it going to far to give the CEO a $50M raise? That's money directly out of the shareholders pockets, going to one person. There are numerous egregious examples where this would clearly not be better for the corporations welfare- but it's super common. In general, the courts give wide latitude to board members.
Corporations are clearly formed with the goal of making money. But the meme that it is the only thing they ever care about, or that it is illegal for them put other goals higher- is false.
Case: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/13-354.html
From the US Supreme Court judgment in HHS vs. Hobby Lobby, there is a specific paragraph addressing the claim that for-profit corporations must ever and always put profits first. The argument was part of the case, referencing lower court judges, of which Delaware Supreme Court would be a lower court. This is a rebuttal to that idea, written by the majority in this ruling. That means that for now at least, this is US Law.
For anyone interested in where this meme got started, here is a good article from the Washington Post Business section that details where it came from.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-goal-that-changed-corporate-america/2013/08/26/26e9ca8e-ed74-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_story.html
The reason I'm personally interested in this topic, is because this meme is where the endless corporate greed and the 1% comes from. It's bad for everyone, including the rich, to have such a disparity between rich and poor.
Edit: Just adding a closing note here, on the very outside chance that anyone cares. I'm specifically making an Edit and not another post because I don't care to bring this topic up on the forum again.
RageDemon has falsely accused me of editing my posts. He has refused my request that he remove that post. He refuses to discuss it and no longer responds to me at all, which means we cannot work it out. He continues to troll me and others with ad homimem attacks and outright disrespect.
I asked a moderator to take a look, and they did nothing. They either did not look, or don't care, either way, nothing will be done.
For me, I'm not going to visit forums that are hostile, where trolling and disrespect is accepted. No one else on the forums agrees with my concerns, so since I clearly am the only one who is concerned, I'm the one who needs to leave. I had a good run. 6800 posts. 19 topics. 8 years.
Best wishes to all of the people of good will here.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
I don't doubt there are companies where the main goal is money. But, they tend not to be as profitable as compared to companies with goals to make their customers happy.
Think of "money," as the result of any company successfully compleating their goals.
I hope this explains what bob is trying to say.
Disclaimer.... I do benefit from Nvidia if they do well in the market.