Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 13th Sep 2010 20:57 UTC
Permalink for comment 440864
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-12
.. and that's the logic disconnect a lot of people will fail to grasp as well... they're giving it away to people who weren't going to pay for it in the first place, and likely had no plans to ever pay for it. Net Loss ZERO, apart from the PR of "Hey look what we're doing"
On both sides of the arguement... since if you do point it out, the question becomes "So just exactly why weren't these NGO's using the legitimately 'free' alternatives?"
Must be strong arm monopolistic tactics and the evil corporations -- couldn't possibly have anything to do with quality of the alleged "alternatives"...
Edited 2010-09-14 05:02 UTC