Actually, with regard to the membership cards (at least at Kroger's and Albertson's), the total discount is more like anywhere from 30% - 40% (I buy primarily on price). However, I will not, and do not, use the discounts as an excuse to compromise my own security (the security of my personal information). I pay with cash, and the stores that get the vast majority of my business are the ones that offer the same discounts without requiring the card.
Consistent, but irrelevant. You haven't answered any of my questions, namely providing some jusitification for the notion that people have a "right" to the creative works of others - without compensation. Where does this right come from?
What is it about music, that requires the consumption of resources in order to produce, that it should be free? If music is such a fundamental part of our culture, then why not take the next logical step and say that ALL art should be free? Art, to a significant degree, defines culture.
What is it that extols upon you or anyone else, a right to the benefits that someone else's music might offer? When was it, exactly, that artists were put here so that your life might be a little more enjoyable?
Please tell...I'm trying to understand the basis for your reasoning.
A few points... First, in order to produce all this "free advertising" in the form of overpriced CD's, record companies need to be convinced that they'll make a profit. No profit == no CDs == no "free advertising".
Second, 900 * $20 = $18,000. Subtract the cost of production, and what do you have left? Will this model work for any but the most established artists?
Simple...STOP BUYING, STOP STEALING. Let your favorite artists know that you don't appreciate THEIR support of the very mechanism that is serving to systematically dismantle the rights of consumers. Let them know that you believe in this strongly enough to sacrifice any further enjoyment of their work, until they begin looking at alternate methods of distribution. If the people who endlessly complain about the RIAA (and steal as a means of getting even) aren't willing to walk the walk, they really don't have anything to complain about. The festering sore that is the RIAA, and other parties attempting to impose undue restrictions on the use of copyrighted material, will only get worse.
What's the difference between what M$$$ is doing and a non-US company that dumps their products at below cost? The legislators scream when non-US companies do this, but seem to offer nothing more than a wink and a handshake when a company like M$ does it. Granted, Sony and Nintendo are both non-US companies, but they provide competition, and with respect to M$$$, short of any real punitive action for its monopolistic practices, competition is the next best thing.
In the short run, consumers are getting a good deal when MS sells the Xbox for less than it costs to produce. In the long run, however, if it leads to the demise of competitive alternatives, everyone loses (except M$$$ of course).
Those people are guilty of negligence in supplying bad product. And MS can countet that argument through a centrailsed (expensive, slow, conservative) quality control.
Ahem...but then what do you call a company that ships a product with 6,000 (or was it 60,000) known "anomalies"?
Has anyone else noticed a spate of ads (TV) for Tropicana orange juice lately? I tend to think that they're embarking on a massive PR campaign, since it was recently brought to light in a recent news story that Tropicana holds a patent on (if I remember correctly), the METHOD by which a certain type of orange can be used (as in squeezing, to make juice). This is an issue with other OJ producers because there are only one or two varieties available in the off-season. Their hands are tied because of the patent. Who would have thought that squeezing oranges would be a patentable idea?
I have to confess - I've [never] purchased Tropicana orange juice, and now, one thing is certain - I never will.
Has anyone else noticed a spate of ads (TV) for Tropicana orange juice lately? I tend to think that they're embarking on a a massive PR campaign, since it was recently brought to light in a recent news story that Tropicana holds a patent on (if I remember correctly), the METHOD that a certain type of orange can be used (as in squeezing, to make juice). This is an issue with other OJ producers because (I think) there are only one or two varieties available on the off-season. Their hands are tied because of the patent. Who would have thought that squeezing oranges would be a patentable idea?
I have to confess - I've purchased Tropicana orange juice, but one thing is for certain - I never WILL.
You don't have to sacrifice them. Training them so that they know what to do once they get there is a more effective option, since it's something they can use their entire lives.
If people are willing to go to the expense and risk of cooking meth, I'm convinced that there are few things a sufficiently motivated person won't attempt.
Your comments leave me with the impression that any efforts backed by a right-wing and/or "Christian" agenda are outside the realm of criticism. The hard right is no more desirable than the hard left. They BOTH have their agendas, and they are both vying for the power, influence, and control of the masses. Maybe you can explain what you find so endearing about the history of religion and religious persecution, and why trading a leftist direction for something of this nature would be any better.
I don't agree with piracy (and I think the whole Napster thing was a bigger SETBACK than anyone realizes). BUT, no system is perfect. There are losses and inefficiencies involved in any kind of market conduit, and the digital realm is no exception. That having been said, I think there's a difference between taking measures to minimize piracy, and extracting every possible nickel and dime from your revenue nodes (formerly known as customers). The proposed methods are particularly insidious, because they shackle the vast majority of those who are honest. This has already become more trouble than it's worth for me (which is why I don't buy, rent, or steal CDs, videos, or DVDs), and with any luck, mor people will begin to see the light. There IS life on the other side.
No, no...the $315 million is BEFORE all the cost overruns, delays, and other assorted screw-ups. Afterward, I'd be surprised if it came in at under $1.2 billion.
As far as I'm concerned, it's all semantics, and it all sucks. The issue is that the more likely we are to have a national ID, anything about us will become more accessible- and completely out of our control. And what if the information is incorrect? I can say that I'm lucky I've never had my indentity stolen, nor have I ever had to have inaccurate credit information corrected. For the people that have had to endure either of these, it's hell. Do we need MORE of this?
The thing that puzzles me the most about this is that everyone (in the government) is so damn sure that a biometric ID is impervious to fraud. What happens when (not if) someone figures out how to get around it? We're stuck with just one more bureaucratic f/u, that's being imposed on our lives.
The problem is, that they are not just creating a "hash" from your prints - they need to store the exact print in order for the recognition to work. This means, any script kiddie lucky enough to get into their database, will have the prints.
That's right...the system is only as strong as its weakest link-- I read in the paper that someone made off with 2,300 or so blank, signed birth/death certificates taken from a health center. The repercussions from this have the potential be VERY significant.
Hehe...that's exactly why I do my grocery shopping at a store that has all the discounts, but VOLUNTARY use of a discount card (does that make sense?). When I visit another large grocery chain, they require the card, but more often than not, I can get away with telling them I forgot it - then they just have a manager come by and swipe their card. Some day, I WILL go through a checkout line, have them refuse me the discounts without the card, and I'll tell them..."Tell you what...why don't you remove the stuff with the discounts, and I'll come back later and buy it when I have my card with me." That's turning the tables exactly as they should be, making this discount card nonsense THEIR inconvenience, not mine.
Agreed. And once a specialty tax is introduced, it (at least according to recent experience) will almost always (eventually) revert to just one more source pouring into a general fund. That's what's happening with the national gas tax, and now there's even talk about raising it even MORE. It's a pathetic, long-term bait-and-switch game played by governments to get more of our money into their pockets. Of course, they could just tack it onto our phone bill...
It's ONLY a win for me if I want to play this sordid little game. I guess it never crossed the minds of those in the marketing biz that there are some people who simply aren't into the 'push' model. That's me. If I want information about products I'm interested in, I'll go find it. I don't need to be spoon-fed by corporate droids with a smile on their face and one hand reaching around for my wallet.
Actually, this is the leading problem with Office in my opinion. It does TOO much of everything. I think it's pretty safe to say that the overwhelming (not just the average) majority of MS Office users use about 1% of the suite. And that's all they need.
So true...but so many are afraid to admit it - it's kind of like a drug addict admitting that he/she really has a problem.
But, to be fair, there are some practical issues as well. One of the THE most important aspects of ANY competing product is document compatility. This is a tall order, but compatibility should be seamless. If the anti-trust suit against M$$$$ should have produced anything, it should have been an order that MS publish its document specifications, so that the market CAN have alternatives.
Well, come on. I think the reviewer was talking about fairly basic things. Extra spacing between lines or characters when you paste text is something that I'd reasonably expect not to happen.
Sure, both XP and Thinkfree have faults. In my opinion, though, if the faults involve *basic* functionality, the annoyance factor shoots up pretty quick.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, with regard to the membership cards (at least at Kroger's and Albertson's), the total discount is more like anywhere from 30% - 40% (I buy primarily on price). However, I will not, and do not, use the discounts as an excuse to compromise my own security (the security of my personal information). I pay with cash, and the stores that get the vast majority of my business are the ones that offer the same discounts without requiring the card.
Consistent, but irrelevant. You haven't answered any of my questions, namely providing some jusitification for the notion that people have a "right" to the creative works of others - without compensation. Where does this right come from?
You, sir, DON'T get it.
What is it about music, that requires the consumption of resources in order to produce, that it should be free? If music is such a fundamental part of our culture, then why not take the next logical step and say that ALL art should be free? Art, to a significant degree, defines culture.
What is it that extols upon you or anyone else, a right to the benefits that someone else's music might offer? When was it, exactly, that artists were put here so that your life might be a little more enjoyable?
Please tell...I'm trying to understand the basis for your reasoning.
A few points... First, in order to produce all this "free advertising" in the form of overpriced CD's, record companies need to be convinced that they'll make a profit. No profit == no CDs == no "free advertising".
Second, 900 * $20 = $18,000. Subtract the cost of production, and what do you have left? Will this model work for any but the most established artists?
Simple...STOP BUYING, STOP STEALING. Let your favorite artists know that you don't appreciate THEIR support of the very mechanism that is serving to systematically dismantle the rights of consumers. Let them know that you believe in this strongly enough to sacrifice any further enjoyment of their work, until they begin looking at alternate methods of distribution. If the people who endlessly complain about the RIAA (and steal as a means of getting even) aren't willing to walk the walk, they really don't have anything to complain about. The festering sore that is the RIAA, and other parties attempting to impose undue restrictions on the use of copyrighted material, will only get worse.
Let's not forget digging holes - the gaping hole where many might ordinarily have some sense of ethics or integrity - for example.
What's the difference between what M$$$ is doing and a non-US company that dumps their products at below cost? The legislators scream when non-US companies do this, but seem to offer nothing more than a wink and a handshake when a company like M$ does it. Granted, Sony and Nintendo are both non-US companies, but they provide competition, and with respect to M$$$, short of any real punitive action for its monopolistic practices, competition is the next best thing.
In the short run, consumers are getting a good deal when MS sells the Xbox for less than it costs to produce. In the long run, however, if it leads to the demise of competitive alternatives, everyone loses (except M$$$ of course).
Those people are guilty of negligence in supplying bad product. And MS can countet that argument through a centrailsed (expensive, slow, conservative) quality control.
Ahem...but then what do you call a company that ships a product with 6,000 (or was it 60,000) known "anomalies"?
Has anyone else noticed a spate of ads (TV) for Tropicana orange juice lately? I tend to think that they're embarking on a massive PR campaign, since it was recently brought to light in a recent news story that Tropicana holds a patent on (if I remember correctly), the METHOD by which a certain type of orange can be used (as in squeezing, to make juice). This is an issue with other OJ producers because there are only one or two varieties available in the off-season. Their hands are tied because of the patent. Who would have thought that squeezing oranges would be a patentable idea?
I have to confess - I've [never] purchased Tropicana orange juice, and now, one thing is certain - I never will.
Has anyone else noticed a spate of ads (TV) for Tropicana orange juice lately? I tend to think that they're embarking on a a massive PR campaign, since it was recently brought to light in a recent news story that Tropicana holds a patent on (if I remember correctly), the METHOD that a certain type of orange can be used (as in squeezing, to make juice). This is an issue with other OJ producers because (I think) there are only one or two varieties available on the off-season. Their hands are tied because of the patent. Who would have thought that squeezing oranges would be a patentable idea?
I have to confess - I've purchased Tropicana orange juice, but one thing is for certain - I never WILL.
You don't have to sacrifice them. Training them so that they know what to do once they get there is a more effective option, since it's something they can use their entire lives.
If people are willing to go to the expense and risk of cooking meth, I'm convinced that there are few things a sufficiently motivated person won't attempt.
Your comments leave me with the impression that any efforts backed by a right-wing and/or "Christian" agenda are outside the realm of criticism. The hard right is no more desirable than the hard left. They BOTH have their agendas, and they are both vying for the power, influence, and control of the masses. Maybe you can explain what you find so endearing about the history of religion and religious persecution, and why trading a leftist direction for something of this nature would be any better.
I don't agree with piracy (and I think the whole Napster thing was a bigger SETBACK than anyone realizes). BUT, no system is perfect. There are losses and inefficiencies involved in any kind of market conduit, and the digital realm is no exception. That having been said, I think there's a difference between taking measures to minimize piracy, and extracting every possible nickel and dime from your revenue nodes (formerly known as customers). The proposed methods are particularly insidious, because they shackle the vast majority of those who are honest. This has already become more trouble than it's worth for me (which is why I don't buy, rent, or steal CDs, videos, or DVDs), and with any luck, mor people will begin to see the light. There IS life on the other side.
This comment probably cracks me up the most. How exactly did M$$$ expect them to react?
The whole idea of M$ "levying fines" and "conducting audits" imparts a quasi-governmental status. Be worried.
No, no...the $315 million is BEFORE all the cost overruns, delays, and other assorted screw-ups. Afterward, I'd be surprised if it came in at under $1.2 billion.
As far as I'm concerned, it's all semantics, and it all sucks. The issue is that the more likely we are to have a national ID, anything about us will become more accessible- and completely out of our control. And what if the information is incorrect? I can say that I'm lucky I've never had my indentity stolen, nor have I ever had to have inaccurate credit information corrected. For the people that have had to endure either of these, it's hell. Do we need MORE of this?
The thing that puzzles me the most about this is that everyone (in the government) is so damn sure that a biometric ID is impervious to fraud. What happens when (not if) someone figures out how to get around it? We're stuck with just one more bureaucratic f/u, that's being imposed on our lives.
The problem is, that they are not just creating a "hash" from your prints - they need to store the exact print in order for the recognition to work. This means, any script kiddie lucky enough to get into their database, will have the prints.
That's right...the system is only as strong as its weakest link-- I read in the paper that someone made off with 2,300 or so blank, signed birth/death certificates taken from a health center. The repercussions from this have the potential be VERY significant.
Hehe...that's exactly why I do my grocery shopping at a store that has all the discounts, but VOLUNTARY use of a discount card (does that make sense?). When I visit another large grocery chain, they require the card, but more often than not, I can get away with telling them I forgot it - then they just have a manager come by and swipe their card. Some day, I WILL go through a checkout line, have them refuse me the discounts without the card, and I'll tell them..."Tell you what...why don't you remove the stuff with the discounts, and I'll come back later and buy it when I have my card with me." That's turning the tables exactly as they should be, making this discount card nonsense THEIR inconvenience, not mine.
Agreed. And once a specialty tax is introduced, it (at least according to recent experience) will almost always (eventually) revert to just one more source pouring into a general fund. That's what's happening with the national gas tax, and now there's even talk about raising it even MORE. It's a pathetic, long-term bait-and-switch game played by governments to get more of our money into their pockets. Of course, they could just tack it onto our phone bill...
It's ONLY a win for me if I want to play this sordid little game. I guess it never crossed the minds of those in the marketing biz that there are some people who simply aren't into the 'push' model. That's me. If I want information about products I'm interested in, I'll go find it. I don't need to be spoon-fed by corporate droids with a smile on their face and one hand reaching around for my wallet.
In addition, online advertising network L90 has sold the one-click downloads
BR>
[sniff, sniff] What's that SMELL? Oh...it's smell of another one-click patent.
leaving you with nothing but a hefty bill to pay whenever you want to use their software or services.
Notice the word want. If they're trashing the internet, why would I want to use their software or services?
Actually, this is the leading problem with Office in my opinion. It does TOO much of everything. I think it's pretty safe to say that the overwhelming (not just the average) majority of MS Office users use about 1% of the suite. And that's all they need.
So true...but so many are afraid to admit it - it's kind of like a drug addict admitting that he/she really has a problem.
But, to be fair, there are some practical issues as well. One of the THE most important aspects of ANY competing product is document compatility. This is a tall order, but compatibility should be seamless. If the anti-trust suit against M$$$$ should have produced anything, it should have been an order that MS publish its document specifications, so that the market CAN have alternatives.
Well, come on. I think the reviewer was talking about fairly basic things. Extra spacing between lines or characters when you paste text is something that I'd reasonably expect not to happen.
Sure, both XP and Thinkfree have faults. In my opinion, though, if the faults involve *basic* functionality, the annoyance factor shoots up pretty quick.