Why is there this insistence on equating information with physical objects, yet denying it the limitations as such?
If I stood on a street corner, and handed out candy bars to passers-by, I wouldn't then be able to order those people not to eat the candy bars. If one of them found I had inadvertently given them two candy bars instead of one, I couldn't demand it be returned.
The right to control *actual* property once it has voluntarily left one's physical control is non-existent in this case. Why should intellectual property be any different?
"Aha!" you say, "but it's not possible to relinquish actual control of intellectual property without transferring copyright. By distributing, one merely licenses intellectual property for intended use. Furthermore, one can expect to control property outside of one's physical control in certain instances, based on implied intentions."
Okay, then here's another analogy, that of valet parking. You hand your keys over to a stranger with the intent that the stranger return them to you, along with your intact car, upon providing his service. If he sees the inside of your car, does it matter to you? Probably not. If he uses your keys to snoop through your trunk, and finds your kiddie porn collection, and never tells anyone about it, does it matter to you? Probably not, as long as you get your car back, you'll never know.
What if he tells everyone about your kiddie porn? You may be upset, but, if you handed him your keys, and he provided his service, can you really complain? Of course, in this case, we could say your "intent" was for the valet not to find your kiddie porn, or at least not to publicise it. By doing so, does his violation of your intent constitute injury? The answer is still "no".
It's important that this conclusion is independent of the quality of the information discovered. It doesn't matter that the discovery of kiddie porn could harm your reputation. Likewise, I might say my "intent" for the reader of this post is for you to disregard any spelling/grammatical errors. Doing otherwise could cause me harm in the form of embarassment. Does my intent make a difference? Even though I clearly am the owner of this intellectual property, do I have the right to impose such a condition? Can I force you to ignore information in plain view?
Information is a physical property, either it's there or it isn't. But "intent", "ownership", and "use" have completely different definitions and ramifications for intellectual property than for physical property. Saying you can't "decode" information you've been handed calls into question the entire process of reading, since it's basically decryption based on a shared key.
Furthermore, the security provided by encryption schemes other than the one-time pad are illusory. Quantum computers will show this to be true. If you think "aha! I have encrypted this information with rot-13. now no-one can read it." then you're deluding yourself. It would be as if you were handing everyone two candy bars, and they all returned one. Sooner or later, someone is going to refuse to return a candy bar.
Of course the oil supply is a problem. But, with a little effort, energy supplies are interchangeable. The real problem with cars versus mass transit isn't the fact that cars use oil as their form of energy. It's that cars use so much energy to accomplish their function. There's lots of room for efficiency improvements with new technology, but the most obvious way to fix this is to make cars smaller or put more people in each car.
I have a book here that shows a 747 uses about as much energy, per person per mile, as a volkswagon bug. According to the book, a motorcycle is four times more efficient than a beetle (on par with a city bus), and the average car is four times less efficient. This book was written in the late 70s, but (aside from gas/electric hybrids) I'd guess the numbers haven't changed that much.
Hybrid personal vehicle/rail systems are interesting, but even less realistic. "Ginger" was a step in this direction, and it doesn't seem to have panned out. It's hard to compete with Detroit without lots of government help. At least the busses where I live now have bicycle racks.
You contradicted yourself in your own post. Not to mention, you're still wrong.
The US has lots of privately owned highways. They're called turnpikes. And they're some of the best maintained roads in the nation.
Also, my car, and all of the other SUVs that Slashdot likes to berate, are specifically built *not* to rely on the "socialist" road infrastructure.
You know why? Because our roads suck. We don't want to continue paying our corrupt governments money for roads, only to have it spent on social programs.
And this is coming from somebody who used to drive a car that was *very* dependent on good roads. Guess what? It didn't work. I could barely drive around lots of places. I was run off the road by some idiot in a giant truck who couldn't see me. I'm not going to make either of those mistakes again. My lower insurance rates and not paying any ridiculous taxes to fix our crappy roads is just icing on the cake.
Your advice, while common, isn't really feasible in today's schools. It is no longer possible to get a truly useful, truly "general" education without spending eight years in undergrad. Unless you're independently wealthy, or completely aimless, you wouldn't want to do that.
Even then, you'd need to have a total fuckoff as an advisor. The University's goal is to crank out as many future contributors as possible. They don't want to let people hang around taking up slots for incoming students, even though your money is as green as theirs.
Especially in the hard sciences, any halfway decent program will expect you to eat, sleep, and breathe whatever it is they're teaching. By the time you're a Junior, you'll be practically living in your major's department. High schools are even becoming more specialized.
The entire system is geared towards giving you a very specialized education that will be useful for about ten years. After that, you'll have to come back for more. Can you see how this would be advantageous to a University?
This depends very much on what region of the country you live in. If you live in Jesusland, people with philosophy degrees are laughed at and pointed towards the nearest military recruiter. In the US of Canada, I'm told situations like yours aren't that uncommon.
It's not quite as bad as you say. Yes, you have to have exchanged a "signature" with the person on the other end beforehand. But, as you say, those can be used for years. They can also be arbitrarily large. And subsequent transmission channels need not be "trusted as untamperable", merely "authenticated", which the authentication signature supplies.
In the end, these are all just methods of identifying tampering. Digital authentication signatures provide an excellent way of detecting spoofing. QC provides detection of data interception. Combined, they are still the best methods available, as they are completely independent of the integrity of the transmission medium.
SCO has lawyers. those lawyers are not stupid. i'd wager they know a little more about this case, and law in general, than the average poster in this thread. they do not want to lose money. SCO does not want to lose money, or at least take a very bad risk on this.
Regardless of how reasonable these arguments may seem, the facts controvert them:
2) While it still looked like they might possibly have a case, SCO's revenues and stock price shot up and SCO was infused with large investments.
3) SCO's core server OS business started crumbling long ago under pressure from both Linux and Windows.
So, you see, SCO almost literally had nothing to lose. If they didn't do something, Linux (or Windows) would take their Unix server business. By making asses of themselves, they'll at least continue to receive large paychecks for a few more years. Besides, it was entirely plausible that IBM would have just bought the whole company to shut them up, in which case, jackpot!
/rant These types of solutions have been around for years. The only barrier to their adoption in "developed" countries are the MS blinders that most people wear. Not to mention, any time a non-profit thinks of deploying Linux, MS suits show up with free copies of Windows and brand new Dells. Fortunately, the "developing" world doesn't have such preconceived notions.
This probably has more to do with Microsoft's customers than their internal employment needs. You can't keep selling crapware that requires a full-time person to reboot it when it crashes without a healthy supply of intelligent people willing to work for peanuts doing mind-numbing work.
Kudzu, which does hardware detection, is one of the worst offenders. Removing it shaves almost ten seconds off of boot time for me, on a 1Ghz box.
Kudzu is also, however, integral to RedHat's "Stateless Linux" system, which reduces maintenance and increases security by booting from centralized disk images. This process is aided by Kudzu's "on-the-fly" hardware detection.
So it's a tradeoff that RedHat seems willing to make: ease of hardware support for slightly longer boot times. I'm willing to bet many large corporate customers are willing to make the same tradeoff, so long boot times must be "worked around" instead of eliminated.
They should be called "grants". Because that's what they are. Everyone knows the government doesn't "grant" rights. But it does grant copyrights, and patents.
A car hit you - you didn't do anything wrong, but the police wanted your ID. Why?
I was robbed last year. After telling the responding officer everything I knew, including the description of a shady character that had been hanging around recently, she pulled out her ticket book and asked me for "my description". What? You mean, the description I just gave you? No. Turns out, she wanted a description of me to write on her report, along with my SSN.
unless you are arrested or are involved in a traffic stop
These are one and the same. "Arrest" is merely a fancy word for "stop". It's used by governments and the media in a different sense than "traffic stop" only to lull you into the illusion that you are not actually "under arrest" and thus have no rights.
they pay for roads, school, State and local governments pay for these. It's not even legal for our Federal government to interfere in education. When they have, it's been at the point of a gun. Until recently, the Republican party had in their platform a plank to abolish the Federal Department of Education. They removed it in order to garner votes from ignorant housewives. Regardless, the Dept. is largely unfunded and ineffective. Except for large highways built during the Cold War as runway space for nuclear bombers, all roads are built and maintained by the States.
military, Our military pays for itself. We only invade countries with hard workers.
healthcare, We don't have socialized healthcare. Religious institutions foot the bill for most losses by hospitals.
Both State and Federal governments can issue bonds when necessary, and they are quickly purchased, even in the worst of times.
Yes. The MySQL people are tools who like to make outrageous licensing claims and bully commercial users into buying their commercial license. Whenever they're called on it, they blame it on "overzealous sales people".
I would probably have implemented a one-click buy option even if I haven't seen amazon before.
Supposedly, this makes no difference when patents are involved, which makes the distinction between copyright and patent that much more absurd. I thought you couldn't patent vague general ideas, only implementations of those ideas?
How many times have you watched a Fark photoshop contest in which people submit the same concept at nearly the same time? Who is it that gets to apologize and retract? The person who got theirs posted last, and probably spent the most time working on. What does this system encourage? Pushing half-completed projects out the door. I don't see how it's even economically beneficial. Look at what the software industry has become: a collection of half-completed projects with people's names written on them, and that they'll happily sue you for if you try to turn them into useful products.
Imagine, is a book on butterflies a work of art subject to copyright or a "method and implementation of transmitting knowledge of butterflies" capable of being patented?
Is an architectural design for a McDonalds a work of art or a "customer-cheeseburger interface?"
Did Amazon "discover" (as required by the constitution) the one-click buying interface? Or did they create it?
It's even less clear when it comes to software. Hell, for the longest time, no one even thought software could be patented. Now, though, who the hell knows.
They run on sunlight. If you expect to do anything for your students besides instill unrealistic economic expectations in them, don't build multi-purpose robots. Unless the energy situation improves, their generation will never see such things in actual use.
Build a tracking system for solar panels. It's close enough to a robot, but it might actually come in handy. Use the opportunity to compare the amount of power used to the amount generated. I'm assuming these are students with a basic understanding of electricity?
There must be a big myth that open source end-users have more influence with open source projects.
There's more money in OSS than you think. Of course proprietary developers listen to their customers too, but to a lesser extent. The difference is, OSS providers can't hide behind lock-in file formats, obtrusive licenses, and established monopolies if they want to make money. They have to earn it, by listening to users and providing for their needs.
And it's not as easy as a "usability study" would have you believe. It means living with users day in and day out and dealing with all of their problems, not just watching them click a few buttons for a couple of hours and optimizing the menus. A vast majority of the proprietary crap software wouldn't exist if all programmers were forced to then support it from the "hell desk". Fortunately for OSS, many developers *are* supporting end users directly, and code accordingly.
You've just described capitalism. Congratulations. And your analogies apply to everything of value, not just those that are difficult to quantify. There's a minimum volume and profit margin for every industry. If you don't meet them, you go out of business or you find a niche market.
I perform computer services for a set hourly fee. I feel my services are pretty valuable. My clients feel the same way. But, guess what, I won't talk to a client unless s/he has five computers. Because, as much as I'd like to mass together 100 people with one computer each and support them all, it isn't economical.
Do I bitch and moan and twist words and try to bend time and space to allow me to make a profit (or even a living) servicing companies or individuals with less than five computers? Do I imply that there is a "social contract" that whenever anyone buys a computer, they must pay a tax to support people like me?
No, I don't. I just target markets where I can profit and charge accordingly in markets where I can't. Every business does this.
It's the reason 12 ounces of water in a 7/11 costs as much as 1000 gallons of water from the tap. Yet, somehow, people still buy 12 ounces of water for $1. Perhaps it's valuable to them. If you're getting beat by people selling bottles of water, perhaps it isn't the concept of the penny that is flawed, but that your product just isn't valuable?
Just to take it further, some places it's customary to tip. Many restaurants pay their waitstaff little or nothing, and they depend on those tips to make a living. States have exceptions to the minimum wage laws specifically for waitstaff, so that they can be paid $2 an hour or whatever, plus tips, instead of the usual $6.
If I don't tip, am I a crook? By asking my waitperson for a sandwich, have I contracted their services as well as the services of the restaurant in preparation of it? Do I really have a choice? Can I walk into the kitchen and order a sandwich from the cook instead?
Slashdot Mirror
Why is there this insistence on equating information with physical objects, yet denying it the limitations as such?
If I stood on a street corner, and handed out candy bars to passers-by, I wouldn't then be able to order those people not to eat the candy bars. If one of them found I had inadvertently given them two candy bars instead of one, I couldn't demand it be returned.
The right to control *actual* property once it has voluntarily left one's physical control is non-existent in this case. Why should intellectual property be any different?
"Aha!" you say, "but it's not possible to relinquish actual control of intellectual property without transferring copyright. By distributing, one merely licenses intellectual property for intended use. Furthermore, one can expect to control property outside of one's physical control in certain instances, based on implied intentions."
Okay, then here's another analogy, that of valet parking. You hand your keys over to a stranger with the intent that the stranger return them to you, along with your intact car, upon providing his service. If he sees the inside of your car, does it matter to you? Probably not. If he uses your keys to snoop through your trunk, and finds your kiddie porn collection, and never tells anyone about it, does it matter to you? Probably not, as long as you get your car back, you'll never know.
What if he tells everyone about your kiddie porn? You may be upset, but, if you handed him your keys, and he provided his service, can you really complain? Of course, in this case, we could say your "intent" was for the valet not to find your kiddie porn, or at least not to publicise it. By doing so, does his violation of your intent constitute injury? The answer is still "no".
It's important that this conclusion is independent of the quality of the information discovered. It doesn't matter that the discovery of kiddie porn could harm your reputation. Likewise, I might say my "intent" for the reader of this post is for you to disregard any spelling/grammatical errors. Doing otherwise could cause me harm in the form of embarassment. Does my intent make a difference? Even though I clearly am the owner of this intellectual property, do I have the right to impose such a condition? Can I force you to ignore information in plain view?
Information is a physical property, either it's there or it isn't. But "intent", "ownership", and "use" have completely different definitions and ramifications for intellectual property than for physical property. Saying you can't "decode" information you've been handed calls into question the entire process of reading, since it's basically decryption based on a shared key.
Furthermore, the security provided by encryption schemes other than the one-time pad are illusory. Quantum computers will show this to be true. If you think "aha! I have encrypted this information with rot-13. now no-one can read it." then you're deluding yourself. It would be as if you were handing everyone two candy bars, and they all returned one. Sooner or later, someone is going to refuse to return a candy bar.
Of course the oil supply is a problem. But, with a little effort, energy supplies are interchangeable. The real problem with cars versus mass transit isn't the fact that cars use oil as their form of energy. It's that cars use so much energy to accomplish their function. There's lots of room for efficiency improvements with new technology, but the most obvious way to fix this is to make cars smaller or put more people in each car.
I have a book here that shows a 747 uses about as much energy, per person per mile, as a volkswagon bug. According to the book, a motorcycle is four times more efficient than a beetle (on par with a city bus), and the average car is four times less efficient. This book was written in the late 70s, but (aside from gas/electric hybrids) I'd guess the numbers haven't changed that much.
Hybrid personal vehicle/rail systems are interesting, but even less realistic. "Ginger" was a step in this direction, and it doesn't seem to have panned out. It's hard to compete with Detroit without lots of government help. At least the busses where I live now have bicycle racks.
You contradicted yourself in your own post. Not to mention, you're still wrong.
The US has lots of privately owned highways. They're called turnpikes. And they're some of the best maintained roads in the nation.
Also, my car, and all of the other SUVs that Slashdot likes to berate, are specifically built *not* to rely on the "socialist" road infrastructure.
You know why? Because our roads suck. We don't want to continue paying our corrupt governments money for roads, only to have it spent on social programs.
And this is coming from somebody who used to drive a car that was *very* dependent on good roads. Guess what? It didn't work. I could barely drive around lots of places. I was run off the road by some idiot in a giant truck who couldn't see me. I'm not going to make either of those mistakes again. My lower insurance rates and not paying any ridiculous taxes to fix our crappy roads is just icing on the cake.
Take a path of "general education" in school.
Your advice, while common, isn't really feasible in today's schools. It is no longer possible to get a truly useful, truly "general" education without spending eight years in undergrad. Unless you're independently wealthy, or completely aimless, you wouldn't want to do that.
Even then, you'd need to have a total fuckoff as an advisor. The University's goal is to crank out as many future contributors as possible. They don't want to let people hang around taking up slots for incoming students, even though your money is as green as theirs.
Especially in the hard sciences, any halfway decent program will expect you to eat, sleep, and breathe whatever it is they're teaching. By the time you're a Junior, you'll be practically living in your major's department. High schools are even becoming more specialized.
The entire system is geared towards giving you a very specialized education that will be useful for about ten years. After that, you'll have to come back for more. Can you see how this would be advantageous to a University?
This depends very much on what region of the country you live in. If you live in Jesusland, people with philosophy degrees are laughed at and pointed towards the nearest military recruiter. In the US of Canada, I'm told situations like yours aren't that uncommon.
It's not quite as bad as you say. Yes, you have to have exchanged a "signature" with the person on the other end beforehand. But, as you say, those can be used for years. They can also be arbitrarily large. And subsequent transmission channels need not be "trusted as untamperable", merely "authenticated", which the authentication signature supplies.
In the end, these are all just methods of identifying tampering. Digital authentication signatures provide an excellent way of detecting spoofing. QC provides detection of data interception. Combined, they are still the best methods available, as they are completely independent of the integrity of the transmission medium.
SCO has lawyers. those lawyers are not stupid. i'd wager they know a little more about this case, and law in general, than the average poster in this thread. they do not want to lose money. SCO does not want to lose money, or at least take a very bad risk on this.
Regardless of how reasonable these arguments may seem, the facts controvert them:
1) SCO's lawyers, like most, are paid whether they win or lose.
2) While it still looked like they might possibly have a case, SCO's revenues and stock price shot up and SCO was infused with large investments.
3) SCO's core server OS business started crumbling long ago under pressure from both Linux and Windows.
So, you see, SCO almost literally had nothing to lose. If they didn't do something, Linux (or Windows) would take their Unix server business. By making asses of themselves, they'll at least continue to receive large paychecks for a few more years. Besides, it was entirely plausible that IBM would have just bought the whole company to shut them up, in which case, jackpot!
Isn't this just MS telling everybody what they want to hear?
To developers: Longhorn will have NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER. Your code will compile and run fine and continue to make you bucketloads of money.
To admins: Longhorn will have ENHANCED SECURITY. Your users will no longer be able to install Linux without your permission.
To users: Ha! As if MS cares about users... They'll be happy with whatever comes with their new Dell.
Not money, profit. Open source can make money all day long. Turning a profit, which is all a capitalist is interested in, is more difficult.
This probably has more to do with Microsoft's customers than their internal employment needs. You can't keep selling crapware that requires a full-time person to reboot it when it crashes without a healthy supply of intelligent people willing to work for peanuts doing mind-numbing work.
Kudzu, which does hardware detection, is one of the worst offenders. Removing it shaves almost ten seconds off of boot time for me, on a 1Ghz box.
Kudzu is also, however, integral to RedHat's "Stateless Linux" system, which reduces maintenance and increases security by booting from centralized disk images. This process is aided by Kudzu's "on-the-fly" hardware detection.
So it's a tradeoff that RedHat seems willing to make: ease of hardware support for slightly longer boot times. I'm willing to bet many large corporate customers are willing to make the same tradeoff, so long boot times must be "worked around" instead of eliminated.
They should be called "grants". Because that's what they are. Everyone knows the government doesn't "grant" rights. But it does grant copyrights, and patents.
Copy Grants, and Patent Grants... gubment cheese.
Didn't you see Enemy of the State? The "direct line of sight limit" has been broken already with the use of fancy computer post-processing.
A car hit you - you didn't do anything wrong, but the police wanted your ID. Why?
I was robbed last year. After telling the responding officer everything I knew, including the description of a shady character that had been hanging around recently, she pulled out her ticket book and asked me for "my description". What? You mean, the description I just gave you? No. Turns out, she wanted a description of me to write on her report, along with my SSN.
God Bless America.
unless you are arrested or are involved in a traffic stop
These are one and the same. "Arrest" is merely a fancy word for "stop". It's used by governments and the media in a different sense than "traffic stop" only to lull you into the illusion that you are not actually "under arrest" and thus have no rights.
they pay for roads, school,
State and local governments pay for these. It's not even legal for our Federal government to interfere in education. When they have, it's been at the point of a gun. Until recently, the Republican party had in their platform a plank to abolish the Federal Department of Education. They removed it in order to garner votes from ignorant housewives. Regardless, the Dept. is largely unfunded and ineffective. Except for large highways built during the Cold War as runway space for nuclear bombers, all roads are built and maintained by the States.
military,
Our military pays for itself. We only invade countries with hard workers.
healthcare,
We don't have socialized healthcare. Religious institutions foot the bill for most losses by hospitals.
Both State and Federal governments can issue bonds when necessary, and they are quickly purchased, even in the worst of times.
Am I missing something?
Yes. The MySQL people are tools who like to make outrageous licensing claims and bully commercial users into buying their commercial license. Whenever they're called on it, they blame it on "overzealous sales people".
We didn't actually have anyone that was very experienced in Linux
Snip...
Our Solaris guy
This is where I stopped reading. Sounds like you were put to a task for which you weren't qualified, which is unfortunate.
Why didn't the Solaris guy do it to begin with? Linux is not Windows. Linux is more like Unix. Haven't you noticed all the hubub with SCO?
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Putting Windows admins at work on Linux is an exercise in futility (or sick humor, depending).
I would probably have implemented a one-click buy option even if I haven't seen amazon before.
Supposedly, this makes no difference when patents are involved, which makes the distinction between copyright and patent that much more absurd. I thought you couldn't patent vague general ideas, only implementations of those ideas?
How many times have you watched a Fark photoshop contest in which people submit the same concept at nearly the same time? Who is it that gets to apologize and retract? The person who got theirs posted last, and probably spent the most time working on. What does this system encourage? Pushing half-completed projects out the door. I don't see how it's even economically beneficial. Look at what the software industry has become: a collection of half-completed projects with people's names written on them, and that they'll happily sue you for if you try to turn them into useful products.
Imagine, is a book on butterflies a work of art subject to copyright or a "method and implementation of transmitting knowledge of butterflies" capable of being patented?
Is an architectural design for a McDonalds a work of art or a "customer-cheeseburger interface?"
Did Amazon "discover" (as required by the constitution) the one-click buying interface? Or did they create it?
It's even less clear when it comes to software. Hell, for the longest time, no one even thought software could be patented. Now, though, who the hell knows.
They run on sunlight. If you expect to do anything for your students besides instill unrealistic economic expectations in them, don't build multi-purpose robots. Unless the energy situation improves, their generation will never see such things in actual use.
Build a tracking system for solar panels. It's close enough to a robot, but it might actually come in handy. Use the opportunity to compare the amount of power used to the amount generated. I'm assuming these are students with a basic understanding of electricity?
There must be a big myth that open source end-users have more influence with open source projects.
There's more money in OSS than you think. Of course proprietary developers listen to their customers too, but to a lesser extent. The difference is, OSS providers can't hide behind lock-in file formats, obtrusive licenses, and established monopolies if they want to make money. They have to earn it, by listening to users and providing for their needs.
And it's not as easy as a "usability study" would have you believe. It means living with users day in and day out and dealing with all of their problems, not just watching them click a few buttons for a couple of hours and optimizing the menus. A vast majority of the proprietary crap software wouldn't exist if all programmers were forced to then support it from the "hell desk". Fortunately for OSS, many developers *are* supporting end users directly, and code accordingly.
You've just described capitalism. Congratulations. And your analogies apply to everything of value, not just those that are difficult to quantify. There's a minimum volume and profit margin for every industry. If you don't meet them, you go out of business or you find a niche market.
I perform computer services for a set hourly fee. I feel my services are pretty valuable. My clients feel the same way. But, guess what, I won't talk to a client unless s/he has five computers. Because, as much as I'd like to mass together 100 people with one computer each and support them all, it isn't economical.
Do I bitch and moan and twist words and try to bend time and space to allow me to make a profit (or even a living) servicing companies or individuals with less than five computers? Do I imply that there is a "social contract" that whenever anyone buys a computer, they must pay a tax to support people like me?
No, I don't. I just target markets where I can profit and charge accordingly in markets where I can't. Every business does this.
It's the reason 12 ounces of water in a 7/11 costs as much as 1000 gallons of water from the tap. Yet, somehow, people still buy 12 ounces of water for $1. Perhaps it's valuable to them. If you're getting beat by people selling bottles of water, perhaps it isn't the concept of the penny that is flawed, but that your product just isn't valuable?
Just to take it further, some places it's customary to tip. Many restaurants pay their waitstaff little or nothing, and they depend on those tips to make a living. States have exceptions to the minimum wage laws specifically for waitstaff, so that they can be paid $2 an hour or whatever, plus tips, instead of the usual $6.
If I don't tip, am I a crook? By asking my waitperson for a sandwich, have I contracted their services as well as the services of the restaurant in preparation of it? Do I really have a choice? Can I walk into the kitchen and order a sandwich from the cook instead?
Which other features/capabilities (in any OS) would you like to have removed?
Macros.