I just bought my 2nd Tivo HD. Love them. With Cablecards in both ($2/mo/card), I get everything the cable co's box gets except Pay Per View, which I couldn't care less about.
I took great pleasure in returning my crappy Motorola DVR that the cable company (Cox) tries to pawn off as a "functional" DVR. It is and will be the last cable company supplied box that ever enters my house if I have a say.
OT question for the group though: Why don't 2007/2008 televisions have cablecard slots like my TivoHD? You can't hardly find them built into the TV's anymore. Kitchen TV's? Bedroom TV's? Hello? There are some places where a cable box is undesirable. Am I the only one who wants to watch HBO in my bedroom without a cable box below the TV? Without a cable card slot in the TV, you have no choice. You have to have a box to watch those channels on any TV.
Only the US thinks that all wars can be won by technology.
All wars ARE (eventually) won by technology. Economic, military, social, etc. Technology is a force multiplier. And not just in military terms either. Productivity, science, etc all benefit from advances in technology.
My previous post simply suggested that military spending can have a drastic influence on the balance of power. In other words, it's overweighted compared with other aspects of power (economic, diplomatic, cultural, etc). And as the Japanese showed in WWII and America has shown in Iraq (wrongheadedly, I might add) that overweighting is for good reason. Do you not think Iraq has been influenced (good or bad) by the overwhelming military force of the US? Of course it has. The country has been turned upside down.
Now ask yourself - is it even possible that the reverse could ever be true (ie: Iraq invading the US)? No. You can't even fathom it. It's so far beyond the realm of possibility that it is laughable. And that's exactly what it's supposed to be. That, in worldview terms, is defense. Enforceable defense. And that is why we spend so much, rightly or wrongly.
The US has not and will not be invaded by a foreign enemy/nation. That is all that counts in the end. A few boxcutters and a handful of nutjobs aren't going to change that, despite the fact the stealth bombers didn't help in that case or any terrorist case for that matter.
Let's be clear though - if "they" try to group up and start an army (which they would need to change the US in a meaningful way), I am betting that stealth bomber will come in handy.
Well, for one thing....the US would instantly be at war and would probably be taken over if our enemies saw us spending almost nothing on our own defense.
Aside from that tiny detail, there is nothing wrong with reversing those numbers. Unfortunately, the US does have enemies that would -gasp!- use lethal force if given the chance. While I agree we could and should spend less, I do not delude myself into thinking we should spend "a pittance" on defense. That is just not a reasonable position in the modern era for a country with the size and influence of the US.
Rightly or wrongly, the US has enemies. Enemies that will kill you (and your family), if given the chance. You should want to protect yourself from that. And that means some defense (ie: a hell of a lot more than.1 trillon - or 100 billion). Good god, man. Have you forgotten the lessons of past wars? It took every little ounce of production from the US to win WWII and lots of ppl at that time vowed never again shall we let ourselves be vulnerable to attack. So we've been building it up ever since that time in hopes that we don't fall behind again.
You see, we've learned that defense has a deterrent effect.
A strong defense = an overpowering military = expensive = less chance of going to war because your enemies can't keep up (and they know it)
Note: I am not saying it's right or wrong. I am simply suggesting that the balance of power is drastically changed when a nation builds up it's military.
So in other words only the rich now can make money on anything that would be considered IP
No, not if the fee is small and reasonable - which it is. Yes, anyone of us can register a copyrighted work. Do it right here. It's $45 to register a literary work. If your living depends on it, I'm betting you can find $45 to "invest" in your idea. If you can't, maybe you should find something else to do.
And note: currently, you do NOT have to register a copyright for the copyright to be recognized. (However, I think you have to register if you go to court to defend it. Not sure...anyone?)
If it auto-magically slips into the public domain - then anyone can use it for no fees/no restrictions. Congress determines when that happens and the limit varies, depending on the copyright
What you are suggesting is a luxury tax. That's (some of the reason) why they tax RV's, boats, etc. Some of that tax is for local "infrastructure" stuff so it's justified. But the rest is generally thought of as a luxury tax. ie: we tax the luxury because people don't really need it.
Could you charge a luxury tax on IP?
Intuition tells me IP would be deemed "essential" for a corporation who depends on it (Disney) but I don't know. Long-lasting IP might be considered a luxury if it has FAR paid back the original creators (ie: the authors).
What if we luxury taxed IP after the author/creator's death or some specified time limit?
(p.s: yes, I know...the better solution is simply to fix the copyright terms but this is an intellectual exercise anyway. It's NOT going to happen anytime soon.)
Different entities. Property taxes come from the state/city/county government. Income taxes come from the Federal government (and some states). That's why you are taxed twice. And you do get credit on each tax for the other tax you paid. Your property taxes go to roads, schools, etc. Generally local stuff. Your income tax goes to Washington (and your state capital if you are income taxed in your state). You can read all about the fight between states rights vs federal rights in any American history book if you want to better understand who gets a piece of your ass each year. Our government, believe it or not, does have structure as well as checks and balances. At each level, it is very efficient at taking money in the form of taxes. Sometimes justified, sometimes not.
And how does income taxation allow copyright "to promote the Progress" in the cases of orphan works and dog-in-the-manger cases like Disney's Song of the South?
It doesn't. It's not supposed to. Taxes - currently - have nothing to do with Copyrights (except for income generated, which has already been pointed out by GP). That's what the article is about. The idea that we should "tax" IP and mix the two.
I can't believe Exxon is still able to fight over this case. Just goes to show how powerful Exxon is and how much capital it has to take on the government and anyone else who steps up. I am sure the fight has not been cheap. Meanwhile....
For those that don't remember, this was a pretty blatant case where a company was negligent (or certainly the company's personnel). History here
Yet, somehow...they've managed to do nothing but fight since the incident happened. I can't blame them for fighting to reduce the award. I am just astounded that they haven't been beaten and punished already. It's still going on. 14 years later. Over those 14 years, they have been punished exactly zero.
I am in awe of their delay tactics. Astounded, actually...
Correct. The IRS requires your withholdings from bonuses be at the maximum tax rate and not your "normal" tax withholdings. If I recall right, that would be 42% of your bonus will be withheld for fed taxes. I assume everyone here knows the difference between withholdings and the actual tax amount you pay...
So, in real terms, it is 6 one way and half a dozen the other. ie: there is no benefit one way or the other.
You just have to wait until you file taxes to get that "extra withholdings" back. But you do get some back (assuming your tax rate is less than 42%). They do this to make sure people don't get some large bonus, go spend it, and then not be able to pay the tax on that bonus when it is due next April 15th. Makes sense but I, personally, don't like giving the government interest free loans so I tend to offset my bonus withholdings by decreasing the withholdings on my monthly paycheck.
Ok, I read the article and wow....it says exactly what the summary lays out. Very directly, in fact. It's very clear what the intentions are as they are spelled out in the Associated Press article.
I was expecting some nutjob blogger but this is actually on the AP newswire with attribution (Eileen Sullivan) so it has some credibility.
This is disturbing because....it's...just...so...blatant.:(
blackmail and scammers gaining more and more power until we remove the ability of malignent code to survive
And therein lies the problem. Who decides what is malignent and what is not?
If we implement the "hard coded" solution you propose, then by default, we give ALL of the coding power to the companies that do that hard coding. Talk about lock-in! But if you leave it "open" and allow amateur's programs to run, then you have the malignancy problem you mention. The whole problem is that we do not have an automated way to determine "good" code from "bad" code. And that's not going to change because it is a subjective assessment.
Classic catch-22. Your most hated rootkit is my most prized Administrative tool. So who is right?
F8 is for the windows boot options.
F6 is for the driver disk (during windows install) you need for your RAID configuration or fancy new hard drive controller.
I've missed the F6 screen MANY times during install only to find out I have to start all over and get it right -- or the installation routine can't see my hard drive.
While there are few controllers included, the vast majority of recent HD controllers still required the F6 option with a floppy. That's right. I said floppy. No Cd's allowed.
In 2008, that's enough for me to call it a lemon. Without caveats. Say what you want about all the other fantastic crap and I'd still say it's a lemon if the OS can't copy files correctly or efficiently.
I can't believe there are apologists for this problem. Copying files is pretty fundamental to how computers work. Why on earth would anyone give any company a free pass for getting it wrong? Hell, anything less than 100% perfection is a failure in my book.
I am stupified that we are discussing whether this is "acceptable" or not. It's not. And it hasn't been since, well....around 1985 or so.
And in the real world, there are those who "get" the digital world and those who don't. The people who get it already realize there are risks to privacy for being online. Those who don't go on about their business not realizing the peril they are putting themselves in. They have a skewed understanding of the costs and benefits of using a service like facebook and they way overfocus on the benefits.
Your brother and his friends fall into the latter group. They will be treated accordingly and will enjoy all of the benefits AND costs associated with "not knowing". Ignorance is not bliss --- in the real world. If you don't know what is going on around you, it's very easy to get in over your head and get yourself in trouble. With the direction things are going online, there are going to be a LOT of people who get themselves in trouble.
In summary, while your brother (and most people) don't care now, at some point in their lifetime they will be forced to care. Because the alternative is much much worse. It is only a matter of time at the current pace we are moving...
Annoying? Yes. That is putting it lightly. It's Annoying enough for me to take my business elsewhere.
Again, this is an Amazon problem....not mine. I just do business elsewhere until they give me a way to shop the way *I* the customer, wants to shop. Seems like that would be important to them.
Tell me all the oscillating fans Amazon sells. I just want to see what Amazon itself sells. Not it's merchants or affiliates.
If you do it like me, you enter "oscillating fan" into search and go from the results.
But the results include Amazon + merchants. You can't filter down to "Amazon only".
Yes, if you open the product page, you can see who sells what and it's somewhat clear that it's an Amazon item or merchant item (although it is easy to miss, which I did).
But the search results and products displayed do not differentiate. Of course, you can go through each result and find out but who would do that? I'd rather search and say "show me Amazon.com items only". I understand that Amazon has to do business how they want -- but if I don't want to buy from their merchants, they should still let me do business with "just Amazon".
Now tell me, how you return search results where Amazon is the seller and not their merchants? You can go through each and every page, looking, if you want to. But I like searching.
There is no way to separate the two in searching. That is my complaint. Therefore, it makes it more difficult to shop at Amazon if one wants to purchase only from Amazon (and not their merchants).
You made my point again.
The employee would find themselves unable to board their flight at best (and thus unable to complete whatever task the company assigned to them), and arrested and possibly charged with some absurd federal crime at worst.
Right. And, assuming the employee hasn't done anything wrong, what makes you think employers like seeing their employees locked up? If it happens a lot (or to key people), businesses will scream very loudly. Very very loudly.
Of course your employer is going to tell you to comply. But once they find out laptops and/or data are being confiscated, their tune will change. You can't fight reality. And reality is, there are 2 choices: comply and let data be confiscated or fight and be arrested/delayed/hasseled. Either way -- your employer is not going to like it.
The answer, of course, is to rely on your employer. Let me explain.
Go ahead and fight them. I mean - do not let them search your laptop until forced to do so. Cite your company's information as the reason. Perhaps individual privacy is gone but we still have some sanctity for corporate data. It doesn't even have to be trademark/copyright/legally protected data. It just has to be data that your company deems 'private and confidential'. If people start missing flights because of over-ambitious TSA agents, eventually, businesses will start screaming about these searches....if they aren't already. Not only are they overly intrusive but they are causing losses in a very real way. Measurable losses.
Anyone from Oracle or MSFT read this post? How would you feel about your laptop being held like this? How about someone from Adobe or Boeing? What about the big-3 car companies? Consulting companies?
There are lots of businesses that require international travel and I am betting they don't want some $10.50/hr TSA employee reading your laptop anymore than you do. I expect employers to enter the fray any second now. They will not stand for this unless there are some checks and balances. They have no interest in writing off confiscated assets because of over zealous TSA agents and they are (unfortunately) our best defense.
You can't tell merchant items from Amazon-only items. I mean, they are spelled out clearly who is who --- but there is NO way you can search and say "show me Amazon.com items only, no merchants".
Since I learned this lesson the hard way*, I have quit shopping at Amazon. I will do so until they give me a way to separate the two.
* the hard way: I bought a whole bunch of items and had them drop shipped to a local charity. Not realizing I had a mixup of Amazon + merchant items, I had no less than 16 credit card charges for one single order. You see, each merchant bills you independently so if you have multiple items from multiple merchants -- you get multiple charges. I would think that part of any affiliate program/merchant program would be streamlining the money handling so there would be 1 charge / 1 order. Do they really think customers want a separate charge for each and every item in their cart? That's the whole point of a cart -- to bundle lots of items into one single, solitary, transaction. Anyone who has had a mix-mash of Amazon items + merchant items on their order knows what I am talking about.
Sir, I used to work in M&A. I am very well aware of the tools available to "get things done". (not bragging but I also have my MBA in finance, which started me off in the industry). Spent my first 10 years of my career doing M&A work and I have read, in detail, all of the books you mention. Carl Icahn is one of my personal heroes.
This isn't easy and there are LOTS of ways this can go down. You have laid out one way (which btw, is very well thought out, thanks) but M&A activities are, by default, unpredictable. Because of this, there is an entire artbitrage industry that does nothing but try to profit off of M&A deals.
My point here is simple: if you have it figured out, then you should profit from it. IF it goes down the way you say, then you can easily make enough money to last you the rest of your lifetime from this one deal. Now, stepping back and taking my asshat off, let me say you appear to be very well versed in some of the finer points of corporate structure and equities....so I am thinking you already know this and you realize it's a lot harder than it looks. Deals get quashed. Players change. Corp politics changes. The debt markets become (un)cooperative, Etc, etc, etc.
If it was so easy to profit because you "know how it's going to play out", then everyone would be making billions of dollars trading the pattern. They aren't. Because there is no pattern. If you think there is, then I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is and let us know what your positions are.
Since, literally, billions of dollars are at stake here, you are in possession of information that could set you up for life if you were to trade on it. Why aren't you on Wall Street with those smarts? Seriously. Since you have it figured out, you should profit from this. Your could generate enough riches to retire in 2-3 months.
I'd be intrigued. I'd probably even subscribe to your newsletter.
Slashdot Mirror
I just bought my 2nd Tivo HD. Love them. With Cablecards in both ($2/mo/card), I get everything the cable co's box gets except Pay Per View, which I couldn't care less about.
I took great pleasure in returning my crappy Motorola DVR that the cable company (Cox) tries to pawn off as a "functional" DVR. It is and will be the last cable company supplied box that ever enters my house if I have a say.
OT question for the group though: Why don't 2007/2008 televisions have cablecard slots like my TivoHD? You can't hardly find them built into the TV's anymore. Kitchen TV's? Bedroom TV's? Hello? There are some places where a cable box is undesirable. Am I the only one who wants to watch HBO in my bedroom without a cable box below the TV? Without a cable card slot in the TV, you have no choice. You have to have a box to watch those channels on any TV.
Only the US thinks that all wars can be won by technology.
All wars ARE (eventually) won by technology. Economic, military, social, etc. Technology is a force multiplier. And not just in military terms either. Productivity, science, etc all benefit from advances in technology.
My previous post simply suggested that military spending can have a drastic influence on the balance of power. In other words, it's overweighted compared with other aspects of power (economic, diplomatic, cultural, etc). And as the Japanese showed in WWII and America has shown in Iraq (wrongheadedly, I might add) that overweighting is for good reason. Do you not think Iraq has been influenced (good or bad) by the overwhelming military force of the US? Of course it has. The country has been turned upside down.
Now ask yourself - is it even possible that the reverse could ever be true (ie: Iraq invading the US)? No. You can't even fathom it. It's so far beyond the realm of possibility that it is laughable. And that's exactly what it's supposed to be. That, in worldview terms, is defense. Enforceable defense. And that is why we spend so much, rightly or wrongly.
The US has not and will not be invaded by a foreign enemy/nation. That is all that counts in the end. A few boxcutters and a handful of nutjobs aren't going to change that, despite the fact the stealth bombers didn't help in that case or any terrorist case for that matter.
Let's be clear though - if "they" try to group up and start an army (which they would need to change the US in a meaningful way), I am betting that stealth bomber will come in handy.
What would be wrong with having these reversed?
.1 trillon - or 100 billion). Good god, man. Have you forgotten the lessons of past wars? It took every little ounce of production from the US to win WWII and lots of ppl at that time vowed never again shall we let ourselves be vulnerable to attack. So we've been building it up ever since that time in hopes that we don't fall behind again.
Well, for one thing....the US would instantly be at war and would probably be taken over if our enemies saw us spending almost nothing on our own defense.
Aside from that tiny detail, there is nothing wrong with reversing those numbers. Unfortunately, the US does have enemies that would -gasp!- use lethal force if given the chance. While I agree we could and should spend less, I do not delude myself into thinking we should spend "a pittance" on defense. That is just not a reasonable position in the modern era for a country with the size and influence of the US.
Rightly or wrongly, the US has enemies. Enemies that will kill you (and your family), if given the chance. You should want to protect yourself from that. And that means some defense (ie: a hell of a lot more than
You see, we've learned that defense has a deterrent effect.
A strong defense = an overpowering military = expensive = less chance of going to war because your enemies can't keep up (and they know it)
Note: I am not saying it's right or wrong. I am simply suggesting that the balance of power is drastically changed when a nation builds up it's military.
So in other words only the rich now can make money on anything that would be considered IP
No, not if the fee is small and reasonable - which it is. Yes, anyone of us can register a copyrighted work. Do it right here. It's $45 to register a literary work. If your living depends on it, I'm betting you can find $45 to "invest" in your idea. If you can't, maybe you should find something else to do.
And note: currently, you do NOT have to register a copyright for the copyright to be recognized. (However, I think you have to register if you go to court to defend it. Not sure...anyone?)
If it auto-magically slips into the public domain - then anyone can use it for no fees/no restrictions. Congress determines when that happens and the limit varies, depending on the copyright
What you are suggesting is a luxury tax. That's (some of the reason) why they tax RV's, boats, etc. Some of that tax is for local "infrastructure" stuff so it's justified. But the rest is generally thought of as a luxury tax. ie: we tax the luxury because people don't really need it.
Could you charge a luxury tax on IP?
Intuition tells me IP would be deemed "essential" for a corporation who depends on it (Disney) but I don't know. Long-lasting IP might be considered a luxury if it has FAR paid back the original creators (ie: the authors).
What if we luxury taxed IP after the author/creator's death or some specified time limit?
(p.s: yes, I know...the better solution is simply to fix the copyright terms but this is an intellectual exercise anyway. It's NOT going to happen anytime soon.)
Different entities. Property taxes come from the state/city/county government. Income taxes come from the Federal government (and some states). That's why you are taxed twice. And you do get credit on each tax for the other tax you paid. Your property taxes go to roads, schools, etc. Generally local stuff. Your income tax goes to Washington (and your state capital if you are income taxed in your state). You can read all about the fight between states rights vs federal rights in any American history book if you want to better understand who gets a piece of your ass each year. Our government, believe it or not, does have structure as well as checks and balances. At each level, it is very efficient at taking money in the form of taxes. Sometimes justified, sometimes not.
And how does income taxation allow copyright "to promote the Progress" in the cases of orphan works and dog-in-the-manger cases like Disney's Song of the South?
It doesn't. It's not supposed to. Taxes - currently - have nothing to do with Copyrights (except for income generated, which has already been pointed out by GP). That's what the article is about. The idea that we should "tax" IP and mix the two.
FWIW, I think it's a bad idea.
I can't believe Exxon is still able to fight over this case. Just goes to show how powerful Exxon is and how much capital it has to take on the government and anyone else who steps up. I am sure the fight has not been cheap. Meanwhile....
For those that don't remember, this was a pretty blatant case where a company was negligent (or certainly the company's personnel). History here
Yet, somehow...they've managed to do nothing but fight since the incident happened. I can't blame them for fighting to reduce the award. I am just astounded that they haven't been beaten and punished already. It's still going on. 14 years later. Over those 14 years, they have been punished exactly zero.
I am in awe of their delay tactics. Astounded, actually...
Correct. The IRS requires your withholdings from bonuses be at the maximum tax rate and not your "normal" tax withholdings. If I recall right, that would be 42% of your bonus will be withheld for fed taxes. I assume everyone here knows the difference between withholdings and the actual tax amount you pay...
So, in real terms, it is 6 one way and half a dozen the other. ie: there is no benefit one way or the other.
You just have to wait until you file taxes to get that "extra withholdings" back. But you do get some back (assuming your tax rate is less than 42%). They do this to make sure people don't get some large bonus, go spend it, and then not be able to pay the tax on that bonus when it is due next April 15th. Makes sense but I, personally, don't like giving the government interest free loans so I tend to offset my bonus withholdings by decreasing the withholdings on my monthly paycheck.
Ok, I read the article and wow....it says exactly what the summary lays out. Very directly, in fact. It's very clear what the intentions are as they are spelled out in the Associated Press article.
:(
I was expecting some nutjob blogger but this is actually on the AP newswire with attribution (Eileen Sullivan) so it has some credibility.
This is disturbing because....it's...just...so...blatant.
Yes, but is your stapler Fire-engine red? ... or just red?
If fire-engine red, you win
If "standard" red, I'm betting on the paper clips.
blackmail and scammers gaining more and more power until we remove the ability of malignent code to survive
And therein lies the problem. Who decides what is malignent and what is not?
If we implement the "hard coded" solution you propose, then by default, we give ALL of the coding power to the companies that do that hard coding. Talk about lock-in! But if you leave it "open" and allow amateur's programs to run, then you have the malignancy problem you mention. The whole problem is that we do not have an automated way to determine "good" code from "bad" code. And that's not going to change because it is a subjective assessment.
Classic catch-22. Your most hated rootkit is my most prized Administrative tool. So who is right?
F8 is for the windows boot options.
F6 is for the driver disk (during windows install) you need for your RAID configuration or fancy new hard drive controller.
I've missed the F6 screen MANY times during install only to find out I have to start all over and get it right -- or the installation routine can't see my hard drive.
While there are few controllers included, the vast majority of recent HD controllers still required the F6 option with a floppy. That's right. I said floppy. No Cd's allowed.
You keep using this word, "waste".
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Copying files is an atrocity
In 2008, that's enough for me to call it a lemon. Without caveats. Say what you want about all the other fantastic crap and I'd still say it's a lemon if the OS can't copy files correctly or efficiently.
I can't believe there are apologists for this problem. Copying files is pretty fundamental to how computers work. Why on earth would anyone give any company a free pass for getting it wrong? Hell, anything less than 100% perfection is a failure in my book.
I am stupified that we are discussing whether this is "acceptable" or not. It's not. And it hasn't been since, well....around 1985 or so.
And in the real world, there are those who "get" the digital world and those who don't. The people who get it already realize there are risks to privacy for being online. Those who don't go on about their business not realizing the peril they are putting themselves in. They have a skewed understanding of the costs and benefits of using a service like facebook and they way overfocus on the benefits.
Your brother and his friends fall into the latter group. They will be treated accordingly and will enjoy all of the benefits AND costs associated with "not knowing". Ignorance is not bliss --- in the real world. If you don't know what is going on around you, it's very easy to get in over your head and get yourself in trouble. With the direction things are going online, there are going to be a LOT of people who get themselves in trouble.
In summary, while your brother (and most people) don't care now, at some point in their lifetime they will be forced to care. Because the alternative is much much worse. It is only a matter of time at the current pace we are moving...
Annoying? Yes. That is putting it lightly. It's Annoying enough for me to take my business elsewhere.
Again, this is an Amazon problem....not mine. I just do business elsewhere until they give me a way to shop the way *I* the customer, wants to shop. Seems like that would be important to them.
To all the doubters, try this example:
Tell me all the oscillating fans Amazon sells. I just want to see what Amazon itself sells. Not it's merchants or affiliates.
If you do it like me, you enter "oscillating fan" into search and go from the results.
But the results include Amazon + merchants. You can't filter down to "Amazon only".
That is the problem.
Yes, if you open the product page, you can see who sells what and it's somewhat clear that it's an Amazon item or merchant item (although it is easy to miss, which I did).
But the search results and products displayed do not differentiate. Of course, you can go through each result and find out but who would do that? I'd rather search and say "show me Amazon.com items only". I understand that Amazon has to do business how they want -- but if I don't want to buy from their merchants, they should still let me do business with "just Amazon".
And you can't, currently, do that.
I'm not sure about your situation, but I can assure you amazon is the only entity that bills you.
Correct. In my case, it was 16 charges from Amazon.com. I couldn't even tell which charge went with what merchant and what product.
That's the whole problem.
you are right -- it's on the product page.
Now tell me, how you return search results where Amazon is the seller and not their merchants? You can go through each and every page, looking, if you want to. But I like searching.
There is no way to separate the two in searching. That is my complaint. Therefore, it makes it more difficult to shop at Amazon if one wants to purchase only from Amazon (and not their merchants).
You made my point again.
The employee would find themselves unable to board their flight at best (and thus unable to complete whatever task the company assigned to them), and arrested and possibly charged with some absurd federal crime at worst.
Right. And, assuming the employee hasn't done anything wrong, what makes you think employers like seeing their employees locked up? If it happens a lot (or to key people), businesses will scream very loudly. Very very loudly.
Of course your employer is going to tell you to comply. But once they find out laptops and/or data are being confiscated, their tune will change. You can't fight reality. And reality is, there are 2 choices: comply and let data be confiscated or fight and be arrested/delayed/hasseled. Either way -- your employer is not going to like it.
The answer, of course, is to rely on your employer. Let me explain.
Go ahead and fight them. I mean - do not let them search your laptop until forced to do so. Cite your company's information as the reason. Perhaps individual privacy is gone but we still have some sanctity for corporate data. It doesn't even have to be trademark/copyright/legally protected data. It just has to be data that your company deems 'private and confidential'. If people start missing flights because of over-ambitious TSA agents, eventually, businesses will start screaming about these searches....if they aren't already. Not only are they overly intrusive but they are causing losses in a very real way. Measurable losses.
Anyone from Oracle or MSFT read this post? How would you feel about your laptop being held like this? How about someone from Adobe or Boeing? What about the big-3 car companies? Consulting companies?
There are lots of businesses that require international travel and I am betting they don't want some $10.50/hr TSA employee reading your laptop anymore than you do. I expect employers to enter the fray any second now. They will not stand for this unless there are some checks and balances. They have no interest in writing off confiscated assets because of over zealous TSA agents and they are (unfortunately) our best defense.
You can't tell merchant items from Amazon-only items. I mean, they are spelled out clearly who is who --- but there is NO way you can search and say "show me Amazon.com items only, no merchants".
Since I learned this lesson the hard way*, I have quit shopping at Amazon. I will do so until they give me a way to separate the two.
* the hard way: I bought a whole bunch of items and had them drop shipped to a local charity. Not realizing I had a mixup of Amazon + merchant items, I had no less than 16 credit card charges for one single order. You see, each merchant bills you independently so if you have multiple items from multiple merchants -- you get multiple charges. I would think that part of any affiliate program/merchant program would be streamlining the money handling so there would be 1 charge / 1 order. Do they really think customers want a separate charge for each and every item in their cart? That's the whole point of a cart -- to bundle lots of items into one single, solitary, transaction. Anyone who has had a mix-mash of Amazon items + merchant items on their order knows what I am talking about.
Sir, I used to work in M&A. I am very well aware of the tools available to "get things done". (not bragging but I also have my MBA in finance, which started me off in the industry). Spent my first 10 years of my career doing M&A work and I have read, in detail, all of the books you mention. Carl Icahn is one of my personal heroes.
This isn't easy and there are LOTS of ways this can go down. You have laid out one way (which btw, is very well thought out, thanks) but M&A activities are, by default, unpredictable. Because of this, there is an entire artbitrage industry that does nothing but try to profit off of M&A deals.
My point here is simple: if you have it figured out, then you should profit from it. IF it goes down the way you say, then you can easily make enough money to last you the rest of your lifetime from this one deal. Now, stepping back and taking my asshat off, let me say you appear to be very well versed in some of the finer points of corporate structure and equities....so I am thinking you already know this and you realize it's a lot harder than it looks. Deals get quashed. Players change. Corp politics changes. The debt markets become (un)cooperative, Etc, etc, etc.
If it was so easy to profit because you "know how it's going to play out", then everyone would be making billions of dollars trading the pattern. They aren't. Because there is no pattern. If you think there is, then I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is and let us know what your positions are.
Dude, you got it figured out.
Since, literally, billions of dollars are at stake here, you are in possession of information that could set you up for life if you were to trade on it. Why aren't you on Wall Street with those smarts? Seriously. Since you have it figured out, you should profit from this. Your could generate enough riches to retire in 2-3 months.
I'd be intrigued. I'd probably even subscribe to your newsletter.