Herbert. How did you miss Herbert out from that list. Dune is far richer as a book than film or mini series will ever capture. His non-Dune stuff is amazing also.
No, a better analogy would be that only one shoelace manufacturer produced the laces for 90% of all shoes, but forced the shoesellers to sell those shoelaces with every shoe (including those that don't need laces) or face a price for laces that would put the shoeseller out of business.
Microsoft has made some good products - Word is a good product, Excel is a good product. They put together good GUI environments. But that does not excuse their abusive contracts with their distributors. And for them to complain that the measures being taken against them are unfair, and don't apply to other companies, well here's the reply:
If you get convicted in court, you face punishment. If I go murder someone, people would look at me funny if I suggested it was unfair putting me in jail. Why are people defending these convicted criminals?
--- And to think, if I were to have them killed, I would be the one that went to prison.
How about, not having EULAs on the principle that it is trying to change the terms of the agreement post sale.
You either have a signed contract, or you have first sale doctrine. The rest is just an attempt to sell stuff to the masses without taking the responsibility for making it saleable.
Of course, ensuring that the EULA is seen as so much bull$hit by everyone will ensure that these disclaimers have to be put on the outside of the box, where they can be read before purchase, and of course will come under the usual "consumer's rights" that everyone believes that they understand.
It's incredible the lengths some industries will go to to not have to say what they actually sell. Look at cigarettes and their ingredients exception, or the music industry and their reluctance to clearly mark "crippled" CDs.
Just remember that corporations don't pay taxes. The government may collect taxes from them, but where does the money come from? Business taxes invariably get included in product cost. So we pay them. So if you do tax Microsoft, all they'll do is add another dollar to the cost of windows.
Its a lot more fair if those that spend the most, pay the most tax (it's no fun being rich if you don't get to spend it)!
Yuo obviously haven't seen the british show "Yes Minister":
"Slim down the government, Minister? We'll have to hire more people to perform the feasibility study, on what can be slimmed down."
Vote for a candidate that already has a proposal (such as HR 2525 "fair tax"), and get them to push it.
Fair Tax:
You could replace every other type of tax, and replace with a 22% sales tax (without changing the amount going to the government). After all, company tax is invariably passed on to the consumer, one way or another. Let the states collect the money, and have a central collections agency collect it from the states. The IRS would shrink to nothing, and everyone would only get taxed once... why should I pay tax on my earnings, then tax again on my purchases (including all the hidden taxes paid by the vendors, that they pass on in the final sales price)? The only problem here is how/whether to collect tax on "used" goods such as houses, and cars. Even insurance/medical is easy - tax is only paid on the "service" part of the payment, not the part that goes to fund claim payments. Social security is just money paid out from the government (tax credits, horrible!).
There are approximately 5 IRS agents for every FBI agent. The tax code's gotta be slimmed down.
... and so is the alcohol industry, and big pharm come to mention it. But as a society, we see nothing wrong with this, and require these services (and w/r/t alcohol, the no-alcohol experiment has already been carried out - prohibition).
The problem is when you get cigarettes that have been "improved" to be more addictive, and ingredients added that are obviously detrimental to health. Then you go after these companies, quite rightly, and fine them savagely (I recommend jail sentences for the execs too).
But never forget that people want to smoke, and as long as they respect non-smokers, and don't litter (why is the majority of trash on the street from cigarettes?), then let them.
Here's a piece of info - the tax generated on cigarettes in the UK, is more than the total cost of the national health service!
> Without including an audio and video player with Windows means that users must install their choice.
Not quite - the choice will go back to Dell, Gateway, HP/Compaq et al. The unwashed masses will still get a PC with everything in - it's just no longer guaranteed to be totally Microsoft - it could have Mozilla, Mplayer classic, Irfan View, Open Office, and a host of other great stuff that they wouldn't otherwise know existed - all with a helpful guide prepared by their vendor.
After 20 years, nothing would stop *everyone* (including you) from publishing your story (not book - that is just a representation of your story), so it could now be provided at cost (plus a small margin), rather than an artificially enhanced price a monopoly brings.
Honestly, how much money should you be allowed to rake in from something. If you can't profit from it in TWENTY YEARS, do you honestly think it is worth anything. How many publishers or movie distributors are going to see the latest novel/film, and say - screw them, I can publish it for free if I wait twenty years?
What is this "I'm still alive so it's mine" fixation? That logic got extended to - who will feed my kids when I die? Now we have life + XX years... where does it stop?
If they are happy to accept all the protections of the copyright system, and the market provided and protected by, european law, then they can accept the obligations as well.
It's a punishment for wrongdoing. How is taking away some of their rights regarding their software any different to say, a massive fine (the government is taking my property (money), or imprisonment)? This wouldn't be happening if Microsoft had not abused (or still plans to abuse - won't come to an agreement on future conduct) it's defacto monopoly position.
With people demanding the best in sports entertainment, the teams have to be of a similar level - or the game becomes boring. This is true of all the national US sports. Since the large cities have a larger fan base, they will receive a dispropotionate income. This leads to a larger budget for player acquisition. As a result, we get salary caps, player transfers, a draft, and every other mechanism that can be tried to even up the teams, and provide an entertaining game.
As we demand high levels of performance, the players are eventually going to be professionals. Should they be locked into playing for a single team? There really isn't any way you can justify locking professional players to their home team - they would not have a choice of employers. So the player's home town cannot really be a factor for professional sports.
It comes down to this. As a fan, the more you invest in the game, the more you get out of it, and the easiest way to do that is to identify with, and root for a particular team. Most of the games you watch are likely to be the local team. Go and watch a team enough, and you will feel an afinity for that team (and probably buy the hats, shirts etc). The only issue you then have is, what do you do if you move to a different city?
The point I was trying to make is that the we're looking more at the potential for option one to disappear. There is no point becoming educated in a new field unless that area can't be outsourced. Otherwise, the cheap offshore workers (who are now demonstratably as capable of learning at that level) are likely to be able to do that work also.
My personal view is that good software engineering requires personal interaction. To allow the programming to be done elsewhere will simply mean the local programmers being replaced with local business/system analysts.
Except that you haven't given a percentage of how many of the unemployed are looking for degree level positions. With only ~25% of the country following on to further education, and less graduating, does the percentage hold in the unemployment figures - in other words, 50% McJobs may not be unrealistic.
the solution is education, and allowing people to have the knowledge to work in other industries,
You're not getting it are you. The whole point of this discussion is that it is the IT sector that is being outsourced (not just call centres). The argument is that this knowledge and education level is now available in other countries, for less money. And while the companies have the money to form a foreign subsidiary, it's very difficult for the workforce to re-locate to that other country en masse (no visa, and you don't speak the language, sorry no job for you).
Well, in relation to just their machines, yes they do. As our MS shills have repeated ad nauseam. And they are correct. The WMP vs Quicktime is similar.
But hey, that's the "They haven't arrested Jack the Ripper yet, so I should be allowed to commit murder" defense.
As far as I'm concerned, they can go after Apple, once they've sorted out Microsoft. Or are you suggesting we need to hire more government lawyers to prosecute both at the same time...
Ideally, yes. Microsoft, Apple, in fact all OS vendors, should be forced to release their application software separate from the OS. It should be possible to buy a machine without their app bundle, and buy a competing bundle from another vendor.
A simple editor is probably the only legitimate application that should be part of the OS (needed to change settings files). So notepad - OK. But Wordpad, IE, Calc, etc (and the apple equivs) - include in a separate app bundle.
This will not affect the mass market users, as Dell/Compaq/WalMart/Best Buy et. al. will include an app bundle - They just won't be forced into automatically choosing the Microsoft one, or prevented from choosing a competing one (with Mozilla/Real/whatever).
To say Microsoft cannot put Internent (sic)Explorer and Windows Media player on the operating system they created, on the cd they produced is totally absurd.
You haven't been keeping up have you. Microsoft are selling you the operating system. It's not free. How many add-ons are Microsoft allowed to charge you for as part of the price of Windows, that should be free. And don't give me that "part of the operating system" cack - if everyone else writes a standalone browser, it's obvious that a browser is NOT part of the OS.
You are correct about the C&E problem - but that is a case of providing an application bundle. If Microsoft provided a separate application bundle, that could be replaced at will by the OEMs, then no one would complain. But that's not how it goes down. Microsoft will not let the OEMs remove any of their stuff, and will even force the OEMs in contract not to have pre-installed "competing-but-free" software. See the Findings of Fact in the DOJ case.
In short, Microsoft are definitely tying the purchase of one product to the purchase of another, and that is illegal.
The compete on price myth. This is the problem - it's not freeware. By its "Microsoft designated" nature it's not freeware. Why do I say this? Because according to Microsoft, it's an integral part of Windows, and Windows isn't free. Same with IE - it's not free, it's part of Windows. So the cost is hidden in the Windows price. You paid for it already, because you had no choice.
So they give it away as part of windows. The trouble is, they are selling an operating system. Where is the line drawn? According to Microsoft's reasoning here, any software the user finds useful could potentially be "part of Windows"!
The majority of people involved in the industry however, would consider a browser, a media player, etc to be an application, and as such a separate program to the OS. So this is a problem. Microsoft can throw $700M+ at developing IE, and give it away for free, because they know they recoup the money in Windows sales. Assume that it isn't part of the OS and this is a classic case of dumping - which is illegal.
Going back to your analogy, how is this better for consumers? Legitimate competition is quashed. The next MobileCoffeeCo won't bother, as they know they will be "free addon'ed" out of the market. And without them, there won't be an incentive to add that functionality, so we the consumer won't get it, because BMW will not then need to add it.
There is only one way to fix this. Spin off the OS division as a separate company, and force the rest to compete on their merits. It won't kill Microsoft - look at the telecom companies - they are still around decades after they were split.
Re:Only a problem if you never change clothes
on
The Trouble with RFID
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Sales Pressure...
I don't have a problem saying no to sales people. I do take exception to being harangued, by name, from the moment I enter a store. My shopping day will be a lot more stressful if I have to say "Get the f*** away from me, I'm just looking" in every store I walk into. And if that sales person has been picked based on the type of salesperson you are most receptive to, it gets harder - I'm not talking the high schooler at radio shack here, but a well chosen personable salesperson, based on your previous buying habits (e.g. last sales were only with X, blew off salesmen Y, Z).
And it's the data sale that's not nice either. Bulk mail, UCE, will become more invasive, personalised to you, so you won't know off hand if it is spam.
Security...
airline profiling - general purchase patterns (look, he bought fertiliser and gasoline), purchase locational patterns (look, he was in the area when these demonstrations took place). Don't accept luggage as gifts (traveller has bag that he didn't buy) -- I'm sure the Feds can come up with a few more.
Security reasons - bought "anti-american books" (anything by Michael Moore, Al Franken, etc), don't let into particular areas if the president is in town (such as his entire travel route for the day) - all they have to do is match you with any known RFID tags, and pull up a "book list" check (note that may include library books - thanks patriot act).
The list is endless... and you know that if they can, eventually they will. You only have to look at the ridiculous state of airline checks to see knee-jerk security at work (same name as known terrorist (even with different initial) - you ain't flying buddy). There are documented cases of this.
And it probably won't be intentional. The trouble is, these are generic patterns that a good agent will use to guide them. But you won't be dealing with a good agent. You will be arguing this with the minimum wage security guard who will follow directives blindly. You know it doesn't matter what you say or do, or whether it's obvious that the computer is wrong - they do what the computer says or lose their job, so you lose.
Don't be silly, the information will be used to make more money! That's what companies do.
I read every RFID you have, and tie all those purchases to your address/e-mail/etc, and to all the previous RFID reads my stores sent me, and to all the other reads I bought from other companies. I can then sell the now-improved info to direct-advertisers, indirect advertisers, and every other interested company (for credit scores, and other reasons). And the government for airline profiling and other security reasons.
Then I alert my store salesman, who can make a bee-line for you in the store, and offer you a list of other items that you might be interested in, given all your previous purchases. He's got product targetted info, so he's going to pile on the sales pressure. Especially since he knows, that I will know if you leave without buying anything! In fact, I will be able to profile each returning customer to determine the "right" salesperson to pressure them into a sale.
That's harsh - Nemesis really didn't suck as badly as ST 5 or ST I (The non-Motion Picture).
ST I was so slow, it stopped moving. They took the final sequence from 2001 and streched the effects out for thirty minutes at a time. ST V was just awful, with no redeeming qualities. Don't go there. Nemesis was equivalent to a bad episode of TNG. In fact, that's what I felt when I left the theatre. But I never felt that it was as bad as ST I or V.
Nailed it in one. It's quatro formagio with extra cheese. None of the other STs had such a lame effort.
I always thought it should start with a flashing blue light, a view of the main screen showing a klingon ship firing, and then cut to the captain who says "Oh boy!"
On the other hand, if a country from another region joins the NAFTA, they could probably then claim trade restrictions and demand restitution (usually several tens of billions).
Not to mention that the EU/Asia could probably claim trade restrictions. But why would they? The entire rest of the world basically has access to multi-region players now, so now region coding only protects non-US DVDs being played in the US.
> Because it's his work and you don't have his permission to copy it...
The parent poster's point was that the act of copying the work is minimal - it was the creation that involved the effort. In other words, copying the work does not remove your orginal from your possession. So morally, copying the work does not in itself deprive you of anything. You still have the fruits of your labour.
On the other hand, our society values our creative people, and so a law is in place to allow a creator to sell copies of a work, to provide incentive to create original new works. This is the economic side of the argument that the parent was putting forth.
So, in summary, you DO have a false sense of entitlement. The sole fact that you created something, that is easily copiable at no cost to you, is not IN ITSELF a justification that you must be paid for it. Rather, the social agreement of copyright law allows you to charge for providing copies of your creation, and so illegally copying a work within this framework, THAT is the copyright infringement (a civil offence).
Slashdot Mirror
Herbert. How did you miss Herbert out from that list. Dune is far richer as a book than film or mini series will ever capture. His non-Dune stuff is amazing also.
No, a better analogy would be that only one shoelace manufacturer produced the laces for 90% of all shoes, but forced the shoesellers to sell those shoelaces with every shoe (including those that don't need laces) or face a price for laces that would put the shoeseller out of business.
Microsoft has made some good products - Word is a good product, Excel is a good product. They put together good GUI environments. But that does not excuse their abusive contracts with their distributors. And for them to complain that the measures being taken against them are unfair, and don't apply to other companies, well here's the reply:
If you get convicted in court, you face punishment. If I go murder someone, people would look at me funny if I suggested it was unfair putting me in jail. Why are people defending these convicted criminals?
---
And to think, if I were to have them killed, I would be the one that went to prison.
How about, not having EULAs on the principle that it is trying to change the terms of the agreement post sale.
You either have a signed contract, or you have first sale doctrine. The rest is just an attempt to sell stuff to the masses without taking the responsibility for making it saleable.
Of course, ensuring that the EULA is seen as so much bull$hit by everyone will ensure that these disclaimers have to be put on the outside of the box, where they can be read before purchase, and of course will come under the usual "consumer's rights" that everyone believes that they understand.
It's incredible the lengths some industries will go to to not have to say what they actually sell. Look at cigarettes and their ingredients exception, or the music industry and their reluctance to clearly mark "crippled" CDs.
Just remember that corporations don't pay taxes. The government may collect taxes from them, but where does the money come from? Business taxes invariably get included in product cost. So we pay them. So if you do tax Microsoft, all they'll do is add another dollar to the cost of windows.
Its a lot more fair if those that spend the most, pay the most tax (it's no fun being rich if you don't get to spend it)!
Yuo obviously haven't seen the british show "Yes Minister":
... why should I pay tax on my earnings, then tax again on my purchases (including all the hidden taxes paid by the vendors, that they pass on in the final sales price)? The only problem here is how/whether to collect tax on "used" goods such as houses, and cars. Even insurance/medical is easy - tax is only paid on the "service" part of the payment, not the part that goes to fund claim payments. Social security is just money paid out from the government (tax credits, horrible!).
"Slim down the government, Minister? We'll have to hire more people to perform the feasibility study, on what can be slimmed down."
Vote for a candidate that already has a proposal (such as HR 2525 "fair tax"), and get them to push it.
Fair Tax:
You could replace every other type of tax, and replace with a 22% sales tax (without changing the amount going to the government). After all, company tax is invariably passed on to the consumer, one way or another. Let the states collect the money, and have a central collections agency collect it from the states. The IRS would shrink to nothing, and everyone would only get taxed once
There are approximately 5 IRS agents for every FBI agent. The tax code's gotta be slimmed down.
Until you pay by credit/debit, and they update your info ...
Except that they are being fined for things they did on EU soil ...
The problem is when you get cigarettes that have been "improved" to be more addictive, and ingredients added that are obviously detrimental to health. Then you go after these companies, quite rightly, and fine them savagely (I recommend jail sentences for the execs too).
But never forget that people want to smoke, and as long as they respect non-smokers, and don't litter (why is the majority of trash on the street from cigarettes?), then let them.
Here's a piece of info - the tax generated on cigarettes in the UK, is more than the total cost of the national health service!
> Without including an audio and video player with Windows means that users must install their choice.
Not quite - the choice will go back to Dell, Gateway, HP/Compaq et al. The unwashed masses will still get a PC with everything in - it's just no longer guaranteed to be totally Microsoft - it could have Mozilla, Mplayer classic, Irfan View, Open Office, and a host of other great stuff that they wouldn't otherwise know existed - all with a helpful guide prepared by their vendor.
After 20 years, nothing would stop *everyone* (including you) from publishing your story (not book - that is just a representation of your story), so it could now be provided at cost (plus a small margin), rather than an artificially enhanced price a monopoly brings.
... where does it stop?
Honestly, how much money should you be allowed to rake in from something. If you can't profit from it in TWENTY YEARS, do you honestly think it is worth anything. How many publishers or movie distributors are going to see the latest novel/film, and say - screw them, I can publish it for free if I wait twenty years?
What is this "I'm still alive so it's mine" fixation? That logic got extended to - who will feed my kids when I die? Now we have life + XX years
If they are happy to accept all the protections of the copyright system, and the market provided and protected by, european law, then they can accept the obligations as well.
It's a punishment for wrongdoing. How is taking away some of their rights regarding their software any different to say, a massive fine (the government is taking my property (money), or imprisonment)? This wouldn't be happening if Microsoft had not abused (or still plans to abuse - won't come to an agreement on future conduct) it's defacto monopoly position.
With people demanding the best in sports entertainment, the teams have to be of a similar level - or the game becomes boring. This is true of all the national US sports. Since the large cities have a larger fan base, they will receive a dispropotionate income. This leads to a larger budget for player acquisition. As a result, we get salary caps, player transfers, a draft, and every other mechanism that can be tried to even up the teams, and provide an entertaining game.
As we demand high levels of performance, the players are eventually going to be professionals. Should they be locked into playing for a single team? There really isn't any way you can justify locking professional players to their home team - they would not have a choice of employers. So the player's home town cannot really be a factor for professional sports.
It comes down to this. As a fan, the more you invest in the game, the more you get out of it, and the easiest way to do that is to identify with, and root for a particular team. Most of the games you watch are likely to be the local team. Go and watch a team enough, and you will feel an afinity for that team (and probably buy the hats, shirts etc). The only issue you then have is, what do you do if you move to a different city?
The point I was trying to make is that the we're looking more at the potential for option one to disappear. There is no point becoming educated in a new field unless that area can't be outsourced. Otherwise, the cheap offshore workers (who are now demonstratably as capable of learning at that level) are likely to be able to do that work also.
My personal view is that good software engineering requires personal interaction. To allow the programming to be done elsewhere will simply mean the local programmers being replaced with local business/system analysts.
Except that you haven't given a percentage of how many of the unemployed are looking for degree level positions. With only ~25% of the country following on to further education, and less graduating, does the percentage hold in the unemployment figures - in other words, 50% McJobs may not be unrealistic.
the solution is education, and allowing people to have the knowledge to work in other industries,
You're not getting it are you. The whole point of this discussion is that it is the IT sector that is being outsourced (not just call centres). The argument is that this knowledge and education level is now available in other countries, for less money. And while the companies have the money to form a foreign subsidiary, it's very difficult for the workforce to re-locate to that other country en masse (no visa, and you don't speak the language, sorry no job for you).
Well, in relation to just their machines, yes they do. As our MS shills have repeated ad nauseam. And they are correct. The WMP vs Quicktime is similar.
...
But hey, that's the "They haven't arrested Jack the Ripper yet, so I should be allowed to commit murder" defense.
As far as I'm concerned, they can go after Apple, once they've sorted out Microsoft. Or are you suggesting we need to hire more government lawyers to prosecute both at the same time
Ideally, yes. Microsoft, Apple, in fact all OS vendors, should be forced to release their application software separate from the OS. It should be possible to buy a machine without their app bundle, and buy a competing bundle from another vendor.
A simple editor is probably the only legitimate application that should be part of the OS (needed to change settings files). So notepad - OK. But Wordpad, IE, Calc, etc (and the apple equivs) - include in a separate app bundle.
This will not affect the mass market users, as Dell/Compaq/WalMart/Best Buy et. al. will include an app bundle - They just won't be forced into automatically choosing the Microsoft one, or prevented from choosing a competing one (with Mozilla/Real/whatever).
To say Microsoft cannot put Internent (sic)Explorer and Windows Media player on the operating system they created, on the cd they produced is totally absurd.
You haven't been keeping up have you. Microsoft are selling you the operating system. It's not free. How many add-ons are Microsoft allowed to charge you for as part of the price of Windows, that should be free. And don't give me that "part of the operating system" cack - if everyone else writes a standalone browser, it's obvious that a browser is NOT part of the OS.
You are correct about the C&E problem - but that is a case of providing an application bundle. If Microsoft provided a separate application bundle, that could be replaced at will by the OEMs, then no one would complain. But that's not how it goes down. Microsoft will not let the OEMs remove any of their stuff, and will even force the OEMs in contract not to have pre-installed "competing-but-free" software. See the Findings of Fact in the DOJ case.
In short, Microsoft are definitely tying the purchase of one product to the purchase of another, and that is illegal.
The compete on price myth. This is the problem - it's not freeware. By its "Microsoft designated" nature it's not freeware. Why do I say this? Because according to Microsoft, it's an integral part of Windows, and Windows isn't free. Same with IE - it's not free, it's part of Windows. So the cost is hidden in the Windows price. You paid for it already, because you had no choice.
So they give it away as part of windows. The trouble is, they are selling an operating system. Where is the line drawn? According to Microsoft's reasoning here, any software the user finds useful could potentially be "part of Windows"!
The majority of people involved in the industry however, would consider a browser, a media player, etc to be an application, and as such a separate program to the OS. So this is a problem. Microsoft can throw $700M+ at developing IE, and give it away for free, because they know they recoup the money in Windows sales. Assume that it isn't part of the OS and this is a classic case of dumping - which is illegal.
Going back to your analogy, how is this better for consumers? Legitimate competition is quashed. The next MobileCoffeeCo won't bother, as they know they will be "free addon'ed" out of the market. And without them, there won't be an incentive to add that functionality, so we the consumer won't get it, because BMW will not then need to add it.
There is only one way to fix this. Spin off the OS division as a separate company, and force the rest to compete on their merits. It won't kill Microsoft - look at the telecom companies - they are still around decades after they were split.
Sales Pressure ...
...
... and you know that if they can, eventually they will. You only have to look at the ridiculous state of airline checks to see knee-jerk security at work (same name as known terrorist (even with different initial) - you ain't flying buddy). There are documented cases of this.
I don't have a problem saying no to sales people. I do take exception to being harangued, by name, from the moment I enter a store. My shopping day will be a lot more stressful if I have to say "Get the f*** away from me, I'm just looking" in every store I walk into. And if that sales person has been picked based on the type of salesperson you are most receptive to, it gets harder - I'm not talking the high schooler at radio shack here, but a well chosen personable salesperson, based on your previous buying habits (e.g. last sales were only with X, blew off salesmen Y, Z).
And it's the data sale that's not nice either. Bulk mail, UCE, will become more invasive, personalised to you, so you won't know off hand if it is spam.
Security
airline profiling - general purchase patterns (look, he bought fertiliser and gasoline), purchase locational patterns (look, he was in the area when these demonstrations took place). Don't accept luggage as gifts (traveller has bag that he didn't buy) -- I'm sure the Feds can come up with a few more.
Security reasons - bought "anti-american books" (anything by Michael Moore, Al Franken, etc), don't let into particular areas if the president is in town (such as his entire travel route for the day) - all they have to do is match you with any known RFID tags, and pull up a "book list" check (note that may include library books - thanks patriot act).
The list is endless
And it probably won't be intentional. The trouble is, these are generic patterns that a good agent will use to guide them. But you won't be dealing with a good agent. You will be arguing this with the minimum wage security guard who will follow directives blindly. You know it doesn't matter what you say or do, or whether it's obvious that the computer is wrong - they do what the computer says or lose their job, so you lose.
Don't be silly, the information will be used to make more money! That's what companies do.
I read every RFID you have, and tie all those purchases to your address/e-mail/etc, and to all the previous RFID reads my stores sent me, and to all the other reads I bought from other companies. I can then sell the now-improved info to direct-advertisers, indirect advertisers, and every other interested company (for credit scores, and other reasons). And the government for airline profiling and other security reasons.
Then I alert my store salesman, who can make a bee-line for you in the store, and offer you a list of other items that you might be interested in, given all your previous purchases. He's got product targetted info, so he's going to pile on the sales pressure. Especially since he knows, that I will know if you leave without buying anything! In fact, I will be able to profile each returning customer to determine the "right" salesperson to pressure them into a sale.
That's harsh - Nemesis really didn't suck as badly as ST 5 or ST I (The non-Motion Picture).
ST I was so slow, it stopped moving. They took the final sequence from 2001 and streched the effects out for thirty minutes at a time. ST V was just awful, with no redeeming qualities. Don't go there. Nemesis was equivalent to a bad episode of TNG. In fact, that's what I felt when I left the theatre. But I never felt that it was as bad as ST I or V.
Nailed it in one. It's quatro formagio with extra cheese. None of the other STs had such a lame effort.
I always thought it should start with a flashing blue light, a view of the main screen showing a klingon ship firing, and then cut to the captain who says "Oh boy!"
On the other hand, if a country from another region joins the NAFTA, they could probably then claim trade restrictions and demand restitution (usually several tens of billions).
Not to mention that the EU/Asia could probably claim trade restrictions. But why would they? The entire rest of the world basically has access to multi-region players now, so now region coding only protects non-US DVDs being played in the US.
> Because it's his work and you don't have his permission to copy it ...
The parent poster's point was that the act of copying the work is minimal - it was the creation that involved the effort. In other words, copying the work does not remove your orginal from your possession. So morally, copying the work does not in itself deprive you of anything. You still have the fruits of your labour.
On the other hand, our society values our creative people, and so a law is in place to allow a creator to sell copies of a work, to provide incentive to create original new works. This is the economic side of the argument that the parent was putting forth.
So, in summary, you DO have a false sense of entitlement. The sole fact that you created something, that is easily copiable at no cost to you, is not IN ITSELF a justification that you must be paid for it. Rather, the social agreement of copyright law allows you to charge for providing copies of your creation, and so illegally copying a work within this framework, THAT is the copyright infringement (a civil offence).