That being said. I believe that Apple greatest strength has shifted from it hardware to its software.
Perhaps, but with Apple dictating hardware architecture, they do ensure compatibility, and reliable drivers. That may not be a big deal as the Wintel world has survived with a mixture of good and crappy add on hardware.
This is the same reasoning that equates copyright infringement with theft. A claim of entitlement to something that one is not entitled to at all.
Are you saying software companies aren't entitled to charge for copies of their software that they paid to develop?
Would you copy commercial software without paying for it? It sounds like you would because you seem to believe Oracle is not "entitled" to any profits above what they have already made.
Whereas 'pirates' know what they are doing is illegal and don't give a shit, these 'thieves' try to make it seem like what they do is morally justified.
I don't know what you make of the word "illegal". But you are correct, pirates are doing something illegal.
Your argument seems to be that a person can't charge more for their product than what it costs them to produce, plus some threshold (i.e., make a profit). Like it or not, that's the way the world works.
Sure there are people that argue that volunteerism and bartering are the only "moral" way to do business, but the fact is that the only incentive found so far that makes society work as a whole is the incentive of making a profit for their labor. And the producer of a product is entitled to ask what they want for the product. It is your choice not to buy it, but it crosses the line when you choose to steal it.
Now I happen to think a company should choose a "reasonable" profit for their product, especially if it is something essential like a medical service. I hardly think Windows is essential. But who decides "reasonable"? The flawed but best answer we have is: the market. If you don't like the price of Windows, use Linux. If you don't like the price of Quark Express, use Open Office.
Granted, America is too materialistic, but you destroy your point, ironically, by "excess" (evil despotic tyrranies, employment sucks,... etc.)
I would venture that everyone has some materiality, some more than others.
The problem with over-zealous critics is that they can be just as capable of evils when they burst on the scene in inflated self-righteousness. I'm not necessarily placing you in that category, but beg a little insight into human frailty - your own included.
My travel through other countries indeed revealed less materialistic values, but it seems there is a growing tendency to imitate (even if secretly) some of our ugly traits.
And using this thinking, if 19 years into the project, they discover a simple plant extract that will cure this cancer, can they afford to let the knowledge out?
If their patent is on the $5 billion process, there is nothing stopping some independent discover of the plant extract from using the plant extract.
If they try to patent harvesting a plant, they will fail.
Now realistically, how often does your agenda-driven scenario happen, versus long time and money-intensive drugs?
Could you give me a concrete example why, how and where it could happen again?
Nothing like it has happened yet, so I will talk about could be scenarios.
An example in America Abu Graib (however you spell it) is a minor eruption of the kind I'm talking about. If another 9/11 happens, a larger scale eruption could result. Cycles of retaliation like we see in Israel vs. Palestine have a way of escalating if we cannot see the human side of our adversary.
An example in Holland When Van Gogh was stabbed to death, all the festering resentments came to the surface. No serious violence because there was no hidden place and opportunity like Abu Graib to commit violence out of sight. What do you think would happen if other incidents like that stabbing continue?
Examples in Middle East Too numerous to mention.
Europe and America While America isn't blameless, I do think it is scapegoated to some degree in Europe because of its position in the world that enables it to be loud-mouthed and over-frank. Its greed hasn't helped either, but honestly I think some criticism is the proverbial "mote-in-the-eye", where you have a nice target that outwardly behaves the way you entertain behaving inside - and you (secretly and gladly) let them take the blame for not being 100% pure gold and virtue.
However, if the government isn't too involved - I can manage to make use of this instrument without being endangered of being instrumented.
Yes, you are right about that much. Technology has its benefits. I was only saying we can't count on any technological solution to problems resulting from ills of human nature - in this case, that smarter security measures will be of much help. As I said, I really don't know what the best tactical short term solutions are. I wouldn't rule out better security measures of some kind.
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to invent some kind of pre-checking technology, which would be a standard in the whole world (and some countries willing to join EU, i.e., should be forced to meet these criterion in order to join EU)?
Technology is a tool only as good as those who wield it. It can't cure the evils in human nature. In fact, technology has isolated us and removed us from whatever interdependency we have had as human beings. We are too self-sufficient, have less incentive to understand our neighbors, and are too satisfied with defending comfort at any cost. Kind of like Rome saturated with comfort before its fall.
Greetings from Germany, Saarbrücken
Greetings. I hope you understand that I was speaking in my earlier post about a general principle: the fragility of human nature. What happened in your country 70 years ago could easily happen anywhere else today if a small number of people strong in evil infect weaker ones around them. People are not so different from each other beneath the surface. I see the anger and scapegoating in my own country (and practically every other one.) This has invited, I think, the enemy-consciousness so common in the world.
I don't pretend to know the solution to the increasing violence and lack of conscience in the world, but I fear it will take a catastrophy to motivate anyone to make hard choices and take a hard look at comfortable compromises with evil.
It is as if the collective poisons festering below the surface need to be vomited up, much like what happened in Nazi Germany. What else will motivate people to look at the pervasive anger, hatred, blind ignorance and scapegoating in the world?
ID or no ID, I don't see a solution to the new Visigoths and Vandals sacking Rome. We have become to comfortable, too indulgent, and too removed from the essentials of life and essential values.
Well thank you very much for posting this link. A finger-jerking attack made me follow it, and now i found out the Netherlands tops all others in... 'malformations of male genital organs'... And the week only just started.
My point exactly - you're failing to understand that terrorism didn't start on 11th September 2001.
Both Mohammad Atta and the IRA are terrorists. I'm not disputing the fact that the UK has experienced terrorism - years before the US has. I'm drawing a distinction between the kinds of terrorism, the kinds of threats the terrorists present, and how to best counter those threats. Both IRA killings and the WTC killings are atrocious, but in the context of preventative measures they're apples and oranges.
If an airplane from an outside country who hated the UK's guts struck its Parliament building, you would probably think, "My God, what can I do to prevent a replay?" You can argue about the best way to do it, but my guess is that you'd have a very understandable paranoia about unknown foreigners entering your country.
It's not politically correct and sounds bad to say it, but I'd be all for just checking people who "look" suspicious. Yes, it's error prone, but better than making everyone pay for the actions of a few. Kind of like what people would do if some scrappy bearded Middle-Easterner was walking through their neighborhood - one which he usually doesn't frequent. And this only after experiencing shootings by predominantly Arab strangers. Yeah, I know how it sounds, and I'm not saying all Arabs are terrorists. Honestly, though, if people in the UK found that 2% of Americans walked away from a pub without paying versus 0.01% of everyone else, I'd say "Hey, just check American's pockets. Just release the innocent majority." I'd probably grumble about it. (Somebody smack me for saying this.)
Your concern about the misuse of fingerprints is certainly worth considering. My comment was meant "de-Satanize" (couldn't think of a better word) the motives for the extra passport scrutiny.
Out of interest, from where do you recall these numbers?
I don't really recall. I think I was scanning a BBC background article on the conflict. Something like hundreds rather than thousands has lodged in my dim memory. But I'll accept your numbers.
The real worrying aspect is the freedom-curbing powers the govt introduce as a result of the UK being a staunch US ally - and therefore a more likely target.
Freedom-curbing measures aren't themselves the worry to me - we all give up freedoms for the common good. It's the potential misuse of some powers. Actually, I am sympathetic to your criticism about fingerprinting.
Your remark about being a target bears on my other comment. I think that some people aren't opposed to terrorist counter-measures per se, but adopt that pose because they want someone else to handle it and someone else to be the target of unreasoning hatred for an unpopular expedient solution.
I got a little afield from the original topic, but hey, I have a dislike for the typical dissimulation that goes on in diplomatic circles: Say what's pleasing, act another way, and pretend you and you alone are made of 100% pure gold. We all deal with the same problems and the same interests.
We Brits have suffered terrorism for decades - some of it sponsored by communities of the US. I myself have had a friend injured in an IRA bombing, I have heard a bomb go off in the distance, and I have had to live with the threat of an attack since I was old enough to decide to leave home and go live in London, over 20 years ago.
I'm sorry about your friend. But let me ask you, do you take security more seriously now? Also, I don't think you can compare a few isolated murders by your own people (if you regard them as your own people) to an attack killing 3000 using airplanes. BTW, sorry for my American ignorance about how many have died as the result of the IRA, but from the distance past, I recall it being much, much smaller than 3000.
You seem to imply that the US officially sponsors the IRA. Of course, this isn't true, or is it your intention to exaggerate and shout to make your point?
If you combine just criticism with an attitude of understanding, people will listen to you more. As it is you come across as someone with an angry, unreasoning axe to grind.
Oh, groan, go away. Your country has killed over 15,000 innocent people in Iraq in the past couple of years. What makes your 3,000 worth more?
We did not target innocent people. The terrorists you seem to want to defend did. Where was your sympathy when 300,000 Iraqi's died under Saddam and you did absolutely nothing to stop them? It is easy to look good when you do nothing and criticize the mistakes of others. But is harder to make sacrifices that are unpopular to bring about changes from the "miserable ease" of the status quo.
America contributes very little to charity, proof here
Do you even read the sources you post? The "charity" you post is a narrow slice of all charities, as the article itself says in its disclaimer:
ODA is defined as financial assistance that is concessional in character, has the main objective to promote economic development and welfare of the less developed countries (LDCs), and contains a grant element of at least 25%. The entry does not cover other official flows (OOF) or private flows.
According to Giving U.S.A.'s annual report, published by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel (AAFRC), Americans gave an estimated $240.92 billion to charity in 2002. Even more surprising, Giving U.S.A. reports that, in a year that was very hard on the corporate bottom line, charitable contributions by corporations and corporate foundations came in at $12.19 billion, an 8.8% increase over the previous year. The fact that charitable giving remains so high even while economic growth is so low runs counter to the arguments of many who advocate statist models of charity
I don't know what the GDP of the US is now, is it about a trillion dollars? That makes it bout $0.25 per dollar.
Now as to the general tone of your post, you seem blindly partisan, selective in your facts, and rather belligerant.
We've become a target. Not really sure what to do about it.
I understand your frustration, but until an airplane comes crashing into Parliament or you lose 3000 lives, I don't know that you can fully appreciate our situation.
Part of becoming a target is the result of our greed and arrogance, but at least an equal part is simply from mindless group-think: "America is the cause of all our problems." Very convenient for dictorships who ruin their people to find an external blame. Very convenient for prosperous countries who don't want to rock the boat and who pay little more than lip service to their high sounding words.
America has been arrogant, but also generous - both in the public and private sector, long before charity came under the world microscope.
I'm no GW Bush fan, but I don't think he's a "Hitler", or "the biggest terrorist in the world" as some people love to shout. He's just a well meaning simpleton, with reasonable aims but poor execution.
However, if it's used as a reference tool for the student to look up information online which they then have to vet against print references at their local library... Or, if they use it to write their papers, learn a programming language, or create original artwork/music, then I would have to say it probably increases their chances of being smarter.
It would be nice to cash in those "ifs", but in practice it doeesn't happen all that easily. I don't exactly know why. But this study sure gives one pause.
I also think that the incidentals and accidentals that you pick up simply doing an overkill reading a book are useful above and beyond the school research subject at hand.
I'm moving more quickly to a geriatric case than I like to think about and I'm amazed at what high school students don't know these days. I can't definitely blame it on computers per se. I actually think the educational system as a whole sucks. Teachers have to dumb down the material so that "no child is left behind". Translation: teach to the dumbest student in the class and make everyone else pay for it by boredom.
If the universe is closed, everywhere is a "center". Not sure about a good analog for an open universe (suggested by the accelerating recession), but for a closed one visualizing a lower dimensional version will help: instead of living in a 3D world curved into 4 dimensions, imagine you are confined to the surface of a sphere. Effectively a 2D world curved into 3 dimensions. Every point on the sphere is as much a "center" as any other point.
Maybe some folks better versed in relativity can give some nice picture for an open universe.
By the same token, show me any evidence from cruise.com that they tried a less heavy-handed approach than a $4,000,000 lawsuit.
It cuts both ways.
I hold this guy innocent of the $4,000,000 million law suit until proven guilty - not the reverse.
As far as a "lynch mob" mentality, I have to say that anger against spammers is quite understandable. An occasional mistaken reaction here and there by spam recipients doesn't compare with the voluminous damage done by scumbag spammers.
Why do you single out this guy and not mention anything negative about the plethora of #@#!@#$% spammers?
I can accept this guy is guilty and that warezers on this sort of scale are the kind of people the law should be going after, but I can't for the life of me see why America can't let the guy be tried under Australian law for crimes he committed while in Australia.
It's an interesting question. The internet makes location a little bit of a tangle. If he were on American soil and stole the $75 million, would he still be on trial in America, or would they send him to Australia for trial.
"as if the world needed another reason - boycott anything and everything American, if you don't want to boycott, then just refuse to pay for it. Just say no to The Land of Lies and The Home of Hypocrisy."
Or better yet, just continue to steal their products. That way you both deprive American corporations of any return on investment AND get free stuff.
"Since when is knowing if the next iPod mini will have a colour screen not the public's business?"
The question is when does the public get that information? Do you allow a reporter to leak NDA information before the company releases its product and so that all its investments could potentially go down the drain when another company steals their ideas or makes unfair use of the info?
The judge is right.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, but with Apple dictating hardware architecture, they do ensure compatibility, and reliable drivers. That may not be a big deal as the Wintel world has survived with a mixture of good and crappy add on hardware.
BeOS was rewritten from PPC to Intel in a few short months and most of their software worked without change. Many even ran FASTER.
Are you saying software companies aren't entitled to charge for copies of their software that they paid to develop?
Would you copy commercial software without paying for it? It sounds like you would because you seem to believe Oracle is not "entitled" to any profits above what they have already made.
Whereas 'pirates' know what they are doing is illegal and don't give a shit, these 'thieves' try to make it seem like what they do is morally justified.
I don't know what you make of the word "illegal". But you are correct, pirates are doing something illegal.
Your argument seems to be that a person can't charge more for their product than what it costs them to produce, plus some threshold (i.e., make a profit). Like it or not, that's the way the world works.
Sure there are people that argue that volunteerism and bartering are the only "moral" way to do business, but the fact is that the only incentive found so far that makes society work as a whole is the incentive of making a profit for their labor. And the producer of a product is entitled to ask what they want for the product. It is your choice not to buy it, but it crosses the line when you choose to steal it.
Now I happen to think a company should choose a "reasonable" profit for their product, especially if it is something essential like a medical service. I hardly think Windows is essential. But who decides "reasonable"? The flawed but best answer we have is: the market. If you don't like the price of Windows, use Linux. If you don't like the price of Quark Express, use Open Office.
Granted, America is too materialistic, but you destroy your point, ironically, by "excess" (evil despotic tyrranies, employment sucks, ... etc.)
I would venture that everyone has some materiality, some more than others.
The problem with over-zealous critics is that they can be just as capable of evils when they burst on the scene in inflated self-righteousness. I'm not necessarily placing you in that category, but beg a little insight into human frailty - your own included.
My travel through other countries indeed revealed less materialistic values, but it seems there is a growing tendency to imitate (even if secretly) some of our ugly traits.
Just remember to call flush() after your output.
If their patent is on the $5 billion process, there is nothing stopping some independent discover of the plant extract from using the plant extract.
If they try to patent harvesting a plant, they will fail.
Now realistically, how often does your agenda-driven scenario happen, versus long time and money-intensive drugs?
Nothing like it has happened yet, so I will talk about could be scenarios.
An example in America
Abu Graib (however you spell it) is a minor eruption of the kind I'm talking about. If another 9/11 happens, a larger scale eruption could result. Cycles of retaliation like we see in Israel vs. Palestine have a way of escalating if we cannot see the human side of our adversary.
An example in Holland
When Van Gogh was stabbed to death, all the festering resentments came to the surface. No serious violence because there was no hidden place and opportunity like Abu Graib to commit violence out of sight. What do you think would happen if other incidents like that stabbing continue?
Examples in Middle East
Too numerous to mention.
Europe and America
While America isn't blameless, I do think it is scapegoated to some degree in Europe because of its position in the world that enables it to be loud-mouthed and over-frank. Its greed hasn't helped either, but honestly I think some criticism is the proverbial "mote-in-the-eye", where you have a nice target that outwardly behaves the way you entertain behaving inside - and you (secretly and gladly) let them take the blame for not being 100% pure gold and virtue.
However, if the government isn't too involved - I can manage to make use of this instrument without being endangered of being instrumented.
Yes, you are right about that much. Technology has its benefits. I was only saying we can't count on any technological solution to problems resulting from ills of human nature - in this case, that smarter security measures will be of much help. As I said, I really don't know what the best tactical short term solutions are. I wouldn't rule out better security measures of some kind.
Technology is a tool only as good as those who wield it. It can't cure the evils in human nature. In fact, technology has isolated us and removed us from whatever interdependency we have had as human beings. We are too self-sufficient, have less incentive to understand our neighbors, and are too satisfied with defending comfort at any cost. Kind of like Rome saturated with comfort before its fall.
Greetings from Germany, Saarbrücken
Greetings. I hope you understand that I was speaking in my earlier post about a general principle: the fragility of human nature. What happened in your country 70 years ago could easily happen anywhere else today if a small number of people strong in evil infect weaker ones around them. People are not so different from each other beneath the surface. I see the anger and scapegoating in my own country (and practically every other one.) This has invited, I think, the enemy-consciousness so common in the world.
It is as if the collective poisons festering below the surface need to be vomited up, much like what happened in Nazi Germany. What else will motivate people to look at the pervasive anger, hatred, blind ignorance and scapegoating in the world?
ID or no ID, I don't see a solution to the new Visigoths and Vandals sacking Rome. We have become to comfortable, too indulgent, and too removed from the essentials of life and essential values.
I wonder what they are going to do with the cell? It's hard to service something that isn't used much. They should develop some killer tools for it.
Lol. Well, we all have to be good at something ;)
Certainly, sir. Before I can complete that transaction I need your social security number.
Both Mohammad Atta and the IRA are terrorists. I'm not disputing the fact that the UK has experienced terrorism - years before the US has. I'm drawing a distinction between the kinds of terrorism, the kinds of threats the terrorists present, and how to best counter those threats. Both IRA killings and the WTC killings are atrocious, but in the context of preventative measures they're apples and oranges.
If an airplane from an outside country who hated the UK's guts struck its Parliament building, you would probably think, "My God, what can I do to prevent a replay?" You can argue about the best way to do it, but my guess is that you'd have a very understandable paranoia about unknown foreigners entering your country.
It's not politically correct and sounds bad to say it, but I'd be all for just checking people who "look" suspicious. Yes, it's error prone, but better than making everyone pay for the actions of a few. Kind of like what people would do if some scrappy bearded Middle-Easterner was walking through their neighborhood - one which he usually doesn't frequent. And this only after experiencing shootings by predominantly Arab strangers. Yeah, I know how it sounds, and I'm not saying all Arabs are terrorists. Honestly, though, if people in the UK found that 2% of Americans walked away from a pub without paying versus 0.01% of everyone else, I'd say "Hey, just check American's pockets. Just release the innocent majority." I'd probably grumble about it. (Somebody smack me for saying this.)
Your concern about the misuse of fingerprints is certainly worth considering. My comment was meant "de-Satanize" (couldn't think of a better word) the motives for the extra passport scrutiny.
Out of interest, from where do you recall these numbers?
I don't really recall. I think I was scanning a BBC background article on the conflict. Something like hundreds rather than thousands has lodged in my dim memory. But I'll accept your numbers.
The real worrying aspect is the freedom-curbing powers the govt introduce as a result of the UK being a staunch US ally - and therefore a more likely target.
Freedom-curbing measures aren't themselves the worry to me - we all give up freedoms for the common good. It's the potential misuse of some powers. Actually, I am sympathetic to your criticism about fingerprinting.
Your remark about being a target bears on my other comment. I think that some people aren't opposed to terrorist counter-measures per se, but adopt that pose because they want someone else to handle it and someone else to be the target of unreasoning hatred for an unpopular expedient solution.
I got a little afield from the original topic, but hey, I have a dislike for the typical dissimulation that goes on in diplomatic circles: Say what's pleasing, act another way, and pretend you and you alone are made of 100% pure gold. We all deal with the same problems and the same interests.
Thanks for being so polite.
We Brits have suffered terrorism for decades - some of it sponsored by communities of the US. I myself have had a friend injured in an IRA bombing, I have heard a bomb go off in the distance, and I have had to live with the threat of an attack since I was old enough to decide to leave home and go live in London, over 20 years ago.
I'm sorry about your friend. But let me ask you, do you take security more seriously now? Also, I don't think you can compare a few isolated murders by your own people (if you regard them as your own people) to an attack killing 3000 using airplanes. BTW, sorry for my American ignorance about how many have died as the result of the IRA, but from the distance past, I recall it being much, much smaller than 3000.
You seem to imply that the US officially sponsors the IRA. Of course, this isn't true, or is it your intention to exaggerate and shout to make your point?
If you combine just criticism with an attitude of understanding, people will listen to you more. As it is you come across as someone with an angry, unreasoning axe to grind.
We did not target innocent people. The terrorists you seem to want to defend did. Where was your sympathy when 300,000 Iraqi's died under Saddam and you did absolutely nothing to stop them? It is easy to look good when you do nothing and criticize the mistakes of others. But is harder to make sacrifices that are unpopular to bring about changes from the "miserable ease" of the status quo.
America contributes very little to charity, proof here
Do you even read the sources you post? The "charity" you post is a narrow slice of all charities, as the article itself says in its disclaimer:
ODA is defined as financial assistance that is concessional in character, has the main objective to promote economic development and welfare of the less developed countries (LDCs), and contains a grant element of at least 25%. The entry does not cover other official flows (OOF) or private flows.
According to Giving U.S.A.'s annual report, published by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel (AAFRC), Americans gave an estimated $240.92 billion to charity in 2002. Even more surprising, Giving U.S.A. reports that, in a year that was very hard on the corporate bottom line, charitable contributions by corporations and corporate foundations came in at $12.19 billion, an 8.8% increase over the previous year. The fact that charitable giving remains so high even while economic growth is so low runs counter to the arguments of many who advocate statist models of charity
I don't know what the GDP of the US is now, is it about a trillion dollars? That makes it bout $0.25 per dollar.
Now as to the general tone of your post, you seem blindly partisan, selective in your facts, and rather belligerant.
We've become a target. Not really sure what to do about it.
I understand your frustration, but until an airplane comes crashing into Parliament or you lose 3000 lives, I don't know that you can fully appreciate our situation.
Part of becoming a target is the result of our greed and arrogance, but at least an equal part is simply from mindless group-think: "America is the cause of all our problems." Very convenient for dictorships who ruin their people to find an external blame. Very convenient for prosperous countries who don't want to rock the boat and who pay little more than lip service to their high sounding words.
America has been arrogant, but also generous - both in the public and private sector, long before charity came under the world microscope.
I'm no GW Bush fan, but I don't think he's a "Hitler", or "the biggest terrorist in the world" as some people love to shout. He's just a well meaning simpleton, with reasonable aims but poor execution.
Mutilation is better yet.
It could be done with half-sharp sticks if you insist.
Care to elaborate?
It would be nice to cash in those "ifs", but in practice it doeesn't happen all that easily. I don't exactly know why. But this study sure gives one pause.
I also think that the incidentals and accidentals that you pick up simply doing an overkill reading a book are useful above and beyond the school research subject at hand.
I'm moving more quickly to a geriatric case than I like to think about and I'm amazed at what high school students don't know these days. I can't definitely blame it on computers per se. I actually think the educational system as a whole sucks. Teachers have to dumb down the material so that "no child is left behind". Translation: teach to the dumbest student in the class and make everyone else pay for it by boredom.
If the universe is closed, everywhere is a "center". Not sure about a good analog for an open universe (suggested by the accelerating recession), but for a closed one visualizing a lower dimensional version will help: instead of living in a 3D world curved into 4 dimensions, imagine you are confined to the surface of a sphere. Effectively a 2D world curved into 3 dimensions. Every point on the sphere is as much a "center" as any other point. Maybe some folks better versed in relativity can give some nice picture for an open universe.
By the same token, show me any evidence from cruise.com that they tried a less heavy-handed approach than a $4,000,000 lawsuit. It cuts both ways. I hold this guy innocent of the $4,000,000 million law suit until proven guilty - not the reverse. As far as a "lynch mob" mentality, I have to say that anger against spammers is quite understandable. An occasional mistaken reaction here and there by spam recipients doesn't compare with the voluminous damage done by scumbag spammers. Why do you single out this guy and not mention anything negative about the plethora of #@#!@#$% spammers?
It's an interesting question. The internet makes location a little bit of a tangle. If he were on American soil and stole the $75 million, would he still be on trial in America, or would they send him to Australia for trial.
"as if the world needed another reason - boycott anything and everything American, if you don't want to boycott, then just refuse to pay for it. Just say no to The Land of Lies and The Home of Hypocrisy." Or better yet, just continue to steal their products. That way you both deprive American corporations of any return on investment AND get free stuff.
"Since when is knowing if the next iPod mini will have a colour screen not the public's business?" The question is when does the public get that information? Do you allow a reporter to leak NDA information before the company releases its product and so that all its investments could potentially go down the drain when another company steals their ideas or makes unfair use of the info? The judge is right.
"MBA = How to make money. End of Story."
Regardless of who it hurts? I don't think so. Besides, even from the standpoint of enlightened self-interest, cheating often catches up with you.