According to trade secret rules, once they disclose the software, even just to some court-appointed folks, they lose their trade secret status. Then, anyone can duplicate their device without any problems at all.
It effectively puts the company out of business. Completely and forever. Probably worth $2 million in fines.
This can easily expand to the requirement that nobody ever use a machine that they do not fully understand and can describe in detail the inner workings of.
Of course, this would eliminate most computer users. It would eliminate most automobile drivers. It would certainly eliminate many health care workers. Anyone working in a field where high tech equipment is used by people that do not have serious credentials behind them.
I don't think that is the direction society is going in. If anything, we want to make things more user friendly so you don't need a PhD in nuclear physics to operate an MRI machine, for example.
If the software was patented, then it could not be "trade secret" - it would be disclosed as part of the parent application. Trade secret protection was previously all there was for software and is somewhat better than copyright. But you do have to actually keep it secret - once it is disclosed in any manner you lose trade secret protection.
Looks like this company is going to lose in a big way.
First sale? Sale of what? Sale of some bits that are available for free? Who exactly would you sell recorded music files to?
iTunes was set up for clueless idiots that don't understand the Internet. It provides an extremely valuable service to these clueless folks because otherwise they would have nothing on their iPod, thus rendering the device useless to them. It operates pretty much at a loss, but it doesn't matter because without it said clueless idiots wouldn't buy iPods.
Assuming that most of the people that know enough to post comments on Slashdot aren't clueless idiots, I don't understand. The value of recorded music is zero. ZERO. Nada. Zilch. It is available through probably 100 sources and that is just counting programs that assist in the downloading. If you are seriously in need to an education in how to obtain this music for free I'd suggest visiting any Junior High School - just about any 7th grader can help you.
So, with the value of recorded music being zero, how do you really expect to sell your music to anyone else? By taking advantage of the poor clueless idiots out there that don't have broadband? Don't you have any concience at all?
The reality of the price of music has to filter down to the masses sooner or later. The sooner it happens the better so we can get some intelligent discussion on the matter of creative works. Today, it is "I want, so I take" and we are training an entire generation that this is both appropriate and how things are supposed to be. I don't agree but it is a teacup against a tidal wave.
From the US, going to Japan requires a pre-approved visa. Leaving Japan requires payment of a tax of some sort. It has been a while, but I don't think there is a payment required for the visa up front.
From the US going to Australia requires a paid-in-advance electronic visa if not something more formal. There is no exit tax.
In either case, failure to obtain said visa gets you turned around at the departure airport. If you managed to get on the airplane you would be turned around and sent back when you arrived.
Admittedly I haven't seen any visa requirements for European traven from the US but having requirements for registration with lots of personal information is hardly unique to the US. The US has a serious problem with people deciding just to stay on regardless of immigration. Try that in any other country in the world and you will find yourself quickly deported, possibly at gunpoint.
Why does the US have to accept everyone unconditionally? Why shouldn't the US actually enforce a policy of "it is fine to come and visit, but you can't stay."
I don't see activation/validation/serial numbers/etc. as "DRM", but I guess you could call it that. Outside of software, DRM is an feeble attempt to prevent revenue loss which is easily defeated and then absolutely results in revenue loss.
Music? No DRM = No revenue from most people
Movies? No DRM, therefore no revenue. See all the downloaded movies? Cool.
eBooks? No DRM, no revenue. Ask Steven King if you have any questions.
Software has other ways of dealing with the same thing, but in the end it comes down to either something to make sure your users are paying or it is free. Free as in "no payment, ever."
In some environments (some businesses), it is difficult to get away with unlicensed, pirated software. Correctly, they are worried about the BSA and other audits. But that still doesn't mean they are going to play fair without some level of validation. Basically, if most businesses can buy one license and use it on 10 computers, they will do so.
The one thing that separates the home users from businesses is that businesses do not run cracked versions. Any validation, no matter how weak it is, is enough to force businesses to actually buy.
Sure, I'll be a lot happier when I don't have to pay for anything anymore and it is all free. And as long as I don't have to pay employees for their work then I won't have to worry about charging for anything anymore either. But I've yet to find anyone that isn't married to me who wants to work for nothing. Not even the daughter.
What WAS annoying is that the box I'm testing Windows 7 on has an old Dell CRT attached to it. Windows 7 got the screen refresh rate wrong (75 when it should have been 60) and screwed up the display from 3/4 into the install process till I was able to get into settings and change it. To be fair, Ubuntu on NVidia restricted drivers does the same damned thing.
What? 60 is the wrong value - it will flicker badly. 75 is way, way better than 60. 72 is better than 60. Anything is better than 60.
About the only reason I can think of 75 being a problem is if the monitor can't handle that frequency. Which might be a problem if the monitor is really, really old. What are we talking about here? A 14 inch 800x600-only screen? That would have to be a really, really old monitor.
I don't think your analysis of Word and the UI rework stands up to much scrutiny. Microsoft spent heavily on research and focus groups because Word XP/2003 was such a behemoth with monolithic menus that people could not find the options they really wanted to use. Training was a huge issue and without it all people could do was get lost in the menus.
Yes, the 2007 interface is different, but it is different for a reason. The intent is to display the commonly used functions and push the ones less commonly used away from the user. Which does mean that if you are trying to find the way to print an envelope with an address from the current document it can take you 15 minutes to figure out where they hid it. But changing the justification of text is up front and even the most unfamiliar user can see it immediately.
Did they get it 100% right in what to bury and what to bring out? No, I don't think they did. Supposedly, there are ways to adjust the interface so if everyone in your company uses Word in a particular way your specific feature set can be put on the forefront - but that takes work to do that most people aren't going to do for themselves.
In many ways 2007 is a big imporovement over the 2003 menu structure. At least they decided to do something about it, and they were willing to take the risk that enterprise users that had customized Word 2003 would never pick up any changes no matter what.
What you should be excited about is the trouble that can be caused by having the newly expanded HHS monitoring and tracking all of these digital records.
Excellect set of assumptions. But, what if the original inventor tried to get somewhere for five years and everyone ignored him because they assumed he had no resources to actually persue a lawsuit to enforce a royalty agreement? He finally finds a company that will buy the patents from him for pennies on the dollar because they have the money to file the lawsuits that will finally cause the folks ignoring the patents to sit up and take notice.
You see, the legal system isn't entirely broken but often large companies think they can get away with anything. Especially when the opponent has few resources to actually go after them. It is regrettably true that it takes money to make money. And if you have no assets, no credit and no friends you can find yourself in a situation like this one.
Not saying that is precisely what happened, but it is wrong to assume this is all a scam with no foundation behind it.
The globalization has brought us this. On one hand, if someone can do the same job cheaper why would anyone pay more? It is like asking if you want to spend $2 or $5 for a cup of coffee. If the coffee is the same, why would you pay more?
The truth is that the coffee or job isn't really the same, but it is the same under the definition "coffee" or "job". Only when you did a lot deeper do you discover that the quality differs.
Unfortunately, quality isn't what people are seeking today. Internet shopping has brought the ability to quickly find the lowest price, not the best quality. Which do you think gets the most business, the Internet store with the best customer service or the lowest prices? It is not very likely we will see any changes in this are anytime soon. Businesses are unlikely to choose higher quality and higher prices when low prices are what people are looking for.
Also, why would anyone pay more when nobody is measuring anything except prices? Are cell phone companies really going to lose people due to low prices and bad customer service? No, they will lose people because of high prices when others, with equally bad customer service have lower prices. So there is no point to "better customer service" when nobody is measuring that.
No it isn't Microsoft at all. The problem is with the "new globalization" we have a situation where if you build a prototype in the US it is 10x cheaper to manufacturer it in China. The China can make a copy of it, sometimes in the same factory, and ship it into the US. With no R&D expense to recoup, they can seriously undercut the original company which is then driven out of business.
One way to keep this from happening is you outsource the hardware but keep the firmware separate. And you have tricks in the hardware that you check in the firmware to make sure it is the same original hardware. Obviously, if you release the firmware your market advantage is gone in an instant and you will be out-manufactured and out-distributed by cheap copies. So let them copy the hardware, it won't do anything.
I suppose the "solution" for this is to steal the product in the first place so you have zero investment in R&D. Or use a combination of the patent system and litigation to insure that you don't have to actually pay for R&D work. Because your competitors certainly aren't going to have to pay for R&D either.
But, you say that will result in just an endless series of me-too clone products. Absolutely, but they will be priced right for quick sale. Think back to how much you paid for an S-100 Z-80 board in 1980 that came with a schematic. And think how much it would have cost you to make one yourself because China was still using animal power for subsistance farming.
You can say fraud, you can say thief, you can say "war criminal" and "ex-nazi baby killer stormtrooper". This is the Internet, friend. You can say anything you want and there is damn little anyone can do about it. And, it is eternal. Meaning it can't be removed from every place there is a copy of it and lots of search engines to help people find it whereever it is hiding.
And you can't remove it from everywhere.
Having no validation, no truthfullness and no way to know anything about the usually semi-anonymous poster gives people the ability to say anything at all. Without any consequences. Which means that that I don't need any proof of anything I choose to say about you, your business or anything at all. And nobody can do anything about it.
That isn't free speech any more than driving 100MPH on the wrong side of the highway is free travel. Both are reckless.
The problem is that once such a review is posted on the Internet, it is pretty much eternal. There is no way to retract it and any further commentary is dependent on the original web site where it is posted. Which may or may not be picked up further on down the line by "aggregators" and "syndicators" of the content.
This pretty much means there is no limit to the damage that can be done. Suing doesn't really work, because even if you win, the review is still there for all to see. You might get it taken down from the original site but that doesn't remove it. You might win a million-dollar judgement against the poster, but it still doesn't change anything. Your business is ruined. Whether or not the posting is true or not.
The fact is, nobody cares if the posting is true. It is immaterial. It is also worth noting that negative comments outweigh positive ones in both quantity and impact. Usually most studies have found the ratio is something like 10:1 in favor of negative comments. The result is all you see are negative comments and all people pay attention to are negative comments.
Honesty and quality of the business have no importance in this at all. It could be the the cleanest most friendly restaurant in town and someone goes there with a bad attitude and writes a negative review somewhere. The truth of the matter is the 99% of the people that have a good experience just aren't motivated enough to write anything at all, anywhere. So all you see are negative reviews and quite possibly unfounded, untrue reviews. So what does the business owner do in a case like that? Simple - fold up and go somewhere else. Because in the world of unretractable, unqualified Internet reviews there is simply no way to win.
Of course, the good news is that most people really don't pay that much attention to these reviews. Not because they are unreliable but because it is too difficult to bring up Internet reviews when selecting a place to eat lunch or go shopping. This is changing with larger screen Internet capable cell phones. This is one area where these phones can really make a difference. Of course, when all you can find are unending negative reviews of restaurants in your area, where exactly are you supposed to have lunch?
The problem is that while you may be scrupiously honest, there are many that are not. Therefore, accepting returns of easily copied merchandise is just an invitation to some (the less honest) to buy, copy and return.
So while you would like the opportunity to return unsuitable items, the less honest would like the opportunity to return... everything. After copying it. So now they "have" it without paying. Just the sort of thing that stores hate. And with all those little theft-deterrent devices it is somewhat harder to just shoplift them. And then there the people at the exit that want to check to see if you really paid. How rude!
Just remember, the basic philosophy for stores is 1 in 10 is stealing. Actively stealing, even with all the measures in place. It is a continual battle between the shopkeepers and the thieves, but so far the thieves are holding their own.
I don't believe it. They say that, but I believe they know full well it's a lie. When a known liar says something that makes no sense, you can be pretty sure it's a lie. I simply don't believe them. What I do believe is that that know that piracy doesn't cost sales, but P2P downloading does -- because it lets their customers hear the competetion.
I don't but music. Not that I listen all that much... but that's beside the point. I don't know anyone that buys - they all just download what they want from somewhere.
The idea that after I listen to it I will run out and buy it is nonsense. I have it, so why would I want to "have" it again? Is it somehow better if I buy it? Frankly, on the devices in use today I challange anyone to make a meaningful argument what the differences are between a 128Kb/sec MP3 is vs. the original CD. Or something recorded off FM radio. Nobody is using anything decent for headphones or speakers with current devices, so faithfully reproducing all the high and low notes isn't going to happen anyway.
Piracy isn't an advertising tool, it is a tool for "having" what you want immediately without a monetary transaction being involved. Sure, there might be some "discovery" and if your searching leads you to find that the absolute latest material from Band XYZ isn't available for downloading some folks might actually try harder to find this absolute latest material, even to the extent of paying for it. Some folks. Nobody I know - the people I know would wait a week for it to show up on their favorite download tool's search.
The idea there can be a "business" of selling recorded music is doomed. Too many people are familiar with the idea of downloading for free and expect it. Wait until the first US Senator is elected that is an avid downloader of music and movies. Do you really think we can turn back the clock somehow? I don't think so. Downloading for free is being taught in schools - student to student. The concept of paying for something that is available for free isn't going to spread, it is going to disappear completely. The RIAA know this and so do all of the various people behind businesses that currently get revenue from selling recorded music. Within a fairly short time, it is over.
Today, the business of selling recorded music exists for people that either believe downloading is somehow wrong or do not have either the knowledge or access. This is why in an affluent area WalMart has almost no music section but in a poorer section of town it is full of CDs. Today there is a stark digital divide between the rich suburbs and the poor inner city. Even that is going to change and when it does WalMart isn't going to be stocking any CDs at all.
Turning off all the coal power plants might help. I'd say it is about the only thing that stands a chance of actually happening. Waiting for fusion power or someone to approve new transmission lines so wind or solar can work is likely to be eternal. We will run out of the will to do anything "technical" or "scientific" long before we have fusion power generation. And transmissions lines are considered to be as polluting as the power plants by some folks - some really vocal folks.
So we better just get used to a shrunken economy and turn off the power plants. Then we can argue about what the best bicycle-powered generator is for gaming applications.
Well, it would have been 9-12 months ago. Now, current broadcasters are in the final stages of switching over and some have even decreased signal strength on analog broadcasts in preparation.
One of the big problems - having a fringe-area television with a rooftop mast and rotator - is at that house we go from 4-5 channels to 1 digital one. Period. Now maybe we will get more when (if?) they increase the digital signal strength but it seems unlikely. Repeat this throughout the rural areas of the country and you will have a significant impact on television watching.
The problem is, 30 days out from the switchover is a little too late to delay it. People have made their peace with the transition one way or another. For my house it will absolutely be cable or nothing. How many rural TV owners have already decided they can just do without? Especially after seeing what dismal results a converter box gives them.
Sure in cities there may be a lot more people with analog TVs that need get a converter box, and the idea the government was going to buy them for people sort of fell down. The government was never going to put out the kind of money it would really take to do that, and it was fairly obvious early on. A better approach might have been for the current advertisers to pay a tax to keep viewers watching.
What happens in February? My guess is that there is a slight shift in ad demographics and it is all for the worse for advertisers. Not exactly the sort of thing that will do any good in the current economic situation because for these advertisers increased spending isn't going to help. What will the real impact of more-or-less ceasing OTA television be in the US? Not sure, but I do not see this as an overall good move.
OTA television provided a certain cultural foundation for the last 50-60 years or so. You could more or less count on people watching certain popular shows. Without free OTA television it will fragment the culture more and provide less common experiences to share between people. We will further retreat to our own (smaller) cultural worlds and have less in common with our neighbors and coworkers. The Internet fosters this kind of isolationism. Good thing? It is if you are all about "diversity" and seeing no point to having any common ground with your neighbors. Chatting with people half a world away online isn't the same thing.
The Container Store probably did not track you down. Their lawyers had your credit card number and sent that off to the bank that processes it - from the first four numbers which identify the bank. From there the bank has to forward legal matters like that on to their customers. I'm sure that is a requirement on them.
Seriously, someone should get a 3-track card reader. I have one and have scanned all my credit cards. Not a one has any "personal" information on the card.
I was going to just scan one in right here... but things change. I don't have the drivers installed on the 64-bit Vista I'm running now.
The point is, the card has your card number and your name in several different formats. It has the expiration date but it does not have the CVV2 number. It does not have your address. It does not have any other identifying information on it. Get a reader and check it yourself. A really nice HP reader is pretty cheap on Ebay. Or get a reader/writer - even better.
Sold in California, this would make all televisions cost over $1000, probably over $10,000. That's not going to happen.
Good way to utterly destroy the economy in California while simply forcing people to buy elsewhere. Do you believe it is possible to enforce this on all possible purchases?
However, this being California, I would almost believe anything. They now require signs outside businesses indicating that you may get fatal diseases and die if you enter. Then, they wonder why the business closes. Can't really sell cars in California any more - I know I'm not entering a car dealer where there is a sign saying they use lead and other toxic materals inside and these substances cause cancer.
Electric cars? Sure. Just as long as they don't have dangerous batteries.
When copyright is revoked and universal distribution of everything for free is the rule, there will be no more DRM.
Only free software will exist, because nobody will be able to charge anything for it anymore.
Of course, the quality might suffer a little and there might be a few less items out there, but it will all be free. Oh, and you might have to spend a week or so figuring out how to compile a game before you can play it.
Until some really smart people figure out how this can actually work it is going to be tough. People really want stuff for free and plenty of people are willing to buy things and post them for all to download. Of course, a lot of that is stuff bought with stolen credit cards... but the spirit is there. I don't see any turning back from the "it all should be for free" movement. At least until the last vestiges of decadent Western civiilization is wiped off the map.
Trust me, you would not want a federal government that could simply decide to go into a state and take over. "Aw, heck - there's people suffering there and we can help!" No, that would not be a good way to run things. States' rights are there for a reason.
And every level of government in Lousiana failed the people.
Since the airlines stopped paying them, I don't think there are any more travel agents. At least I haven't heard of anyone using one in the last 6 years or so. I guess they might still exist, but you have to pay them for anything except cruise ships - I think they still get a commission on those.
Airfare? Last time was at least 2002, maybe before that.
Slashdot Mirror
According to trade secret rules, once they disclose the software, even just to some court-appointed folks, they lose their trade secret status. Then, anyone can duplicate their device without any problems at all.
It effectively puts the company out of business. Completely and forever. Probably worth $2 million in fines.
This can easily expand to the requirement that nobody ever use a machine that they do not fully understand and can describe in detail the inner workings of.
Of course, this would eliminate most computer users. It would eliminate most automobile drivers. It would certainly eliminate many health care workers. Anyone working in a field where high tech equipment is used by people that do not have serious credentials behind them.
I don't think that is the direction society is going in. If anything, we want to make things more user friendly so you don't need a PhD in nuclear physics to operate an MRI machine, for example.
If the software was patented, then it could not be "trade secret" - it would be disclosed as part of the parent application. Trade secret protection was previously all there was for software and is somewhat better than copyright. But you do have to actually keep it secret - once it is disclosed in any manner you lose trade secret protection.
Looks like this company is going to lose in a big way.
I guess I don't understand this at all.
First sale? Sale of what? Sale of some bits that are available for free? Who exactly would you sell recorded music files to?
iTunes was set up for clueless idiots that don't understand the Internet. It provides an extremely valuable service to these clueless folks because otherwise they would have nothing on their iPod, thus rendering the device useless to them. It operates pretty much at a loss, but it doesn't matter because without it said clueless idiots wouldn't buy iPods.
Assuming that most of the people that know enough to post comments on Slashdot aren't clueless idiots, I don't understand. The value of recorded music is zero. ZERO. Nada. Zilch. It is available through probably 100 sources and that is just counting programs that assist in the downloading. If you are seriously in need to an education in how to obtain this music for free I'd suggest visiting any Junior High School - just about any 7th grader can help you.
So, with the value of recorded music being zero, how do you really expect to sell your music to anyone else? By taking advantage of the poor clueless idiots out there that don't have broadband? Don't you have any concience at all?
The reality of the price of music has to filter down to the masses sooner or later. The sooner it happens the better so we can get some intelligent discussion on the matter of creative works. Today, it is "I want, so I take" and we are training an entire generation that this is both appropriate and how things are supposed to be. I don't agree but it is a teacup against a tidal wave.
From the US, going to Japan requires a pre-approved visa. Leaving Japan requires payment of a tax of some sort. It has been a while, but I don't think there is a payment required for the visa up front.
From the US going to Australia requires a paid-in-advance electronic visa if not something more formal. There is no exit tax.
In either case, failure to obtain said visa gets you turned around at the departure airport. If you managed to get on the airplane you would be turned around and sent back when you arrived.
Admittedly I haven't seen any visa requirements for European traven from the US but having requirements for registration with lots of personal information is hardly unique to the US. The US has a serious problem with people deciding just to stay on regardless of immigration. Try that in any other country in the world and you will find yourself quickly deported, possibly at gunpoint.
Why does the US have to accept everyone unconditionally? Why shouldn't the US actually enforce a policy of "it is fine to come and visit, but you can't stay."
I don't see activation/validation/serial numbers/etc. as "DRM", but I guess you could call it that. Outside of software, DRM is an feeble attempt to prevent revenue loss which is easily defeated and then absolutely results in revenue loss.
Music? No DRM = No revenue from most people
Movies? No DRM, therefore no revenue. See all the downloaded movies? Cool.
eBooks? No DRM, no revenue. Ask Steven King if you have any questions.
Software has other ways of dealing with the same thing, but in the end it comes down to either something to make sure your users are paying or it is free. Free as in "no payment, ever."
In some environments (some businesses), it is difficult to get away with unlicensed, pirated software. Correctly, they are worried about the BSA and other audits. But that still doesn't mean they are going to play fair without some level of validation. Basically, if most businesses can buy one license and use it on 10 computers, they will do so.
The one thing that separates the home users from businesses is that businesses do not run cracked versions. Any validation, no matter how weak it is, is enough to force businesses to actually buy.
Sure, I'll be a lot happier when I don't have to pay for anything anymore and it is all free. And as long as I don't have to pay employees for their work then I won't have to worry about charging for anything anymore either. But I've yet to find anyone that isn't married to me who wants to work for nothing. Not even the daughter.
What WAS annoying is that the box I'm testing Windows 7 on has an old Dell CRT attached to it. Windows 7 got the screen refresh rate wrong (75 when it should have been 60) and screwed up the display from 3/4 into the install process till I was able to get into settings and change it. To be fair, Ubuntu on NVidia restricted drivers does the same damned thing.
What? 60 is the wrong value - it will flicker badly. 75 is way, way better than 60. 72 is better than 60. Anything is better than 60.
About the only reason I can think of 75 being a problem is if the monitor can't handle that frequency. Which might be a problem if the monitor is really, really old. What are we talking about here? A 14 inch 800x600-only screen? That would have to be a really, really old monitor.
I don't think your analysis of Word and the UI rework stands up to much scrutiny. Microsoft spent heavily on research and focus groups because Word XP/2003 was such a behemoth with monolithic menus that people could not find the options they really wanted to use. Training was a huge issue and without it all people could do was get lost in the menus.
Yes, the 2007 interface is different, but it is different for a reason. The intent is to display the commonly used functions and push the ones less commonly used away from the user. Which does mean that if you are trying to find the way to print an envelope with an address from the current document it can take you 15 minutes to figure out where they hid it. But changing the justification of text is up front and even the most unfamiliar user can see it immediately.
Did they get it 100% right in what to bury and what to bring out? No, I don't think they did. Supposedly, there are ways to adjust the interface so if everyone in your company uses Word in a particular way your specific feature set can be put on the forefront - but that takes work to do that most people aren't going to do for themselves.
In many ways 2007 is a big imporovement over the 2003 menu structure. At least they decided to do something about it, and they were willing to take the risk that enterprise users that had customized Word 2003 would never pick up any changes no matter what.
What you should be excited about is the trouble that can be caused by having the newly expanded HHS monitoring and tracking all of these digital records.
Excellect set of assumptions. But, what if the original inventor tried to get somewhere for five years and everyone ignored him because they assumed he had no resources to actually persue a lawsuit to enforce a royalty agreement? He finally finds a company that will buy the patents from him for pennies on the dollar because they have the money to file the lawsuits that will finally cause the folks ignoring the patents to sit up and take notice.
You see, the legal system isn't entirely broken but often large companies think they can get away with anything. Especially when the opponent has few resources to actually go after them. It is regrettably true that it takes money to make money. And if you have no assets, no credit and no friends you can find yourself in a situation like this one.
Not saying that is precisely what happened, but it is wrong to assume this is all a scam with no foundation behind it.
The globalization has brought us this. On one hand, if someone can do the same job cheaper why would anyone pay more? It is like asking if you want to spend $2 or $5 for a cup of coffee. If the coffee is the same, why would you pay more?
The truth is that the coffee or job isn't really the same, but it is the same under the definition "coffee" or "job". Only when you did a lot deeper do you discover that the quality differs.
Unfortunately, quality isn't what people are seeking today. Internet shopping has brought the ability to quickly find the lowest price, not the best quality. Which do you think gets the most business, the Internet store with the best customer service or the lowest prices? It is not very likely we will see any changes in this are anytime soon. Businesses are unlikely to choose higher quality and higher prices when low prices are what people are looking for.
Also, why would anyone pay more when nobody is measuring anything except prices? Are cell phone companies really going to lose people due to low prices and bad customer service? No, they will lose people because of high prices when others, with equally bad customer service have lower prices. So there is no point to "better customer service" when nobody is measuring that.
No it isn't Microsoft at all. The problem is with the "new globalization" we have a situation where if you build a prototype in the US it is 10x cheaper to manufacturer it in China. The China can make a copy of it, sometimes in the same factory, and ship it into the US. With no R&D expense to recoup, they can seriously undercut the original company which is then driven out of business.
One way to keep this from happening is you outsource the hardware but keep the firmware separate. And you have tricks in the hardware that you check in the firmware to make sure it is the same original hardware. Obviously, if you release the firmware your market advantage is gone in an instant and you will be out-manufactured and out-distributed by cheap copies. So let them copy the hardware, it won't do anything.
I suppose the "solution" for this is to steal the product in the first place so you have zero investment in R&D. Or use a combination of the patent system and litigation to insure that you don't have to actually pay for R&D work. Because your competitors certainly aren't going to have to pay for R&D either.
But, you say that will result in just an endless series of me-too clone products. Absolutely, but they will be priced right for quick sale. Think back to how much you paid for an S-100 Z-80 board in 1980 that came with a schematic. And think how much it would have cost you to make one yourself because China was still using animal power for subsistance farming.
You can say fraud, you can say thief, you can say "war criminal" and "ex-nazi baby killer stormtrooper". This is the Internet, friend. You can say anything you want and there is damn little anyone can do about it. And, it is eternal. Meaning it can't be removed from every place there is a copy of it and lots of search engines to help people find it whereever it is hiding.
And you can't remove it from everywhere.
Having no validation, no truthfullness and no way to know anything about the usually semi-anonymous poster gives people the ability to say anything at all. Without any consequences. Which means that that I don't need any proof of anything I choose to say about you, your business or anything at all. And nobody can do anything about it.
That isn't free speech any more than driving 100MPH on the wrong side of the highway is free travel. Both are reckless.
The problem is that once such a review is posted on the Internet, it is pretty much eternal. There is no way to retract it and any further commentary is dependent on the original web site where it is posted. Which may or may not be picked up further on down the line by "aggregators" and "syndicators" of the content.
This pretty much means there is no limit to the damage that can be done. Suing doesn't really work, because even if you win, the review is still there for all to see. You might get it taken down from the original site but that doesn't remove it. You might win a million-dollar judgement against the poster, but it still doesn't change anything. Your business is ruined. Whether or not the posting is true or not.
The fact is, nobody cares if the posting is true. It is immaterial. It is also worth noting that negative comments outweigh positive ones in both quantity and impact. Usually most studies have found the ratio is something like 10:1 in favor of negative comments. The result is all you see are negative comments and all people pay attention to are negative comments.
Honesty and quality of the business have no importance in this at all. It could be the the cleanest most friendly restaurant in town and someone goes there with a bad attitude and writes a negative review somewhere. The truth of the matter is the 99% of the people that have a good experience just aren't motivated enough to write anything at all, anywhere. So all you see are negative reviews and quite possibly unfounded, untrue reviews. So what does the business owner do in a case like that? Simple - fold up and go somewhere else. Because in the world of unretractable, unqualified Internet reviews there is simply no way to win.
Of course, the good news is that most people really don't pay that much attention to these reviews. Not because they are unreliable but because it is too difficult to bring up Internet reviews when selecting a place to eat lunch or go shopping. This is changing with larger screen Internet capable cell phones. This is one area where these phones can really make a difference. Of course, when all you can find are unending negative reviews of restaurants in your area, where exactly are you supposed to have lunch?
The problem is that while you may be scrupiously honest, there are many that are not. Therefore, accepting returns of easily copied merchandise is just an invitation to some (the less honest) to buy, copy and return.
So while you would like the opportunity to return unsuitable items, the less honest would like the opportunity to return ... everything. After copying it. So now they "have" it without paying. Just the sort of thing that stores hate. And with all those little theft-deterrent devices it is somewhat harder to just shoplift them. And then there the people at the exit that want to check to see if you really paid. How rude!
Just remember, the basic philosophy for stores is 1 in 10 is stealing. Actively stealing, even with all the measures in place. It is a continual battle between the shopkeepers and the thieves, but so far the thieves are holding their own.
I don't believe it. They say that, but I believe they know full well it's a lie. When a known liar says something that makes no sense, you can be pretty sure it's a lie. I simply don't believe them. What I do believe is that that know that piracy doesn't cost sales, but P2P downloading does -- because it lets their customers hear the competetion.
I don't but music. Not that I listen all that much... but that's beside the point. I don't know anyone that buys - they all just download what they want from somewhere.
The idea that after I listen to it I will run out and buy it is nonsense. I have it, so why would I want to "have" it again? Is it somehow better if I buy it? Frankly, on the devices in use today I challange anyone to make a meaningful argument what the differences are between a 128Kb/sec MP3 is vs. the original CD. Or something recorded off FM radio. Nobody is using anything decent for headphones or speakers with current devices, so faithfully reproducing all the high and low notes isn't going to happen anyway.
Piracy isn't an advertising tool, it is a tool for "having" what you want immediately without a monetary transaction being involved. Sure, there might be some "discovery" and if your searching leads you to find that the absolute latest material from Band XYZ isn't available for downloading some folks might actually try harder to find this absolute latest material, even to the extent of paying for it. Some folks. Nobody I know - the people I know would wait a week for it to show up on their favorite download tool's search.
The idea there can be a "business" of selling recorded music is doomed. Too many people are familiar with the idea of downloading for free and expect it. Wait until the first US Senator is elected that is an avid downloader of music and movies. Do you really think we can turn back the clock somehow? I don't think so. Downloading for free is being taught in schools - student to student. The concept of paying for something that is available for free isn't going to spread, it is going to disappear completely. The RIAA know this and so do all of the various people behind businesses that currently get revenue from selling recorded music. Within a fairly short time, it is over.
Today, the business of selling recorded music exists for people that either believe downloading is somehow wrong or do not have either the knowledge or access. This is why in an affluent area WalMart has almost no music section but in a poorer section of town it is full of CDs. Today there is a stark digital divide between the rich suburbs and the poor inner city. Even that is going to change and when it does WalMart isn't going to be stocking any CDs at all.
Turning off all the coal power plants might help. I'd say it is about the only thing that stands a chance of actually happening. Waiting for fusion power or someone to approve new transmission lines so wind or solar can work is likely to be eternal. We will run out of the will to do anything "technical" or "scientific" long before we have fusion power generation. And transmissions lines are considered to be as polluting as the power plants by some folks - some really vocal folks.
So we better just get used to a shrunken economy and turn off the power plants. Then we can argue about what the best bicycle-powered generator is for gaming applications.
Well, it would have been 9-12 months ago. Now, current broadcasters are in the final stages of switching over and some have even decreased signal strength on analog broadcasts in preparation.
One of the big problems - having a fringe-area television with a rooftop mast and rotator - is at that house we go from 4-5 channels to 1 digital one. Period. Now maybe we will get more when (if?) they increase the digital signal strength but it seems unlikely. Repeat this throughout the rural areas of the country and you will have a significant impact on television watching.
The problem is, 30 days out from the switchover is a little too late to delay it. People have made their peace with the transition one way or another. For my house it will absolutely be cable or nothing. How many rural TV owners have already decided they can just do without? Especially after seeing what dismal results a converter box gives them.
Sure in cities there may be a lot more people with analog TVs that need get a converter box, and the idea the government was going to buy them for people sort of fell down. The government was never going to put out the kind of money it would really take to do that, and it was fairly obvious early on. A better approach might have been for the current advertisers to pay a tax to keep viewers watching.
What happens in February? My guess is that there is a slight shift in ad demographics and it is all for the worse for advertisers. Not exactly the sort of thing that will do any good in the current economic situation because for these advertisers increased spending isn't going to help. What will the real impact of more-or-less ceasing OTA television be in the US? Not sure, but I do not see this as an overall good move.
OTA television provided a certain cultural foundation for the last 50-60 years or so. You could more or less count on people watching certain popular shows. Without free OTA television it will fragment the culture more and provide less common experiences to share between people. We will further retreat to our own (smaller) cultural worlds and have less in common with our neighbors and coworkers. The Internet fosters this kind of isolationism. Good thing? It is if you are all about "diversity" and seeing no point to having any common ground with your neighbors. Chatting with people half a world away online isn't the same thing.
The Container Store probably did not track you down. Their lawyers had your credit card number and sent that off to the bank that processes it - from the first four numbers which identify the bank. From there the bank has to forward legal matters like that on to their customers. I'm sure that is a requirement on them.
Seriously, someone should get a 3-track card reader. I have one and have scanned all my credit cards. Not a one has any "personal" information on the card.
I was going to just scan one in right here... but things change. I don't have the drivers installed on the 64-bit Vista I'm running now.
The point is, the card has your card number and your name in several different formats. It has the expiration date but it does not have the CVV2 number. It does not have your address. It does not have any other identifying information on it. Get a reader and check it yourself. A really nice HP reader is pretty cheap on Ebay. Or get a reader/writer - even better.
Obama has already said he will allow California to set stricter regulations, overriding the EPA.
Sold in California, this would make all televisions cost over $1000, probably over $10,000. That's not going to happen.
Good way to utterly destroy the economy in California while simply forcing people to buy elsewhere. Do you believe it is possible to enforce this on all possible purchases?
However, this being California, I would almost believe anything. They now require signs outside businesses indicating that you may get fatal diseases and die if you enter. Then, they wonder why the business closes. Can't really sell cars in California any more - I know I'm not entering a car dealer where there is a sign saying they use lead and other toxic materals inside and these substances cause cancer.
Electric cars? Sure. Just as long as they don't have dangerous batteries.
When copyright is revoked and universal distribution of everything for free is the rule, there will be no more DRM.
Only free software will exist, because nobody will be able to charge anything for it anymore.
Of course, the quality might suffer a little and there might be a few less items out there, but it will all be free. Oh, and you might have to spend a week or so figuring out how to compile a game before you can play it.
Until some really smart people figure out how this can actually work it is going to be tough. People really want stuff for free and plenty of people are willing to buy things and post them for all to download. Of course, a lot of that is stuff bought with stolen credit cards... but the spirit is there. I don't see any turning back from the "it all should be for free" movement. At least until the last vestiges of decadent Western civiilization is wiped off the map.
Trust me, you would not want a federal government that could simply decide to go into a state and take over. "Aw, heck - there's people suffering there and we can help!" No, that would not be a good way to run things. States' rights are there for a reason.
And every level of government in Lousiana failed the people.
Since the airlines stopped paying them, I don't think there are any more travel agents. At least I haven't heard of anyone using one in the last 6 years or so. I guess they might still exist, but you have to pay them for anything except cruise ships - I think they still get a commission on those.
Airfare? Last time was at least 2002, maybe before that.