Actually, you're completely allowed to conceal facts. I've given a number of situations where this is true. I've even given situations where the law specifically protects secrets.

There's a powerful difference between "nice to have"s and "legally required to have"s. You keep using the word right, but a right is a very powerful and dangerous thing, and contrary to your belief, it isn't something that has basis in law.

For example, I'm not entitled to know the recipe and process for making coca cola. It is, in fact, a protected trade secret. Before buying a coke, or indeed before buying stock in coke, that information would be unquestionably relevant (to determining the value of your purchase, but just because it's nice to have, doesn't mean coca cola is ever required to tell you. You do NOT have a right to the information.

The entire stock market is based on the idea of getting the scoop on others who don't have the same information you do. In some cases it is restricted(insider trading, for example), but in most cases, the Warren Buffets of the world are rewarded, not punished, for buying securities at the wrong price and selling them at another much higher price. There is no basis to assume by selling a stock to Warren Buffett, you have a RIGHT to know the reasons he's buying the stock, which would certainly be an unquestionably relevant piece of information. The point of the stock exchange is to avoid an equal exchange of value, to try to get something that is actually much more valuable than the person selling it to you thinks it is.

There's a distinction between a legitimate *desire* and a legitimate *right*.

As a bank customer or a stock holder, I have a legitimate *desire* to have inside information, including trade secrets to best determine the risk involved with buying, holding, or selling the stock, or with doing business with a certain company. As a worker for a company who wants to know, I have a legitimate desire to have such information. However, I do not have a legitimate right to this information. I simply don't have the right.

Similarly, while banks may have a legitimate desire to know every single thing about us, they don't have any right to that information.

Your logic is completely wrong, because by the same logic that not giving people a list of your friends and family for vetting means the loan is "creation of a fraudulent contract", so too would someone who bought a stock before the company released information that affected stock price be "creation of a fraudulent contract", so too would people who did business with a company before the company released information that indicated that the company was about to disappear be "creation of a fraudulent contract", or hiring a worker by for a company hiding that they are likely to have lay-offs be "creation of a fraudulent contract".

Depends entirely on how much you have been paying for rent.

I've done the math, and the rent I pay for the house I'm in is significantly less than the land taxes, maintenance, and interest on the house would be if I owned it. Further, if the market crashes, I don't lose any capital, because I don't have any capital invested.

The whole "Renting is worse than owning" thing is fantastically over-simplified, and over-simplification of the home ownership equation (Particularly when the houses started costing a million dollars) is one of the issues that has lead to inflated house prices.

This is absolutely true. Worse is that it's management douchebags saying they can make these predictions, rather than anyone who could possibly build a solid scientific case.

Where employers use it, I can't help but think it's unfair (and more than a little creepy) asking us to be professional in our lives where we're not working for anyone, and not near anyone who we work with our would work with.

Where banks would use it to determine loans, I can't help but think it's unfair (and more than a little creepy) to be asking us to be credit-worthy when we're not paying bills, making money, spending money, and not around anyone or anything related to our ledgers.

blackberries aren't cheap.

If you're not willing to sell to me, then I won't buy it from you. I accept your terms. I'm also pirating your stuff because I'm not morally obliged to give you money if you flat out refuse to accept it.

Lots of copyright holders would do well to learn this lesson, and take my money. Many still fail this test, and I have absolutely no sympathy.

Sometimes these things are surprising.

Seeing what Blackberry has to offer, I really have no idea how they're so dominant in smart phones in Canada. I mean, they gave me a free 50 dollar gift card with my Galaxy S. What are they giving away with the blackberries to make them competitive?

If that's your privacy concern, I think a lot of android users would consider that bug a feature.

I don't see how that's an iPhone fee. If you have a smart phone with anyone, that's going to cost, and having lived with mobile internet on older cell phones (basically uses the built-in phone line to dial into internet), I'm more than happy to pay that cost.

One thing that I think everyone can agree on is that having 2 great innovators in the arena, slowly stealing ideas from each other while trying to edge out each other with new ones, we're ending up with 2 phenomenal platforms, and you can't say that about decades of stagnant windows CE and stagnant Palm.

Your country of fictionesia.

Why waste money on a smart phone if all you want is a phone?

I can get you a great "just a phone" without any fancy features, for about 20 bucks on dealextreme. Plus, you can kick your carrier to the curb if you wish, because you won't owe a cent on your 20 dollar cell phone.

Reminds me of a The Onion article about the latest video from bin Laden: "Where you have a dwindling number of targets to choose from, we have a wide variety!"

I think there's definitely more to it than you're portraying.

Look at me, for example: In 1999, I spoke out on my (crappy) website against game publishers not selling games and forcing me into the second hand market. At the time, I was more than happy to steal anything I wanted, because I couldn't get the right product at the right price and easy to buy and use.

Fast forward 10 years, and I've spent hundreds of dollars at GOG.COM, where they have the right product at the right price and easy to buy and use. I've bought well over 100 games, more than I could possibly play in a very long time, specifically because I so strongly believe that a company fulfilling their end of the bargain deserves to be rewarded.

Those dollars and cents on GOGs balance sheet, is that freedom fighter bullshit?

I dunno, it seems to me like Microsoft tends to aim high with ideas, then be much more conservative with their actual releases.

At best, this will be useless API nobody uses but Microsoft really seems to be pushing hard #353463. Put it on the shelf next to WinG.