This is genuinely hilarious. Just excellent, excellent stuff.
Really high quality production, and funny script!
CLIPPY !! :D
Watch your margins ! :)
Cut and paste this !!
Brilliantly done. Top notch production value. Good performances. Comedy is niche, but it works.
Bravo Microsoft.
Pingback from Office 2010 The Movie: Trailer now available | The Software Nook
How many people are really going to watch this?
What a waste of resources.
Ocean, who knows. If you could get it in as a trailer at a movie theater to play with the other trailers, it could be quite amusing to the audience.
@Ocean: "What a waste of resources."
Waste, like so many other terms, admits of degrees. For example, It is a bigger waste to spend $2,000 on a TV you will watch one hour a month than spending $500 on a TV you will watch one hour a month.
Now, if you make $750,000 a year, spending $2,000 on that rarely used TV isn't so much a waste, because it is only a fraction of your vast income.
Microsoft falls into "so much money that we can 'waste' it" category. What's it matter if they allocate a very small fraction of their available resources to a marketing movie? It may be wasteful, but not so wasteful that it isn't worth a try.
I was once told it's better to make a $10,000 mistake than miss a $1,000,000 opportunity. Who knows, this could be MS's $1,000,000 opportunity, or it could be a $10,000 mistake. Either way, it is better to do it than not.
That was really good...but why?
OT
got my google voice invite, and I am loving this!
Why? Because they can. How many people complained about those Chrome comic books?
"How many people are really going to watch this?"
12. The number of people using Silverlight.
"12. The number of people using Silverlight."
Netflix Streaming must not have too many customers then.
Haha.. nice smart aleck remark, dumbass. Keep fooling yourself that nobody wants Silverlight. Flash took nearly a decade to become ubiquitous, and is widely scoffed at today for being a dog. Anything that can improve upon the status quo is a welcome change.
>>12. The number of people using Silverlight.<<
Bravo. Good one.
This article was good:
>>Although Gates' change in status appeared seamless to the outside world, if you look closely you can see cracks in the foundation of the house that Gates built.<<
redmondmag.com/.../a-gates-less-microsoft.aspx
>>Anything that can improve upon the status quo is a welcome change.<<
Like this?
>>Apple has touted new HTTP Live Streaming features of the iPhone OS 3.0 and the upcoming Snow Leopard version of Mac OS X—and it has submitted the spec to the IETF.
--
Since the entire method works with standard HTTP transport and essentially any off-the-shelf software or hardware encoder can make the necessary MPEG-2 stream, it opens up streaming to nearly anyone. What Apple doesn't say explicitly is that its protocol can negate the need for proprietary solutions such as Adobe's Flash or Microsoft's Silverlight to deliver remotely hosted or encrypted content.<<
arstechnica.com/.../apple-proposes-http-streaming-feature-as-a-protocol-standard.ars
You become more and more troll like everyday. I enjoyed the silverlight experience with the Olympics. My guess, though, is that you didn't stream the Olympics using Silverlight because it is such a horrible product that no one uses, I'm sorry, only 12 people use.
"What Apple doesn't say explicitly is that its protocol can negate the need for proprietary solutions such as Adobe's Flash or Microsoft's Silverlight to deliver remotely hosted or encrypted content"
Except that they'll wrap it with the proprietary .MOV header, which requires the Quicktime player.
"My guess, though, is that you didn't stream the Olympics using Silverlight because it is such a horrible product that no one uses, I'm sorry, only 12 people use."
They have Silverlight on Mac's now?
>>Except that they'll wrap it with the proprietary .MOV header, which requires the Quicktime player.<<
Nope.
They want it to become a standard. Just like good ol generic HTTP.
"Unlike Microsoft's Smooth Streaming trojan horse for Silverlight, HTTP Live Streaming works with any playback client on any platform and does not involve a layer of DRM, although it does support encryption, allowing broadcasters to limit access to their content."
@ Wae [Silverlight on the Mac?]
Yes, they do: www.apple.com/.../silverlight.html
"does not involve a layer of DRM, although it does support encryption, allowing broadcasters to limit access to their content"
Oxymoron? Or just moron?
de Silentio : read the article instead of mindlessly criticizing it.
>>Further, the protocol allows for the individual media clips to be encrypted so that broadcasters can limit access to paid subscribers, for instance. In this case, key files for decoding the encrypted clips are referenced in the playlist, and the client uses the key files to decrypt each one before playing. There is also a flag that broadcasters can set to disallow caching of individual media files as they are downloaded.<<
@Ocean, that wasn't a criticism on the technology, it was a criticism on the verbage used in the article. And it was in no way mindless. Thought, and a little research, went into the post.
From what I understand, DRM refers to any sort of technology that controls access, which encryption with passwords does.
So, Saying that it doesn't have DRM but has encryption which allows access control is a contradiction. Not technically an "oxymoron", but that sounded funnier.
That is the best ad for Office 2010 so far! Awesome. I had to see it twice 'cause it was that good. Well done.
damn... I was actually looking forward to seeing the movie... lol
Simply put, I want to know why the hell the producers of this video aren't doing ALL of Microsoft's advertising. Way funnier and cooler than any "I'm a PC" and "I'm a Mac" ad I've ever seen.
Loved it! Funny stuff. WTG Office 2010 team!
DRM exists, because people steal.
I remember very well the sad day we put the first locks on our homes. I remember as well, when you never locked your car or took your keys. One would leave the windows down all day with the keys in the ignition.
Anyone old enough to remember when it changed - when public television and radio spots began to air? "Lock your car, take your keys!" was the message, which was popular in the late 60's - right about the time a fleet of bucket heads decided that life was all just too hard and the world owed them something... it's all so familiar to the class of people continually carping about DRM. If low life scum didn't steal, it wouldn't be such a PITA to come into the house with arm loads of groceries and our cars wouldn't be roasting when we entered them. Oh, and PC's would all be secure out of the box, because no one would dare enter them without permission. I remember those days, too. It was just impolite to do so. Don't like DRM? Don't steal, or put up with others that do.
12 people using silverlight???
Are you kidding... There is more siverlight user then Flash use guys...
Adobe is losing the game here guys...
Dipsh t Admin is right... It will be funny to see these trailer at the Cinema mixed up with other trailers...
Microsoft has one of the most powerful marketing machine in the world ... lolololol
"DRM exists, because people steal."
I agree, and frankly I am a proponent for DRM. I do think, though, there is a cost to it. For example losing certain passwords and not being able to access your content or not being able to backup DVD's without nefarious products.
Unfortunately, people will always steal, kill, and seek destruction.
"They want it to become a standard. Just like good ol generic HTTP."
Oooh....you mean like H.264?
Try to find anything advertised as H.264 by Apple that isn't wrapped up with a Quicktime header.
Even if you want to take the Quicktime header off it, you need Quicktime to open the .MOV in the first place because Apple doesn't license out their Quicktime codecs to third parties - they only license the Quicktime platform as a whole, so you need to have the API's, and the only way for end-users to get them is via the player. Every other method breaches Apple's license agreement, making it illegal.
"HTTP Live Streaming....does not involve a layer of DRM, although it does support encryption, allowing broadcasters to limit access to their content"
Marketing translation: "it's DRM, but we're not calling it that, so it's better than the competition".
"For example losing certain passwords and not being able to access your content or not being able to backup DVD's without nefarious products."
What DRM does is prevent casual copying. I won't argue that real hackers can break the encryption. Instead, DRM prevents Joe-Bob with no real computer knowledge down the street from making copies of his favourite DVD's and giving them out to all his friends, and all of his neighbours from doing the same.
There's copyright and IP law. And DRM is there to support the law as a method of enforcement.
"What DRM does is prevent casual copying"
It also prevents Joe-Bob from backing up his kids DVD's that get played four times daily. All I'm saying is that there is a cost.
And I don't think anyone has to be a real hacker to get past DRM. My parents did it with cable TV when they bought a de-scrambler box. My friends do it with DVD Decryptor. And I do it by peering through my neighbors windows to watch the pay-per-view they purchased.
Having DRM be the police for copyright law is like instating marshal law so nobody can go out after dark when looting is easier. DRM cannot make rational decisions to dictate rather one is copying legally or illegally, so it just blocks everything.
"by peering through my neighbors windows "
Peeking, not peering. I Peek through my neighbors windows.
"And I don't think anyone has to be a real hacker to get past DRM. My parents did it with cable TV when they bought a de-scrambler box. My friends do it with DVD Decryptor. And I do it by peering through my neighbors windows to watch the pay-per-view they purchased."
Technically speaking though, none of those are "breaking DRM" except DVD Decrypter. One is breaking analogue cable signal scrambling (I'm guessing you're talking about analogue cable years ago), and the other example would fall under some kind of invasion of privacy that your neighbour would have to address. DVD Decrypter doesn't work with new DVD's either because the encryption routines have changed since it was last updated long ago. It's also illegal software under the DMCA (see my next note).
"DRM cannot make rational decisions to dictate rather one is copying legally or illegally, so it just blocks everything."
Under the DMCA, it's illegal to break any kind of digital copy protection or content control. DVD's have CSS, as well as some new tricks to prevent copying. It supercedes the [analogue] Fair Use law from the 80's.
The new digital copy control laws (the DMCA and other IP laws) are about restricting consumers' access to content. It prevents casual copying. There are ways around that, but you have to be knowledgeable about how to do it, and it takes time, research, and sometimes money, making it an option that a lot of consumers won't bother with. It's designed to get them to be legal with their content consumption by making it more difficult to steal it. It has tradeoffs, but content holders want to protect their IP and maximize their return on investment by getting as many customers as possible that actually pay for the right to consume their content.
What was the band that released the album online for "whatever amount you wanted to pay"? They turned around afterwards after losing money on the distribution from many people paying nothing and said they would never do that again too.
I'm just saying, is all.
"Peeking, not peering. I Peek through my neighbors windows."
You sure it's not peeping?
"Technically speaking though, none of those are "breaking DRM" except DVD Decrypter."
I was using DRM very loosely, obviously. The point is that it's not that hard to break any kind of Rights Management.
"It's also illegal software under the DMCA "
Illegal software? I question that, because I occasionally use DVD Decryptor, not to copy protected media, but to copy DVD's that I create. Are you saying that is illegal just because I am using the software?
"Under the DMCA, it's illegal to break any kind of digital copy protection or content control"
Right, what I'm saying is that DRM-Free would allow Joe-Bob to make backup copies. DRM prevents this. Rather or not it is illegal to break DRM is irrelevent to the discussion, as my point was that DRM stops Joe-Bob from copying his media.
"I'm just saying, is all."
Really, it doesn't seem like you are just saying. You're trying to argue with me for some reason, and arguing points that I didn't even try to make.
EricoF3:
"Are you kidding... There is more siverlight user then Flash use guys..."
I don't know what makes me laugh more: this statement or your use of twelve-year-old-AOL-ese.
@Myself: "The point is that it's not that hard to break any kind of Rights Management."
Let me further qualify that statement before Waethorn points out that he already showed it wasn't easy.
Over time, breaking DRM isn't difficult. The new technology will be hacked and the hack will be available to the public in a relatively easy to use format. I could be wrong, but history is behind me on this one.
I now realize why I have refrained from getting into discussion with you, Waethorn. Like lotsa always says, you just keep throwing up straman arguments.
Let me know show you:
Me: "I do think, though, there is a cost to it.. not being able to backup DVD's without nefarious products."
You: "What DRM does is prevent casual copying. I won't argue that real hackers can break the encryption..."
My point was the cost of DRM, _not_ that anybody should be able to get past DRM or casual copying. You could have retained your dignity by showing that this cost is worth it, but you didn't even try that.
Again, Me: "Having DRM be the police ... DRM cannot make rational decisions to dictate rather one is copying legally or illegally, so it just blocks everything."
You: "Under the DMCA, it's illegal to break any kind of digital copy protection or content control... "
To begin with, you quoted me out of context, then took that out of context quote and put up this whole argument about it being illegal to break DRM. Come on, really?
Last thing, You: "I'm just saying, is all." Whatever, Pr!ck.
>>Oooh....you mean like H.264?<<
Yeah, but you're not stuck with that.
Your grasp of the facts is as tenuous as your mastery of the language.
"waethorn" spews: "What was the band that released the album online for "whatever amount you wanted to pay"? They turned around afterwards after losing money on the distribution from many people paying nothing and said they would never do that again too."
Wrong as usual. You should change your name to "waewrong":
www.wired.com/.../ff_yorke
"It turns out the gambit was a savvy business move. In the first month, about a million fans downloaded In Rainbows. Roughly 40 percent of them paid for it, according to comScore, at an average of $6 each, netting the band nearly $3 million. Plus, since it owns the master recording (a first for the band), Radiohead was also able to license the album for a record label to distribute the old-fashioned way — on CD. In the US, it goes on sale January 1 through TBD Records/ATO Records Group. "
3 million dollars in a month? Your bargain-basement-PC hut should be such a "failure".
"Netflix Streaming must not have too many customers then."
You're using "Netflix Streaming" as an indicator of how successful Silverlight is?
**chortle**
"You're using "Netflix Streaming" as an indicator of how successful Silverlight is? "
Well being Netflix is HUGE, and they use Silverlight to stream their movies, I imagine that even if it were case that the majority of Netflix users don't regularly stream, even a small amount would equal pretty big numbers.
You may now continue your gay "chortle."
DRM also limits the usefulness of media greatly. eg: Video that only plays on player x with software y that only works on platform z, or DVDs that have to be broken to be watched, or games that fail on x86_64 Windows because of DRM (Splinter Cell Chaos Theory).
http://xkcd.com/488/
So, how many of you use VLC? Or Handbrake?
And, why not. Moonlight isn't 2.0 yet. So no video for me.
"sandmanx82" chides: "You may now continue your gay "chortle." "
Ah, using "gay" as a pejorative. How classy and clever.
Netflix may have been a big "win" for Microsoft, but the limited selection and poor quality is a big "lose" for Netflix customers. The Netflix forums are full of page after page of complaints. Clearly, the experience is not good for a huge number of customers. I guess if that's the horse Microsoft wants to hitch its Silverlight wagon to, then so be it. But the buzz is not good, my homophobic friend:
blog.netflix.com/.../netflix-trying-for-consistent.html
RunTimeError : English is not my primary language S h i t Head!!
RunTimeError : You are poor and patetic individue...
Another S!H!I!T Head that think English is the only language in the world...
You can tell that you think I am wrong on my statement but you should never attack me because I don't have a perfect English writing like you... !!! Stupid suker...
Enfant de chienne...
Pingback from Office 2010 The Movie: Trailer now available – SuperSite Blog « JohnsonsPlace
RunTimeError is probably a Mac user... Often Mac users think they are smarter ... but in fact, this is just intellectual masturbation...
Colourful! And for people who can use Flash, here's the video in Youtube.
www.youtube.com/watch
"Ah, using "gay" as a pejorative. How classy and clever."
Exactly why I said what I said. Pejorative? Chortle? Tenuous? Yes, we're all impressed my your massive intellect to use such words. Congratulations on impressing people the world over on the internet.
Actually, just roaming through some of Paul's Windows IT article comments, maybe you need to expand your language just a bit...
Post here:
"Your grasp of the facts is as tenuous as your mastery of the language."
WIndows IT Post:
"Your grasp of history is about as tenuous as your grasp of the language you so horribly butchered in your incomprehensible post.
As far as being classy and clever....
"Waethorn: Show me how an ActiveX vulnerability affects OSX and then we'll talk. Until then, please STFU."
Now back to the original argument....
"but the limited selection and poor quality is a big "lose" for Netflix customers."
In what way is the limited selection Microsoft's doing whatsoever? And how is the quality their fault when there are several examples of stellar quality using Silverlight? (I personally have no problem with the quality). And what do either of those things have to do with how many people use Silverlight anyway?
"Yes, we're all impressed my your massive intellect to use such words. Congratulations on impressing people the world over on the internet."
My apologies for offending your tender sensibilities, "SandmanX82". Next time I'll be sure to use little itty bitty words and type real slow so you can understand. Or maybe I'll use a style you're more comfortable with, such as "NETFLIX IS THE SUXXOR". Would "dumbing down" the language in that manner make you happy?
"In what way is the limited selection Microsoft's doing whatsoever? And how is the quality their fault when there are several examples of stellar quality using Silverlight? (I personally have no problem with the quality). And what do either of those things have to do with how many people use Silverlight anyway?"
Answers:
A) It's not Microsoft's fault. The problem is that Silverlight is tied into an inferior offering, and the two are inextricably bound together in the minds of the customers. Again, look at the comment section of the link I provided. Silverlight, rightly or wrongly, is getting a lot of the blame for the crappy Netflix service. That's a problem for Microsoft, period.
B) See answer A
C) I doubt many people are using the Netflix service, especially compared to the numbers of people using competing and similar flash-based services (such as Hulu). You were the one that brought up Netflix as a shining example of Silverlight adoption. I think it's a lousy one. Obviously we have differing opinions.
The Olympics, OTOH, were a bright shining moment for Silverlight. Unfortunately, the bloom fell off that particular rose pretty quickly. I wish MS would do more to amaze us rather than offer "me too" entries into existing markets ("We can copy Flash! We can copy Google!").
"Next time I'll be sure to use little itty bitty words and type real slow so you can understand."
That's actually pretty funny to me, because I briefly typed out that you would respond in exactly that way, and then I just decided to delete it and see what you would say. I was spot on. Yep, you're exactly right, I need everything dumbed down for me. There can't possibly be any other reason that I would make fun of you for your choice in words....oh, I'm sorry, I mean, be "pejorative" toward you.
But like I already pointed out, you obviously have set responses that you like to say using those words, which was shown with your near identical responses on two different posts to two different people, so I can imagine it's hard for you to break out of the habit of sounding like a douche.
Uh oh, I used the word douche. That must mean that your linguistic abilities far exceed mine and I can apparently say nothing more than "SUXXXOR" (when I've never even remotely spoke in that manner).
Oh well, either way, kudos at ignoring the rest of my post.
"I doubt many people are using the Netflix service"
So you sarcastically "chortle" at me mentioning Netflix as an example where a lot of people are using Silverlight, all because you "doubt" that people are using it. Wow, what great data representation you've brought to the table to shoot me down with.
As far as your "A" and "B" points....neither of those matter. I wasn't arguing with you about whether people think it's a Silverlight or Netflix problem pertaining to quality. I was strictly addressing whether there is a large number of people using it. So you bringing up quality and whose to blame for it is a moot point because it has absolutely nothing to do with our conversation.
"I doubt many people are using the Netflix service, especially compared to the numbers of people using competing and similar flash-based services (such as Hulu).'
Apple must be a joke of a company in your eyes then. There aren't many people using them compared to the number of people using competing and similar machines (ie. PCs). What was it, something like 4% worldwide last time I checked? The thought of Macs must make you chortle I would presume.
Very nice. I had a very good laugh with this. Microsoft needs to do more of these kinds of videos. What gets over all the negative perceptions are these kinds of humor injected videos and Microsoft does them well. I think they would be a nice counter to the Mac vs PC marketing, in which people laugh with Microsoft instead of against.
lotsa,
Your stock is falling around here. The more you keep retorting with such snarky and predictable remarks, the less weight your words really have. You can use the thesaurus all you like to enhance you words, but an wilting rose by another name doesn't smell so sweet.
But like the rest have pointed out, you'll resort to the same responses and insult people with the same hubris. So please, don't be so predictable. The best thing you can do is apologise and move on.
Later.
"I now realize why I have refrained from getting into discussion with you, Waethorn. Like lotsa always says, you just keep throwing up straman arguments."
I'm not arguing with you over comments you made. In fact, I'm backing them up by reasons presented by the industry.
"My point was the cost of DRM, _not_ that anybody should be able to get past DRM or casual copying. You could have retained your dignity by showing that this cost is worth it, but you didn't even try that."
It's not DRM that does that - it's copyright law. DRM is just the enforcer of that law. That's not knocking copyright law either. In fact, I agree that copyright and IP holders deserve to protect their content with whatever method is necessary, and with as much force as necessary. There just isn't much else they can do beyond existing DRM measures, unfortunately. If there was a way for restrictions to better identify users, and their usage intent, please present it (not saying it specifically to you - just the industry in general). Until then, the existing DRM methods are the best that content owners have.
"To begin with, you quoted me out of context, then took that out of context quote and put up this whole argument about it being illegal to break DRM. Come on, really?"
I didn't actually. It is illegal to break DRM. That's the DCMA at work. I don't like it. You don't like it. Most people don't. But it's the law. Again, existing DRM methods can't identify users' intent with content, so there isn't much we can do about it except come up with a better DRM system that has a more manageable methodology so that users can make their own backup copies, but not be able to distribute them to others, so that existing laws can remain intact. The existing law is fair, but the enforcement method is not. The enforcement method is the easier thing to change between the two, but it's still extremely difficult given the options.
"Whatever, Pr!ck."
You should quit taking notes from losta, but I'll forgive that this time.
"It turns out the gambit was a savvy business move. In the first month, about a million fans downloaded In Rainbows."
Only 40% of people paid anything for it, and the average was £4. Most paid nothing.
FAIL!
@Sandman:
Whenever losta can't win an argument, he'll just resort to the old hat of "STFU", calling people "Dipsh_t", insulting their nationality, or using fake names on here to insult a persons lineage anonymously.
"You should quit taking notes from losta, but I'll forgive that this time."
I apologize, I don't like being mocked. As you can see, I don't second guess what I right (or say for that matter, I got punched a lot as a kid).
Write, not right. Apparently I don't proof read either.
"using fake names on here to insult a persons lineage anonymously."
Wrong again, "waethorn". I don't have any ID on this site except this one. You keep saying otherwise, but that doesn't make it true. That kind of marketing might work with in your Bargain Basement PC Hut and Poutine Diner, but it won't fly here.
And I have no problem using it to insult you personally. God knows, I've taken enough from you in the past (if you'd like, I could compile a list for you). As far as "insulting someone's nationality", you never EVER pass up the opportunity to slam my country, even though we gave you the OS you so dearly worship. Get over yourself, won't you?
"You can use the thesaurus all you like to enhance you [sic] words, but an [sic] wilting rose by another name doesn't smell so sweet."
I'm sorry. I couldn't help myself. :-)
Waethorn: " You don't like it"
That's quite the accusation. I think earlier in the thread I said I was a proponent for DRM.
Don't mistake what I said in my posts for an admission that I "don't like" DRM. Frankly, I'm indifferent since it doesn't effect me at all.
Like I said, you are taking what I write out of context.
That is a great video!!!
Now it's my turn to be predictable...Several of you guys are mindless drones for the companies that make your OS of choice...it's really quite funny...and also predictable! Simple minded is a good way to describe those who blindly follow a company like Microsoft or Apple.
--tayme
Another dumb and extremely lame video from Microsoft. No taste (Microsoft trademark)
The amusing thing is that you Microsoft drones think it's great. When you all have no taste, and the company you like has no taste, it's the blind leading the blind.
"Well being Netflix is HUGE"
Netflix is huge, but their streaming service sucks really bad, content wise. There is nothing new on there at all, unless it went straight to DVD, and then you get a few titles.
Just a bit more on DRM, copyrights and software...
As much as I wish such were not necessary, protections like DRM on media and activations and product keys for software, certainly are required and while they protect content and IP owners, they also protect businesses and consumers.
I reason the protections for businesses and consumers is not well articulated and too often, the apparent restrictions and constraints placed on consumers cloud the very real benefits protections provide.
Some here may recall how much software and media used to cost. Copies of a single movie on VHS, or BetaMax tape were five times what they are today for a DVD/BD Disc, and software costs were sobering. Yes, mass production and distribution are factors which lower costs and efficiencies in each and economies of scale contribute to lowering prices, but that is only part of the story.
The risks to content and IP owners presented by unauthorized distribution, piracy (casual and otherwise) and or inappropriate use was well understood. Prior to protections like DRM, risks were mitigated by selling at much higher prices - reducing the accessibility of content to a much smaller group of wealthier people. In no small way, protections of every type made it possible to broadly distribute media content and software by reducing the losses to those holding rights to copyrighted material and IP. Those being protected is not restricted to content owners, but extends to those producing and lawfully distributing protected material, as well as all involved in the lawful sale of such material.
In the same way that automatic car locks and now ubiquitous car alarms contribute to lower automobile insurance costs by reducing theft and associated losses, media and software protections contribute to lower costs and broader availability of the same.
As software like Office 2010 begins to emerge and their design and distribution models make them work across the web and on an increasingly diverse body of connected devices, protections will again contribute to their lower costs and wider accessibility. Fast, in-place upgrades will be cheaper and easier to access than ever and again benefit from protections.
I think each of us that enjoys media and benefits from the power and broad availability of software, should reflect on how copy and other protections have benefitted all of us. At the same time, we should think hard about how harmful piracy and unauthorized distribution truly are. None of us tolerates the theft of our own property. We lock our cars and our homes. We set alarms and buy insurance products of every type. We demand respect for our property and space. We defend our keep. We need to respect not only the rights of others, but what good that respect provides us.