the first one is something which a marketter could already do by sitting with an infrared camera and analysing the crowd.

it's not somehting I would be worried about when going to the cinema.

Why is the second one a "yikes", Sic?

It sounds like an interesting development in medical technology.

chipped pills are not a yikes for how they are being/will be used but how they could be. Yes, I know everything has the potential for abuse and that doesnt mean it will be abused, but come on, who trusts big drug companies?

HEre's the thing, Sic, you don't trust anybody. so to you if it involves government or business, it's a yikes as you think they are all out to screw you over.

well in his case they are i mean shit the guy's an anarchist

It's sad, the whole corporate world has turned upon greed. I mean, look at the medical industry. It's become a business, not a help-the-consumer products. If you have a cold there are billions of medicines that each have their own claim, which is either not fully supported or false. As Sic said, who trusts big drug companies? They have these subliminal scandals and force you to buy these huge bottle or containers of pills or whatever. They also take advantage of their "big name" reputation, because are you going to buy Tylenol or Advil or the store brand type? Same with the food industry, as Kellogg's or General Mills are usually priced a dollar or more from the store brand, of the same quantity (and usually the same quality). Generic or reputation? You would think that things you are buying are directed to help you, but it's not. Everyone gets too greedy.

I don't think you answered Sic's question Draugnar...do you trust the drug companies to not abuse this technology?

I surely don't.

You are accusing a company of using something against us before they do it based strictly on your views of distrust... And you probably say anyone arrested for a crime must be guilty or the cops wouldn't have arrested them, right?

While I agree that "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" is generally an acceptable approach in life, you have to take into account what is for the good of the company and it's shareholders. Is using a new tech for ill against it's consumers and the backlash that will surely result good for business? No. That's why their "crimes" have generally been committed in third world countries.

As far as paying more for name brands versus store brands, I buy store brands on most things unless I've tried it and it isn't as good tasting/working. But having been in the promotions and marketing business for a while, advertising costs money. Sponsoring race cars and even entire races costs money. Additionally, new product R&D costs money. Therefore the name brands cost more. They aren't price gouging as much as you might think.

@ amac10: "It's sad, the whole corporate world has turned upon greed"

Nope. It was FOUNDED upon greed.

"look at the medical industry. It's become a business"

It always was a business. Perhaps it should not be, but it has not just recently 'become' a business.

it was once an unregulate cottage industry - a bussiness of individuals who would sell you ointments and vouche for them to work.

You had no way to scientifically test them. Proof that they did anything at all (as the body naturally heals, a lot of things just get better on their own)