Sure they should be fined. But you can fine them a lot less and still have the same impact. A $100 dollar fine might mean that they eat saltines and ketchup for a couple weeks.
The screenshots DO NOT do the game justice. Go download some of the gameplay movies... those rock. The game really isn't about the graphics anyway... there's a lot more to it.
I'm not saying people don't make mistakes. I'm saying that Governor Dubya himself personally signed a Texas law that gives preference to hand counts over machine counts. I'm saying that he's a hypocrite for supporting hand counts when it's beneficial (i.e. gets a republican elected) and trying to stop them when it may not be beneficial. I'm also saying that given that the ballots are being judged equally by bi-partisan counters and observers, it's just as fair as a machine count, except that people can deal with ballots that a machine will simply reject. Since Dubya supports this thinking with his support of hand counts in Texas, I don't see why he's complaining. Oh yeah.. it's cause he might lose.
Re:Britain's history of amateur games development
on
Playstation 2 Basic?
·
· Score: 2
Why is PS2 considered a computer in Britain, but a game console in the US? We didn't get YABasic with ours. That definitely makes the tax break look like the real reason for the addition of the language and attempt to classify the PS2 as a general purpose computer.
Yeah, it's a troll posted by an AC, but I'm gonna respond anyway since I'm tired of hearing that stuff.
Gimme a break. Dubya supports hand recounts in Texas. They've helped some republicans out in the past. He just doesn't support them if there is a chance he might lose. Hand recounts are perfectly fair. In Texas, Bush even signed legislation that gives preference to hand counts over machine counts. Machine counts have a slight margin of error (anything from.01 to.1 depending on the manufacturer), which in this race is more than enough to decide the election. The only fair way to do it is by a hand count.
There are reps from both parties watching each team of counters. Both parties have to agree on the ballots that are in dispute. If a dimple counts for Gore, then a dimple counts for Dubya. As long as the standard is enforced equally, there is no problem. I wish Bush would shuttup and let the counts finish. Just another reason he's a hypocrite.
Bust Microsoft for trust violations and predatory behavior, but don't try to sue them because their crappy work did not solve all your problems like they prommised.
How about having responsibility start with a little truth in advertising. As it stands, corporations make all sorts of claims about their software and how it will solve all your problems. Maybe they should tone down their marketing rhetoric to the point that it's actually *gasp* honest. Then people couldn't claim that it doesn't do all the things that they promised it would.
Books and maps and other physical items have always been treated differently than electronic "intellectual property." I can loan a book to a friend. I can write all over that book. I can burn it to ashes if I want. I've bought the book and am entitled to the physical item. They don't claim that I bought a license to read the book. I bought THE BOOK. With CDs and DVDs and other Digital media, they claim that we're just buying the right to listen to the music. They said this because it allowed them to slap all sorts of restrictions on digital media that copyright doesn't normally allow. Now, it seems that it's coming back to bite them in the ass. People don't want them to have their cake and eat it too. My.MP3.com was the first major challenge to their claims. They won that one on a technicality, and there is now a bill in Congress to remedy that situation. People are slowly starting to wake up to the scam that the IP owners are trying to pull.
Porn sites generate more money from the net than just about anything else. I, for one, would love to control the.xxx domain, speaking from an unscroupulous monpolistic point of view anyway.
Actually, there are a hell of a lot of people who would like to get rid of the death penalty. Then there are also a lot that want to keep it. Of course I think if you confronted those people with someone who'd spent 10 years on death row for something they didn't do, they'd change their mind.
But it's not unfair for people to exercise free speech and base their conclusions on the credibility of their sources,
This is what I'm talking about. People seem to trust the police so much that they forget that they all too often DO commit crimes such as evidence tampering. People seem to take a conviction as proof that the person is guilty. That seems to be why we haven't abolished the death penalty yet. People put too much faith in the "justice system." The system is flawed and we should not be killing people as a result of the outcome of a flawed procedure. You may think that the system is good enough, but ask any wrongfully accused person if they think the system is good enough. Maybe one day it will be you ending up accused of something you didn't do.
Cops get caught lying and tampering with or withholding evidence fairly often. And that's just the times they get caught. There's also presumption of innocence. You seem to think that just because someone is on the stand it means they are a liar and willing to say anything to get off. I think many cops are just as willing to lie and play with the evidence to make sure that someone they think is guilty will get sent to jail for sure. They won't allow the suspect to get a fair trial.
It's awfully easy to plant a weapon or drugs, or to grab clothing fibers. If you can't rely on honesty by law enforcement you are sunk.
I wonder how many times we'll have to encounter police lying and tampering with evidence before we realize that they DO lie. They DO tamper with evidence. Why do they do this? To get the conviction. Even if the person didn't commit the crime. Maybe the cop thinks that person committed another crime, so it's ok to frame him for this one. Maybe the cop just doesn't like the guy. Maybe the cop wants to get promoted. Maybe the cop thinks that drug users are evil and should be locked away forever, so he plants a gun on the guy too. There are tons of reasons.
Right now in California, over a hundred cases (and quite likely more to come) have been overturned due to the exposure of police corruption. The cops were trusted in those cases. I think we should wake up and realize that cops are just people like everyone else. They have the same flaws and predjudices. They are just as fallible as any other person on the street. There is no reason to believe them over someone else without evidence to back it up. The cops already have more than enough trust placed in them in that they are the ones that gather and hold the evidence. Let's not put even more trust in them. That just sets us up for a bigger fall like what's happening in California.
We expect cops to uphold the law. But it seems to be an occupational hazard that many cops can't distinguish between upholding the law and putting people in jail. I've known cops too. Some of them are great people. Some of them are as bad or worse than the people they arrest. LAPD and NYPD are great examples of this. Corruption and violence seem to be rampant in those departments. Living in Texas, I know that cops here aren't much better in a lot of cases. I'm not comparing this cop to the really bad ones, but I'm saying that cops are just people. There are good ones and bad ones. There is really no reason to take their word over that of a defendant without evidence to back it up. While the defendant may have an incentive to lie, the cop does too, we just don't see their incentives as easily because we don't work in their profession.
Most cops arrest people because they think that the person has committed a crime. However, in order to arrest someone, they should have some evidence. In this case the cop had no evidence except to say that he saw the guy talk on his phone and point in a direction, and then a group of maybe 15 people went off in that direction. He admits that he didn't hear anything that was said. He admits that he didn't see the suspect blocking an intersection or even be there when the police showed up to ask the crowd to disperse (which they did). Why then is he convicted of blocking a road? Why is he convicted of anything based soley on the testimony of a cop who admits that he didn't see the guy do anything illegal, but only suspected that he was?
It's quite simple. The cop proved nothing. The cop admitted that he never saw the guy at the blocked intersection. Why then was he convicted of blocking an intersection if nobody (including the cop) saw him do it?
We can't even stop corruption and abuse of power in our own country(yes, we've managed to keep it from becoming as rampant as it is in many other countries, but even that is a constant struggle). How are we supposed to do it for other countries?
Fine, if they found tire spikes, charge them with that. Don't make up a bunch of bullshit charges to go with it though. Bomb-making materials? Puppet-weapons? Any way you cut it, the police were the criminals in this case.
It's one thing to be an eye-witness to something like what you're talking about. It's not a violent or traumatic experience. It didn't happen quickly. It wasn't dark. You knew the people who were involved. It's quite another thing to try to testify that a complete stranger killed somebody and you saw them escaping, in the dark, and then try to positively identify that person. The police are also notorious for helping witnesses to "remember" by showing them pictures of their suspect and indicating that they believe that he did it and all the witness has to do is agree. They engage in other sorts of coaching as well. They also like to take suspects back to the scene, in handcuffs and ask people if that's the person who did it. This let's everybody at the scene get a good look at the suspect, which they will later pick out of a lineup. By doing this they have tampered with evidence, namely the witnesses memories. This is not even legal, but it's done, and it's usually covered up. Eye-witnesses are much too easy to tamper with.
I don't believe we should even have a death penalty. We, as people, and our legal system are much too fallible for us to be sentencing people to death based on the legal procedings they undergo. Yes, sentence them to life in prison. At least then we can release them later (and I believe it should be a bit easier to sue for wrongful imprisonment). People have on many occaisions come forward with information that clears the name of someone on death row. Once the person has been executed, nobody is likely to come forward with information because they feel they would be seen as complicit in the death of that person.
If there is one single thing that annoys me most about IE it's the damn "Organize Favorites" window. That thing is insane! It's too damn small to work with. You can't resize it. It's a pain to move the bookmarks around. I hate the "Add to Favorites" window too. I like the Netscape "File Bookmark" and "Edit Bookmarks" much much better.
I think his point is that everyday words are being taken away from people who should legitimately have a right to register them as domains, provided they aren't doing so to enter into competition with a corporation that has obtained a trademark on that word. His example of Penguin the publishing company is a good one. If I were to register penguin.com and sell stuffed penguins, or put up pictures of penguins, or some other such thing, Penguin publishing would likely be able to have the domain taken away from me simply because they own the trademark on the word Penguin. Now, trademarks are normally only valid in connection with a certain business or industry. This is why Apple Computers and Apple Records can coexist. There are some cases though where a trademark becomes sufficiently "famous" that it is considered to transcend all boundaries and nobody but that corporation can use the word in connection with anything forevermore. McDonald's is a good example of this. If my name were John McDonald, and I were to register McDonaldsWebDesign.com, I would likely be sued by the McDonald's Corporation and have the domain taken from me, if past dispute decisions are any guide.
Trademarks were originally created so that companies couldn't compete unfairly with other companies by giving their product the same name, or by taking the name of a well-known brand and trying to cash in on it by associating it with their products or services. It's intended to prevent fraud and consumer confusion. It seems to have gone well beyond that now. Trademark infringement is now being used to squash free speech. Corporations regularly alledge that someone has infringed on a trademark simply by mentioning it in the course of criticizing that corporation. Receiving threatening letters and being faced with an expensive lawsuit (win or lose it will likely be very expensive) is often more than enough to scare people into silence. Even if they know they are in the right, you can look at many cases these days where the trademark owner wins regardless of whether we think they were in the right. The report shows that the overwhelming majority of domain dispute decisions are made in favor of the trademark owner. Corporations also seem to feel that they can trademark everyday words and prevent anyone from using the same words in association with their products, even when the other company or individual are not competing with the trademark owner. US courts have traditionally handled such disputes. But now, when it comes to domain names, we are bound by unaccountable, unelected governing bodies that seem to heavily favor corporate interests.
It may not provide a 100% improvement, but it would be a large improvement nevertheless. It would give the operators of porn sites some security against people trying to sue because they accidentally were made to see offensive images, which could be a significant reason to use a.xxx domain. It could help defuse the arguments against porn on the net (i.e. kids and others will accidentally end up seeing naked people), which is definitely something that most site operators could get behind.
I think the handcuffs statement was fairly appropriate. Microsoft is known for doing everything possible to make people use Windows. They don't create portable languages. They don't do things to make it easier for you to switch to another platform. Java is a portable language that helps make it easier for you to switch to whatever platform you want without having to rewrite all your applications. Microsoft's.NET is just another way for Microsoft to try to get people to tie themselves to Windows. If you want to use Windows, then great. If you want to use multiple platforms or any platform other than Windows, then you don't want to use Microsoft's languages to create software for those platforms.
I see why you believe that this system would offer something for everyone to get them to use it instead of the existing system. I just don't think you've got enough bait to get the corps to use it. They already have a small set of TLDs in which their trademarks take precedence over just about anything (at least according to WIPO). Yeah, they lose one every now and then, but for the most part, they get what they want. I don't see them wanting to move to a new system unless the old one really starts going against their will, and if that happens, then regular users will be more content to stick with the old system rather than switching to a new one.
Next there's the issue of how to govern the thing. Are you proposing a new ICANN-type body to settle disputes and make policy? I can see this being done in much better ways than the existing organization does things. I just don't see corporations being interested in a more open, democratic ICANN. They like the closed, unaccountable ICANN because it's easier to influence with money and favors.
I also don't think they'd like the idea of the FCFS TLDs. They consider their IP to be sacrosanct and I doubt they'd want to switch to a system where someone could register VerizonSucks.com AND be immune from a lawsuit.
Then there are also legal issues. What would NSI do if they had the carpet pulled out from under them? Would the new governing body allow anybody to register domains? License registrars? How would it work? What existing laws could NSI use to put a stop to it?
There are probably many other issues I haven't even though of yet (this was written after about 5 minutes of thought, and it probably shows:-). If an RFC was to be written, it needs to address all of these things. By all means though, let's discuss it.
And what do you want to bet that their database is chock full of Backstreet/Nsync/Britney-alikes and won't have anything that the local college station plays?
Slashdot Mirror
Sure they should be fined. But you can fine them a lot less and still have the same impact. A $100 dollar fine might mean that they eat saltines and ketchup for a couple weeks.
Plus any other cool things people figure out how to make it do. That's one of the upsides to the hackable part.
The FBI doesn't intervene. They just keep the SWAT teams around cause they look cool.
The screenshots DO NOT do the game justice. Go download some of the gameplay movies... those rock. The game really isn't about the graphics anyway... there's a lot more to it.
I'm not saying people don't make mistakes. I'm saying that Governor Dubya himself personally signed a Texas law that gives preference to hand counts over machine counts. I'm saying that he's a hypocrite for supporting hand counts when it's beneficial (i.e. gets a republican elected) and trying to stop them when it may not be beneficial. I'm also saying that given that the ballots are being judged equally by bi-partisan counters and observers, it's just as fair as a machine count, except that people can deal with ballots that a machine will simply reject. Since Dubya supports this thinking with his support of hand counts in Texas, I don't see why he's complaining. Oh yeah.. it's cause he might lose.
Why is PS2 considered a computer in Britain, but a game console in the US? We didn't get YABasic with ours. That definitely makes the tax break look like the real reason for the addition of the language and attempt to classify the PS2 as a general purpose computer.
Yeah, it's a troll posted by an AC, but I'm gonna respond anyway since I'm tired of hearing that stuff.
Gimme a break. Dubya supports hand recounts in Texas. They've helped some republicans out in the past. He just doesn't support them if there is a chance he might lose. Hand recounts are perfectly fair. In Texas, Bush even signed legislation that gives preference to hand counts over machine counts. Machine counts have a slight margin of error (anything from .01 to .1 depending on the manufacturer), which in this race is more than enough to decide the election. The only fair way to do it is by a hand count.
There are reps from both parties watching each team of counters. Both parties have to agree on the ballots that are in dispute. If a dimple counts for Gore, then a dimple counts for Dubya. As long as the standard is enforced equally, there is no problem. I wish Bush would shuttup and let the counts finish. Just another reason he's a hypocrite.
Bust Microsoft for trust violations and predatory behavior, but don't try to sue them because their crappy work did not solve all your problems like they prommised.
How about having responsibility start with a little truth in advertising. As it stands, corporations make all sorts of claims about their software and how it will solve all your problems. Maybe they should tone down their marketing rhetoric to the point that it's actually *gasp* honest. Then people couldn't claim that it doesn't do all the things that they promised it would.
Books and maps and other physical items have always been treated differently than electronic "intellectual property." I can loan a book to a friend. I can write all over that book. I can burn it to ashes if I want. I've bought the book and am entitled to the physical item. They don't claim that I bought a license to read the book. I bought THE BOOK. With CDs and DVDs and other Digital media, they claim that we're just buying the right to listen to the music. They said this because it allowed them to slap all sorts of restrictions on digital media that copyright doesn't normally allow. Now, it seems that it's coming back to bite them in the ass. People don't want them to have their cake and eat it too. My.MP3.com was the first major challenge to their claims. They won that one on a technicality, and there is now a bill in Congress to remedy that situation. People are slowly starting to wake up to the scam that the IP owners are trying to pull.
Porn sites generate more money from the net than just about anything else. I, for one, would love to control the .xxx domain, speaking from an unscroupulous monpolistic point of view anyway.
Actually, there are a hell of a lot of people who would like to get rid of the death penalty. Then there are also a lot that want to keep it. Of course I think if you confronted those people with someone who'd spent 10 years on death row for something they didn't do, they'd change their mind.
But it's not unfair for people to exercise free speech and base their conclusions on the credibility of their sources,
This is what I'm talking about. People seem to trust the police so much that they forget that they all too often DO commit crimes such as evidence tampering. People seem to take a conviction as proof that the person is guilty. That seems to be why we haven't abolished the death penalty yet. People put too much faith in the "justice system." The system is flawed and we should not be killing people as a result of the outcome of a flawed procedure. You may think that the system is good enough, but ask any wrongfully accused person if they think the system is good enough. Maybe one day it will be you ending up accused of something you didn't do.
Cops get caught lying and tampering with or withholding evidence fairly often. And that's just the times they get caught. There's also presumption of innocence. You seem to think that just because someone is on the stand it means they are a liar and willing to say anything to get off. I think many cops are just as willing to lie and play with the evidence to make sure that someone they think is guilty will get sent to jail for sure. They won't allow the suspect to get a fair trial.
It's awfully easy to plant a weapon or drugs, or to grab clothing fibers. If you can't rely on honesty by law enforcement you are sunk.
I wonder how many times we'll have to encounter police lying and tampering with evidence before we realize that they DO lie. They DO tamper with evidence. Why do they do this? To get the conviction. Even if the person didn't commit the crime. Maybe the cop thinks that person committed another crime, so it's ok to frame him for this one. Maybe the cop just doesn't like the guy. Maybe the cop wants to get promoted. Maybe the cop thinks that drug users are evil and should be locked away forever, so he plants a gun on the guy too. There are tons of reasons.
Right now in California, over a hundred cases (and quite likely more to come) have been overturned due to the exposure of police corruption. The cops were trusted in those cases. I think we should wake up and realize that cops are just people like everyone else. They have the same flaws and predjudices. They are just as fallible as any other person on the street. There is no reason to believe them over someone else without evidence to back it up. The cops already have more than enough trust placed in them in that they are the ones that gather and hold the evidence. Let's not put even more trust in them. That just sets us up for a bigger fall like what's happening in California.
We expect cops to uphold the law. But it seems to be an occupational hazard that many cops can't distinguish between upholding the law and putting people in jail. I've known cops too. Some of them are great people. Some of them are as bad or worse than the people they arrest. LAPD and NYPD are great examples of this. Corruption and violence seem to be rampant in those departments. Living in Texas, I know that cops here aren't much better in a lot of cases. I'm not comparing this cop to the really bad ones, but I'm saying that cops are just people. There are good ones and bad ones. There is really no reason to take their word over that of a defendant without evidence to back it up. While the defendant may have an incentive to lie, the cop does too, we just don't see their incentives as easily because we don't work in their profession.
Most cops arrest people because they think that the person has committed a crime. However, in order to arrest someone, they should have some evidence. In this case the cop had no evidence except to say that he saw the guy talk on his phone and point in a direction, and then a group of maybe 15 people went off in that direction. He admits that he didn't hear anything that was said. He admits that he didn't see the suspect blocking an intersection or even be there when the police showed up to ask the crowd to disperse (which they did). Why then is he convicted of blocking a road? Why is he convicted of anything based soley on the testimony of a cop who admits that he didn't see the guy do anything illegal, but only suspected that he was?
It's quite simple. The cop proved nothing. The cop admitted that he never saw the guy at the blocked intersection. Why then was he convicted of blocking an intersection if nobody (including the cop) saw him do it?
We can't even stop corruption and abuse of power in our own country(yes, we've managed to keep it from becoming as rampant as it is in many other countries, but even that is a constant struggle). How are we supposed to do it for other countries?
Fine, if they found tire spikes, charge them with that. Don't make up a bunch of bullshit charges to go with it though. Bomb-making materials? Puppet-weapons? Any way you cut it, the police were the criminals in this case.
It's one thing to be an eye-witness to something like what you're talking about. It's not a violent or traumatic experience. It didn't happen quickly. It wasn't dark. You knew the people who were involved. It's quite another thing to try to testify that a complete stranger killed somebody and you saw them escaping, in the dark, and then try to positively identify that person. The police are also notorious for helping witnesses to "remember" by showing them pictures of their suspect and indicating that they believe that he did it and all the witness has to do is agree. They engage in other sorts of coaching as well. They also like to take suspects back to the scene, in handcuffs and ask people if that's the person who did it. This let's everybody at the scene get a good look at the suspect, which they will later pick out of a lineup. By doing this they have tampered with evidence, namely the witnesses memories. This is not even legal, but it's done, and it's usually covered up. Eye-witnesses are much too easy to tamper with.
I don't believe we should even have a death penalty. We, as people, and our legal system are much too fallible for us to be sentencing people to death based on the legal procedings they undergo. Yes, sentence them to life in prison. At least then we can release them later (and I believe it should be a bit easier to sue for wrongful imprisonment). People have on many occaisions come forward with information that clears the name of someone on death row. Once the person has been executed, nobody is likely to come forward with information because they feel they would be seen as complicit in the death of that person.
If there is one single thing that annoys me most about IE it's the damn "Organize Favorites" window. That thing is insane! It's too damn small to work with. You can't resize it. It's a pain to move the bookmarks around. I hate the "Add to Favorites" window too. I like the Netscape "File Bookmark" and "Edit Bookmarks" much much better.
I think his point is that everyday words are being taken away from people who should legitimately have a right to register them as domains, provided they aren't doing so to enter into competition with a corporation that has obtained a trademark on that word. His example of Penguin the publishing company is a good one. If I were to register penguin.com and sell stuffed penguins, or put up pictures of penguins, or some other such thing, Penguin publishing would likely be able to have the domain taken away from me simply because they own the trademark on the word Penguin. Now, trademarks are normally only valid in connection with a certain business or industry. This is why Apple Computers and Apple Records can coexist. There are some cases though where a trademark becomes sufficiently "famous" that it is considered to transcend all boundaries and nobody but that corporation can use the word in connection with anything forevermore. McDonald's is a good example of this. If my name were John McDonald, and I were to register McDonaldsWebDesign.com, I would likely be sued by the McDonald's Corporation and have the domain taken from me, if past dispute decisions are any guide.
Trademarks were originally created so that companies couldn't compete unfairly with other companies by giving their product the same name, or by taking the name of a well-known brand and trying to cash in on it by associating it with their products or services. It's intended to prevent fraud and consumer confusion. It seems to have gone well beyond that now. Trademark infringement is now being used to squash free speech. Corporations regularly alledge that someone has infringed on a trademark simply by mentioning it in the course of criticizing that corporation. Receiving threatening letters and being faced with an expensive lawsuit (win or lose it will likely be very expensive) is often more than enough to scare people into silence. Even if they know they are in the right, you can look at many cases these days where the trademark owner wins regardless of whether we think they were in the right. The report shows that the overwhelming majority of domain dispute decisions are made in favor of the trademark owner. Corporations also seem to feel that they can trademark everyday words and prevent anyone from using the same words in association with their products, even when the other company or individual are not competing with the trademark owner. US courts have traditionally handled such disputes. But now, when it comes to domain names, we are bound by unaccountable, unelected governing bodies that seem to heavily favor corporate interests.
It may not provide a 100% improvement, but it would be a large improvement nevertheless. It would give the operators of porn sites some security against people trying to sue because they accidentally were made to see offensive images, which could be a significant reason to use a .xxx domain. It could help defuse the arguments against porn on the net (i.e. kids and others will accidentally end up seeing naked people), which is definitely something that most site operators could get behind.
I think the handcuffs statement was fairly appropriate. Microsoft is known for doing everything possible to make people use Windows. They don't create portable languages. They don't do things to make it easier for you to switch to another platform. Java is a portable language that helps make it easier for you to switch to whatever platform you want without having to rewrite all your applications. Microsoft's .NET is just another way for Microsoft to try to get people to tie themselves to Windows. If you want to use Windows, then great. If you want to use multiple platforms or any platform other than Windows, then you don't want to use Microsoft's languages to create software for those platforms.
I see why you believe that this system would offer something for everyone to get them to use it instead of the existing system. I just don't think you've got enough bait to get the corps to use it. They already have a small set of TLDs in which their trademarks take precedence over just about anything (at least according to WIPO). Yeah, they lose one every now and then, but for the most part, they get what they want. I don't see them wanting to move to a new system unless the old one really starts going against their will, and if that happens, then regular users will be more content to stick with the old system rather than switching to a new one.
Next there's the issue of how to govern the thing. Are you proposing a new ICANN-type body to settle disputes and make policy? I can see this being done in much better ways than the existing organization does things. I just don't see corporations being interested in a more open, democratic ICANN. They like the closed, unaccountable ICANN because it's easier to influence with money and favors.
I also don't think they'd like the idea of the FCFS TLDs. They consider their IP to be sacrosanct and I doubt they'd want to switch to a system where someone could register VerizonSucks.com AND be immune from a lawsuit.
Then there are also legal issues. What would NSI do if they had the carpet pulled out from under them? Would the new governing body allow anybody to register domains? License registrars? How would it work? What existing laws could NSI use to put a stop to it?
There are probably many other issues I haven't even though of yet (this was written after about 5 minutes of thought, and it probably shows :-). If an RFC was to be written, it needs to address all of these things. By all means though, let's discuss it.
And what do you want to bet that their database is chock full of Backstreet/Nsync/Britney-alikes and won't have anything that the local college station plays?