I'm fully aware that the 1-click patent is good business sense. I do not dispute that in any way whatsoever. And yes, Captain Obvious, I *am* moralizing. Any other astute observations you care to impress us with?
The fact that it's a smart business move does not mean I should applaud it. It does not mean I should find it to be moral. It does not mean I should hold it as a positive value.
In fact, as you may have guessed, my reaction is exactly the opposite.
Business is only one aspect of humanity. To value it above all other values *is* something only a sociopath can do. If you re-read my post, you'll realize that that's all I really said. It's a form of madness which very few who espouse it actually practice. Do *you* only do things which make good business sense? Is it good business sense for you to post on Slashdot? Of course not. But you do it.
The whole point of making smart business moves is to give you the freedom to make horrible business moves. That trip to Burma, horrible business move. That summer home, bad business move. The kids' college tuition, abysmal business move (for you, excellent for the kids). That iPod, that trip to Vegas, those Criterion Collection DVDs... you get the idea.
So no, of course I don't hold the patent system in high esteem. Nor do I those who abuse it (like Bezos, although there are far, far worse offenders). On the whole, I really don't dislike Amazon at all. I think, all told, they're a pretty good company, and Bezos I don't know personally (of course), but I'm willing to grant that he's probably an OK guy. But for me to applaud them for an action that makes the world a worse place? Do you think I'm mad?
While it's true that the lawmakers should fix this problem (don't hold your breath), it truly takes a special kind of madness to give props to Bezos for patenting (and enforcing) such trivial patents. Doubly so if the patents turn out to have been invalid to begin with!
CDs are encoded losslessly, 256kb AAC isn't. That's not true. CDs are losslessly encoded from either analog or (usually) higher resolution digital sources.
But that's not really the question, nor should it be. The question is how do they sound? In many situations, 128kb AAC is indistinguishable from CD. Unfortunately, in many cases it is not. Even when one can tell the difference, the difference isn't significant enough for most people to really care. But you clearly do. Nothing wrong with that.
256kb AAC, on the other hand, is virtually identical to CD. By "virtually", I mean, I highly doubt that even with high end equipment, one can significantly identify the CD audio from the AAC audio. Give it a shot yourself. Rip a CD into both Apple Lossless and 256k VBR AAC. Turn off the equalizer, Sound Enhancer and Sound Check, make sure the tracks look identical in iTunes (don't show the bitrate, file size, file type, import date, play count, etc. columns in iTunes) then randomize them in pairs in a playlist and see if you can tell the difference.
Buy what you want, but I think your audio quality protestation is based more on expectation and prejudgement than on actual auditory perception.
DRM meant that the music I bought would never be 100% protected from "upgrades" forced on me by the RIAA (much as Apple already reduced the number of authorized hosts). Actually, they *increased* the number.
Okay, that's pretty cool. I still won't buy anything from iTunes I can get on CD (locally or via GEMM/Amazon, I pay $1-12). You do get iTunes music on CD. They give you unlimited copies of every CD they sell, distributed through your CD burner.
At 256kb AAC, with embedded album art and quite often a liner-notes PDF, I really don't see why anyone would actually *want* a physical CD. Nostalgia aside, I don't miss the CD any more than I miss those huge cardboard boxes CDs used to come in, or for that matter, the tape or the record.
Clearly you have your reasons, but for me, the CD is a dead format, and has been for quite some time.
If you read the article, it doesn't say that the Beatles' music is excluded from the DRM-free deal, but that they are excluded from being sold online whatsoever. It doesn't state anything at all regarding whether the catalog will be available DRM-free once their music is finally available online.
But then you're swapping one expensive proprietary system [Vista] for a similarly expensive and more proprietary one [Mac OS X] It's well-known that Mac OS X is built atop, ships with, and heavily utilizes many open source projects (example, Mac OS Forge). OS X is just *brimming* with open source software. Most of the standards used directly utilize open source software behind the GUI and are based on open standards (some "de facto", most "de jure" (or whatever the technical analog is)).
Vista Home Basic is $199. Tiger is $129. Vista Ultimate is $399. Tiger is $129.
Gaming on the Mac is in a slightly worse state, for commercial titles, than gaming on Linux from what i've seen. Absolutely false. There's a far greater number of games ported from Windows to OS X than to Linux. There are far more Mac-only commercial games than there are Linux-only commercial games. Then, of course, there's always Boot Camp (which *is* one aspect of "gaming on the Mac", less so as WINE and related projects mature on OS X).
Additionally, OS X can play, essentially, all open source Linux games.
At least if you're pirating vista or installing Linux you don't need to switch to another provider's hardware. Although your implication is factually incorrect (if you want to include "piracy", you can pirate OS X and run it on a standard PC), your point is taken, and is the only one that's really all that accurate. Apple makes some really great hardware, and is priced very competitively compared with similar PC offerings. If that's a deal-breaker for you, then so be it. But for increasingly many people, this is being shown to not be much of a problem.
Most sensible managers will want to pay a fair salary for the job they're having done simply because it attracts good applicants and a basis of fairness improves morale and hence productivity. Yeah, better to not take your destiny into your own hands. Better to not look out for your best interests yourself, because your manager is clearly more capable of looking out for your own best interests for you and is just as concerned, if not more so, as you are that you are paid well.
Don't rock the boat, Mr. Anderson. The Matrix values the contribution of each and every one of its many batteries...
Or better yet, how about I give you the finger, and take charge of my destiny as best I can.
You only live once. If your boss has shown he/she can be relied upon to look out for your own best interests, by all means, grant them your trust. Otherwise, you have to make a choice. Are you going to take control of your life, or leave that up to the whims of others?
Parts of this planet we live on don't even have access to a broadband Internet connection, and now they want to plug Mars on the network? Talk about priorities... Last I checked, NASA isn't tasked with providing broadband access to the world. On the other hand, it *is* their job to communicate with craft throughout the solar system.
Talking about priorities, it looks like NASA's got theirs right (at least, WRT IPN vs global broadband).
If you want to complain to someone, try your local government, you local global volunteer organization, or your local multinational communications corporation. Complaining to NASA would be like complaining to AT&T because your local diary injects cows with bovine growth hormone.
I don't think the fellow was jailed with "impunity". He disregarded a subpoena from a court. Be a good citizen. Show up to court when called. It's no different than standard etiquette and social grace. If you're invited to a large party of important people, even if you disagree with them, at least show up and have a few hors d'oevres. A MAN IS IN JAIL. You do not go to jail merely for having poor "etiquette and social grace".
When determining whether the judicial system is doing the right thing, a good guideline is to make sure it doesn't endanger the veracity of the phrase, "this is *not* Soviet Russia."
You've got this all mixed up. TSAG was saying that courts aren't supposed to search for crimes.
In other words, the courts aren't meant to go, "I have no idea if there's a crime here or not, let's look at the evidence and see." They are meant to resolve the issue, "I believe the very specific crime X was committed. Here's my evidence."
A grand jury, part of the court system, exists solely to gather evidence and determine if it was likely that a crime was committed. THE EXACT OPPOSITE IS TRUE. Grand juries are not tools for finding evidence (not to say they aren't used that way), but for determining whether there is sufficient evidence to go forward with a full trial. Did you even *READ THE LINK YOU POSTED*? It listed the activity you are defending as a criticism of the grand jury, and that the purpose of the grand jury is precisely the *OPPOSITE* of what you posted.
Some people teach their children about things called CONSEQUENCES to their actions, and that is a Good Thing(tm). And advertisers do their best to undermine your teaching.
What kind of parent are you that you'd think it's perfectly fine for you to have your best parenting efforts being actively countered by monied interests who have absolutely no concern whatsoever for the welfare of your children? Parenting is hard enough as it is *without* having to worry about addictive substances with no redeeming value, and, in fact, unwanted negative effects, being shoved in their faces?
Would you be fine with a crack[*] dealer setting up shop in a school? After all, you've taught your children "about things called CONSEQUENCES to their actions"!
[*] Yes, I know crack is far more dangerous than soda, but the choice isn't between crack or soda (obviously I'd choose soda), but about allowing irresponsible influences to be directed at our nation's children or not, which I chose "not". You?
Why would a company create something to enforce students to watch ads and not learn.... Money. Duh.
Even if Corporation A takes the high road and chooses not to exploit children, it's only a matter of time before Corporation B does, becomes more competitive, and forces Corp. A into a position where they must also consider exploiting children.
Capitalism has its upsides, this is one of its downsides.
Yea, that makes perfect sense when most children these days don't have the funds to buy at pizza if they wanted to. "Daddy! I want to go to McDonalds!"
"Mommy, I *need* Pokemon now!!!"
(10 years later)
"I don't know why, but I *really* want to try Camel cigarettes."
If you don't think advertisers target children, you obviously never watched cartoons as a child.
So Microsoft could choose to go a more flexible route with DRM. That might change the market. But I think we all know that's not going to happen. When I buy a song from iTunes, I know *exactly* the rights and restrictions applied. Everything in my iTunes library has exactly one of two restrictions: the FairPlay DRM set and none.
With Windows Media Player, I have no fracking clue. Will this track self-destruct in 3 plays? Will this track play indefinitely? Can that track only be used while my subscription is active? Can this one be burnt to a CD?
MS's approach to DRM is the same as their approach to Windows PC technology and is the exact reason their ecosystem, while vast in scope, is also vastly inferior. It's precisely this issue that has led MS to go with the more vertical approach with the Xbox and Zune. It's interesting to note that these two markets where MS is the underdog, where they must woo the consumer with a superior experience if they are to have any hope of success, they take the more controlled, limited approach (the type of approach, in fact, that they deride Apple for taking with their PC hardware and their iPod).
Retards. Hmm... You put forth a compelling argument.
They don't seem to grasp the concent of "if you want something you have to pay for it". Without funding, it wouldn't exist in the first place. I didn't have to pay anything[*] for Linux. It was given to me free of charge. Therefore you are wrong. You should have just stopped at "retards", that was the height of your post.
[*] To preempt the TANSTAAFL crowd, I paid no money at all for Linux. The bandwidth and disc space expended have absolutely nothing to do with the IP involved, nor with funding the product's creation, which is what this AC was on about.
The concept of the EULA has been tested and upheld now in numerous lawsuits in numerous states. I call "bullshit". In fact, I call "super-bullshit" since the exact opposite is the case.
"Most courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found them to be invalid... A minority of courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable"
It hasn't been tested in courts but I think it's reasonable to expect that the EULAS carefully prepared by an army of lawyers would stand up in court without problems. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume this. None.
Consider the "Not Responsible For Lost or Stolen Items" signs at your mall's parking lot. Do you think that's the case? Do you truly believe that it's thus impossible to sue and win for a situation where they *are* responsible? They put those signs up because if it keeps even *one* person from suing for what is rightfully theirs, the signs have more than paid for themselves.
Same with EULAs.
EULAs may be iron-clad, or they may be absolutely meaningless (although I bet, as is usually the case, reality lies somewhere in between). Either way, the lawyers are going to write them to ask for the most they can make sound even remotely reasonable, while denying every possible manner of liability or responsibility fathomable. The purpose is similar to the sign in the parking lot. You're not going to get something you don't ask for, so why not ask for the Moon? The worst you'll get is nothing, and who knows, you might just get what you ask for. Even a compromise turns out to be a win.
And what if EULAs turn out to have been a sham this whole time? Guess what: they've worked spectacularly. Countless people and corporations have been obeying them faithfully, even if it turns out they never had to.
How much did it cost for the lawyers, who were already writing an EULA anyway, to add a line prohibiting use in a VM? How many people will now buy a more expensive version of Vista to comply (especially in corporate environments)?
Probably because it would seem weird for all *Pixar* employees to have "@mac.com" email addresses..Mac is really an excellent service for the home user. For the enterprise, not so much (nor is it intended to be).
Pixar and Disney going with Google Apps would have significant implications (all good, I think) for.Mac.
RTFM is only inappropriate when directed at someone who is making a legitimate effort. If a n00b, who is curious about Linux but is not making a "legitimate effort", hears "RTFM" (or "RTFA", in this case), and is put off Linux, possibly forever, is that appropriate?
The thing that made your answer so shitty and arrogant was, while it was clear you were *trying* to be helpful, you wrote a very long, "RTFA", which did not answer the question at all, and even worse, was much longer than an actual, helpful, answer would have been.
Reading your post it sounds as if there is never a situation where it is appropriate to refer someone to the manual at all. Where did you get that idea? I never said anything of the sort.
You've really got to consider how your help is going to be received (if your goal is actually to help, which it's clear it was). If someone asks a question, and you answer with a smart-ass riddle, most of the time all you're doing is annoying the person, and not helping at all. RTFM is a lot like answering with a riddle (although much more straightforward). If their question is really complex, sometimes RTFM is the shorter, easier answer. If they show keen interest, sometimes RTFM is the most helpful answer (pointing them where they can learn much more than just the answer to their single question). And sometimes RTFM teaches people to be self-sufficient.
On the other hand, sometimes RTFM sounds too much like, "I could tell you, but I won't. You're on your own, n00b." Why expect the casual observer to respond well to that?
That doesn't really apply here. He doesn't sound like a n00b to me. Maybe, maybe not (are you certain? doubtful). But either way, there *are* going to be n00bs reading the question, followed by your (essentially) RTFA answer.
Granted, you did put in effort to avoid sounding like you're just saying RTFA, but in the end, that's exactly what you said. Your post would definitely be helpful for the avid reader who really just needed that little push, but I agree with iluvcapra, your answer will really be off-putting for the potential Linux n00b. All your (commendable) efforts to mitigate that issue don't change that simple dynamic.
Uh this is old news buddy. Been there, done that, deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan (at least the robots with guns part). Which is to say, it *hasn't* been done.
The cool/new thing about this is using a wiimote. Which the whole point. Kudos for managing to completely miss it, while being able, somehow, to also point it out.
And when did:1. Avoiding negative publicity (especially about security and software quality}become a bad thing. If your system isn't secure and stable how happy is the end user going to be. And when did "avoiding negative publicity (especially about security and software quality)" equate *actually* addressing the issues with security and software quality?
large enterprise customers are end-users if you define end-user as the one who writes the check for the software. Users are the people who *use* the software. Enterprises are not users (although they do contain users). Enterprises are customers. Customers are the ones who write the checks.
This means that, for the most part, the end-users in the enterprise are generally *not* the customers, which leads directly to the issue raised in the article. Namely, that MS is focusing on their (corporate) customers, and all but completely ignoring their users.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm fully aware that the 1-click patent is good business sense. I do not dispute that in any way whatsoever. And yes, Captain Obvious, I *am* moralizing. Any other astute observations you care to impress us with?
The fact that it's a smart business move does not mean I should applaud it. It does not mean I should find it to be moral. It does not mean I should hold it as a positive value.
In fact, as you may have guessed, my reaction is exactly the opposite.
Business is only one aspect of humanity. To value it above all other values *is* something only a sociopath can do. If you re-read my post, you'll realize that that's all I really said. It's a form of madness which very few who espouse it actually practice. Do *you* only do things which make good business sense? Is it good business sense for you to post on Slashdot? Of course not. But you do it.
The whole point of making smart business moves is to give you the freedom to make horrible business moves. That trip to Burma, horrible business move. That summer home, bad business move. The kids' college tuition, abysmal business move (for you, excellent for the kids). That iPod, that trip to Vegas, those Criterion Collection DVDs... you get the idea.
So no, of course I don't hold the patent system in high esteem. Nor do I those who abuse it (like Bezos, although there are far, far worse offenders). On the whole, I really don't dislike Amazon at all. I think, all told, they're a pretty good company, and Bezos I don't know personally (of course), but I'm willing to grant that he's probably an OK guy. But for me to applaud them for an action that makes the world a worse place? Do you think I'm mad?
Spoken like a true sociopath.
While it's true that the lawmakers should fix this problem (don't hold your breath), it truly takes a special kind of madness to give props to Bezos for patenting (and enforcing) such trivial patents. Doubly so if the patents turn out to have been invalid to begin with!
But that's not really the question, nor should it be. The question is how do they sound? In many situations, 128kb AAC is indistinguishable from CD. Unfortunately, in many cases it is not. Even when one can tell the difference, the difference isn't significant enough for most people to really care. But you clearly do. Nothing wrong with that.
256kb AAC, on the other hand, is virtually identical to CD. By "virtually", I mean, I highly doubt that even with high end equipment, one can significantly identify the CD audio from the AAC audio. Give it a shot yourself. Rip a CD into both Apple Lossless and 256k VBR AAC. Turn off the equalizer, Sound Enhancer and Sound Check, make sure the tracks look identical in iTunes (don't show the bitrate, file size, file type, import date, play count, etc. columns in iTunes) then randomize them in pairs in a playlist and see if you can tell the difference.
Buy what you want, but I think your audio quality protestation is based more on expectation and prejudgement than on actual auditory perception.
At 256kb AAC, with embedded album art and quite often a liner-notes PDF, I really don't see why anyone would actually *want* a physical CD. Nostalgia aside, I don't miss the CD any more than I miss those huge cardboard boxes CDs used to come in, or for that matter, the tape or the record.
Clearly you have your reasons, but for me, the CD is a dead format, and has been for quite some time.
If you read the article, it doesn't say that the Beatles' music is excluded from the DRM-free deal, but that they are excluded from being sold online whatsoever. It doesn't state anything at all regarding whether the catalog will be available DRM-free once their music is finally available online.
Vista Home Basic is $199. Tiger is $129. Vista Ultimate is $399. Tiger is $129. Gaming on the Mac is in a slightly worse state, for commercial titles, than gaming on Linux from what i've seen. Absolutely false. There's a far greater number of games ported from Windows to OS X than to Linux. There are far more Mac-only commercial games than there are Linux-only commercial games. Then, of course, there's always Boot Camp (which *is* one aspect of "gaming on the Mac", less so as WINE and related projects mature on OS X).
Additionally, OS X can play, essentially, all open source Linux games. At least if you're pirating vista or installing Linux you don't need to switch to another provider's hardware. Although your implication is factually incorrect (if you want to include "piracy", you can pirate OS X and run it on a standard PC), your point is taken, and is the only one that's really all that accurate. Apple makes some really great hardware, and is priced very competitively compared with similar PC offerings. If that's a deal-breaker for you, then so be it. But for increasingly many people, this is being shown to not be much of a problem.
Don't rock the boat, Mr. Anderson. The Matrix values the contribution of each and every one of its many batteries...
Or better yet, how about I give you the finger, and take charge of my destiny as best I can.
You only live once. If your boss has shown he/she can be relied upon to look out for your own best interests, by all means, grant them your trust. Otherwise, you have to make a choice. Are you going to take control of your life, or leave that up to the whims of others?
Talking about priorities, it looks like NASA's got theirs right (at least, WRT IPN vs global broadband).
If you want to complain to someone, try your local government, you local global volunteer organization, or your local multinational communications corporation. Complaining to NASA would be like complaining to AT&T because your local diary injects cows with bovine growth hormone.
I'm pretty sure Longhorn Server will stress just about everyone who comes into contact with it.
When determining whether the judicial system is doing the right thing, a good guideline is to make sure it doesn't endanger the veracity of the phrase, "this is *not* Soviet Russia."
In other words, the courts aren't meant to go, "I have no idea if there's a crime here or not, let's look at the evidence and see." They are meant to resolve the issue, "I believe the very specific crime X was committed. Here's my evidence." A grand jury, part of the court system, exists solely to gather evidence and determine if it was likely that a crime was committed. THE EXACT OPPOSITE IS TRUE. Grand juries are not tools for finding evidence (not to say they aren't used that way), but for determining whether there is sufficient evidence to go forward with a full trial. Did you even *READ THE LINK YOU POSTED*? It listed the activity you are defending as a criticism of the grand jury, and that the purpose of the grand jury is precisely the *OPPOSITE* of what you posted.
What kind of parent are you that you'd think it's perfectly fine for you to have your best parenting efforts being actively countered by monied interests who have absolutely no concern whatsoever for the welfare of your children? Parenting is hard enough as it is *without* having to worry about addictive substances with no redeeming value, and, in fact, unwanted negative effects, being shoved in their faces?
Would you be fine with a crack[*] dealer setting up shop in a school? After all, you've taught your children "about things called CONSEQUENCES to their actions"!
[*] Yes, I know crack is far more dangerous than soda, but the choice isn't between crack or soda (obviously I'd choose soda), but about allowing irresponsible influences to be directed at our nation's children or not, which I chose "not". You?
Even if Corporation A takes the high road and chooses not to exploit children, it's only a matter of time before Corporation B does, becomes more competitive, and forces Corp. A into a position where they must also consider exploiting children.
Capitalism has its upsides, this is one of its downsides. Yea, that makes perfect sense when most children these days don't have the funds to buy at pizza if they wanted to. "Daddy! I want to go to McDonalds!"
"Mommy, I *need* Pokemon now!!!"
(10 years later)
"I don't know why, but I *really* want to try Camel cigarettes."
If you don't think advertisers target children, you obviously never watched cartoons as a child.
With Windows Media Player, I have no fracking clue. Will this track self-destruct in 3 plays? Will this track play indefinitely? Can that track only be used while my subscription is active? Can this one be burnt to a CD?
MS's approach to DRM is the same as their approach to Windows PC technology and is the exact reason their ecosystem, while vast in scope, is also vastly inferior. It's precisely this issue that has led MS to go with the more vertical approach with the Xbox and Zune. It's interesting to note that these two markets where MS is the underdog, where they must woo the consumer with a superior experience if they are to have any hope of success, they take the more controlled, limited approach (the type of approach, in fact, that they deride Apple for taking with their PC hardware and their iPod).
[*] To preempt the TANSTAAFL crowd, I paid no money at all for Linux. The bandwidth and disc space expended have absolutely nothing to do with the IP involved, nor with funding the product's creation, which is what this AC was on about.
"Most courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found them to be invalid
Taken from: wikipedia.
Consider the "Not Responsible For Lost or Stolen Items" signs at your mall's parking lot. Do you think that's the case? Do you truly believe that it's thus impossible to sue and win for a situation where they *are* responsible? They put those signs up because if it keeps even *one* person from suing for what is rightfully theirs, the signs have more than paid for themselves.
Same with EULAs.
EULAs may be iron-clad, or they may be absolutely meaningless (although I bet, as is usually the case, reality lies somewhere in between). Either way, the lawyers are going to write them to ask for the most they can make sound even remotely reasonable, while denying every possible manner of liability or responsibility fathomable. The purpose is similar to the sign in the parking lot. You're not going to get something you don't ask for, so why not ask for the Moon? The worst you'll get is nothing, and who knows, you might just get what you ask for. Even a compromise turns out to be a win.
And what if EULAs turn out to have been a sham this whole time? Guess what: they've worked spectacularly. Countless people and corporations have been obeying them faithfully, even if it turns out they never had to.
How much did it cost for the lawyers, who were already writing an EULA anyway, to add a line prohibiting use in a VM? How many people will now buy a more expensive version of Vista to comply (especially in corporate environments)?
Probably because it would seem weird for all *Pixar* employees to have "@mac.com" email addresses. .Mac is really an excellent service for the home user. For the enterprise, not so much (nor is it intended to be).
.Mac.
Pixar and Disney going with Google Apps would have significant implications (all good, I think) for
The thing that made your answer so shitty and arrogant was, while it was clear you were *trying* to be helpful, you wrote a very long, "RTFA", which did not answer the question at all, and even worse, was much longer than an actual, helpful, answer would have been. Reading your post it sounds as if there is never a situation where it is appropriate to refer someone to the manual at all. Where did you get that idea? I never said anything of the sort.
You've really got to consider how your help is going to be received (if your goal is actually to help, which it's clear it was). If someone asks a question, and you answer with a smart-ass riddle, most of the time all you're doing is annoying the person, and not helping at all. RTFM is a lot like answering with a riddle (although much more straightforward). If their question is really complex, sometimes RTFM is the shorter, easier answer. If they show keen interest, sometimes RTFM is the most helpful answer (pointing them where they can learn much more than just the answer to their single question). And sometimes RTFM teaches people to be self-sufficient.
On the other hand, sometimes RTFM sounds too much like, "I could tell you, but I won't. You're on your own, n00b." Why expect the casual observer to respond well to that?
Granted, you did put in effort to avoid sounding like you're just saying RTFA, but in the end, that's exactly what you said. Your post would definitely be helpful for the avid reader who really just needed that little push, but I agree with iluvcapra, your answer will really be off-putting for the potential Linux n00b. All your (commendable) efforts to mitigate that issue don't change that simple dynamic.
This means that, for the most part, the end-users in the enterprise are generally *not* the customers, which leads directly to the issue raised in the article. Namely, that MS is focusing on their (corporate) customers, and all but completely ignoring their users.
Yikes! That's over 1/2 million PT Barnums born per year!
I'd have thought the number would be much smaller...