I hope that your comment was at least partially sarcastic.
Microsoft, no matter what your opinion of them may be, have the complete right to make Internet Explorer the proprietary Web Browser for updating their Software, its their tool, for updating their tools.
I have never been angry at any developer for choosing to use their own software.
Microsoft has never disallowed people from downloading updates individually (or ocasionally in small 'Packages', and obviously SP's) which does not care what Web Browser you may be using, although sometimes it does require ActiveX (for WGA testing).
Are you equally annoyed with Apt-Get? or Ubuntu's update system?
6. Profit!!!
But yeah, it seems like there needs to be a disclaimer under this article, especially the fact that WAN is not a Wireless Annoyance Network.
...
Although you didnt specify by what means this tax would be implimented, the problem with this sort of tax is that the percentage of the internet users who download music (illegaly) is a relatively small percentage, so you would be taxing a lot of people who dont benifit from the tax, would you want to pay for someone to clean your neighbours pool, when your neighbour has never invited you to use it? (well unless it really stinks or something)
If its an obligatory fee, then what if you dont download any songs/albums in a month? you are paying for something you dont use...
You are also supporting artists you may dislike, or even completely disagree with morally/virtuously/religously.
If its tracked, and a per-song fee, then why dont you just do that already with iTunes/Yahoo/Amazon/etc?
Also ISP Extortion, what if your ISP started raising this fee? sure $10 "for the first month, $15 after that" then maybe $30 after 6 months... eventually you'd be paying more than the atrocious price CD's are...
Far too many problems with that concept.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope that your comment was at least partially sarcastic.
Microsoft, no matter what your opinion of them may be, have the complete right to make Internet Explorer the proprietary Web Browser for updating their Software, its their tool, for updating their tools.
I have never been angry at any developer for choosing to use their own software.
Microsoft has never disallowed people from downloading updates individually (or ocasionally in small 'Packages', and obviously SP's) which does not care what Web Browser you may be using, although sometimes it does require ActiveX (for WGA testing).
Are you equally annoyed with Apt-Get? or Ubuntu's update system?
Does that include recycling? And at what purity is this copper being sold at? What if we melt down all the pennies?
6. Profit!!! But yeah, it seems like there needs to be a disclaimer under this article, especially the fact that WAN is not a Wireless Annoyance Network.
No
... Although you didnt specify by what means this tax would be implimented, the problem with this sort of tax is that the percentage of the internet users who download music (illegaly) is a relatively small percentage, so you would be taxing a lot of people who dont benifit from the tax, would you want to pay for someone to clean your neighbours pool, when your neighbour has never invited you to use it? (well unless it really stinks or something) If its an obligatory fee, then what if you dont download any songs/albums in a month? you are paying for something you dont use... You are also supporting artists you may dislike, or even completely disagree with morally/virtuously/religously. If its tracked, and a per-song fee, then why dont you just do that already with iTunes/Yahoo/Amazon/etc? Also ISP Extortion, what if your ISP started raising this fee? sure $10 "for the first month, $15 after that" then maybe $30 after 6 months... eventually you'd be paying more than the atrocious price CD's are... Far too many problems with that concept.