Here's what it is. The desktop icon for IE's right click brings up IE properties, not, IE the process properties. But, if I do the icon for IE's shortcut on the taskbar, then yeah, I can run as another user. Not too shabby MS.
Ya know, I had in my head that this guy was some sort of a punk just looking for attention or money. Having read his blog about the case, I must admit that I am thoroughly impressed with this man and his principaled stand. I was blown away by the calm but strong tone of his wrap up, and his desire to put his family first, in the end. For this right winger, this man is everything that there is to be admired about the left wing, and the United States is better off for his citizen ship.
Funniest and least factual thing I've read all morning. Thanks for that. Actually, capitalism is kindest of all to monopolies. History has repeatedly and universally shown that unregulated markets quickly evolve to monopolies. End of story.
Ah, no. Look at the stocks of all monopolies outside of MS. Utilitiy stocks, for example, pay a decent dividend but aren't really where you want to put money, if you want growth. People that invest in those kinds of stocks are looking for something to mix with bonds for a more guaranteed rate of return, rather than growth. There's a place for that, but, if you want to invest a $1000, and get a $1,000,000 back, you don't want to invest in MS today, but twenty years ago, you would. Now, you want to take that $1000 and invest in someone making a viable competitor to MS. I guarantee that a company with a successful product, with significant growth against MS, would attract a lot of new capital, and tend to pull capital away from MS. Just look at what happened to all the "unnatural" monopolies - like IBM, GM, US Steel, AT&T and so forth. Only IBM is really healthy, while GM is so so, and US Steel and AT&T have huge problems. They got huge, made everyone a ton of money, then investors took their money and put them into new companies.
Now, Microsoft has Windows and IE asking so many security messages, that the users automatically say yes, once again, reducing all of their efforts to ashes. And you still can't run IE under a separate user account.
The one thing about capitalism is that it is actually not very kind to monopolies. Investors value growth, above all else, and want to put their capital where growth of the business is most. MS can get some rate of return on existing Windows licensing, but, that's not nearly the same as doubling the size of your business from new customers every year or so, and Wall Street knows it. This influences development decisions at companies - there's no point in investing in something, if its not going to move the price of the shares. At this point, Windows is a good business, but all Microsoft can really do in the OS point is stay put or lose.
The common thread that we keep coming back to is that to really do spaceflight, you must have some form of nuclear power. The laws of physics are profoundly strong on this point. Space is too far and gravity is too strong for chemical rockets to really be successful.
The ideal solution is to find a source of uranium in space, beyond Earth's gravity well, such that, we can mine the uranium in space, and fuel nuclear powered spacecraft from perhaps the moon. I don't see that happening any time soon, as, it is my understanding that its is practically a fluke that a relatively small body like Earth should wind up with such a heavy ore at all. The gods were kind to us during our solar system formation, and it feels unlikely that any asteroid should have a significant uranium deposit.
That leaves us to launching live reactors into space from Earth. Unfortunately, despite safety precautions, the environmental movement makes the development of nuclear powered spacecraft a political impossibility. We can't even build a reactor on land without a mountain of red tape and lawsuits from the greens, even when we know that building such reactors are necessary to combat global warming. Putting a nuclear reactor into something that flies is unthinkable to them, and they would surely think that putting a nuclear reactor into a rocket is downright crazy. Even RTGs, relatively benign, are met with protest. Were it up them, there would be no pictures of Saturn at all from Cassini.
In this one area, the left wing claim to scientific curiosity falls flat on its face. The science is not worth the risk. I think the key to be able to do this, really, is going to be to engage the right wing instead and paint such research as a matter of national security. The right wing, despite its proclaimed conservatism, has a penchant for throwing caution into the wind when it suits it. Heck, they'd blow off global warming just to be able to keep driving trucks. Put a nuclear reactor on a spacecraft to get to Mars in a few weeks, sure, why not? For them, though, the issue is going to be why. Doing it just for the science isn't going to cut it. However, the right does have a penchant for engaging in enormous projects for ideological goals - witness the cold war with Russia, the current war on terror and the invasion of Iraq. None of THOSE projects were cheap or short term, and honestly, only the right wing has the zeal needed to overcome failure after failure as would occur in a really long term space colonization project. Even if you disagree with it, religion is an enormously powerful motivator.
Thus, you'll never get many righties to buy into space for the science, or the future profits, because both don't really do much. But if you could sell them space as a religious duty, then by God, they will say screw the left, throw a hundred billion dollars a year into building nuclear rockets that this country needs, all to create christian colonies on planets and take resources from asteroids. If anything, one could always further argue that with the Russians claiming the North Pole, then, the USA has to claim (something), and it may as well be Mars and the asteroid belt. Asking them to void the UN Treaty on claiming stuff on space would elicit an automatic yes - as the right is already predisposed against the UN.
Surely such a project would be better for the world than the war on terror.
The point is this, and this goes for both left and right. We are entering a time of great consequence for the United States, if not the world, and, it is time for us to stop seeing each other as enemies simply because we have different ideologies. We can make our differences work for us, so long as we express what we want for ourselves as individuals, not as collective party members, and from there identify those strengths we have in each other.
In my case, I selfishly want to see the USA building a fleet of nuclear, manned, rockets, mining asteroids, and colonizing other planets. And, if I have to read the
As, we really don't have, to my knowledge, a clear idea of what fair use of software is. Software's not like a book. You can't even use the word "copy" in the traditional sense. When it comes down to brass tacks, you -must- copy software to even inspect it, let alone use it, - across multiple machines, from disk, to RAM and then inside the CPU, through varying layers of cache.
Bottom line is, all of this "free" software was provided by the likes of Bell Labs, which in turn was funded on the backs of every citizen in the USA. In effect, you raised the phone of bills of everyone in the USA to get the first C compiler and Unix, so grandma that had no desire to ever have anything more than phone, wound up footing the bill for the development of an operating system. Notice that as soon as AT&T got real competition, the lavish funding for Bell Labs came to a close, so, if anything, the creation of the likes of Unix was actually a theft in its own right, and rightfully, there ought not to be a thing called the GPL, because everything that is in the GPL, rightfully belongs in the public domain!
Most of the techniques used in modern programming like multitasking, compiling, unix and so on came from Universities
Everything that is Unix ultimately came out of Bell Labs. Bell Labs gave us C and Unix and I think even sh. Before that, much multitasking and research in software development was lead by IBM, as, they were the reigning hardware company and had monopoly power. So really, all of the innovation which you describe came about because the big companies could afford to fund these lavish research facilities because they were gigantic monopolies and had genuinely anti-competitive business practices.
Sure, MIT puked up emacs, and MIT honestly, along with many American universities, are uniquely situationed in that they are essentially subsidized by BOTH corporate America and the federal government. They get paid by the government to do research, on the taxpayer dime, and THEN get to keep the work product, in the form of patents, and THEN SELL that. All the while, they complain about how broke they are, crank up tuition, and then get the Feds to step even with EVEN MORE money for student loans, grants, and what not.
The amazing thing is, universities don't really pay anyone crap that works for them... most tenured professors have a good life, but are by no means rich, and I've yet to see a Postdoc with a decent place to live, let alone car. So you have to ask the question, where does all that money go? Hmmm.... and suddenly, we find, endowments...
If you or I had done exactly that we'd be in jail right now
Yeah, that's true. Maybe the gov't should indict Sony USA then, and just shut that down. I used to work for RCA way back in the day, so watching Sony get destroyed wouldn't be all that bad.
I didn't say it was good. I said that it was legal. But, under the DMCA, you are allowed to bundle copy protection with your works and it is against the law to try and defeat that protection. So, even though what Sony did sucks, in the worst case, its a misrepresentation and a commercial thing, not necessarily a criminal one.
Here's the silly thing. Everyone looking all of these nickel and dime privacy issues always forgets that the Dept. of Treasury has everything. I knew a guy whose son worked at the IRS, and he would never fail to pull his Dad's VISA transactions and comment on where he was at in the store. So, the IRS knows everything you've bought, how much you make, how much you are worth, AND, the Dept. of Treasury also knows if you have any dangerous things, due to gun checks, etc.
If that were not bad enough, every major corporation has similar information, if they want it. Those little convenience cards at supermarkets, for example, allow the likes of Joe's Market to sell the knowledge that middle age men who buy a certain kind of beef on fridays also prefer a particular magazine.
The privacy thing is so out of hand, one has to wonder if we would wind up being an overall better society if we just made all this information public. That way, no one could have a monopoly.
I don't think so. You opened the CD, you accepted the license. If you don't want the CD, then don't engage in the contract with Sony. I don't. Neither do most people. Hell, I've discovered that really, I don't even need to buy much music at all.
This is the guy that went on the airwaves with a "memo" supposedly typed in the 1970's, with proportional fonts and different-font sized superscripts! I would not trust someone like that to tell me it's raining.
It wasn't just the fonts. It was that, you could type the document into Word, and it overlayed the Rathergate document exactly.
is no default user. It might come as a surprise, but people are not the same
People are the mostly same. Usability studies prove that. You take a 100 people, and tell them to do a particular task on the computer, then, 90 of them will flounder at the same set of problems. Go fix your U/I, then, onto step b.
Putting in a bunch of widgets to edit things randomly, like KDE does, just shows that the developers didn't really think holistically about how the computer would be used. They just punted, and left you to waste your time thinking about how you want to use the computer, rather than just using it.
Industrial design is a discipline, like any other.
The FBI goes after anyone who breaks laws. If MediaDefender broke the law, then, yeah, they should be prosecuted.
The question is, what law did they break? It's not illegal to post fake versions of Universal's music when Universal gives you the legal rights to do exactly that. The only thing would be, if they did do denial of service attacks. However, if the target site is outside of American jurisdiction, it is not entirely clear that this is a crime.
I guess the question is, really, how long does a function call take to execute? It takes -some- time, but I would imagine that an OpenGL wrap around Direct could actually be pretty quick, and should be, if it all it did was wrap equivalent function calls.
But I think you have to bounce that one down to the construction teams... Obviously, a superior engineer would not design a superstructure that would failed, unless, of course, using the shoddy science provided to him or her by the Phd.... obviously, there would never be a misapplication!
an "enviro" and could quite give a shit less in general about how you live your life, but yes, I will care what you do if it involves dumping dioxin into my local river.
It's not your river. It's mine.
signed, Jacks Nuclear Dumping.
PS. If we catch you on our river, we will shoot your for trespassing!
Ya know, you guys just write these papers that are all wrong and riddled with errors. Lucky for civilization, there are plenty of engineers that turn this slop into useful products for truth, justice, and the American way!:-)
And they were added because the States were worried that the Constitution without such amendments would create too strong of a central government
Yes, and the concern Madison had, which proved to be correct, was that the Bill of Rights would be confused and obfuscated into an enumeration of what our rights are. Correctly read, the Constitution ALREADY had the Bill of Rights implicitly in it, becuase the government could only make laws about commerce, raise an army (but only temporarily so), and so on. Even without the bill of rights, the federal government has NO right to regulate guns, NO right to regulate marriage, NO right to regulate even the environment, education, abortion, and so forth. And it certainly has no right to search and seize, regulate speech, quarter troops, and so forth, because those powers were not given to the Congress.
It is a libertarian document.
To that extent then, the strict constructionalists and the living document people are both selling a lie. The Constitution is a STRICT document, but the government is strictly only allowed to do a limited set of things, BUT, by the same token, because the government is limited to only certain things, it is also a LIVING document, because, as society advances, we automatically HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS.
I shouldn't, I know, enjoy the idea of a company going completely down in flames... but SCO has such a special place in my heart, that I simply cannot help.
And to be clear, what I perceive as our rights are well outlined in the Bill of Rights. And I don't think bag searches at airports violate the Fourth Amendment and neither does the Supreme Court.
The Bill of Rights is NOT an exclusive enumeration of what our civil rights are. That is the great wrong which you have been taught. Read Madison / Jefferson letters. Both were opposed to the BOR because they thought the Constitution made it clearly unnecessary. The Constitution is a document which says that the government is only allowed to do certain things, and therefor, we can do all the rest.
And I don't think bag searches at airports violate the Fourth Amendment and neither does the Supreme Court.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's what it is. The desktop icon for IE's right click brings up IE properties, not, IE the process properties. But, if I do the icon for IE's shortcut on the taskbar, then yeah, I can run as another user. Not too shabby MS.
Ya know, I had in my head that this guy was some sort of a punk just looking for attention or money. Having read his blog about the case, I must admit that I am thoroughly impressed with this man and his principaled stand. I was blown away by the calm but strong tone of his wrap up, and his desire to put his family first, in the end. For this right winger, this man is everything that there is to be admired about the left wing, and the United States is better off for his citizen ship.
Funniest and least factual thing I've read all morning. Thanks for that. Actually, capitalism is kindest of all to monopolies. History has repeatedly and universally shown that unregulated markets quickly evolve to monopolies. End of story.
Ah, no. Look at the stocks of all monopolies outside of MS. Utilitiy stocks, for example, pay a decent dividend but aren't really where you want to put money, if you want growth. People that invest in those kinds of stocks are looking for something to mix with bonds for a more guaranteed rate of return, rather than growth. There's a place for that, but, if you want to invest a $1000, and get a $1,000,000 back, you don't want to invest in MS today, but twenty years ago, you would. Now, you want to take that $1000 and invest in someone making a viable competitor to MS. I guarantee that a company with a successful product, with significant growth against MS, would attract a lot of new capital, and tend to pull capital away from MS. Just look at what happened to all the "unnatural" monopolies - like IBM, GM, US Steel, AT&T and so forth. Only IBM is really healthy, while GM is so so, and US Steel and AT&T have huge problems. They got huge, made everyone a ton of money, then investors took their money and put them into new companies.
Now, Microsoft has Windows and IE asking so many security messages, that the users automatically say yes, once again, reducing all of their efforts to ashes. And you still can't run IE under a separate user account.
The one thing about capitalism is that it is actually not very kind to monopolies. Investors value growth, above all else, and want to put their capital where growth of the business is most. MS can get some rate of return on existing Windows licensing, but, that's not nearly the same as doubling the size of your business from new customers every year or so, and Wall Street knows it. This influences development decisions at companies - there's no point in investing in something, if its not going to move the price of the shares. At this point, Windows is a good business, but all Microsoft can really do in the OS point is stay put or lose.
The common thread that we keep coming back to is that to really do spaceflight, you must have some form of nuclear power. The laws of physics are profoundly strong on this point. Space is too far and gravity is too strong for chemical rockets to really be successful.
The ideal solution is to find a source of uranium in space, beyond Earth's gravity well, such that, we can mine the uranium in space, and fuel nuclear powered spacecraft from perhaps the moon. I don't see that happening any time soon, as, it is my understanding that its is practically a fluke that a relatively small body like Earth should wind up with such a heavy ore at all. The gods were kind to us during our solar system formation, and it feels unlikely that any asteroid should have a significant uranium deposit.
That leaves us to launching live reactors into space from Earth. Unfortunately, despite safety precautions, the environmental movement makes the development of nuclear powered spacecraft a political impossibility. We can't even build a reactor on land without a mountain of red tape and lawsuits from the greens, even when we know that building such reactors are necessary to combat global warming. Putting a nuclear reactor into something that flies is unthinkable to them, and they would surely think that putting a nuclear reactor into a rocket is downright crazy. Even RTGs, relatively benign, are met with protest. Were it up them, there would be no pictures of Saturn at all from Cassini.
In this one area, the left wing claim to scientific curiosity falls flat on its face. The science is not worth the risk. I think the key to be able to do this, really, is going to be to engage the right wing instead and paint such research as a matter of national security. The right wing, despite its proclaimed conservatism, has a penchant for throwing caution into the wind when it suits it. Heck, they'd blow off global warming just to be able to keep driving trucks. Put a nuclear reactor on a spacecraft to get to Mars in a few weeks, sure, why not? For them, though, the issue is going to be why. Doing it just for the science isn't going to cut it. However, the right does have a penchant for engaging in enormous projects for ideological goals - witness the cold war with Russia, the current war on terror and the invasion of Iraq. None of THOSE projects were cheap or short term, and honestly, only the right wing has the zeal needed to overcome failure after failure as would occur in a really long term space colonization project. Even if you disagree with it, religion is an enormously powerful motivator.
Thus, you'll never get many righties to buy into space for the science, or the future profits, because both don't really do much. But if you could sell them space as a religious duty, then by God, they will say screw the left, throw a hundred billion dollars a year into building nuclear rockets that this country needs, all to create christian colonies on planets and take resources from asteroids. If anything, one could always further argue that with the Russians claiming the North Pole, then, the USA has to claim (something), and it may as well be Mars and the asteroid belt. Asking them to void the UN Treaty on claiming stuff on space would elicit an automatic yes - as the right is already predisposed against the UN.
Surely such a project would be better for the world than the war on terror.
The point is this, and this goes for both left and right. We are entering a time of great consequence for the United States, if not the world, and, it is time for us to stop seeing each other as enemies simply because we have different ideologies. We can make our differences work for us, so long as we express what we want for ourselves as individuals, not as collective party members, and from there identify those strengths we have in each other.
In my case, I selfishly want to see the USA building a fleet of nuclear, manned, rockets, mining asteroids, and colonizing other planets. And, if I have to read the
As, we really don't have, to my knowledge, a clear idea of what fair use of software is. Software's not like a book. You can't even use the word "copy" in the traditional sense. When it comes down to brass tacks, you -must- copy software to even inspect it, let alone use it, - across multiple machines, from disk, to RAM and then inside the CPU, through varying layers of cache.
Bottom line is, all of this "free" software was provided by the likes of Bell Labs, which in turn was funded on the backs of every citizen in the USA. In effect, you raised the phone of bills of everyone in the USA to get the first C compiler and Unix, so grandma that had no desire to ever have anything more than phone, wound up footing the bill for the development of an operating system. Notice that as soon as AT&T got real competition, the lavish funding for Bell Labs came to a close, so, if anything, the creation of the likes of Unix was actually a theft in its own right, and rightfully, there ought not to be a thing called the GPL, because everything that is in the GPL, rightfully belongs in the public domain!
Most of the techniques used in modern programming like multitasking, compiling, unix and so on came from Universities
Everything that is Unix ultimately came out of Bell Labs. Bell Labs gave us C and Unix and I think even sh. Before that, much multitasking and research in software development was lead by IBM, as, they were the reigning hardware company and had monopoly power. So really, all of the innovation which you describe came about because the big companies could afford to fund these lavish research facilities because they were gigantic monopolies and had genuinely anti-competitive business practices.
Sure, MIT puked up emacs, and MIT honestly, along with many American universities, are uniquely situationed in that they are essentially subsidized by BOTH corporate America and the federal government. They get paid by the government to do research, on the taxpayer dime, and THEN get to keep the work product, in the form of patents, and THEN SELL that. All the while, they complain about how broke they are, crank up tuition, and then get the Feds to step even with EVEN MORE money for student loans, grants, and what not.
The amazing thing is, universities don't really pay anyone crap that works for them... most tenured professors have a good life, but are by no means rich, and I've yet to see a Postdoc with a decent place to live, let alone car. So you have to ask the question, where does all that money go? Hmmm.... and suddenly, we find, endowments...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._colleges_and_universities_by_endowment
If you or I had done exactly that we'd be in jail right now
Yeah, that's true. Maybe the gov't should indict Sony USA then, and just shut that down. I used to work for RCA way back in the day, so watching Sony get destroyed wouldn't be all that bad.
You're kidding, right?
I didn't say it was good. I said that it was legal. But, under the DMCA, you are allowed to bundle copy protection with your works and it is against the law to try and defeat that protection. So, even though what Sony did sucks, in the worst case, its a misrepresentation and a commercial thing, not necessarily a criminal one.
Here's the silly thing. Everyone looking all of these nickel and dime privacy issues always forgets that the Dept. of Treasury has everything. I knew a guy whose son worked at the IRS, and he would never fail to pull his Dad's VISA transactions and comment on where he was at in the store. So, the IRS knows everything you've bought, how much you make, how much you are worth, AND, the Dept. of Treasury also knows if you have any dangerous things, due to gun checks, etc.
If that were not bad enough, every major corporation has similar information, if they want it. Those little convenience cards at supermarkets, for example, allow the likes of Joe's Market to sell the knowledge that middle age men who buy a certain kind of beef on fridays also prefer a particular magazine.
The privacy thing is so out of hand, one has to wonder if we would wind up being an overall better society if we just made all this information public. That way, no one could have a monopoly.
I don't think so. You opened the CD, you accepted the license. If you don't want the CD, then don't engage in the contract with Sony. I don't. Neither do most people. Hell, I've discovered that really, I don't even need to buy much music at all.
How old ARE you?
Old enough to know that your silly corporate conspiracy theories, are just that...
This is the guy that went on the airwaves with a "memo" supposedly typed in the 1970's, with proportional fonts and different-font sized superscripts! I would not trust someone like that to tell me it's raining.
It wasn't just the fonts. It was that, you could type the document into Word, and it overlayed the Rathergate document exactly.
is no default user. It might come as a surprise, but people are not the same
People are the mostly same. Usability studies prove that. You take a 100 people, and tell them to do a particular task on the computer, then, 90 of them will flounder at the same set of problems. Go fix your U/I, then, onto step b.
Putting in a bunch of widgets to edit things randomly, like KDE does, just shows that the developers didn't really think holistically about how the computer would be used. They just punted, and left you to waste your time thinking about how you want to use the computer, rather than just using it.
Industrial design is a discipline, like any other.
The FBI goes after anyone who breaks laws. If MediaDefender broke the law, then, yeah, they should be prosecuted.
The question is, what law did they break? It's not illegal to post fake versions of Universal's music when Universal gives you the legal rights to do exactly that. The only thing would be, if they did do denial of service attacks. However, if the target site is outside of American jurisdiction, it is not entirely clear that this is a crime.
I guess the question is, really, how long does a function call take to execute? It takes -some- time, but I would imagine that an OpenGL wrap around Direct could actually be pretty quick, and should be, if it all it did was wrap equivalent function calls.
But I think you have to bounce that one down to the construction teams... Obviously, a superior engineer would not design a superstructure that would failed, unless, of course, using the shoddy science provided to him or her by the Phd.... obviously, there would never be a misapplication!
tongue_in_cheek!
an "enviro" and could quite give a shit less in general about how you live your life, but yes, I will care what you do if it involves dumping dioxin into my local river.
It's not your river. It's mine.
signed, Jacks Nuclear Dumping.
PS. If we catch you on our river, we will shoot your for trespassing!
Ya know, you guys just write these papers that are all wrong and riddled with errors. Lucky for civilization, there are plenty of engineers that turn this slop into useful products for truth, justice, and the American way!
And they were added because the States were worried that the Constitution without such amendments would create too strong of a central government
Yes, and the concern Madison had, which proved to be correct, was that the Bill of Rights would be confused and obfuscated into an enumeration of what our rights are. Correctly read, the Constitution ALREADY had the Bill of Rights implicitly in it, becuase the government could only make laws about commerce, raise an army (but only temporarily so), and so on. Even without the bill of rights, the federal government has NO right to regulate guns, NO right to regulate marriage, NO right to regulate even the environment, education, abortion, and so forth. And it certainly has no right to search and seize, regulate speech, quarter troops, and so forth, because those powers were not given to the Congress.
It is a libertarian document.
To that extent then, the strict constructionalists and the living document people are both selling a lie. The Constitution is a STRICT document, but the government is strictly only allowed to do a limited set of things, BUT, by the same token, because the government is limited to only certain things, it is also a LIVING document, because, as society advances, we automatically HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS.
I shouldn't, I know, enjoy the idea of a company going completely down in flames... but SCO has such a special place in my heart, that I simply cannot help.
Good riddance!
And to be clear, what I perceive as our rights are well outlined in the Bill of Rights. And I don't think bag searches at airports violate the Fourth Amendment and neither does the Supreme Court.
The Bill of Rights is NOT an exclusive enumeration of what our civil rights are. That is the great wrong which you have been taught. Read Madison / Jefferson letters. Both were opposed to the BOR because they thought the Constitution made it clearly unnecessary. The Constitution is a document which says that the government is only allowed to do certain things, and therefor, we can do all the rest.
And I don't think bag searches at airports violate the Fourth Amendment and neither does the Supreme Court.
I really don't care what SCOTUS thinks.
This is a dilemma we've faced as a nation time and time again and we've almost always sided with protecting the minority rights
No we haven't. Usually, we protected the rights of the majority. As you said yourself, we tossed all the Japanese into jail.
And, IMO, that's how it should be.
Only the Sith deal in absolutes. Therefor, the concept of minority rights all the time is innately evil.
Personally, I think that in general our society has an over heightened sense of fear, a sense of fear that is misplaced and not rational
I agree. What I'm saying is, get rid of all airport security, for the most part.
If you are ever in the minority you'll probably agree with that sentiment, too.
Yeah, but I'm NOT in the minority. Again, its a value proposition. At some point, the majority should prevail, because they have rights too!