Thanks. Many good posts get modded as flamebait simply because the moderator disagrees. For a 1 point message, it takes only one moderator to vanquish your idea, so low now that other moderators will never look at it. God forbid I should suggest people buy direct from local bands instead of RIAA labels. How shocking of me to flame such an idea! I'm a bad boy!
> I was thinking that if I stopped supporting
> RIAA attatched bands that I respect, that they
>might get a clue, and start some independant
> release scheme, but them realized that that is dumb.
It's that kind of thinking that keeps RIAA and Microsoft in power. It's also what keeps America's political duopoly in power, but that's a separate debate.
Thanks for the flame. If you buy from local bands, why do you give a damn what RIAA does? Why say that RIAA acts like a child? Support musicians and stop whining.
The RIAA acts like a spoiled child? You're like a Windows user crying about Microsoft abuses, except RIAA music isn't critical to your existing investment in business operations (unless you're a DJ). What's your excuse?
Turn the mirror on yourself. Every dollar you spend on their product feeds the monster. Every dollar you spend is casting a vote for the RIAA.
Buy local music direct from musicians, or direct web sales. I haven't purchased RIAA-manipulated music in three years, nor traded it. My library of original, interesting music continues to expand with a clear conscience. I have no stomach for addicts who decry their plight while shooting up.
There is no correlation between size in the real world vs. the virtual world. The New York Times is a gated community. It should be _no_surprise_ that search engines rank the NYT low *and* that its popularity is low. If Google starts ranking NYT links high, it won't be because they are popular or more useful that other news sources, and it will be a great disservice to Google users.
Forget about laws requiring companies to have your consent before that contact you. In the USA, corporations on the national level insert loopholes. For example, if you buy something from a company, or simply ask it a question, suddenly they have your consent to contact you in the future. The govertnment's approach to privacy is opt-out.
Anyone who has bought anything from a web site (or God forbid, simply asked a question by e-mail) knows what I'm talking about. Why would SMS legislation in the USA be any different? Corporate lobbyists want to protect 'legitimate' corporate spam.
Wake up now. At my July 4 family reunion, my mother raised the issue of Windows and IE security flaws she keeps reading about in the newspaper. It turns out she, and I, were the only ones still using IE. My technophobe, technonoob brothers and sisters had already switched to Mozilla and Firefox. These are folks who blindly use Windows and usually need my help to do anything. It was a wake-up call that got me (and with my help) my mother switched to Firefox.
Google News results for those of us rejecting cookies and unable to bypass the Syndney Morning Herald's bogus "Register later and continue to your Article" link.
>I hope they don't honestly think that people
>aren't going to trade them with their friends.
Yeah, I suppose there are crumbbums such as yourself that will try to ruin such wonderful efforts. I have 2 TMBG CDs I bought 10 years ago. I just bought one album online, and will probably buy the other one they're offering. Should I be asked for a copy, I'll gladly refer people to the web site. None of my friends are cheapskates. They can afford $10 for an album purchased directly from the artist.
The world is what you make it. If you want RIAA controling your access to music, by all means, pirate TMBG and screw the rest of us over.
Yes, I take your word for it. You have convinced me my inbox is loaded with virus and worm-induced spam. I don't know how I ever got by without a spam filter. I must go out and buy a spam filter now. Must buy. Musy buy. Brains. Must eat brains.
> spammers can collect the information in all anonymity
You've provided no evidence. Sure, anything is possible, but that's hardly an argument. Show me evidence that spammers are using worms and viruses to harvest addresses from infected users' address books. If they were, by all rights, I should be swamped with spam.
I have a Compaq (HP) latop. The downloaded utility to identify the bad memory and order a replacement tells me I'm not using an HP laptop, so it won't work.
>It is then just a matter of time before you start getting tons of spam too.
I guess time is on my side then. I get plenty of infected e-mails. Probably 200 Beagle variants alone. None have resulted in my address being harvested by spammers. I believe you are mistaken about viruses and worms harvesting addresses. (Got some documentation?) By definition, I should be spammed out by now.
The problem with using virusses and worms to harvest addresses is that "the powers that be" will analyze the infection and identify where the addresses are being sent to. Right off the bat, we have to be talking about an overseas criminal, but even then, those people would be tracked down, or the destination storage area deactivated. The U.S. government is effective in those respects. Giving your virus or worm such an easy track-back mechanism is akin to a masked bank robber giving a bank teller his bank account number to deposit the stolen money.
Oh, I do get virus and worm infected e-mails. However, none of those infections have resulted in true spammers getting ahold of my address.
I don't worry about the infected e-mails because my filter is 100% effective at screening them out. I really don't consider infected e-mails to be spam because the purpose and intent is entirely different than spam-for-profit.
#1 Few spammers monitor mailing lists, simply because there are more efficient methods of collecting addresses.
#2 Listserv moderation has nothing to being protected from spammers.
#3 The issue is whether a mailing list is archived on a web site, not protected behind a password. If you join such a listserv, don't whine about the spam. When you engage in risky behaviors, expect consequences.
See, I've realized that spammers get my address because of my own behavior. I changed my address and started protecting my it responsibly, and have not received spam in two years. Count 'em. Two years. Ya'll are whores playing fast and loose with your personal information and then crying when you get herpes.
So everytime I visit your web site you log me as a different user. I have a pesky dynamic IP. My DSL provider actually offers me a lower monthly rate for accepting dynamic IP. I bet a lot of people are in that boat.
I've had no trouble doing a fresh install of Windows XP. I visit Windows Update first, before installing any other software. Of course, my router's firewall protects me from most worm traffic.
> average users are no longer tech savvy.' > Which is to say that they at one point were?
I knew DOS, Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 inside and out. As the OS interface and glitches have lessened (yeah yeah, no really, there simply are fewer conflicts in recent versions of Windows), my need to understand how the OS functions has diminished. I'm just another dumb Windows user now. When I need to futz with my wireless router, I grab the manual to remember how the damn thing works.
In the end, I prefer it this way. Life is easier when technology just works and I don't need to understand why. Geeks aside, that's how most people want to live their lives.
I do hope Wil Wheaton refuses to do the new show. No one of character would support the destruction of something beloved. I'm wondering when Wil is going to comment on recent events in his blog.
1) So what if China patents its own technology? They've still escaped outrageous foreign patents, patent fees and monopolies. China wins.
2) So what about 802.11 standards. You may not like it, but we're discussing whether China is hurt. With 20% of the world's population, they can set their own standards with little concern. The corporate world will bend to meet their whims. China wins.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks. Many good posts get modded as flamebait simply because the moderator disagrees. For a 1 point message, it takes only one moderator to vanquish your idea, so low now that other moderators will never look at it. God forbid I should suggest people buy direct from local bands instead of RIAA labels. How shocking of me to flame such an idea! I'm a bad boy!
> RIAA attatched bands that I respect, that they
>might get a clue, and start some independant
> release scheme, but them realized that that is dumb.
It's that kind of thinking that keeps RIAA and Microsoft in power. It's also what keeps America's political duopoly in power, but that's a separate debate.
Thanks for the flame. If you buy from local bands, why do you give a damn what RIAA does? Why say that RIAA acts like a child? Support musicians and stop whining.
Turn the mirror on yourself. Every dollar you spend on their product feeds the monster. Every dollar you spend is casting a vote for the RIAA.
Buy local music direct from musicians, or direct web sales. I haven't purchased RIAA-manipulated music in three years, nor traded it. My library of original, interesting music continues to expand with a clear conscience. I have no stomach for addicts who decry their plight while shooting up.
There is no correlation between size in the real world vs. the virtual world. The New York Times is a gated community. It should be _no_surprise_ that search engines rank the NYT low *and* that its popularity is low. If Google starts ranking NYT links high, it won't be because they are popular or more useful that other news sources, and it will be a great disservice to Google users.
Anyone who has bought anything from a web site (or God forbid, simply asked a question by e-mail) knows what I'm talking about. Why would SMS legislation in the USA be any different? Corporate lobbyists want to protect 'legitimate' corporate spam.
You betcha Microsoft considers losing 1% of its marketshare as a big deal. Microsoft is the underdog, remember?
Wake up now. At my July 4 family reunion, my mother raised the issue of Windows and IE security flaws she keeps reading about in the newspaper. It turns out she, and I, were the only ones still using IE. My technophobe, technonoob brothers and sisters had already switched to Mozilla and Firefox. These are folks who blindly use Windows and usually need my help to do anything. It was a wake-up call that got me (and with my help) my mother switched to Firefox.
Google News results for those of us rejecting cookies and unable to bypass the Syndney Morning Herald's bogus "Register later and continue to your Article" link.
>aren't going to trade them with their friends.
Yeah, I suppose there are crumbbums such as yourself that will try to ruin such wonderful efforts. I have 2 TMBG CDs I bought 10 years ago. I just bought one album online, and will probably buy the other one they're offering. Should I be asked for a copy, I'll gladly refer people to the web site. None of my friends are cheapskates. They can afford $10 for an album purchased directly from the artist.
The world is what you make it. If you want RIAA controling your access to music, by all means, pirate TMBG and screw the rest of us over.
Proof is in the pudding.
You've provided no evidence. Sure, anything is possible, but that's hardly an argument. Show me evidence that spammers are using worms and viruses to harvest addresses from infected users' address books. If they were, by all rights, I should be swamped with spam.
I have a Compaq (HP) latop. The downloaded utility to identify the bad memory and order a replacement tells me I'm not using an HP laptop, so it won't work.
I guess time is on my side then. I get plenty of infected e-mails. Probably 200 Beagle variants alone. None have resulted in my address being harvested by spammers. I believe you are mistaken about viruses and worms harvesting addresses. (Got some documentation?) By definition, I should be spammed out by now.
The problem with using virusses and worms to harvest addresses is that "the powers that be" will analyze the infection and identify where the addresses are being sent to. Right off the bat, we have to be talking about an overseas criminal, but even then, those people would be tracked down, or the destination storage area deactivated. The U.S. government is effective in those respects. Giving your virus or worm such an easy track-back mechanism is akin to a masked bank robber giving a bank teller his bank account number to deposit the stolen money.
I don't worry about the infected e-mails because my filter is 100% effective at screening them out. I really don't consider infected e-mails to be spam because the purpose and intent is entirely different than spam-for-profit.
#2 Listserv moderation has nothing to being protected from spammers.
#3 The issue is whether a mailing list is archived on a web site, not protected behind a password. If you join such a listserv, don't whine about the spam. When you engage in risky behaviors, expect consequences.
See, I've realized that spammers get my address because of my own behavior. I changed my address and started protecting my it responsibly, and have not received spam in two years. Count 'em. Two years. Ya'll are whores playing fast and loose with your personal information and then crying when you get herpes.
The IP changes every time I turn on my modem. I turn off my modem every time I turn off my computer, which is a couple times per day.
So everytime I visit your web site you log me as a different user. I have a pesky dynamic IP. My DSL provider actually offers me a lower monthly rate for accepting dynamic IP. I bet a lot of people are in that boat.
I always just block your tracking ID cookie and go about my merry way. How do I factor into your statistics?
I've had no trouble doing a fresh install of Windows XP. I visit Windows Update first, before installing any other software. Of course, my router's firewall protects me from most worm traffic.
But all your crap is going to reduce the amount of media I purchase by about 99%.
> Which is to say that they at one point were?
I knew DOS, Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 inside and out. As the OS interface and glitches have lessened (yeah yeah, no really, there simply are fewer conflicts in recent versions of Windows), my need to understand how the OS functions has diminished. I'm just another dumb Windows user now. When I need to futz with my wireless router, I grab the manual to remember how the damn thing works.
In the end, I prefer it this way. Life is easier when technology just works and I don't need to understand why. Geeks aside, that's how most people want to live their lives.
I do hope Wil Wheaton refuses to do the new show. No one of character would support the destruction of something beloved. I'm wondering when Wil is going to comment on recent events in his blog.
1) So what if China patents its own technology? They've still escaped outrageous foreign patents, patent fees and monopolies. China wins.
2) So what about 802.11 standards. You may not like it, but we're discussing whether China is hurt. With 20% of the world's population, they can set their own standards with little concern. The corporate world will bend to meet their whims. China wins.