If you pay good money for a service that ends up not meeting your expectations, complain about it, then continue to subscribe to said service... then you are an idiot. You raise one fist in anger while forking over your cash with the other. Not a very potent message.
Now, I don't agree that you should not be able to download music you've purchased as often as you'd like, but as a consumer, it is not my decision. Nor is it yours. Our choice is simply to give them our money or not. I choose not to, as I prefer to have a little more control over what I do with what I purchase, even if that means making a backup of a CD I bought at the local music shop and burying the original in a nice big hole in the backyard. What's your excuse?
Do you really think any country so paranoid that they would spy on their own citizens would trust another country? That'd just be begging for disinformation... from your own, supposed allies.
Nah, I'm sure any government would just do it the good ol' way: spy domestically and do whatever you can to help keep that topic so obscure and incredible that it's no longer believable. Once you get the hyper-paranoid and even more hyper-active conspiracy theorists all up in arms, you know you're safe from any real scrutiny.
Seriously, if our system of education didn't have a nasty habit of cutting the crap out of art departments, I'd be willing to bet that students would already *have* the empathy for artists that the RIAA is trying to install. That's the obvious angle here, hoping that the guilt will grow into obedience as the kids mature. It's not an uncommon tactic, even in parenting. Not uncommon, but certainly despicable.
This is like giving kids a sack of sugar, then telling them that it's a baby and they have to care for it for a couple weeks (yeah, we all know this story if we haven't done it ourselves.) This time, however, at the end of this excercise, the baby dies of cholera. That'll teach you to care for your sack of sugar!
I'm extremely disappointed in the music industry for thinking for even a second that they have the right to bring this in front of the faces of children. I'll be even more disappointed when they succeed. The more crap like this gets into public education, the more I'll gladly save up for private school for my little ones.
With the exploit patched, releasing the code for the exploit is one hell of a confident way to say, "Hey, we patched it." It also allows anyone to make sure that the machines they are responsible are, in fact, patched.
If you ask me, this beats the hell out of either admitting to an exploit and keeping the details hidden regardless of whether or not it's patched.. or just not squeaking any info about any exploit whatsoever.
Or.. think of it this way:
Maybe it's just a sure-fire way to light a fire under your ass to apply the necessary patch before someone figures out the exploit and turns your computer into another node in yet another attempt to DDoS microsoft.com.
What would that accomplish other than force Linux users to maintain copies of distro images, software installs, packages, etc on their local system for everyone else to download? Most of that stuff is downloaded, burned, then filed away in a cd book somewhere in your office. It's just not a form of content that you need access to often enough to make it worth the drive space. It's not a bad idea, I'm not knocking the concept. In practice, however, I don't think it would last.
Can't attest the musical, it's a self respect thing.
Listen bub. Anyone that fesses up to seeing not one, not two, but *all three* Evil Dead flicks is already short on self respect. So hell, why not catch the musical, too. I'll drive. =o
I can't blame you for your cynicism - I share it in copious amounts, too. Any one of us could recount a dozen times a corporation has screwed someone over for the bottom line. However, in this scenario, I'm willing to give SBC the benefit of the doubt for now.
Of course SBC is banking on this helping their image with current and prospective customers. To think they are not at least glancing at the bottom line would be ludicrous. However, there is nothing tangible, at least in the short run, to be gained by going head to head with the RIAA. Yet, the risk is high. This is like pissing on the Don's shoes when the mob come calling for their protection money. There is no sure payoff here.
Perhaps, for once, a company actually does have its customers' rights in mind? Only time will tell. I'll keep an open mind until proven otherwise. Hopefully my brain won't fall out. Again. Damn cheap hats.
In a world where the right to privacy is quickly giving way to nosier and nosier laws and regulations, it is quite refreshing to see a company with so much to lose fighting to maintain the privacy of their customers. Say what you will, but SBC is taking quite a risk.
Heh, I don't normally gush like this, but I have to say that I am honestly very impressed by this move. Unless this is just a ploy to gain more customers concerned with their KaZaA, er, habits. In that case, well, I'm still impressed. Brilliant marketing ploy!
Wait, SBC isn't actually OCP or anything is it? No? Okay cool. Power to the peop- er, to the customers!
Slashdot Mirror
How could you tell?
All this coming from a kid who probably runs Gnome with the Windows theme.
Go check the posting history of any average Slashdotter, then come back and say that again.
Shamefully, you could start with mine.
Relax, so was my post.
Xylophone , smart ass.
=o
If you pay good money for a service that ends up not meeting your expectations, complain about it, then continue to subscribe to said service... then you are an idiot. You raise one fist in anger while forking over your cash with the other. Not a very potent message.
Now, I don't agree that you should not be able to download music you've purchased as often as you'd like, but as a consumer, it is not my decision. Nor is it yours. Our choice is simply to give them our money or not. I choose not to, as I prefer to have a little more control over what I do with what I purchase, even if that means making a backup of a CD I bought at the local music shop and burying the original in a nice big hole in the backyard. What's your excuse?
Ha!
;)
At least someone saw the post for what it was.
Query: Wasn't iTunes for Windows released like 3 1/2 days ago?
Postulate: Wouldn't that make a million downloads in 3.5 days?
Realization: Wouldn't that make your facts.. fiction?
Too late. It's called Slashcode.
Ba-dum bum. =P
Psssh. Your blatant misuse of a non-const object pointer gives you away as a Microsoft plant. I scoff.
*Scoff*
Of course, I did pay the $19.95.
Slow night.
I stand corrected.
Because nothing says, "Please kick my ass," quite like wearing your computer.
"When I was young, we would look for white powder in envelopes."
"A quote is just an observation by a famous person."
-E_eleven
So much for that.
Do you really think any country so paranoid that they would spy on their own citizens would trust another country? That'd just be begging for disinformation... from your own, supposed allies.
Nah, I'm sure any government would just do it the good ol' way: spy domestically and do whatever you can to help keep that topic so obscure and incredible that it's no longer believable. Once you get the hyper-paranoid and even more hyper-active conspiracy theorists all up in arms, you know you're safe from any real scrutiny.
but it's not!
Seriously, if our system of education didn't have a nasty habit of cutting the crap out of art departments, I'd be willing to bet that students would already *have* the empathy for artists that the RIAA is trying to install. That's the obvious angle here, hoping that the guilt will grow into obedience as the kids mature. It's not an uncommon tactic, even in parenting. Not uncommon, but certainly despicable.
This is like giving kids a sack of sugar, then telling them that it's a baby and they have to care for it for a couple weeks (yeah, we all know this story if we haven't done it ourselves.) This time, however, at the end of this excercise, the baby dies of cholera. That'll teach you to care for your sack of sugar!
I'm extremely disappointed in the music industry for thinking for even a second that they have the right to bring this in front of the faces of children. I'll be even more disappointed when they succeed. The more crap like this gets into public education, the more I'll gladly save up for private school for my little ones.
Think of it this way:
:)
With the exploit patched, releasing the code for the exploit is one hell of a confident way to say, "Hey, we patched it." It also allows anyone to make sure that the machines they are responsible are, in fact, patched.
If you ask me, this beats the hell out of either admitting to an exploit and keeping the details hidden regardless of whether or not it's patched.. or just not squeaking any info about any exploit whatsoever.
Or.. think of it this way:
Maybe it's just a sure-fire way to light a fire under your ass to apply the necessary patch before someone figures out the exploit and turns your computer into another node in yet another attempt to DDoS microsoft.com.
Take yer pick, I guess.
What would that accomplish other than force Linux users to maintain copies of distro images, software installs, packages, etc on their local system for everyone else to download? Most of that stuff is downloaded, burned, then filed away in a cd book somewhere in your office. It's just not a form of content that you need access to often enough to make it worth the drive space. It's not a bad idea, I'm not knocking the concept. In practice, however, I don't think it would last.
Listen bub. Anyone that fesses up to seeing not one, not two, but *all three* Evil Dead flicks is already short on self respect. So hell, why not catch the musical, too. I'll drive. =o
Son of Sam sues Ted Bundy for "copping his gig".
Can't we just do to the cyber-squatters the same thing we did to Bundy? Can we do it to whomever coined the term "cyber-squatter"?
No you didn't. You came here for an argument.
No, no. It's spelled Monty Python, but it's pronounced Throat Wobbler Mangro.
Bah, poser. I have peanuts for a salary.
I can't blame you for your cynicism - I share it in copious amounts, too. Any one of us could recount a dozen times a corporation has screwed someone over for the bottom line. However, in this scenario, I'm willing to give SBC the benefit of the doubt for now.
Of course SBC is banking on this helping their image with current and prospective customers. To think they are not at least glancing at the bottom line would be ludicrous. However, there is nothing tangible, at least in the short run, to be gained by going head to head with the RIAA. Yet, the risk is high. This is like pissing on the Don's shoes when the mob come calling for their protection money. There is no sure payoff here.
Perhaps, for once, a company actually does have its customers' rights in mind? Only time will tell. I'll keep an open mind until proven otherwise. Hopefully my brain won't fall out. Again. Damn cheap hats.
In a world where the right to privacy is quickly giving way to nosier and nosier laws and regulations, it is quite refreshing to see a company with so much to lose fighting to maintain the privacy of their customers. Say what you will, but SBC is taking quite a risk.
Heh, I don't normally gush like this, but I have to say that I am honestly very impressed by this move. Unless this is just a ploy to gain more customers concerned with their KaZaA, er, habits. In that case, well, I'm still impressed. Brilliant marketing ploy!
Wait, SBC isn't actually OCP or anything is it? No? Okay cool. Power to the peop- er, to the customers!