"Dude, a bad disk is a bad disk. It doesnt matter if it your 1st disk, your last disk or anywhere in between"
Umm, if you have another disk available, it should be able to read it and say "ah, here we go again". What RedHat did was say "oops, I found an error. Well I can't do anything useful here, good bye."
"To me the the real difference is how often you need to reinstall. Over time windows systems aquire junk in the registry, and c:\windows\system and this junk slows the computer down. Often the only way to reclaim your computing speed is to reinstall windows. And the two hours that Joe Bar reported is nothing. That doesn't include the lost time for all the settings in your development environment and lost styles, in Word etc. "
That's a fair and legitimate point. However, what about hardware support? Windows 2000 comes with a pretty good set of built in drivers. It's easy to find a computer today that doesnt' require any additional driver installs once Windows is running. Is it as easy for Linux? I think the answer is "in some cases yes, in some cases no."
Windows, being the dominant OS, gets all the best hardware support. Every release of Windows has a larger list of drivers natively supported, requiring fewer trips to the company's website. Linux has a larger battle there because most companies ignore it, sadly.
Hopefully, though, Linux will gain enough popularity that companies will feel compelled to support it. When that happens, the issue I just mentioned evaporates. (If anything, I expect Linux Developers to make that drastically less painful than Microsoft.) Today, though, it is a bit of an issue.
"You know what, when you reboot {n} times, that's {n} times that something can go wrong. Think about it from a users perspective; your machine is now rebooting with very little real feedback other than a notice that this is something Windows needs to do."
I maintain Windows 2000 machines for a living. Ive never had a problem like that happen. Not saying it's impossible, but it's not likely. Windows 2000 is rather friendly about hardware and does it's best to maintain at least some usability. The flip side of the coin is that Windows gives you a nice easy way to tell you what's working, what isn't, and why under Device Manager. I was unable to locate anything like that in Linux. I'm not saying it wasn't there, Im only saying I couldn't find it. Pretty sad, really. Im sure there was some badly spelt command I could have typed in to find it. Frankly, I find it appalling that people think Linux can replace Windows, but one has to memorize a bunch of text based commands to maintain it.
You bring up an excellent point about replacement media. Microsoft's licensing is shitty. They think that if you buy a computer with Windows pre-installed, then the license is only for that computer. If you build a new computer from scratch, destroy your old one, and install that copy of Windows to the new one, then you are violating the license.
That is a lousy way to extort money out of people.
"under windows you press ignore/skip/fail/whatever it skips the file and you're in for fun fun fun windows instability..."
That 'whatever' feature you're ignoring is 'Retry'. If RedHat had that nice little 'Retry' feature that MS has had since Dos 4 (and probably earlier than that), then I wouldn't have been in the reinstall mess I got into in the first place. Bad checksum in Windows 2000 = pop a different disk in and hit retry. That's the way RedHat's install should work but doesn't.
I'm glad Mandrake understands that. I'm concerned that the Linux Community in general is requiring too much prerequisite knowledge of GNU. If it's so painful to do stuff like this, how could they possibly expect to topple Microsoft? It's not about stability and bug fixes, it's all about the end user experience. That's what Microsoft got right and that's why it's as big as it is today despite the legitimate problems with stability and security.
"I don't know, can you even make cdr's of Windows 2k/XP?"
Yes, you can. My CD with the purdi hologram on it is safely tucked away in case MS pulls some investigation bullshit. It's actually pretty friendly about stuff like that.:)
"So just because you have 3 CD's to work from, shouldn't hold you back just because you like to install from one CD."
Err I didn't mean to imply that 3 CD's was 'holding me back'. I was saying that it means there's a much greater chance of something going wrong. It wouldn't normally matter, but RedHat's installer forces you to start over again if something goes wrong. Basically, if one doesn't do the basic configuration like you told me about, they're risking a huge waste of time. That's all I was saying.
Here's what bugs me: Redhat is on 3 CD's, Windows 2000 is on 1. There's 3 times the chance of something going wrong.
When I installed RedHat 7.3, turns out disk 3 had a media error on it. Did it let me recover from it? No, it said "you have an error, press OK to quit." No 'retry' or 'attempt it again'. It just died. I had to start the install all over from the very beginning. The Windows 2000 installer is much more graceful in a situation like that.
Just to be clear, I'm not drawing any lines in the sand between Windows and RedHat, I'm just saying that there are most definitely cases where the RedHat installer could be drastically improved. I lost quite a bit of time on that little endeavour.
On the flip side, if you install everything across all 3 CD's, you get much more stuff right away than Win2k does. (I.e. Office, etc.) Apples to apples? I think not. However, you're in for a major headache with RH if one of your disks is bad.
To be honest, I don't see the importance of this. Let's say that Linux installs faster 100% of the time. So? It might save some precious IT time, which is a fine argument. But I don't consider this to be anything more than a pro or a con when figuring out which OS for somebody else to use. The whole venture is worthless if, for example, you install RedHat on a laptop and for some stupid reason or another the DVD player won't play DVD's on it.
Maybe I'm just reading too much into this article. The differences between Linux and Windows are great enough that install time is not a greatly weighted factor.
Sorry bud, ya did write that in a Linux-unfriendly way.
I do agree with you, though. To assume that a system is any more secure than another system is ridiculous. You're just begging for a huge problem that way. It's nice that Linux is free from some of the common Windows issues that come up, but shit still happens. The true problem isn't defects in the design of either OS or application. The true reprecussions of an exploit used in a system are multiplied by the dependence on the system.
If it's really important for me to have a particular file, but I only have the one copy on my hard drive, then a Windows or Linux exploit's true danger cannot be measured by the loss of my file. If that file costs me my job, I can't say that anybody in particular is responsible for my lost wages. It's my own fault. I overly trusted my system. I didn't make a backup of the file. I didn't set up a firewall or take sensible internet precautions. Maybe I bought a defective hard drive. Who knows?
It doesn't matter which OS you use, you still have to be cautious.
"...if you meant for your post to be humorous, you failed spectacularly. Sheesh, and you accuse ME of not understanding humor..."
You didn't understand his humor, but you're confused about him saying you don't understand his humor?
Lol! I don't think you understand anything! Lemme give ya a piece of advice: If you're drawing conclusions about people, telling them to grow up reflects more on you than it does on them. Don't believe me? Then it's probably because your anus is obstructing your view.
Wanna know what's tiring? "Windows used in a car's computer system" "Hurhurhur that mans the car will crash! Mod me up!"
As a Windows user, I can tell you there is soOOOooo many crappy things about Windows to make fun of, but the only thing the/. community seems to come up with is 'uh it crashes'. THAT is tiring.
"Actually the NYC/Death to Jews speculation is MUCH MUCH older than Sept 11th. I remember this from years ago, maybe as many as 8 and it may have been old when I heard about it. "
Yep, you're absolutely correct about that. When 9-11 came around, somebody resurrected this story and then mutated it to fit 9-11. They took the 'Death to Jews' icons, added an airplane with two pieces of paper (that sorta resemble the WTC), and then applied a fictional detail about the significance of the characters to tell a story that MS supported terrorism.
Sadly, there is so much irrational hatred for MS out there that enough people instantly believed this story without engaging what Kryten would call 'common sense mode'. This stupid hoax spread like wildfire. A friend of mind really believed this too. I had to do some research to show him that the flight #'s of the planes did not match what the hoax reported, thus destroying the hoax in his mind.
This touches on a sensitive issue I have with Slashdot. I don't have a whole lotta love for MS as a corporation. I have no doubt they pulled some really shitty games to keep themselves up and their competitors down. However, several anti-MS stories have appeared on/. that were twisted to make MS sound more evil than they really are. (Or at least evil in the context that was established.)
Sadly, the responses that were given were along the lines of "I knew it!! MS really is evil!", despite that reading the links provided in that article would have illustrated a very different story being told.
I have no problem with/. reporting the events as they happen. I have no problem with opinions of these stories making it into the article. I have no problems with MS's blunders getting reported. But I am rather concerned that the Slashdot Community hates MS so much that they'll believe anything. Slashdot has the power to be an activist for the little guy. That power dwindles if the agencies listening to/.'s collective voice dismiss us because 'oh geez, they hate anything MS does. Just ignore them.'
I know this won't be a popular view, but I do felt it had to be said. The Slashdot Community should pick their battles, as opposed to being against EVERYTHING that a mega-corp does.
Anybody remember the urban legend running around that Microsoft had previous knowledge of September 11th? If not, check out this site:
http://198.64.129.160/rumors/wingding.htm
The short explanation is that if you take the letters NYC and put them into the 'Webdings' font, you'll get an icon of an eye, a heart, and a building. It looks a little like "I love New York". Then, if you change the font to Windings, you get a Skull/Crossbones, a Jewish star, and a Thumb's up.
This sparked a heated controversy accusing Microsoft programmers of hiding anti-Jewish messages in software. They used lines like 'The odds of that occuring are trillions to one, it had to have been intentional.'
Well I'll tell you guys what I think: To imply that anybody left a message like that in a font is absurd. What really happened was that somebody was presented with some icons, and they extracted a meaningful message from them. That's it! The 'Death to Jews' icons that show up in Wingdings are only interesting because "NYC" calls them up. The link between 'NYC' and 'death of Jews' didn't become meaningful until 9-11. Before 9-11, it took a lot of creativity to try to paint MS in a bad light with that 'message'.
Now, one could could measure the probability of NYC creating a message that implies death to Jews and realistically say it's astronomically improbable. However, one cannot use that to establish guilt. The simple fact of the matter is that anybody can pull symbollic meaning out of any combination of letters. Common sense and evidence must factor in to questions like these. Did somebody at MS intentionally hide anti Jewish messages in a font? To convince me of that, I'd have to talk to the programmer.
I remember somebody used the 'odds of safely going to the moon and back' to prove that the moon landing was a hoax. If memory serves, it was well over 1 in 1000. Frankly, common sense says that the odds weren't anywhere near as bleak as he had measured. Nasa had a pretty good idea what was involved and built a vehicle to withstand those conditions. The only real/i odds they had to face were uncertainty. "What are the odds of something happening to cause greater forces than we had anticipated?"
Nasa maniuplated the odds in their favor, and they succeeded. End of story.
In any case, I find probability to be a relatively useless topic when attempting to establish possibilities of achievement or in judging guilt. It's one thing to measure them in Las Vegas, it's another to measure them when trying to predict anything nature has control over.
Re:The difference Re:Windoze is reliable!!!!
on
Penguin Airlines
·
· Score: 2
I feel the same way about Linux. "Oo, if I do this, this, this, this, this, that, and this, I can make it as useful as Windows! I wonder what else I can do to make it do stuff that Windows has done for ages?"
The funny thing is that most of the stereotypes that Eurpoeans have against North Americans would not exist if they understood anything about our country.
I'll just give a brief example here because the topic is a bit old: One of the stereotypes Ive heard is that Americans are so self centered that they dont know where other countries like Germany are located.
I don't think they understand quite how big the United States is. I'm curious how many of them can point to Kansas. It's similar, dontcha think? The United States is like having 48 countries up close to each other. If they don't know the locations of the majority of our states, I don't know why I need to know where Germany is.
It's a matter of perspective. Americans are annoying to Europeans, Eu's are annoying to us. Oh well. We live in different worlds! At least we can get along with our neighbors.:P
"How many audio CDs do you have that start each track with "Federal law provides severe penalties..."
For this reason alone, the Record Industry has 0 reason to claim anybody's breaking the law. As you pointed out, they did nothing to educate people that you're not supposed to copy music. They make you think it's free by playing it on the radio at no charge to you. So when you buy a CD, you don't think you're licensing a song, you think you're buying the convienence of hearing it when you want to. The only reason you know about the "Don't copy CD's..." law is that it is of interest to you.
Okay, I've drifted off topic a bit, and I apologize for that. I just don't think that the RIAA should be allowed to propose shit like the SSSCA when they did nothing to educate people on what the law says. With an "FBI warning" at the beginning of a tape/DVD, you know you can't legally go copy it and give it to a friend. With a CD, how would you know that without reading fine print or looking up the law? I would LOVE for the RIAA and the TV Industry both to get smacked with that. It would mean that the problems they think they're having are of their own creation. Ouch. Heh.
Slashdot Mirror
"Dude, a bad disk is a bad disk. It doesnt matter if it your 1st disk, your last disk or anywhere in between"
Umm, if you have another disk available, it should be able to read it and say "ah, here we go again". What RedHat did was say "oops, I found an error. Well I can't do anything useful here, good bye."
"To me the the real difference is how often you need to reinstall. Over time windows systems aquire junk in the registry, and c:\windows\system and this junk slows the computer down. Often the only way to reclaim your computing speed is to reinstall windows. And the two hours that Joe Bar reported is nothing. That doesn't include the lost time for all the settings in your development environment and lost styles, in Word etc. "
That's a fair and legitimate point. However, what about hardware support? Windows 2000 comes with a pretty good set of built in drivers. It's easy to find a computer today that doesnt' require any additional driver installs once Windows is running. Is it as easy for Linux? I think the answer is "in some cases yes, in some cases no."
Windows, being the dominant OS, gets all the best hardware support. Every release of Windows has a larger list of drivers natively supported, requiring fewer trips to the company's website. Linux has a larger battle there because most companies ignore it, sadly.
Hopefully, though, Linux will gain enough popularity that companies will feel compelled to support it. When that happens, the issue I just mentioned evaporates. (If anything, I expect Linux Developers to make that drastically less painful than Microsoft.) Today, though, it is a bit of an issue.
That's a fair point, thank you. :)
(Sorry, nothing interesting to add, I just wanted to make sure you knew I appreciated your post.)
"You know what, when you reboot {n} times, that's {n} times that something can go wrong. Think about it from a users perspective; your machine is now rebooting with very little real feedback other than a notice that this is something Windows needs to do."
I maintain Windows 2000 machines for a living. Ive never had a problem like that happen. Not saying it's impossible, but it's not likely. Windows 2000 is rather friendly about hardware and does it's best to maintain at least some usability. The flip side of the coin is that Windows gives you a nice easy way to tell you what's working, what isn't, and why under Device Manager. I was unable to locate anything like that in Linux. I'm not saying it wasn't there, Im only saying I couldn't find it. Pretty sad, really. Im sure there was some badly spelt command I could have typed in to find it. Frankly, I find it appalling that people think Linux can replace Windows, but one has to memorize a bunch of text based commands to maintain it.
You bring up an excellent point about replacement media. Microsoft's licensing is shitty. They think that if you buy a computer with Windows pre-installed, then the license is only for that computer. If you build a new computer from scratch, destroy your old one, and install that copy of Windows to the new one, then you are violating the license.
That is a lousy way to extort money out of people.
"under windows you press ignore/skip/fail/whatever it skips the file and you're in for fun fun fun windows instability..."
That 'whatever' feature you're ignoring is 'Retry'. If RedHat had that nice little 'Retry' feature that MS has had since Dos 4 (and probably earlier than that), then I wouldn't have been in the reinstall mess I got into in the first place. Bad checksum in Windows 2000 = pop a different disk in and hit retry. That's the way RedHat's install should work but doesn't.
I'm glad Mandrake understands that. I'm concerned that the Linux Community in general is requiring too much prerequisite knowledge of GNU. If it's so painful to do stuff like this, how could they possibly expect to topple Microsoft? It's not about stability and bug fixes, it's all about the end user experience. That's what Microsoft got right and that's why it's as big as it is today despite the legitimate problems with stability and security.
"I don't know, can you even make cdr's of Windows 2k/XP?"
:)
Yes, you can. My CD with the purdi hologram on it is safely tucked away in case MS pulls some investigation bullshit. It's actually pretty friendly about stuff like that.
"So just because you have 3 CD's to work from, shouldn't hold you back just because you like to install from one CD."
Err I didn't mean to imply that 3 CD's was 'holding me back'. I was saying that it means there's a much greater chance of something going wrong. It wouldn't normally matter, but RedHat's installer forces you to start over again if something goes wrong. Basically, if one doesn't do the basic configuration like you told me about, they're risking a huge waste of time. That's all I was saying.
Here's what bugs me: Redhat is on 3 CD's, Windows 2000 is on 1. There's 3 times the chance of something going wrong.
When I installed RedHat 7.3, turns out disk 3 had a media error on it. Did it let me recover from it? No, it said "you have an error, press OK to quit." No 'retry' or 'attempt it again'. It just died. I had to start the install all over from the very beginning. The Windows 2000 installer is much more graceful in a situation like that.
Just to be clear, I'm not drawing any lines in the sand between Windows and RedHat, I'm just saying that there are most definitely cases where the RedHat installer could be drastically improved. I lost quite a bit of time on that little endeavour.
On the flip side, if you install everything across all 3 CD's, you get much more stuff right away than Win2k does. (I.e. Office, etc.) Apples to apples? I think not. However, you're in for a major headache with RH if one of your disks is bad.
To be honest, I don't see the importance of this. Let's say that Linux installs faster 100% of the time. So? It might save some precious IT time, which is a fine argument. But I don't consider this to be anything more than a pro or a con when figuring out which OS for somebody else to use. The whole venture is worthless if, for example, you install RedHat on a laptop and for some stupid reason or another the DVD player won't play DVD's on it.
Maybe I'm just reading too much into this article. The differences between Linux and Windows are great enough that install time is not a greatly weighted factor.
Sorry bud, ya did write that in a Linux-unfriendly way.
I do agree with you, though. To assume that a system is any more secure than another system is ridiculous. You're just begging for a huge problem that way. It's nice that Linux is free from some of the common Windows issues that come up, but shit still happens. The true problem isn't defects in the design of either OS or application. The true reprecussions of an exploit used in a system are multiplied by the dependence on the system.
If it's really important for me to have a particular file, but I only have the one copy on my hard drive, then a Windows or Linux exploit's true danger cannot be measured by the loss of my file. If that file costs me my job, I can't say that anybody in particular is responsible for my lost wages. It's my own fault. I overly trusted my system. I didn't make a backup of the file. I didn't set up a firewall or take sensible internet precautions. Maybe I bought a defective hard drive. Who knows?
It doesn't matter which OS you use, you still have to be cautious.
So? There's also little thing called the 'registration' button. Big f'n deal.
"...if you meant for your post to be humorous, you failed spectacularly. Sheesh, and you accuse ME of not understanding humor..."
You didn't understand his humor, but you're confused about him saying you don't understand his humor?
Lol! I don't think you understand anything! Lemme give ya a piece of advice: If you're drawing conclusions about people, telling them to grow up reflects more on you than it does on them. Don't believe me? Then it's probably because your anus is obstructing your view.
...I can't wait until there's a minor update to the Linux kernel. Let's get some fresh stories in here!
"Really, it's getting tiring."
/. community seems to come up with is 'uh it crashes'. THAT is tiring.
Wanna know what's tiring? "Windows used in a car's computer system" "Hurhurhur that mans the car will crash! Mod me up!"
As a Windows user, I can tell you there is soOOOooo many crappy things about Windows to make fun of, but the only thing the
Feels like I'm watching Full House sometimes.
"Actually the NYC/Death to Jews speculation is MUCH MUCH older than Sept 11th. I remember this from years ago, maybe as many as 8 and it may have been old when I heard about it. "
/. that were twisted to make MS sound more evil than they really are. (Or at least evil in the context that was established.)
/. reporting the events as they happen. I have no problem with opinions of these stories making it into the article. I have no problems with MS's blunders getting reported. But I am rather concerned that the Slashdot Community hates MS so much that they'll believe anything. Slashdot has the power to be an activist for the little guy. That power dwindles if the agencies listening to /.'s collective voice dismiss us because 'oh geez, they hate anything MS does. Just ignore them.'
Yep, you're absolutely correct about that. When 9-11 came around, somebody resurrected this story and then mutated it to fit 9-11. They took the 'Death to Jews' icons, added an airplane with two pieces of paper (that sorta resemble the WTC), and then applied a fictional detail about the significance of the characters to tell a story that MS supported terrorism.
Sadly, there is so much irrational hatred for MS out there that enough people instantly believed this story without engaging what Kryten would call 'common sense mode'. This stupid hoax spread like wildfire. A friend of mind really believed this too. I had to do some research to show him that the flight #'s of the planes did not match what the hoax reported, thus destroying the hoax in his mind.
This touches on a sensitive issue I have with Slashdot. I don't have a whole lotta love for MS as a corporation. I have no doubt they pulled some really shitty games to keep themselves up and their competitors down. However, several anti-MS stories have appeared on
Sadly, the responses that were given were along the lines of "I knew it!! MS really is evil!", despite that reading the links provided in that article would have illustrated a very different story being told.
I have no problem with
I know this won't be a popular view, but I do felt it had to be said. The Slashdot Community should pick their battles, as opposed to being against EVERYTHING that a mega-corp does.
"Isn't this a repost?"
What are the odds of that happening on Slashdot?
Anybody remember the urban legend running around that Microsoft had previous knowledge of September 11th? If not, check out this site:
http://198.64.129.160/rumors/wingding.htm
The short explanation is that if you take the letters NYC and put them into the 'Webdings' font, you'll get an icon of an eye, a heart, and a building. It looks a little like "I love New York". Then, if you change the font to Windings, you get a Skull/Crossbones, a Jewish star, and a Thumb's up.
This sparked a heated controversy accusing Microsoft programmers of hiding anti-Jewish messages in software. They used lines like 'The odds of that occuring are trillions to one, it had to have been intentional.'
Well I'll tell you guys what I think: To imply that anybody left a message like that in a font is absurd. What really happened was that somebody was presented with some icons, and they extracted a meaningful message from them. That's it! The 'Death to Jews' icons that show up in Wingdings are only interesting because "NYC" calls them up. The link between 'NYC' and 'death of Jews' didn't become meaningful until 9-11. Before 9-11, it took a lot of creativity to try to paint MS in a bad light with that 'message'.
Now, one could could measure the probability of NYC creating a message that implies death to Jews and realistically say it's astronomically improbable. However, one cannot use that to establish guilt. The simple fact of the matter is that anybody can pull symbollic meaning out of any combination of letters. Common sense and evidence must factor in to questions like these. Did somebody at MS intentionally hide anti Jewish messages in a font? To convince me of that, I'd have to talk to the programmer.
I remember somebody used the 'odds of safely going to the moon and back' to prove that the moon landing was a hoax. If memory serves, it was well over 1 in 1000. Frankly, common sense says that the odds weren't anywhere near as bleak as he had measured. Nasa had a pretty good idea what was involved and built a vehicle to withstand those conditions. The only real/i odds they had to face were uncertainty. "What are the odds of something happening to cause greater forces than we had anticipated?"
Nasa maniuplated the odds in their favor, and they succeeded. End of story.
In any case, I find probability to be a relatively useless topic when attempting to establish possibilities of achievement or in judging guilt. It's one thing to measure them in Las Vegas, it's another to measure them when trying to predict anything nature has control over.
I feel the same way about Linux. "Oo, if I do this, this, this, this, this, that, and this, I can make it as useful as Windows! I wonder what else I can do to make it do stuff that Windows has done for ages?"
"He patented the "Flush Capacitor".
Wouldn't that big tank that holds the water for the toilet be the 'flush capacitor'?
... that Franklin didn't patent his techniques involving lightning. Without a doubt, this would have greatly distressed Doctor Emmet Brown.
The funny thing is that most of the stereotypes that Eurpoeans have against North Americans would not exist if they understood anything about our country.
:P
I'll just give a brief example here because the topic is a bit old: One of the stereotypes Ive heard is that Americans are so self centered that they dont know where other countries like Germany are located.
I don't think they understand quite how big the United States is. I'm curious how many of them can point to Kansas. It's similar, dontcha think? The United States is like having 48 countries up close to each other. If they don't know the locations of the majority of our states, I don't know why I need to know where Germany is.
It's a matter of perspective. Americans are annoying to Europeans, Eu's are annoying to us. Oh well. We live in different worlds! At least we can get along with our neighbors.
How long have you been wearing your 'troll trainee' button?
Yeesh, somebody cracks a joke and suddenly the preach wars start.
Sounds like the AC touched on a sore spot there. Heh.
"Linux controlling our skies? Might as well stop all airborne travel."
I wouldn't go that far, but you would need to know Bernoulli's Law to board the plane.
Lol!
"What's the command to change this guy's reservation?"
"It's 'chgres -x -p#30240 -usrname=John Doe -t12:00 -tx13:35 -fn usa412."
"Oh... Didn't realize that command had a vowel in it."
I hate when they use acronyms without context to establish them. It's really embarrasing to confuse Mortal Kombat and Mario Kart.
"How many audio CDs do you have that start each track with "Federal law provides severe penalties..."
For this reason alone, the Record Industry has 0 reason to claim anybody's breaking the law. As you pointed out, they did nothing to educate people that you're not supposed to copy music. They make you think it's free by playing it on the radio at no charge to you. So when you buy a CD, you don't think you're licensing a song, you think you're buying the convienence of hearing it when you want to. The only reason you know about the "Don't copy CD's..." law is that it is of interest to you.
Okay, I've drifted off topic a bit, and I apologize for that. I just don't think that the RIAA should be allowed to propose shit like the SSSCA when they did nothing to educate people on what the law says. With an "FBI warning" at the beginning of a tape/DVD, you know you can't legally go copy it and give it to a friend. With a CD, how would you know that without reading fine print or looking up the law? I would LOVE for the RIAA and the TV Industry both to get smacked with that. It would mean that the problems they think they're having are of their own creation. Ouch. Heh.