"If I copy an entire book, then add a citation at the bottom and some fascile quote like 'this rocks' then even with the citation it is clearly plagarism."
It is not plagiarism it is copyright infringement. In order for it to be plagiarism I must claim to be the owner of that book (the one who wrote it originally) when I'm not. That is the difference between simple copyright infringement (a distribution issue) and plagiarism (an ownership issue).
Students that get caught at plagiarism are often caught with less than a paragraph. It is still plagiarism because they are laying the claim that they are the original author.
"Having the source is no garuntee of lack of bugs or flaws, otherwise there should never be a Linux bug fix or hack. Theres a certain point where the code gets so large it becomes immpossible for anybody to have a complete understanding of how everything works or interacts. Often times flaws are not a single issue but a compounded issue caused by several things."
This is a function of "feature creep" and an indication of poor programming administration. It also splits from the Unix axiom of 'do one thing and do it well'. Any project that grows to the point of speghetti code (like Windows) needs to have its functionality reviewed and paired down.
"Face the facts that Open Source is not protection against bugs or flaws, some things like the linux kernal get a lot of attention but many other projects get only as much attention or less than a commercial product. The difference in most cases is the underlaying security model and smaller userbase in linux has prevented many issues from blowing out of scale. Once idiot grandma or your brother-in-law fred get on it and start clicking on the monkey or downloading this nifty little bonzia buddy THEN you'll see a lot more exploitation."
I disagree with this age old FUD argument of number of users means more probability of attack. The number of trees in a forest isn't important but the diversity of a forest that stops a disease from spreading is. Diversity in distributions is the greatest strength in OSS and the real reason OSS viruses/trojans won't go far. Viruses/trojans rely on systems being the same so it knows for sure how to infect and spread. I can assure you that my system is laid out different from a RedHat system which is different from a Mandriva system, etc...
"After CAN-SPAM was declared law, spam rates skyrocketed."
That was due to happen anyway. The spam growth chart at most spam monitoring sites show the curve is logarithmic starting way before this legislation. This is what prompted the need for legislation in the first place. That the legislation got all fouled up is credited to our messed up politicians listening to the marketing lobby who feared it would spawn other restrictions if this was made opt-in (as was originally written in the legislation). Remember, at the same time was the big push for the national do-not-call list as well.
"Of course, if SPAM had been declared illegal in the first place... we wouldn't have to deal with this mess."
You don't honestly believe that do you?!?!
Most spam (in the true sense of the word) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL in that it is fraud.
Spam doesn't operate in a vacuum. There is profit to the ISP hosting spam sites as well as the email accounts of known spammers. Add to that the security exploited machines and it makes email unusable.
To put it in the words of spamhaus.org:
"Although all networks claim to be anti-spam, some network executives factor revenue made from hosting known spam gangs into corporate policy decisions to continue to sell services to spam operations. Others simply decide that closing the holes in their end-user broadband systems that allow spammers access would be too costly to their bottom lines."
In short, if the ISPs were forced to be held accountable for what is on their network, THEN maybe they would take it seriously.
"The two groups battling over this happen to be the only two groups who actually are willing to take the time and effort to make their voices heard. If that scares you, you have only yourself to blame. Just remember, one hand written letter from a genuine constituent represents hundreds if not thousands of votes to a congressperson."
I claim bullshit on this. On any one given issue, congress is swamped with letters in both directions. The answer they give is the same for both...."We support your position". What matters is what they do on the floor which is something that Americans don't pay attention to six minutes after the vote. When the dust settles after a vote on a touchy issue, it is forgotten about. Just ask yourself this: how did your representative vote on other similar issues like the telecommunications reform act (which includes the DMCA), etc? As long as there is something in it for that representative's area, they will vote for it. How else do you think things like the "bridge to nowhere" got funded?
"They need campaign contributions to get votes after all, so they don't do them much good if they piss off a lot of voters in the process. The only problem is that no one gets pissed off enough to actually bring the hurt down on them- and it isn't because the numbers aren't there. It's because people just whine about it and then throw up their hands in disgust without actually doing anything."
Again, I claim bullshit. I live in WV where one representative (Shelly Moore-Capito, R-WV) has spent millions on her campaign far exceeding what any opponent has spent. You don't think that she got that funding from WV citizens do you? Hell no! She got it from the national party (among other non-state centered sources). All that matters to a party is if they control seats and they will do anything to ensure that they do. That is why independent parties are almost non-existent.
What it comes down to is never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.
"If what you said were true, that wouldn't be possible because the accusation would "stand as fact"."
It is true. What do you think a plead is? It is an answer to an accusation (charge). In civil cases if you leave any line of the complaint unanswered it is held as admitted. Same thing.
"They can't preemptively track everyone "incase" they commit a crime. We have a little thing called innocent until proven guilty."
Actually, it is probable cause in the US. Innocent until proven guilty is after the probable cause phase and even that is not quite correct. The burden of proof shifts in an adversarial legal system like we have here. An accusation is made and a response is given with the prosecution going first to satisfy that "innocent" part. In short, once an accusation is made it is up to you to rebut it or it stands as fact.
"There is one thing they could do. ID cards would generally be associated with some sort of unique ID number which would give us a way to identify people without relying on SSNs, which have been ruined by confusions over whether or not they should be treated as confidential material (and when someone assumes they should be when they are not and starts using them to verify someone's identity, we have an easy path to identity theft)."
And what makes you think the very same thing won't happen with a "national" number? Every government institution in the US uses the SSN for its intended purpose, that of providing a means of identifying financial records. It is the commercial entities that have abused it not the government. By law, the SSN is protected by the Privacy Act and every government agency knows this.
Besides, it isn't the SSN that is used for identity since there is no physical attributes to it. For example, there is no picture to it, no signature on it, etc. The real national ID is the Driver's License (or state issued ID for those that don't drive). Those have pictures, signatures, descriptions, etc. The problem with them is 2 fold. First, it puts a burden on the state, and more importantly the underpaid state worker, the burden of verification of the applicant's data. Second, No 2 state's licenses are alike. Some states include encoded biometrics, some have other data that others don't. IIRC, there was a time that not all states required photos (I don't know if there are any of them left but it wouldn't surprise me). In either event, the onus as well as the cost of verification falls to the state.
"I know people do not like the idea of the big bad government treating them as a number, but the fact is in this increasingly digitalized world, this is something we desperately need."
It goes deeper than that. Most Americans are oblivious to the amount of data already available on them and would revolt if they really knew. Americans inherently distrust the government (sometimes justified) and will fight against what they perceive as government intrusion into their lives. They like to think they are in control of their lives and the information about how they live those lives. Of course, reality is somewhat different.
"Webservers are not compromised by default, so it seemed he could have phrased it better, in that administrators put them in the DMZ because they have a higher chance of being compromised, rather than because they are inherently dangerous"
Web servers that are exposed to the world ARE inherently dangerous BECAUSE they have a higher chance of being compromised. That is the whole reason to have a "DMZ" to begin with. this is a case of A==B thus B==A.
"By the way, I'm pro-adwords: I find them useful myself, they generate revenue for sites that would otherwise not be online (because of hosting costs) and they are not intrusive IMHO. Does anybody care to explain why you would block these?"
It is simple. In a word: Bandwidth. It costs bandwidth to download those useless ads that I never click and it is in some cases worse. However benign Google ads, or any other ads for that matter, may be it is still costing me bandwidth that I paid for. That is why I choose to block them.
"Isn't that a little bit of FUD? It's not that companies dont trust the content they've put on their webservers, it's that the webserver is the one that is most likely to be compromised, and if it is compromised, you dont want people able to get immediate access into your network."
By definition a server that is compromised is NOT trusted so no, it isn't FUD.
I still disagree with the premise that government sponsored infrastructure will undercut private. The forces that control public offerings (political as you say) can be influenced either way and more often than not it is in the direction of the private concern. After all, private companies means jobs and less public money spent on this type of thing.
I will put it to you this way, from an emergency management point of view all a terrorist strike is is a localized man-made disaster that is a crime scene afterwards. I was with FEMA from 2000-2004 when I had enough of the "super-spooks" that is DHS. I saw disaster preparedness being undercut in favor of terrorism related stuff. FEMA should never have been put under DHS but was because FEMA was seen as a coordinating agency and it was thought that experience would bring the coordination to the law enforcement / intelligence agencies.
FEMA saw its budget cut in favor of Homeland Security and it still is that way.
All-in-all, I am glad I got out when I did because who knows what mess FEMA will be in in a year after all the politicians in DC are done with them.
First of all you are confusing insurance, federal grants, and Public Assistance funding. They are not the same. The reason telco lines are covered under PA isn't to ensure the telco survives or even that it makes a profit, but to ensure emergency response through the 911 emergency system. 911 is federally mandated thus federally paid for when disaster strikes. That is the reason this grid was setup to ensure emergency communications.
It is impossible to insure phone lines so your statement is nonsensical.
"Except that a municipal wifi cloud isn't free competition, because the city doesn't have to make a profit on it. Indeed, their price structure is set by political concerns, so they're likely to undercut anybody who has to make a profit effectively locking them out."
I disagree with this premise. You (theoretically) have an industry that is regulated already with no ill effects to them.
Right now the industry as a whole is failing in providing broadband (they are holding hearings today and tomorrow about this very issue in the house). So if the city wants to setup the grid I say more power to them!
What I can conceivably see happening is the city sets up the grid and then hands it over (or more likely leases it) to the fretting telcos. The grid belongs to the city with the telco running the day-to-day.
"If that's the case, then why isn't the local state government running the telco industry? I'm not in favor of this, but that would be the next logical step...would it not?"
They do. It is call laws and regulations supposedly run by the FCC. The problem with the FCC though is it is a political agency comprised of industry stooges. The revolving door between the FCC and the industry they are supposed to regulate is appalling.
"Unless your paying for the bandwidth, the users shouldn't bitch when the access becomes saturated because the telcos arn't getting their cut of profit for the fiber THEY layed."
You hear this argument all over the place. I think it is time to debunk it. The telcos may have (and I emphasize MAY) laid them to begin with but in this case it is federal dollars paying for replacement of ALL the infrastructure (including the telco lines). The program responsible for it in FEMA is called Infrastructure (commonly called "Public Assistance"). In a normal disaster the federal split is 75% federal and 25% state. In a catastrophic disaster that drops to 90% fed 10% state. In the case of Katrina even that has been waived with the federal paying 100%.
PA pays for doing public buildings, public services such as power & communications, roads, water and waste water treatment, and debris removal. There are whole categories that they cover. It isn't the telcos laying anything in New Orleans AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE so please stop spreading this little white lie.
B.
DISCLAIMER: I was previously employed by FEMA but now work for my State doing the same thing.
One of your numbered items needs edited and you forgot one...
4[EDITED])Users who want their home computer to work on the same OS as their work computer, when work has Vista. Yes, there are lots of companies/small businesses that will have Vista in 2007 assuming they release in 2007 despite all the voices you hear on/. to the contrary. And yes, there are lots of users who want the sameness between home and work. Don't ask me, but I see it all the time.
5) All the people who are told "UPGRADE" on the Microsoft support line instead of receiving support for the product they have.
"Notice can still be given, and an advisory committee on critical public infrastructure can have a closed meeting when deemed necessary, as it would have been able to since 1776 and 1976. And now, 2006. But without having to arbitrarily wait 15 days between the notice and the closed meeting."
There is a reason there are "sunshine laws" in this nation. This is part of the clearing for those laws. If the administration doesn't like the law then they should do as any other agancy does and petition the legislature to exempt them IN THIS LAW. The thing that is arbitrary here is the administration's intrepretation of the law.
And just what is to object to in the 15 day requirement to ANNOUNCE that they are meeting in closed session BEFORE the meeting? There has got to be a reason the administration fears trying to change the law. Could it be that they would get a resounding NO...
"So? That doesn't mean you have done anything wrong or illegal no matter what."
The burden of proof then shifts to you to prove you haven't. That is the way that US law works (where this is likely to be tried). In either event, I won't be using this "service".
Why is it that people always seperate out distribution systems then go on to prove their point using only one? Do you think nobody will buy another DVD the minute this is started? Do you really think people won't go to theaters because of this? What do you think will happen to this when the next whiz-bang distribution system comes along?
Go back and add back in the revenue from those distribution streams you left out and then we'll talk...
Slashdot Mirror
"If I copy an entire book, then add a citation at the bottom and some fascile quote like 'this rocks' then even with the citation it is clearly plagarism."
It is not plagiarism it is copyright infringement. In order for it to be plagiarism I must claim to be the owner of that book (the one who wrote it originally) when I'm not. That is the difference between simple copyright infringement (a distribution issue) and plagiarism (an ownership issue).
Students that get caught at plagiarism are often caught with less than a paragraph. It is still plagiarism because they are laying the claim that they are the original author.
B.
"Having the source is no garuntee of lack of bugs or flaws, otherwise there should never be a Linux bug fix or hack. Theres a certain point where the code gets so large it becomes immpossible for anybody to have a complete understanding of how everything works or interacts. Often times flaws are not a single issue but a compounded issue caused by several things."
This is a function of "feature creep" and an indication of poor programming administration. It also splits from the Unix axiom of 'do one thing and do it well'. Any project that grows to the point of speghetti code (like Windows) needs to have its functionality reviewed and paired down.
"Face the facts that Open Source is not protection against bugs or flaws, some things like the linux kernal get a lot of attention but many other projects get only as much attention or less than a commercial product. The difference in most cases is the underlaying security model and smaller userbase in linux has prevented many issues from blowing out of scale. Once idiot grandma or your brother-in-law fred get on it and start clicking on the monkey or downloading this nifty little bonzia buddy THEN you'll see a lot more exploitation."
I disagree with this age old FUD argument of number of users means more probability of attack. The number of trees in a forest isn't important but the diversity of a forest that stops a disease from spreading is. Diversity in distributions is the greatest strength in OSS and the real reason OSS viruses/trojans won't go far. Viruses/trojans rely on systems being the same so it knows for sure how to infect and spread. I can assure you that my system is laid out different from a RedHat system which is different from a Mandriva system, etc...
B.
The law is called "statute of frauds"...
See here..
http://www.answers.com/topic/statute-of-frauds
B.
"After CAN-SPAM was declared law, spam rates skyrocketed."
That was due to happen anyway. The spam growth chart at most spam monitoring sites show the curve is logarithmic starting way before this legislation. This is what prompted the need for legislation in the first place. That the legislation got all fouled up is credited to our messed up politicians listening to the marketing lobby who feared it would spawn other restrictions if this was made opt-in (as was originally written in the legislation). Remember, at the same time was the big push for the national do-not-call list as well.
B.
"Of course, if SPAM had been declared illegal in the first place... we wouldn't have to deal with this mess."
You don't honestly believe that do you?!?!
Most spam (in the true sense of the word) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL in that it is fraud.
Spam doesn't operate in a vacuum. There is profit to the ISP hosting spam sites as well as the email accounts of known spammers. Add to that the security exploited machines and it makes email unusable.
To put it in the words of spamhaus.org:
"Although all networks claim to be anti-spam, some network executives factor revenue made from hosting known spam gangs into corporate policy decisions to continue to sell services to spam operations. Others simply decide that closing the holes in their end-user broadband systems that allow spammers access would be too costly to their bottom lines."
In short, if the ISPs were forced to be held accountable for what is on their network, THEN maybe they would take it seriously.
B.
"The two groups battling over this happen to be the only two groups who actually are willing to take the time and effort to make their voices heard. If that scares you, you have only yourself to blame. Just remember, one hand written letter from a genuine constituent represents hundreds if not thousands of votes to a congressperson."
I claim bullshit on this. On any one given issue, congress is swamped with letters in both directions. The answer they give is the same for both...."We support your position". What matters is what they do on the floor which is something that Americans don't pay attention to six minutes after the vote. When the dust settles after a vote on a touchy issue, it is forgotten about. Just ask yourself this: how did your representative vote on other similar issues like the telecommunications reform act (which includes the DMCA), etc? As long as there is something in it for that representative's area, they will vote for it. How else do you think things like the "bridge to nowhere" got funded?
"They need campaign contributions to get votes after all, so they don't do them much good if they piss off a lot of voters in the process. The only problem is that no one gets pissed off enough to actually bring the hurt down on them- and it isn't because the numbers aren't there. It's because people just whine about it and then throw up their hands in disgust without actually doing anything."
Again, I claim bullshit. I live in WV where one representative (Shelly Moore-Capito, R-WV) has spent millions on her campaign far exceeding what any opponent has spent. You don't think that she got that funding from WV citizens do you? Hell no! She got it from the national party (among other non-state centered sources). All that matters to a party is if they control seats and they will do anything to ensure that they do. That is why independent parties are almost non-existent.
What it comes down to is never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.
B.
"If what you said were true, that wouldn't be possible because the accusation would "stand as fact"."
It is true. What do you think a plead is? It is an answer to an accusation (charge). In civil cases if you leave any line of the complaint unanswered it is held as admitted. Same thing.
B.
"They can't preemptively track everyone "incase" they commit a crime. We have a little thing called innocent until proven guilty."
Actually, it is probable cause in the US. Innocent until proven guilty is after the probable cause phase and even that is not quite correct. The burden of proof shifts in an adversarial legal system like we have here. An accusation is made and a response is given with the prosecution going first to satisfy that "innocent" part. In short, once an accusation is made it is up to you to rebut it or it stands as fact.
B.
"There is one thing they could do. ID cards would generally be associated with some sort of unique ID number which would give us a way to identify people without relying on SSNs, which have been ruined by confusions over whether or not they should be treated as confidential material (and when someone assumes they should be when they are not and starts using them to verify someone's identity, we have an easy path to identity theft)."
And what makes you think the very same thing won't happen with a "national" number? Every government institution in the US uses the SSN for its intended purpose, that of providing a means of identifying financial records. It is the commercial entities that have abused it not the government. By law, the SSN is protected by the Privacy Act and every government agency knows this.
Besides, it isn't the SSN that is used for identity since there is no physical attributes to it. For example, there is no picture to it, no signature on it, etc. The real national ID is the Driver's License (or state issued ID for those that don't drive). Those have pictures, signatures, descriptions, etc. The problem with them is 2 fold. First, it puts a burden on the state, and more importantly the underpaid state worker, the burden of verification of the applicant's data. Second, No 2 state's licenses are alike. Some states include encoded biometrics, some have other data that others don't. IIRC, there was a time that not all states required photos (I don't know if there are any of them left but it wouldn't surprise me). In either event, the onus as well as the cost of verification falls to the state.
"I know people do not like the idea of the big bad government treating them as a number, but the fact is in this increasingly digitalized world, this is something we desperately need."
It goes deeper than that. Most Americans are oblivious to the amount of data already available on them and would revolt if they really knew. Americans inherently distrust the government (sometimes justified) and will fight against what they perceive as government intrusion into their lives. They like to think they are in control of their lives and the information about how they live those lives. Of course, reality is somewhat different.
B.
"Webservers are not compromised by default, so it seemed he could have phrased it better, in that administrators put them in the DMZ because they have a higher chance of being compromised, rather than because they are inherently dangerous"
Web servers that are exposed to the world ARE inherently dangerous BECAUSE they have a higher chance of being compromised. That is the whole reason to have a "DMZ" to begin with. this is a case of A==B thus B==A.
B.
Then evidentally I don't need to see their content and will get it elsewhere...
B.
"By the way, I'm pro-adwords: I find them useful myself, they generate revenue for sites that would otherwise not be online (because of hosting costs) and they are not intrusive IMHO. Does anybody care to explain why you would block these?"
It is simple. In a word: Bandwidth. It costs bandwidth to download those useless ads that I never click and it is in some cases worse. However benign Google ads, or any other ads for that matter, may be it is still costing me bandwidth that I paid for. That is why I choose to block them.
B.
"Isn't that a little bit of FUD? It's not that companies dont trust the content they've put on their webservers, it's that the webserver is the one that is most likely to be compromised, and if it is compromised, you dont want people able to get immediate access into your network."
By definition a server that is compromised is NOT trusted so no, it isn't FUD.
B.
"Like it or not most end users don't know what the hell a firewall is, much less how to configure one."
Which is why the default configuration is so important. Let's put this in perspective shall we...
Enterprise company A wants outgoing connections open and have the resources to configure them.
Home customer B doesn't have a clue.
Microsoft's solution....
We go with A because they are paying more money than B not because it is the "right" thing to do.
B.
Hey, at least I gave you karma...
I still disagree with the premise that government sponsored infrastructure will undercut private. The forces that control public offerings (political as you say) can be influenced either way and more often than not it is in the direction of the private concern. After all, private companies means jobs and less public money spent on this type of thing.
B.
I will put it to you this way, from an emergency management point of view all a terrorist strike is is a localized man-made disaster that is a crime scene afterwards. I was with FEMA from 2000-2004 when I had enough of the "super-spooks" that is DHS. I saw disaster preparedness being undercut in favor of terrorism related stuff. FEMA should never have been put under DHS but was because FEMA was seen as a coordinating agency and it was thought that experience would bring the coordination to the law enforcement / intelligence agencies.
FEMA saw its budget cut in favor of Homeland Security and it still is that way.
All-in-all, I am glad I got out when I did because who knows what mess FEMA will be in in a year after all the politicians in DC are done with them.
B.
First of all you are confusing insurance, federal grants, and Public Assistance funding. They are not the same. The reason telco lines are covered under PA isn't to ensure the telco survives or even that it makes a profit, but to ensure emergency response through the 911 emergency system. 911 is federally mandated thus federally paid for when disaster strikes. That is the reason this grid was setup to ensure emergency communications.
It is impossible to insure phone lines so your statement is nonsensical.
B.
"Except that a municipal wifi cloud isn't free competition, because the city doesn't have to make a profit on it. Indeed, their price structure is set by political concerns, so they're likely to undercut anybody who has to make a profit effectively locking them out."
I disagree with this premise. You (theoretically) have an industry that is regulated already with no ill effects to them.
Right now the industry as a whole is failing in providing broadband (they are holding hearings today and tomorrow about this very issue in the house). So if the city wants to setup the grid I say more power to them!
What I can conceivably see happening is the city sets up the grid and then hands it over (or more likely leases it) to the fretting telcos. The grid belongs to the city with the telco running the day-to-day.
B.
"If that's the case, then why isn't the local state government running the telco industry? I'm not in favor of this, but that would be the next logical step...would it not?"
They do. It is call laws and regulations supposedly run by the FCC. The problem with the FCC though is it is a political agency comprised of industry stooges. The revolving door between the FCC and the industry they are supposed to regulate is appalling.
B.
"Unless your paying for the bandwidth, the users shouldn't bitch when the access becomes saturated because the telcos arn't getting their cut of profit for the fiber THEY layed."
You hear this argument all over the place. I think it is time to debunk it. The telcos may have (and I emphasize MAY) laid them to begin with but in this case it is federal dollars paying for replacement of ALL the infrastructure (including the telco lines). The program responsible for it in FEMA is called Infrastructure (commonly called "Public Assistance"). In a normal disaster the federal split is 75% federal and 25% state. In a catastrophic disaster that drops to 90% fed 10% state. In the case of Katrina even that has been waived with the federal paying 100%.
PA pays for doing public buildings, public services such as power & communications, roads, water and waste water treatment, and debris removal. There are whole categories that they cover. It isn't the telcos laying anything in New Orleans AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE so please stop spreading this little white lie.
B.
DISCLAIMER: I was previously employed by FEMA but now work for my State doing the same thing.
One of your numbered items needs edited and you forgot one...
/. to the contrary. And yes, there are lots of users who want the sameness between home and work. Don't ask me, but I see it all the time.
4[EDITED])Users who want their home computer to work on the same OS as their work computer, when work has Vista. Yes, there are lots of companies/small businesses that will have Vista in 2007 assuming they release in 2007 despite all the voices you hear on
5) All the people who are told "UPGRADE" on the Microsoft support line instead of receiving support for the product they have.
That looks better now...
B.
"Notice can still be given, and an advisory committee on critical public infrastructure can have a closed meeting when deemed necessary, as it would have been able to since 1776 and 1976. And now, 2006. But without having to arbitrarily wait 15 days between the notice and the closed meeting."
There is a reason there are "sunshine laws" in this nation. This is part of the clearing for those laws. If the administration doesn't like the law then they should do as any other agancy does and petition the legislature to exempt them IN THIS LAW. The thing that is arbitrary here is the administration's intrepretation of the law.
And just what is to object to in the 15 day requirement to ANNOUNCE that they are meeting in closed session BEFORE the meeting? There has got to be a reason the administration fears trying to change the law. Could it be that they would get a resounding NO...
B.
"So? That doesn't mean you have done anything wrong or illegal no matter what."
The burden of proof then shifts to you to prove you haven't. That is the way that US law works (where this is likely to be tried). In either event, I won't be using this "service".
B.
Lol....Too funny!
B.
Why is it that people always seperate out distribution systems then go on to prove their point using only one? Do you think nobody will buy another DVD the minute this is started? Do you really think people won't go to theaters because of this? What do you think will happen to this when the next whiz-bang distribution system comes along?
Go back and add back in the revenue from those distribution streams you left out and then we'll talk...
B.