I think that the obvious overwhelming sentiment from the online community is that this is a very positive step in a good direction, however I wonder how many people are supporting this move simply to either spite the RIAA/Labels and/or support this new distribution method.
However, let's say that the RIAA goes away and that everyone distributes their music this way. Will the droves of people will continue to support this movement once the novelty wears off, or will we end up back at the starting line with people downloading things for free?
When they started doing Rhapsody, I had about 5 employees come up to me one day and try to sell me the service. I don't mean just hawk it. No. I mean trying to offer me demos, explaining to me what the service was, etc. Every time I'm in best buy, I have no less than 6 people ask me if I need help with something. While I appreciate the attentitiveness to an extent, it is a little over the top. Now, they'll be trying to hawk Napster to me. I love the store and I like shopping there but I just want to be left alone while I'm there. You have HUGE signs saying "customer service" and those distictly blue shirts. If I need you, I'll find you.
Lately it has been magazines. "Oh. You purchased a CD. You are entitled to 6 months free of Entertainment Weekly or People!"
No. No I'm not.
And am I the only one that thinks that a reciept that is no less than a foot and a half long for a single CD purchase is a little extreme?/rant
How do you know that the person's file, business card, etc doesn't have a virus or spyware? Or, that it isn't also "taking" information from your computer (MAC address, IP address, etc) for later, malicious use such as spam where it just gathers addresses and info to submit to a database for bad usage. "I noticed this person was running an unpatched version of Windows XP, so we should use this IP / MAC address to hijack and transmit spam / viruses.".
What are the safeguards? I can't get my co-workers to stop automatically opening attachments that give them viruses, and that involves them actually opening somtehing.
What impact would this have, from a sysadmin point of view, on our workload. After a business meeting, there is a virus outbreak that we need to contain because a "dirty" pen touched one of our screens and gave us a virus, or worse yet, ganked our documents that weren't meant for them.
I prefer to make it a little harder to allow people to put or take things from my computer. This could be a cool idea, but I think it needs work.
This will solve more problems than one. Really. If Microsoft makes everyone's online experience the digital equivalent of being pestered by sales calls 24 times a day, on the hour, every hour, then maybe people like myself will turn off the computer, get up, go outside, and get some more exercise, loose weight, defeat the obesity scare, live longer and have a social life!...or, realistically, develop better ad-blocking software.
Who am I kidding.
Though it would be funny to see what ads would pop up when searching for "Windows XP 2004 Server Keygen"
the only real limiting factor I see here is I cannot really imagine everyone using a cell phone today escentially walking around talking on a speaker phone.
Isn't that what those Nextel "walkie-talkie" phones are, basically? Carrying on a conversation over a speaker phone? I resent those beyond a reasonable passion. It was rude enough to carry on a conversation on a cell phone in public, now I have to hear it as well? And that annoying *chirp* to boot?
Not too far away is your concern going to meet reality, I fear.
Tom is looking into Michael's "computers". Michael is very happy about this. Tom and Michael forsee a long lasting "friendship" spawning from this. Go, Tom Go! (now legal in 2 counties in Oregon!)
Run some version of Linux that will upset SCO, spoof the IP of the offending server, then host a boatload of mp3's and video files that will get the RIAA on their butts.
Good ol' fashion American lawsuits, without any cost to you!...or something like that.
This sounds like the whole "Friends and Family" network from AT&T a few years ago, and now Verizon's "In" network thing, but with email and exclusive instead of "Free calls to friends on 'the list'".
Pretty soon, you will have to send an MD5 hash of your DNA from a static IP address that is reversible and supply 5 refrences all in a PGP encrypted letter, along with a copy of your passport and birth certificate.
When it's more work to block spam than stop it, you have to ask what is going wrong. Maybe if we somehow figured out wonderful technologies to *stop* spammers instead of blocking them, we'd be getting towards the ultimate goal. This is much like throwing money at a problem to bandage it, not fix it. The solution, however, also has to be easier for end users, who are doing nothing wrong. Why is every solution harder for end users, but just a 'bump in the road' for spammers? Am I missing something?
I don't agree with the whining people who moan because of cybersquatters. Those that put into common use the// in a hyperlink and the . before the domain extension could, in theory, say that slashdot is unfairly using their property to prosper. I, personally, think it's a 'first-come, first-serve' situation.
If someone yanked 'mcdonalds.com' and was using it to slander mcdonalds, sue them for libel, but they have the right to rent that domain for as long as they pay for it. This babysitting by the courts for corporate welfare is just over the line. I don't know why I'm so outraged by the very idea of this, but I am.
/opinion
Yahoo picked up its own story? Neato.
on
Yahoo to Dump Google
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Yahoo news has picked up the story Yahoo News picked up the story that Yahoo was in the news? Now *that's* some good searching technology! You can bet I'll be using them to search news!
I went to update the firmware on my iPod, and... like, it went all 'beep-beep-beep-beep-beep' and started to smoke. That was kind of... a bummer. So I check my funds and realize that I don't have the cash to get a new one because I bought my week's worth of... herbs. So, I go to the store and see that they released this iPodJr, and I was all like... cool. So, I was able to still listen to Jerry while I was studying. That's like... cool.
Telemarketers do target cell phones, some by accident, and some as a result of the "Do Not Call" registry. I do like the idea that I could port my land line number around if I so chose, but I just don't see any benefits to it in my case. I like the idea that your number could actually be "your number", though I can see this backfiring (like having to register it like a domain name and lease it on a yearly basis, or some other evil money-grubbing scheme to take power away from the subscriber). For now, maybe this will increase customer service and the drive to keep customers happy, but in the long run, I think that they will end up making this seem more like it's a privilege that we must pay for while saying thank you the whole time, rather than a right.
I noticed the link had a LOT of good information that was topical to the subject at hand, as well as things that might be informative to those that are interested in the thread, but in the interests of saving reader's time (and not being marked as Troll;-) ) that I'd point out the link and people could run from there. I'm glad that you noticed, however:-)
I have (luckily) gotten no telemarketing phone calls on my cell phone, but I was littered with them on my land line. Why would I want my cell number published? Why would I want to pay *extra* to not have it published, and why would I want to pay more in phone company "surcharges" for this "benefit"?
I ditched my land-line a long time ago, and never missed it. I appreciate the concept, but I think I'd take a pass on this opportunity.
I understand if you've had your phone number for years why this might be a nice option, but for me (who moves all too frequently, which assisted in my desire to ditch a land line alltogether), this just isn't a factor.
been declared a weapon of mass destruction, capable of destroying North Americans without regard to political or religious affiliation? I thought the Bush administration was taking these threats out one by one. Or is this in next year's budget.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that the obvious overwhelming sentiment from the online community is that this is a very positive step in a good direction, however I wonder how many people are supporting this move simply to either spite the RIAA/Labels and/or support this new distribution method.
However, let's say that the RIAA goes away and that everyone distributes their music this way. Will the droves of people will continue to support this movement once the novelty wears off, or will we end up back at the starting line with people downloading things for free?
Just for the fun of it I had tried to set my address to 'root@vtext.com' figuring it would never let me. It did.
And I started getting text messages to root@. I changed that quickly.
slow news day?
Wouldn't all the dupes be the first clue? This is just the deal breaker.
We always wanted the show to end first but it just keeps going.
My thoughts exactly.
I can't apply to get *anything*. Looks like they might need the money much more than me to pay for a better provider during settlements.
http://www.settlement4onlinepayments.com/
Failed to connect
The host 63.123.235.144 could not be contacted. If this persists, you should contact the administrator of the remote site.
When they started doing Rhapsody, I had about 5 employees come up to me one day and try to sell me the service. I don't mean just hawk it. No. I mean trying to offer me demos, explaining to me what the service was, etc. Every time I'm in best buy, I have no less than 6 people ask me if I need help with something. While I appreciate the attentitiveness to an extent, it is a little over the top. Now, they'll be trying to hawk Napster to me. I love the store and I like shopping there but I just want to be left alone while I'm there. You have HUGE signs saying "customer service" and those distictly blue shirts. If I need you, I'll find you.
/rant
Lately it has been magazines. "Oh. You purchased a CD. You are entitled to 6 months free of Entertainment Weekly or People!"
No. No I'm not.
And am I the only one that thinks that a reciept that is no less than a foot and a half long for a single CD purchase is a little extreme?
How do you know that the person's file, business card, etc doesn't have a virus or spyware? Or, that it isn't also "taking" information from your computer (MAC address, IP address, etc) for later, malicious use such as spam where it just gathers addresses and info to submit to a database for bad usage. "I noticed this person was running an unpatched version of Windows XP, so we should use this IP / MAC address to hijack and transmit spam / viruses.".
What are the safeguards? I can't get my co-workers to stop automatically opening attachments that give them viruses, and that involves them actually opening somtehing.
What impact would this have, from a sysadmin point of view, on our workload. After a business meeting, there is a virus outbreak that we need to contain because a "dirty" pen touched one of our screens and gave us a virus, or worse yet, ganked our documents that weren't meant for them.
I prefer to make it a little harder to allow people to put or take things from my computer. This could be a cool idea, but I think it needs work.
The spelling was right, but the word was wrong. So nyaaaah :-)
This will solve more problems than one. Really. If Microsoft makes everyone's online experience the digital equivalent of being pestered by sales calls 24 times a day, on the hour, every hour, then maybe people like myself will turn off the computer, get up, go outside, and get some more exercise, loose weight, defeat the obesity scare, live longer and have a social life! ...or, realistically, develop better ad-blocking software.
Who am I kidding.
Though it would be funny to see what ads would pop up when searching for "Windows XP 2004 Server Keygen"
that the ruling of the FCC and its current rules and regulations can't be read on the air without breaking its own rules?
the only real limiting factor I see here is I cannot really imagine everyone using a cell phone today escentially walking around talking on a speaker phone.
Isn't that what those Nextel "walkie-talkie" phones are, basically? Carrying on a conversation over a speaker phone? I resent those beyond a reasonable passion. It was rude enough to carry on a conversation on a cell phone in public, now I have to hear it as well? And that annoying *chirp* to boot?
Not too far away is your concern going to meet reality, I fear.
I say this, I will live in fear of no man, nor group. *Save the Bush Administration*
;-)
Don't you mean, Save *for* the Bush Administration?
I think it's time to call this section, "Your Lack of Rights Online".
*shakes head*
Sad, frustrated, and furrrrriously angry.
Tom is looking into Michael's "computers".
Michael is very happy about this.
Tom and Michael forsee a long lasting "friendship" spawning from this.
Go, Tom Go!
(now legal in 2 counties in Oregon!)
Run some version of Linux that will upset SCO, spoof the IP of the offending server, then host a boatload of mp3's and video files that will get the RIAA on their butts.
...or something like that.
Good ol' fashion American lawsuits, without any cost to you!
This sounds like the whole "Friends and Family" network from AT&T a few years ago, and now Verizon's "In" network thing, but with email and exclusive instead of "Free calls to friends on 'the list'".
Pretty soon, you will have to send an MD5 hash of your DNA from a static IP address that is reversible and supply 5 refrences all in a PGP encrypted letter, along with a copy of your passport and birth certificate.
When it's more work to block spam than stop it, you have to ask what is going wrong. Maybe if we somehow figured out wonderful technologies to *stop* spammers instead of blocking them, we'd be getting towards the ultimate goal. This is much like throwing money at a problem to bandage it, not fix it. The solution, however, also has to be easier for end users, who are doing nothing wrong. Why is every solution harder for end users, but just a 'bump in the road' for spammers? Am I missing something?
Seeing that it is currently warmer on Mars than where I live, I'm thinking about it.
I don't agree with the whining people who moan because of cybersquatters. Those that put into common use the // in a hyperlink and the . before the domain extension could, in theory, say that slashdot is unfairly using their property to prosper. I, personally, think it's a 'first-come, first-serve' situation.
/opinion
If someone yanked 'mcdonalds.com' and was using it to slander mcdonalds, sue them for libel, but they have the right to rent that domain for as long as they pay for it. This babysitting by the courts for corporate welfare is just over the line. I don't know why I'm so outraged by the very idea of this, but I am.
Yahoo news has picked up the story
Yahoo News picked up the story that Yahoo was in the news? Now *that's* some good searching technology! You can bet I'll be using them to search news!
You Told!
Stay where you are. Someone is coming to delete this post and re-program you.
Apple Owners: Please ignore the ramblings of this post. The person is obviously insane from inhaling MSFumes.
Move along. There is nothing to see here.
I went to update the firmware on my iPod, and... like, it went all 'beep-beep-beep-beep-beep' and started to smoke. That was kind of... a bummer. So I check my funds and realize that I don't have the cash to get a new one because I bought my week's worth of... herbs. So, I go to the store and see that they released this iPodJr, and I was all like... cool. So, I was able to still listen to Jerry while I was studying. That's like... cool.
I'm Ellen Feiss, and I have an iPodJr.
Telemarketers do target cell phones, some by accident, and some as a result of the "Do Not Call" registry.
;-) ) that I'd point out the link and people could run from there. I'm glad that you noticed, however :-)
I do like the idea that I could port my land line number around if I so chose, but I just don't see any benefits to it in my case. I like the idea that your number could actually be "your number", though I can see this backfiring (like having to register it like a domain name and lease it on a yearly basis, or some other evil money-grubbing scheme to take power away from the subscriber). For now, maybe this will increase customer service and the drive to keep customers happy, but in the long run, I think that they will end up making this seem more like it's a privilege that we must pay for while saying thank you the whole time, rather than a right.
I noticed the link had a LOT of good information that was topical to the subject at hand, as well as things that might be informative to those that are interested in the thread, but in the interests of saving reader's time (and not being marked as Troll
I have (luckily) gotten no telemarketing phone calls on my cell phone, but I was littered with them on my land line. Why would I want my cell number published? Why would I want to pay *extra* to not have it published, and why would I want to pay more in phone company "surcharges" for this "benefit"?
I ditched my land-line a long time ago, and never missed it. I appreciate the concept, but I think I'd take a pass on this opportunity.
I understand if you've had your phone number for years why this might be a nice option, but for me (who moves all too frequently, which assisted in my desire to ditch a land line alltogether), this just isn't a factor.
been declared a weapon of mass destruction, capable of destroying North Americans without regard to political or religious affiliation? I thought the Bush administration was taking these threats out one by one. Or is this in next year's budget.
(it's funny. laugh)
People!
Sue (present/future tense; verb)
Sued (past tense; verb)
Suing (present tense; verb)
Suer (noun)
"Sueing" is not a word.