You are forgetting the other scenario. Company A makes really bad move and does something like product activation. People start complaining and Marketting Guy A says "Why should we change now? Remember when TurboTax added activation and people complained? They took the activation out and people still boycotted the product. We might as well leave it in now and see if we can make it work." The whole idea of boycotting is to punish a company for doing something bad and to get them to correct their ways. If correcting their ways doesn't work, why should they bother?
It's also private property in a store, yet it is still illegal to shoplift. Why don't they just throw people out of the store and forget about it? The whole point of making something illegal is to discourage people from doing it. The only way to discourage someone from doing something is to have some kind of consequence. Getting thrown out of a movie theatre is not the kind of consequence that will stop people from doing something. Hell, it won;t even keep people quiet during a movie.
Everyone seems to be asking the wrong questions. The questions have nothing to do with if P2P copying helps or hurts music. The simple question is "Do these people have a legal right to distribute this music?" And the simple answer is "no". Just because you own a copy of something in no way gives you the right to distribute copies of it to other people. Owning a book doesn't give you the right to make copies of it and hand it out on the street. Owning a photograph (that someone else took) doesn't give you the right to make copies and hand them out. Owning a copy of Linux doesn't give you the right to distribute binary only copies of it. Owning a CD doesn't give you the right to distribute MP3 copies of the music. IT doesn't matter whether it helps or hurts CD sales, the fact is you have no right to do it. People have the right (and should have the right) to decide what happens to the things they create. IF you want to distribute music via P2P, feel free to create some and distribute it. You have every right to decide what happens with the music you make. Just as other people have the right to decide they don't want you giving away their music for free over P2P.
I think the title says it all. I tried WA3 and it had some nice features, but you weren't able to braodcast your Shoutcast stream using it, which took it right out for me. Will WA5 be able to broadcast Shoutcast, or is it going to be like WA3 which I have never been able to really use?
90% of the time that precieved fault of microsoft is really something that is misconfigured, or a under engineered network causing the trouble... but MS get's the bulk of the blame.
This is very true and I think it will come back and bite Linux in the ass eventually. Most people switching to Linux from MS right now are knowledgable. They are the people that know how to set up a proper network and keep it running. As the common people switch to Linux, they will encounter many of the same problems they encountered on Windows, except they won't have any idea how to deal with them. They will end up switching back to their Windows boxes because they at least have an idea how to deal with things on that.
I think we'll see a lot of people switch to Linux, but then we'll see a decent portion of them switch back as they realize their problems weren't caused by MS, but by their own lack of knowledge.
Except that FireBird is vulnerable to the exploit as well. I find it funny when people use these scare tactics to push other browsers. The idea of "scaring" people into a "better" browser is a joke. If it was really better people would use it. The problem with "better" is the best thing is what people want. Most people want something that works good enough and is easy, and that is IE.
You're confusing having the ability to do something with having the right to do something. A right is something that should not be(or more accurately can not be) taken away. It is something everyone has (or should have) regardless of circumstances. Everyone has the right to free speech, even if they cannot speak. There is no right to record everything you see. Or to even carry a video camera everywhere you go. Just because you can do something now in no way means you will always be able to do it. A right is an extremely important concept, and it is cheapen when people start talking about the right to pirate music, or carry a video recorder everywhere, or drive over the speed limit.
It seems it would help prevent what it is meant to stop, which is people recording the movie. If you can't have a video recorder in the theatre, it's going to be much harder to record the movie.
What civil rights are being violated? The right to record a movie your watching? You have no right to take a video camera into a movie theatre.
While you may think this wastes people's time, many other people don't. I have no problem with this law, since anyone recording a movie with a camcorder is obviously going to pirate the movie (I have never heard of a person sneaking a camera into a movie theatre to have a copy for personal use). So they are obviously going to violate copyright (if they aren't already by recording, I'm not sure about that). So why shouldn't they be stopped?
While these "millions" of people are "forced" to use MS products, how many actually want to use Ms products? I would guess at least 90% of them. So while they don't have a choice of what to use at work, if they did, most of them would still choose to use Windows. So what is the big deal if they are "forced" to use MS products if that is what they want to use anyway?
I find it interesting that no one has suggested Blogger. While other tools are more powerful, for something simple, Blogger seems like the best idea. It is free, they can host it for you if you want, and it's even integrated into the Google toolbar. Nothing seems easier than just telling them to hit the toolbar and type in the window.
Yes, they have no choice but to accept the rules. But the rules are based on the law, which makes it different. They can't do illegal activities in the dorms, and they pay for those. If they were filtering based on porn, or politics, or some other non-illegal criteria, you would have a point. But the fact is they are filtering based on what is legal, which they have every right to do.
I said this before and I'll say it again. A loser pays system does nothing to help people. What happens is that it makes it so the small guy can't afford to sue the big guys. If there is the smallest chance you could lose, would you sue Big Comapny X? If you do lose, you will have to pay for their lawyers, which is potentially millions of dollars. If there is the slightest chance you could lose, you won't sue, even if you know your right. A loser pays system does nothing but stop the small guy from suing the big guy, while the big guy can afford to sue whoever they want still.
A loser pays system is worse than what we have now. Let's say you have a legitimate complaint against big company A. It is not open and shut, but ti certainly has merit. You sue them, they spend millions of dollars on lawyers, and you happen you lose. You then have to pay their millions of dollars in lawyers fees, which means you won't sue at all to begin with, because you can't afford to lose. A loser pays system guarantees that the small guy won;t sue, because they can't take the chance of being wrong and being stuck with the huge bills of the winner.
What you are missing is in the US, anyone has the right to sue anyone else. Yes, the RIAA can sue these people and they will have to go to court and defend themsleves. If they are innocent, they will have their day in court and the case will be thrown out. They can also sue the RIAA if they want. They can then sue them for harassing them. OR stealing their initials. Or anything else they want. And the RIAA will have to go and defend themselves in court. This happens daily with many corporations. That is the way the system works. The RIAA isn't abusing any system by suing people, they are using the system in the way it was designed. If you have a grievance you take it to court so it can be decided.
What exactly are the alternatives you propose if the current system is so bad? Should we just allow anyone to take the IP of anyone they want? Or just individuals can take the IP of corps and do what they want? Should copyright violation be a criminal charge to avoid the "errors" of civil court?
From the FAQ: Question 8: Can I use an iPod formatted for Mac on a PC, or an iPod formatted for Windows on a Mac? Answer: It is not possible to use an iPod formatted for Mac with Windows. This is because Windows does not support the HFS Plus file system and therefore will not see the drive.
You can convert an iPod formatted for Windows into an iPod for Mac by using the iPod for Mac Software Updater on the Apple website. Note that once it is reformatted, it will only work with Macs. You need Mac OS 9.2 or Mac OS X 10.1 or later to reformat an iPod for Windows into an iPod for Mac.
So you can convert from Windows to Mac, but not the other way around. So it is easy for a Windows user who wants to buy a Mac, since they can convert their iPod to Mac and not lose everything. It is not possible to convert from a Mac iPod to a windows iPod though without formatting and losing everything. The latest version can do both, but if you go from Mac to Windows you lose everything, if you go from Windows to Mac you get to keep everything. Seems somewhat fishy to me. Let MS try something like this and see how the masses cry conspiracy.
While what you say is true, it brings up the question of why you can't use it on Windows. Apple says it's not possible for Windows to read the file system, but we know that is obviously not true because you could use it using XPlay, which could read the file system. So why exactly did Apple make the iTunes so you can't use your iPod on either system? If I wore tin-foil hats, I would think that Apple wanted to lock their users into the Mac format and were afraid that if they could keep their cool toys like iPods and use them on the Windows system they could. After all, the Windows users can user their iPods on Macs, so it's easy for the switch to happen the other way.
While your list is good, it is missing one things. Linux needs to be usable by the medium level user. Linux is great for Linux gurus. It is also good for the completely computer ignorant (assuming a guru sets it up correctly). Where Linux fails is the average user. I know many people who are not Windows gurus, but can do quite a bit on Linux. they can install programs, change settings, remove programs, etc. This is where Linux fails. The middle ground on Linux is very small, if you want to do anything above the "simple" level, you need to learn quite a bit about how the OS works. This is what turns the average person off. They can learn to do a fair amount on Windows without too much effort, but to learn much about Linux requires a fairly significant effort on their part.
While I in no way think this marks the end of free software, it does bring up an interesting point. Which "free" is really more important to the people using free software. I know I use Linux because it is free as in beer. I needed a cheap webserver, so I chose Linux. I'm not a coder, so having the source to me is more a burden than a help. I know many companies choose Linux because it is the cheapest solution as well.
I wonder what would happen is Linux was no longer free as in beer, but only free as in speech. How many people would use it is you had to pay $30 to use it, but you still got all the code? If the majority of people use it because it is free as in beer, that MS has a very good point about trying to develop any kind of long term business strategy around it, since people are mainly using it because they don;t have to pay.
You fail to see the reason they currently have a monopoly. The thing that put them on top was their usability. MS took the PC, which most people had no idea how to use and made it easy enough for every Tom, Dick, HArry, and all their grandma's to use. They could have made more secure earlier, but then most people would still have no idea how to use a PC. MS is one of the primary reason's for the ubiquity of the PC. They made them easy enough that an average person could use them.
If you take a growing market like PCs have been and suddenly cripple it by making them harder to use, you stop the growth. PCs are at a point now that most people at least have a general understanding of how the basics work, so they can slowly become more secure (which translates into harder to use and more conplex).
The reason BSD can produce a secure OS for free and MS can't is because MS focuses on usability. There is a reason most people haven't heard of BSD much less use it, and that is because it is extremely hard for the average person to use. Hell, it's hard for somewhat knowledgable people to use.
MS has made a decision to give people extremely usable products, and this comes at the cost of some security and reliability. They could make the most secure software around, but them it wouldn't be usable. They are now trying to balance their products more between security and usability because they have gone too far away from security. Security and usability are generally on 2 different ends of the spectrum. To make things easy to use, you have to give up security and vice-versa.
While my evidence is anecdotal (and as questionable as theirs, since they studied people who allowed themsleves to be monitored), I know of quite a few people who have deleted their music. I know personally of 3 or 4 people who have deleted their entire collection of downloaded MP3s, and another 6 or 7 who no longer download MP3s. While/. laughs at the RIAA for suing people, it is having the desired effect among you average downloader.
While this doesn't appeal to me, I can see wher eit would appeal to many people. A lot of people don't listen to music for eternity. They like a song (or CD or artist), listen to it for a while, and then it gets put on the back burner. They rarely is ever listen to them again (this is especially true in the pop genre, when was the last time you heard someone listening to the Spice Girls or even early NSync or Britney). For $10 a month, you can have access to all the new music you want to listen to. Sure, you don;t own it, but you won't listen to it in another month anyway, so why would you care? This system is set up for people who are constantly listening to new music.
This is similar to cable TV. You don't own crap, but you have the ability to access a lot of stuff, as long as you continue paying. If you find something you want to keep forever, you have the ability to pay for it and buy it, and it's yours.
I feel the exact opposite. I use Linux as a web server, and it didn't want to do anything with me, it wanted me to do everything. I found it hard to find out how to do things. It was alike a quest, in that it was exceedlying difficult to accomplish anything because there were so many obstacles. I have learned more on Windows because I have found friendly resources to help me learn. With Linux, I had an extremely hard time finding resources. I had an extremely hard time finding help installing and setting up SendMail, so I went with QMail, because it had a good install guide. When it broke though, I had a hard time finding help for that. There is no way to ease you in, because everyone and everything assumes you are Linux guru already.
Linux has not taught you any of these things, you taught yourself. When I installed Red Hat, it made no mention of open ports. It didn't mention anything about securing good passwords, or buffer overflows. It was more secure out of the box because things were turned off (although Win2k3 has almost everything turned off as well now), but it didn't teach me or you anything. You finally decided this stuff was worth learning, so you learned it. The difference is you can;t do a lot of things in Linux without first learning these things. Windows is designed for ease of use. You can run a web page without an intimate understanding of the ports, but not so with Linux.
Does this make Linux better? Depends on your view. It certainly helps force people to learn about their computer, but it makes it so people who don't want to learn about their computer can't do anything. Seems like it is not really better for everyone, just different. But it certainly doesn't teach you anything, it just makes you learn things, or quit using linux.
Now the real question is whether they told @stake they weren't going to fix them and changed their mind after the because of all the talk about it. It is as wrong to assume they were always going to fix it as it is to assume they weren;t going to fix it. I would tend to believe they told @stake that, and then when word got out and everyone screamed, they changed their minds right quick.
Slashdot Mirror
You are forgetting the other scenario. Company A makes really bad move and does something like product activation. People start complaining and Marketting Guy A says "Why should we change now? Remember when TurboTax added activation and people complained? They took the activation out and people still boycotted the product. We might as well leave it in now and see if we can make it work." The whole idea of boycotting is to punish a company for doing something bad and to get them to correct their ways. If correcting their ways doesn't work, why should they bother?
It's also private property in a store, yet it is still illegal to shoplift. Why don't they just throw people out of the store and forget about it? The whole point of making something illegal is to discourage people from doing it. The only way to discourage someone from doing something is to have some kind of consequence. Getting thrown out of a movie theatre is not the kind of consequence that will stop people from doing something. Hell, it won;t even keep people quiet during a movie.
Everyone seems to be asking the wrong questions. The questions have nothing to do with if P2P copying helps or hurts music. The simple question is "Do these people have a legal right to distribute this music?" And the simple answer is "no". Just because you own a copy of something in no way gives you the right to distribute copies of it to other people. Owning a book doesn't give you the right to make copies of it and hand it out on the street. Owning a photograph (that someone else took) doesn't give you the right to make copies and hand them out. Owning a copy of Linux doesn't give you the right to distribute binary only copies of it. Owning a CD doesn't give you the right to distribute MP3 copies of the music. IT doesn't matter whether it helps or hurts CD sales, the fact is you have no right to do it. People have the right (and should have the right) to decide what happens to the things they create. IF you want to distribute music via P2P, feel free to create some and distribute it. You have every right to decide what happens with the music you make. Just as other people have the right to decide they don't want you giving away their music for free over P2P.
I think the title says it all. I tried WA3 and it had some nice features, but you weren't able to braodcast your Shoutcast stream using it, which took it right out for me. Will WA5 be able to broadcast Shoutcast, or is it going to be like WA3 which I have never been able to really use?
90% of the time that precieved fault of microsoft is really something that is misconfigured, or a under engineered network causing the trouble... but MS get's the bulk of the blame.
This is very true and I think it will come back and bite Linux in the ass eventually. Most people switching to Linux from MS right now are knowledgable. They are the people that know how to set up a proper network and keep it running. As the common people switch to Linux, they will encounter many of the same problems they encountered on Windows, except they won't have any idea how to deal with them. They will end up switching back to their Windows boxes because they at least have an idea how to deal with things on that.
I think we'll see a lot of people switch to Linux, but then we'll see a decent portion of them switch back as they realize their problems weren't caused by MS, but by their own lack of knowledge.
Except that FireBird is vulnerable to the exploit as well. I find it funny when people use these scare tactics to push other browsers. The idea of "scaring" people into a "better" browser is a joke. If it was really better people would use it. The problem with "better" is the best thing is what people want. Most people want something that works good enough and is easy, and that is IE.
You're confusing having the ability to do something with having the right to do something. A right is something that should not be(or more accurately can not be) taken away. It is something everyone has (or should have) regardless of circumstances. Everyone has the right to free speech, even if they cannot speak. There is no right to record everything you see. Or to even carry a video camera everywhere you go. Just because you can do something now in no way means you will always be able to do it. A right is an extremely important concept, and it is cheapen when people start talking about the right to pirate music, or carry a video recorder everywhere, or drive over the speed limit.
Simply, no, no, and no.
It seems it would help prevent what it is meant to stop, which is people recording the movie. If you can't have a video recorder in the theatre, it's going to be much harder to record the movie.
What civil rights are being violated? The right to record a movie your watching? You have no right to take a video camera into a movie theatre.
While you may think this wastes people's time, many other people don't. I have no problem with this law, since anyone recording a movie with a camcorder is obviously going to pirate the movie (I have never heard of a person sneaking a camera into a movie theatre to have a copy for personal use). So they are obviously going to violate copyright (if they aren't already by recording, I'm not sure about that). So why shouldn't they be stopped?
While these "millions" of people are "forced" to use MS products, how many actually want to use Ms products? I would guess at least 90% of them. So while they don't have a choice of what to use at work, if they did, most of them would still choose to use Windows. So what is the big deal if they are "forced" to use MS products if that is what they want to use anyway?
I find it interesting that no one has suggested Blogger. While other tools are more powerful, for something simple, Blogger seems like the best idea. It is free, they can host it for you if you want, and it's even integrated into the Google toolbar. Nothing seems easier than just telling them to hit the toolbar and type in the window.
Yes, they have no choice but to accept the rules. But the rules are based on the law, which makes it different. They can't do illegal activities in the dorms, and they pay for those. If they were filtering based on porn, or politics, or some other non-illegal criteria, you would have a point. But the fact is they are filtering based on what is legal, which they have every right to do.
I said this before and I'll say it again. A loser pays system does nothing to help people. What happens is that it makes it so the small guy can't afford to sue the big guys. If there is the smallest chance you could lose, would you sue Big Comapny X? If you do lose, you will have to pay for their lawyers, which is potentially millions of dollars. If there is the slightest chance you could lose, you won't sue, even if you know your right. A loser pays system does nothing but stop the small guy from suing the big guy, while the big guy can afford to sue whoever they want still.
A loser pays system is worse than what we have now. Let's say you have a legitimate complaint against big company A. It is not open and shut, but ti certainly has merit. You sue them, they spend millions of dollars on lawyers, and you happen you lose. You then have to pay their millions of dollars in lawyers fees, which means you won't sue at all to begin with, because you can't afford to lose. A loser pays system guarantees that the small guy won;t sue, because they can't take the chance of being wrong and being stuck with the huge bills of the winner.
What you are missing is in the US, anyone has the right to sue anyone else. Yes, the RIAA can sue these people and they will have to go to court and defend themsleves. If they are innocent, they will have their day in court and the case will be thrown out. They can also sue the RIAA if they want. They can then sue them for harassing them. OR stealing their initials. Or anything else they want. And the RIAA will have to go and defend themselves in court. This happens daily with many corporations. That is the way the system works. The RIAA isn't abusing any system by suing people, they are using the system in the way it was designed. If you have a grievance you take it to court so it can be decided.
What exactly are the alternatives you propose if the current system is so bad? Should we just allow anyone to take the IP of anyone they want? Or just individuals can take the IP of corps and do what they want? Should copyright violation be a criminal charge to avoid the "errors" of civil court?
From the FAQ:
Question 8: Can I use an iPod formatted for Mac on a PC, or an iPod formatted for Windows on a Mac?
Answer: It is not possible to use an iPod formatted for Mac with Windows. This is because Windows does not support the HFS Plus file system and therefore will not see the drive.
You can convert an iPod formatted for Windows into an iPod for Mac by using the iPod for Mac Software Updater on the Apple website. Note that once it is reformatted, it will only work with Macs. You need Mac OS 9.2 or Mac OS X 10.1 or later to reformat an iPod for Windows into an iPod for Mac.
So you can convert from Windows to Mac, but not the other way around. So it is easy for a Windows user who wants to buy a Mac, since they can convert their iPod to Mac and not lose everything. It is not possible to convert from a Mac iPod to a windows iPod though without formatting and losing everything. The latest version can do both, but if you go from Mac to Windows you lose everything, if you go from Windows to Mac you get to keep everything. Seems somewhat fishy to me. Let MS try something like this and see how the masses cry conspiracy.
While what you say is true, it brings up the question of why you can't use it on Windows. Apple says it's not possible for Windows to read the file system, but we know that is obviously not true because you could use it using XPlay, which could read the file system. So why exactly did Apple make the iTunes so you can't use your iPod on either system? If I wore tin-foil hats, I would think that Apple wanted to lock their users into the Mac format and were afraid that if they could keep their cool toys like iPods and use them on the Windows system they could. After all, the Windows users can user their iPods on Macs, so it's easy for the switch to happen the other way.
While your list is good, it is missing one things. Linux needs to be usable by the medium level user. Linux is great for Linux gurus. It is also good for the completely computer ignorant (assuming a guru sets it up correctly). Where Linux fails is the average user. I know many people who are not Windows gurus, but can do quite a bit on Linux. they can install programs, change settings, remove programs, etc. This is where Linux fails. The middle ground on Linux is very small, if you want to do anything above the "simple" level, you need to learn quite a bit about how the OS works. This is what turns the average person off. They can learn to do a fair amount on Windows without too much effort, but to learn much about Linux requires a fairly significant effort on their part.
While I in no way think this marks the end of free software, it does bring up an interesting point. Which "free" is really more important to the people using free software. I know I use Linux because it is free as in beer. I needed a cheap webserver, so I chose Linux. I'm not a coder, so having the source to me is more a burden than a help. I know many companies choose Linux because it is the cheapest solution as well.
I wonder what would happen is Linux was no longer free as in beer, but only free as in speech. How many people would use it is you had to pay $30 to use it, but you still got all the code? If the majority of people use it because it is free as in beer, that MS has a very good point about trying to develop any kind of long term business strategy around it, since people are mainly using it because they don;t have to pay.
You fail to see the reason they currently have a monopoly. The thing that put them on top was their usability. MS took the PC, which most people had no idea how to use and made it easy enough for every Tom, Dick, HArry, and all their grandma's to use. They could have made more secure earlier, but then most people would still have no idea how to use a PC. MS is one of the primary reason's for the ubiquity of the PC. They made them easy enough that an average person could use them.
If you take a growing market like PCs have been and suddenly cripple it by making them harder to use, you stop the growth. PCs are at a point now that most people at least have a general understanding of how the basics work, so they can slowly become more secure (which translates into harder to use and more conplex).
The reason BSD can produce a secure OS for free and MS can't is because MS focuses on usability. There is a reason most people haven't heard of BSD much less use it, and that is because it is extremely hard for the average person to use. Hell, it's hard for somewhat knowledgable people to use.
MS has made a decision to give people extremely usable products, and this comes at the cost of some security and reliability. They could make the most secure software around, but them it wouldn't be usable. They are now trying to balance their products more between security and usability because they have gone too far away from security. Security and usability are generally on 2 different ends of the spectrum. To make things easy to use, you have to give up security and vice-versa.
While my evidence is anecdotal (and as questionable as theirs, since they studied people who allowed themsleves to be monitored), I know of quite a few people who have deleted their music. I know personally of 3 or 4 people who have deleted their entire collection of downloaded MP3s, and another 6 or 7 who no longer download MP3s. While /. laughs at the RIAA for suing people, it is having the desired effect among you average downloader.
While this doesn't appeal to me, I can see wher eit would appeal to many people. A lot of people don't listen to music for eternity. They like a song (or CD or artist), listen to it for a while, and then it gets put on the back burner. They rarely is ever listen to them again (this is especially true in the pop genre, when was the last time you heard someone listening to the Spice Girls or even early NSync or Britney). For $10 a month, you can have access to all the new music you want to listen to. Sure, you don;t own it, but you won't listen to it in another month anyway, so why would you care? This system is set up for people who are constantly listening to new music.
This is similar to cable TV. You don't own crap, but you have the ability to access a lot of stuff, as long as you continue paying. If you find something you want to keep forever, you have the ability to pay for it and buy it, and it's yours.
I feel the exact opposite. I use Linux as a web server, and it didn't want to do anything with me, it wanted me to do everything. I found it hard to find out how to do things. It was alike a quest, in that it was exceedlying difficult to accomplish anything because there were so many obstacles. I have learned more on Windows because I have found friendly resources to help me learn. With Linux, I had an extremely hard time finding resources. I had an extremely hard time finding help installing and setting up SendMail, so I went with QMail, because it had a good install guide. When it broke though, I had a hard time finding help for that. There is no way to ease you in, because everyone and everything assumes you are Linux guru already.
Linux has not taught you any of these things, you taught yourself. When I installed Red Hat, it made no mention of open ports. It didn't mention anything about securing good passwords, or buffer overflows. It was more secure out of the box because things were turned off (although Win2k3 has almost everything turned off as well now), but it didn't teach me or you anything. You finally decided this stuff was worth learning, so you learned it. The difference is you can;t do a lot of things in Linux without first learning these things. Windows is designed for ease of use. You can run a web page without an intimate understanding of the ports, but not so with Linux.
Does this make Linux better? Depends on your view. It certainly helps force people to learn about their computer, but it makes it so people who don't want to learn about their computer can't do anything. Seems like it is not really better for everyone, just different. But it certainly doesn't teach you anything, it just makes you learn things, or quit using linux.
Now the real question is whether they told @stake they weren't going to fix them and changed their mind after the because of all the talk about it. It is as wrong to assume they were always going to fix it as it is to assume they weren;t going to fix it. I would tend to believe they told @stake that, and then when word got out and everyone screamed, they changed their minds right quick.