Agreed. The presence of the strap should have been more than enough to avoid this kind of nonsense, but instead it just gave people a sense of entitlement. And to think that Nintendo offered the stronger wriststrap of their own accord.
I'm still trying to get my hands on a wii (Heh, I was wrong, that phrase IS funny), but I played one at my friend's house last month. I didn't really see the point of the strap as far as my own style goes. While my friends were leaping into the air (or at least into the low basement ceiling), I was sitting in a chair just moving my wrist back and forth, and I still kicked their butts. But if anything, it seemed like the danger wouldn't be the strap breaking - which seemed impossible with the amount of force I or a sensible gamer would use - but that the strap might slip off. If anything there should have been something to tighten the strap with. But I'd be just as happy with no strap at all.
And I just have to say this: Nintendo's hardware is high quality stuff. It generally takes a lot to break a nintendo product, compared to third party crap. Never, ever buy third party controllers, they invariably suck. Hell, I had a 3rd-party gamecube controller that had a bad C-stick practically out of the box. My friend had the exact same model, and his managed to reset the actual console when plugged in. How's that for crappy quality control? And those old 3rd-party wireless N64 controllers have nothing, absolutely nothing, on the gamecube nintendo wavebird.
I'm sorry you have to put up with idiots, nintendo. I'm still a fan.
I had the 200-in-one kit. I remember one day I tried testing the battery (via the spring clips) with a Duracell testing strip that came with their batteries at the time. Of course, those strips are nothing but a piece of metal with which to short out your voltage source, so I ended up burning myself. Not exactly the fault of the toy though.
I knew that what could be done in 200 lines of C could be compressed to a couple lines of an interpreted language, but I really didn't expect it to be a single bash line. Damn.
Hey thanks. This gave me a good excuse to modify a recent CS assignment to do something useful for a change - extract quotes instead of Server headers. Now I have a program that is just like fortune, except that it's orders of magnitudes slower, and wastes slashdot's bandwidth.
"Be warned: If you're viewing xkcd for the first time, you might end up reading through all of them. It's simple but brilliant."
I don't know if I should be impressed or scared by your accuracy. I have never seen xkcd before, but it IS absolutely brilliant, deep, and addictive.
In that particular comic, I also like the alt-text implying abuse of power and breach of security protocol. Or I guess it's not implied so much as glaringly obvious.
Geeze, I wish everyone here could stop complaining. Maybe this would matter if a lawsuit was filed against the CEO and/or his children, and then the RIAA dropped the case after they discovered his identity - Then one might be able to argue special treatment. But since that is not what happened here, there's no basis for implying that you don't have every opportunity to avoid getting caught that he does. It's not like they have a separate IP range reserved for executives above the law.
Uh, this isn't about Starr, or giving him publicity. We are discussing and/or are interested in this case because it concerns freedom of speech in a world where it can no longer be taken for granted. Are we supposed to avoid discussing all issues that some clown has an opinion on, just to spite said clown?
To play devil's advocate, they effectively are. It's not like the police would get involved in small time copyright infringement (because regardless of their rights, come on, that's just absurd), so if the violation is to be investigated, it has to be done by an interested party. It's loosely similar to installing a surveillance camera outside your home so you can protect your car from vandals who have nothing better to do.
There is one reason why I have not yet dumped my EA stock: Spore. I'm not expecting it to save the company or anything, but I feel like I'd be a fool to sell before it's released.
Actually, the only reason I even bought EA shares several years ago was because I was a Will Wright fan.
Always right, eh? Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously), but didn't he argue vehemently against putting passwords on user accounts in the 70s or something?
I'm no expert on the specifics, but the law in question is the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (1998), which imposes a number of soul-sucking restrictions on what us Americans can do with legally purchased digital content. The most well-known clause is the one that targets the distribution of tools that can be used to bypass DRM, regardless of whether or not using the tools qualifies as Fair Use.
The Library of Congress is specifically mentioned in that law as having the power to specify exemptions. Basically, Congress took away our Fair Use rights over a broad class of content, and gave the LoC the power to selectively return a few of those rights to us under special circumstances.
FTA: > Many people mistakenly think that they are safe from malicious code injection attacks because they have firewalls or SSL encryption.... > While establishing a list of "bad" input values that should be blocked (a blacklist) may seem like an appropriate first step, this approach is extremely limited.
I laughed at these two sentences. Are there really people who need to be told this?
Those are the truest words I've ever heard spoken about the show. And it is that neutrality, or indifferent mallice to everything else in the world, that I find kind of insightful. Maybe it is a high school mentality, but I still think it's kind of healthy nonetheless.
I figured there'd be at least one person to reply that. It may not be underrepresented to the same extent that anti-anti-tobacco is, but anti-environmentalism is still a viewpoint that I don't come across too often. One of the things I love about the show has always been the reverse morals. Instead of spreading mass-produced and mass-consumed propaganda, it gives us the tools to counteract the views that are forced down our throats.
As I said, I don't believe every point South Park tries to make. But it's still refreshing to hear something besides the consensus of the masses every now and then, even if I do, as in this case, believe in the consensus.
I see it from another perspective. South Park's commentary introduces me to biases that I have never even considered before, biases that allow me to put my own in perspective. For example, they taught me that it's *okay* to hate the anti-drug people - that it's not hypocritical to be anti-tobacco yet still hate that jackass in the "zephyr" awareness commercials. Likewise, I never had any strong opinions about illegal immigration (and still don't), but all the same I did not identify at all with Americans who have lost their jobs until I saw the SP episode satirizing that issue.
If you disagree with the messages conveyed by South Park, fine. It's not like I choose to believe everything they say either. But how about instead of making a fuss because they happen to promote a view you don't like, you just accept South Park as a welcome source of underrepresented criticisms, and make up your mind for yourself.
> Isn't the GPL just a "Click Through EULA", except for the fact that you don't "Click Through" it? > Same, really, if you ask me. > We want our cake (GPL, OSS, etc) but we wanna eat it too (i.e. all EULA's are invalid, thus don't bind us or count).
No. Unless I'm severely mistaken, the GPL is nothing like a EULA because a EULA dictates rules and conditions that are supposed to govern your usage of the software as soon as you have purchased and installed it. The GPL on the other hand covers distribution. You can do whatever you like with a GPL program, including modifying it without releasing the changes to the source, so long as you keep it to yourself, because the GPL terms only kick in if you start handing out copies to other people.
The idea that EULAs are invalid comes from the absurdity of attaching a contract to any other copyrighted work such as music, artwork, and literature. By default you can do what you like with these - no one makes you sign an agreement (yet) saying that you can only listen to a CD if you're in your car or its your birthday. But you cannot copy and redistribute a work by default (barring Fair Use). This is illegal except through the terms of the GPL, or whatever other license the author chooses. If the license has a condition that says you have to walk on you hands and spin around three times before you're allowed to send a copy to someone, you're allowed to not obey that term; you simply lose your authority to legally make the copy.
This was the worst piece of crap I've seen in a while. I guess I set my expectations too high when I first heard of the "documentary" a few days ago, but still...
I was hoping for some technical detail, if not in the computer science aspect of the problem then at least in the administrative aspect. Instead all I got was one lopsided rant after another. That woman went on television claiming she found a huge gaping hole in the security of Gems, only for us to find that it consisted of double clicking various icons in the windows GUI until you open up the database in Access and edit the records manually. Somehow I'm not so scared, since this would require access to the tabulators and files anyway, and those people would pretty much already have control over the situation.
And the way they kept droning on and on - most of the people who were involved on the activist side seemed idiotic, irrational and unquestionably emotional, whereas the diebold representatives and neutral parties were far more level-headed. And that's what this was all about, making a huge scene for the camera. The part where they collect the garbage thrown out by an election center in Florida was staged. If you'll notice, she deliberately waited to open the garbage until an employee came by, so she could start a nice fight for the camera. The argument terminated with a cry that the activist was getting all upset over the mishandling of a mere sample ballot.
Sometimes the advocates for the good side are so detestable that you want to join up with the enemy out of pure spite. I feel that way every time I see a bullshit anti-smoking ad (most of the ones with that kid ranting about "zephyr"), and I felt the exact same way after watching this.
Doesn't have to be mechanical either. My Thinkpad T43p hsa a hardware mixer accessed via media buttons that bypass the OS, so I feel safe knowing that I always have a mute button to fall back on.
And how did you discover that URL? Because there's only one link on the home page: "http://dontdownloadthissong.com/DDTSecard.html", and that takes me to either a blank page (konqueror) or a flash-plugin dependent page (firefox). So you can see how skimming that site for clues, especially as it was being slashdotted, didn't really help me.
Although that's no excuse for my totally missing the AC who posted that direct link originally. Unless he wasn't modded up by the time I was looking for it.
I thought this plausible deniability only applies to local storage, where you actually have a constant disk size that may or may not be filled with an encrypted partition. If you store your TrueCrypt data on a file in the existing filesystem, wouldn't the size of the file speak towards whether or not you have a "false bottom" accessible through another key? So wouldn't Big Brother be able to determine if you've given him all the keys to your online storage volumes by seeing if the data he can decrypt is in line with the capacity usage gmail reports?
Hm, this would seem to negate the whole long rant I made halfway down this page about flash. And I even read the post directly above yours and still missed it.
Our story begins with a skim over the day's Slashdot headlines. The regulars are all present: Government X adopts OSS/ODF, Mr. Nobody gives a loose overview of security problem Y, and SCO does transparently underhanded deed Z. Yet one topic in particular grabs my attention...
Being a Weird Al fan, and well-aware of the problems he has collecting from his label, my mind registers the topic both as a must-Read-More and as another chapter to take note of in the long saga of digital music rights. With significant anticipation, I add it to my other fifteen or so open tabs and proceed to work my way through my article reading queue.
I (grudgingly) visit myspace, but something's amiss. There is no download link! Nothing in the navigation menu, the news posts, or the comments make mention of where I can obtain the song, yet visitors proceed to comment on how much they enjoyed it. Looking for an alternate link, I return to Slashdot, only to find more reactions without mention of any download difficulties. And so I begin to worry irrationally: "I'm the only one in the world who can't listen to Weird Al!" I've had usability issues with myspace before, but normally after a minute or so of misguided clicking I'm able to stumble upon something that hints at actual content. I try two other domains, weirdal.com and dontdownloadthissong.com, only to find the former hopelessly slashdotted and the latter unusable. My frustration continues to build.
I reflect that perhaps it is a browser compatability issue - I am using Konqueror after all - and try my luck with firefox. After configuring it to *not* attempt DNS queries over IPv6, that I might reach the content I so desperately seek this century, I find that myspace persists to mock me. It is as if some divine administrative force knows my IP address and has modified the web server specifically to torment me.
I search for torrent files - first through links from kind slashdotters looking to boost their karma, and when that fails, via KTorrent's integrated search plugin. Bittorrent.com? No matches. Isohunt.com? Nada. Mininova? Bytenova? Torrentspy?! My heart races as I continue to exhaust the list of built-in known search engines, until... Aha! The Pirate Bay has found one match, uploaded a mere twenty-two minutes ago.
But to use a torrent from the most infamous peer-to-peer site in existence, what would that make me? Is the torrent legal? Just because Weird Al chooses to distribute it on his webpage doesn't mean he releases that right to others. I'm sure under these circumstances he couldn't possibly mind, but not having heard of the song's existence prior to reading Slashdot, I simply do not know the record label's stance on the matter, or whether they even have partial rights over this particular mp3. But it does not matter - I must have the song!
The irony - that I am bittorrenting a free-as-in-beer song that possesses a satirical name mocking filesharing litigation, and am potentially committing a copyright violation in the process - is not lost on me. My idealistic side taunts the RIAA, "I just DARE you to try to sue me over this, my only infringement!" My pessimistically pragmatic side notes that the unusual circumstances would make no difference, as I would be forced to settle, and never see my day in court anyway.
I emerge from my digression to the present. No peers or seeders. For the moment, the music industry and other enemies of Peer-to-Peer breathe a sigh of relief.
Then it occurs to me that the song might be unreachable to those who have not installed the dreaded Flash Plugin. But why? A slashdot commenter mentions that the song is indeed in the mp3 format, so it is not as if my lack of such a player could possibly prevent me from obtaining this song. For what kind of sick madman would consign a publically-downloadable mp3 to the clutches of a proprietary system and that system alone?
As a rule, I have abstained from using Flash on my desktop's Gentoo installation. This self-denial is due to a combination of fac
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. The presence of the strap should have been more than enough to avoid this kind of nonsense, but instead it just gave people a sense of entitlement. And to think that Nintendo offered the stronger wriststrap of their own accord.
I'm still trying to get my hands on a wii (Heh, I was wrong, that phrase IS funny), but I played one at my friend's house last month. I didn't really see the point of the strap as far as my own style goes. While my friends were leaping into the air (or at least into the low basement ceiling), I was sitting in a chair just moving my wrist back and forth, and I still kicked their butts. But if anything, it seemed like the danger wouldn't be the strap breaking - which seemed impossible with the amount of force I or a sensible gamer would use - but that the strap might slip off. If anything there should have been something to tighten the strap with. But I'd be just as happy with no strap at all.
And I just have to say this: Nintendo's hardware is high quality stuff. It generally takes a lot to break a nintendo product, compared to third party crap. Never, ever buy third party controllers, they invariably suck. Hell, I had a 3rd-party gamecube controller that had a bad C-stick practically out of the box. My friend had the exact same model, and his managed to reset the actual console when plugged in. How's that for crappy quality control? And those old 3rd-party wireless N64 controllers have nothing, absolutely nothing, on the gamecube nintendo wavebird.
I'm sorry you have to put up with idiots, nintendo. I'm still a fan.
I had the 200-in-one kit. I remember one day I tried testing the battery (via the spring clips) with a Duracell testing strip that came with their batteries at the time. Of course, those strips are nothing but a piece of metal with which to short out your voltage source, so I ended up burning myself. Not exactly the fault of the toy though.
I knew that what could be done in 200 lines of C could be compressed to a couple lines of an interpreted language, but I really didn't expect it to be a single bash line. Damn.
Hey thanks. This gave me a good excuse to modify a recent CS assignment to do something useful for a change - extract quotes instead of Server headers. Now I have a program that is just like fortune, except that it's orders of magnitudes slower, and wastes slashdot's bandwidth.
"Be warned: If you're viewing xkcd for the first time, you might end up reading through all of them. It's simple but brilliant."
I don't know if I should be impressed or scared by your accuracy. I have never seen xkcd before, but it IS absolutely brilliant, deep, and addictive.
In that particular comic, I also like the alt-text implying abuse of power and breach of security protocol. Or I guess it's not implied so much as glaringly obvious.
It's bad enough that people can equate piracy to theft, let alone a full-blown bank heist.
Geeze, I wish everyone here could stop complaining. Maybe this would matter if a lawsuit was filed against the CEO and/or his children, and then the RIAA dropped the case after they discovered his identity - Then one might be able to argue special treatment. But since that is not what happened here, there's no basis for implying that you don't have every opportunity to avoid getting caught that he does. It's not like they have a separate IP range reserved for executives above the law.
The GP was not ignoring the summary, he was opposing it. Restating the summary doesn't address his objection.
Uh, this isn't about Starr, or giving him publicity. We are discussing and/or are interested in this case because it concerns freedom of speech in a world where it can no longer be taken for granted. Are we supposed to avoid discussing all issues that some clown has an opinion on, just to spite said clown?
To play devil's advocate, they effectively are. It's not like the police would get involved in small time copyright infringement (because regardless of their rights, come on, that's just absurd), so if the violation is to be investigated, it has to be done by an interested party. It's loosely similar to installing a surveillance camera outside your home so you can protect your car from vandals who have nothing better to do.
There is one reason why I have not yet dumped my EA stock: Spore. I'm not expecting it to save the company or anything, but I feel like I'd be a fool to sell before it's released.
Actually, the only reason I even bought EA shares several years ago was because I was a Will Wright fan.
Always right, eh? Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously), but didn't he argue vehemently against putting passwords on user accounts in the 70s or something?
I'm no expert on the specifics, but the law in question is the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (1998), which imposes a number of soul-sucking restrictions on what us Americans can do with legally purchased digital content. The most well-known clause is the one that targets the distribution of tools that can be used to bypass DRM, regardless of whether or not using the tools qualifies as Fair Use.
The Library of Congress is specifically mentioned in that law as having the power to specify exemptions. Basically, Congress took away our Fair Use rights over a broad class of content, and gave the LoC the power to selectively return a few of those rights to us under special circumstances.
> For me, this is the big deal - if my entire music library that I have *paid* for suddenly stops working, I'm going to be pretty pissed off.
And therein lies your mistake. You never paid for music. You paid for the revokable privledge to enjoy it on someone else's terms.
FTA: ...
> Many people mistakenly think that they are safe from malicious code injection attacks because they have firewalls or SSL encryption.
> While establishing a list of "bad" input values that should be blocked (a blacklist) may seem like an appropriate first step, this approach is extremely limited.
I laughed at these two sentences. Are there really people who need to be told this?
Those are the truest words I've ever heard spoken about the show. And it is that neutrality, or indifferent mallice to everything else in the world, that I find kind of insightful. Maybe it is a high school mentality, but I still think it's kind of healthy nonetheless.
I figured there'd be at least one person to reply that. It may not be underrepresented to the same extent that anti-anti-tobacco is, but anti-environmentalism is still a viewpoint that I don't come across too often. One of the things I love about the show has always been the reverse morals. Instead of spreading mass-produced and mass-consumed propaganda, it gives us the tools to counteract the views that are forced down our throats.
As I said, I don't believe every point South Park tries to make. But it's still refreshing to hear something besides the consensus of the masses every now and then, even if I do, as in this case, believe in the consensus.
I see it from another perspective. South Park's commentary introduces me to biases that I have never even considered before, biases that allow me to put my own in perspective. For example, they taught me that it's *okay* to hate the anti-drug people - that it's not hypocritical to be anti-tobacco yet still hate that jackass in the "zephyr" awareness commercials. Likewise, I never had any strong opinions about illegal immigration (and still don't), but all the same I did not identify at all with Americans who have lost their jobs until I saw the SP episode satirizing that issue.
If you disagree with the messages conveyed by South Park, fine. It's not like I choose to believe everything they say either. But how about instead of making a fuss because they happen to promote a view you don't like, you just accept South Park as a welcome source of underrepresented criticisms, and make up your mind for yourself.
> Isn't the GPL just a "Click Through EULA", except for the fact that you don't "Click Through" it?
> Same, really, if you ask me.
> We want our cake (GPL, OSS, etc) but we wanna eat it too (i.e. all EULA's are invalid, thus don't bind us or count).
No. Unless I'm severely mistaken, the GPL is nothing like a EULA because a EULA dictates rules and conditions that are supposed to govern your usage of the software as soon as you have purchased and installed it. The GPL on the other hand covers distribution. You can do whatever you like with a GPL program, including modifying it without releasing the changes to the source, so long as you keep it to yourself, because the GPL terms only kick in if you start handing out copies to other people.
The idea that EULAs are invalid comes from the absurdity of attaching a contract to any other copyrighted work such as music, artwork, and literature. By default you can do what you like with these - no one makes you sign an agreement (yet) saying that you can only listen to a CD if you're in your car or its your birthday. But you cannot copy and redistribute a work by default (barring Fair Use). This is illegal except through the terms of the GPL, or whatever other license the author chooses. If the license has a condition that says you have to walk on you hands and spin around three times before you're allowed to send a copy to someone, you're allowed to not obey that term; you simply lose your authority to legally make the copy.
This was the worst piece of crap I've seen in a while. I guess I set my expectations too high when I first heard of the "documentary" a few days ago, but still...
I was hoping for some technical detail, if not in the computer science aspect of the problem then at least in the administrative aspect. Instead all I got was one lopsided rant after another. That woman went on television claiming she found a huge gaping hole in the security of Gems, only for us to find that it consisted of double clicking various icons in the windows GUI until you open up the database in Access and edit the records manually. Somehow I'm not so scared, since this would require access to the tabulators and files anyway, and those people would pretty much already have control over the situation.
And the way they kept droning on and on - most of the people who were involved on the activist side seemed idiotic, irrational and unquestionably emotional, whereas the diebold representatives and neutral parties were far more level-headed. And that's what this was all about, making a huge scene for the camera. The part where they collect the garbage thrown out by an election center in Florida was staged. If you'll notice, she deliberately waited to open the garbage until an employee came by, so she could start a nice fight for the camera. The argument terminated with a cry that the activist was getting all upset over the mishandling of a mere sample ballot.
Sometimes the advocates for the good side are so detestable that you want to join up with the enemy out of pure spite. I feel that way every time I see a bullshit anti-smoking ad (most of the ones with that kid ranting about "zephyr"), and I felt the exact same way after watching this.
Doesn't have to be mechanical either. My Thinkpad T43p hsa a hardware mixer accessed via media buttons that bypass the OS, so I feel safe knowing that I always have a mute button to fall back on.
And how did you discover that URL? Because there's only one link on the home page: "http://dontdownloadthissong.com/DDTSecard.html", and that takes me to either a blank page (konqueror) or a flash-plugin dependent page (firefox). So you can see how skimming that site for clues, especially as it was being slashdotted, didn't really help me.
Although that's no excuse for my totally missing the AC who posted that direct link originally. Unless he wasn't modded up by the time I was looking for it.
I thought this plausible deniability only applies to local storage, where you actually have a constant disk size that may or may not be filled with an encrypted partition. If you store your TrueCrypt data on a file in the existing filesystem, wouldn't the size of the file speak towards whether or not you have a "false bottom" accessible through another key? So wouldn't Big Brother be able to determine if you've given him all the keys to your online storage volumes by seeing if the data he can decrypt is in line with the capacity usage gmail reports?
Hm, this would seem to negate the whole long rant I made halfway down this page about flash. And I even read the post directly above yours and still missed it.
Our story begins with a skim over the day's Slashdot headlines. The regulars are all present: Government X adopts OSS/ODF, Mr. Nobody gives a loose overview of security problem Y, and SCO does transparently underhanded deed Z. Yet one topic in particular grabs my attention...
Being a Weird Al fan, and well-aware of the problems he has collecting from his label, my mind registers the topic both as a must-Read-More and as another chapter to take note of in the long saga of digital music rights. With significant anticipation, I add it to my other fifteen or so open tabs and proceed to work my way through my article reading queue.
I (grudgingly) visit myspace, but something's amiss. There is no download link! Nothing in the navigation menu, the news posts, or the comments make mention of where I can obtain the song, yet visitors proceed to comment on how much they enjoyed it. Looking for an alternate link, I return to Slashdot, only to find more reactions without mention of any download difficulties. And so I begin to worry irrationally: "I'm the only one in the world who can't listen to Weird Al!" I've had usability issues with myspace before, but normally after a minute or so of misguided clicking I'm able to stumble upon something that hints at actual content. I try two other domains, weirdal.com and dontdownloadthissong.com, only to find the former hopelessly slashdotted and the latter unusable. My frustration continues to build.
I reflect that perhaps it is a browser compatability issue - I am using Konqueror after all - and try my luck with firefox. After configuring it to *not* attempt DNS queries over IPv6, that I might reach the content I so desperately seek this century, I find that myspace persists to mock me. It is as if some divine administrative force knows my IP address and has modified the web server specifically to torment me.
I search for torrent files - first through links from kind slashdotters looking to boost their karma, and when that fails, via KTorrent's integrated search plugin. Bittorrent.com? No matches. Isohunt.com? Nada. Mininova? Bytenova? Torrentspy?! My heart races as I continue to exhaust the list of built-in known search engines, until... Aha! The Pirate Bay has found one match, uploaded a mere twenty-two minutes ago.
But to use a torrent from the most infamous peer-to-peer site in existence, what would that make me? Is the torrent legal? Just because Weird Al chooses to distribute it on his webpage doesn't mean he releases that right to others. I'm sure under these circumstances he couldn't possibly mind, but not having heard of the song's existence prior to reading Slashdot, I simply do not know the record label's stance on the matter, or whether they even have partial rights over this particular mp3. But it does not matter - I must have the song!
The irony - that I am bittorrenting a free-as-in-beer song that possesses a satirical name mocking filesharing litigation, and am potentially committing a copyright violation in the process - is not lost on me. My idealistic side taunts the RIAA, "I just DARE you to try to sue me over this, my only infringement!" My pessimistically pragmatic side notes that the unusual circumstances would make no difference, as I would be forced to settle, and never see my day in court anyway.
I emerge from my digression to the present.
No peers or seeders. For the moment, the music industry and other enemies of Peer-to-Peer breathe a sigh of relief.
Then it occurs to me that the song might be unreachable to those who have not installed the dreaded Flash Plugin. But why? A slashdot commenter mentions that the song is indeed in the mp3 format, so it is not as if my lack of such a player could possibly prevent me from obtaining this song. For what kind of sick madman would consign a publically-downloadable mp3 to the clutches of a proprietary system and that system alone?
As a rule, I have abstained from using Flash on my desktop's Gentoo installation. This self-denial is due to a combination of fac