Ultimately, the way DRM and DMCA is going, you will not have owned DVDs, CDs, LPs, 45s, etc. You will merely have rented them until the march of technology locks you out of enjoying the content any further.
Telling my friends and family this have gotten me accused of everything from lying to fear mongering.
They really sincerely believe that people won't stand for it and that the government will stop the content distributors from doing this.
It's sad how much faith they have in people who are genuinely trying to screw them.
If we are justified in defeating government evil by engaging in the same evil ourselves, then it seems to me that the same philisophy that provides that justification also provides justification for destroying the village to save the village.
In fact, I think that the underlying philosophy is bankrupt for that very reason, and that we are not actually helped when the ACLU reacts to politicians undermining the justice system by further undermining the justice system themselves.
Believe it or not, I wholly agree. I have begun to come to the conclusion, however, that those rules only work in a system that is fundamentally fair - which the current system is not.
Once, the government held exactly as much power as the populace's ability to overturn - but that hasn't been true for a hundred years. Unfortunately, that changes things a bit.
Let's presume (or assume) for a moment that the ACLU had allowed whatever random jurisdiction to rule on the matter, and had lost - what would happen to the balance of powers then? Unfortunately our judiciary tends to follow judicial precedent, and that kind of a loss would set a precedent I don't even want to begin to grasp. And more and more, people are using 'appeal to authority' as justification for a whole host of things that are completely unethical and contrary to the principles of liberty and freedom, to and judges are no exception.
We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
Sometimes, the ends DO justify the means - but the really important part is understanding WHEN. It can't be a tabula rasa for doing anything you think is justified. But there are times when it can be possible for the ends to justify the means... revolutions for freedom, for example.
I am undecided as to whether the ACLU tainted the victory by judge-shopping. But, that's mostly because I don't have enough details about it to really make that kind of judgement.
Privacy? No. Invented by the Supreme Court in some abortion case, as I recall.
No, the Supreme Court decided that privacy was necessary for free speech to have value - that is why they are so closely linked. You wouldn't speak freely about alot of things if you didn't think you could do so without retribution (which means in this instance, privacy and anonymity are closely intertwined concepts - you can't really be anonymous if you don't have privacy).
Thank you for providing such a compact justification for fighting terrorism with terrorism. Can we stop blaming Israel for bombing civilians now, too?
Agh, can we please forgo the blatant mischaracterization of my words to make a point?
My post was not intended to relieve anyone of the responsibility of intelligent thought, as your reply would suggest. Nothing can ever relieve that burden from anyone - so understanding that sometimes someone's own tactics have to be used against them is not a blanket justification for any and all unethical actions.
And particularly in this case, I was talking about political game playing, and not for a second about making war.
Your original post was very well thought out, your reply rather surprised me.
Even so, the U.S. Constitution says nothing about the treatment of foreign nationals or enemy combatants. The protections in the Constitution only extend to legal residents of the country.
I admire the rest of your post, though I wanted to draw attention to this statement..
Take a look at the Bill of Rights (which contains the clauses used to find this program unconstitutional) and tell me which one contains the words "resident" or "citizen."
Funny... none of them do. Our founders held those rights to be inalienable - self evident - for all humans. They didn't want our government to be allowed to violate anyone's rights, including people who aren't Americans.
I realize our current legal establishment doesn't look at the issue that way, but they ought to. Those are human rights, not American Citizen's rights.
I think that was facetious, but that's precisely the problem with terrorism and why the government's response is wholly inappropriate:
When the public itself becomes your enemy, you become incapable of serving the public. Our "leaders" are so shortsighted that they actually believe that considering everyone guilty will be effective - and this alone, regardless of what else they've done, renders them unfit for leadership.
That kind of thinking is the first step toward dictatorship.
Also, am I the only one who questions the wisdom of the ACLU's tactics in this case?
The wisdom? Sure. Although, I am not sure wisdom had anything to do with it.
I don't for a second, question the strategy - when you have a purpose, strategy is all about getting it done. Make no mistake, our 'duly elected officials' use the same tactics all the time, trying to find judges who will rule their way on rights cases, murder cases, etc. And the worst example is when our duly elected officials decide to redraw congressional districts to ensure the voices of particular minorities won't be heard.
No, strategy is what it's all about - being that our government finds it necessary, it becomes necessary to fight fire with fire.
But do you have the right to privacy in another country? Again, this is not a case of domestic call monitoring.
I have often found that people who try to argue minutae do it because they know they can't win the bigger argument. That statement strikes me as exactly such a thing.
Take a look at the Bill of Rights - you won't find the word "citizen" in it anywhere. The founders believed those to be human rights - and although our current legal establishment does not consider the Bill of Rights to protect anyone but US citizens, the founders DID think the Bill of Rights should protect non-citizens from our government.
That was a consequence of the British practice of rejection of citizenship - strip a person of their rights by declaring that they're not a citizen. That's exactly what our administration is doing, and exactly what you're trying to advocate.
Humans are humans, and they all have rights, regardless of what nation they belong to.
If we forget that, we've already given up everything we claim to be fighting for.
Well the USA isn't a dictatorship, and people are allowed to come and go as they please, assuming they're not restricted from doing so by a court order. So, the NSA monitoring such a phone call could only serve to enforce the law, not get you in any trouble.
If you really believe they will only ever listen and never pass that information on to 'interested parties', you are more naive than anyone I have ever met and our conversation MUST be finished now - the capacity to discuss requires that the two parties carry the sounds foundational assumptions, which you and I most certainly do not.
I believe that first and foremost, the government's power must be kept in check by a) a populace willing to defend its rights, and b) restricting the powers the government can ever claim.
You, however, appear to be of the opinion that 'so long as it's not obviously violating my rights right now, it must be perfectly fine."
Since we cannot at least have that common ground, there is very little for us to say to each other. I will, however, complete my response to other points in your post.
If listening in on a phone call were only about enforcing the law, a warrant would not be necessary, becase warrants are required only to protect our rights - that is why they are mandated by the Bill of Rights. If you can't accept even that, then again - we have little to say to each other.
As for political talk on the phone, that's not illegal. Be wary of laws that make it so. Until that happens, you don't have to worry about it. COINTELPRO was illegal under existing law. Be wary of leaders who would break the law. This strikes me as common sense.
You're contradicting your own argument. Obviously COINTELPRO was illegal under existing law - and it happened anyway, demonstrating quite clearly that the government will abuse any power it possibly can to exercise force and restrict political speech. That pretty much answers your following statement of "As for the being punished for something somebody else might not like, show me one example of this happening in the current case."
Restricting it to this case is not necessary. You need only look at the history of the US government's behavior to non-mainstream thought to see that I am right - the government cannot be trusted with the power to tap or control speech.
Listening to free speech does not restrict free speech.
Again, please look up the Chilling Effect. No law must be passed for "Listening to free speech" to cause a restriction in free speech. If people believe that exercising their right to free speech may cause political and personal consequences, they'll simply choose not to speak - which is exactly what we're talking about. Alot of journalists and legal professionals are upset over this for exactly that reason - it has the potential to push their sources into hiding.
Sure, there's the intimidation factor that may lead to self-censorship, but that's only if you're doing something you shouldn't be doing.
Let's see.. like.. talking about how to escape the country because you don't like the current leadership? That was illegal in plenty of dictatorships - they shouldn't be trying to secure their own freedom?
Or how about talking about how much they dislike the administration or XYZ political party, who years later comes to power and decides to data mine those records for whomever said they didn't like them and target them for surveillance and counter intelligence activities - all just for having an opinion (ever heard of COINTELPRO?)?
Self-censorship is NOT a consequence of someone "doing something they shouldn't be." Self-censorship is fear of being punished for saying something someone else may not like - that's called the Chilling Effect and has nothing to do with the enforcement of law.
And finally, in particular, freedom of speech, coupled with the right to bear arms, were our founders attempts to ensure that one day, should the need arise, it is possible for a popular uprising to occur to overthrow a government that has violated its part of the social contract - and people who know for certain that the government is always looking over their shoulder most certainly will not act to secure their own inalienable rights.
You downplay the importance of laziness. I, too, am incredibly lazy. Given two ways of achieving the same result, I will pick the easier one. When I was nine, I recall my maths teacher saying 'the best mathematicians are the most lazy' (she died less than a year later, which was a sad day for education). Consider someone like Robert Recorde; he invented the sign for equality so he would have to spend less time writing 'is equal to,' which meant he could spend more time working on actually proving things.
When I was an undergraduate, I was amazed at the amount of effort people spent which could have been avoided by taking a moment longer to think about the problem. I am firmly of the opinion that I am not much more talented that the people around me; just much more lazy.
That sort of thing can be explained by efficiency, too. Imagine, over thousands of equations, how much time you'll save - how much more efficient you'll be - by writing '=' instead of 'is equal to' or its latin equivalent.
I'm very lazy too, but it's almost always a matter of efficiency - if I can generate a 2x as functional program with 1/3 as much code as someone else, and have spent 10% less time working, I come out ahead - I accomplished much more with less work. I did more mental exercise at the outset, but the actual task was easier - thus feeding my laziness.
Is there a downside to lying to customers about this?
Well.. maybe not from a business standpoint...
From a customer loyalty standpoint, sure.
I've always told myself that if I ever get into business, I'll be damn poor if it means at least I'm honest. In my lifetime I've passed up more than my fair share of lucrative opportunities because I didn't want to sell my soul for a buck.
For me, posting here is never about winning or losing.. that was never my interest.
I quit because the 'debate' as you call it would never have gone anywhere. I do actually have a life outside Slashdot and honestly don't have time to engage in what is essentially (in this case) pointless bickering. Some forums I find are simply not conducive to good discussion; most of the time, Slashdot is one of those places.
I bothered to respond this time only because believe it or not, I actually like most of your posts and I thought it worthwhile to reply to you as a human being. Please don't prove me wrong.
As for some of my own responses, you caught me on a bad day. For that, I apologize.
They are NOT acting as the law allows them. NO laws allow them the RIGHT or substantiate the LEGALITY of using various third parties and their own employees to HACK IN to your computer to monitor what you do - they HAVE done this on a number of their cases. NO law premits THEM to search your premises or seize your property as evidence. The law DOES allow such evidence to be dismissed though - even though for some reason that has not yet happened.
Thank you for the clarification - I was referring to the parts about upholding their copyrights, but you're right - alot of their tactics are of questionable legality (don't really know yet since nobody has had the wherewithall to challenge them in full-on court yet).
It has absolutely nothing to do with it. The fact you think the RIAA are bad guys doesn't give justification for piracy.
I believe my words were "Even more than that, the RIAA/MPAA really are not the 'bad guys' in this situation"
Talk about your lack of reading comprehension..
You think there's a problem with artists' music being protected by copyright? What you're essentially saying here is that an artist doesn't have the right to not have his music pirated.
Please point out where I said artists' creations should not be protected by copyright. Go ahead. I'm waiting for a quote.
You also haven't explained how they've broken any "social contract" or how it justifies ensuring that Type O Negative or Foo Fighters don't get paid today.
Copyright is granted for a limited time for a reason - copyright is a social contract designed to maximize the creative person's benefit to society. The important part of the post I linked was this:
"Therefore, when considering the merits of copyright, the effect it has on society as a whole is the only thing that matters, and that monopoly consideration afforded to individual artists is irrelevant. In fact, the artist never had any property rights to begin with: when a work is created it automatically becomes Public Domain but is then leased back to the artist, with the payment having been the original creation of it."
Contrast that with the current view of copyright that is essentially a draconian assignment of quasi-(and effectively)-permanent ownership.
Those who have espoused that view have broken their part of the social contract - they've stopped recognizing that creation and art are to benefit the culture, not to make people rich.
They are not protecting their rights. They're trying to redefine them by depriving society of its right to the work by making it so that nobody can ever create derivative works from them - and that is the equivalent of cultural rape. As I said, I was not attempting to justify piracy - I am merely attempting to point out that piracy is a response to the current system in which copyrights are no longer about benefiting the culture. Whether it is right or wrong is, in this thread, not my focus.
This is very simple--taking an artist's music without paying them for it is wrong
What about when the copyright expires? It becomes public domain - free. Is it wrong then? How long is long enough? Does it seem appropriate to you for the inheritors of a copyright to benefit from the monopoly copyright on it in perpetuity? It is exactly that which the founders did NOT want to happen - and why copyrights are to be for a limited time.
just as "evil" as you claim the RIAA is. You scapegoat these lobby groups as a way of justifying piracy of artists' music, making sure to never mention the artists in the equation--it's always the RIAA, RIAA, RIAA.
And here is the best part of your entire response to me, the part I have always understood least about people who post on Slashdot. The RIAA/MPAA were merely incidental to my post. I was not attempting to say how 'evil' or 'bad' they are - I only addressed their role in the current system (the "acting as the law allows" part, which doesn't seem to me to be saying they're evil). In fact, I went out of my way to ensure that you understood I was not picking them out, but the system as a whole, of which they are only a part - and yet still, you chose to respond to me with cruelty and acid, and to focus on the fact that my post contained the letters 'RIAA' at all.
Please explain yourself, because really, I do not see anything in my post that warrented such a response, nor do I see this supposed focus on the evils of the RIAA.
If and when the day comes when we really do live in a dictatorship, or totalitarianism of any kind, you will wish that there was a system that allowed anonymous political speech - even if it can be used for illegal purposes (at which point, of course, political speech would be outlawed anyway).
The purpose of systems like these is to ensure that day never comes - so long as a method of communication is free from subversion or surveillance, people will be willing to speak out against their governments.
It saddens me to know that so few people are left who can imagine that anonymity is necessary for freedom. What this means is that people are ripe for subjugation.
It's a cop out and ignores the real, dangerous and complicated issues of the 21st century world versus a world where the most powerful weapon one man could carry was a musket.
Great! So let's just throw the ideas of freedom, liberty, and limited government out the window, because by god the world is different and we would be much better off under dictatorships!
But I am perpetually amused when people trot out those quotes by Jefferson in relation to copyright. As if it has any relevance to today's digital world.
Which is exactly the problem - people have forgotten what copyrights are for, and we have runaway megacorporations that are using that ignorance to rape the world of its cultural heritage (and even they are passive participants in that process - they aren't exploiting ignorance... they're simply equally as ignorant). It seems to me very important to remind people why copyrights exist - not to guarantee fiscal wealth, but to guarantee cultural wealth.
And, of course, this is a fellow who quite likely knocked up his slave. Sally Hemming had bigger things to worry about than her freedom to copy a map or some sheet music, or having her copyrights protected. Jefferson did not see fit to grant her basic human rights.
DNA tests have determined he did indeed have children with at least Sally Hemming. Either way though, not really relevant to this discussion.
And in regards to the founders and slaves (Jefferson in particular)... that is a complex issue that goes far beyond "they didn't really believe in freedom because they had slaves." It's just not that simple.
What you cannot do is express ideas in the same or derivative manner as others but other than that they sky's the limit.
The whole of human creation is built on the derivative ideas of others. True originality is exceedingly rare - not because people are not original, but because there are in fact very, very few completely original ideas.
To extend copyrights to ungodly lengths serves ONLY to deprive a culture of its creative fodder.. and that's exactly what is happening.
Well if you want to make change you have to work with other politicians
I believe that's the part that comes after being elected - and the name "The Pirate Party" certainly seems to be wholly designed for the purpose of getting attention and garnering votes.
Thank you. My stomach turns whenever I hear the general public referred to as 'consumers.' Sorry, I'm a human being too asshole, I am not some number for you to put on your balance sheet.
Slashdot Mirror
They really sincerely believe that people won't stand for it and that the government will stop the content distributors from doing this.
It's sad how much faith they have in people who are genuinely trying to screw them.
Once, the government held exactly as much power as the populace's ability to overturn - but that hasn't been true for a hundred years. Unfortunately, that changes things a bit.
Let's presume (or assume) for a moment that the ACLU had allowed whatever random jurisdiction to rule on the matter, and had lost - what would happen to the balance of powers then? Unfortunately our judiciary tends to follow judicial precedent, and that kind of a loss would set a precedent I don't even want to begin to grasp. And more and more, people are using 'appeal to authority' as justification for a whole host of things that are completely unethical and contrary to the principles of liberty and freedom, to and judges are no exception.
We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
Sometimes, the ends DO justify the means - but the really important part is understanding WHEN. It can't be a tabula rasa for doing anything you think is justified. But there are times when it can be possible for the ends to justify the means... revolutions for freedom, for example.
I am undecided as to whether the ACLU tainted the victory by judge-shopping. But, that's mostly because I don't have enough details about it to really make that kind of judgement.
My post was not intended to relieve anyone of the responsibility of intelligent thought, as your reply would suggest. Nothing can ever relieve that burden from anyone - so understanding that sometimes someone's own tactics have to be used against them is not a blanket justification for any and all unethical actions.
And particularly in this case, I was talking about political game playing, and not for a second about making war.
Your original post was very well thought out, your reply rather surprised me.
Take a look at the Bill of Rights (which contains the clauses used to find this program unconstitutional) and tell me which one contains the words "resident" or "citizen."
Funny... none of them do. Our founders held those rights to be inalienable - self evident - for all humans. They didn't want our government to be allowed to violate anyone's rights, including people who aren't Americans.
I realize our current legal establishment doesn't look at the issue that way, but they ought to. Those are human rights, not American Citizen's rights.
When the public itself becomes your enemy, you become incapable of serving the public. Our "leaders" are so shortsighted that they actually believe that considering everyone guilty will be effective - and this alone, regardless of what else they've done, renders them unfit for leadership.
That kind of thinking is the first step toward dictatorship.
Smacks of fascism and dictatorship, to me.
It is said that those who outright refuse to ask themselves if they've made a mistake, have made more than they'd ever like to admit.
I don't for a second, question the strategy - when you have a purpose, strategy is all about getting it done. Make no mistake, our 'duly elected officials' use the same tactics all the time, trying to find judges who will rule their way on rights cases, murder cases, etc. And the worst example is when our duly elected officials decide to redraw congressional districts to ensure the voices of particular minorities won't be heard.
No, strategy is what it's all about - being that our government finds it necessary, it becomes necessary to fight fire with fire.
Take a look at the Bill of Rights - you won't find the word "citizen" in it anywhere. The founders believed those to be human rights - and although our current legal establishment does not consider the Bill of Rights to protect anyone but US citizens, the founders DID think the Bill of Rights should protect non-citizens from our government.
That was a consequence of the British practice of rejection of citizenship - strip a person of their rights by declaring that they're not a citizen. That's exactly what our administration is doing, and exactly what you're trying to advocate.
Humans are humans, and they all have rights, regardless of what nation they belong to.
If we forget that, we've already given up everything we claim to be fighting for.
I believe that first and foremost, the government's power must be kept in check by a) a populace willing to defend its rights, and b) restricting the powers the government can ever claim.
You, however, appear to be of the opinion that 'so long as it's not obviously violating my rights right now, it must be perfectly fine."
Since we cannot at least have that common ground, there is very little for us to say to each other. I will, however, complete my response to other points in your post.
If listening in on a phone call were only about enforcing the law, a warrant would not be necessary, becase warrants are required only to protect our rights - that is why they are mandated by the Bill of Rights. If you can't accept even that, then again - we have little to say to each other.
You're contradicting your own argument. Obviously COINTELPRO was illegal under existing law - and it happened anyway, demonstrating quite clearly that the government will abuse any power it possibly can to exercise force and restrict political speech. That pretty much answers your following statement of "As for the being punished for something somebody else might not like, show me one example of this happening in the current case."
Restricting it to this case is not necessary. You need only look at the history of the US government's behavior to non-mainstream thought to see that I am right - the government cannot be trusted with the power to tap or control speech.
Again, please look up the Chilling Effect. No law must be passed for "Listening to free speech" to cause a restriction in free speech. If people believe that exercising their right to free speech may cause political and personal consequences, they'll simply choose not to speak - which is exactly what we're talking about. Alot of journalists and legal professionals are upset over this for exactly that reason - it has the potential to push their sources into hiding.
Or how about talking about how much they dislike the administration or XYZ political party, who years later comes to power and decides to data mine those records for whomever said they didn't like them and target them for surveillance and counter intelligence activities - all just for having an opinion (ever heard of COINTELPRO?)?
Self-censorship is NOT a consequence of someone "doing something they shouldn't be." Self-censorship is fear of being punished for saying something someone else may not like - that's called the Chilling Effect and has nothing to do with the enforcement of law.
And finally, in particular, freedom of speech, coupled with the right to bear arms, were our founders attempts to ensure that one day, should the need arise, it is possible for a popular uprising to occur to overthrow a government that has violated its part of the social contract - and people who know for certain that the government is always looking over their shoulder most certainly will not act to secure their own inalienable rights.
I'm very lazy too, but it's almost always a matter of efficiency - if I can generate a 2x as functional program with 1/3 as much code as someone else, and have spent 10% less time working, I come out ahead - I accomplished much more with less work. I did more mental exercise at the outset, but the actual task was easier - thus feeding my laziness.
From a customer loyalty standpoint, sure.
I've always told myself that if I ever get into business, I'll be damn poor if it means at least I'm honest. In my lifetime I've passed up more than my fair share of lucrative opportunities because I didn't want to sell my soul for a buck.
For me, posting here is never about winning or losing.. that was never my interest.
I quit because the 'debate' as you call it would never have gone anywhere. I do actually have a life outside Slashdot and honestly don't have time to engage in what is essentially (in this case) pointless bickering. Some forums I find are simply not conducive to good discussion; most of the time, Slashdot is one of those places.
I bothered to respond this time only because believe it or not, I actually like most of your posts and I thought it worthwhile to reply to you as a human being. Please don't prove me wrong.
As for some of my own responses, you caught me on a bad day. For that, I apologize.
Pointless. I'm done. I discuss - or try to. You have no interest in anything except - what is it? Being "Overly Critical Guy."
Talk about your lack of reading comprehension..
Please point out where I said artists' creations should not be protected by copyright. Go ahead. I'm waiting for a quote.
Copyright is granted for a limited time for a reason - copyright is a social contract designed to maximize the creative person's benefit to society. The important part of the post I linked was this:
"Therefore, when considering the merits of copyright, the effect it has on society as a whole is the only thing that matters, and that monopoly consideration afforded to individual artists is irrelevant. In fact, the artist never had any property rights to begin with: when a work is created it automatically becomes Public Domain but is then leased back to the artist, with the payment having been the original creation of it."
Contrast that with the current view of copyright that is essentially a draconian assignment of quasi-(and effectively)-permanent ownership.
Those who have espoused that view have broken their part of the social contract - they've stopped recognizing that creation and art are to benefit the culture, not to make people rich.
They are not protecting their rights. They're trying to redefine them by depriving society of its right to the work by making it so that nobody can ever create derivative works from them - and that is the equivalent of cultural rape. As I said, I was not attempting to justify piracy - I am merely attempting to point out that piracy is a response to the current system in which copyrights are no longer about benefiting the culture. Whether it is right or wrong is, in this thread, not my focus.
What about when the copyright expires? It becomes public domain - free. Is it wrong then? How long is long enough? Does it seem appropriate to you for the inheritors of a copyright to benefit from the monopoly copyright on it in perpetuity? It is exactly that which the founders did NOT want to happen - and why copyrights are to be for a limited time.
And here is the best part of your entire response to me, the part I have always understood least about people who post on Slashdot. The RIAA/MPAA were merely incidental to my post. I was not attempting to say how 'evil' or 'bad' they are - I only addressed their role in the current system (the "acting as the law allows" part, which doesn't seem to me to be saying they're evil). In fact, I went out of my way to ensure that you understood I was not picking them out, but the system as a whole, of which they are only a part - and yet still, you chose to respond to me with cruelty and acid, and to focus on the fact that my post contained the letters 'RIAA' at all.
Please explain yourself, because really, I do not see anything in my post that warrented such a response, nor do I see this supposed focus on the evils of the RIAA.
I prefer to look at it this way:
If and when the day comes when we really do live in a dictatorship, or totalitarianism of any kind, you will wish that there was a system that allowed anonymous political speech - even if it can be used for illegal purposes (at which point, of course, political speech would be outlawed anyway).
The purpose of systems like these is to ensure that day never comes - so long as a method of communication is free from subversion or surveillance, people will be willing to speak out against their governments.
It saddens me to know that so few people are left who can imagine that anonymity is necessary for freedom. What this means is that people are ripe for subjugation.
[/sarcasm]
DNA tests have determined he did indeed have children with at least Sally Hemming. Either way though, not really relevant to this discussion.
And in regards to the founders and slaves (Jefferson in particular)... that is a complex issue that goes far beyond "they didn't really believe in freedom because they had slaves." It's just not that simple.
But that's a discussion for another time.
To extend copyrights to ungodly lengths serves ONLY to deprive a culture of its creative fodder.. and that's exactly what is happening.
I only wish I'd thought of it!
Thank you. My stomach turns whenever I hear the general public referred to as 'consumers.' Sorry, I'm a human being too asshole, I am not some number for you to put on your balance sheet.
Very well said. I wish you had not posted AC so that I could add you to my friends list.