Slashdot Mirror

Because they hold over $1.4 trillion dollars in US debt? Because they could crush our economy by unloading that paper and their dollar reserves on the open market? Because the US is still going to China to beg for handouts because we can't balance our budget? Because their population of men available for military service exceeds that of the entire United States? And possibly, because our leadership, world famous as staunch defenders of civil rights themselves, really doesn't give a shit about Chinese human rights abuses?

But what do I know? I'm just guessing here...

Because they hold over $1.4 trillion dollars in US debt? Because they could crush our economy by unloading that paper and their dollar reserves on the open market? Because the US is still going to China to beg for handouts because we can't balance our budget? Because their population of men available for military service exceeds that of the entire United States? And possibly, because our leadership, world famous as staunch defenders of civil rights themselves, really doesn't give a shit about Chinese human rights abuses?

But what do I know? I'm just guessing here...

The UK have solved this problem. All MP's (elected officials) get an extra digit added to their tax number (social security number). Consequently, they are not allowed to use online services.

If we exclude the vacuum cleaner, you're 100% right. There is apparently someone people who likes to have fun with vacuum cleaners.

If you jettison anyone fighting for your side (i.e. science) as soon as they are attacked, you will very soon run out of smart people like Gore and Dawkins.

Escuse me? Isn't the core of this conversation about how politics + science = bad times for science? The problem with "global warming" is that Gore, a politician, is speaking a story that climatologists, meteorologists, scientists are denying is occurring. I'm more concerned that he is profiting from involvement in venture capitalists tied to "green" alternatives, while driving the national conversation to enable "carbon credits" managed by his firms.

This guy's not a "smart person", he's an "opportunist"... I'd even go as far as a textbook "special interest", which is doing nothing but driving a weakly supported climatology theory into our nation's science classrooms, and through his political history drives it into our nightly news. Newsflash: The Polar Bear population is not decreasing, and the earth is not getting warmer over the last decade despite predictions, and there's good evidence that the rush to follow the Kyoto treaty is now damaging the ozone layer again. I'd prefer to stick to the measured facts instead of politically jumping the gun just because it's a good "story".

-- Scott

So, we're supposed to reject the nigh-universal consensus of climate scientists because a blogger tells us to?

NCMEC is in all likelihood run and supported by right wing social conservatives, with many probably having morbid sexual perversions related to the organization's work. No doubt the odd well meaning parent of a victim is thrown into the mix, and actually honestly cares about helping children. However, I suspect the former description to be more reflective of the organisation's mean.

People have to understand that the modern hysteria surrounding pedophiles, etc, etc is not about helping children. It's about changing our society into what they want it to be. Near as I can tell, strict gender roles appear to be their primary objective, especially with regard to child minding. After the last 10 years, as a male I would not look after anyone's child for so much as five minutes, for any sum of money, or under any circumstances. Anyone that would is quite frankly being dangerously foolish.

In my opinion Clive Peachey's actions were entirely correct, and he should not have to apologise, or even feel regretful, for being justifiably cautious in a world of hysterical people reading to point deadly fingers. Modern day good Samaratian's should are advised to walk past the baby Jesus. This is the world that mass hysteria, and more importantly people's tolerance of it, has created. It would be nice to live in a better one, but that won't happen until more people challenge the likes of this "1 in 5" nonsense from NCMEC.

According to this story, you can use the path disruption caused by stealthy aircraft flying through areas covered by mobile phone masts and fix the aircraft's position to within 10m or so. Apart from the mobile base station, the system sounds vehicle portable. The issue is that until they get to your territory, you won't be able to get advance warning.

You're taking an extreme situation. How about this... have you ever had a cold? Yes? Did you feel the need to go to the emergency room for it? No? Then do you agree that society is not under an obligation to ensure that people who have colds get free access to emergency care? Hopefully. What should happen in our society if somebody goes to the emergency room and it turns out that all that's wrong with them is they have a cold? Should they then pay for the unnecessary services they consumed? Should they be forgiven for ignorance? What if they do it over and over and over and over? Do you just keep paying?

It's all a matter of degree, of course. But unless you're talking about creating a slave race of doctors and other health care providers, it's simply not possible to satisfy every single person on Earth with every single potential claim to medical assistance. That's not even getting started on the problem of scarcity in terms of things like organs available for transplant.

The only method we have today is based on who can pay and who can't. It's not perfect, granted. The alternative in a universal healthcare scenario is that some central body arbitrarily decides who gets care and who doesn't. Is that better? Worse? I don't know. What other option is there, random lottery?

I do know that England's NHS is under pressure to stop treating old people and people with "unhealthy lifestyles." From the article, apparently "About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt."

Nice joke, buddy. I mean, you surely couldn't be trying to imply that Europe is more insular than the US, right?

Insular? I don't know. They seem to be about as ignorant as your average American, but a whole lot more arrogant about it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/04/nhistory104.xml

Have you ever been anywhere outside the States?

Yeah, I lived in Europe for several years. But, you know,

It really sucks that Muslims think they can enforce their views on the rest of the world. There's some crap going on in the UK now about Muslim law being brought into the national legal system, that really really sucks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml

http://www.b3tards.com/uploads/beneaththeveil.jpeg

Mohamed fish helmet.

Not only stupidly funny, but also terrible and frightening

would be what it takes to shift the world banking systems and major stock systems OUT of the US to Shanghai or Europe.

It would be an interesting thing to see bung-holed US foreign policy (and domestic policy) screw up the US power position. We won't have to worry about sub-prime lending market woes. Just enslave the US to the rest of the world by deepening investment but moving the movers and shakers to places like Switzerland, Dubai, Hong Kong, Shanghai, and so on.

It seems of recent :

Prince Andrew rebukes America over Iraq - Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/05/nandrew105.xml

I wonder if the UK has any royals or officials who can warn the US about over-spying on domestics.

(I no longer submit to the slash firehose....)

Haven't you heard? Vinyl records are making a comeback.

I don't think that that is entirely fair, not least because you go on the attack before actually stating your case as to why transparency of stakeholder interests has absolutely no affect on the mentioned issues.

Science and Technology aren't (or at least shouldn't) be about which agendas are popular at the moment, but ensuring that as much data as possible is made freely available to as many people as possible, so that the best determination can be made. This is the foundation which allows surfer dudes to challenge our notion of the universe.

In that sense, maximum transparency is the single most important agenda for tech issues. Example - if the greater truth was that net neutrality isn't the best policy decision to uphold, then I'd need a lot of convincing, but first on that list would be ensuring me that my cable company isn't just trying to screw me out of more $$$.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/29/scistarling129.xml

The article in The Telegraph.
The research group
Funding from CORDIS of 1.16 million euros, total cost 1.29 million euros. [rja]

I was intrigued about what the actual algorithm used by the starlings was, but the referenced article didn't elucidate. Eventually I found a link to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/29/scistarling129.xml hidden at the bottom - it has a little more detail. Enjoy!

Aside from the normal round of robot-asteroid-which-corporate-cocksuck-for-president-will-fuck-us-next news, how about something for US, the people of this country:

Marijuana vending machines are a reality in California:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2248565,00.html
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/01/28/vending-machines-in-california-dispense-medical-marijuana.aspx
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/01/hot-button-medi.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7212778.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/28/wvend128.xml
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_8104481
http://livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/01/29/Cannabis_to_be_dispensed_from_vending_machines
http://www.kwtx.com/medicaldirectory/headlines/14453477.html
http://wkrg.com/news/article/marijuana_vending_machines/9588/

Offtopic, flamebait, troll, pony, whatever, at least this news will appear before the next Slashdot pro-marijuana, pro-nature, pro-peoples-fucking-rights-in-action story hits ten years from now after marijuana is legalized in this still-puritanical, but now we can butt fuck legally, backwards cross-licking country.

yeah, that's why I am afraid to walk the streets of London - they don't have enough guns there! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F03%2F21%2Fnmurd21.xml see huge homicide rate - 61 deaths in a city of 7.5M vs 600 in NYC a city of 8M ... oh wait I mean Dallas TX with a homicide rate of 240 in a city of 1.5M oh wait... they must have dracoinian gun control laws in Dallas how about San Antonio uhh.... well there must be city somewhere in the united states without draconian gun control laws and a homicide rate lower than London - I mean the Cato institute can't possibly be wrong.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

According to this story it might be able to cause problems. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=VZO1H5C3MVIJLQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/03/11/ntrapped11.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/03/11/ixportaltop.html

6. Accidental jamming of onboard systems by police because the Prime Minister was nearby

A far-fetched theory which suggests that the police may have blocked mobile phones in the area as the Prime Minister's motorcade drove past. This in turn would, it is claimed, have created a systems failure on a plane overhead. This is unlikely to the point of impossibility.

"I am sure other people would have noticed and more than one plane would have come down," said Mr Ling.

Maybe you heard about the French (and German, Canadian) companies because the US and British companies that were doing exactly the same had been initally removed from the disclosed documents relating such practices:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/01/wsaddam101.xml http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.html
Don't be naive.

Here is the article in the Telegraph.

I particularly enjoyed the phrase:

The incident is the latest in which "hackers" - many of them young computer experts - have broken into computer systems.

As they then list two incedents since 1999 and the Boeing 787 concern.

This article elaborates on how it would work with shoes/clothing:

"Rather than absorbing water and dirt, moisture will instead bead off the surface of the specially-designed shoes."

And then another advantage (for insurance companies at least) is the insurance angle:

"For electronic devices, protection from water is also important. Water damage is one of the top reasons for insurance claims on mobiles, with more than 1.2 million being dropped in lavatories, drinks or put through washing machines last year."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2007/12/30/scitech230.xml

Perhaps this could also be an eventual replacement to protect servers and other vital machinery without the cost and danger of Halon and similar gases.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ad+hominem

As for the definition of the word "racist": There are only a tiny handful of peoples who are capable of producing a man who can win a Fields Medal or a Nobel Prize in Physics: Largely they are Caucasians [to include the Ashkenazim & the Lebanese Christians], Pacific Rim Asians, and [only] the very highest castes from the Indian Subcontinent; conversely, the finals of the 100 meter dash at the Olympics will always consist almost entirely of men who are descended from the tribes of West Africa [or at least the finals would consist almost entirely of such men if national quotas didn't unfairly and unnaturally limit and restrict the participants at the Olympics].

No one - not even the most ardent marxist academic - bothers to try to convince himself otherwise anymore.

But, of course, the modern definition of "racist" does not identify, as the villain, he who notices these differences - we all notice them - but rather the word "racist" has come to apply to anyone who has the temerity [or foolhardiness] to verbalize the observation.

On the other hand, that's not what the word "racist" is supposed to mean: A racist is supposed to be someone who believes that a government should enforce [with the barrel of a gun] an agenda which:

1) Involves seizing the private property of dis-favored races.

2) Involves setting aside educational appointments and business opportunities for favored races.

3) Involves denying taxpayer-subsidized goodies to dis-favored races.

4) Involves the racialization of criminal arrests, prosecutions, and convictions.

5) Involves the seizure of entire continents from dis-favored races.

6) Involves the enslavement of dis-favored races.

7) Involves the slaughter of dis-favored races.

Etc etc etc.

So it's impossible for any classical liberal - one who believes that men should be judged not by the color of their skin, but by rather the content of their character, and who believes that governments, and their gun barrels, really ought not exist in the first place - it is impossible for him to be a "racist" within the bounds of any meaning which that word was intended to connote.

But, again, as I have said over and over in this little conversation of ours: NONE OF THE SEMANTIC DISTINCTIONS ARE OF ANY IMPORTANCE WHATSOEVER.

What is important is the underlying truth of the matter: Barring some unforseen tragedy [your being struck by lightning, etc], YOU WILL LIVE TO EXPERIENCE THE IMMINENT TRAGEDY [& CATASTROPHE] OF DYSGENIC FERTILITY.

In the meantime, perform your very small - yet almost infinitely important - role in making the future a better place for us all [both we who are already born, and those of us who are yet-to-be-born]: Go find the smartest girl yo

It has nothing to do about my reading comprehension. It has to do with you being a liar. To quote from earlier: I simply will no longer donate time or money to Wikipedia and discourage others from doing so by warning them of what happens to their contributions. Please do, if it will stem the crapflood Wikipedia has to deal with already.

You might not have noticed a little word there: "if". You might consider whether or not your contributions, or those of your friends, are really even needed or welcome, and if you don't think they will be, I urge you to carry on in encouraging them not to offer them. Again the point about reading comprehension.

So I guess "if" you're retarded, then I shouldn't hold it against you. But I admit, I still will "if" you're simply an asshole deletionist. Why don't you simply own up to your incivility? You can even give one of those asshole non-apologies, "Well, I'm sorry you're offended and that you missinterpreted my comments."

Actually, I went and read that remark in its full context, and he wasn't angry at deletionists for being deletionists. His full remark was as follows: "You can dispute the article on the merits of the notability (though not successfully, I think), but the assumptions of bad faith in this argument are just shocking. Some people should excuse themselves from the project and find a new hobby." So there it is--incivility out, good-faith concerns about notability in.

He was frustrated by how deletionism is being practiced-beginning with the presumption of bad faith, unfair accusations, both resulting in the loss of good content. And if bad faith is even being assumed on the part of the founder, than even some proven editor who submitted this article would probably have no chance at all. Bottom line, this article would not have survived had it been anyone else.

The same policy we've always had.

The request for civility policy has always been in place. The notability policy has changed, and Jimbo was almost a victim of it, but being Jimbo, was saved. That's exactly what this article proves.

Since I feel the voting process has been corrupted, with include votes cast aside and ballot stuffing the other way, I no longer have faith that the spirit of this principal is being applied. Now, I do think this is true the majority of the time, but I also think corrupt voting now happens to an extent that it has become a problem. And to save us some time, this is my belief and not true in your experience.

You could substantiate your opinion here with some examples. But that's too good for you. Rather wallow in ignorance I gather.

I've already provided an example of keep votes being tossed based on accusations of socks. Here's one where someone did an experiment showing that delete puppets aren't questioned.

But go ahead an ignore them. You have shown an impressive capacity to ignore dismiss, and diminish evidence you don't like:

Me and many of the others in the Webcomics Slashdot story - People with hurt feelings, laziness and complacence.

Andrew Lih , an administrator, someone who has made his career studying media and is writing a book on Wikipedia - I was never highly impressed with Fuzheado's credentials as an administrator"

And now a founder, Jimbo Whales - He's more of a financier and public figurehead, and doesn't keep terribly in the loop

Someone needs to give you a job in the Bush administration.


It's recently (as of 2007 or so) become standard practice to personally notify the creator of a page that's put up for deletion so they can say their piece. (Most such

Seriously!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/14/scisurf114.xml

I'm going to have to disagree. This is based on personal experience and the recent anger I'm seeing by others who have had their work deleted on a massive scale. Here's a quote from an article in the UK Telegraph by Andrew Lih. He's been around since at least 2003, and is probably one of the most committed Wikipedians in terms of studying the nature of Wikipedia as well as media in general. He's been an administrator since October 2003, and hosts WikipediaWeekly. You can see his user page . Here's what he had to say:

Andrew Lih was a well-known deletionist until recently when he became embroiled in the row over the entry for Pownce, a messaging and bookmarking website from Kevin Rose, the founder of the popular site Digg.com. The entry for Pownce, which had been written up in Business Week, was deleted as advertising until Lih resurrected it. He wrote about the row on his blog and has become a de facto spokesman for the inclusionists, and says he feels like an old hand.

"The old timers remember the early days when we used to say 'ignore all rules' and 'assume good faith', but people tend not to emphasise that now. The third or fourth generation of Wikipedians has only heard Jimmy Wales talk about the problems.

"So now, mixed in with the euphoria and positive energy it's a lot of cutting, fighting, referencing, cutting back while leaving the good stuff in. New priorities are arriving. Newer folks feel like they're wielding a machete, not planting new trees.

"A lot of the veterans see established articles nominated for deletion. They try not to be arrogant, try to be inclusive, but it's tedious after six, seven or eight times."

That says a lot about how Wikipedia has recently been taken over by asshole deletionists.

SHEESH! Foxy Knoxy's drivel splashed across the world by the MSM - interpreted, re-interpreted
and regurgitated was beyond surreal; hence participation in SOCIAL-ist (re-engineering)
Networks, playing on vapid ego, seems rather foolhardy - at best.

Notwithstanding ID THEFT, the fact that those black-holes re-sell YOU
to the highest bidder, while YOU foolishly give away the rest 'to belong',
somewhere, which is just plain stupid.

"Oh, but, we live in a 'global village'," well, until the bloody lights go off.
Frankly, it is looking more and more like DotCON Bubble Mach II.
No? FIND: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/12/15/cnbanking115.xml

RR

For shizzel: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/21/scicosmos121.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox

(OK, I'm sorry for saying sizzel. I don't know what come over me. I'm gonna go sit down. My head is spinning.)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071029-oldest-clam.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/28/nclam128.xml

``The "Arctica islandica" was among a haul of 3,000 empty shells and 34 live molluscs taken to the laboratory.''

``Unfortunately, by the time its true age had been established Ming was already dead. But the scientists aged the 3.4in clam from its shell which like trees has a layer or ring of growth for every year that the animal has been alive.''

Maybe. Maybe not:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nbook125.xml

"The scare over global warming... carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level - not to mention the newly revised figures for US surface temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as was previously claimed, but 1934."

As another poster said, it's become PC to tack on "global warming" to proposals in hopes of getting funding.

Coral Cache seems to have a mirror of the image.
http://aycu05.webshots.com.nyud.net:8090/image/34684/2000802596361707173_rs.jpg

The article also links to this one, which has a different water walking robot overlord picture.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/07/sciwater107.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/07/sciwater107.xml

Different article, linked from the original. This one has a video and isn't so slashdotted. Yet.

Here's the Telegraph story linked in the blog entry we just hosed:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/07/sciwater107.xml

Yes, it's dated July 12, 2007. Yes, you must be new here.

Well, if you don't mind the sources, check out this alternate coverage (with pictures):

Telegraph.co.uk article
ENN article

No, she really did get fired for violating some very generic state agency policies here in Texas.

Sure she did. And Bob got fired from Wal-Mart for clocking in at 8:00:05 instead of 8 o'clock. Company policy to be on time, you know.

Your typical disciplinary action goes something like: 1) verbal warning 2) written warning 3) final warning 4) termination, depending on the offense. When a company wants to get rid of someone, they might take an issue that otherwise would never even rise to the level of a verbal warning and go straight to termination. For example, at the last company I worked at, I knew a couple who worked in the same area during the same shift. So, obviously, they rode in the same vehicle together. The wife was fired for being late while the husband faced no disciplinary action whatsoever.

With a sufficiently large employee handbook, it is virtually impossible not to break company policy some time or other, even if it is a token violation. I don't live in Texas (thank God), so maybe this really is an infraction that people really are commonly fired for. But it sure hits the BS-o-meter.

Interesting. There was a story not too long ago about how science teaching in England was getting dumbed down. Instead of focusing on hard questions on tests, there would be questions like "How do cell phones make you feel?" I wish I could find the link...

Here's a recent one on the A-Levels being dumbed down. http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_7088000/7088628.stm

Here's some accusations of political meddling bringing down the GCSEs: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/11/ncivitas111.xml

Guy Hands aims to snuff out excesses that cost EMI £100m a year

Guy Hands, chairman of EMI, has told potential investors the group's former management squandered around 100 million pounds on corporate excesses. Terra Firma, Hands' private equity firm, is expected to make major changes to senior management and transform the culture of a company considered to be stuck in the glory days of the music business. Industry observers say Hands will try to blame previous management for the firm's woes because he has paid over the odds for a business struggling to cope with a dwindling market.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article2963629.ece
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/in-winning-emi-is-guy-hands-losing-out-on-other-deals/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/10/08/cnemi108.xml

FUNNY YOU SHOULD SAY THAT.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/04/15/dt1507.xml
http://republicoftexas.50megs.com/
RR

How does one judge the power of technology in warfare? Since the 'product' of war is killing, we can keep score by looking at kill ratios. Look at the numbers. If we examine historical conflicts and compare them with the effectiveness of the coalition invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, I think we'll quickly see how lopsided the use of superior technology and training have made things. Iraq had the third-largest standing army in the world, yet the coalition was able to defeat this army in two weeks using a small fraction of the manpower they had. Coalition forces regularly manage 100:1 kill ratios. The notion that availability of off-the-shelf technology makes things more level is unbelievably naïve.

A recent UK Radio 4 article on Farming Today reported that you can earn between £20,000 and £50,000 per year for a single wind power generator. Although a large percentage of that revenue for the first 10 years is required to cover the initial installation, this seems a very sensible use of inaccessible farm land that's up on a windy hillside or crag.

In the UK the wind power option is frequently criticised and disregarded for making the landscape unsightly. If only it were possible to make them from a hardened transparent plastic of some description. Nuclear fuel seems too well established to allow any radical shift in power generation policy, even despite the indications of cancer occurrences in a recent Telegraph Article.

Over 25 million, actually - not 15 million. BBC down-playing 'spin'? Hmmm.

TELEGRAPH.co.uk

Child data debacle seals Whitehall's demise? -Boris Johnson.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=IPT2JXJAZTMNHQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2007/11/20/do2006.xml
Eu contraire, Boris. Was this an 'authorised accident', twice, or a plot? Take your pick.

The implications are way beyond enormous; making mere ID theft and fraud look like childs-play.

Look at it this way: Now that an entire generation of British citizens have had their identities compromised, what's a little DNA and biometric info on top?

This 'lost' list - when cross-reverenced with the virtually guaranteed next 'leak' of DNA and biometric information will pinpoint the exact location of every 'ready-made' organ donor match in Britain - willing or not, commercially or otherwise. Phew! Everyone 'shares' everything, including body parts, in wondrous NWO corporate socialism?

If I was an artist of some kind today I'd be really worried about all the people making copies of my work and "sharing" them with their friends over the net.

Then you deserve to starve to death. There's no reason why any "artist" can't make MORE money than under a record label off the net. Change with the times, we are SICK AND TIRED of paying $15 to the fucking middleman just to keep him supplied with exotic cars, whores, and cocaine.

But then again, you're just an industry shill.

Actually they can do ethical foie gras. The geese lead a good life are well treated and do not have grain forced down their gullet. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/18/wfoie18.xml